JUST 6 HOURS TO GO IN OUR WINTER CAMPAIGN
Please help keep the independent journalism of Common Dreams strong. Give today.
#
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and key international actors should take steps to bring accountability for Sri Lanka's grave human rights violations so that the thousands of victims will not continue to be denied justice during President Mahinda Rajapaksa's second term, Human Rights Watch said today.
The human rights situation in Sri Lanka deteriorated markedly during Rajapaksa's first term, and he failed to hold perpetrators accountable. During the final months of the 26-year-long war with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), which ended with the defeat of the LTTE in May 2009, both government and LTTE forces committed numerous serious violations of international humanitarian law, in which more than 7,000 civilians died in what the UN called a "bloodbath."
"The human rights situation in Sri Lanka plummeted to new depths on Rajapaksa's watch," said Brad Adams, Asia director at Human Rights Watch. "The president deftly played a false conflict between rights and the fight against terrorism in his first term. But with the war over, the UN and other international actors should loudly insist on justice for victims."
Rajapaksa was elected to a second term on January 26, 2010, in a hotly contested election in which his former army chief, retired Gen. Sarath Fonseka, was the runner-up. Although election day was relatively peaceful, according to election monitors, the campaign was marked by hundreds of incidents of violence in which at least four people were killed.
During and after the war, Rajapaksa's government confined nearly 300,000 internally displaced persons to large detention camps, where they were deprived of their liberty and freedom of movement in violation of international law. The government has separated more than 11,000 LTTE suspects from their families at checkpoints and in the camps, denying them due process, such as right to legal counsel and the right to have a court review their detention.
Threats and attacks against outspoken and critical civil society figures increased, and the government used anti-terror laws and emergency regulations against peaceful critics, further diminishing the space for public debate. The hostile, sometimes deadly, media environment drove dozens of journalists into exile.
Enforced disappearances and abductions, a longstanding and widespread problem in Sri Lanka, sharply increased in 2006, when military operations between the government and the LTTE intensified following the collapse of the 2002 ceasefire. In 2006 and 2007, the UN Working Group on Enforced and Involuntary Disappearances recorded more new "disappearance" cases from Sri Lanka than from any other country in the world.
Politically motivated killings during Rajapaksa's first term also remain unresolved, including the extrajudicial executions of five students in Trincomalee in January 2006 and of 17 aid workers with Action Contre la Faim in Mutur in August 2006.
Rajapaksa took no effective steps to bring accountability for human rights violations, Human Rights Watch said. In July 2009, Rajapaksa disbanded, before it could complete its work, a presidential commission of inquiry created in 2006 to investigate 16 cases of grave human rights violations. In April 2008, the International Independent Group of Eminent Persons (IIGEP) had withdrawn from monitoring the commission because it had "not been able to conclude ... that the proceedings of the Commission have been transparent or have satisfied basic international norms and standards."
The vast majority of the hundreds of new "disappearances" and politically motivated killings from the past few years have never been seriously investigated, and none of the perpetrators have been punished.
In May 2009 Rajapaksa promised Ban that the Sri Lankan government would investigate allegations of human rights and laws-of-war violations during the war's final months. No such investigation has taken place. Instead, the government has set up a team of lawyers to respond to allegations about rights violations in reports by the US State Department and the UN special envoy on extrajudicial executions.
Because of the government's failure to investigate serious human rights abuses, Human Rights Watch has long called for an independent international investigation into abuses by all parties to the conflict. Thus far, the secretary-general's office has stated that Ban was "considering" establishing a committee of experts to "assist the government" of Sri Lanka to look at evidence that its soldiers committed war crimes last year. "The various investigatory bodies set up by President Rajapaksa have spent more energy trying to deflect serious inquiries into abuses than actually conducting them," Adams said. "Ban and key governments should not fall for the same trick again and instead should call for an independent international investigation. The ball is now in Ban's court."
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.
"This massive open-pit mine has been fast-tracked from start to finish in defiance of environmental laws, all in the name of 'green energy,' but its environmental impacts will be permanent and severe," said one opponent of the project.
Indigenous and environmental activists on Wednesday decried the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' denial of an emergency injunction sought by conservation groups to block a proposed northern Nevada lithium mine that opponents argue was approved illegally and will harm the land and wildlife in the delicate desert ecosystem.
The San Francisco-based 9th Circuit denied a bid by the Western Watersheds Project (WWP) that would have stopped Lithium Nevada, a subsidiary of Canada-based Lithium Americas, from breaking ground on the Thacker Pass Lithium Mine in Humboldt County near the Oregon border.
Last month, WWP filed an emergency motion for injunction in the the U.S. District Court of Nevada after a federal judge ordered the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to review part of its approval of the mine but allowed construction to proceed in the meantime. That request was denied last Friday.
"It's a truly unfortunate outcome for the land, wildlife, and cultural resources of this area," WWP staff attorney Talasi Brooks said in a statement. "This massive open-pit mine has been fast-tracked from start to finish in defiance of environmental laws, all in the name of 'green energy,' but its environmental impacts will be permanent and severe."
\u201cUPDATE on Thacker Pass: The 9th Circuit has denied a motion to halt construction of the lithium mine, pending appeal. The 9th Circuit will hear the appeal on an expedited schedule.\n\nHere's the 9th Circuit court order: https://t.co/EhMMyRp7zH\u201d— Daniel Rothberg (@Daniel Rothberg) 1677701224
Opponents argue the Thacker Pass project—which would tap into the largest known source of lithium in the United States and was approved during the final days of the Trump administration—was unlawfully authorized and will irreparably damage lands and wildlife.
Three Native American tribes—the Reno-Sparks Indian Colony, Burns Paiute Tribe, and Summit Lake Paiute Tribe—are also suing in a bid to block construction of the mine, claiming that claimed BLM withheld key information from the Nevada State Historic Preservation Office and misrepresented how much the agency consulted with tribes prior to approving the project.
Thacker Pass—or Pass PeeHee Mu'Huh, which means "rotten moon" to all three tribes—is the site of a September 12, 1865 massacre of dozens and perhaps scores of Northern Paiute men, women, and children by U.S. Cavalry troops. The three tribes want all of Thacker Pass listed on the National Register of Historic Places.
"It is a disappointment to see valuable biological, cultural, and visual resources sacrificed for a stripmine that has been greenwashed to be good for the environment."
"It is a disappointment to see valuable biological, cultural, and visual resources sacrificed for a stripmine that has been greenwashed to be good for the environment," said Kevin Emmerich, co-founder of the advocacy group Basin and Range Watch.
"In reality, the mine will impact Great Basin wildlife and hydrology for centuries or more," Emmerich added. "We will not see any kind of recovery of this region in our lifetime."
Katie Fite of WildLands Defense said after Wednesday's ruling that "Thacker Pass lithium mining will deal a major blow to a critical sage-grouse population."
"BLM's rushed mine approval exposed that it continues to treat the West's irreplaceable sagebrush wild lands and cultural landscapes as sacrifice zones to industry," Fite added. "It's absurd for officials to greenwash this dirty lithium mine. We'll continue working to expose the ecological travesty taking place."
\u201cLithium Americas & this awful mine can\u2019t \u201cmitigate\u201d its way out of totally destroying the irreplaceable LAST block of lower elevation sagebrush winter wildlife habitat in the Montana Mountains! Nor out of decimating leks and nesting habitats. Grouse need intact habitats.\u201d— WildLands Defense (@WildLands Defense) 1677632033
While global demand for lithium is surging, extraction of the metal can have harmful consequences, including the destruction of lands and ecosystems and water contamination.
Thacker Pass is believed to hold enough lithium to supply the needs of more than 1.5 million electric vehicles every year for 40 years, according to Lithium Americas.
"There are no other U.S. alternatives to Thacker Pass to provide lithium at the scale, grade, or timeline necessary to begin closing the gap between the lithium available and the lithium needed to achieve the U.S.' clean energy and transportation goals," lawyers for the company argued.
\u201cReposted from the Reno-Sparks Indian Colony: \n\nPRESS RELEASE: \u201cA Violation of Native American Rights\u201d: Archeological Procedures Begin at Thacker Pass\n\nArcheological procedures began at the site of the planned Thacker Pass lithium mine this week...\n\nMORE: https://t.co/WrRZE7OlMy\u201d— Protect Thacker Pass (@Protect Thacker Pass) 1650326037
However, numerous lithium mining experts have asserted that the technology is not green—and comes with high environmental and social costs.
Lithium extraction, noted a 2021 Nature editorial, globally "requires large quantities of energy and water. Moreover, the work takes place in mines where workers—including children as young as seven—often face unsafe conditions."
"It's wrong that some lawmakers would play politics with Americans' financial futures by preventing retirement fund managers from considering all risks—including financial risks related to climate—when making investment decisions," said one activist.
