

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.

Katherine Quaid, WECAN International, katherine@wecaninternational.org
Divest Invest Protect (DIP), the Women's Earth and Climate Action Network (WECAN) International, and the Indigenous Peoples Law and Policy (IPLP) Program at the University of Arizona are announcing the filing of a "Specific Instance" with the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) regarding Credit Suisse and adverse impacts to Indigenous peoples and environment through continued corporate finance to firms that built the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) and Bayou Bridge Pipeline (BBP).
The filing by Indigenous women, comes after an almost two year period of WECAN and DIP exchanges with Credit Suisse involving letters, two in-person meetings with Credit Suisse representatives, ongoing correspondence to share information of violations and adverse impacts, and further documentation at the 2018 Credit Suisse Annual General Meeting in Zurich, Switzerland.
Indigenous women have maintained good faith dialogue with Credit Suisse, however, due to a lack of action by Credit Suisse, they are lodging an OECD Specific Instance in hopes that it will act as a catalyst for action towards civil dialogue, justice, remedy, and human rights accountability.
While Credit Suisse has recently signed the global Principles for Responsible Banking, a set of principles to align financial institutions' business strategy with society's goals, the bank continues to heavily finance the fossil fuel industry, which adversely impacts the rights of Indigenous peoples, and is driving the climate crisis. Since the signing of the Paris Climate Agreement, Credit Suisse has spent more than $57 billion funding the fossil fuel life cycle, and is one of Europe's top ten financiers of extreme fossil fuels.
The OECD Guidelines are the only government-backed international instrument on responsible business conduct with a built-in grievance mechanism, referred to as a "Specific Instance." Under this mechanism, representatives in OECD member countries (or National Contact Points) provide a platform for mediation and engagement that is compatible with OECD policies as well as assistance to stakeholders to help find a resolution for issues arising from the alleged non-observance of the Guidelines. Recently, the Society for Threatened Peoples (STP) and Credit Suisse concluded a mediation process via the OECD, which led to Credit Suisse incorporating the protection of Indigenous communities' rights into its internal guidelines on project financing.
The Divest Invest Protect (DIP) and the Women's Earth and Climate Action Network (WECAN) International welcome this partial victory, however, they are quick to highlight that this outcome is not sufficient, because the Indigenous rights provision does not apply to corporate finance-- the type of financing Credit Suisse uses to fund the firms who built and maintain the Dakota Access Pipeline. There must be accountability for human and Indigenous rights and environmental protections at every level of financial decisions, including corporate financing.
The filing of the OECD Specific Instance designed by Indigenous women demonstrates their courage and determination to be central actors and voices in shaping accountability and legal change within banks and financial institutions to protect Indigenous peoples' rights, lands, water, communities, and the global climate.
To learn more please see: https://www.wecaninternational.org/divestment-delegations
This filing is also supported by the Indigenous Human Rights Defenders and Corporate Accountability Program at the University of Arizona and the International Human Rights Clinic at Western New England University School of Law.
Members of the media are encouraged to reach out with any questions and interview requests for Michelle Cook or Osprey Orielle Lake.
"The OECD Specific Instance prepared and filed by indigenous women will bring much-needed attention to the structural failures of the financial industry to adhere and align with indigenous people's human rights. We are confident that our filing and engagement will expose the dangerous loopholes that allow banks and businesses to act with impunity over our cultural survival, climate, and futures. The financial sector must listen to the movements of indigenous peoples, and guarantee that human rights and indigenous peoples rights to free, prior, and informed consent will be respected and protected throughout their supply chains, in all their business relationships irrespective of the type of finance or financial product the banks have provided." Michelle Cook, Dine' (Navajo) human rights lawyer, Founder of 'Divest Invest Protect' and Co-Director of the Indigenous Women's Divestment Delegations
"I am Native to my land. I love my land and all I want to do is protect it for my great grandchildren, why is that so wrong? Stop fossil fuel corporations from destroying the land and water now, Mni Wiconi." LaDonna Brave Bull Allard, Ta Maka Waste Win-Her Good Earth Woman, Lakota Historian, Genealogist and Water Protector, member of the Standing Rock Sioux
"I am descended from Sitting Bull's band. In 2014 prior to the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) our Tribal Council informed the company that wanted to build DAPL, that they would not and could not consent to the construction of this pipeline. The danger was too close and an oil spill would be disastrous for our eight communities on Standing Rock. We immediately put a call out to the world. We asked people to come and stand with us. For nearly seven months my family and I camped along the Cannonball River with thousands of others who came to support us. During that time my four children and I witnessed firsthand the extreme and brutal human rights abuses that were committed against our people and others in our homelands. These human rights abuses included: private security contractors using attack dogs on unarmed people (including myself), being terrorized by low flying aircraft that circled our camps 24 hours a day, to shooting our horses and people by law enforcement. My Tribal Government explicitly said no to DAPL. Our communities on Standing Rock said no to DAPL. There was no Free, Prior or Informed Consent as required under International Law in accordance with the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It is time to hold the decision makers, government officials and financial institutions ACCOUNTABLE. It is time for them to answer to the people in my community, the very people affected by their funding of DAPL." Waste Wi Yellow Lodge-Young, Lakota/Dakota, Standing Rock Nation
"In the pursuit of justice and climate mitigation, WECAN International is calling for financial institutions engaged in fossil fuel extraction and development projects to stop business as usual given egregious violations against Indigenous peoples and their lands as we face the unprecedented challenge of a world plunging into climate chaos. Credit Suisse needs to listen to Indigenous women and adhere to their demands, which are founded on requests for basic respect for obtaining Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) of Indigenous communities, as required under international law. It is far past time for financial institutions to be held accountable for both project level and corporate level financing, and the OECD filing is a pivotal contribution to the ongoing global struggle to respect FPIC and to transition off of fossil fuels. Now is the time for banks to move toward a just and sustainable future for all where the rights of Indigenous people are upheld and we protect our climate and communities." Osprey Orielle Lake, Executive Director of the Women's Earth and Climate Action Network (WECAN) and Co-Director of the Indigenous Women's Divestment Delegations
The Women's Earth and Climate Action Network (WECAN) International is a solutions-based organization established to engage women worldwide in policy advocacy, on-the-ground projects, direct action, trainings, and movement building for global climate justice.
"This is our God: Jesus, King of Peace, who rejects war, whom no one can use to justify war."
Pope Leo XIV used his Palm Sunday sermon to take what appears to be a shot at US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.
In his sermon, excerpts of which he published on social media, the pope emphasized Christian teachings against violence while criticizing anyone who would invoke Jesus Christ to justify a war.
"This is our God: Jesus, King of Peace, who rejects war, whom no one can use to justify war," Pope Leo said. "He does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war, but rejects them."
The pope also encouraged followers to "raise our prayers to the Prince of Peace so that he may support people wounded by war and open concrete paths of reconciliation and peace."
While speaking at the Pentagon last week, Hegseth directly invoked Jesus when discussing the Trump administration's unprovoked and unconstitutional war with Iran.
Specifically, Hegseth offered up a prayer in which he asked God to give US soldiers "wisdom in every decision, endurance for the trial ahead, unbreakable unity, and overwhelming violence of action against those who deserve no mercy," adding that "we ask these things with bold confidence in the mighty and powerful name of Jesus Christ."
Mother Jones contributing writer Alex Nguyen described the pope's sermon as a "rebuke" of Hegseth, whom he noted "has been open about his support for a Christian crusade" in the Middle East.
Pope Leo is not the only Catholic leader speaking against using Christian faith to justify wars of aggression. Two weeks ago, Cardinal Pierbattista Pizzaballa, the Latin patriarch of Jerusalem, said "the abuse and manipulation of God’s name to justify this and any other war is the gravest sin we can commit at this time."
“War is first and foremost political and has very material interests, like most wars," Cardinal Pizzaballa added.
"Trump’s problem is that whatever the claims he might make about the damage to Iran’s nuclear and military capacity, which is substantial, the regime survives, the international economy has been severely disrupted, and the bills keep on coming in."
President Donald Trump is reportedly preparing to launch some kind of ground assault on Iran in the coming weeks, but one prominent military strategy expert believes he's heading straight for defeat.
The Washington Post on Saturday reported that the Pentagon is preparing for "weeks" of ground operations in Iran, which for the last month has disrupted global energy markets by shutting down the Strait of Hormuz in response to aerial assaults by the US and Israel.
The Post's sources revealed that "any potential ground operation would fall short of a full-scale invasion and could instead involve raids by a mixture of Special Operations forces and conventional infantry troops" that could be used to seize Kharg Island, a key Iranian oil export hub, or to search out and destroy weapons systems that could be used by the Iranians to target ships along the strait.
Michael Eisenstadt, director of the Military and Security Studies Program at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, told the Post that taking over Kharg Island would be a highly risky operation for American troops, even if initially successful.
“I just wouldn’t want to be in that small place with Iran’s ability to rain down drones and maybe artillery,” said Eisenstadt.
Eisenstadt's analysis was echoed by Ret. Gen. Joseph Votel, former head of US Central Command, who told ABC News that seizing and occupying Kharg Island would put US troops in a state of constant danger, warning they could be "very, very vulnerable" to drones and missiles launched from the shore.
Lawrence Freedman, professor emeritus of war studies at King's College London, believes that the president has already checkmated himself regardless of what shape any ground operation takes.
In an analysis published Sunday, Freedman declared Trump had run "out of options" for victory, as there have been no signs of the Iranian regime crumbling due to US-Israeli attacks.
Freedman wrote that Trump now "appears to inhabit an alternative reality," noting that "his utterances have become increasingly incoherent, with contradictory statements following quickly one after the other, and frankly delusional claims."
Trump's loan real option at this point, Freedman continued, would to simply declare that he had achieved an unprecedented victory and just walk away. But even in that case, wrote Freedman, "this would mean leaving behind a mess in the Gulf" with no guarantee that Iran would re-open the Strait of Hormuz.
"Success in war is judged not by damage caused but by political objectives realized," Freedman wrote in his conclusion. "Here the objective was regime change, or at least the emergence of a new compliant leader... Trump’s problem is that whatever the claims he might make about the damage to Iran’s nuclear and military capacity, which is substantial, the regime survives, the international economy has been severely disrupted, and the bills keep on coming in."
"The NY Times saves its harshest skepticism for progressives," said one critic.
The New York Times is drawing criticism for publishing articles that downplayed the significance of Saturday's No Kings protests, which initial estimates suggest was the largest protest event in US history.
In a Times article that drew particular ire, reporter Jeremy Peters questioned whether nationwide events that drew an estimated 8 million people to the streets "would be enough to influence the course of the nation’s politics."
"Can the protests harness that energy and turn it into victories in the November midterm elections?" Peters asked rhetorically. "How can they avoid a primal scream that fades into a whimper?"
Journalist and author Mark Harris called Peters' take on the protests "predictable" and said it was framed so that the protests would appear insignificant no matter how many people turned out.
"There's a long, bad journalistic tradition," noted Harris. "All conservative grass-roots political movements are fascinating heartland phenomena, all progressive grass-roots political movements are ineffectual bleating. This one is written off as powered by white female college grads—the wine-moms slur, basically."
Media critic Dan Froomkin was event blunter in his criticism of the Peters piece.
"Putting anti-woke hack Jeremy Peters on this story is an act of war by the NYT against No Kings," he wrote.
Mark Jacob, former metro editor at the Chicago Tribune, also took a hatchet to Peters' analysis.
"The NY Times saves its harshest skepticism for progressives," he wrote. "Instead of being impressed by 3,000-plus coordinated protests, NYT dismisses the value of 'hitting a number' and asks if No Kings will be 'a primal scream that fades into a whimper.' F off, NY Times. We'll defeat fascism without you."
The Media and Democracy Project slammed the Times for putting Peters' analysis of the protests on its front page while burying straight news coverage of the events on page A18.
"NYT editors CHOSE that Jeremy Peters's opinions would frame the No Kings demonstrations and pro-democracy movement to millions of NYT readers," the group commented.
Joe Adalian, west coast editor for New York Mag's Vulture, criticized a Times report on the No Kings demonstrations that quoted a "skeptic" of the protests without noting that said skeptic was the chairman of the Ole Miss College Republicans.
"Of course, the Times doesn’t ID him as such," remarked Adalian. "He's just a Concerned Youth."
Jeff Jarvis, professor emeritus at the CUNY Graduate School of Journalism, took issue with a Times piece that offered five "takeaways" from the No Kings events that somehow managed to miss their broader significance.
"I despise the five-takeaways journalistic trope the Broken Times loves so," Jarvis wrote. "It is reductionist, hubristic in its claim to summarize any complex event. This one leaves out much, like the defense of democracy against fascism."
Journalist Miranda Spencer took stock of the Times' entire coverage of the No Kings demonstrations and declared it "clueless," while noting that USA Today did a far better job of communicating their significance to readers.
Harper's Magazine contributing editor Scott Horton similarly argued that international news organizations were giving the No Kings events more substantive coverage than the Times.
"In Le Monde and dozens of serious newspapers around the world, prominent coverage of No Kings 3, which brought millions of Americans on to the streets to protest Trump," Horton observed. "In NYT, an illiterate rant from Jeremy W Peters and no meaningful coverage of the protests. Something very strange going on here."