

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

Amnesty International today called the situation in the Niger Delta
a "human rights tragedy," saying that the people of the Niger Delta
have seen their human rights abused by oil companies that their
government cannot or will not hold to account.
Amnesty International today called the situation in the Niger Delta
a "human rights tragedy," saying that the people of the Niger Delta
have seen their human rights abused by oil companies that their
government cannot or will not hold to account.
"The Niger Delta provides a stark example of the lack of
accountability of a government to its people, and of multinational
companies' almost total lack of accountability when it comes to the
impact of their operations on human rights," said Audrey Gaughran,
Amnesty International's Head of Business and Human Rights and co-author
of a major new report, Petroleum, Pollution and Poverty in the Niger
Delta, released today at a press conference in Abuja.
The report examines oil spills, gas flaring, waste dumping and other
environmental impacts of the oil industry. The majority of the evidence
on pollution and environment damage gathered by Amnesty International,
and contained in its new report, relates to the operations of Shell,
the main oil company operating on land in the Niger Delta.
"People living in the Niger Delta have to drink, cook with and wash
in polluted water. They eat fish contaminated with oil and other toxins
- if they are lucky enough to be able to still find fish. The land they
farm on is being destroyed. After oil spills the air they breathe
smells of oil, gas and other pollutants. People complain of breathing
problems and skin lesions - and yet neither the government nor the oil
companies monitor the human impacts of oil pollution," said Audrey
Gaughran.
The human rights impact of pollution in the Niger Delta is greatly
under-reported. The majority of people in the Niger Delta depend on the
natural environment for their food and livelihood, particularly through
agriculture and fisheries.
"The Nigerian government is aware of the risks that oil-related
pollution poses for human rights, but has failed to take measures to
ensure those rights are not harmed. Despite the widespread pollution of
the Niger Delta's land, rivers and creeks - and the many complaints
from people living in the region - we could find almost no government
data on the impact on humans of any aspect of oil pollution in the
Niger Delta."
Amnesty International said that government regulation of the oil industry has been wholly inadequate.
"The Nigerian government is failing in its obligation to respect and
protect the rights of people in the Niger Delta to food, water, health
and livelihood," said Audrey Gaughran. "Some oil companies, for their
part, have taken advantage of this government failure, and have shown a
shocking disregard for the human impact of their activities."
There have been some recent signs of improvement, however. The
recently-established National Oil Spill Detection and Response Agency
(NOSDRA) appears to have a more robust approach.
"We welcome the more pro-active approach NOSDRA appears to want to take - but it needs more resources," said Audrey Gaughran.
"The government must address the human impact of oil industry
pollution. They have a duty to protect their citizens from human rights
abuse or harm by businesses - and they are failing in that duty."
The organization also accused the Nigerian government of effectively
placing substantial responsibility for remedying human rights abuses in
the hands of the very actors responsible for the abuse - the oil
companies. As a result, remedies are often ineffective.
However, in its report, Amnesty International does not lay the blame solely on the Nigerian government.
"A government's failure to protect the human rights of its people
does not absolve companies from responsibility for their actions," said
Audrey Gaughran. "Oil companies such as Shell are not free to ignore
the consequences of their actions just because the government has
failed to hold them to account. The international standard is not
'whatever a company can get away with' - there are international
standards for oil industry operations, and in relation to environmental
and social impacts, that oil companies in the Niger Delta are very well
aware of."
"Despite its public claims to be a socially and environmentally
responsible corporation, Shell continues to directly harm human rights
through its failure to adequately prevent and mitigate pollution and
environmental damage in the Niger Delta," said Audrey Gaughran.
Shell and other companies also do no adequate monitoring of - or
disclosure of information on - the human impacts of oil operations.
Communities in the Niger Delta frequently do not have access to even
basic information about the impact the oil industry has on their lives
- even when they are the "host" community. This lack of information
feeds fears and insecurity within communities, contributes to conflict
and fundamentally undermines human rights.
Amnesty International said that clean-up processes in the Niger
Delta frequently fail to meet any expert understanding of good
practice, with some companies negligently allowing unqualified staff to
clean up oil spills, resulting in ongoing contamination of land and
water.
Almost every community visited by Amnesty International recounted
that creeks, ponds or rivers had been damaged by oil spills or other
oil-related pollution - often more than once, leading to community
anger.
