October, 07 2009, 04:07pm EDT
G8 Must Help Poor Countries Cope with Climate Change, Set Up Adaptation Fund
Major greenhouse gas
emitters must help poor countries cope with climate change while
recognizing the human rights and gender aspects of climate change, a
panel of judges ruled at the Asian People's Climate Court in Bangkok on
Tuesday.
The verdict outlined that there is a legal basis for reparation
claims on the basis of existing international legal standards and
conventions - to make good for damage in developing countries resulting
from climate impacts which are triggered by historic emissions from
industrialized countries.
BANGKOK, Thailand
Major greenhouse gas
emitters must help poor countries cope with climate change while
recognizing the human rights and gender aspects of climate change, a
panel of judges ruled at the Asian People's Climate Court in Bangkok on
Tuesday.
The verdict outlined that there is a legal basis for reparation
claims on the basis of existing international legal standards and
conventions - to make good for damage in developing countries resulting
from climate impacts which are triggered by historic emissions from
industrialized countries.
The Bangkok court room for this two-hour mock-hearing organized by
the Tcktcktck campaign was filled to the last chair when presiding
judge Amara Pongsapich, Chair of the Thai Human Rights Commission,
ruled that G8 countries have to set up a global adaptation fund with
sufficient finance for poor nations.
"Defendants have threatened and continue to threaten petitioners'
right to life and the sources of life, thus committing planetary
malpractice resulting in inter-generational damages," said judge
Pongsapich. "They have broken about a dozen international agreements,
for example by breaching their duty not to cause harm or their
obligations under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change."
The ruling against the G8 plaintiffs came after prosecution and
defense had interviewed ten witnesses, among them two climate
scientists and affected citizens such as Thai and Bangladeshi farmers,
a Nepalese mountain climber, a Filipino fisherman and an Indonesian
women's advocate.
The presidium of judges in this case of the children of Asia and the
Pacific versus the G8 also instructed the plaintiffs to initiate a
process of setting up an international tribunal on environmental crimes
and appoint a special rapporteur on the human rights dimension of
climate change. The court concluded, however, that "the duty to protect
human rights is the obligation of every state".
Chief-Prosecutor Antonio Oposa, a leading environmental lawyer from
The Philippines and recipient of the 2009 Ramon Magsaysay Award - the
Asian equivalent of the Nobel prize - said he was satisfied with the
verdict and urged the G8 countries to follow up on the ruling with
agreeing to a fair, ambitious and binding climate treaty at the
Copenhagen Summit this December.
"The Asian People's Climate Court is an experiment to show that
there is a legal basis for developing countries to sue industrialized
nations and demand reparation for damages resulting from climate
change", said Oposa. "While our mock-trial has shown that the legal
grounds exist, we would prefer to see rapid G8 action to reduce
emissions and fund adaptation in vulnerable countries, rather than a
string of future climate trials about compensation for damage that can
still be avoided if we act today."
The testimonies by affected witnesses whose lives and livelihoods
depend on effective action to tackle climate change as well as measures
to adapt to unavoidable impacts had given the court and about 150
people in the audience a clear sense that emissions from industrialized
countries over the past 200 years clearly show the culpability of G8
countries for global warming and hardships inflicted on Asia.
"The storms and floods across Asia these days remind us of the huge
threats people in this region are facing already", said Oxfam climate
change spokesperson Clement Kalonga. "Climate change will make things
only worse, and as judges at the Asian People's Climate Court found
that the G8 are responsible for the problem, we urge them to live up
their responsibilities at the UN climate talks in Bangkok and put
sufficient finance for adaptation in developing countries on the table.
"First and foremost though, developed countries have a
responsibility to make much deeper cuts in emissions. We also need a
global climate regime that delivers more than $150bn per year in public
finance - over and above existing aid commitments -- to help developing
countries cope with floods, droughts, storms and disasters, and cut
their future emissions growth," he said. "But without having committed
to anything themselves, rich countries keep pushing developing
countries to act. That's not justice, and if they carry on this way
this week's hearing shows it could become a crime."
