July, 20 2009, 09:18am EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Dan Beeton, (202) 239-1460
Over 55 Organizations and Scholars Call on Obama Administration to Warn Honduran Regime Against Further Violence
WASHINGTON
56
representatives of organizations and academic experts on Latin America
and scholars issued the following statement today:
The Obama administration's recent statements are endangering the lives
of Hondurans, including the president Manuel Zelaya. From the Wall
Street Journal, July 18, 2009:
"A senior U.S. official said Friday the Obama administration continues
to stress to Mr. Zelaya its opposition to him trying to return. The
official said Washington fears another attempt by Mr. Zelaya could
reignite political tensions while undercutting efforts to find a
negotiated settlement. 'Zelaya is well aware of our position," the
official said.'"
Such statements are very disturbing, especially combined with the fact
that the administration has not issued a single warning to the coup
government, which has already shot and killed peaceful demonstrators,
that such human rights abuses are unacceptable.
In fact, there has not been a single
statement from the Obama administration since President Zelaya was
overthrown on June 28, condemning the violations of human rights and
civil liberties committed by the coup government. These violations
include shootings and beatings; arrests, intimidation and deportation
of journalists; and the closing of independent radio and TV stations.
These abuses have been documented and condemned by the Inter
American Commission for Human Rights, by
human rights organizations such as Human
Rights Watch, Amnesty
International, the Committee
to Protect Journalists, Reporters
Without Borders, and a report from the Honduran
Committee for the Relatives of the Disappeared Detainees.
President Zelaya is, as President Obama has pointed out, the legitimate
president of Honduras. He is also a Honduran citizen, and has the right
to return to his country. The United States government should be
defending democracy in Honduras, and the civil and human rights of its
citizens - not trying to make it look as though those who defend these
rights are doing something wrong.
The Obama administration's position puts it outside the consensus of
the hemisphere and the world, which has called - through the OAS and
the UN General Assembly -- for the "immediate and unconditional"
reinstatement of President Zelaya. The repeated
refusals of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton,
when asked by the press, to say that the United States government also
seeks Zelaya's reinstatement have
further muddied the waters about where the administration stands. Such
ambiguity feeds the resolve of the dictatorship to try and run out the
clock on President Zelaya's remaining months in office.
The United States has trained and funded the Honduran army; the
generals who led the coup were trained at the School of the Americas in
Ft. Benning, Georgia; the Obama administration by its own admission was
in discussions with the Honduran military up to the day before the
coup. All of this places greater responsibility on the administration
to help reverse this coup. Yet the administration has refused to take
even modest steps such as freezing the bank accounts of the
perpetrators, despite appeals from the legitimate government of
Honduras and from civil society.
We call on President Obama to condemn the human rights abuses committed
by the dictatorship, and to make it clear that violence against the
civilian population is a crime that will not be tolerated by the
international community; and to make it clear to his own State
Department that the United States government stands with the Honduran
people and all other governments, for the immediate and unconditional
return of the elected President of Honduras, Manuel Zelaya.
Signed,
Tim Anderson
University of Sydney
Australia
William Aviles
Associate Professor of Political Science
University of Nebraska, Kearney
Nikhil Aziz, Ph.D.
Executive Director
Grassroots International
Elizabeth Bast
International Program Director
Friends of the Earth U.S.
Jules Boykoff
Associate Professor of Politics and Government
Pacific University
Oscar A. Chacon
Executive Director
National Alliance of Latin American & Caribbean Communities
James D. Cockcroft
Honorary Editor
Latin American Perspectives
Lauren Coodley
Professor of History
Napa Valley College
Pablo Delano
Professor of Fine Arts
Trinity College
Hartford CT
Arturo Escobar
Professor of Anthropoology
UNC, Chapel Hill
Linda Farthing
Journalist, independent scholar
Mario D. Fenyo
Professor of History
Bowie State University
Luis Figueroa
Associate Professor of History
Trinity College
Hartford, Connecticut
Bill Fletcher, Jr.
Executive Editor
BlackCommentator.com
Dana Frank
Professor of History
University of California, Santa Cruz
Gavin Fridell
Assistant Professor, Department of Politics
Trent University
Gilbert G. Gonzalez
Professor Emeritus
University of California, Irvine
Manu Goswami
Department of History
New York University
Greg Grandin
Professor of History
New York University
Peter Hallward
Professor of Modern European Philosophy
Middlesex University, UK
Art Heitzer
Chair
National Lawyers Guild Cuba Subcommittee
Doug Hertzler
Associate Professor of Anthropology
Eastern Mennonite University
Katherine Hoyt
Co-Coordinator
Nicaragua Network
Forrest Hylton
Assistant Professor, Political Science and International Relations
Universidad de los Andes (Bogota)
James Jordan
Coordinator
Campaign for Labor Rights
Gil Joseph
Farnam
Professor of History and International Studies
Yale University
Chuck Kaufman
Co-Coordinator
Alliance for Global Justice
Benjamin Kohl
Associate Professor and Undergraduate Chair
Geography and Urban Studies
Temple University
Michael A. Lebowitz
Professor Emeritus (Economics)
Simon Fraser University, Canada
Eric LeCompte
SOA Watch
John Lindsay-Poland
Latin America Program Director
Fellowship of Reconciliation
Florencia E. Mallon
Julieta Kirkwood
Professor of History
University of Wisconsin
Luis Martin-Cabrera
Assistant Professor, Literature
University of California, San Diego
Frederick B. Mills
Professor of Philosophy
Bowie State University
Kirsten Moller
Executive Director
Global Exchange
Robert Naiman
Policy Director
Just Foreign Policy
Diane M. Nelson
Department of Anthropology
Duke University
Hector Perla Jr.
Assistant Professor of Latin American & Latino Studies
University of California, Santa Cruz
Adrienne Pine
Assistant Professor of Anthropology
American University
Beatrice Pita
Faculty Supervisor for lower division
Spanish
Dept. of Literature
University of California, San Diego
Vijay Prashad
George and Martha Kellner Chair in South Asian History and Professor of
International Studies
Trinity College
Peter Ranis
Professor Emeritus
CUNY Graduate Center
Gerardo Renique
Associate Professor, Department of History
City College of the City University of New York
Milla Riggio
James J. Goodwin Professor of English
Coordinator, Trinity-in-Trinidad Global Learning Site
Member, Executive Board of the Hemispheric Institute of Performance and
Politics
William I. Robinson
Professor of Sociology
Global and International Studies
Latin American and Iberian Studies
University of California-Santa Barbara
Rosaura Sanchez
Professor, Department of Literature
University of California, San Diego
T.M. Scruggs
School of Music
University of Iowa
Kent Spriggs
Counsel
School of the Americas Watch
Richard Stahler-Sholk
Professor, Political Science
Eastern Michigan University
Miguel Tinker Salas
Professor of History
Pomona College
Steven Topik
Professor of History
University of California Irvine
Alberto Toscano
Lecturer in Sociology
Goldsmiths, University of London
Maurice L. Wade
Professor of Philosophy, International Studies, and Graduate Public
Policy Studies
Trinity College
Hartford, CT
Jeffery R. Webber
Assistant Professor, Political Science
University of Regina, Canada
Mark Weisbrot
Co-Director
Center for Economic and Policy Research
John Womack, Jr.
Professor of History Emeritus
Harvard University
LATEST NEWS
Critics Blast 'Reckless and Impossible' Bid to Start Operating Mountain Valley Pipeline
"The time to build more dirty and dangerous pipelines is over," said one environmental campaigner.
Apr 23, 2024
Environmental defenders on Tuesday ripped the company behind the Mountain Valley Pipeline for asking the federal government—on Earth Day—for permission to start sending methane gas through the 303-mile conduit despite a worsening climate emergency caused largely by burning fossil fuels.
Mountain Valley Pipeline LLC sent a letter Monday to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Acting Secretary Debbie-Anne Reese seeking final permission to begin operation on the MVP next month, even while acknowledging that much of the Virginia portion of the pipeline route remains unfinished and developers have yet to fully comply with safety requirements.
"In a manner typical of its ongoing disrespect for the environment, Mountain Valley Pipeline marked Earth Day by asking FERC for authorization to place its dangerous, unnecessary pipeline into service in late May," said Jessica Sims, the Virginia field coordinator for Appalachian Voices.
"MVP brazenly asks for this authorization while simultaneously notifying FERC that the company has completed less than two-thirds of the project to final restoration and with the mere promise that it will notify the commission when it fully complies with the requirements of a consent decree it entered into with the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration last fall," she continued.
"Requesting an in-service decision by May 23 leaves the company very little time to implement the safety measures required by its agreement with PHMSA," Sims added. "There is no rush, other than to satisfy MVP's capacity customers' contracts—a situation of the company's own making. We remain deeply concerned about the construction methods and the safety of communities along the route of MVP."
Russell Chisholm, co-director of the Protect Our Water, Heritage, Rights (POWHR) Coalition—which called MVP's request "reckless and impossible"—said in a statement that "we are watching our worst nightmare unfold in real-time: The reckless MVP is barreling towards completion."
"During construction, MVP has contaminated our water sources, destroyed our streams, and split the earth beneath our homes. Now they want to run methane gas through their degraded pipes and shoddy work," Chisholm added. "The MVP is a glaring human rights violation that is indicative of the widespread failures of our government to act on the climate crisis in service of the fossil fuel industry."
POWHR and activists representing frontline communities affected by the pipeline are set to take part in a May 8 demonstration outside project financier Bank of America's headquarters in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Appalachian Voices noted that MVP's request comes days before pipeline developer Equitrans Midstream is set to release its 2024 first-quarter earnings information on April 30.
MVP is set to traverse much of Virginia and West Virginia, with the Southgate extension running into North Carolina. Outgoing U.S. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and other pipeline proponents fought to include expedited construction of the project in the debt ceiling deal negotiated between President Joe Biden and congressional Republicans last year.
On Monday, climate and environmental defenders also petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, challenging FERC's approval of the MVP's planned Southgate extension, contending that the project is so different from original plans that the government's previous assent is now irrelevant.
"Federal, state, and local elected officials have spoken out against this unneeded proposal to ship more methane gas into North Carolina," said Sierra Club senior field organizer Caroline Hansley. "The time to build more dirty and dangerous pipelines is over. After MVP Southgate requested a time extension for a project that it no longer plans to construct, it should be sent back to the drawing board for this newly proposed project."
David Sligh, conservation director at Wild Virginia, said: "Approving the Southgate project is irresponsible. This project will pose the same kinds of threats of damage to the environment and the people along its path as we have seen caused by the Mountain Valley Pipeline during the last six years."
"FERC has again failed to protect the public interest, instead favoring a profit-making corporation," Sligh added.
Others renewed warnings about the dangers MVP poses to wildlife.
"The endangered bats, fish, mussels, and plants in this boondoggle's path of destruction deserve to be protected from killing and habitat destruction by a project that never received proper approvals in the first place," Center for Biological Diversity attorney Perrin de Jong said. "Our organization will continue fighting this terrible idea to the bitter end."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Seismic Win for Workers': FTC Bans Noncompete Clauses
Advocates praised the FTC "for taking a strong stance against this egregious use of corporate power, thereby empowering workers to switch jobs and launch new ventures, and unlocking billions of dollars in worker earnings."
Apr 23, 2024
U.S. workers' rights advocates and groups celebrated on Tuesday after the Federal Trade Commission voted 3-2 along party lines to approve a ban on most noncompete clauses, which Democratic FTC Chair Lina Khansaid "keep wages low, suppress new ideas, and rob the American economy of dynamism."
"The FTC's final rule to ban noncompetes will ensure Americans have the freedom to pursue a new job, start a new business, or bring a new idea to market," Khan added, pointing to the commission's estimates that the policy could mean another $524 for the average worker, over 8,500 new startups, and 17,000 to 29,000 more patents each year.
As Economic Policy Institute (EPI) president Heidi Shierholz explained, "Noncompete agreements are employment provisions that ban workers at one company from working for, or starting, a competing business within a certain period of time after leaving a job."
"These agreements are ubiquitous," she noted, applauding the ban. "EPI research finds that more than 1 out of every 4 private-sector workers—including low-wage workers—are required to enter noncompete agreements as a condition of employment."
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has suggested it plans to file a lawsuit that, as The American Prospectdetailed, "could more broadly threaten the rulemaking authority the FTC cited when proposing to ban noncompetes."
Already, the tax services and software provider Ryan has filed a legal challenge in federal court in Texas, arguing that the FTC is unconstitutionally structured.
Still, the Democratic commissioners' vote was still heralded as a "seismic win for workers." Echoing Khan's critiques of such noncompetes, Public Citizen executive vice president Lisa Gilbert declared that such clauses "inflict devastating harms on tens of millions of workers across the economy."
"The pervasive use of noncompete clauses limits worker mobility, drives down wages, keeps Americans from pursuing entrepreneurial dreams and creating new businesses, causes more concentrated markets, and keeps workers stuck in unsafe or hostile workplaces," she said. "Noncompete clauses are both an unfair method of competition and aggressively harmful to regular people. The FTC was right to tackle this issue and to finalize this strong rule."
Morgan Harper, director of policy and advocacy at the American Economic Liberties Project, praised the FTC for "listening to the comments of thousands of entrepreneurs and workers of all income levels across industries" and finalizing a rule that "is a clear-cut win."
Demand Progress' Emily Peterson-Cassin similarly commended the commission "for taking a strong stance against this egregious use of corporate power, thereby empowering workers to switch jobs and launch new ventures, and unlocking billions of dollars in worker earnings."
While such agreements are common across various industries, Teófilo Reyes, chief of staff at the Restaurant Opportunities Centers United, said that "many restaurant workers have been stuck at their job, earning as low as $2.13 per hour, because of the noncompete clause that they agreed to have in their contract."
"They didn't know that it would affect their wages and livelihood," Reyes stressed. "Most workers cannot negotiate their way out of a noncompete clause because noncompetes are buried in the fine print of employment contracts. A full third of noncompete clauses are presented after a worker has accepted a job."
Student Borrower Protection Center (SBPC) executive director Mike Pierce pointed out that the FTC on Tuesday "recognized the harmful role debt plays in the workplace, including the growing use of training repayment agreement provisions, or TRAPs, and took action to outlaw TRAPs and all other employer-driven debt that serve the same functions as noncompete agreements."
Sandeep Vaheesan, legal director at Open Markets Institute, highlighted that the addition came after his group, SBPC, and others submitted comments on the "significant gap" in the commission's initial January 2023 proposal, and also welcomed that "the final rule prohibits both conventional noncompete clauses and newfangled versions like TRAPs."
Jonathan Harris, a Loyola Marymount University law professor and SBPC senior fellow, said that "by also banning functional noncompetes, the rule stays one step ahead of employers who use 'stay-or-pay' contracts as workarounds to existing restrictions on traditional noncompetes. The FTC has decided to try to avoid a game of whack-a-mole with employers and their creative attorneys, which worker advocates will applaud."
Among those applauding was Jean Ross, president of National Nurses United, who said that "the new FTC rule will limit the ability of employers to use debt to lock nurses into unsafe jobs and will protect their role as patient advocates."
Angela Huffman, president of Farm Action, also cheered the effort to stop corporations from holding employees "hostage," saying that "this rule is a critical step for protecting our nation's workers and making labor markets fairer and more competitive."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Discriminatory' North Carolina Law Criminalizing Felon Voting Struck Down
One plaintiffs' attorney said the ruling "makes our democracy better and ensures that North Carolina is not able to unjustly criminalize innocent individuals with felony convictions who are valued members of our society."
Apr 23, 2024
Democracy defenders on Tuesday hailed a ruling from a U.S. federal judge striking down a 19th-century North Carolina law criminalizing people who vote while on parole, probation, or post-release supervision due to a felony conviction.
In Monday's decision, U.S. District Judge Loretta C. Biggs—an appointee of former Democratic President Barack Obama—sided with the North Carolina A. Philip Randolph Institute and Action NC, who argued that the 1877 law discriminated against Black people.
"The challenged statute was enacted with discriminatory intent, has not been cleansed of its discriminatory taint, and continues to disproportionately impact Black voters," Biggs wrote in her 25-page ruling.
Therefore, according to the judge, the 1877 law violates the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause.
"We are ecstatic that the court found in our favor and struck down this racially discriminatory law that has been arbitrarily enforced over time," Action NC executive director Pat McCoy said in a statement. "We will now be able to help more people become civically engaged without fear of prosecution for innocent mistakes. Democracy truly won today!"
Voting rights tracker Democracy Docket noted that Monday's ruling "does not have any bearing on North Carolina's strict felony disenfranchisement law, which denies the right to vote for those with felony convictions who remain on probation, parole, or a suspended sentence—often leaving individuals without voting rights for many years after release from incarceration."
However, Mitchell Brown, an attorney for one of the plaintiffs, said that "Judge Biggs' decision will help ensure that voters who mistakenly think they are eligible to cast a ballot will not be criminalized for simply trying to reengage in the political process and perform their civic duty."
"It also makes our democracy better and ensures that North Carolina is not able to unjustly criminalize innocent individuals with felony convictions who are valued members of our society, specifically Black voters who were the target of this law," Brown added.
North Carolina officials have not said whether they will appeal Biggs' ruling. The state Department of Justice said it was reviewing the decision.
According to Forward Justice—a nonpartisan law, policy, and strategy center dedicated to advancing racial, social, and economic justice in the U.S. South, "Although Black people constitute 21% of the voting-age population in North Carolina, they represent 42% of the people disenfranchised while on probation, parole, or post-release supervision."
The group notes that in 44 North Carolina counties, "the disenfranchisement rate for Black people is more than three times the rate of the white population."
"Judge Biggs' decision will help ensure that voters who mistakenly think they are eligible to cast a ballot will not be criminalized for simply trying to re-engage in the political process and perform their civic duty."
In what one civil rights leader called "the largest expansion of voting rights in this state since the 1965 Voting Rights Act," a three-judge state court panel voted 2-1 in 2021 to restore voting rights to approximately 55,000 formerly incarcerated felons. The decision made North Carolina the only Southern state to automatically restore former felons' voting rights.
Republican state legislators appealed that ruling to the North Carolina Court of Appeals, which in 2022 granted their request for a stay—but only temporarily, as the court allowed a previous injunction against any felony disenfranchisement based on fees or fines to stand.
However, last April the North Carolina Supreme Court reversed the three-judge panel decision, stripping voting rights from thousands of North Carolinians previously convicted of felonies. Dissenting Justice Anita Earls opined that "the majority's decision in this case will one day be repudiated on two grounds."
"First, because it seeks to justify the denial of a basic human right to citizens and thereby perpetuates a vestige of slavery, and second, because the majority violates a basic tenant of appellate review by ignoring the facts as found by the trial court and substituting its own," she wrote.
As similar battles play out in other states, Democratic U.S. lawmakers led by Rep. Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts and Sen. Peter Welch of Vermont in December introduced legislation to end former felon disenfranchisement in federal elections and guarantee incarcerated people the right to vote.
Currently, only Maine, Vermont, and the District of Columbia allow all incarcerated people to vote behind bars.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular