September, 28 2010, 10:53am EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
AIUSA media office,Email:,media@aiusa.org,Phone: 202-544-0200 x302
European Countries Should Stop the Forcible Returns of Roma to Kosovo, Says Amnesty International
European Union (EU)
countries should end the forcible return of Roma and other minorities to
Kosovo, Amnesty International said in a new report, No
welcome anywhere: Stop the forcible return of Roma to Kosovo,
published today.
WASHINGTON
European Union (EU)
countries should end the forcible return of Roma and other minorities to
Kosovo, Amnesty International said in a new report, No
welcome anywhere: Stop the forcible return of Roma to Kosovo,
published today.
"EU countries risk violating international
law by sending back people to places where they are at risk of persecution,
or other serious harm," said Sian Jones, Amnesty International's
expert on Kosovo. "The EU should instead continue to provide international
protection for Roma and other minorities in Kosovo until they can return
there safely."
The report details how Roma
and members of other minority communities, including children, are forcibly
returned to Kosovo often with nothing but the clothes they are wearing,
to face the possibility of continuing discrimination and violence.
"The Kosovo authorities must also ensure that Roma and other minorities
can return voluntarily and reintegrate fully in society," said Jones.
Many are picked up by the police in the
early hours of the morning, and - with little time to gather their belongings
- are often sent back with only the clothes they are wearing.
Few receive any assistance on their return to Kosovo, meaning many also
face problems in obtaining access to education, healthcare, housing and
social benefits.
Very few Roma are able to find work, with unemployment levels reaching
97 percent. Roma communities are twice as likely as other ethnic groups
to be among the 15 percent of Kosovo's population who live in extreme
poverty.
Inter-ethnic violence continues while discrimination against Roma in Kosovo
is widespread and systematic compounded by their perceived association
with Kosovo Serbs. Largely Serbian-speaking and often living in Serbian
areas of Kosovo, the Roma are still perceived to be allied with the Serbian
community.
"Despite recent measures introduced by the Kosovo government aiming to
improve conditions for reception and reintegration of returnees, the authorities
do not have the funding, capacity, resources or political will to ensure
a sustainable return for them," said Jones.
It has been estimated that around 50 percent of forcible returnees will
leave Kosovo again. These forcible returns are taking place under
bilateral agreements negotiated, or under negotiation, between the Kosovo
authorities and EU member states and Switzerland.
It has been reported that more than 10,000 Roma will be returned to Kosovo
from Germany alone.
While genuinely voluntary returns must not be excluded, Amnesty International
is concerned by reports that people agreed to go back only under the threat
of forcible return.
"Until the Kosovo authorities are capable of ensuring the fundamental
human rights of Roma and other minority communities, including Serbs and
minority Albanians, they will return to face a climate of violence and
discrimination," Jones said. "Until then, the international community
is obliged to provide them with protection."
Amnesty International is a global movement of millions of people demanding human rights for all people - no matter who they are or where they are. We are the world's largest grassroots human rights organization.
(212) 807-8400LATEST NEWS
As Biden Plans to Reschedule Marijuana, Advocates Say 'Fully Legalize' It
Sen. Cory Booker urged fellow lawmakers to "follow the lead of states around the country and legalize cannabis for adult use and create a comprehensive taxation and regulatory scheme."
Apr 30, 2024
U.S. marijuana legalization advocates greeted Tuesday's news that the Drug Enforcement Administration is proposing rescheduling cannabis to a less restrictive class by calling on President Joe Biden to fully deschedule the plant, which is approved for recreational or medicinal use in the vast majority of states.
The Associated Pressreported the DEA is proposing rescheduling marijuana from Schedule I—which includes heroin, MDMA, and LSD—to Schedule III, a far less restrictive class that includes ketamine, anabolic steroids, testosterone, and over-the-counter products containing less than 90 milligrams of codeine per dose. According to the DEA, Schedule I drugs have "no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse."
While it would not legalize cannabis for recreational use, the DEA proposal—which is subject to review by the White House Office of Management and Budget—would affirm medicinal marijuana and recognize that the plant has a lower potential for abuse than other widely used recreational drugs.
The Drug Policy Alliance (DPA)—which works to end the failed 53-year War on Drugs—warned that "under this proposed shift, marijuana criminalization would continue at the federal level and most penalties, including those for simple possession, would continue as long as marijuana remains anywhere on the Controlled Substances Act (CSA)."
While running for president in 2020, Biden repeatedly vowed to decriminalize marijuana and expunge the criminal records of people convicted of cannabis possession. In 2022 the president issued a "full, complete, and unconditional pardon to all current United States citizens and lawful permanent residents" convicted of simple federal marijuana possession—a move that affected thousands of people but excluded those who are in the United States without authorization.
The following year, Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Xavier Becerra confirmed that his department would recommend rescheduling cannabis to Schedule III.
Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) on Tuesday urged Congress to "follow the lead of states around the country and legalize cannabis for adult use and create a comprehensive taxation and regulatory scheme."
"Thousands of people remain in prisons around the country for marijuana-related crimes. Thousands of people continue to bear the devastating collateral consequences that come with a criminal record," the senator continued. "Legal marijuana businesses, especially those in communities hardest hit by the War on Drugs, still have to navigate a convoluted patchwork of state laws and regulatory schemes."
"I hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, especially those who represent constituents benefiting from medical or adult-use programs, join me to pass federal legislation to fix these problems," Booker added.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said that "it is great news that DEA is finally recognizing that restrictive and draconian cannabis laws need to change to catch up to what science and the majority of Americans have said loud and clear."
"While this rescheduling announcement is a historic step forward, I remain strongly committed to continuing to work on legislation like the SAFER Banking Act as well as the Cannabis Administration and Opportunity Act, which federally deschedules cannabis by removing it from the Controlled Substances Act," he added.
Booker and Schumer were among the 21 senators who last week sent a letter to U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland and DEA Administrator Anne Milgram noting that it's been 18 months since Biden ordered HHS October to review cannabis scheduling and eight months since the agency's rescheduling recommendation.
"While we understand that the DEA may be navigating internal disagreement on this matter, it is critical that the agency swiftly correct marijuana's misguided placement in Schedule I," the letter states.
Legalization advocates, meanwhile, pushed the Biden administration to go much further, as 24 states plus the District of Columbia have approved adult-use recreational marijuana and 38 states have legalized medicinal cannabis.
"Supporting federal marijuana decriminalization means supporting the removal of marijuana from the Controlled Substances Act, not changing its scheduling," DPA director of drug markets and legal regulation Cat Packer said in a statement. "We all deserve a federal framework for marijuana that upholds the health, well-being, and safety of our communities—particularly Black communities who have borne the brunt of our country's racist enforcement of marijuana laws."
"Rescheduling marijuana is not a policy solution for federal marijuana criminalization or its harms, and it won't address the disproportionate impact that it has had on Black and Brown communities," Packer added.
Dasheeda Dawson, chair of the Cannabis Regulators of Color Coalition and founder of Cannabis NYC, said: "The time for descheduling cannabis is not just a matter of policy; it's an imperative for justice and equity. Rescheduling would undermine the hard-fought progress made by cannabis equity and policy reform leaders like the Cannabis Regulators of Color Coalition, jeopardizing the livelihoods and futures of those entrepreneurs and communities disproportionately affected by past criminalization."
"We cannot afford to backtrack on our commitment to repair the harm inflicted by outdated policies," Dawson added. "Descheduling is not just about legality; it's about rectifying historic injustices and ensuring a fair and inclusive future for all."
Keep ReadingShow Less
G7 2035 Coal Phaseout Pledge Called 'Too Little, Too Late' to Match Climate Emergency
"If they are serious and aligned with what the science says is needed to keep 1.5°C within reach, G7 countries must ditch this dinosaur, planet-wrecking fuel no later than 2030," one advocate said.
Apr 30, 2024
The Group of Seven Climate, Energy, and Environment Ministerial concluded a meeting in Turin, Italy, on Tuesday with a commitment to phase out "unabated" coal use by 2035.
While the agreement is "unprecedented" for the U.S. and Japan, which had not previously set an expiration date on their burning of the dirtiest fossil fuel, it still does not align with the Paris agreement goal of limiting global heating to 1.5°C.
"The commitment to phase out coal is simply too little, too late. If they are serious and aligned with what the science says is needed to keep 1.5°C within reach, G7 countries must ditch this dinosaur, planet-wrecking fuel no later than 2030," Greenpeace International global climate politics expert Tracy Carty said in a statement. "And the climate emergency demands they just don't stop at coal. Fossil fuels are destroying people and planet and a commitment to rapidly phase out all fossil fuels—coal, oil, and gas—is urgently needed."
"This is not the goal for coal we need, and it will not deliver climate justice."
In their Climate, Energy, and Environment Ministers' Meeting Communiqué, the countries agreed to "phase out existing unabated coal power generation in our energy systems during the first half of 2030s or in a timeline consistent with keeping a limit of 1.5°C temperature rise within reach, in line with countries' net-zero pathways."
The agreement comes days after the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency finalized a rule mandating that all coal plants that plan to operate after 2039 must slash their climate-heating emissions by 90% by that date. Like the "unabated" language in the G7 communiqué, the EPA plan leaves open the possibility that coal plants could continue to run if they can effectively eliminate their carbon dioxide pollution with carbon capture and storage. However, this is an unproven technology that has not succeeded at scale; for example, Oil and Gas Watch News reported last Thursday that a taxpayer-funded CCS project at an ethanol plant in Illinois had only captured up to 10-12% of CO2 emissions each year for the past decade.
"It is past time that the U.S. made concrete commitments to phase out coal power," Jeff Ordower, the director of 350.org North America director, said in a statement. He added that while 350.org welcomed "this and all steps toward phasing out fossil fuels, such as the Environmental Protection Agency's recent announcement to further limit coal-fired power plants' CO2 emissions, we must not lose sight of what is really at stake."
Further, Ordower said that the U.S.' plans "must not rely on unproven technologies like carbon capture, or dangerous, expensive, and unequal ones like nuclear just so they can continue business as usual."
Similarly, 350.org Japan campaigner Masayoshi Iyoda said, "Japan agreeing to a specific deadline to phase out domestic coal power generation is momentous and long overdue."
"As an historic outlier among G7 countries on making coal phaseout commitments, and with the highest share of power generated from coal among its G7 peers, this is a step forward. However, 2035 is too late to meet the 1.5°Ctarget set in the Paris agreement," Iyoda continued.
"This was the first opportunity for the G7 to show they were taking the COP28 agreement seriously. They have failed."
Amnesty International also criticized the timeline of the deal.
"This is not the goal for coal we need, and it will not deliver climate justice," Candy Ofime, Amnesty International's climate justice researcher, said in a statement. "Commitments put forward by G7 members—which have burnt coal for power for more than a century—to stop using this pollutant by 2035 are simply too late and weakened by unacceptable caveats."
Ofime pointed out that the deal appeared to make no mention of phasing out coal in steel production, despite the fact that the process burns up around 30% of total coal use. She also argued that the language around "unabated" coal use was "misleading."
"Abatement relies on the use of carbon capture and storage, and other technologies such as ammonia and hydrogen co-firing with coal, which are unproven at scale and can come with other risks," Ofime sad. "Coal pollution cannot be adequately abated, and harms health and the climate whenever it is used."
Campaigners also criticized the G7 countries for focusing their timeline on coal and not oil and gas, especially since all nations agreed to work toward "transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems, in a just, orderly, and equitable manner" at last year's COP28 United Nations climate talks in Dubai.
"This was the first opportunity for the G7 to show they were taking the COP28 agreement seriously. They have failed," said Romain Ioualalen, Oil Change International's global policy campaign manager.
