

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
The EU talks a good game, but rhetoric alone is not enough. The ratification delay is a golden opportunity for reflection and to strengthen standards.
Gestation crates are metal cages, typically no bigger than 7 feet by 2 feet, used to contain female pigs—known as sows—for most of their breeding lives. The crates are so small that their inhabitants cannot walk or even turn around. Natural behaviors such as rummaging, fetching food, nesting, and grazing are all denied to them.
Without question they are among the cruelest fixtures in the meat industry. Many countries in the Western world, including the European Union, have either banned or significantly restricted their use. The European Commission plans to phase them out entirely by 2027. A recent landmark piece of legislation, however, threatens to undo this critical progress.
The EU-Mercosur (Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay) Agreement, signed to great fanfare on January 17, 2026, has been heralded as both historic and ambitious. Less discussed, however, is what the agreement could mean for animal welfare protections in both hemispheres.
The EU may be home to some of the highest animal welfare standards of any government in the world, but the same cannot be said for Mercosur, where millions of sows are still confined to gestation crates for long periods of time.
Unless safeguards are put in place, this trade agreement risks reversing the EU's progress on deforestation altogether.
Sinergia Animal, the international animal protection organisation whose Brazilian operations I lead, publishes a yearly report called Pigs in Focus, which ranks major Brazilian producers on their animal welfare standards. Despite being the country’s fourth-largest pork processor and a major dairy company, Frimesa has still not committed to ban crates for sows. Farrowing cages and battery cages for chickens remain widespread too. We have been negotiating with them for years, and despite their competitors making meaningful progress, they are still dragging their heels on making even basic improvements.
The problem does not stop with Frimesa. Minerva Foods, one of the leading meat producers in South America and a major supplier of pork products globally, continues to cause immense suffering. Ear notching, teeth clipping, and tail docking, as well as the routine misuse of antimicrobials, are all common. Again, while commitments to phase out these techniques have been made, our research exposes the use of excessively long deadlines that serve to prolong animal suffering.
These are not exceptional, isolated cases. They represent a wider system across Mercosur countries—one that may end up supplying significantly more of the meat consumed in the EU.
This raises serious questions about the EU’s commitment to animal welfare standards, which is why the European Parliament’s decision in late January to request a legal opinion from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on the agreement’s conformity with the EU treaties, thereby halting the ratification process, is a welcome one.
The review could take up to two years, which gives EU policymakers more than enough time to revisit the issue of animal welfare and mitigate against the new incentive structures now in place for Mercosur producers.
It would, however, be a mistake to assume that greater attention should be paid to animal welfare protections alone. After all, lower standards mean higher yields. In Argentina and Uruguay, 89% and 88% of eggs come from hens kept in battery or enriched cages. In Brazil the figure is 95%. In the EU, by comparison, 38% of hens are still kept in cages—something seen as too high but will nonetheless put European producers at a significant competitive disadvantage.
An increase in demand for meat will also magnify pressure on vital ecosystems. As demand for land and animal feed goes up, so too will the rate of deforestation. The resultant loss of habitat will accelerate biodiversity decline, threatening ecosystems that are a key natural defense against climate change.
These developments cannot be divorced from the geopolitics of the climate crisis. With the US having reneged on its international climate commitments, the pressure is on the EU to at least partially fill the leadership void. So far they are failing, with initiatives such as the Deforestation Regulation and electric vehicle mandate either abandoned or reduced in ambition. Unless safeguards are put in place, this trade agreement risks reversing the EU's progress on deforestation altogether.
So what can the EU do? At a minimum, Brussels must demand that meat produced under unacceptably low standards is not imported to the EU. However, equally important is that Mercosur countries are still able to benefit economically from the agreement by retaining access to the EU market. This means pushing for Mercosur countries to eliminate battery cages and sow stalls, ban mutilations without pain relief, enrich spaces, and meaningfully improve handling standards.