Notes to editors
- The
tribunal was organized by civil society groups throughout the region
which comprise the Global Coalition for Climate Action (GCCA) and Asia
Pacific People's Movement for Debt and Development (APMDD). It is
supported by 25-30 organizations throughout South and East Asia, and
especially assisted by the Thai Working Group on Climate Justice and
the lawyers' network Global Legal Action on Climate Change (GLACC) and
Aid for Development. - Go to https://www.tcktcktck.org for a copy of the verdict and witness testimonies.
Oxfam International is a global movement of people who are fighting inequality to end poverty and injustice. We are working across regions in about 70 countries, with thousands of partners, and allies, supporting communities to build better lives for themselves, grow resilience and protect lives and livelihoods also in times of crisis.
LATEST NEWS
Experts Sound Alarm on Potential Right-Wing Violence Fueled by 'Election Denialism'
Online discussion of potential violence has been on the rise over the past month, as it was ahead of the 2020 election.
Oct 31, 2024
Recent violent incidents at a Democratic National Committee office in Arizona and ballot boxes in the Pacific Northwest have been accompanied by rising online discussion of potential political violence following the November 5 elections, with people in right-wing forums ramping up the spread of baseless claims that Democrats will "steal" the presidential election and threatening to help Republican nominee Donald Trump take power by force.
That's according to a study published this week by the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism (GPAHE), which warns the group is "seeing the same warning signs of political violence based on election denialism combined with violent language across fringe platforms that we saw in the weeks before the 2020 election and before the January 6, 2021 insurrection at the Capitol."
At the messaging platform Telegram, violent rhetoric related to denying the results of an election that hadn't even taken place yet rose by 317% over the course of October 2020, and GPAHE found an identical trend this past month.
Users have threatened to "shoot to kill any illegal voters," apparently referring to the supposed scourge of illegal voting by non-citizens that Republicans including Trump and U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) have vowed to defeat, despite the lack of evidence that such a problem exists. A Telegram group frequented by members of the Minnesota Proud Boys have called for "patriots" to "take action" and attend a protest at the Minnesota state Capitol on November 2.
On other platforms, GPAHE co-founder Heidi Beirich told The Guardian on Thursday, the numbers of political violence threats "have been lower so far this year, but they are quickly rising as we approach Election Day."
On Gab in 2020, violent election rhetoric rose 462% during October and shot up "a staggering 8,309% the week of the election," said GPAHE. This month, the rhetoric has gone up by about 105%, with users saying people engaged in "election fraud"—a vanishingly rare occurrence—should face "public executions."
"The military needs to be brought in," at least one user wrote this month, echoing Trump's statement that an "enemy within on Election Day "should be very easily handled by, if necessary, by National Guard, or if really necessary, by the military."
"The Trump campaign, its surrogates, or right-wing sympathizers could invite unrest, threats, or violence to try putting their collective thumb on the scales at key decision points."
Beirich told The Guardian that GPAHE is also seeing "posts targeting election workers with violence, a sign that real world activity could escalate."
The report was released as authorities investigate two incidents in Vancouver, Washington and Portland, Oregon in which devices were used to set ballot boxes on fire, resulting in damage to hundreds of ballots cast by early voters. Officials have linked the alleged arson acts to an incident on October 8 in which a suspicious device was found in a ballot drop box.
A man named Jeffrey Michael Kelly was also arrested last week for shooting at the Democratic National Committee office in Tempe, Arizona. Authorities found 120 guns, 250,000 rounds of ammunition, and other weapons at his home, and said he was likely planning to commit a "mass casualty event" ahead of the election.
Those incidents and the memory of the violent riot on January 6, 2021, in which Trump urged thousands of his supporters to descend on the U.S. Capitol to stop Congress from certifying the 2020 election results, are likely contributing to rising fears among voters about violence after next week's election. About 4 in 10 voters told The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research this week that they are "extremely" or "very" concerned about violence related to election denial.
In an analysis of political violence risks in the U.S. on Tuesday, the International Crisis Group noted that current conditions in the country may lower the chances of violent attacks related to election denial compared to 2020.
The prosecution of leaders of the January 6 insurrection and investigations into groups involved have "dented these groups' capacity," wrote program director Michael Wahid Hanna.
President Joe Biden has also lowered the risk of Trump challenging a potential election loss the way he did in 2020, when he and his allies urged "fake electors" in seven states to falsely declare him the winner, among other efforts. Biden signed the Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition Improvement Act, which includes new rules for how Congress tallies electors chosen by each state and "raises the bar for any objection" to the election results, wrote Hanna.
However, added Hanna, "Trump himself remains a major risk factor" for violence after the election:
The Trump campaign, its surrogates, or right-wing sympathizers could invite unrest, threats, or violence to try putting their collective thumb on the scales at key decision points. Local officials told not to certify tallies and battleground-state Republican state legislatures urged to appoint 'faithless' electors could be subject to personal threats or rowdy demonstrations designed to show that 'the people' support Trump's preferred course of action. Later, Republican lawmakers in Congress could be intimidated in comparable ways. Democrats, who would presumably fight an effort of this sort at every stage in court, could be exposed to similar or worse. Any anti-Trump street protests, meanwhile, could very well be met with counter-demonstrations including far-right elements, which could lead to clashes, with the risk of deadly violence rising at each new phase of legal maneuvering.
With many in the Republican Party relentlessly transmitting the message that "its candidate cannot lose unless the other side cheats," wrote Hanna, the risk of political violence after the election can't be ignored.
"Responsible actors with Trump's ear should prevail upon him to stick to the rules," he wrote, "Election boards, state legislators, members of Congress, and judges will need to do the same: The country's electoral laws are in better shape than they were four years ago, but the reforms will only matter if the country's institutions adhere to them in good faith."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Historian of Far-Right Issues Warning to Those 'Insufficiently Alarmed' by Trump
"What will you do if men in uniforms arrive in your neighborhood, and an immigrant neighbor gets a knock on the door and is led away in handcuffs?" asked Rick Perlstein.
Oct 31, 2024
An American historian who has published
thousands of pages on the nation's conservative movement—spanning from the failed candidacy of Barry Goldwater to the rise of Ronald Reagan—penned a warning Wednesday to anyone who may be inclined to downplay the threat posed by Republican nominee Donald Trump.
"What will you do if men in uniforms arrive in your neighborhood, and an immigrant neighbor gets a knock on the door and is led away in handcuffs?" Rick Perlstein writes at the start of his column for The American Prospect, referring to Trump's vow to round up and deport millions of undocumented immigrants. "Or if the uniforms are not police uniforms, and there is not even a knock?"
The rest of the column follows that format, with Rick Perlstein outlining nightmarish—and all-too-plausible—scenarios that could result from a Trump victory over Democratic nominee Kamala Harris in next week's election and asking Americans to contemplate how they would respond.
"What if the knock is for your daughter, and they're coming for her because of a pill that she took? Will you open the door?" Perlstein asks. "Or if your teenage granddaughter, alone and afraid, calls you and begs you to drive her to a state where abortion is legal? Your governor has signed a bill making such 'abortion trafficking' illegal, stipulating a penalty of 15 years."
In the wake of Trump's 2016 election victory, Perlstein acknowledged that he and other historians failed to anticipate the former president's ascent to dominance within the Republican Party. Now, Perlstein and other leading historians are sounding the alarm, describing Trump and the far-right movement propelling his campaign as a fascist threat to U.S. democracy and the world.
"What if you are in the army, and are ordered to the border to transport children to deportation camps? Or shoot peaceful protesters?" Perlstein wrote Wednesday. "How about if you're a worker beein the office of a Republican prosecutor who follows the call of Stephen Miller after Donald Trump's criminal conviction to use '[e]very facet of Republican Party politics and power' to 'go toe-to-toe with Marxism and beat those Communists'? Your boss presents you his draft of a frivolous indictment of a Democratic officeholder, say for some fantastical accusation of supposed 'electoral fraud.' He asks you to draft the indictment. What do you do?"
The historian continued:
Or consider the scenario related to The New Republic's Greg Sargent by a senior Department of Labor official: evaluating a proposed regulation for a federal safety standard protecting workers in outdoor jobs from the increasingly prevalent risk of fatalities from heatstroke; "loyalists installed in key positions could easily ensure that quality science on the impact of heat on workers is ignored or downplayed during later stages of the rulemaking process. Meanwhile, career government officials—suddenly more vulnerable to firing—would surely hesitate to challenge or expose political appointees who are manipulating the process."
Say that career official is you. Do you risk your job? Or do you choose complicity?
