

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.

An international initiative that seeks to promote more openness
about how countries profit from their oil, gas, and mining resources
should not weaken its modest membership standards because governments
are unable or unwilling to meet them, Human Rights Watch said today.
Twenty of the 22 current candidates to join the Extractive
Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) have not fulfilled the basic
requirements to have their candidacy assessed by today's deadline,
raising serious doubts about their commitment to disclose their
revenues from oil, gas, and mining, Human Rights Watch said.
"It's easy for governments to sign up for the initiative and claim
they are open about the money they earn from lucrative natural
resources," said Arvind Ganesan, director of the business and human
rights program at Human Rights Watch. "But the proof is in whether they
actually do what they promised, and so far the results have been
dismal."
EITI is a voluntary initiative that aims to increase the
transparency of natural resource revenues by developing standardized
reporting requirements for companies and governments. It was created as
a way to foster public scrutiny and greater accountability over the
revenues received by governments. Today EITI is a multi-million dollar
effort that has been embraced by governments, industry, civil society,
and multilateral institutions such as the World Bank and International
Monetary Fund. Countries that join may do so in order to attract
investment, while companies may seek positive publicity. For civil
society groups, the main benefit of enhanced disclosure and monitoring
of government revenues is that it can help combat the large-scale
corruption and mismanagement that fuel human rights abuses and
undermine development in many resource-rich countries.
Under the initiative's rules, candidates for membership have two
years to complete an external review of their compliance with the
initiative's basic standards, a process known as "validation." Today's
deadline applies to 22 countries that were accepted as candidates in
2008. Ten candidate countries that joined more recently, including
Afghanistan and Iraq, face later validation deadlines.
To qualify to be considered "EITI compliant," countries must meet
several requirements. For example, they must publish at least one
national report disclosing company payments and government revenues
from the extractives sector and have in place a functioning national
multi-stakeholder group that includes civil society participation. The
EITI board must also certify that the candidate countries have complied
with requirements following an evaluation of a validation report
prepared by an accredited third-party. The validation process is
designed to provide quality assurance for the initiative's global
standards.
Only two of the 22 countries that faced today's deadline completed
EITI's validation process within the mandated two-year time frame.
Following a review by EITI's board, both countries - Azerbaijan and
Liberia - were found to be "compliant." One country, Guinea,
voluntarily suspended its candidacy.
Nineteen other candidate countries are at various stages of
implementation, with some relatively advanced and others lagging far
behind. For example, Sierra Leone, Sao Tome e Principe, and some others
have not even initiated the validation process. Equatorial Guinea,
despite having signed up to join the initiative in 2008, only hired a
firm to carry out its validation review on the eve of the deadline to
complete the validation process.
In cases where validation is pending, the EITI board, which is
composed of governments, companies, and civil society representatives,
has the authority to grant additional time if the country demonstrates
that its delays were due to "exceptional and unforeseen circumstances."
Extension requests by candidate countries will be reviewed at the next
board meeting, scheduled to take place in Berlin in mid-April 2010.
"The integrity of EITI is on the line," Ganesan said. "The EITI
Board should only grant extensions for legitimate reasons. Lack of
political commitment and willful neglect shouldn't be used as excuses
to get more time."
Human Rights Watch also called on the board to disclose publicly the
basis for any extensions, to insist that extensions be offered only
once, and to provide that countries failing to meet the revised
deadline be automatically dropped from the initiative, or "de-listed,"
without the need for further board action.
Even if the board approves requests for more time for some
candidates to complete the national validation process, this provides
no guarantee that they will ultimately be approved as "compliant." In
cases where the validation review reveals that a candidate country
falls short of EITI's minimum standards, the board may permit it to
renew its candidacy if it is making meaningful progress to comply. A
country that has not demonstrated sufficient progress is de-listed,
although it may be allowed to reapply later.
Genuine civil society participation is one key criterion for
membership. In February, EITI's board rebuffed Ethiopia's desire to
become a candidate, citing a repressive law that in effect bars
independent civil society groups from doing any work that touches on
issues of human rights or governance.
A number of other current candidates also impose serious constraints
on civil society, particularly independent organizations focused on
human rights and on reducing corruption. For example, Equatorial
Guinea's government has not permitted a single independent human rights
group to obtain legal registration and it harshly suppresses any
domestic criticism.
"EITI should insist on full participation of independent civil
society as a non-negotiable membership condition," Ganesan said. "We
are encouraged that the board rejected Ethiopia and strongly urge that
decision to stand as a precedent for all governments involved in EITI."
Human Rights Watch supports the transparency initiative, but also
recognizes its limitations as a voluntary effort that currently only
enhances the transparency of government income. It does not address how
governments spend the money and thus cannot track corruption or assess
whether the funds from extractive industries are used to benefit the
public.
In February, a US Senate report
documented high-level corruption involving Angola, Equatorial Guinea,
Gabon, and Nigeria. Three of the four countries - Angola is the
exception - are current EITI candidates.
"EITI is at a crucial juncture," Ganesan said. "It should not lower
its standards for governments that are really not interested in public
scrutiny. EITI isn't credible if it does not lead to improvements in
governance."
Together with other members of the Publish What You Pay coalition,
Human Rights Watch also supports efforts to enact regulations requiring
greater transparency by companies about their payments to governments.
The Energy Security Through Transparency Act in the United States, for
example, would mandate disclosure by all publicly listed companies,
including non-US firms listed with the US Securities and Exchange
Commission.
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.
"Does anyone truly believe that caving in to Trump now will stop his unprecedented attacks on our democracy and working people?" asked Sen. Bernie Sanders.
US Sen. Bernie Sanders on Sunday implored his Democratic colleagues in Congress not to cave to President Donald Trump and Republicans in the ongoing government shutdown fight, warning that doing so would hasten the country's descent into authoritarianism.
In an op-ed for The Guardian, Sanders (I-Vt.) called Trump a "schoolyard bully" and argued that "anyone who thinks surrendering to him now will lead to better outcomes and cooperation in the future does not understand how a power-hungry demagogue operates."
"This is a man who threatens to arrest and jail his political opponents, deploys the US military into Democratic cities, and allows masked Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to pick people up off the streets and throw them into vans without due process," Sanders wrote. "He has sued virtually every major media outlet because he does not tolerate criticism, has extorted funds from law firms and is withholding federal funding from states that voted against him."
If Democrats capitulate, Sanders warned, Trump "will utilize his victory to accelerate his movement toward authoritarianism."
"At a time when he already has no regard for our democratic system of checks and balances," the senator wrote, "he will be emboldened to continue decimating programs that protect elderly people, children, the sick and the poor while giving more tax breaks and other benefits to his fellow oligarchs."
Sanders' op-ed came as the shutdown continued with no end in sight, with Democrats standing by their demand for an extension of Affordable Care Act (ACA) tax credits as a necessary condition for any government funding deal. Republicans have so far refused to negotiate on the ACA subsidies even as health insurance premiums skyrocket nationwide.
The Trump administration, meanwhile, is illegally withholding Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) funding from tens of millions of Americans—including millions of children—despite court rulings ordering him to release the money.
In a "60 Minutes" interview that aired Sunday, Trump again urged Republicans to nuke the 60-vote filibuster in the Senate to remove the need for Democratic support to reopen the government and advance other elements of their agenda unilaterally. Under the status quo, Republicans need the support of at least seven Democratic senators to advance a government funding package.
"The Republicans have to get tougher," Trump said. "If we end the filibuster, we can do exactly what we want. We're not going to lose power."
Congressional Democrats have faced some pressure from allies, most notably the head of the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), to cut a deal with Republicans to end the shutdown and alleviate the suffering it has inflicted on federal workers and many others.
But Democrats appear unmoved by the AFGE president's demand, and other labor leaders have since voiced support for the minority party's effort to secure an extension of ACA subsidies.
"We're urging our Democratic friends to hold the line," said Jaime Contreras, executive vice president of the 185,000-member Service Employees International Union Local 32BJ.
In his op-ed on Sunday, Sanders asked, "Does anyone truly believe that caving in to Trump now will stop his unprecedented attacks on our democracy and working people?"
"If the Democrats cave now, it would be a betrayal of the millions of Americans who have fought and died for democracy and our Constitution," the senator wrote. "It would be a sellout of a working class that is struggling to survive in very difficult economic times. Democrats in Congress are the last remaining opposition to Trump's quest for absolute power. To surrender now would be an historic tragedy for our country, something that history will not look kindly upon."
"Can't follow the law when a judge says fund the program, but have to follow the rules exactly when they say don't help poor people afford food," one lawyer said.
As the Trump administration continued its illegal freeze on food assistance, the US Department of Agriculture sent a warning to grocery stores not to provide discounts to the more than 42 million Americans affected.
Several grocery chains and food delivery apps have announced in recent days that they would provide substantial discounts to those whose Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits have been delayed. More than 1 in 8 Americans rely on the program, and 39% of them are children.
But on Sunday, Catherine Rampell, a reporter at the Washington Post published an email from the USDA that was sent to grocery stores around the country, telling them they were prohibited from offering special discounts to those at greater risk of food insecurity due to the cuts.
"You must offer eligible foods at the same prices and on the same terms and conditions to SNAP-EBT customers as other customers, except that sales tax cannot be charged on SNAP purchases," the email said. "You cannot treat SNAP-EBT customers differently from any other customer. Offering discounts or services only to SNAP-eligible customers is a SNAP violation unless you have a SNAP equal treatment waiver."
The email referred to SNAP's "Equal Treatment Rule," which prohibits stores from discriminating against SNAP recipients by charging them higher prices or treating them more favorably than other customers by offering them specialized sales or incentives.
Rampell said she was "aware of at least two stores that had offered struggling customers a discount, then withdrew it after receiving this email."
She added that it was "understandable why grocery stores might be scared off" because "a store caught violating the prohibition could be denied the ability to accept SNAP benefits in the future. In low-income areas where the SNAP shutdown will have the biggest impact, getting thrown off SNAP could mean a store is no longer financially viable."
While the rule prohibits special treatment in either direction, legal analyst Jeffrey Evan Gold argues that it was a "perverted interpretation of a rule that stops grocers from price gouging SNAP recipients... charging them more when they use food stamps."
The government also notably allows retailers to request waivers for programs that incentivize SNAP recipients to purchase healthy food.
Others pointed out that SNAP is currently not paying out to Americans because President Donald Trump is defying multiple federal court rulings issued Friday, requiring him to tap a $6 billion contingency fund to ensure benefit payments go out. Both courts, in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, have said his administration's refusal to pay out benefits is against the law.
One labor movement lawyer summed up the administration's position on social media: "Can't follow the law when a judge says fund the program, but have to follow the rules exactly when they say don't help poor people afford food."
"You need to understand that he actually believes it is illegal to criticize him," wrote Sen. Chris Murphy.
After failing to use the government's might to bully Jimmy Kimmel off the air earlier this fall, President Donald Trump is once again threatening to bring the force of law down on comedians for the egregious crime of making fun of him.
This time, his target was NBC late-night host Seth Meyers, whom the president said, in a Truth Social post Saturday, "may be the least talented person to 'perform' live in the history of television."
On Thursday, the comedian hosted a segment mocking Trump's bizarre distaste for the electromagnetic catapults aboard Navy ships, which the president said he may sign an executive order to replace with older (and less efficient) steam-powered ones.
Trump did not take kindly to Meyers' barbs: "On and on he went, a truly deranged lunatic. Why does NBC waste its time and money on a guy like this??? - NO TALENT, NO RATINGS, 100% ANTI TRUMP, WHICH IS PROBABLY ILLEGAL!!!"
It is, of course, not "illegal" for a late-night comedian, or any other news reporter or commentator, for that matter, to be "anti-Trump." But it's not the first time the president has made such a suggestion. Amid the backlash against Kimmel's firing in September, Trump asserted that networks that give him "bad publicity or press" should have their licenses taken away.
"I read someplace that the networks were 97% against me... I mean, they’re getting a license, I would think maybe their license should be taken away,” Trump said. "All they do is hit Trump. They’re licensed. They’re not allowed to do that.”
His FCC director, Brendan Carr, used a similar logic to justify his pressure campaign to get Kimmel booted by ABC, which he said could be punished for airing what he determined was "distorted” content.
Before Kimmel, Carr suggested in April that Comcast may be violating its broadcast licenses after MSNBC declined to air a White House press briefing in which the administration defended its wrongful deportation of Salvadoran immigrant Kilmar Abrego Garcia.
"You need to understand that he actually believes it is illegal to criticize him," wrote Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) on social media following Trump's tirade against Meyers. "Why? Because Trump believes he—not the people—decides the law. This is why we are in the middle of, not on the verge of, a totalitarian takeover."