The EU talks a good game, but rhetoric alone is not enough. The ratification delay is a golden opportunity for reflection and to strengthen standards. Political leaders have been right to label the agreement as historic, but unless robust protections are put in place, it may well be remembered for all the wrong reasons.
"The first priority, as you know, in these emergencies is always to fight and extinguish the fire. But we cannot forget, at any time, that there are human tragedies here," said the country's president.
On the heels of another historically hot year for Earth, disasters tied to the fossil fuel-driven climate emergency have yet again turned deadly, with wildfires in Chile's Ñuble and Biobío regions killing at least 18 people—a figure that Chilean President Gabriel Boric said he expects to rise.
The South American leader on Sunday declared a "state of catastrophe" in the two regions, where ongoing wildfires have also forced more than 50,000 people to evacuate. The Associated Press reported that during a Sunday press conference in Concepción, Boric estimated that "certainly more than a thousand" homes had already been impacted in just Biobío.
"The first priority, as you know, in these emergencies is always to fight and extinguish the fire. But we cannot forget, at any time, that there are human tragedies here, families who are suffering," the president said. "These are difficult times."
According to the BBC, "The bulk of the evacuations were carried out in the cities of Penco and Lirquen, just north of Concepción, which have a combined population of 60,000."
Some Penco residents told the AP that they were surprised by the fire overnight.
"Many people didn't evacuate. They stayed in their houses because they thought the fire would stop at the edge of the forest," 55-year-old John Guzmán told the outlet. "It was completely out of control. No one expected it."
Chile's National Forest Corporation (CONAF) said that as of late Monday morning, crews were fighting 26 fires across the regions.
As Reuters detailed:
Authorities say adverse conditions like strong winds and high temperatures helped wildfires spread and complicated firefighters' abilities to control the fires. Much of Chile was under extreme heat alerts, with temperatures expected to reach up to 38ºC (100ºF) from Santiago to Biobío on Sunday and Monday.
Both Chile and Argentina have experienced extreme temperatures and heatwaves since the beginning of the year, with devastating wildfires breaking out in Argentina's Patagonia earlier this month.
Scientists have warned and research continues to show that, as one Australian expert who led a relevant 2024 study put it to the Guardian, "the fingerprints of climate change are all over" the world's rise in extreme wildfires.
"We've long seen model projections of how fire weather is increasing with climate change," Calum Cunningham of Australia's University of Tasmania said when that study was released. "But now we're at the point where the wildfires themselves, the manifestation of climate change, are occurring in front of our eyes. This is the effect of what we're doing to the atmosphere, so action is urgent."
Sharing the Guardian's report on the current fires in Chile, British climate scientist Bill McGuire declared: "This is what climate breakdown looks like. But this is just the beginning..."
The most recent United Nations Climate Change Conference, where world leaders aim to coordinate a global response to the planetary crisis, was held in another South American nation that has faced devastating wildfires—and those intentionally set by various industries—in recent years: Brazil. COP30 concluded in November with a deal that doesn't even include the words "fossil fuels."
"This is an empty deal," Nikki Reisch of the Center for International Environmental Law said at the time. "COP30 provides a stark reminder that the answers to the climate crisis do not lie inside the climate talks—they lie with the people and movements leading the way toward a just, equitable, fossil-free future. The science is settled and the law is clear: We must keep fossil fuels in the ground and make polluters pay."
There is an emerging consensus among European policymakers and experts alike that Trump wants to do to the E.U. what he is doing to the U.S.—destroy its civil society.
The European Union came into existence in 1992 with the signing of the Maastricht Treaty, which led to a single market, border-free travel, and the euro. Since then, the E.U. has evolved in various ways, although it has stopped short of developing a centralized fiscal authority and setting up a European army. Moreover, the E.U. has long been plagued by a number of legitimacy problems that have given rise to Euroscepticism among both left-wing and right-wing citizens.
