December, 05 2022, 11:02am EDT
Demand Progress Action Pressures Lawmakers to Dig In on US Role in Yemen War & Humanitarian Crisis
On Tuesday, December 6, at 10:00 am ET, there is a Congressional hearing on Yemen's humanitarian and political crisis post-truce expiration. Ahead of the hearing, Demand Progress Action has sent out questions to subcommittee members for consideration related to restrictions in the movement of fuel and humanitarian supplies, ongoing US involvement in the conflict, including its role in supporting the Saudi-UAE-led coalition's military capability, and whether that support is being leveraged to find a lasting peace agreement.
WASHINGTON
On Tuesday, December 6, at 10:00 am ET, there is a Congressional hearing on Yemen's humanitarian and political crisis post-truce expiration. Ahead of the hearing, Demand Progress Action has sent out questions to subcommittee members for consideration related to restrictions in the movement of fuel and humanitarian supplies, ongoing US involvement in the conflict, including its role in supporting the Saudi-UAE-led coalition's military capability, and whether that support is being leveraged to find a lasting peace agreement.
The hearing, which will be held by the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Middle East, North Africa and Global Counterterrorism, presents an opportunity for lawmakers to ask questions of Special Envoy for Yemen Timothy Lenderking and USAID Assistant to the Administrator, Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance, Sarah Charles.
Below are the questions sent to the subcommittee members by Demand Progress Action:
- Has US maintenance support enabled Saudi warplanes to kill civilians, including the 90 that tragically died in a migrant detention facility earlier this year, since President Biden's Yemen announcement in February 2021? Under what legal authority is the Administration authorized in operations supporting the Saudi-led coalition?
- Currently, the warring parties cannot find an agreement for a lasting ceasefire, risking the possibility that hostilities escalate. This may result in Saudi Arabia resuming airstrikes in Yemen. If this occurs, will the US provide spare parts transfers and maintenance to the Saudi Royal Air Force?
- How did the truce impact the movement of fuel and other crucial humanitarian supplies into and throughout Yemen? What has been the impact on the delivery of humanitarian aid by USAID and local partners? Has the expiration of the ceasefire altered the movement of goods and aid?
- Have there been any calculable positive impacts on humanitarian conditions in Yemen, such as hunger, due to the previous ceasefire?
- How are Saudi restrictions on ports and the Sanaa airport impacting medical facilities and the ability of individuals to travel to receive medical treatment?
- What are the current diplomatic barriers to opening up Sanaa airport flights to Cairo and what forms of US leverage has been exerted on Egypt to ensure these flights happen?
- Is the US currently utilizing all forms of leverage it has on Saudi Arabia, including the withdrawing of US military support for the Saudi-led coalition's offensive military operations, to reestablish a truce and pursue a comprehensive peace agreement for Yemen? If so, what have been the outcomes of these efforts?
- The US has publicly pressured the Houthis to make concessions to achieve a new truce agreement. Has the US urged Saudi Arabia to make any further concessions to achieve an expanded and extended truce? What concessions, if any, has the United States recommended Saudi Arabia make in order to secure a lasting peace agreement?
- President Biden has vowed consequences for Saudi Arabia over their collusion with Russia to significantly cut OPEC+ oil production. How have recent Saudi actions influenced the administration's willingness to provide them continued military support vis-a-vis the war in Yemen?
- 132 members of Congress have cosponsored legislation to end unauthorized support for the Saudi-UAE-led coalitions offensive military capabilities in Yemen, including the provisioning of spare parts, logistics, and maintenance for Saudi and UAE bombing squadrons implicated in potential war crimes. Given the United States' stated goal of ushering in an end to the war in Yemen, why has the administration not acted to end this support?
- A recent GAO report has indicated that the State Department and Department of Defense is not able to provide evidence that it investigated incidents of potential unauthorized use of equipment transferred to Saudi Arabia or the UAE. Are you aware of any steps being taken to address this lack of transparency and accountability? Will the US continue to provide military equipment to Saudi Arabia and the UAE despite no effective mechanism in place to track its use?
- Recent reporting shows that the United Arab Emirates has spent millions to illegally and legally influence US policy. Another report indicates that dozens of former US national security and military officials, including former generals, are on the payroll of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates to advance those countries' interests. Has this network of influence impacted US policy in regards to Yemen? Has the administration taken any steps to ensure US policy is not affected by these influence campaigns?
- In past hearings in this committee, humanitarian actors in Yemen asked for a new security council resolution to replace 2216 and create a stronger foundation for a pathway for ceasefire negotiations in Yemen. Is the US pursuing a new security council resolution on Yemen?
- On November 18, 13 members of the House of Representatives sent a letter asking Secretary of State Antony Blinken and U.N. Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield to use their influence in these upcoming sessions to push for a reinstatement of the Group of Eminent Experts (GEE), an independent international oversight body that previously reported on the litany of human rights abuses and war crimes carried out during the war. Will the United States push for a renewed mandate for the GEE?
The hearing comes as the ceasefire between warring parties in Yemen expired on October 2. While fighting has not returned to pre-ceasefire levels, the lack of a long term peace agreement has left the country vulnerable to an escalation in hostilities, which could include a resumption in Saudi bombing campaigns and a full return to the Saudi blockade. Despite this, the Biden administration has yet to signal an end to crucial military support for the Saudi Arabia and UAE-led coalition. In response, 132 members of Congress have cosponsored a War Powers Resolution to end this unauthorized support to the coalition.
Recent political developments also hang over the hearing. Two months ago, President Biden called for "consequences'' against Saudi Arabia, after the Kingdom colluded with Russia to cut OPEC+ oil production. Since those statements, no consequences have been levied against Saudi Arabia. To the contrary, the Biden administration has recently granted Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman immunity for his key role in the killing of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi. Additionally, in November a sweeping US intelligence report exposed significant illegal and legal attempts by the United Arab Emirates to influence US policy.
Demand Progress amplifies the voice of the people -- and wields it to make government accountable and contest concentrated corporate power. Our mission is to protect the democratic character of the internet -- and wield it to contest concentrated corporate power and hold government accountable.
LATEST NEWS
US Leads Charge as Surge of Oil and Gas Projects Threaten Hope for Livable Planet
"The science is clear: No new oil and gas fields, or the planet gets pushed past what it can handle," said one analyst.
Mar 28, 2024
Fossil fuel-producing countries late last year pledged to "transition away from fossil fuels," but a report on new energy projects shows that with the United States leading the way in continuing to extract oil and gas, governments' true views on renewable energy is closer to a statement by a Saudi oil executive Amin Nasser earlier this month.
"We should abandon the fantasy of phasing out oil and gas," the CEO of Saudi Aramco, the world's largest oil company, said at an energy conference in Houston.
A new report published Wednesday by Global Energy Monitor (GEM) suggests the U.S. in particular has abandoned any plans to adhere to warnings from climate scientists and the International Energy Agency (IEA), which said in 2021 that new oil and gas infrastructure has no place on a pathway to limiting planetary heating to 1.5°C.
Despite the stark warning, last year at least 20 oil and gas fields worldwide reached "final investment decision," the point at which companies decide to move ahead with construction and development. Those approvals paved the way for the extraction of 8 billion barrels of oil equivalent (boe).
By the end of the decade, companies aim to sanction nearly four times that amount, producing 31.2 billion boe from 64 oil and gas fields.
The U.S. led the way in approving new oil and gas projects over the past two years, GEM's analysis found.
An analysis by Carbon Brief of GEM's findings shows that burning all the oil and gas from newly discovered fields and approved projects would emit at least 14.1 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide.
"This is equivalent to more than one-third of the CO2 emissions from global energy use in 2022, or all the emissions from burning oil that year," said Carbon Brief.
GEM noted in its analysis that oil companies and the policymakers who continue to support their planet-heating activities have come up with numerous "extraction justifications" even as the IEA has been clear that new fossil fuel projects are incompatible with avoiding catastrophic planetary heating.
The report notes that U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) "supported ConocoPhillips' Willow oil field, arguing that the Alaskan oil and gas industry has a 'better environmental track record,' and not approving the project 'impoverish[es] Alaska Natives and blame[s] them for changes in the climate that they did not cause.'"
Carbon Brief reported that oil executives have claimed they are powerless to stop extracting fossil fuels since demand for oil and gas exists for people's energy needs, with ExxonMobil CEO Darren Woods tellingFortune last month that members of the public "aren't willing to spend the money" on renewable energy sources.
A poll by Pew Research Center last year found 67% of Americans supported the development of alternative energy sources. Another recent survey by Eligo Energy showed that 65% of U.S. consumers were willing to pay more for renewable energy.
"Oil and gas producers have given all kinds of reasons for continuing to discover and develop new fields, but none of these hold water," said Scott Zimmerman, project manager for the Global Oil and Gas Extraction Tracker at GEM. "The science is clear: No new oil and gas fields, or the planet gets pushed past what it can handle."
Climate scientist and writer Bill McGuire summarized the viewpoint of oil and gas executives and pro-fossil fuel lawmakers: "Climate emergency? What climate emergency?"
The continued development of new oil and gas fields, he added, amounts to "pure insanity."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Just ‘Stop Drilling,’ Critics Say After Biden Admin Finalizes Methane Limits
The new Biden administration rule will limit methane emissions, but critics say it's time to stop drilling for fossil fuels.
Mar 28, 2024
The Biden administration on Tuesday finalized rules that will force oil and gas companies to reduce their methane emissions, but critics say the administration needs to do more to curb a key driver of the planet-warming pollution: fossil fuel drilling.
Methane is a potent greenhouse gas, and the Bureau of Land Management's new rules will require that fossil fuel companies contain methane leaks at oil and natural gas wells that are on federal land, and they will also have to limit how much methane they burn off.
Critics say the only solution that will truly address the climate crisis is to stop drilling entirely. Recently released Interior Department data shows that the Biden administration has approved close to 50% more oil and gas drilling permits on public lands than the Trump administration did during its first three years.
"The best way to eliminate methane pollution from public lands is to stop fossil fuel drilling, period. In the midst of a climate emergency, we need to take the actions necessary to stop pollution once and for all," Food & Water Watch Policy Director Jim Walsh said in a statement. "We look forward to working with climate champions in Congress like Rep. Jan Schakowsky to pass the Future Generations Protection Act to ban fracking on public lands and everywhere else."
Some praised the new rules as needed progress, including Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.).
America’s public lands should be sources of inspiration and joy, not pollution and waste. I applaud @Interior for working to stop releases of methane, a major climate pollutant, on our public lands—something I've been demanding for years with my FLARE Act. https://t.co/D1o26GEc55
— Ed Markey (@SenMarkey) March 27, 2024
Interior Secretary Deb Haaland said in a statement Tuesday that “this final rule, which updates 40-year-old regulations, furthers the Biden-Harris administration’s goals to prevent [methane] waste, protect our environment and ensure a fair return to American taxpayers.”
Methane can trap far more heat than CO2, so limiting emissions is a critical part of addressing the climate crisis. Despite pledging to cut methane emissions, oil and gas companies have not significantly reduced emissions in recent years. The U.S. is currently the largest emitter of methane from oil and gas in the world.
The International Energy Agency says major reductions in methane emissions need to be made if the world is going to avert catastrophic global warming.
Keep ReadingShow Less
State Department Spokesman Urged to Resign Over 'Despicable' Attack on UN Expert
One critic described Matthew Miller's attack on United Nations special rapporteur Francesca Albanese as a "Trumpian smearing of a principled human rights expert."
Mar 28, 2024
U.S. State Department Matthew Miller faced calls to resign Thursday after he accused a United Nations special rapporteur of engaging in antisemitism—an attack that came days after the human rights expert presented a report concluding that Israel's assault on Gaza has met the threshold of genocide.
Asked about the report during a press briefing on Wednesday, Miller said the U.S. has "for a longstanding period of time opposed the mandate of this special rapporteur, which we believe is not productive."
"And when it comes to the individual who holds that position, I can't help but note a history of antisemitic comments that she has made that have been reported," Miller added, pointing to comments that Francesca Albanese—the U.N. special rapporteur on the human rights situation in the occupied Palestinian territories—"made in December that appeared to justify the attacks of October 7."
A new low by the Biden team.
In response to UN Special Rapporteur @FranceskAlbs new report - Anatomy of a Genocide - concluding that the threshold of genocide has reasonably been met, the State Dep chooses to attack her persona and accuse her of antisemitism :( :( pic.twitter.com/iNpVT3BWQy
— Trita Parsi (@tparsi) March 27, 2024
It's not entirely clear which comments Miller was referencing.
In an interview with Jewish News Syndicate in December, Albanese was asked whether Palestinian militants' killing of Israeli soldiers on October 7 was a violation of international law. Albanese, an Italian attorney and academic, said that "killing a soldier is a tragedy under international law, but when there is an armed conflict, like in this case, killing a soldier is not illegal."
But Albanese stressed in the interview that the Hamas-led attacks on Israeli civilians—including the taking of hostages—were "not legitimate resistance."
"These are crimes and cannot be justified," she added.
Miller's attack on Albanese Wednesday—which echoed earlier attacks on the special rapporteur by U.S. officials and lawmakers—sparked immediate backlash and calls for his resignation.
"Matthew Miller should be forced to resign for trying to endanger the life of a U.N. official with falsehoods," Ashish Prashar, a spokesperson for Gaza Voices, said in a statement. Albanese said earlier this week that she has faced threats following the publication of her report accusing Israel of committing genocide in the Gaza Strip.
Rohan Talbot, director of advocacy and campaigns at Medical Aid for Palestinians, called the State Department spokesman's remarks a "truly despicable, Trumpian smearing of a principled human rights expert."
"Note the lack of substantive rebuttals of her careful analysis, and the resort to ad hominem attacks," Talbot wrote on social media. "Not the sign of a confident administration."
"Israel has a long history of weaponizing false charges of antisemitism to attack and undermine those fighting for human rights for Palestinians."
The Israeli government has similarly attempted to cast Albanese as an antisemite, drawing pushback from human rights organizations and academics who say the claim is a baseless attempt to discredit her work.
"Israel has a long history of weaponizing false charges of antisemitism to attack and undermine those fighting for human rights for Palestinians—and U.N. officials and experts have been among the most consistent victims of those attacks," Phyllis Bennis, director of the New Internationalism Project at the Institute for Policy Studies, told Common Dreams.
"Almost 15 years ago Richard Falk," Bennis added, "an internationally respected Princeton professor of international law who had just been appointed special rapporteur, was not only denied access to the occupied Palestinian territory to carry out the terms of his U.N. mandate, but was also arrested and jailed by Israeli authorities."
"Since then every special rapporteur has been similarly excluded, their mandate and their work undermined, and their commitment to international law and human rights attacked as antisemitic," she said. "Francesca Albanese has been among the bravest of these SRs, maintaining her commitment to calling out all violations of international law relevant to her mandate—including when Israel has violated international covenants against apartheid and now, against genocide."
Albanese's 25-page report, which she delivered to the U.N. Human Rights Council on Tuesday, argues that "the overwhelming nature and scale of Israel's assault on Gaza and the destructive conditions of life it has inflicted reveal an intent to physically destroy Palestinians as a group."
"There are reasonable grounds to believe that the threshold indicating the commission of the following acts of genocide against Palestinians in Gaza has been met: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to groups' members; and deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part," the report states. "Genocidal acts were approved and given effect following statements of genocidal intent issued by senior military and government officials."
Amnesty International praised the report as "a crucial body of work that must serve as a vital call to action."
The Biden State Department has publicly rejected genocide accusations against Israel as "meritless" and said it has not found Israel's military to be in violation of international law during its monthslong war on Gaza—an assessment that conflicts with the findings of leading human rights organizations and U.N. experts.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular