

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.

Governments make a big mistake when they ignore human rights to counter serious security challenges, Human Rights Watch said today in releasing its annual world report.
In the 656-page World Report 2015, its 25th edition, Human Rights Watch reviews human rights practices in more than 90 countries. In his introductory essay, Executive Director Kenneth Roth highlights the counterproductive circle-the-wagons approach to human rights that many governments adopted during the past tumultuous year.
"Human rights violations played a major role in spawning or aggravating many of today's crises," Roth said. "Protecting human rights and ensuring democratic accountability are key to resolving them."
The rise of the extremist group Islamic State (also known as ISIS) is among those global challenges that have sparked a subordination of human rights, Human Rights Watch said. But ISIS did not emerge out of nowhere. In addition to the security vacuum left by the US invasion of Iraq, the sectarian and abusive policies of the Iraqi and Syrian governments, international indifference to them, have been important factors in fueling ISIS.
While Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi of Iraq has pledged a more inclusive form of governance, the government still relies primarily on Shia militias, who carry out killing and cleansing of Sunni civilians with impunity. Government forces also attack civilians and populated areas. Reforming a corrupt and abusive judiciary, and ending sectarian rule so Sunnis feel they have a place in Iraq, will be at least as important as military action to stop ISIS atrocities, but al-Abadi has so far failed to implement essential reforms.
In Syria, President Bashar al-Assad's forces have deliberately and viciously attacked civilians in opposition-held areas. Their use of indiscriminate weapons - most notoriously, barrel bombs - has made life almost intolerable for civilians.
Yet the United Nations Security Council has largely stood by, because of Russia and China using their veto power to stop unified efforts to end the carnage. The United States and its allies have allowed their military action against ISIS to overshadow efforts to push Damascus to end its abuses. This selective concern allows ISIS recruiters to portray themselves to potential supporters as the only force willing to stand up to Assad's atrocities.
A similar dynamic is at play in Nigeria, where human rights concerns are central to the conflict. The militant Islamist group Boko Haram attacks civilians as well as Nigeria's security forces, bombing markets, mosques, and schools and abducting hundreds of girls and young women. Nigeria's army has often responded in an abusive manner, rounding up hundreds of men and boys suspected of supporting Boko Haram, detaining, abusing, and even killing them. But winning the "hearts and minds" of the civilian population will require that the government transparently investigate alleged army abuses and punish offenders.
This tendency to ignore human rights in the face of security challenges was a problem highlighted in the past year in the United States as well. A US Senate committee issued a damning summary of a report on CIA torture, but while President Barack Obama has rejected torture by forces under his command, he has refused to investigate, let alone prosecute, those who ordered the torture detailed in the Senate report. That abdication of his legal duty makes it more likely that future presidents will treat torture as a policy option instead of a crime. This failure also greatly weakens the US government's ability to press other countries to prosecute their own torturers, Human Rights Watch said.
In too many countries, including Kenya, Egypt, and China, governments and security forces have responded to real or perceived terrorism threats with abusive policies that ultimately fuel crises, Human Rights Watch said. In Egypt, the government's crushing of the Muslim Brotherhood sends the utterly counterproductive message that if political Islamists pursue power at the polls, they will be repressed without protest - which could encourage violent approaches. In France, there is a danger that the government's response to the Charlie Hebdo attacks - using counterterrorism legislation to prosecute speech that does not incite violence - will have a chilling effect on free expression and encourage other governments to use such laws to silence their critics.
Meeting security challenges demands not only containing certain dangerous individuals but also rebuilding a moral fabric that underpins the social and political order, Human Rights Watch said.
"Some governments make the mistake of seeing human rights as a luxury for less trying times, instead of an essential compass for political action," Roth said. "Rather than treating human rights as a chafing restraint, policymakers worldwide would do better to recognize them as moral guides offering a path out of crisis and chaos."
To read the Human Rights Watch World Report 2015, please visit: https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2015
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.
"Warsh's confirmation is another step in Trump's attempt to take over the Fed. That's not good for working families—it's good for Wall Street," said Sen. Elizabeth Warren.
The US Senate on Wednesday voted to confirm Kevin Warsh, the financier picked by President Donald Trump to be the next chair of the Federal Reserve.
Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) joined with all Senate Republicans in voting to confirm Warsh, whose nomination was opposed by all other Senate Democrats except for Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), who did not vote.
US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent thanked Republican senators and Fetterman for backing Warsh's confirmation, which he predicted would "usher in a new day at an institution that is in need of accountability, sound policy guidance, and the renewed sense of purpose to help guide our economy."