U.S. President Joe Biden is expected to issue his first veto after two Democrats—Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Jon Tester of Montana—partnered with the GOP on Wednesday to pass legislation that would block his administration's rule allowing retirement plan managers to consider climate and other factors in investment decisions.
The 50-46 Senate vote came a day after a 216-204 House vote in which Rep. Jared Golden (D-Maine) joined with Republicans to advance the resolution about the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) rule on environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors—which is notably opposed by fossil fuel companies.
"The DOL rule simply restores the longtime status quo of allowing retirement plans to consider important financial factors like how a company is run, whether its practices match its values, and the risks it faces from global disruptions like climate change," said Rachel Curley, democracy advocate with the group Public Citizen, in a statement Wednesday.
"Repealing a rule protecting retirement savings for millions of workers is irresponsible and puts personal political ambitions above long-term financial responsibility," Curley continued. "Leaving investors in the dark is a disservice to our entire economy. Anyone claiming to care about workers voting to overturn such a reasonable rule is clearly playing politics with workers' retirement savings in a way that flies in the face of common sense."
\u201cPretty much the entire political ecosystem implementing this operation is fossil fuel funded, or dancing to fossil fuel\u2019s tune.\u201d— Sheldon Whitehouse (@Sheldon Whitehouse) 1677688880
Public Citizen is among dozens of groups—including Americans for Financial Reform, Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), League of Conservation Voters, and Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility—that have warned against blocking the rule this week.
"It's wrong that some lawmakers would play politics with Americans' financial futures by preventing retirement fund managers from considering all risks—including financial risks related to climate—when making investment decisions," declared EDF senior vice president for political affairs Elizabeth Gore. "The standards they're trying to undermine help fund managers make the best possible decisions when investing our money."
In a policy statement on Monday, the Biden administration stressed that the DOL rule "is not a mandate—it does not require any fiduciary to make investment decisions based solely on ESG factors. The rule simply makes sure that retirement plan fiduciaries must engage in a risk and return analysis of their investment decisions and recognizes that these factors can be relevant to that analysis."
"The president will continue to deliver for America's workers," the statement pledged, concluding that if the resolution reached his desk, "he would veto it."
As Politicoreported Wednesday:
Biden's threat in a way gives moderate Democrats a free pass to distance themselves from the president because they don't face the risk of the rollback actually being implemented.
Asked whether Democratic leadership had pressured him to vote "no," Tester told reporters that they gave a presentation to the broader caucus Tuesday. But "it wasn't like, pestering."
[...]
Manchin took to the Senate floor to blast the Biden DOL rule as "just another example of how our administration prioritizes a liberal policy agenda over protecting and growing the retirement accounts of 150 million Americans."
During a floor speech Wednesday, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) took aim at the GOP, saying in part that "for a long time, my Republican friends prided themselves—prided themselves!—for being the party of free markets. The party of small government. The party opposed to injecting political ideology into the decisions of private investors and managers and companies."
"But apparently, all that was talk. Because today, our Republican friends are making an effort to limit free market choice and inject hard-right ideology into private sector decision-making," he continued. "Now, the hard-right has made a lot of noise trying to make ESG their dirty little acronym. They say this is about wokeness, that this is a cult, that it's some grave intrusion into finance. It's the same predictable, uncreative, unproductive attacks they use for anything they don't like."
Even if Biden vetoes the resolution, his DOL rule still faces another hurdle, as CNN analyst and University of Texas School of Law professor Steve Vladeck pointed out on Twitter.
"The Biden ESG rule is also currently the subject of a legal challenge filed by Texas and a group of other red states in federal district court in Amarillo, where—stop me if you've heard this before—it had a 100% chance of being assigned to Judge [Matthew] Kacsmaryk," Vladeck said, referring to a right-wing judge who is expected to soon rule on a crucial abortion medication case.
"Corporations are designed to serve their investors, not the public, and that's exactly what these carbon offsetting schemes will do," said one researcher.
Climate and agricultural policies aimed at bolstering carbon markets will fail to curb planet-heating emissions while enabling powerful agribusiness corporations to greenwash their polluting operations and augment their control over the food system.
That's according to Agricultural Carbon Markets, Payments, and Data: Big Ag's Latest Power Grab, a report published Wednesday by Friends of the Earth, an environmental advocacy group, and the Open Markets Institute, an anti-monopoly think tank.
While farmers could play a key role in mitigating the climate crisis by adopting agroecological practices capable of sequestering more carbon in the soil, the report warns that U.S. lawmakers from both major parties have embraced a "market-based" approach—centered around the buying and selling of so-called "carbon offset" credits generated through minor tweaks to industrial monoculture production—that is likely to tighten Big Ag's chemical-intensive stranglehold on the food system and disenfranchise small-scale farmers, all while failing to reduce greenhouse gas pollution.
"Carbon markets have become a top strategy for agriculture and climate, despite a history of fraud, failure to reduce emissions, and corporate greenwashing," report co-author Jason Davidson, senior food and agriculture campaigner at Friends of the Earth, said in a statement. "Such corporate schemes will strengthen the power of the largest agribusinesses, hand over private farm data, and fail to address the climate crisis."
"Instead of another handout to Big Ag, the Biden administration and Congress must support farmers in pursuing proven climate solutions."
As the report explains: "The idea begins with granting credits to farmers who adopt certain practices, such as planting more trees and cover crops, that are supposed to remove carbon from the atmosphere. Farmers then receive compensation for their efforts by selling these credits to other entities, typically large corporations. These corporations, in turn, use their purchases of such credits to justify claims of environmental responsibility."
Though these corporations "may still be emitting carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, they claim to have 'offset' these emissions by paying others to pollute less or actively sequester carbon, often to the point of asserting that they now have a 'net-zero' climate impact," states the report.
A recent investigation revealed that 94% of the rainforest carbon offsets sold by a leading market player provided no measurable climate benefits, casting further doubt on the very notions of 'net-zero' and 'carbon neutrality' that corporations promote in a bid to maintain or expand their own polluting activities while portraying themselves as green.
Despite mounting evidence of the ineffective or counterproductive nature of 'net-zero' commitments, one-fifth of the world's biggest corporations have made them, meaning that demand for carbon offsets is growing, the report notes. Meanwhile, the federal government is providing key support to such programs, including indirectly through the Inflation Reduction Act and directly through a pair of bills embedded in the Fiscal Year 2023 Omnibus Appropriations Bill.
The first, the Growing Climate Solutions Act, instructs the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to "list private carbon market facilitators on its website and broadly list protocols for measuring carbon sequestration," the report explains. The SUSTAINS Act, meanwhile, threatens to lend government legitimacy to "fledgling soil carbon offset schemes," which "could influence their value in voluntary exchanges" and "fan the flames of a speculative industry that stands to divert resources from effective pollution reduction and regulation." Moreover, through its so-called Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities pilot program, the USDA is poised to offer more than half a billion dollars in grants to several agribusiness giants.
According to the report:
Big agribusiness corporations are using the system to deepen their own monopolistic power. Programs run by corporations such as Cargill, Bayer, Nutrien, and Corteva pay farmers for adopting specific farming practices that either depend on the companies' proprietary technologies or require farmers to use their digital agriculture platforms.
[...]
Under these private carbon offset programs, agribusiness giants define climate-smart agriculture and promote large-scale, monoculture, chemical-dependent farming methods that can harm the environment in the long run and further entrench their market power. By controlling the same private, unregulated carbon-offset markets in which they trade on their own account and set their own prices, they are also subject to massive conflicts of interest.
"We can't trust the very corporations that got us into this climate crisis to get us out of it on their terms and timeline," said report co-author Claire Kelloway, food program director for the Open Markets Institute. "Corporations are designed to serve their investors, not the public, and that's exactly what these carbon offsetting schemes will do by locking farmers into their networks, protecting product sales, and stalling meaningful regulation."
A joint statement from Friends of the Earth and the Open Markets Institute explained three major pitfalls of private soil carbon credit programs:
"There's no doubt that farmers should be supported in shifting to ecologically regenerative methods," the report says. "But the evidence shows that using carbon offsets to do so is a counterproductive and inequitable approach that will let big polluters off the hook and fail the needs of family farmers."
Davidson said that "instead of another handout to Big Ag, the Biden administration and Congress must support farmers in pursuing proven climate solutions."
As Congress debates the next Farm Bill, the report's executive summary calls on lawmakers and the USDA to take the following steps:
Notably, a separate report published Wednesday by the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy showed that 3 out of every 4 farmers who applied for EQIP and CSP funds in 2022 were denied.
"We do not have time or resources to waste on ineffective approaches to addressing the climate crisis, especially those that greenwash corporate pollution and risk increasing greenhouse gas emissions," wrote Davidson and Kelloway. "Congress and the USDA must channel the billions of dollars that are being invested in climate-smart agriculture toward proven and transformative solutions."