Communities and armed groups in the Niger Delta have also
contributed to the problem of pollution, by vandalizing oil
infrastructure and the theft of oil. But the scale of this problem is
not clear.
"The Nigerian government desperately wants to see an end to the
conflict in the Niger Delta," said Audrey Gaughran. "But the poverty
and conflict that continues to scar the Niger Delta will not be
resolved until underlying causes - including decades of environmental
damage - and impunity for abuses of the environment and human rights
ends, and until the Nigerian government garners sufficient political
will and the means to deal with the oil company activities that cause
widespread damage to human rights."
Note to editors:
On 1 July 2009 Mr Peter Voser will take over as the new Chief
Executive of Royal Dutch Shell. As the new Chief Executive he inherits
the legacy Shell's failures and poor practice in the Niger Delta. This
legacy is - in significant part - the result of Shell's failure to
effectively prevent and address environmental damage and pollution
caused by its operations. Amnesty International has sent Mr. Voser a
copy of its report, and called on him to make cleaning up Shell's
operations in the Niger Delta a top priority. As a first step - Amnesty
International has joined colleagues from the Niger Delta to ask Mr
Voser to 'come clean' on Shell's impact on human rights by disclosing
critical information and making a public commitment to assessing the
social and human rights impact of Shell's operations.
Amnesty International is a worldwide movement of people who campaign for internationally recognized human rights for all. Our supporters are outraged by human rights abuses but inspired by hope for a better world - so we work to improve human rights through campaigning and international solidarity. We have more than 2.2 million members and subscribers in more than 150 countries and regions and we coordinate this support to act for justice on a wide range of issues.
"We cannot out-organize a fascist administration while simultaneously bankrolling the companies profiting from its cruelty," said the head of Beyond the Ballot.
A Gen Z-led advocacy group fighting for working-class priorities on Tuesday announced a boycott campaign targeting major corporations "that enable, profit from, or directly collaborate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the broader racist policies of the Trump administration."
Beyond the Ballot launched "Not With My Dollars: ICE Out of My Wallet" as President Donald Trump's violent crackdown on immigrants in diverse communities across the United States continues and just days before Black Friday kicks off the winter holiday shopping season.
"We cannot out-organize a fascist administration while simultaneously bankrolling the companies profiting from its cruelty," said Victor Rivera, the organization's executive director, in a statement. "Every dollar spent at a complicit corporation is a dollar funding the abduction and disappearance of our neighbors. It’' time to make corporate complicity unprofitable, for good."
The group is taking aim at e-commerce behemoth Amazon and its grocery subsidiary, Whole Foods; tech giants Dell and Microsoft; Home Depot; streaming platform Spotify; and retail chain Target. The boycott webpage explains the reason each is listed, actions shoppers should take, and the campaign's demands. In some cases, it also offers alternative companies.
Target is under fire for its "broad range of cooperation with the Trump administration's racist policies." The campaign is calling on the company to not only publicly commit to refusing collaboration with ICE but also immediately reinstate its scrapped diversity, equity, and inclusion policies.
Spotify is on the list for airing ICE recruitment ads—a decision that also recently prompted a boycott call from the group Indivisible.
The campaign site calls out Home Depot because it has "repeatedly allowed ICE agents to patrol and detain workers and customers in its parking lots and stores, usually without presenting judicial warrants or establishing probable cause," and demands an end to those practices.
The group is urging Microsoft to end its "$19.4 million contract with ICE to provide artificial intelligence capabilities and processing data." The Dell section highlights that it has provided $18.8 million to "support the office of ICE's chief information officer through the purchase of Microsoft enterprise software licenses," and similarly calls for terminating that contract with the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
The Amazon section states:
REASON: Amazon Web Services (AWS) is the digital backbone of ICE's machinery, selling the cloud power that helps track, target, and tear families apart.
ACTION: Stop shopping on Amazon where possible; cancel Prime subscriptions if feasible; push universities, unions, nonprofits, and campaigns to move off AWS when and where feasible, and to issue statements condemning Amazon’s role in corporate-sponsored mass deportations.
DEMAND: End all ICE/DHS immigration enforcement contracts and data hosting that enable deportations; adopt a binding human-rights policy banning support for immigration policing.
ALTERNATIVES: Bookshop.org and local bookstores; direct-from-brand purchasing; cooperatives; independent retailers.
The site also stresses that "every dollar spent at Whole Foods directly strengthens Amazon, whose AWS platform is the digital backbone of ICE's machinery, powering the tools used to track, target, and tear families apart."
While the campaign is beginning just before Black Friday, boycott organizers aim to ensure it will "not disappear" after this week.
"Unlike other consumer boycotts, Not With My Dollars is designed for long-term pressure and escalation," Beyond the Ballot said. "To be removed from the boycott list, each targeted corporation must fulfill the specific demands outlined for its company. Anything less is not accountability, just more corporate PR."
"If you bankroll a violent, unaccountable agency that terrorizes our communities, you will not do it with our money," the group added. "Across the country, poor and working-class migrant families are facing a wave of state-sponsored abductions, violence, and political policing under the fascist Trump administration. Corporations that choose to partner with, advertise on, bankroll, or provide critical infrastructure to ICE are not neutral; they are complicit."
"Republicans have a million ideas regarding healthcare. Except one," said Sen. Bernie Sanders. "They will never acknowledge that healthcare is a human right—to be guaranteed to ALL."
As President Donald Trump postpones unveiling his supposed plan to tackle soaring US healthcare costs—reportedly after pushback from congressional Republicans—Medicare for All advocates have renewed calls for shifting to a single-payer system.
"Republicans have a million ideas regarding healthcare. Except one," Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who caucuses with Democrats, said on social media Monday afternoon. "They will never acknowledge that healthcare is a human right—to be guaranteed to ALL."
The union National Nurses United also called for Medicare for All on Monday, pointing to a recent West Health/Gallup poll that found 47% of US adults are worried they won't be able to afford healthcare next year, the highest level since they began tracking in 2021.
"The urgency around this is real," West Health president Timothy Lash told NBC News. "When you look at the economic strain that is on families right now, even if healthcare prices didn't rise, the costs are rising elsewhere, which only exacerbates the problem."
Over objections from progressives, including Sanders, a small group of Senate Democrats earlier this month agreed to help GOP lawmakers end the longest federal government shutdown in US history in exchange for just the promise of a mid-December vote on extending Affordable Care Act (ACA) subsidies to help over 20 million Americans who face skyrocketing premiums.
Citing unnamed White House officials, MS NOW reported Sunday that Trump was set to introduce the Healthcare Price Cuts Act to combat what the sources called "surprise premium hikes" as soon as Monday.
"The plan would also eliminate 'zero-premium' subsidies currently offered under the ACA, intending to stop 'ghost beneficiaries,' a frequent Republican concern about alleged fraudulent policy recipients, by requiring a small minimum payment as a means to verify eligibility to receive benefits," according to the outlet.
"The nascent plan also features a deposit program that would incentivize lower-premium options on the ACA exchange," MS NOW continued. "For individuals who downgrade coverage, the difference in coverage costs would be distributed to a 'Health Savings Account' provided with taxpayer dollars."
However, as Politico detailed Monday, also citing unnamed sources, "Trump's healthcare plan is in limbo after pushback from Republicans who were caught off guard by the president's forthcoming proposal—questioning, in particular, whether it would include additional abortion restrictions."
As parts of Trump's proposal continued to leak in the absence of its formal introduction, the American Prospect's Ryan Cooper and David Dayen wrote Tuesday that "all told, there's a good chance that Democrats will accept this offer, or something like it, as the best they're likely to get for the time being."
"If they are ever in power again, they can fix the ACA permanently, and avoid the danger of subsidies expiring (as the Prospect advocated back in 2021). But it's quite revealing as to the total bankruptcy of the Republican Party when it comes to healthcare policy," the duo added. "The GOP will flinch from more than doubling health insurance premiums—at least if middle-class people and up are the most affected—but only if they can also make the insurance worse, and make poor people pay more."
Last week, in a pair of op-eds and a letter to Democratic lawmakers, Sanders argued that "at a time when the Republicans have been forced to finally talk about the healthcare crisis facing our country, it is essential that the Democratic Caucus unify behind a set of commonsense policies that will make healthcare more affordable and accessible."
He called for not only extending the ACA tax credits, but also repealing Trump and congressional Republicans' $1 trillion in cuts to the ACA and Medicaid; expanding Medicare to cover dental, vision, and hearing; cutting prescription drug costs by requiring pharmaceutical companies to charge no more for medications in the United States than they do in Europe or Canada; investing in expanding primary healthcare; and banning stock buybacks and dividends, and restricting CEO compensation.
