

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.
Kate Fried, Kate.fried@earthrights.org, (202) 257.0057, EarthRights International
On October 21, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights sent case number 11.754 U'wa Indigenous People vs.
On October 21, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights sent case number 11.754 U'wa Indigenous People vs. Colombia to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights after finding the State of Colombia responsible for violating the U'wa's rights to collective property, culture, freedom of thought and expression, participation in government, fair trial, and judicial protection as enshrined in the American Convention on Human Rights. EarthRights International applauds this development.
This landmark victory comes after centuries of resistance and territorial defense. For more than 25 years, the U'Wa Nation has fought for justice in national courts and the Inter-American system, seeking truth, justice, and full reparation for the systematic violations of their rights caused by militarization, the imposition of extractive projects, and the lack of recognition of their ancestral territory, kera shikara.
"For the U'wa Nation, led by AsoU'wa and the traditional authorities, this has been a process of millennial struggle and resistance," said U'Wa leader Daris Cristancho. "We have lost many leaders who worked tirelessly during this struggle. They endured pain and sadness but never got to see progress. We remember, among others, Lluviana Cobaria, Busico Tegria, and Abuela Vana, who demanded the recognition of our rights, our culture, and our ancestral territory. We have been stigmatized for asserting our rights through protest and demanding the return of our ancestral and millennial territory. But the U'wa prefer to die with dignity protecting our customs, our cosmovision, and our ability to leave a legacy for our future generations, so that they continue maintaining the sense of life, of harmony, and of balance between mother earth and all that exists in her, safeguarding all the species of the Blue Planet. This purpose is something that we carry in our hearts, not only for and on behalf of the U'wa Nation but also for all of the world's Indigenous communities and all people (who we call our younger siblings). Because of this, this struggle should be a struggle of all humanity."
The U'wa Nation is an Indigenous community that has lived for generations in what is now known as the departments of Santander, North Santander, Boyaca, Casanare, and Arauca in Colombia. As a consequence of the internal armed conflict and the effects of extractive industries in their territory, the U'wa Nation was recognized by the Colombian Constitutional Court in 2009's Decision 004 as an Indigenous group at risk of physical or cultural extermination.
Armando Tegria, president of the Association of Traditional Authorities and Cabildos U'wa (AsoU'wa), referred to this important step by highlighting that despite the "many years of struggle by the U'wa Nation, the national government continues infringing upon our rights. This includes our historical, cultural, territorial, human, and collective rights, breaking the agreements signed between the U'wa Nation and the Colombian state. We reiterate that now the case of the U'wa Nation will be reviewed, studied, and judged by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, for the violation of our rights."
That this case is going to the Inter-American Court also represents an opportunity for the Colombian State to be held responsible at an international level for not complying with its obligations regarding free, prior, and informed consultation and consent by Indigenous people, and for the systematic violation of the rights of ethnic groups and communities in Colombia to ancestral territory and their own culture and identity.
In this sense, the Counsel of Territory, Natural Resources, and Biodiversity of the National Indigenous Organization of Colombia stressed "the importance of the Indigenous movement in Colombia, which asserts the rights of the country's ancestral people, who have now achieved this important milestone in the international litigation. This victory will highlight the historic struggle carried out by the U'wa--with dignity and courage. The decision by the Inter-American Commission on October 21 reinforces our commitment to supporting the U'wa Nation in their struggle to consolidate their territory and to live following their own traditional cosmovision and Law of Origin."
The U'wa Nation, the Association of Traditional Authorities and Cabildos U'wa (AsoU'wa), the National Indigenous Organization of Colombia (ONIC), the Jose Alvear Restrepo Lawyers Collective (CAJAR), and EarthRights International, as petitioners in this case, reiterate their commitment to the defense and recognition of the territorial rights of the Indigenous peoples of Colombia. The groups hope that the decision of the Inter-American Court will achieve truth, justice, and full reparation in this case and that it contributes to clear standards that enable the effective guarantee of the rights of the Indigenous peoples, who have been waiting for centuries.
The Inter-American system is part of the Organization of American States. It is composed of the Inter-American Commission, a body that promotes the defense of human rights through the analysis of individual petitions for violations of human rights by States in the Americas; and the Inter-American Court, a judicial body that determines the international responsibility of the States of the Americas for human rights violations.
EarthRights International (ERI) is a nongovernmental, nonprofit organization that combines the power of law and the power of people in defense of human rights and the environment, which we define as "earth rights." We specialize in fact-finding, legal actions against perpetrators of earth rights abuses, training grassroots and community leaders, and advocacy campaigns. Through these strategies, EarthRights International seeks to end earth rights abuses, to provide real solutions for real people, and to promote and protect human rights and the environment in the communities where we work.
"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."