Warsh's nomination has been controversial from the start given that Trump has repeatedly undermined the US central bank's independence by browbeating outgoing Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell to lower interest rates.
After the confirmation vote, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) warned that Warsh would try to carry out Trump's demands to lower rates, even as key metrics show that inflation has accelerated in recent months thanks to the president's illegal war with Iran.
"Trump wants to control interest rates, and he nominated Kevin Warsh to be his sock puppet," wrote Warren in a social media post. "Warsh's confirmation is another step in Trump's attempt to take over the Fed. That's not good for working families—it's good for Wall Street."
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said he voted against Warsh's nomination because "working families are struggling more than ever to afford basic goods," and "they need a central bank that will fight for them, not the president and billionaires."
"I am not convinced that Warsh has the willingness to do what is best for the American people," Durbin added. "For that reason, I voted no on his nomination."
While Trump may want Warsh to start slashing interest rates to boost the economy, he likely faces an uphill climb in convincing other Fed board members.
Data released by the US Bureau of Labor Statistics this week showed the consumer price index posted a year-over-year increase of 3.8%, the highest rate of inflation since May 2023, driven by energy prices that surged nearly 18% from the year before.
Additionally, the latest producer price index, which measures wholesale prices paid by businesses and is considered a strong predictor of future inflation, posted a year-over-year increase of 6% in April, indicating inflation will likely accelerate in the coming months.
During Powell's final meeting as Fed chair last month, the board voted to hold interest rates steady, with several board members indicating opposition to projecting future rate cuts in the near term given signals of rising inflation.
Fetterman's vote comes as recent polling has shown the Iran war has grown more unpopular over time.
The US Senate on Wednesday once again voted down a resolution that would have restricted President Donald Trump's ability to use military force against Iran, and this time a Democratic senator was the deciding vote.
The resolution failed after Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) voted with the majority of Republican senators against a war powers resolution introduced by Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.).
The resolution would would have passed had Fetterman supported it because Sens. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) all voted in favor.
This is now the seventh time the Senate has blocked a war powers resolution on Iran since Trump illegally began the conflict in late February.
As noted by Zeteo reporter Prem Thakker, a poll taken two months ago found that Pennsylvania voters disapproved of the Iran war by 16 percentage points, and more recent national polling shows that the war has grown more unpopular over time.
"Nonetheless," Thakker commented, "John Fetterman was just a deciding vote to keep it going."
Fetterman has frequently been at odds with his party on a number of issues, including the war with Iran and building Trump's proposed luxury ballroom at the White House.
Despite the motion's failure, Ryan Costello, policy director of the National Iranian American Council, optimistically pointed out that this war powers resolution came closer to passing than any others, with Murkowski crossing the aisle for the first time to register her support.
"Sen. Murkowski moved in line with the vast majority of Americans who want this war to end," said Costello, "and did so right after hearing Secretary of War Pete Hegseth claim that the Trump administration did not need authorization from Congress to resume the war, and as gas prices in Alaska hit $5.26."
"While a few agrochemical giants shamelessly reap bumper profits, farmers are watching their livelihoods wither on the vine," said one Greenpeace campaigner.
Democratic lawmakers on Wednesday underscored how the US-Israeli war on Iran and Trump administration trade policies are hurting farmers and consumers while Big Ag profits from fast-rising fertilizer and food prices.
President Donald Trump's illegal war of choice has resulted in the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, through which around 30% of the world's fertilizer and 20% of its oil previously passed. In addition to increasing the risk of a global food crisis, the strait's closure has sent fuel and fertilizer prices soaring, with US farm diesel costing nearly 50% more than it did on the war's eve in February and nitrogen fertilizer rising by a similar percentage.
Meanwhile, Trump's erratic tariff war has further squeezed farmers and consumers. Tariffs have increased short-term prices, market volatility, and farmer costs while temporarily reducing import flows.
Vermont farmers "are footing the bill for Trump's reckless war in Iran," Rep. Becca Balint (D-Vt.) said Wednesday on social media. "Fuel and fertilizer costs are surging right amid planting season, hitting family farms that are already stretched thin. This needs to end."
Rep. Shri Thanedar (D-Mich.) said on X that "food prices are skyrocketing because 70% of farmers can't afford fertilizer, due to Trump's reckless Iran War," adding that "perhaps Trump should help them out by lending some, given that he's full of crap."
Rep. Betty McCollum (D-Minn.) noted Tuesday on Bluesky that "Minnesota’s farmers are dealing with tariffs, high fertilizer costs, expensive feed, and exorbitant fuel prices," while Trump is "planning to lay off dozens" of US Department of Agriculture workers "who help farmers protect their land and water."
The lawmakers' posts followed Tuesday's US Senate Agriculture Committee hearing on fertilizer market challenges, during which members of the Republican majority spoke vaguely of "trade disputes" and the "recent conflict in the Middle East" without naming names.
When it was her turn to speak, Ranking Member Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) noted the "direct link" between the soaring price of nitrogen fertilizer components and Trump's actions.
"In the months since the president started the war, with no consultation or authorization from Congress... urea has spiked more than 40%, the cost of diesel has hit near record highs in Midwest states," she said. "Now, why? Well, nearly half of the global urea goes through the Strait of Hormuz. Thirty percent of ammonia goes through the Strait of Hormuz."
Farmers are facing fertilizer prices that are through the roof because of the across-the-board tariffs, market consolidation, and uncertainties stemming from a war in Iran that was started with no consultation or authorization from Congress.
[image or embed]
— Senator Amy Klobuchar (@klobuchar.senate.gov) May 12, 2026 at 5:51 PM
"Yet, even before the war, farmers were walloped by the presence of across-the-board tariffs," Klobuchar continued. "An analysis by North Dakota State University... found that [International Emergency Economic Powers Act] tariffs added nearly $1 billion in costs to critical inputs like fertilizer, seed, machinery, and chemicals from February through October of last year."
"Acting now will ultimately help stabilize prices and give farmers the certainty they need," the senator added. "But it is going to have to be a combination of things: ending the tariffs, or reducing them, or making them much more targeted; ending this war; finding a way to resolve it, so the Strait of Hormuz is open again; and then going at this long-term systemic problem about the lack of competition in this area."
According to the advocacy group Farm Action, a handful of companies—primarily Nutrien, Mosaic, and CF Industries—dominate the North American fertilizer market, operating as an oligopoly that controls over 90% of nitrogen and potash production. Saskatchewan-based Nutrien, the world's leading potash producer, last week reported net first-quarter earnings of $139 million, up from $19 million one year ago.
"Fertilizer companies raise their prices because they can, and that's the market power that they have," Sen. Tina Smith (D-Minn.) said during Tuesday's hearing.
Noting record gains reaped amid the tumult of Russia's ongoing invasion of Ukraine, Smith said that during 2021-22, "the nine largest fertilizer companies made an estimated $84 billion in profits."
"In 2022, major fertilizer companies saw profits increase somewhere between 100 and 200%," she continued. "Their input costs did not go up by that much... How much do you think the profits of the average farmer in South Dakota [went] up during that time period?"
Pointing to new reports of robust fertilizer industry profits, South Dakota Corn Farmers president Trent Kubik replied, "during these last 75 days, a lot of money was being made, but it wasn't by farmers."
Addressing the question of "what can we do to change the behavior of companies that are in a position where they can charge such high prices and get such exorbitant profits," Smith suggested considering a "windfall profits tax" to "make the market more fair, particularly for folks that are doing the work."
The Trump administration's plan to counter high fertilizer prices includes reopening the Biden-era Fertilizer Production Expansion Program, which provides grants and financing to build or expand domestic manufacturing capacity. Some critics have slammed the program as a form of corporate welfare.
The administration is also considering further expanding a multibillion-dollar bailout program, which critics say has mainly benefited large-scale, export-oriented commodity farms.
Responding to recent reports of strong profits for nitrogen fertilizer producers, Greenpeace Aotearoa (New Zealand) Big Ag project lead Amanda Larsson said Tuesday that “the illegal US-Israeli attack on Iran has sent global fertilizer prices soaring, and while a few agrochemical giants shamelessly reap bumper profits, farmers are watching their livelihoods wither on the vine."
"This is war profiteering facilitated by a broken, fossil fuel-dependent food system—with farmers and consumers paying the price," she continued.
“Synthetic nitrogen fertilizer causes water and climate pollution, while propping up a system of industrial over-production, particularly to produce monoculture feed crops for livestock," Larsson said. "We are sacrificing our rivers, our climate, and our financial security to prop up a system that serves billionaires, not communities."
“We cannot buy food security on a volatile global chemical market," she added. "The only path to true food sovereignty and resilience is through a transition to ecological farming. By moving away from synthetic fertilizers and toward diverse, nature-based practices, we can break the cycle of chemical dependence, protect our water, and ensure that the price of food is no longer dictated by the whims of war and corporate greed.”