Although Medicare for All lacks majority support in the Democratic Caucus, Sanders—the ranking member of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions—also emphasized his belief that it remains the ideal long-term solution. He reintroduced the Medicare for All Act in April with Democratic Reps. Pramila Jayapal (Wash.) and Debbie Dingell (Mich.).
Other single-payer advocates have also seized on current concerns and debates about the ACA. In a column for Truthdig last Thursday, Conor Lynch wrote that "with Republicans spotlighting the greed, corruption, and inefficiency of US healthcare, progressive Democrats have an opening to take Medicare for All off the back burner and renew the push for a comprehensive overhaul."
"The fact that Republicans are calling out insurance companies for their profiteering shows how much the national mood has changed since the passage of the ACA," he continued. "With Republicans unable to offer anything but a return to an intolerable status quo ante, Democrats should make the case for moving beyond the broken status quo."
The previous week, CJ Mikkelsen, a retired firefighter and paramedic now leading a small nonprofit in Michigan, made the case in the Midland Daily News that "we need a system like every other country in the developed world has."
Mikkelsen shared some of his and his wife's health struggles and stressed the society-wide benefits: "Medicare for All would mean that everyone is covered for everything at all times. No more losing coverage because you’ve lost your job, want to go back to school, or are starting your own business. The last thing I want you to know about Medicare for All, and pay attention here—IT’S CHEAPER THAN WHAT WE'RE DOING NOW."
The Dutch historian said the BBC's edit of his lecture shows what happens "when institutions start censoring themselves out of fear of those in power."
The BBC is being accused of bending to pressure from the White House once again after it removed a historian's claim that President Donald Trump was “the most openly corrupt president in American history” from one of its broadcasts.
Rutger Bregman, a Dutch author and historian, said Tuesday that Britain's flagship news broadcaster cut the "key line" out of a speech he gave as part of its prestigious Reith Lecture series.
The broadcast had included Bregman's descriptions of Trump as "a convicted reality star" and a "modern-day Caligula." It also included his criticism of the "establishment propping up" former President Joe Biden, whom he called "an elderly man in obvious mental decline."
But the BBC admits it cut out the line referring to Trump's corruption.
“The BBC has decided to censor my first Reith lecture,” Bregman said. “This sentence was taken out of a lecture they commissioned, reviewed through the full editorial process, and recorded four weeks ago in front of 500 people in the BBC Radio Theatre."
In a subsequent BBC radio broadcast discussing the controversy, the host said Bregman's assessment of Trump's corruption was removed "on legal advice."
"That same BBC legal advice means I can't tell you what was removed," he continued.
Bregman said he "was told the decision came from the highest levels within the BBC.”
The decision to pull Bregman's quote came as the network faces threats of a multibillion-dollar lawsuit from Trump over its edit of one of his speeches leading up to the January 6, 2021 US Capitol riot, which was fueled by the president's false assertions that his defeat in the 2020 election was the result of widespread voter fraud.
A documentary for the network's Panorama series, released days before the 2024 US election, had spliced together three clips of the president's speech to those assembled at the Capitol, which had occurred about 50 minutes apart. The statements made it appear as if Trump had urged supporters to march with him and called for violence.
Trump has since pardoned everyone who committed acts of violence on January 6, referring to them as “patriots,” and has purged investigators within the Justice Department who pursued cases against them.
The BBC issued an apology for its edit of Trump's comments, and its director general, Tim Davie, and the BBC News chief, Deborah Turness, have both resigned. However, it has insisted it did not defame Trump and that it would not settle any lawsuit with him.
In comments to the Guardian, a BBC spokesperson said it removed Bregman's comments because "all of our programs are required to comply with the BBC’s editorial guidelines, and we made the decision to remove one sentence from the lecture on legal advice.”
On social media, Bregman said the network's explanation did not make sense.
"The edit was made at the last minute, after editorial approval and four weeks after the live recording," he said. "A standard editorial edit doesn’t require days of high-level legal review or the involvement of many people at the top level."
He said the real reason was the network's fear of drawing Trump's ire.
"The truth is that the sentence wasn’t inaccurate—it was removed because of legal fears," he said. "And that’s exactly the concern my lecture raises: when institutions start censoring themselves out of fear of those in power."