

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.
Over 240
academics and experts on Latin America sent a letter to President Obama
yesterday urging him to denounce the ongoing human rights violations
perpetrated by the coup regime in Honduras ahead of the planned
November 29 elections. They also urged him to demand the immediate
restitution of President Manuel Zelaya and to support a full three
months of electoral campaigning after the coup has been overturned and
"debating, organizing, and all other aspects of election campaigns can
be conducted in an atmosphere that is free from fear; in which all
views and parties are free to make their voices heard - not just those
that are allowed under an illegal military occupation." This would mean
that this month's elections - which Latin America and the European
Union have said they will not recognize - would need to be rescheduled.
"With only days left before the scheduled November 29 elections, the
U.S. government must make a choice," the letter states. "It can either
side with democracy, along with every government in Latin America, or
it can side with the coup regime, and further isolate the United States
in the hemisphere."
Last Thursday, the Rio Group, which includes all of Latin America and
most of the Caribbean, issued a
statement declaring that they would consider the November 29
elections to be illegitimate if Zelaya is not first reinstated.
The current letter continues: "Moreover, the U.S. cannot afford to
maintain its deafening silence regarding the innumerable and grave
human rights abuses committed by the coup government in Honduras - a
silence that has become a conspicuous international embarrassment."
Numerous press reports have described human rights abuses and
violations of civil liberties during the three-month period in which
electoral campaigning is allowed under Honduran law, including illegal
mass arrests, beatings, torture, and shootings by state security
forces, attacks on the freedoms of assembly, speech, and of the press.
This repression has been widely documented and denounced by Honduran
and international human rights organizations, including the
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Human Rights Watch, and
Amnesty International.
Despite this, the Obama administration has yet to condemn the human
rights violations, or to threaten sanctions or other strong action to
force the coup regime to stop them.
Last week, Bertha Oliva, the head of Honduras' most well-known and
respected human rights organization, the Committee for Families of the
Disappeared and Detained in Honduras (COFADEH), also
called on the Obama administration to denounce the "grave human
rights violations" in Honduras, and declared that "It's too late to
have elections on November 29."
The full text of the letter follows:
_______________________________________
November 11, 2009
President Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20500
Cc.:
Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State
Thomas Shannon, Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere
Affairs
Dan Restrepo, Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director of
Western Hemisphere Affairs, National Security Council
Dear President Barack Obama,
We are writing to urge you to stand with democracy and human rights in
Honduras. With only days left before the scheduled November 29
elections the U.S. government must make a choice: it can either side
with democracy, along with every government in Latin America, or it can
side with the coup regime, and remain isolated. Moreover, the U.S.
cannot afford to maintain its deafening silence regarding the
innumerable and grave human rights abuses committed by the coup
government in Honduras - a silence that has become a conspicuous
international embarrassment. The U.S. must forcefully denounce these
abuses, and match its words with action as well. It must make the coup
regime understand that the United States government will no longer
tolerate the violence and repression that the Micheletti government has
practiced against the Honduran people since seizing power on June 28,
2009.
Honduras now stands at the edge of a dangerous precipice. The coup
regime remains determined - in the absence of significant pressure from
the U.S. government - to move forward with the elections, in the hopes
that the international community will eventually recognize the results.
In so doing, they hope to legitimize their illegal and unconstitutional
government.
Free and fair elections on November 29 are already impossible, as more
than two-thirds of the campaign period allowed under Honduran law has
already passed, under conditions in which freedom of assembly, freedom
of speech, and freedom of the press have all been under attack
throughout the country. This repression has been widely documented and
denounced by Honduran and international human rights organizations,
including the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Human Rights
Watch, and Amnesty International.
The Rio Group of 23 nations, which includes nearly all of Latin America
and much of the Caribbean, had forcefully declared that it will not
recognize the November 29th elections if President Zelaya is not first
re-instated. Thus the United States is at odds with the rest of the
Hemisphere in its stated willingness to recognize these illegitimate
elections.
Free and fair elections can only be carried out in a climate in which
debating, organizing, and all other aspects of election campaigns can
be conducted in an atmosphere that is free from fear; in which all
views and parties are free to make their voices heard - not just those
that are allowed under an illegal military occupation. We therefore
call on the U.S. government to support an electoral process in Honduras
that allows for a full three months - as mandated under Honduran law -
for electoral campaigning, to take place after the restoration of
President Manuel Zelaya. Only in this way can the electoral process
achieve legitimacy in both the eyes of the Honduran people and the
international community.
In the months that have transpired since the April Summit of the
Americas, we are saddened to see that your promise of treating Latin
American nations as equals is evaporating. You declared at that time,
"I just want to make absolutely clear that I am absolutely opposed and
condemn any efforts at violent overthrows of democratically elected
governments, wherever it happens in the hemisphere." In remarks that
were recorded, cited, and broadcast all over the world, you asserted:
"The test for all of us is not simply words, but also deeds." Since
then, your government has failed to match these words with deeds
regarding the coup d'etat in Honduras. As a result, the United States
is once again isolating itself in the Americas.
The U.S. must also match its rhetorical commitment to democracy with
concrete deeds, and support the immediate restoration of Manuel Zelaya
to the presidency of Honduras and full guarantees of a free and fair
election.
Sincerely,
Thomas A. Abercrombie New York University
Leisy Abrego, University of California, Irvine
Alexis Aguilar, Salisbury University
Jordi Aladro, University of California, Santa Cruz
Ece Algan, California State University, San Bernardino
Paul Almeida, Texas A&M University
Mark Anderson, University of California, Santa Cruz
Tim Anderson, University of Sydney (Australia)
Tom Angotti, Hunter College/City University of New York
Craig Auchter, Butler University
William Aviles, University of Nebraska at Kearney
Cesar J. Ayala, University of California, Los Angeles
Nikhil Aziz, Executive Director, Grassroots International
Beth Baker-Cristales, California State University, Los Angeles
Teo Ballve, North American Congress on Latin America
Rosemary A. Barbera, Monmouth University
Francisco J. Barbosa, University of Colorado, Boulder
John Beverley, University of Pittsburgh
Michelle Bigenho, Hampshire College
Maylei Blackwell, University of California, Los Angeles
Andy Bliss, University of California, Berkeley
Aaron Bobrow-Strain, Whitman College
Blase Bonpane, Office of the Americas
Jules Boykoff, Pacific University
Rachel Brahinsky, University of California, Berkeley
Rosalind Bresnahan, Latin American Perspectives
Laura Briggs, University of Arizona
Sandy Brown, University of California, Berkeley
Joe Bryan, University of Colorado, Boulder
Alicia del Campo, California State University Long Beach
Frankie Cardamone, Prescott College
Barry Carr, University of California, Berkeley
Jennifer Casolo, University of California, Berkeley
Julie A. Charlip, Whitman College
Ronald Chilcote, University of California, Riverside
Aviva Chomsky, Salem State College
George Ciccariello-Maher, University of California, Berkeley
Christopher Clement, Pomona College
Nathan Clough, The University of Minnesota
Fernando Coronil, City University of New York, Graduate Center
Dominic Corva, Sarah Lawrence College
Raymond B. Craib, Cornell University
Altha Cravey, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Julie Cupples, University of Canterbury
Antonia Darder, University of Illinois, Urbana Champaign
Juanita Darling, San Francisco State University
Pablo Delano, Trinity College
Guillermo Delgado-P., University of California, Santa Cruz
Jennifer Devine, University of California, Berkeley
Monica Dias Martins, State University of Ceara, Brasil
Paul Dosh, Macalester College
Alex Dupuy, Wesleyan University
Jordana Dym, Skidmore College
Marc Edelman, Hunter College and the Graduate Center, City University
of New York
Steve Ellner, University of Oriente (Venezuela)
Ben Ehrenreich, Journalist and Author
Laura Enriquez, University of California, Berkeley
Arturo Escobar, University of North Carolina
Alicia Estrada, California State University, Northridge
Nicole Fabricant, University of South Florida
Mario Fenyo, Bowie State University
Sujatha Fernandes, Queens College and the Graduate Center, City
University of New York
Raul Fernandez, University of California, Irvine
Ada Ferrer, New York University
John Finn, Arizona State University
Allan Fisher, City College of San Francisco
Bill Fletcher, Jr., BlackCommentator.com
Cindy Forster, Scripps College
Jonathan Fox, University of California, Santa Cruz
Dana Frank, University of California, Santa Cruz
John D. French, Duke University
Gavin Fridell, Trent University, Ontario, Canada
Victoria Furio, Conference Interpreter & Translator
Alberto J. Garcia, California State University, Northridge California
Kim Geron, California State University East Bay
Asher Ghertner, University of California, Berkeley
Shannon Gleeson, University of California, Santa Cruz
Michel Gobat, University of Iowa
Marcial Godoy-Anativia, New York University
Walter L. Goldfrank, University of California, Santa Cruz
Armando Gonzalez Caban, Latin American Perspectives
Gilbert Gonzalez, University of California, Irvine
Evelyn Gonzalez-Mills, Montgomery College
Jeffrey L. Gould, Indiana University
Daniel Graham, University of California, Berkeley
Laura R. Graham, University of Iowa
Greg Grandin, New York University
Richard Grossman, Northeastern Illinois University
Peter Hallward, Middlesex University (U.K.)
Nora Hamilton, University of Southern California
Zoe Hammer, Prescott College
John L. Hammond, City University of New York
Tom Hayden, Author
Mark Healey, University of California, Berkeley
Daniel Hellinger, Webster University
Adam Henne, University of Wyoming
Luis A. Hernandez, School District of Philadelphia
Eric Hershberg, Simon Fraser University
Doug Hertzler, Eastern Mennonite University, Washington Community
Scholars' Center
Derrick Hindery, University of Oregon
Raul Hinojosa, University of California, Los Angeles
Katherine Hite, Vassar College
Jen Hofer, poet, translator, interpreter
Aaron Hogue, Salisbury University
Katherine Hoyt, Nicaragua Network
Forrest Hylton, Universidad de los Andes (Bogota)
Dale L. Johnson, PhD
David Johnson, Xavier University
Susanne Jonas, University of California, Santa Cruz
James Jordan, Campaign for Labor Rights
Gilbert Joseph, Yale University
Nadine Jubb, York University
Karen Kampwirth, Knox College
David Kane, Maryknoll Office of Global Concerns
Chuck Kaufman, Alliance for Global Justice
Robin D. G. Kelly, University of Southern California
Norma Klahn, University of California, Santa Cruz
Sara Koopman, University of British Columbia
Glen David Kuecker, DePauw University
David Kunzle, University of California, Los Angeles
Victoria Langland, University of California, Davis
John Lear, University of Puget Sound
George Leddy, Los Angeles Valley College
Winnie Lem, Trent University
Sidney Lemelle, Pomona College
Deborah Levenson, Boston College
David Lloyd, University of Southern California
Rick Lopez, Amherst College
Tehama Lopez, Duke University
Agnes Lugo-Ortiz, University of Chicago
Sharon Luk, University of Southern California
Sheryl Lutjens, California State University, San Marcos
Milton Ricardo Machuca, Pitzer College
Kathleen A. Mahoney-Norris, Air Command and Staff College
Maya Manzi, Clark University
Greta Marchesi, University of California, Berkeley
Peter E. Marchetti, Researcher, AVANCSO, Guatemala
Lourdes Martinez-Echazabel, University of California, Santa Cruz
Kathleen McAfee, San Francisco State University
Kendra McSweeney, The Ohio State University
Breny Mendoza, California State University, Northridge
Frederick B. Mills, Bowie State University
Laura-Anne Minkoff-Zern, University of California, Berkeley
Ellen Moodie, University of Illinois
Stephanie Moore, Salisbury University
Dorinda Moreno, Hitec Aztec Communications/FM Global
Lena Mortensen, University of Toronto Scarborough
Robert Naiman, Just Foreign Policy
Guillermo Narvaez, University of California-Irvine
Joseph Nevins, Vassar College
Enrique Ochoa, California State University, Los Angeles
Gilda L. Ochoa, Pomona College
Elizabeth Oglesby, University of Arizona
Almerindo E. Ojeda, University of California at Davis
Andrew Orta, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Paul Ortiz, University of Florida
Mark Overmyer-Velazquez, University of Connecticut
Tanalis Padilla, Dartmouth College
Yajaira M. Padilla, The University of Kansas
Pramod Parajuli, Prescott College
Sirena Pellarolo, California State University, Northridge
Anthony Pereira, Tulane University
Hector Perla, University of California, Santa Cruz
Brandt Peterson, Michigan State University
Adrienne Pine, American University
Martin Plot, California Institute of the Arts
Aaron Pollack, Instituto de Investigaciones Dr. Jose Maria Luis Mora
Deborah Poole, Johns Hopkins University
Suyapa Portillo, Pomona College
Margaret Power, Illinois Institute of Technology
Vijay Prashad, Trinity College
Mary Louise Pratt, New York University
Marina Prieto-Carrron, University of Portsmouth
Sean Purdy, Universidade de Sao Paulo
Kathryn S. Quick, University of California, Irvine
Marie Phillips Rayanne, Prescott College
Marcus Rediker, University of Pittsburgh
Daniel Reichman, University of Rochester
Gerardo Renique, City College of the City University of New York
Kenneth Roberts, Cornell University
William I. Robinson, University of California, Santa Barbara
Dylan Rodriguez, University of California, Riverside
Victor M. Rodriguez, California State University, Long Beach
Cristina Rojas, Carleton University
Sarah T. Romano, University of California, Santa Cruz
Renato Rosaldo, New York University
Karin Alejandra Rosemblatt, University of Maryland
Jan Rus, Latin American Perspectives
Ricardo Daniel Sanchez Cardenas, Northwestern University
Rosaura Sanchez, University of California, San Diego
Mario Santana, The University of Chicago
Felicity Schaeffer-Grabiel, University of California, Santa Cruz
Ellen Sharp, University of California, Los Angeles
Freya Schiwy, University of California, Riverside
Aaron Schneider, Tulane University
Tammi J. Schneider, Claremont Graduate University
T.M. Scruggs, Professor Emeritus, University of Iowa
Adam Shapiro, Prescott College
Ellen Sharp, University of California, Los Angeles
Kirsten Silva Gruesz, University of California, Santa Cruz
Victor Silverman, Pomona College
Richard Simpson, Stanford University
Julie Skurski, City University of New York, Graduate Center
Darryl A. Smith, Pomona College
John Soluri, Carnegie Mellon University
Dale Sorenson, Director, Interfaith Task Force of the Americas
Rose Spalding, DePaul University
Susan Spronk, University of Ottawa
Richard Stahler-Sholk, Eastern Michigan University
Lynn Stephen, University of Oregon
William S. Stewart, California State University, Chico
Steve Striffler, University of New Orleans
Estelle Tarica, University of California, Berkeley
Diana Taylor, New York University
Miguel Tinker Salas, Pomona College
Sinclair Thomson, New York University
Steven Topik, University of California, Irvine
Mayo C. Toruno, California State University, San Bernardino
David J. Vazquez, University of Oregon
Jocelyn S. Viterna, Harvard University
Steven S. Volk, Oberlin College
Hendrik Voss, School of the Americas Watch
Christine J. Wade, Washington College
Diana B. Waters, Goddard College
Penny Waterstone, University of Arizona
Jamie Way, Venezuela Solidarity Campaign
Jeffery R. Webber, University of Regina, Canada
Barbara Weinstein, New York University
Mark Weisbrot, Center for Economic and Policy Research
Kimberly Welch, University of Redland
Allen Wells, Bowdoin College
Marion Werner, University of Minnesota
Eliza Willis, Grinnell College
Tamar Diana Wilson, Independent Scholar
Sonja Wolf, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico (UNAM)
Justin Wolfe, Tulane University
John Womack, Harvard University
Megan Ybarra, University of California, Berkeley
Susy Zepeda, University of California, Santa Cruz
Chris Zepeda-Millan, Cornell University
Marc Zimmerman, University of Houston
* Institutions listed only for identification
Trump ally Jair Bolsonaro was taken into custody over concerns he might attempt to flee the country after he tampered with his ankle monitor.
Former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, a right-wing ally of US President Donald Trump, was arrested in Brazil early Saturday morning following concerns he might flee the country.
Bolsonaro was under house arrest awaiting the result of his appeal after he was tried and sentenced to 27 years in prison for plotting a coup and the assassination of current Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and other officials.
“Brazil just succeeded where America failed. Bringing a former president who assaulted democracy to justice,” filmmaker Petra Costa wrote on social media, as The Guardian reported.
Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes ordered the arrest after discovering Bolsonaro's ankle monitor had been tampered with at 12:08 am local time Saturday. Bolsonaro's lawyers said that this was not the case, but Bolsonaro later admitted to taking a soldering iron to the device "out of curiosity" in a video released by the Supreme Court.
"This isn't curiosity, it's a crime," said State Deputy to the Legislative Assembly of Rio de Janeiro Renata da Silva Souza, on social media. "Bolsonaro is not a victim: He is convicted, ineligible, and is IMPRISONED. Turning this absurdity into a justification is a mockery of Brazilian democracy."
The ex-president's arrest also came the same day that his son Flávio Bolsonaro had planned a protest outside the Brasilia condo where Bolsonaro has been living.
De Moraes said Bolsonaro's tampering with his monitor fed his suspicions that he would attempt to flee the country in “the confusion that would be caused by a demonstration organized by his son," according to The Associated Press.
“He is located about 13 kilometers (8 miles) away from where the United States of America embassy lies, in a distance that can be covered in a 15-minute drive," de Moraes added.
Trump, who has sanctioned de Moraes and supports Bolsonaro, reacted to news of the arrest by saying it was "too bad."
Bolsonaro was arrested around 6:00 am local time and is now detained in an approximately 130-square-foot room in the federal police headquarters in Brasilia, according to Reuters. The entire five-judge panel that originally sentenced Bolsonaro will review his detention on Monday.
Institutional Relations Minister Gleisi Hoffmann was the highest-ranking member of the current government to comment on the detention, according to Reuters.
Hoffmann wrote on social media:
The pretrial detention of Jair Bolsonaro strictly follows the rites of due process of law, overseen by the Federal Supreme Court and the Attorney General's Office in each stage of the criminal action against the attempted coup d'état in Brazil. The decision by Minister Alexandre de Moraes is grounded in the real risks of flight by the leader of the coup organization, as well as the imminent finality of his conviction for the serving of his sentence. It also rightly takes into account the background of a process marked by violent attempts to coerce the Judiciary, such as the tarifaço and the Magnitsky sanctions. In a democracy, justice must be upheld.
Ordinary Brazilians also celebrated the news of Bolsonaro's arrest, with some uncorking champagne bottles outside police headquarters.
"The message to Brazil, and to the world, is that crime doesn’t pay," Reimont Otoni, a Workers’ Party congressman, said.
"COP30 provides a stark reminder that the answers to the climate crisis do not lie inside the climate talks—they lie with the people and movements leading the way toward a just, equitable, fossil-free future," one campaigner said.
The United Nations Climate Change Conference, or COP30, concluded on Saturday in Belém, Brazil with a deal that does not even include the words "fossil fuels"—the burning of which scientists agree is the primary cause of the climate crisis.
Environmental and human rights advocates expressed disappointment in the final Global Mutirão decision, which they say failed to deliver road maps to transition away from oil, gas, and coal and to halt deforestation—another important driver of the rise in global temperatures since the preindustrial era.
“This is an empty deal," said Nikki Reisch, the Center for International Environmental Law's (CIEL) director of climate and energy program. "COP30 provides a stark reminder that the answers to the climate crisis do not lie inside the climate talks—they lie with the people and movements leading the way toward a just, equitable, fossil-free future. The science is settled and the law is clear: We must keep fossil fuels in the ground and make polluters pay."
COP30 was notable in that it was the first international climate conference to which the US did not send a formal delegation, following President Donald Trump's decision to withdraw the US from the Paris Agreement. Yet, even without a Trump administration presence, observers were disappointed in the power of fossil fuel-producing countries to derail ambition. The final document also failed to heed the warning of a fire that broke out in the final days of the talks, which many saw as a symbol for the rapid heating of the Earth.
“Rich polluting countries that caused this crisis have blocked the breakthrough that we needed at COP30."
“The venue bursting into flames couldn’t be a more apt metaphor for COP30’s catastrophic failure to take concrete action to implement a funded and fair fossil fuel phaseout,” said Jean Su, energy justice director at the Center for Biological Diversity, in a statement. “Even without the Trump administration there to bully and cajole, petrostates once again shut down meaningful progress at this COP. These negotiations keep hitting a wall because wealthy nations profiting off polluting fossil fuels fail to offer the needed financial support to developing countries and any meaningful commitment to move first.”
The talks on a final deal nearly broke down between Friday and Saturday as a coalition of more than 80 countries who favored more ambitious language faced off against fossil fuel-producing nations like Saudi Arabia, Russia, and India.
During the dispute, Colombia's delegate said the deal "falls far short of reflecting the magnitude of the challenges that parties—especially the most vulnerable—are confronting on the ground," according to BBC News.
Finally, a deal was struck around 1:35 pm local time, The Guardian reported. The deal circumvented the fossil fuel debate by affirming the "United Arab Emirates Consensus," referring to when nations agreed to transition away from fossil fuels at COP28 in the UAE. In addition, COP President André Corrêa do Lago said that stronger language on the fossil fuel transition could be negotiated at an interim COP in six months.
On deforestation, the deal similarly restated the COP26 pledge to halt tree felling by 2030 without making any new plans or commitments.
Climate justice advocates were also disappointed in the finance commitments from Global North to Global South countries. While wealthier countries pledged to triple adaptation funds to $120 billion per year, many saw the amount as insufficient, and the funds were promised by 2035, not 2030 as poorer countries had wanted.
"We must reflect on what was possible, and what is now missing: the road maps to end forest destruction, and fossil fuels, and an ongoing lack of finance," Greenpeace Brazil executive director Carolina Pasquali told The Guardian. "More than 80 countries supported a transition away from fossil fuels, but they were blocked from agreeing on this change by countries that refused to support this necessary and urgent step. More than 90 countries supported improved protection of forests. That too did not make it into the final agreement. Unfortunately, the text failed to deliver the scale of change needed.”
Climate campaigners did see hope in the final agreement's strong language on human rights and its commitment to a just transition through the Belém Action Mechanism, which aims to coordinate global cooperation toward protecting workers and shifting to clean energy.
“It’s a big win to have the Belém Action Mechanism established with the strongest-ever COP language around Indigenous and worker rights and biodiversity protection,” Su said. “The BAM agreement is in stark contrast to this COP’s total flameout on implementing a funded and fair fossil fuel phaseout.”
Oxfam Brasil executive director Viviana Santiago struck a similar note, saying: “COP30 offered a spark of hope but far more heartbreak, as the ambition of global leaders continues to fall short of what is needed for a livable planet. People from the Global South arrived in Belém with hope, seeking real progress on adaptation and finance, but rich nations refused to provide crucial adaptation finance. This failure leaves the communities at the frontlines of the climate crisis exposed to the worst impacts and with few options for their survival."
"The climate movement will be leaving Belém angry at the lack of progress, but with a clear plan to channel that anger into action."
Romain Ioualalen, global policy lead at Oil Change International, said: “Rich polluting countries that caused this crisis have blocked the breakthrough that we needed at COP30. The EU, UK, Australia, and other wealthy nations are to blame for COP’s failure to adopt a road map on fossil fuels by refusing to commit to phase out first or put real public money on the table for the crisis they have caused. Still, amid this flawed outcome, there are glimmers of real progress. The Belém Action Mechanism is a major win made possible by movements and Global South countries that puts people’s needs and rights at the center of climate action."
Indigenous leaders applauded language that recognized their land rights and traditional knowledge as climate solutions and recognized people of African descent for the first time. However, they still argued the COP process could do more to enable the full participation of Indigenous communities.
"Despite being referred to as an Indigenous COP and despite the historic achievement in the Just Transition Programme, it became clear that Indigenous Peoples continue to be excluded from the negotiations, and in many cases, we were not given the floor in negotiation rooms. Nor have most of our proposals been incorporated," said Emil Gualinga of the Kichwa Peoples of Sarayaku, Ecuador. "The militarization of the COP shows that Indigenous Peoples are viewed as threats, and the same happens in our territories: Militarization occurs when Indigenous Peoples defend their rights in the face of oil, mining, and other extractive projects."
Many campaigners saw hope in the alliances that emerged beyond the purview of the official UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) process, from a group of 24 countries who have agreed to collaborate on a plan to transition off fossil fuels in line with the Paris goals of limiting temperature increases to 1.5°C to the Indigenous and civil society activists who marched against fossil fuels in Belém.
“The barricade that rich countries built against progress and justice in the COP30 process stands in stark contrast to the momentum building outside the climate talks," Ioualalen said. "Countries and people from around the world loudly are demanding a fair and funded phaseout, and that is not going to stop. We didn’t win the full justice outcome we need in Belém, but we have new arenas to keep fighting."
In April 2026, Colombia and the Netherlands will cohost the First International Conference on Fossil Fuel Phaseout. At the same time, 18 countries have signed on in support of a treaty to phase out fossil fuels.
"However big polluters may try to insulate themselves from responsibility or edit out the science, it does not place them above the law," Reisch said. "That’s why governments committed to tackling the crisis at its source are uniting to move forward outside the UNFCCC—under the leadership of Colombia and Pacific Island states—to phase out fossil fuels rapidly, equitably, and in line with 1.5°C. The international conference on fossil fuel phaseout in Colombia next April is the first stop on the path to a livable future. A Fossil Fuel Treaty is the road map the world needs and leaders failed to deliver in Belém.”
These efforts must contend with the influence not only of fossil fuel-producing nations, but also the fossil fuel industry itself, which sent a record 1,602 lobbyists to COP30.
“COP30 witnessed a record number of lobbyists from the fossil fuel industry and carbon capture sector," said CIEL fossil economy director Lili Fuhr. "With 531 Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) lobbyists—surpassing the delegations of 62 nations—and over 1,600 fossil fuel lobbyists making up 1 in every 25 attendees, these industries deeply infiltrated the talks, pushing dangerous distractions like CCS and geoengineering. Yet, this unprecedented corporate capture has met fiercer resistance than ever with people and progressive governments—with science and law on their side—demanding a climate process that protects people and planet over profit."
Indeed, Jamie Henn of Make Polluters Pay told Common Dreams that the polluting nations and industries overplayed their hand, arguing that Big Oil and "petro states, including the United States, did their best to kill progress at COP30, stripping the final agreement of any mention of fossil fuels. But their opposition may have backfired: More countries than ever are now committed to pursuing a phaseout road map and this April's conference in Colombia on a potential 'Fossil Fuel Treaty' has been thrust into the spotlight, with support from Brazil, the European Union, and others."
Henn continued: "The COP negotiations are a consensus process, which means it's nearly impossible to get strong language on fossil fuels past blockers like Saudi Arabia, Russia, and the US, who skipped these talks, but clearly opposed any meaningful action. But you can't block reality: The transition from fossils to clean energy is accelerating every day."
"From Indigenous protests to the thunderous rain on the roof of the conference every afternoon, this COP in the heart of the Amazon was forced to confront realities that these negotiations so often try to ignore," he concluded. "I think the climate movement will be leaving Belém angry at the lack of progress, but with a clear plan to channel that anger into action. Climate has always been a fight against fossil fuels, and that battle is now fully underway."
Alito's order came in response to a ruling from a federal court in Texas on Tuesday, which blocked the new congressional maps on the basis that they were "racially gerrymandered."
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito on Friday temporarily restored a controversial Trump-backed Texas redistricting plan that could grant Republicans an extra five seats in the House of Representatives.
Alito's order came in response to a ruling from a federal court in Texas on Tuesday, which blocked the redrawn congressional maps on the basis that they were "racially gerrymandered."
"It is ordered that the November 18, 2025 order of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, case No. 3:21-cv-259 is hereby administratively stayed pending further order of the undersigned or of the Court," Alito wrote around one hour after Texas appealed the district court's ruling.
Alito was the justice to issue the stay because he handles emergency requests from the Fifth Circuit, which includes Texas.
"Well, the Supreme Court fucked us yet again."
Friday's ruling is not the final say on the fate of Texas' new maps, but allows the state to continue preparations for the 2026 midterm elections under the redistricting while the full Supreme Court considers the case. Texas has asked for a ruling by December 1, one week before the December 8 filling deadline for congressional races. The state is set to hold primary elections in March.
Alito has asked the civil rights organizations fighting to block the maps for more materials by Monday, November 24—a sign, according to Politico, that he planned to put the case "on a fast-track."
Texas was the first state to heed President Donald Trump's request to redraw its maps in order to give Republicans an advantage in the 2026 midterm elections and attempt to prevent the Democrats from retaking the House. In response, Missouri and North Carolina also redrew their maps to give the GOP one extra seat each. However, California voters then retaliated by approving a proposition to redistrict in a way that would see an additional five Democrats elected. All of these plans now face legal challenges.
As the fight for control of the House continues through maps and courts, Texas Democratic activists haven't given up on voters.
"Well, the Supreme Court fucked us yet again," said Allison Campolo, who chairs the Democratic Party of Tarrant County, Texas, on social media Friday, "but—We in Texas know the cavalry doesn't come for us. We save ourselves."
"100 people came out to our party headquarters tonight and we were absolutely PACKED with candidates running for every seat and bench from the top to the bottom of the ticket," Campolo continued. "Texas Democrats are here to save our county, our state, and our country. We'll be seeing you at the polls."