Oil Change pointed out that G7 countries are responsible for nearly half of all CO2 emissions from new oil and gas production, as well as 27% of production overall. At the same time, they subsidized fossil fuels to the tune of $25.7 billion a year between 2020 and 2022, compared to only $10.3 billion for renewables. While the countries did reaffirm a pledge to end "inefficient" fossil fuel subsidies by 2025 or earlier, they did not offer any more details on the timeline.
"While the G7 focuses on coal, it conveniently omits to stress that limiting warming to 1.5°C means they also need to end fossil fuel expansion at home, going fastest in phasing out existing production," Ioualalen said. "They must end the billions of dollars in taxpayer finance still flowing to fossil fuel projects abroad and fund the buildout of affordable renewable energy on fair terms. If their oil and gas expansion plans are allowed to proceed, it would lock in climate chaos and an unlivable future."
The ministers also reaffirmed the importance of natural gas deliveries to Europe to help it replace Russian gas in the wake of Russia's ongoing war on Ukraine. However, European officials have said that they will have enough gas supplies to last through the next decade despite a Biden administration pause on new liquefied natural gas (LNG) export approvals.
"Faced with climate catastrophe, the G7's persistent endorsement of fossil gas is alarming," Carty of Greenpeace said. "Gas is not needed, not cheap, and is certainly not a 'bridge fuel' to a safe climate. The biggest fossil fuel threat today by wealthy nations is coming from the rapidly expanding LNG industry. An urgent shift is needed towards less, not more, gas—and massively expanded renewables."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Ilhan Omar Says GOP Calls to Put Student Protesters on Terror Watch List 'Insanely Dangerous'
Sen. Marsha Blackburn put "a target" on protesters across the country with her latest attack on them, said Omar.
Apr 30, 2024
U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar on Tuesday urged her colleagues to condemn the latest Republican threat against the thousands of university students and faculty who have protested U.S. complicity in Israel's assault on Gaza, after Sen. Marsha Blackburn suggested the protesters have "promoted terrorism" and called for them to be surveilled by the federal government.
"Any student who has promoted terrorism or engaged in terrorist acts on behalf of Hamas should be immediately added to the terrorist watch list and placed on the [Transportation Security Administration] No-Fly List," said the Tennessee Republican.
Blackburn's comments came nearly two weeks after a solidarity encampment set up by students at Columbia University—and the suspension and arrests of more than 100 participants—galvanized students at dozens of schools across the United States and around the world to call for their institutions to divest from Israel and for the U.S. to cut off military funding for the Middle Eastern country.
More than 1,000 students, educators, and other supporters have been arrested, with videos of particularly aggressive police responses at schools including Emory University in Atlanta, Washington University in St. Louis, and University of Texas at Austin further sparking anger among opponents of Israel's bombardment.
Omar (D-Minn.) called Blackburn's comments "insanely dangerous."
Blackburn previously denounced the protesters as "unruly" and "terrorist sympathizers."
Numerous reports have described how the anti-war protests have been peaceful until police officers began violently arresting attendees, while opponents have shared "escalating unhinged calls to crack down" on the demonstrations, said Intercept reporter Murtaza Hussain.
Also on Tuesday, Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) wrote to U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland, urging him "investigate and prosecute" organizers of the protests" and accusing them of "conspiring to violate the civil rights of a religious minority," referring to Jewish Americans.
Last week, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) called on President Joe Biden to summon the National Guard to clamp down on the protests.
Johnson's call was echoed by Sens. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) and Josh Hawley (R-Mo.).
"The calls from Cotton and Hawley to deploy the National Guard are not about anyone's safety—many of the pro-Palestinian protesters, against whom the might of the U.S. military would be aimed, are Jewish," wrote Adam Serwer at The Atlantic. He recalled that in 1970, members of the Ohio National Guard fatally shot four young students at Kent State University.
"Sending the National Guard to campuses facing Vietnam War protests led to students being killed, including some who had nothing to do with the protests, rather than to anyone being safer," wrote Serwer. "The most likely outcome based on past precedent would be an escalation to serious violence. Which might be the idea."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular