

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.
Lea
Radick,
Communications Officer, USCBL, Phone: +1 (301) 891-3002,
E-mail: lradick@handicap‑
Zach
Hudson,
Coordinator, USCBL, Phone: +1 (917) 860-1883,
E-mail: zhudson@handicap‑
In a statement Tuesday, the head of the U.S. delegation to the
Second Review Conference of the Mine Ban Treaty informed participants that the Obama
administration has begun a comprehensive landmine policy review. In the
statement, the U.S. representative said, "The Administration's decision to
attend this Review Conference is the result of an on-going comprehensive review
of U.S. landmine policy initiated at the direction of President Obama."
In a statement Tuesday, the head of the U.S. delegation to the
Second Review Conference of the Mine Ban Treaty informed participants that the Obama
administration has begun a comprehensive landmine policy review. In the
statement, the U.S. representative said, "The Administration's decision to
attend this Review Conference is the result of an on-going comprehensive review
of U.S. landmine policy initiated at the direction of President Obama."
The
statement represents a reversal of the position first outlined by Department of
State spokesperson Ian Kelly in response to a reporter's question during a
briefing last Tuesday, November 24. Kelly's original announcement was followed
by a fierce outcry from civil society, non-governmental organizations and the
international community. The United States Campaign to Ban Landmines (USCBL);
its parent organization, the International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL);
and Senator Patrick Leahy and Congressman Jim McGovern all delivered harsh
criticism of the policy position. These censures, along with others, have
continued throughout the Second Review Conference, which opened in Cartagena
this week.
In
reaction to the administration's initial statement that it would not join the
Mine Ban Treaty, Senator Leahy said on the Senate floor Tuesday morning [1
December], "By announcing our intention to join the treaty in Cartagena, this
Administration would have signaled to the rest of the world that the United
States is finally showing the leadership that has been wanting on these
indiscriminate weapons that maim and kill thousands of innocent people every
year...The Administration's approach to this issue up until this past weekend has
been cursory, half-hearted, and deeply disappointing to those of us who
expected a serious, thorough reexamination of this issue. One would hope that
an Administration that portrays itself as a global leader on issues of
humanitarian law and arms control recognizes this is an opportunity."
With
the U.S. announcement in Cartagena of a new corrected position, the USCBL is
guardedly hopeful that progress toward accession to the treaty can once again
resume.
"We're
glad they're here, and that they have formally announced a landmine policy
review. That's a good first step," said Zach Hudson, coordinator of the USCBL.
"Now we need to hear how this review will be conducted. We want to hear about a
structured timeline with a reasonable end date. We want assurances that the
process will also include voices of NATO allies, legislators and the NGO
community that has been working in the trenches on this issue for the past few
decades."
The
USCBL believes that the old arguments used by the U.S. to defer joining the
treaty in 1997 are no longer relevant. Some U.S. officials have cited the
conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq as reasons for not joining. However, both of
these countries are States Parties to the treaty, and as parties have not only
banned antipersonnel landmines, but are also prohibited from assisting the
United States in any way with use of landmines. The U.S. is also already in de
facto compliance with most of the treaty's provisions. Despite not being a
signatory, the U.S. has not used antipersonnel mines since 1991, has not
exported them since 1992 and has not produced them since 1997.
"We
want to believe the administration will conduct this review with an openness to
joining the treaty," said Steve Goose, the director of the Arms Division at
Human Rights Watch and ICBL spokesperson. "After last week's announcement, we
want to be sure this policy reversal is not just going through the motions to
correct a process that rightly angered many civil society organizations and
U.S. legislators. This is a fresh start, and we are looking forward to closely
collaborating in the review process."
The
United States is currently one of only 39 countries that have not yet joined
the treaty. In the Western Hemisphere, only the U.S and Cuba are non-signatories.
Every other member of NATO except Poland (which has already signed and will
ratify in 2012) are also States Parties to the treaty. While being one of the
first governments to call for the eventual elimination of landmines in the
mid-1990s, the U.S. did not sign the treaty when it opened for signature in
1997. Instead, President Clinton set 2006 as the goal for the United States to
join. President Bush reversed this decision in 2004.
The
U.S. announcement was made during the historic "Cartagena Summit on a Mine Free
World," the Second Mine Ban Treaty Review Conference, taking place November
29-December 4. More than 1,000 people and 120 governments are participating in
this five-year review conference, including dozens of foreign ministers and defense
ministers. The U.S. is attending the conference as an observer.
The United States Campaign to Ban Landmines is a coalition of non-governmental organizations working to ensure that the U.S. comprehensively prohibits antipersonnel mines--by banning their use in Korea--and joins the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty, as more than 160 nations have done. It is the national affiliate of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL), founded in New York in 1992 and recipient of the 1997 Nobel Peace Prize Laureate together with former ICBL coordinator Ms. Jody Williams of Vermont. We also call for sustained U.S. government financial support for mine clearance and victim assistance.
Trump claimed on social media that a diplomatic agreement would be signed on Sunday, but Iran's Foreign Ministry pushed back on that timeline.
President Donald Trump claimed Saturday that the US and Iran are on track to sign a diplomatic agreement this weekend, but added that "we have the ultimate alternative" if the process doesn't "work out."
"The 'ultimate alternative' sounds a lot like a nuclear threat," Sina Toossi, a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy, wrote in response to the president's Truth Social post. "Not the first time Trump has hinted at it."
The agreement Trump referenced is believed to be "memorandum of understanding" that's expected be fleshed out in "technical talks" that could begin next week, according to Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, who is mediating the negotiations.
"We are closer to a peace deal than ever before," Sharif wrote on social media, echoing Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, who said on Friday that "the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding has never been closer."
"Pending its finalization, the media should refrain from entering speculation about its content," Araghchi added. "In line with our responsible and transparent approach, all details will be shared with the public in due course."
On Saturday, a spokesperson for the Iranian Foreign Ministry cast doubt on the timeline put forth by Trump and Sharif.
"We will have to wait and see about the exact date of the signing of the memorandum of understanding, although it will not be tomorrow,” said Esmaeil Baqaei, as reported by Iranian state media. “The possibility of this happening in the coming days cannot be ruled out. However, due to the hesitation of the other side, we must be cautious in making any comments about this process.”
In his Truth Social post on Saturday, Trump declared that the Strait of Hormuz will be "OPEN TO ALL" immediately after the deal is signed—a condition that Iran has not confirmed.
"We look forward to working with Iran, and the entire Middle East, long into the future," Trump added. "Hopefully, this process will all work out quickly, easily, and smoothly. If it doesn’t, we have the ultimate alternative, hopefully never to be used again!"
Trump has repeatedly issued genocidal threats against Iran since launching the illegal war in late February, openly declaring his intention to target Iran's civilian infrastructure and wipe out its "whole civilization." Experts say such threats, even if they aren't acted on, constitute war crimes under international law.
"The test will be a simple one: Are you sufficiently loyal to the president? If the answer is no, it will result in the denial of lifesaving disaster relief, funding for research into cures, the closure of Head Start offices, and more."
A Trump White House plan to give political appointees more power over federal grant money has sparked alarm among scientists, public health organizations, environmental groups, and others who fear that the proposal amounts to an attempt to subordinate critical funds to the whims of the president and his far-right allies.
More than 300 organizations signed a joint letter on Friday calling on White House budget director Russell Vought, the proposed rule's architect, to extend the public comment period that's set to end on July 13, warning that the "scope and impact of [the Office of Management and Budget's] rule is vast."
"The rule will impact the entirety of government grant-making across the United States," the groups warned. "OMB itself says the revisions suggested would relate to over $179 billion of funds to small entities."
Politico, which exclusively obtained the letter, noted that the "proposed rule has already garnered over 15,000 public comments, with many expressing alarm that the changes could undermine research across fields."
Under Vought's rule, federal agencies would be required to perform "pre-issuance reviews" of federal grants—funds appropriated by Congress—to ensure their distribution is consistent with "applicable law, federal agency priorities, and the national interest."
The rule lays out a number of standards that political appointees at federal agencies must screen for when deciding whether an organization can receive federal grant dollars. For instance, the rule would prohibit the distribution of federal grants to organizations that "promote anti-American values" or support "ideologies that deny the biological reality of sex or the sex binary in humans."
The New York Times reported that the consequences of Vought's rule "could fall hardest on health and science, a field in which [President Donald Trump] has pursued some of the steepest cuts in his second term."
"In exchange for federal assistance, researchers would face limits on the subjects that they can explore, the foreign labs with which they may collaborate and even the conferences at which they can appear," the Times noted. "Dr. Georges C. Benjamin, the chief executive of the American Public Health Association, a professional organization and advocacy group, said the policy could 'devastate innovation, science, and research' in the United States."
"This is an executive power grab that would hand presidential political appointees unchecked control over more than a trillion dollars that Congress appropriated in the interests of all Americans."
Earlier this month, Lawyers for Good Government and the Environmental Protection Network said that "if finalized, the rule would put senior political appointees in charge of approving and canceling individual grants, while stripping recipients of due process rights" while attaching "ideological conditions to nearly every federal dollar, raising First Amendment and equal-protection concerns."
The two organizations published a fact sheet warning that the proposed rule has the potential to halt billions of dollars in funding that communities across the US depend on for "health, public education, scientific research, public safety, and economic development projects."
“This is an executive power grab that would hand presidential political appointees unchecked control over more than a trillion dollars that Congress appropriated in the interests of all Americans,” said Jillian Blanchard, senior vice president for climate change and environmental justice at Lawyers for Good Government. “Conditioning funding for critical programs on ideology and viewpoint discrimination, while erasing basic due-process protections, violates freedoms of speech, equal protection, and eviscerates Congress’ power of the purse.”
Democratic lawmakers have also sounded the alarm about Vought's proposal. Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, said Thursday that she has given her Republican colleagues two opportunities to denounce Vought's rule—and they declined both times.
"Vought continues to attempt to steal from communities across the country. Now, he is trying to set a new political test on grants for a wide swath of the federal government," said DeLauro. "The test will be a simple one: Are you sufficiently loyal to the president? If the answer is no, it will result in the denial of lifesaving disaster relief, funding for research into cures, the closure of Head Start offices, and more. If you are not loyal enough, if you speak out against this administration, the president and his cronies will take away resources Congress provided."
"The future of Colombia must be decided by the Colombian people—not American politicians with their own agenda."
A group of Democratic members of the US Congress on Friday condemned President Donald Trump and Republican lawmakers' attempts to influence the results of Colombia's upcoming presidential runoff, calling it an "insult" to the Colombian people's sovereignty.
"We see actions by US President Donald Trump and other members of Congress to endorse, advocate for, or otherwise tip the scales to a particular candidate as detrimental to the democratic rights of the Colombian people," said the lawmakers, led by Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.). "The future of Colombia must be decided by the Colombian people—not American politicians with their own agenda."
The statement came days after Trump publicly injected himself into Colombia's presidential contest by endorsing far-right candidate Abelardo De La Espriella, a 47-year-old defense lawyer who has pledged to "disembowel the left."
“The results of this Election are very important to the future of Colombia and its relationship to the United States,” Trump wrote in a Truth Social post earlier this month. “Because of his tremendous accomplishments in life, and his political support for me, personally, it is my Honor to give Abelardo my Complete and Total Endorsement.”
The US president said that if De la Espriella wins, he "will have the total support and strength of the United States behind him."
The Center for Economic and Policy Research noted that "the implicit threat in Trump’s endorsement of De la Espriella is that Colombians will be punished—through reduced aid, tariffs, sanctions, etc.—if they vote for a political leader not backed by the United States."
Two Republican lawmakers, Rep. María Salazar of Florida and Sen. Bernie Moreno of Ohio, have also endorsed De la Espriella. The New York Times reported that "before Mr. Trump posted his full-throated endorsement of Mr. De La Espriella, Mr. Moreno held a call with reporters in which he said US officials had 'vetted' Mr. De La Espriella and found him to be 'impeccable.'"
De la Espriella will face leftist Sen. Iván Cepeda, an ally of incumbent President Gustavo Petro, in the June 21 presidential runoff.
Petro has criticized his US counterpart for meddling in Colombia's presidential race, urging Trump in a recent social media post to "not intervene in the campaign and allow the people of Colombia to decide freely."
"Whoever wins will maintain the friendship of more than two centuries between Colombia and the US," Petro added.
Earlier this week, Petro planned to meet with New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani during the Colombian leader's trip to the US, but "the Trump administration effectively nixed it in a behind-the-scenes effort," The Washington Post reported.
"The Colombian government quietly called off the event following a meeting between US and Colombian officials in Bogotá in which State Department officials made clear that this week’s engagement was unacceptable, a move Colombian officials interpreted as a threat to arrest Petro on site if he proceeded," the newspaper revealed. "A State Department official told The Washington Post that the visit would violate visa restrictions the US imposed against Petro following his comments last year criticizing US support of Israel’s war in Gaza and imploring US soldiers to disobey presidential orders to kill."