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.
The ratification of the peace agreement marks the beginning of a new and hopeful chapter in Colombia's history, but the real hard work starts now, Amnesty International said today.
Last night, Congress ratified a revised version of the peace agreement between the Colombian government and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) after the original deal was rejected by a referendum on 2 October.
The ratification paves the way for the FARC to begin to demobilize and disarm in a process to be implemented over six months.
The ratification of the peace agreement marks the beginning of a new and hopeful chapter in Colombia's history, but the real hard work starts now, Amnesty International said today.
Last night, Congress ratified a revised version of the peace agreement between the Colombian government and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) after the original deal was rejected by a referendum on 2 October.
The ratification paves the way for the FARC to begin to demobilize and disarm in a process to be implemented over six months.
The revised agreement offers more clarity on a number of issues, such as on how the sanctions imposed on those responsible for crimes under international law will work. It also forces the FARC to hand over their assets, which could boost the right of victims to reparation. But the agreement remains flawed in terms of guarantees on victims' rights.
"The official end to a bloody armed conflict that has lasted for more than 50 years and has left some eight million victims in its wake is an achievement that cannot and should not be underestimated," said Erika Guevara-Rosas, Americas Director at Amnesty International.
"However, much of the horror Colombians have been forced to endure for decades has often not been directly linked to direct combat between the security forces and the FARC. Those working away from the spotlight, defending rights or protecting natural resources and territories from powerful economic interests continue to face harassment and deadly attacks. So the peace agreement in itself may do little to keep these activists safe. What they need is effective action to ensure those behind such attacks face proper justice."
Since 1985, nearly seven million people have been forced to flee their homes, more than 267,000 were killed, some 46,000 people were victims of enforced disappearances, and some 30,000 were taken hostage. Thousands more were the victims of torture, sexual violence, and landmines, while some 8,000 children were forcibly recruited by guerrilla and paramilitary groups. Very few of those responsible have ever been brought to justice.
"The terrible legacy of these violations and the entrenched impunity for most of them means that, despite the peace agreement, many seemingly intractable conflict-related human rights and humanitarian challenges persist, and there is a real risk that these challenges will continue in a post-conflict environment," said Erika Guevara-Rosas.
Although combat-related violence against civilians has fallen sharply, attacks against human rights defenders, especially Indigenous, Afro-descendant and peasant farmer leaders, continue in alarming numbers, with more than 70 killed so far this year.
Many such attacks are linked to armed groups seeking to take control of resource-rich lands belonging to rural communities in order to exploit these for economic gain.
The armed conflict with the FARC may officially be over, but other conflicts remain, notably with the guerrilla group National Liberation Army (ELN), while paramilitary groups continue to be the most serious threat to human rights, especially in the countryside.
The peace process with the ELN was scheduled to start earlier this year, but the group's failure to release one of its high-profile hostages has delayed the start of the process.
"If Colombia is to really succeed in the long term in making peace work for everyone, the authorities must ensure that the fundamental right of the country's millions of victims to truth, justice and reparation is properly respected," said Erika Guevara-Rosas.
The agreement on victims of the conflict - one of the pillars of the peace agreement and which details how victims' right to truth, justice and reparation will be guaranteed via a transitional justice system - is undeniably a step forward in terms of victims' rights, especially when compared to previous experiences with peace processes in Colombia. But despite the revisions, it continues to fall short of international law and standards on human rights.
In particular, Amnesty International has repeatedly criticized the fact that the sanctions will not reflect the gravity of some of the crimes committed and also that the definition of command responsibility could allow superiors of both the security forces and the FARC to evade responsibility for the actions of their subordinates.
"The fact remains that Colombia must fulfil its obligation under international human rights law to guarantee victims' right to truth, justice and reparation. This right cannot be compromised if this is to be a real peace for victims," said Erika Guevara-Rosas.
But the requirement in the revised agreement that the FARC hand over their assets could be important in terms of victims' right to reparation, but only if measures are put in place to ensure all assets are identified, handed over, and effectively used in support of victims.
"This agreement must result in a peace for all Colombians, including the victims of human rights abuses and violations, the human rights defenders who risk their lives to defend the rights of others, the rural communities seeking to protect their lands from exploitation, and the women survivors of gender-based violence bravely fighting for justice. Their voices must be heard loud and clear as Colombia gears up to implement its long-sought peace," said Erika Guevara-Rosas.
Amnesty International is a worldwide movement of people who campaign for internationally recognized human rights for all. Our supporters are outraged by human rights abuses but inspired by hope for a better world - so we work to improve human rights through campaigning and international solidarity. We have more than 2.2 million members and subscribers in more than 150 countries and regions and we coordinate this support to act for justice on a wide range of issues.
"Over the last year, for every single political prisoner Egypt has released, it has jailed two more," lamented U.S. Sen. Chris Murphy.
Several Democratic U.S. senators on Thursday denounced the Biden administration's decision to send $1.3 billion in military aid to Egypt despite enduring human rights abuses by the Middle Eastern country's authoritarian regime.
U.S. State Antony Blinken this week waived human rights conditions attached to $225 million of the aid package, citing Egypt's strategic importance and the country's role in attempts to broker a cease-fire agreement that would halt the assault on Gaza by Israel, which is on trial for genocide at the International Court of Justice.
"It's no secret that Egypt remains a deeply repressive autocratic state."
"This decision waives requirements on an additional $225 million of military aid to Egypt that is tied to broader improvements on democracy and human rights," Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Ct.) said in a statement on Thursday.
"It's no secret that Egypt remains a deeply repressive autocratic state, and I see no good reason to ignore that fact by waiving these requirements," the senator added. "We have previously withheld this portion of Egypt's military aid package, while still maintaining our strategic relationship, and we should continue to do so."
On Wednesday, Murphy and Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) issued a joint statement decrying Biden's decision to fully fund Egypt, focusing on a separate $95 million share of aid released by the administration.
"The law is clear: Egypt is required to make 'clear and consistent progress' in releasing political prisoners in order to receive $95 million—a small portion—of its $1.3 billion military aid package this year," the senators wrote. "The Egyptian government has failed that test."
"Over the last year, for every single political prisoner Egypt has released, it has jailed two more," Murphy and Coons noted. "That's not clear and consistent progress—it's one step forward and two steps back. And among the thousands and thousands of political prisoners the government has continued to refuse to release are two U.S. legal permanent residents, Hosam Khalaf and Salah Soltan."
Last week, Murphy and Coons were among the nine Democratic senators and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) who urged Blinken to "enforce the conditions set forth by Congress on holding Egypt accountable for progress on human rights" by withholding aid "until Egypt's human rights record improves."
According to the most recent State Department annual country report, "there were no significant changes in the human rights situation in Egypt" between 2022-23.
The report cited violations including:
Credible reports of arbitrary or unlawful killings, including extrajudicial killings; enforced disappearance; torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment by the government; harsh and life-threatening prison conditions; arbitrary arrest and detention; serious problems with the independence of the judiciary; political prisoners or detainees; transnational repression against individuals in another country; arbitrary or unlawful interference with privacy; punishment of family members for alleged offenses by a relative.
"Egypt has failed to make consistent progress, yet the State Department has decided to release additional military aid," Sen. Peter Welch (D-Vt.) said on Thursday. "The administration should use the leverage Congress provided to defend the fundamental rights of Egyptian political prisoners and dissidents. That's what the Egyptian people, and people everywhere, rightly expect of the United States."
"I look forward to a new future in North Dakota and hope our lawmakers will finally give up on their crusade to force pregnancy on people against their will," said one advocate.
Two days after Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump claimed that "every Democrat, every Republican, liberal, conservative" wanted the federal right to abortion care to be overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court, a North Dakota judge became the latest on Thursday to strike down a state-level abortion ban, saying it violated residents' constitutional rights.
"The North Dakota Constitution guarantees each individual, including women, the fundamental right to make medical judgments affecting his or her bodily integrity, health, and autonomy, in consultation with a chosen healthcare provider free from government interference," wrote Judge Bruce Romanick, a District Court judge. "This section necessarily and more specifically protects a woman's right to procreative autonomy—including to seek and obtain a previability abortion."
The near-total ban on abortion care will be officially blocked in the coming days, in a move that the Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR) said could ultimately help restore access for people across the Midwest, as abortion care is currently banned in South Dakota and heavily restricted in nearby states including Nebraska and Iowa.
Meetra Mehdizadeh, a staff attorney at CRR, which filed a lawsuit against North Dakota's ban in 2023, said the ruling "is a win for reproductive freedom, and means it is now much safer to be pregnant in North Dakota," but warned that Republican lawmakers who passed the law have already done damage to pregnant people in the state that will take time to reverse.
"The damage that North Dakota's extreme abortion bans have done cannot be repaired overnight," said Mehdizadeh. "There are no abortion clinics left in North Dakota. That means most people seeking an abortion still won't be able to get one, even though it is legal. Clinics are medical facilities that need to acquire doctors, staff, equipment—they can take years to open, like most healthcare centers. The destructive impacts of abortion bans are felt long after they are struck down."
CRR argued in the case that the ban was too vague for medical providers to determine when an exception would be allowed for a pregnant patient whose life or health was at risk.
"This left physicians who provided abortions with the threat of having to defend their decision in court if someone were to question the provider's judgment," said the group. "Violating the ban was considered a class C felony, punishable by a maximum of five years of imprisonment, a fine of $10,000, or both."
Among the plaintiffs represented by CRR was Red River Women's Clinic, which was North Dakota's sole abortion care provider until a prior ban forced it to relocate from Fargo to Moorhead, Minnesota, where abortion has remained legal following the U.S. Supreme Court's overturning of Roe v. Wade.
"Today's decision gives me hope. I feel like the court heard us when we raised our voices against a law that not only ran counter to our state constitution, but was too vague for physicians to interpret and which prevented them from providing the high quality care that our communities are entitled to," said Tammi Kromenaker, director of the clinic. "Abortion is lifesaving healthcare; it should not be a crime. I look forward to a new future in North Dakota and hope our lawmakers will finally give up on their crusade to force pregnancy on people against their will."
Since Roe was overturned in 2022, numerous women have shared stories of being denied abortion care after suffering complications—including some that were life-threatening.
Judges in states including Wyoming, Utah, and Montana have blocked abortion bans in recent years, and voters have rejected anti-abortion ballot measures and approved ones that support the right to abortion in states including Kentucky, Kansas, Ohio, and Michigan.
"We all agree on a simple but powerful principle—that polluters should pay to clean up the mess that they have caused, and those that have polluted the most should pay the most," Sen. Chris Van Hollen said.
United States Sen. Chris Van Hollen and Rep. Jerry Nadler on Thursday announced the introduction of legislation that would require Big Oil firms to pay into a damages fund used to address the climate crisis.
The Polluters Pay Climate Fund Act, which Van Hollen first proposed in 2021, would levy charges on the largest companies that extract and refine fossil fuels in the U.S., based on a Superfund model. It would create a $1 trillion fund to "address harm and damages caused," with a significant proportion of the money spent on environmental justice in affected communities, Van Hollen said.
"We all agree on a simple but powerful principle—that polluters should pay to clean up the mess that they have caused, and those that have polluted the most should pay the most," Van Hollen said at a press conference.
Jamie Henn, director of Fossil Free Media, indicated that the proposal was groundbreaking.
"We're thrilled to be supporting the first ever federal bill that would make polluters pay for climate damages!" Henn wrote on social media.
BIG NEWS: We're thrilled to be supporting the *first ever* federal bill that would #MakePollutersPay for climate damages!!
The Polluters Pay Climate Fund act would raise *$1 TRILLION* from Big Oil to help families & communities deal with climate impacts. https://t.co/wX6lMOTexh
— Jamie Henn (@jamieclimate) September 12, 2024
The new bill targets only the "heaviest hitters," as Van Hollen put it: companies responsible for at least 1 billion tons of carbon dioxide emissions in the period between 2000 and 2022. The levies they face would be directly proportional to the amount of oil, gas, and coal extracted or refined, as determined by the U.S. Treasury and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
In addition to Van Hollen and Nadler (D-N.Y.), the bicameral legislation was also introduced by Rep. Judy Chu (D-Calif.). It has five co-sponsors in the Senate, including Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), and more than a dozen co-sponsors in the House of Representatives, including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.).
Many state legislatures have considered "polluters pay" climate bills in recent years, and Vermont passed one in May. Van Hollen said a federal bill "would be a big, big step forward."
The bill has the backing of many dozens of environmental organizations around the country, several of which had representatives at Thursday's press conference.
"The fossil fuel industry has known about climate change for decades," Sara Chieffo, a vice president at the League of Conservation Voters, said at the event. "It's time they face the consequences of their deception and are held responsible for their actions that are destroying both lives and a livable, safe climate."
Phil Radford, Sierra Club's chief strategy officer, added that "for way too long, these companies have poisoned communities, spilled oil, polluted our air, caused all sorts of health problems, and gotten away with it."
"Today is an incredible moment where we are saying: No more," he said.
Advocates indicated that at least 40% of the funds would go toward environmental justice.