Donald Trump is elected president.
What are you prepared to do?
Those are just some of what Perlstein described as the "life-changing choices we may be forced to make if Donald Trump wins" the November 5 election, which is—if polling is to be believed—razor close.
Perlstein wrote on social media that his column was meant for readers to send to their "insufficiently alarmed friends" in the final days of the 2024 campaign.
Perlstein's column was published just days after a Trump campaign rally at Madison Square Garden that drew comparisons to the Nazi rally held at that same venue in 1939.
Fascism, according to historian Kathleen Belew, was "on full display" at Trump's rally—an alarming indication of what's to come in a possible second term.
In an interview with The Real News Network on Wednesday, Perlstein warned that some "are in denial" about the danger Trump and his allies represent.
"There's a lot of waking up that has to happen," said Perlstein, warning of the prospect of right-wing violence in the aftermath of the election given Trump's false narrative that "Democrats can't win an honest election so they always cheat."
"So one thing we have to be prepared for is the confusion that they're going to try and sow in the event they don't get the most electoral votes. And one of the kinds of complicity that they're hoping for is that the elites basically give up in the interest of order," Perlstein said. "People who should know better are not accepting what's happening."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Mehdi Hasan Warns Bigots Like the One Who Attacked Him Could Soon 'Be in Charge of US Foreign Policy'
If Donald Trump wins next week's election, the journalist said, violent racists "will be emboldened like never before."
Oct 31, 2024
Journalist Mehdi Hasan responded at length Wednesday to a bigoted attack he faced from a fellow CNN panelist earlier this week, warning that the kinds of people who would incite violence against a Palestinian rights advocate on live television could soon be in charge of U.S. foreign policy if Republican nominee Donald Trump wins the November 5 election.
Hasan, the founder of Zeteo, said he has never in 25 years of working in media "been so stunned" as he was when Ryan Girdusky—a right-wing commentator and Trump supporter—said that "I hope your beeper doesn't go off" after Hasan expressed support for Palestinian rights.
Girdusky's remark, which referenced a mid-September Israeli attack in Lebanon and Syria that killed dozens of people—including children—underscored "how bold these MAGA Republicans have become in their racism," Hasan said in his video response Wednesday.
While welcoming CNN's decision to ban Girdusky from the network, Hasan warned that such bigots "will be emboldened like never before" if Trump defeats Democratic nominee Kamala Harris in next week's election.
"They won't just be running their mouths on TV panels against public figures like me," said Hasan. "They'll be at your kids' school gate. They'll be at your grocery store. They'll be in your subway car proudly and shamelessly saying this stuff to you, too. They'll also be in charge of U.S. foreign policy, egging on Israel to do more beeper attacks, even more acts of terror, egging on Trump and [Republican vice presidential nominee JD] Vance to be more racist, more violent both at home and abroad."
Watch Hasan's full response:
"As shocked and stunned as I was, there was no way I was going to let him say that to me, unchallenged."
My response to the racism & incitement on Monday, to a CNN pro-Trump panelist telling me: “I hope your beeper doesn’t go off," because I said I supported Palestinian rights. pic.twitter.com/GJCAC1vAKd
— Mehdi Hasan (@mehdirhasan) October 30, 2024
Hasan called the November 5 contest between Trump and Harris "the most consequential election of our lifetimes" and said that "genocide is on the ballot," criticizing the Democratic vice president for refusing to distance herself from President Joe Biden's unwavering support for Israel's assault on Gaza.
"But also, fascism plus genocide is on the ballot," said Hasan, pointing to Trump's authoritarian ambitions and open support for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, whom Trump praised for "doing a good job" in Gaza, where Israeli forces have killed more than 43,000 people in just over a year—a majority of them women, children, and elderly.
"I'm in no mood to explain myself to the racists and bullies," Hasan said Wednesday. "But I will continue to speak out, I will continue to do the work, and so should you."
Author and activist Naomi Klein voiced agreement with Hasan's analysis of the dire state of U.S. politics and his warning that the situation could deteriorate further, writing on social media: "Some claim things cannot get worse. They absolutely can."
"Look to any country where the prisons are bursting with political prisoners. There is no shame in voting against even worse," Klein wrote. "Fascists triumph when we lose our capacity to think strategically."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular