

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.
On the eve of Earth Day and the start of U.S. President Joe Biden's Leaders Summit on Climate, a group of 101 Nobel laureates published a letter urging world leaders and governments to "keep fossil fuels in the ground" as a critical first step toward addressing the climate emergency.
"Urgent action is needed to end the expansions of fossil fuel production, phase out current production, and invest in renewable energy."
--Nobel laureates' letter
The letter--which was signed by Nobel peace, literature, medicine, physics, chemistry, and economic sciences laureates--notes that the climate emergency "is threatening hundreds of millions of lives, livelihoods across every continent, and is putting thousands of species at risk." It adds that "the burning of fossil fuels--coal, oil, and gas--is by far the major contributor" to the crisis.
Signers of the letter--who include Mairead Corrigan-Maguire, the Dalai Lama, Rigoberta Menchu Tum, Adolfo Perez Esquivel, Jody Williams, and Muhammad Yunus--said that "urgent action is needed to end the expansions of fossil fuel production, phase out current production, and invest in renewable energy."
The letter continues:
The burning of fossil fuels is responsible for almost 80% of carbon dioxide emissions since the industrial revolution. In addition to being the leading source of emissions, there are local pollution, environmental, and health costs associated with extracting, refining, transporting, and burning fossil fuels.
These costs are often paid by Indigenous peoples and marginalized communities. Egregious industry practices have led to human rights violations and a fossil fuel system that has left billions of people across the globe without sufficient energy to lead lives of dignity.
For both people and the planet, continued support must be given to tackling climate change through the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and its Paris agreement. Failure to meet the Paris agreement's temperature limit of 1.5degC risks pushing the world towards catastrophic global warming. Yet, the Paris agreement has no mention of oil, gas, or coal.
Meanwhile, the fossil fuel industry continues to plan new projects. Banks continue to fund new projects. According to the most recent United Nations Environment Program report, 120% more coal, oil, and gas will be produced by 2030 than is consistent with limiting warming to 1.5degC. Efforts to meet the Paris agreement and to reduce demand for fossil fuels will be undermined if supply continues to grow.
The signatories urge world leaders to do the following "in a spirit of international cooperation":
"Fossil fuels are the greatest contributor to climate change," the letter concludes. "Allowing the continued expansion of this industry is unconscionable. The fossil fuel system is global and requires a global solution--a solution the Leaders Climate Summit must work towards. And the first step is to keep fossil fuels in the ground."
The Nobel laureates' letter comes two days after United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres warned that humanity stands "on the verge of the abyss" as the climate crisis pushes the world "dangerously close" to hitting the 1.5degC target limit of warming.
Guterres said that the world is "way off track" of the goal of reducing by 2030 global greenhouse gas emissions by 45% from 2010 levels and reaching net-zero emissions by 2050, which scientists say is necessary to avert the worst impacts of the climate emergency.
Peace activist and Nobel laureate Jody Williams is continuing to sound alarm about so-called killer robots, saying in a recent interview that they represent a frightening marriage between "artificial intelligence and weapons of war."
Williams, who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1997 for her work with the International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL) and currently chairs the Nobel Women's Initiative, made the remark in an interview published last month with the Germany-based Faces of Peace Initiative.
"We do not need fully autonomous weapons that on their own can target and kill human beings," said Williams. "We need to use our resources so that the needs of people are met, not the needs of arms producers."
Asked about the biggest threats to peace this year, Williams criticized the never-ending pursuit of more modern weaponry.
"To my mind," said Williams, "the global obsession with weapons and violence while at the same time painting people who believe that peace is possible as intellectual 'light weights' who don't understand the harsh reality of the world are the two sides of the double-edged sword that keeps the world believing that only more weapons will keep us safe."
"The biggest threats are the 'modernization' of nuclear weapons and the new 'revolution' of weapons--killer robots," she said. "The weapons are fully autonomous and can target and kill human beings on their own. A devastating 'marriage' of artificial intelligence and weapons of war!"
Williams also lamented that landmines continue to claim lives--over 5,000 in 2019 according to the most recent Land Mine Monitor. That's despite the fact that the Mine Ban Treaty has 164 state parties, which represents roughly 80% of the world's countries.
Williams' home country of the United States is not a signatory to the global treaty, though she expressed some optimism for the Biden administration doing better than its immediate predecessor.
While making no prediction about what President Joe Biden would do regarding the treaty, Williams said in the interview that it's "very likely he will roll back [former President Donald] Trump's policy and align his administration's policy with that of the Obama administration, which brought the U.S. very close to compliance with the treaty even if it was not signed."
Since the interview was released, however, the Biden administration indicated it would not roll back Trump's policy, declaring landmines a still "vital tool" in the U.S. military's arsenal.
Speaking about the issue in an April 8 interview with Democracy Now!, Williams said the Biden administration's decision to simply "review the policy"--as opposed to swiftly repealing it--was "mind-boggling" given the "multitudinous reviews under various presidents."
"Landmines were invented, if you will, in order to maim people," she said.
"It is an indiscriminate weapon that has no place on this planet and no place in the ground, in riverbanks where women go and wash clothes, areas where kids play," said Williams. "The fact that President Biden had said he would immediately turn back Mr. Trump's confused policy and is now having another review is very disturbing."
"How many more reviews does one need to do to know that those weapons have no place on this planet?"
Calling on U.S. President Joe Biden to prioritize human need over corporate greed, more than 170 Nobel laureates and former heads of state and government on Wednesday sent an open letter urging him to back a waiver of intellectual property rules so that developing nations can ramp up coronavirus vaccine production and pursue a people's vaccine to help end a pandemic that has now claimed nearly three million lives.
"We will not end today's global pandemic until rich countries--most especially the United States--stop blocking the ability of countries around the world to mass produce safe and effective vaccines."
--Francoise Barre-Sinoussi,
Nobel laureate
Signers of the People's Vaccine Alliance letter--who include former Irish President Mary Robinson, former Liberian President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, and former Soviet Union President Mikhail Gorbachev, as well as Nobel laureates including Joseph Stiglitz, Mairead Maguire, and Jody Williams--say they are "gravely concerned by the very slow progress in scaling up global Covid-19 vaccine access and inoculation in low- and middle-income countries."
"The world saw unprecedented development of safe and effective vaccines, in major part thanks to U.S. public investment," the letter states. "We all welcome that vaccination rollout in the U.S. and many wealthier countries is bringing hope to their citizens. Yet for the majority of the world that same hope is yet to be seen. New waves of suffering are now rising across the globe. Our global economy cannot rebuild if it remains vulnerable to this virus."
The letter continues:
But we are encouraged by news that your administration is considering a temporary waiver of World Trade Organization (WTO) intellectual property rules during the Covid-19 pandemic, as proposed by South Africa and India, and supported by more than 100 WTO member states and numerous health experts worldwide. A WTO waiver is a vital and necessary step to bringing an end to this pandemic. It must be combined with ensuring vaccine know-how and technology is shared openly.
This can be achieved through the World Health Organization Covid-19 Technology Access Pool, as your chief medical adviser, Dr. Anthony Fauci, has called for. This will save lives and advance us towards global herd immunity. These actions would expand global manufacturing capacity, unhindered by industry monopolies that are driving the dire supply shortages blocking vaccine access.
Nine in 10 people in most poor countries may well go without a vaccine this year. At this pace, many nations will be left waiting until at least 2024 to achieve mass Covid-19 immunization, despite what the limited, while welcome, COVAX initiative is able to offer.
"With your leadership, we can ensure Covid-19 vaccine technology is shared with the world," the letter to Biden concludes. "Supporting the emergency waiver of Covid-19-related intellectual property rules will give people around the globe a chance to wake up to a world free from the virus. We need a people's vaccine."
Letter signatory Francoise Barre-Sinoussi, winner of the 2008 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for co-discovering the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), said in a statement that "we will not end today's global pandemic until rich countries--most especially the United States--stop blocking the ability of countries around the world to mass produce safe and effective vaccines."
"Big pharmaceutical companies are setting the terms of the end of today's pandemic--and the cost of allowing senseless monopolies is only more death and more people being pushed into poverty."
--Muhammad Yunus,
Nobel laureate
"Global health is on the line," she added. "History is watching. I, with my fellow laureates and scientists across the globe, urge President Biden to do the right thing and to support the TRIPS waiver, insist on pharmaceutical corporations to share vaccine technologies with the world, and strategically invest in distributed production."
Muhammad Yunus, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2006 for establishing the micro-lending Grameen Bank in Bangladesh, said that "big pharmaceutical companies are setting the terms of the end of today's pandemic--and the cost of allowing senseless monopolies is only more death and more people being pushed into poverty."
"Only government action--not philanthropy, and not the private sector--can solve today's unprecedented crisis," added Yunus. "We together urge President Biden to stand on the right side of history--and ensure a vaccine is a global common good, free of intellectual property protections."
The world leaders' and Nobel laureates' letter came on the same day that an international coalition of 250 civil society groups urged the head of the World Trade Organization to embrace a temporary suspension of coronavirus vaccine-related patents.
The rising backlash against women's rights, as well as that against activists of all stripes, was infused with new and terrifyingly overt vigor with the campaigning tactics of Donald Trump leading up to the dumbfounding results of the US presidential elections last November. But perhaps for many, equally as surprising has been the massive, and mostly nonviolent opposition in the US to Mr. Trump's dystopian agenda that favors the rich and Wall Street at the expense of the poor and middle classes, its sexist assault on women's rights, and the fact that it doesn't give one whit about the environment and climate change.
In total dismay the night after the election, Teresa Shook, a retired attorney and grandmother living in Hawaii, turned to Facebook and wrote the first thing that came to her mind, "I think we should march." That little post was the impetus to what became the amazing Women's March on Washington on January 21, the day after Trump's inauguration.
More than half a million women, children and men came together to express a broad range of opposition to Mr. Trump and his plans. Eight of those people were at my house in Virginia and we planned to hook up with the Nobel Women's Initiative delegation at a point near where the march would start and walk together in support of women's rights and opposition to all things Trump. While we did manage to make it to the march, which was an adventure itself, we never were able to find anyone we had intended to march with.
The gloriously chaotic and completely peaceful crowd in Washington was so massive that finding our friends proved impossible so we focused on staying together and reveling in the magnitude of the march. That day some three million people marched in cities across the US and around the world to denounce the global rise of the authoritarian right, fueling xenophobia and intolerance of the "other," whether because of gender, race, religion, place of origin - or any other hateful sentiment given power and space by the man who became president.
At a rally that day in Boston, US Senator Elizabeth Warren captured the essence of what propelled people, many of whom had never publicly protested before, to take to the streets. "We can whimper, we can whine or we can fight back," she said. "Me, I'm here to fight back."
"We can whimper, we can whine or we can fight back," Sen. Elizabeth Warren said. "Me, I'm here to fight back."The struggle continues as other longstanding issues such as climate change, gun violence in the US, and racism find new vibrancy, new voices rise up and are heard, and people continue taking to the streets in the hundreds of thousands as was the case on April 29 with the People's Climate March in Washington and across the US.
But as we know, and echoing the words of May Boeve, executive director of 350.org, writing to supporters after the march, "... [M]arching isn't enough. We need to find ways to keep organizing and building our power." She went on to say, "The best defense is a good offense," and described the pillars around which the environmental/climate movement is building its work: organizing, inspiring, opposing and resisting. In the Trumpian world writ large, these are fundamental elements of all activism, including that of feminists.
Struggling for equality since "Eve was fashioned of Adam's rib," and as evidenced by the unexpectedly massive response to the call for women to march, we are using this political juncture as impetus for rethinking strategies and tactics to promote and protect women's rights and those who defend them rather than simply working to "get through" this extremely negative political moment.
It has been both the current political tumult in the US and around the world coupled with the massive activist response that influenced the theme of the Nobel Women's Initiative upcoming biannual conference, to be held this year in Germany, from May 13-16. Women from more than a dozen countries, including the Democratic Republic of Congo, Guatemala, Indonesia, Iraq, Kenya, Syria, Turkey and Ukraine to mention a few, are coming together to share strategies and tactics from different cultures and experience under the conference banner, A Global Feminist Resistance: The Evolution and Revolution, Adapting to Survive Thrive!
Activists living in exile, such as Nobel Peace Laureates Shirin Ebadi of Iran and Tawakkol Karman of Yemen, as well as Yanar Mohammed of Iraq and Majd Chourbaji of Syria, bring to the discussions their experiences of working for women's rights in countries where they no longer live. Indigenous/First Nations women defending human rights and their lands in Guatemala - Andrea Ixchiu Hernandez, coordinator of Red Tz'ikin, and in Canada - Helen Knott from Prophet Rivers First Nations - will discuss and share their experiences with women like Julienne Lusenge, a feminist from the Democratic Republic of Congo who, against all odds, continues to fight back against rape and gender violence in her country.
One young activist coming to the conference is Sarah Clements, from Newtown, Connecticut, where twenty grade-school children and six adults were massacred by a lone gunman in December 2012; Sarah's mother survived the attack at the school. I met Sarah and several other young people from Newtown several years ago at a peace weekend sponsored by PeaceJam. It was the first such event for the Newtown young people and their interaction with the hundreds of other young people that weekend will always be with me.
That weekend, it was clear that Sarah is a natural leader. Not does she have the ability to inspire but also to bring people together to strategize and act. She and her family are members of Newtown Action Alliance which works for strong gun laws in the US. We all are fortunate that Sarah and other activists like Felogene Anumo of Kenya, and Heba Obeidat of Jordan, will be at the conference to offer insights into successes and set-backs they are encountering in their work as young women activists with those of us who have been at it for decades.
As an activist myself for almost five decades, since the Vietnam war, I am looking forward to bringing my experiences in helping create a global campaign to ban landmines out of nothing, or from my work before that in various organizations trying to stop US military intervention in Central America in the 1980s. The International Campaign to Ban Landmines has been wildly successful while our anti-interventionist work was anything but.
Nobel Laureate Rigoberta Menchu Tum survived the genocide of Guatemala's decades-long civil war that ended in 1996, but family members did not. Hers has been a life-long struggle to end impunity and bring to justice the perpetrators of those crimes against humanity. Her story and those of other Mayan women's struggles will be at the table in Germany to inspire us to remember that while at times seeking justice may seem a futile exercise, when women triumph, we can turn our upside down world right. One such story is that of the women of Sepur Zarco, Guatemala.
"When women triumph, we can turn our upside-down world right." One such story is that of the women of Sepur Zarco, Guatemala.In the early 1980s during the war, Mayan women were held as domestic and sexual slaves at an army fort in the tiny village of Sepur Zarco. For years after, afraid to talk about what had been done to them, they ate their pain. But slowly they began to talk to each other. Ultimately over many years that talk led fifteen of the women to fight for justice in a court case against two of the men involved in their slavery. Several Guatemalan women's organizations came together to support the effort and the case finally went to trial over the month of February 2016. Rigoberta and I spent the last week of the trial in the courtroom in support of the women. What I wrote at the time best captures the moment we saw them in court.
"After having met and talked with the women the night before, it was a shock to enter the courtroom the next morning and see them totally covered... Fourteen of the fifteen women who brought charges in the case sat behind their bank of lawyers, only one of whom was a man. Over the six years it took to bring the case to court one of the women died. Her testimony stands, however, because the women had been allowed to testify by video so they would not suffer revictimization in open court... "
"The women were always still and silent, always with their faces covered...They may cover their faces in public, but these are the women who found something within themselves that compelled them to seek justice - not only for themselves but also for women who come after them." And justice they found.
Against so many odds and in a precedent-setting case of monumental proportions, that February, the court found for the women. For the first time anywhere in the world, men had been tried for sexual slavery perpetrated during an armed conflict in the country where the crimes took place. The two men on trial were sentenced to a total of 260 years in prison and restitution was ordered for the women.
We refuse to bow to the backlash against women's equality and attempts to curtail our human rights. Fifteen Mayan women who speak no Spanish, have no education, live in intense poverty, and whose people are looked upon as less than human by Guatemalan elites, dared to take on the powerful military and seek justice. Despite immense tragedy and loss, they refused to remain silent victims. They are survivors who have demonstrated to women everywhere that together we can prevail.
It is with that spirit that we come together in Germany. We refuse to bow to the backlash against women's equality and attempts to curtail our human rights. As May Boeve said, "The best defense is a good offense." To develop a good offense it is fundamental to come together to not only continue to increase feminist networking but also to learn from each other's strategies and tactics that have worked and those that have not and how we need to adapt and adjust our efforts to respond to today's Trumpian world.
Elizabeth Warren got it right when she said, "We can whimper, we can whine or we can fight back." In a few short days, women from around the world will meet in Germany to hone our efforts to create a world of sustainable peace with justice and equality. We will not just survive, we will thrive.
The Nobel Women's Initiative Conference takes place in Germany 13-16 May.
THE HAGUE, Netherlands--One hundred years ago, more than 1,000 women gathered here in The Hague during World War I, demanding peace. Britain denied passports to more than 120 women, forbidding them from making the trip to suppress their peaceful dissent. Now, a century later, in these very violent times, nearly 1,000 women have gathered here again, this time from Africa, Asia and Latin America, as well as Europe and North America, saying "No" to wars from Iraq to Afghanistan to Yemen to Syria, not to mention the wars in our streets at home. They were marking the 100th anniversary of the founding of WILPF, the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom. Dr. Aletta Jacobs, a Dutch suffragist who co-founded the group a century ago, said the purpose of the original gathering in 1915 was to empower women "to protest against war and to suggest steps which may lead to warfare being an impossibility."
Among the women here were four Nobel Peace Prize winners. Shirin Ebadi was awarded the prize in 2003 for advocating for human rights for Iranian women, children and political prisoners. She was the first Muslim woman, and the first Iranian, to receive a Nobel. Nevertheless, she has lived in exile since 2009, and has only seen her husband once since then. "Had books been thrown at people, at the Taliban, instead of bombs, and had schools been built in Afghanistan," Ebadi said in her keynote address to the WILPF conference this week, "3,000 schools could have been built in memory of the 3,000 people who died on 9/11--at this time, we wouldn't have had ISIS. Let's not forget that the roots of the ISIS rest in the Taliban." She was joined by her sister laureates Leymah Gbowee, who helped achieve a negotiated peace during the civil wars in Liberia; Mairead Maguire, who won the peace prize in 1976 at the age of 32 for advancing an end to the conflict in her native Northern Ireland; and Jody Williams, a Vermonter who led the global campaign to ban land mines, and who now is organizing to ban "killer robots," weapons that kill automatically, without the active participation of a human controller.
These four world-renowned Nobel laureates were joined by nearly a thousand deeply committed peace activists from around the globe. Madeleine Rees, the secretary-general of WILPF, recalled the history of the first gathering in 1915, and how it was organized: "It wouldn't have happened, but for the suffrage movement," she told me, "because you don't just start a mass movement. You actually have to have an organizational structure to make that happen. That had started with the suffragette movement. ... Every single one of those women who went to The Hague ... were demanding the right to vote. They saw, quite rightly, that the absence of women in making decisions in government meant a greater likelihood of war."
Kozue Akibayashi is WILPF's new president. After World War II, the U.S. required that Japan's Constitution explicitly forbid it from pursuing war to settle disputes with foreign states. "The majority of people in Japan support the peace constitution," Akibayashi explained. President Barack Obama, however, like George W. Bush before him, is pressuring Japan to eliminate the pacifistic Article Nine from the Japanese Constitution. He hosted Japan's prime minister, Shinzo Abe, in Washington this week, celebrating Abe as he works to restore Japan's military to its former offensive capacity. Akibayashi and thousands of others also are protesting the planned expansion of the U.S. military presence on Okinawa.
Africa activist Hakima Abbas was also in The Hague. I interviewed her hours after mass graves were reported in Nigeria, containing victims of the militant group Boko Haram. The story of Boko Haram, she told me, "is an intersection with violent Islamist fundamentalisms, with global capitalism and with militarization ... fundamentalisms, though, don't start and end with Islamic fundamentalisms in Africa. We've seen Christian fundamentalisms in Uganda, and the persecution of LGBTQI people." She then made a connection to the street protests in Baltimore this week: "In your own country," she told me, "the white supremacist and Christian right fundamentalisms are exacerbated by the gun culture and the promotion of an armed police force, which is killing black women, men, trans people and children. ... So fundamentalisms is really something that we have to address globally."
I asked Shirin Ebadi if she had advice for the people of the world. She replied with a simple yet powerful prescription for peace, laying out the work for WILPF as it enters its second century: "Treat the people of Afghanistan the same as you treat your own people. Look at Iraqi children the same as you look at your own children. Then you will see that the solution is there."
Denis Moynihan contributed research to this column.
Women human rights defenders are under attack. The Nobel Women's Initiative conference convenes today to deepen the understanding of the risks, and to develop strategies to strengthen efforts to defend the defenders.
Some of the people most at risk in the world are those who dare to work to promote and defend the human rights of us all. Not surprisingly, because women are always among the most vulnerable in a world that still chooses to treat us as beings with something less than an equal status with men - and because their very act of speaking up and taking action against authority is a threat to the patriarchal status quo - it is women defenders who are most frequently under threat and attack. They need and deserve our support.
Some 120 women who work to protect and promote human rights around the world are meeting in the Netherlands from April 24 to 26, at the 5th biennial conference convened by the Nobel Women's Initiative. Many of the women coming to the conference are those we have met and worked with through Nobel Women's Initiative delegations to the Thai/Burma border, to Palestine/Israel, to Liberia, to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, to the Tar Sands of Alberta, Canada, and to Mexico, Honduras and Guatemala.
The purpose of these various trips and others, in their essence, is to gather evidence and first-hand stories of the impact of escalating violence against women and their rights, assess the role and response of governments and regional bodies, and evaluate ways of supporting women who are organizing to protect themselves and their communities. We are coming together in the Netherlands to deepen our understanding of the most recent risks for activists, and to strategize about how to strengthen efforts to defend the defenders. It is a daunting challenge.
Human rights activists around the globe tackle a wide range of issues, from defending the right to life and human dignity, to the defense of land rights and the environment, to socio-economic justice and to disarmament and arms control. Human rights defenders promote and defend freedom of speech and association as well as denouncing torture, forced disappearances and extra-judicial executions. And these name only a few of the areas they tackle.
With our rights under attack - either directly or by being eroded over time - women defenders are more vulnerable than ever.
When they stand up to protect and promote human rights in countries all around the world, women defenders are frequently subjected to intimidation and persecution, defamation campaigns, criminalization and illegal arrests. They endure cruel and inhumane treatment, rape, forced disappearance, murder, threats against themselves and their families, robbery and home invasion and destruction.
Once women human rights defenders speak on behalf of others, nothing in their own lives is sacred any more - including the security of their family members.
Unfortunately, and not surprisingly, despite the high rhetoric and resolutions of the UN, governments and high-profile/powerful individuals alike - both about human rights and defending the defenders - that rhetoric rarely trickles down to meaningful action for people working on the front lines where rights are most under attack, and impunity for the violators, despite some inroads, seems virtually inviolable.
Women everywhere are tired of hearing governments offer up new reports or new commissions or special positions created to "study" violence against women and come up with recommendations to address the problem. Women in Mexico, for example, reported that the government simulates compliance with international treaties and norms on preventing and addressing violence against women rather than make real changes.
International treaties and norms, domestic laws and new reports and recommendations are worth less than the paper they are written on if they are not enforced and implemented.
And it can be worse than that. Governments are more than willing to turn a blind eye to human rights violations if defending our rights gets in the way of either "national interest" or economic interests. In the competing arenas of government policies, economic power and money, and the human and civil rights of people around the world, our rights are almost always the first to go. And often as the erosion of human rights escalates, so does the rhetoric about their importance and/or the importance of "balancing" human rights with threats against "security."
Defending human rights can be life threatening for anyone taking the risk, but women fighting to defend their land and way of life in the face of huge economic interests - such as extraction industries and oil and gas interests - are increasingly vulnerable. In mid-April, Global Witness released a new report, "How Many More?", indicating that at least 116 environmental activists were murdered in 2014, almost double the number of journalists killed in the same period, and that indigenous communities are the hardest hit.
While the report does not indicate how many of those 116 activists were women, it is safe to say that many were. Another report on climate justice and women's rights notes that while there is a lot of money for work on climate and the environment, little of it goes to support women. At the same time the report states that women environmental activists are very vulnerable because they tend to work at the grassroots community level, and the threats against them are mostly undocumented.
Widespread violence against women and women human rights defenders is a top priority not only for humanitarian reasons, but because it represents a serious violation of human rights, and clearly demonstrates governments' non-compliance with two fundamental obligations: to guarantee the safety and rights of their citizens and to eliminate discrimination.
Too many women human rights defenders have suffered this violence, and countless numbers who have refused to remain silent have lost their lives as a result. When governments fail to protect, we carry the collective responsibility to fight for human rights and justice. Women human rights defenders are under attack and international support and solidarity is crucial in defending the defenders, and also in pushing governments to demonstrate the political will needed to bring about real change in people's lives.
We must build enough public awareness and pressure to force governments to do what they should be doing anyway - and that is protecting and promoting equality and the human rights of us all.
The U.N. just concluded the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Preparatory Committee with representatives from the 189 signatory nations and of civil society. The meeting was in preparation for next year's NPT conference and to discuss the current status of fulfilling the obligations under the treaty and in particular, the mandate of the nuclear weapons states for global disarmament. The outcome was a continued foot dragging by the nuclear states motivating a demand for meaningful steps and progress toward disarmament by the other 184 nations in view of current international events.
Recent scientific studies by the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War on the humanitarian consequences of limited nuclear war have shed additional light on the danger these weapons pose. Describing a hypothetical conflict between India and Pakistan using less than 1/2 of 1 percent of the global nuclear arsenals, the studies confirm 2 billion people would be at risk of dying due to global climatic change.
Combined with recent scandals involving U.S. ICBM missile controllers and a growing accounting of nuclear mishaps and near misses in our nuclear forces over the years, the sense of urgency for disarmament is greater than ever. It has become a question of who will step forward and speak for humanity.
On April 24, the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI) filed the Nuclear Zero Lawsuits in the International Court of Justice against all nine nuclear-armed nations, as well as against the United States in U.S. Federal District Court. RMI claims that the nuclear weapon states are in breach of Article VI of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which entered into force 16,121 days prior to the filing. In this David vs. Goliath action this tiny island nation has found the voice to speak on behalf of the world and the other nations signatory to the Treaty.
The case for the Nuclear Zero Lawsuit comes directly from the NPT where Article VI states: "Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control."
This was the grand bargain that convinced many non-nuclear weapon states to sign the treaty and agree not to develop nuclear weapons of their own. Forty-four years later, with no meaningful negotiations on the horizon and no end in sight to the "step-by-step" process heralded by the permanent five members of the UN Security Council (P5), the RMI has stepped in to change the discourse on nuclear disarmament.
RMI is seeking declaratory relief from the courts that will compel the leaders of the Nuclear Weapons States (NWS) to initiate good-faith negotiations for an end to the nuclear arms race and to nuclear disarmament. They are challenging the leaders of the NWS to answer, on the record, why 44 years have passed and nuclear arsenals continue to be modernized, national security strategies continue to place nuclear weapons at the top of the list, and the P5 don't even expect to have a "Glossary of Key Nuclear Terms" to talk about nuclear disarmament until 2015.
In addition to the five Nuclear Weapon States named in the NPT, the lawsuit also includes the four nuclear weapon states that are not parties to the NPT - Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea - which, RMI argues, are bound to Article VI obligations under customary international law.
The RMI is a small sovereign nation, among the smallest in the world. However, their courage could not be greater. Having been a testing ground for 67 nuclear tests between 1946 and 1958, the Marshall Islanders have seen their land, sea and people poisoned from radiation. These tests had an equivalent explosive force greater than 1.5 Hiroshima bombs being detonated daily for 12 years. The Marshall Islanders paid a heavy price in terms of their health and well-being for these destructive tests. They have experienced firsthand the horrible destruction caused by nuclear weapons and those that possess them. They are willing to stand up to the nine nuclear giants and say, "Never again. We have seen the destructive impact of these horrific weapons and vow to do all we can so the world never sees such atrocities again."
The RMI does not act alone in this action. A consortium of NGOs working to highlight the legal and moral issues involved in the Nuclear Zero Lawsuit has come together around the world coordinated by the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation in Santa Barbara. Respecting the courage of the plaintiff in bringing these lawsuits against some of the most powerful nations in the world they have developed a call to action.
The consortium urges everyone to join them by raising your voice in support of the Nuclear Zero Lawsuit. Go to www.nuclearzero.org, where you can read more about the lawsuits and sign the petition encouraging leaders of the Nuclear Weapon States to begin good-faith negotiations.
From north to south and east to west, people across the United States and Canada are increasingly coming together to fight against the expansion of the Alberta tar sands and efforts to move the highly toxic bitumen -- tar sands "oil" -- through pipelines to the Atlantic, Pacific and Gulf of Mexico. From US ports the bitumen would be shipped primarily to China.
From north to south and east to west, people across the United States and Canada are increasingly coming together to fight against the expansion of the Alberta tar sands and efforts to move the highly toxic bitumen -- tar sands "oil" -- through pipelines to the Atlantic, Pacific and Gulf of Mexico. From US ports the bitumen would be shipped primarily to China.
Why do I care? Even before I learned that ExxonMobile is gearing up to try to send tar sands oil east through Vermont -- my home state -- and New Hampshire to a shipping port in Portland, Maine through decades-old pipelines, I was opposed to tar sands expansion and pipeline projects.
Global warming and the obvious changes to our weather patterns cannot sustain more exploitation of fossil fuels. And tar sands expansion is among the worst threats. After the oil fields of Saudia Arabia, the full development of Alberta tar sands will create the world's second-largest potential source of global warming gases. I saw for myself the impact of the tar sands on the environment and people of Western Canada.
Last October I led a delegation of women from the United States and Canada to the tar sands of Alberta. We began in Ft McMurray, and then traveled along the proposed route of the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline that will carry tar sands oil from Prince George, in beautiful northern British Columbia, all the way to the sea at Kitimat on the Douglas Channel.
While in Canada, I met with and listened to the concerns of over 200 women in 13 communities -- women nursing babies, women in wheelchairs, some women representing environmental and community organizations, many from First Nation groups. They spoke passionately about how the massive expansion of the oil sands and pipeline and tanker projects will impact on their communities, forests, rivers, oceans, and air. Some told us of powerful court challenges they are mounting against the tar sands, others described their very real fears about oil spills and what this will do to their livelihoods and way of life. The tar sands oil is the dirty, and they don't want it their backyard.
And I don't want it in mine.
Along with most Americans, I am deeply disturbed by the rapid pace of climate change and want our leaders to take meaningful action. Last year I wrote last year to President Obama, together with nine other Nobel Peace laureates, urging him to lead the transition away from our dependence on oil, coal and gas and instead increase investments in renewable energies and energy efficiency. I also joined tens of thousands in demonstrating at the White House to urge him to reject the Keystone XL pipeline, which will carry tar sands oil from Canada through six states to reach the Gulf of Mexico. But that is still not enough.
What I heard in Western Canada echoes what I am hearing across the continent. Many people are moved to action by changing weather patterns, and their fears for the future of their families. Warmer temperatures are hitting Northern British Columbia's forestry industry hard. Closer to home, last year was the hottest on record in Vermont, New Hampshire and Massachusetts, by more than one degree -- as it was for the entire continental United States. A record 11 wildfires, droughts and storms in 2012 exceeded $1 billion in damages, and of course Superstorm Sandy late last year devastated the lives of many communities in New Jersey and New York.
Yet, through it all, our leaders in the US and Canada continue to collude with the oil industry for a rapid expansion of the tar sands. This kind of leadership is taking us in the opposite direction of where we need to go. Production of tar sands oil needs to be capped, and we need to start investing in other energy sources.
Like thousands resisting the pipelines in Canada and the Keystone XL, we here in New England will say no to tar sands.
We will be united in telling leaders of both nations to stop the madness. Listen up Prime Minister Harper: Canada's National Energy Board must hear the will of the people and deny approval of this pipeline plan. And our message to President Obama, as he starts his second term, is clear: Become a climate leader. Keep tar sands out of New England by refusing to issue this pipeline a new presidential permit.
As a Vermonter, an American, a global citizen, I am proud to join this call.
CAPE TOWN - On Sunday, November 6, thousands of people encircled the White House as part of the ongoing effort to press US President Barack Obama to stop the Keystone XL pipeline. If the nearly 1,700-mile pipeline were to be built, it would run from the tar sands of Alberta, Canada, through the heartland of the US, all the way to the Texas coast on the Gulf of Mexico.
CAPE TOWN - On Sunday, November 6, thousands of people encircled the White House as part of the ongoing effort to press US President Barack Obama to stop the Keystone XL pipeline. If the nearly 1,700-mile pipeline were to be built, it would run from the tar sands of Alberta, Canada, through the heartland of the US, all the way to the Texas coast on the Gulf of Mexico. Should the project go ahead, Obama will have made one of the single most disastrous decisions of his presidency concerning climate change and the very future of our planet.

In August, some 1,250 people were arrested in front of the White House while protesting against Keystone. One of them was James Hanson, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, who has been studying for decades the impact of fossil fuels on the environment. Hanson argues that the pipeline would sound the death knell for the world's climate. Oil from the tar sands of Alberta is the dirtiest in the world, and its extraction is already causing problems. If Keystone is built, there will be increased efforts to expand oil production there, making a bad situation much worse.
Opposition to the pipeline throughout the US is growing in intensity - from the activists arrested in Washington, DC, to the governor of Nebraska, who is seeking state legislation to stop the pipeline from running through America's biggest aquifer, to members of the US Congress, who have petitioned Obama about the project. The outpouring of opposition surprised the oil industry, its highly paid lobbyists, and especially TransCanada Corporation, which would build the pipeline. So, like many huge corporations facing public criticism, they and their allies are responding with a dubious new marketing effort.
The pipeline's defenders proclaim that Canadian oil is "ethical," whereas oil from suspect countries is "unethical." US Senator Lindsey Graham, a Republican from South Carolina, has picked up on the theme. "We have a supply [of oil] to our north that, to me, is just like finding it in America," he said. "Dirty oil is buying oil from someone who takes the money and sponsors terrorism and tries to make the world a dark and sinister place to live."
Graham points to Venezuela and Iran as producers of "dirty" oil thus defined. Presumably, his list should also include America's long-time ally Saudi Arabia. In fact, that is precisely what the industry's "ethical oil" campaign is suggesting: by continuing to acquire dirty oil from Saudi Arabia rather than from Canada, the US supports the Saudis' oppression of women.
The situation of women in Saudi Arabia is obviously unacceptable, but it is deeply disturbing that the oil industry is exploiting the issue of women's rights in order to shift the discussion away from fossil fuel and climate change. Neither their tactics nor their tar sands are ethical.
The claim that Alberta's fossil fuels are "ethical" because Canada is a friend is a specious ploy aimed at perpetuating the world's addiction to fossil fuels. There is no such thing as ethical fossil fuel, regardless of geographical origin. The ethical choice is to move as quickly as possible away from fossil fuels, period.
Time, research, and money must be devoted to finding clean, renewable, and sustainable alternatives to fossil fuels. But it takes consistent and committed leadership to make that happen. And that brings us back to the Keystone XL pipeline.
Obama campaigned and was elected in part on a pledge to address climate change. He spoke of seas that would stop rising, and of shifting the US away from fossil fuels to new sources of clean energy. He now has the opportunity to make good on those promises by stopping the Keystone XL pipeline.
Along with fellow Nobel laureates Betty Williams, Mairead Maguire, Adolfo Perez Esquivel, Rigoberta Menchu Tum, Jose Ramos Horta, Shirin Ebadi, and the Dalai Lama, we have raised our voices in an open letter to Obama, calling upon him to make the right choice. All of the signatories support those who encircled the White House on November 6 to protest the pipeline. The only ethical choice on this question is one that supports clean, renewable energy - and that rejects continued addiction to fossil fuels.
Along with fellow Nobel laureates Betty Williams, Mairead Maguire, Adolfo Perez Esquivel, Rigoberta Menchu Tum, Jose Ramos Horta, Shirin Ebadi, and the Dalai Lama, we have raised our voices in an open letter to Obama, calling upon him to make the right choice. All of the signatories support those who encircled the White House on November 6 to protest the pipeline. The only ethical choice on this question is one that supports clean, renewable energy - and that rejects continued addiction to fossil fuels.
Many people are troubled that Barack Obama flew to Oslo to receive the Nobel Peace Prize so soon after escalating the war in Afghanistan. He is now more than doubling the number of troops there when George W. Bush left office.
The irony was not lost on the President, and he tried to address it in his Nobel acceptance speech. "I am responsible for the deployment of thousands of young Americans to battle in a distant land," he said. "Some will kill. Some will be killed. And so I come here with an acute sense of the cost of armed conflict -- filled with difficult questions about the relationship between war and peace, and our effort to replace one with the other."
Granted, there's a gap here between the rhetoric and the reality. But there's always been something askew about Nobel Peace Prize, in no small part because it's given in the name of the man who invented dynamite, one of the most powerful and destructive weapons in the human arsenal.
It was rumored that after Alfred Nobel brought his version of Frankenstein into the world, he was torn by guilt over his creation, his shame said to have intensified when a French newspaper prematurely ran his obituary with the headline, "The Merchant of Death is Dead." The article vilified him as a man "who became rich by finding ways to kill more people faster than ever before."
What's more, until the end of his life he corresponded with a woman named Bertha von Suttner, who had briefly worked as his secretary. Many believe that Nobel was moved by a powerful antiwar book she had written titled "Lay Down Your Arms." Whatever his reasons, when his will created the Nobel Prizes he specifically included among them a prize for peace. Von Suttner became one of its first recipients.
After Nobel's death, events turned grim, as if to mock him further. The arms race exploded beyond anything he could have imagined. From the coupling of science and the military came ever more ingenious weapons of destruction that would take even more lives in ever more horrible ways.
One of the most insidious was the land mine, that small, explosive device filled with shrapnel that burns or blinds, maims or kills. Triggered by the touch of a foot or movement or even sound, more often than not it's the innocent who are its victims -- 75 to 80 percent of the time, in fact.
As a weapon, variations of land mines have been around since perhaps as early as the 13th century, but it was not until World War I that the technology was more or less perfected, if that can be said of weapons that mangle and mutilate the human body, and their use became common.
The United States has not actively used land mines since the first Gulf War in 1991, but we still possess some 10-15 million of them, making us the third largest stockpiler in the world, behind China and Russia. Like those two countries, we have refused to sign an international agreement banning the manufacture, stockpiling and use of land mines. Since 1987, 156 other nations have signed it, including every country in NATO. Amongst that 156, more than 40 million mines have been destroyed.
Just days before Obama flew to Oslo to make his Nobel Peace Prize speech, an international summit conference was held in Cartagena, Colombia, to review the progress of the treaty. The United States sent representatives and the State Department says our government has begun a comprehensive review of its current policy.
Last year 5,000 people were killed or wounded by land mines, often placed in the ground years before, during wars long since over. They kill or blow away the limbs of a farmer or child as indiscriminately as they do a soldier. But still we refuse to sign, citing security commitments to our friends and allies, such as South Korea, where a million mines fill the demilitarized zone between it and North Korea.
Twelve years ago, at the time the treaty was first put into place, the Nobel Peace Prize was jointly awarded to the International Campaign to Ban Landmines and Jody Williams, an activist from Vermont who believes that by organizing into a movement, ordinary people can matter. She proved it, despite the stubborn refusal of her own country's government to do the right thing.
Last week, Jody Williams condemned America's continuing refusal to sign the treaty as "a slap in the face to land mine survivors, their families, and affected communities everywhere."
The Nobel Committee said that part of the reason it was giving the Peace Prize to President Obama was for his respect of international law and his efforts at disarmament. And twice in his Nobel lecture, the President spoke of how often more civilians than soldiers die in a war. Then he said this:
"I believe that all nations, strong and weak alike, must adhere to standards that govern the use of force. I, like any head of state, reserve the right to act unilaterally if necessary to defend my nation. Nevertheless, I am convinced that adhering to standards strengthens those who do, and isolates -- and weakens -- those who don't."
And still the land mine treaty goes unsigned by the government he leads. Go figure.