

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.

Conditions in Equatorial Guinea cast serious doubt about the credibility of the forthcoming presidential election, Human Rights Watch said today.
President Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo, who has ruled the oil-rich West African country since seizing power in a coup in 1979, is widely expected to easily win the presidential vote scheduled for November 29, 2009.
"President Obiang claims that he's committed to the rule of law," said Arvind Ganesan, director of the Business and Human Rights Program at Human Rights Watch. "But his actions time and again are those of a dictator determined to hang onto power and control of the country's oil money."
The government of Equatorial Guinea is one of the most corrupt and abusive in the world. In recent weeks it has stifled and harassed the country's beleaguered political opposition, denied the opposition equal access to the media, and failed to set out clear terms to allow international observers and journalists to monitor the elections.
The government and ruling party officials are responsible for massive corruption, as documented in "Well Oiled: Oil and Human Rights in Equatorial Guinea," a July 2009 report by Human Rights Watch being released today with a full Spanish translation.
President Obiang has declared that Equatorial Guinea is "an authentic democracy," but in reality, the ruling Democratic Party (Partido Democratico de Guinea Ecuatorial, PDGE) maintains a monopoly over political life. Only two of the four other political parties with candidates running in the upcoming presidential election - the Convergence for Social Democracy (Convergencia para la Democracia Social, CPDS) and the People's Union (Union Popular, UP) - actively oppose the ruling party and Obiang.
The compromised nature of the elections was further underscored when, on November 22, Obiang told supporters that he would win re-election "with more than 97 percent of the vote." Previous elections followed a similar pattern: Obiang won the last presidential election, in 2002, with 97.1 percent of the vote; and his party won overwhelming victories in 2004 and 2008, taking 98 and 99 seats, respectively, out of 100 in the legislature.
Those elections were marred by serious irregularities. The 2008 campaign was considered freer than earlier ones. But there was a strong presence by military and security personnel on the streets of all major towns, limits on freedom of movement, harassment of opposition supporters and voters, restrictions on access by international journalists, and numerous irregularities at polling places.
"The elections this month come at a crucial moment for a country whose wealth is being squandered by the president, his family, and their associates," Ganesan said. "This was an important opportunity for sorely needed public accountability, but the government has ensured that the basic requirements for free and fair elections won't be met."
The country's rampant corruption drains funds that could be used for education and health care. Development indicators are among the lowest in sub-Saharan Africa even though Equatorial Guinea is the richest country in the region on a GDP-per-capita basis.
President Obiang's eldest son and possible successor, known by his nickname Teodorin, has financed a lavish lifestyle through the proceeds of corruption. His total spending on mansions, exotic cars, and other luxury goods in 2005-2007 was nearly double the government's 2005 budget for education. In 2007, the United States government undertook an investigation of his US purchases - including a $35 million mansion, a $36 million jet, and luxury cars worth at least $2.6 million - on suspicion that they were financed with funds derived "from extortion, theft of public funds or other corrupt conduct."
President Obiang announced on October 16 that the election would be on November 29, with campaigning to begin officially on November 5. The tight timetable and the government's refusal to make the voter rolls public have severely limited the opposition's ability to campaign and win support.
Voter registration was completed in October, but the electoral lists still had not been made public as of mid-November. The opposition voiced suspicion that this move was intended to keep opposition supporters off the rolls. The government claimed that it could not release the names because opposition supporters might use the information to harass other parties.
The opposition is hampered by skewed coverage in the government-controlled media that heavily favors the ruling party and by the virtual absence of a free press. Similarly, although the government has provided financing for all parties, the ruling party had far greater access to state funds and other resources than did the opposition.
Opposition parties also complained of harassment and intimidation as they carried out campaign activities in various parts of the country. Although Human Rights Watch was not in a position to confirm directly their allegations of attacks and other abuses during campaigning in October and November, the Obiang government and ruling party have a long history of cracking down on opposition activities in election years, often citing "security reasons" in the wake of real or perceived coup attempts.
Following an armed attack on the presidential palace in February 2009 that it later blamed on a Nigerian rebel group, the government rounded up, arbitrarily arrested without warrant, and held without charge 10 People's Union members, at least two of whom were tortured. Eight were later released, but two remain in Equatorial Guinea's notorious Black Beach prison.
No independent and impartial body exists in Equatorial Guinea to oversee the electoral process or consider election-related complaints, raising additional serious doubts about conditions for a genuinely free and fair vote. The National Election Commission is controlled by the ruling party and headed by Obiang's minister of the interior, a prominent member of his party.
Despite the government's earlier invitation to more than 100 international election observers to witness the election, it is unclear whether any independent foreign monitoring will take place. The terms and scope of the foreign observation missions have not been made public. In 2004, the role of observers was regulated by a presidential order that permitted them to travel "according to the program organized by the government." It also required them to report any "anomalies" to the government and forbade them from making any public observations about the elections.
It also remains unclear how many foreign journalists will be permitted access to Equatorial Guinea on or around election day. In the past, some foreign journalists have been unable to obtain visas. In July, President Obiang told Spanish journalists that his government had refused visas to major Spanish media outlets during the 2008 election because it was upset over critical reports in the Spanish press.
There are indications that visas might be restricted again this year. In mid-November, while speaking at an oil and gas conference in London, the vice minister of mines, industry and energy announced that the government was instituting a new visa regime "to defend Equatorial Guinea" from "people without good intentions."
Human Rights Watch is one of the world's leading independent organizations dedicated to defending and protecting human rights. By focusing international attention where human rights are violated, we give voice to the oppressed and hold oppressors accountable for their crimes. Our rigorous, objective investigations and strategic, targeted advocacy build intense pressure for action and raise the cost of human rights abuse. For 30 years, Human Rights Watch has worked tenaciously to lay the legal and moral groundwork for deep-rooted change and has fought to bring greater justice and security to people around the world.
"At a time when Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza... Congress should be cutting off military support—not integrating the US military and Israeli defense sector," said one critic.
A US congressional committee on Thursday rejected an amendment to strip a provision from next year's Pentagon funding bill aimed at deepening integration of the US and Israeli militaries under the guise of reducing aid.
Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) introduced an amendment to strike Section 224—which would establish a formal "United States–Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative"—from the 2027 National Defense Authorization Act. The proposed NDAA authorizes $1.15 trillion in baseline military spending, while the Trump administration’s full defense request seeks an unprecedented, debt-exploding $1.5 trillion in armed forces and related funding for the coming fiscal year.
Section 224 would require the US defense secretary to designate a Pentagon executive agent responsible for coordinating and expanding US-Israel defense technology cooperation.
In Thursday's voice vote, members of the House Armed Services Committee (HASC) from both parties rejected the amendment to remove Section 2024 from the NDAA, with only Khanna and Rep. Sara Jacobs (D-Calif.) backing the measure.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—who is wanted by the International Criminal Court for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza—has called Section 224 "my plan."
While proponents of Section 224 contend that the measure would reduce US taxpayer funding for Israel, Khanna argued that the provision amounts to a blank check for a country that most Americans oppose sending more aid to.
“The American people are tired of the arrogance and insolence of Prime Minister Netanyahu telling America what we should do," the congressman said Thursday while promoting his amendment. "The entire country of Israel has a GDP that is less than a single town in my district, yet somehow Netanyahu thinks he could tell the American people what we should do."
“I am for Team America," Khanna added. "I am for the interests of this country, and I believe that's what [President] Donald Trump ran on. That includes American interests against any foreign country. We should have American sovereignty and make it clear that we strike 224. If we want to give aid to Israel, if we want to sell them weapons, that should be a vote for the entire Congress.”
In a letter to Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R-Ind.)—who is not on the HASC—Netanyahu said he is "heartened" by Section 224's plan to “develop a new Memorandum of Understanding with the United States government” that will reduce “US financial military assistance over the next decade” and replace it with “a new framework of joint defense cooperation, codevelopment, coproduction, and mutual investment."
The US has provided more than $20 billion in armed aid to Israel during the Biden and Trump administrations since Netanyahu launched the genocidal war on Gaza in retaliation for the Hamas-led attack of October 7, 2023. The current 10-year Memorandum of Understanding between the US and Israel, signed in 2016 during former President Barack Obama's tenure, provided Israel with $38 billion in US military aid and expires in 2028.
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.)—who has partnered with Khanna on introducing or supporting war powers resolutions aimed at curbing Trump's ability to wage unconstitutional wars in countries including Yemen, Venezuela, and Iran—said last month that if Section 224 made it out of committee, he would work with Khanna to "offer an amendment to strip it from the bill on the floor."
The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) is urging Americans to contact their members of Congress to tell them to reject Section 224.
"This is not 'America First.' It is Israel First," ADC argues on its website. "The resolution language attached to this proposal gives it away: it expresses support for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s initiative to transition the US–Israel relationship toward mutual defense cooperation and joint economic investment. This language turns Congress into a vehicle for advancing Netanyahu’s agenda and asks the American people to treat it as their own national security policy."
"Section 224 would move US support for Israel away from the more transparent foreign aid framework and into a maze of Pentagon procurement, licensing, data-sharing, and backdoor deals that are harder for Congress, taxpayers, and future administrations to monitor, cap, condition, or unwind," the group continued. "Concerns of undefined 'network integration' and 'data fusion' should alarm every American who cares about sovereignty, privacy, civil liberties, and democratic oversight."
"At a time when Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza, exporting surveillance technologies used against activists and journalists around the world, marketing military technology tested on Palestinians, and carrying out terrorist attacks as seen in the cell phone [bombings] in Lebanon, Congress should be cutting off military support—not integrating the US military and Israeli defense sector and making accountability harder than ever," ADC added.
In an opinion piece published this week by Common Dreams, Ben Freeman, director of the Democratizing Foreign Policy Program at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, wrote that "lawmakers should reject Section 224 from the NDAA to avoid deep integration with Israel’s military at a time when a growing number of Americans oppose Israel’s actions in the region."
"This unprecedented level of US-Israeli military integration stands in stark contrast to the traditional aid model of defense cooperation, in which Israel already stood out as the top recipient of US military assistance," Freeman said.
"Every day that we do nothing, 11 more Lebanese children are killed or injured by the Israeli military in this US-supported invasion."
House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries helped Republicans tank Rep. Rashida Tlaib’s war powers resolution to limit US military involvement in Lebanon on Thursday, holding up the effort to curb the conflict for at least another several weeks.
Despite Israel’s invasion of Lebanon pushing deeper, with more than 3,500 people killed and 1.2 million displaced since early March, the Michigan Democrat's resolution was defeated in a 324-92 vote, with a large number in her own party joining Jeffries (D-NY) and the Republican majority against it.
In a joint statement shortly ahead of the vote on Tlaib's resolution, House Minority Leader Jeffries of New York, along with Whip Katherine Clark (D-Mass.), and Caucus Chair Pete Aguilar (D-Calif.), said: “We stand with the Lebanese people, the government of Lebanon, and the Lebanese Armed Forces in their efforts to live peacefully and defeat Hezbollah." The statement included no mention of Israel.
The lawmakers said they’d support a different resolution introduced by Tlaib on Wednesday, which was crafted in tandem with Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY), the ranking Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
That resolution likewise required President Donald Trump to remove US forces “from any hostilities in Lebanon” within seven days of passage. But it also added the caveat that it could not be construed to "prevent or limit security cooperation with the Lebanese Armed Forces."
Jeffries, Clark, and Aguilar said, "There are no US servicemembers involved in combat operations or hostilities in Lebanon."
However, supporters of Tlaib's original measure have noted that the US military is heavily involved in Israel's actions in the country without having boots on the ground.
"The US is actively cooperating with Israel on coordinating strikes, intelligence sharing, and planning, including Trump green-lighting major attacks on Lebanon multiple times," Janet Abou-Elias, a researcher at the Democratizing Foreign Policy Project at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, told Common Dreams.
While the resolution's passage wouldn't "end US involvement overnight," she said, "it fundamentally changes the landscape of accountability" by giving opponents of US collaboration a legal mechanism to conduct oversight.
And while the resolution would not cut off US military aid to Israel, Abou-Elias said Israel could continue its occupation "only for a limited period of time" without US assistance.
"Israel would be absorbing losses while also draining its broader manpower and firepower reserves," she said. "At some point, the cost-benefit of continuing their occupation without US support would shift."
Because war powers resolutions are privileged, they can be forced to a vote even without approval from the Republican majority.
However, committees are given 15 days to act before a resolution is forced onto the floor, followed by three days for a House vote. This means it could take until June 21 for the new version to pass. The Senate would also have to pass it, and it would then take another week to go into effect.
"The people of Lebanon can't wait another month for Congress to act," Tlaib said on social media following news that the proposal would be voted down. "Every day that we do nothing, 11 more Lebanese children are killed or injured by the Israeli military in this US-supported invasion. Congress must pass today's Lebanon war powers resolution."
Abou-Elias said that despite the setback, Tlaib's introduction of the measure was not a wasted effort.
"Even if the resolution doesn't pass today, the vote forces every representative on record on the US participation in the attacks on Lebanon," she said. "That alone has value."
Though resolution failed, proponents of the measure championed the 92 lawmakers who did vote in favor.
“Congress’s failure to act has thus far enabled multiple Israeli invasions of Lebanon and war crimes against Lebanese civilians,” said Beth Miller, political director of Jewish Voice for Peace Action, in a statement. “Tonight’s vote demonstrated that a growing block of members of Congress are beginning to listen to their constituents. Americans don’t want the US involved in atrocities against Lebanese, Palestinians, Iranians, or anyone. This vote is just the beginning, and we will continue to organize until all of Congress acts to end these atrocities.”
"The reality is that 4.5 million people were kicked off the program to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy," said US Rep. Shontel Brown.
Rep. Shontel Brown on Thursday confronted US Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins for her past boasts about kicking millions of Americans off food assistance.
During a House Agriculture Committee hearing, Brown grilled Rollins for saying it was "good news" that 4.5 million fewer people are now enrolled in the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP) than before President Donald Trump took office last year.
"The reality is that 4.5 million people were kicked off the program to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy," said Brown. "Families and children are not leaving the SNAP program because they are doing better."
Rep. @ShontelMBrown: Recently, you described it as good news that roughly 4.5 million people have been moved off SNAP. The reality is that 4.5 million people were kicked off to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy. They are not doing better--
Rollins: They are. pic.twitter.com/qcB2WlAHLv
— Headquarters (@HQNewsNow) June 4, 2026
"They are," Rollins replied, without citing any evidence.
"They are being forced off because of eligibility changes, new administrative barriers, and states preparing for the enormous cost shift that they know is coming," Brown shot back. "And you know this. So I'm really struggling to understand why you think pulling the rug out from under children, seniors, veterans, and families that have fallen on hard times [is] good news."
Rollins then baselessly claimed that all of the people who had been removed from SNAP had been added to the program fraudulently, including "200,000 dead people."
The Associated Press last month published a fact check that examined a similar Rollins claim about the number of people removed from food assistance over the last year, and determined that the most likely culprit were changes made to the program by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, a 2025 budget law that slashed funding to SNAP by $186 billion over a decade.
"What we’ve seen in terms of the data is that the trend in participation declines seems to be related to the program being harder to access,” Roger Figueroa, an assistant professor at Cornell University, explained to the AP.