Nonetheless, certain recent global developments are forcing the E.U. to upend many long-held ideas and norms about its own security and relations with other countries. Russia’s war in Ukraine and the sudden shift in U.S. policy toward Europe have made both policymakers and citizens across the continent more aware of the need not only for deeper integration and a new European governance architecture but also of the historical necessity to create a new world order. While Russia’s war in Ukraine has forced the E.U. to rethink its energy policy and compelled countries such as Finland and Sweden to become full members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), it is U.S. President Donald Trump’s hostility toward Europe and its institutions that is bringing Europeans closer together and even making them realize that the E.U. is a safe haven when all is said and done.
Indeed, the latest Eurobarometer survey, which was released on May 27, 2025, reveals the highest level of trust in the E.U. in nearly two decades and the highest support ever for the common currency. The overwhelming majority of respondents also displayed support for a common defense system among E.U. member states and opposition to tariffs. Equally impressive is the fact that a huge majority agreed that the E.U. is “a place of stability in a troubled world.”
Trump is trying to remake the United States in his own image and also to destroy the E.U., which he says is “nastier than China.”
These findings come just days after Trump told a rally in West Mifflin, Pennsylvania that he will double tariffs on steel and aluminum imports to 50%. This move, which will take effect on June 4, prompted the European Commission to announce that Europe is prepared to roll out countermeasures in order to retaliate against President Trump’s plan to increase steel and aluminum tariffs. It said that it “strongly” regrets Trump’s threat and that “if no mutually acceptable solution is reached both existing and additional E.U. measures will automatically take effect on July 14—or earlier, if circumstances require.”
The concern among many Europeans is that U.S.-E.U. relations are not only seriously damaged but that the U.S. has now become Europe’s enemy. Since coming to office, Trump has launched an active campaign against European democracy, with members of his administration not only bashing Europe but openly supporting far-right parties across the continent.
The common perception about Europe is that it is indecisive, too slow to act, even when major crises come knocking at its door. There is an element of truth in that, as the E.U. has shown a proclivity for reactive rather than proactive political behavior. But the Trump shock appears to be rousing Europe from its geopolitical slumber. The E.U. is standing up to the bully in Washington and is looking after Europe’s own interests with greater zeal than ever before. This is because there is indeed an emerging consensus among European policymakers and experts alike that Trump wants to do to Europe what he is doing to the U.S.--i.e., destroy its civil society. MAGA hates Europe for cultural and political reasons. For Trump, as Célia Belin, senior policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations and head of the Paris office, aptly put it, “Europeans are an extension of his political opposition at home... and Europe is thus a symbol of the political ideals [that] Trump seeks to eliminate, transform, and subjugate.”
In its attempts to find a new role in world affairs in the Trump era, Europe is not merely reacting to Washington’s whims but seeks to implement policies that reinforce its own strategic autonomy, both internally and externally. The European Commission has updated its industrial strategy by speeding up clean energy and pursuing new trade agreements with reliable partners. While some European leaders see both Russia and China as representing a threat to the rules-based international order, there have been numerous calls by various policymakers across the continent for a closer collaboration between China and the E.U. in light of “Trump’s ‘mafia-like’ tactics.” European Union leaders will travel for a high-stakes summit to Beijing in July after failing to convince Chinese President Xi Jinping to visit Brussels for a summit marking the 50th anniversary of E.U.-China diplomatic relations. And France has called for a stronger E.U.-China alignment on climate action amid the U.S.’ withdrawal from the Paris agreement.
China is the E.U.’s second-largest trading partner. Europe is, in fact, not only growing more dependent on China for manufactured goods but, in spite of differences in bilateral relations, such as China’s position on the war in Ukraine, is actually warming up to the idea that the E.U.-China relationship is an essential vehicle for tackling global challenges and safeguarding international multilateralism.
Europe is also looking into other regions of the world as part of a concerted effort to promote ever more vigorously its own strategic autonomy. Since Trump took office, the E.U. concluded a free trade agreement with Mercosur, an economic bloc made up of Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay, and Bolivia, with scores of other countries (among them are Chile, Columbia, Ecuador, and Peru) as associate members. Mercosur, or the Southern Common Market, is the fifth-largest economy and encompasses more than 285 million people.
The E.U.-Mercosur agreement, which had been in the making for 25 years, still needs to be ratified, and Argentina’s far-right Milei government, which is in close political-ideological alignment with the Trump administration, could prove to be a stumbling block to its ratification. Argentinian President Javier Milei is, in fact, more interested in signing a free trade agreement with the United States, which would be in violation of Mercosur regulations.
After many years of negotiations, the E.U. is also close to finalizing a free trade agreement with India. The 11th round of negotiations between India and the E.U. concluded on May 16, and there is a firm commitment by both sides to strike a deal by the end of 2025. As European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said, this agreement would be “the largest deal of its kind anywhere in the world.”
If ratified, the E.U.-Mercosur free trade agreement will create a market of around 800 million people. When finalized, the E.U.-India free trade agreement will create a market of close to 2 billion consumers.
Trump is trying to remake the United States in his own image and also to destroy the E.U., which he says is “nastier than China.” One would like to believe that it is probably unlikely that he will succeed in remaking the U.S. in his own nasty image, but it is positively certain that he will not succeed in destroying Europe and its institutions, even though there is a lot that needs to be done to create a fairer and more inclusive Europe. In the meantime, however, Trump’s “mafia-like tactics” are bringing Europeans closer together and the continent ever closer to other regions of the world.
"The Milei government has picked a fight with workers and pensioners, and now they will feel the full force of organized labor," said one union leader.
Increasingly fed up with economic policies under which poverty and inflation have soared while vital social services, wages, and the peso have taken huge hits, disaffected Argentinians took to the streets of cities across the South American nation Wednesday for the third general strike of right-wing President Javier Milei's tumultuous 16-month presidency.
Led by the General Confederation of Labor (CGT)—an umbrella group of Argentinian unions—the "paro general," or general stoppage, drew workers, the unemployed, pensioners, educators, students, and others affected by Milei's severe austerity measures and his administration's plans for more deep cuts. Demonstrations continued throughout Thursday.
"In the face of intolerable social inequality and a government that ignores calls for better wages and a dignified standard of living for all, the workers are going on strike," CGT explained ahead of the action.
Airlines canceled hundreds of flights as air traffic controllers and other airport workers joined the strike; many schools, banks, and other offices shut down; and ports, some public transport, and other services ground to a halt.
"The only thing the administration has brought is a wave of layoffs across state agencies, higher poverty rates, and international debts, which are the biggest scam in Argentina's history," the Association of Airline Pilots (APA) said.
Rodolfo Aguiar, secretary general of the Association of State Workers (ATE), said Wednesday that "after this strike, they have to turn off the chainsaw; there's no room for more cuts," a reference to both Milei's ubiquitous campaign prop and his gutting of public programs upon which millions of Argentinians rely.
"Right now, the crisis Argentina is facing is worsening," Aguiar added, warning about government talks with the International Monetary Fund. "The rise in the dollar will quickly translate into food prices, and the new deal with the IMF is nothing more than more debt and more austerity measures."
Milei's government is nearing agreement on a $20 million IMF bailout, a deeply unpopular proposition in a country left reeling by the U.S.-dominated institution's missteps and intentional policies that benefit foreign investors while causing acute suffering for millions of everyday Argentinians. Argentina already owes $44 billion to the IMF.
"We already have experience as Argentinians that no agreement has been beneficial for the people," retiree and striker Rezo Mossetti told Agence France-Press in Buenos Aires Thursday, lamenting that his country keeps getting into "worse and worse" debt.
CGT decided to launch the general strike during a March 20 meeting that followed a pensioner-led March 12 protest outside the National Congress in Buenos Aires. After fringe elements including rowdy soccer fans known as "barrabravas" joined the protests and committed acts of violence and vandalism, police responded by attacking demonstrators with "less-lethal" weapons including water cannons and tear gas. A gas canister struck freelance photojournalist Pablo Grillo in the head, causing a severe brain injury that required urgent surgery.
This, after Argentinian Security Minister Patricia Bullrich invoked controversial measure empowering more aggressive use of force against protesters and rescinding a ban on police use of tear gas canisters. The Security Ministry also filed a criminal complaint dubiously accusing organizers of the March 12 protest of sedition.
Milei and his supporters have portrayed the general strike as a treasonous assault on the fragile Argentinian economy and those taking part in the day of action as lazy and jobless.
When Clarín, the country's largest newspaper, cited a study by the Argentine University of Enterprise claiming that the general strike would cost the national economy around $185 million per day, University of Buenos Aires professor Sergio Wischñevsky retorted: "Very revealing. It means that's the magnitude of the wealth workers produce every day. It's the best argument to stop ignoring workers."
As he has done with past protests against his rule, Milei has also framed the general strike as "an attack against the republic" and repeated his threat that police would "crack down" on demonstrators.
Orwellian use of state infrastructure by Milei's "anarcho-capitalist" gvmnt. in Argentina. As the 36 hr. general strike begins, signs & loudspeakers at train stations across Buenos Aires read: "Attack against the republic! The syndicalist caste punishes millions of Argentines who want to work."
[image or embed]
— Batallon Bakunin ( @batallonbakunin.bsky.social) April 10, 2025 at 4:11 AM
General strikers largely shrugged off the threats of police violence and state repression.
"The right to strike is a worker right and I think there has to be more strikes because the situation with this government is unsustainable," Hugo Velazuez, a 62-year-old worker striking in Buenos Aires, told Reuters.
While the Argentinian mainstream media's coverage of the general strike was largely muted, images posted by independent progressive media showed parts of central Buenos Aires appearing practically empty.
Workers around the world showed solidarity with striking Argentinians.
"The Milei government has picked a fight with workers and pensioners, and now they will feel the full force of organized labor," said Paddy Crumlin, president of the London-based International Transport Workers' Federation (ITF), which boasts nearly 20 million members in 677 unions in 149 nations. "The international trade union movement stands ready to fight back with our Argentine comrades. We will not rest until these attacks on workers' rights are defeated."
ITF noted that various sectors of Argentina's transportation sector "are under direct threat of privatization," including the national commercial airline, Aerolíneas Argentinas, the National Highway Board, and the Argentinian Merchant Marine.
Milei—a self-described anarcho-capitalist who was elected in November 2023 on a wave of populist revulsion at the status quo—campaigned on a platform of repairing the moribund economy, tackling inflation, reducing poverty, and dismantling the state. He made wild promises including dollarizing Argentina's economy and abolishing the central bank.
However, the realities of leading South America's second-largest economy have forced Milei's administration to abandon or significantly curtail key agenda items, leading to accusations of neoliberalism and betrayal from the right and hypocrisy and rank incompetence from the left. According to most polling, Milei's approval rating has fallen from net positive to negative in just a few months.
Particularly galling to many left-of-center Argentinians is Milei's cozying up to far-right figures around the world, especially U.S. President Donald Trump.
Andrew Kennis, a Rutgers University media studies professor specializing in Latin America, noted similarities between the protests in Argentina and anti-Trump demonstrations in the United States.
"It's no coincidence that 5.2 million people were in the streets in all 50 states just this past Saturday and that the U.S. is now catching up with the mass resistance that's long been going on in Argentina," Kennis told Common Dreams Thursday.
Kennis—who this week published a deep dive on Milei's "destructive chainsaw theory" in Common Dreams—added that in the cases of both Milei and Trump, "there was no real honeymoon period, as there almost always is" for most new presidencies.
"In both countries, people were in the streets pretty damned fast and furiously," he added.
"So far, we have not had any response from the oil company," said one fisherman whose livelihood has been threatened by the accident.
At least seven beaches and the safety of local wildlife have been impacted by an oil spill in northern Peru, said the South American country's Environmental Assessment and Oversight Agency on Thursday as the government declared an environmental emergency.
The environmental watchdog, known as OEFA locally, said in a preliminary report that about 10,000 square meters of surface seawater have been contaminated by the crude oil, which spilled from a vessel at a terminal of the Talara refinery.
Petroperu, the state-owned oil company, was preparing to load the oil onto a tanker when the spill was detected at Las Capullanas beach.
The company has not disclosed exactly how much oil spilled, but OEFA said it has extended over an area of 116-566 acres. Petroperu has also not stated the cause of the accident.
Petroperu told Reuters it has coordinated with the fishermen's union, but fisherman Martin Pasos told the local radio station RPP that he has heard little from the company about when he will be able to resume his work.
"We have not been able to go out for six days now," Pasos said. "It is chaos, what happened in Lobitos. So far, we have not had any response from the oil company."
Petroperu said Wednesday it had deployed clean-up crews as soon as the spill was detected earlier this week and that the cleaning of six beaches in Talara province was almost done.
Authorities were directed under the environmental emergency to carry out recovery and remediation work over the next 90 days.
Infobae reported that Petroperu was "minimizing" the damage as local authorities expressed concern over the safety of "turtles, crabs, octopuses, and fish [that] have been seriously harmed by contact with the spilled oil."
On Sunday, shortly after the spill, the public prosecutor's office launched an investigation into Petroperu's alleged criminal environmental contamination.
Rocío Silva-Santisteban, a poet, activist, and former member of Peru's Congress, noted that "it is not the first time that Petroperu has polluted."
"Since 2014 in Cuninico, Loreto, oil spills have been occurring, affecting the health of animals and people," said Silva-Santisteban. "This has been an ecocide!"
On December 22, 2024, the elected president of the United States, Donald Trump, announced that he would demand that Panama "give him back the canal."
Washington, D.C. January 22, 1903—Secretary of State John Hay and the Colombian commercial attaché in the United States, Tomás Herrán, signed the treaty that would give the United States the right to resume construction of the Panama Canal that the French had abandoned when they were almost halfway done. Colombia would agree to cede a strip of land on its isthmus to the United States for 100 years in exchange for ten million in a single payment and $250,000 per year. A few miles off the coast of Panama, the warship Wisconsin remains stranded to provide moral support for the negotiations.
Congress in Washington immediately approved the treaty, but it was rejected in Bogotá. There were doubts about sovereignty and about the benefits derived from this agreement. Mathematics, also practiced in that country, said that it would take the Colombian people 120 years to receive the same compensation that had been offered to be paid in one lump sum to the New Panama Canal Co.
On April 15, the United States envoy, Mr. Beaupre, sent a telegram to the secretary of state about the mood of the Colombian people: “There is at least one clear fact. If the treaty were put to the free consideration of the people, it would not be approved.” The Colombian Senate voted unanimously against its ratification.
Without ever having set foot outside his country, on August 27, President Theo Roosevelt wrote three letters describing the Colombians as “ignorant,” “greedy,” “despicable little men,” and “corrupting idiots and murderers.” Also, “I could never respect a country full of that kind of people… Trying to deal with Colombia as one deals with Switzerland, Belgium, or Holland is simply absurd.” Days later, he sends some packages with dollars to organize a revolt that will be called Revolution.
Problem solved. On November 18, the Hay-Bunau-Varilla treaty was signed in Washington, by which “the United States guarantees the freedom of Panama” in exchange for Panama ceding authority and all rights over the canal, free of any tax. As usual, the Panamanians were not invited to sign the new treaty. The $250,000 annually previously offered to Colombia would not be paid until a decade after the canal’s opening. There is nothing like having a powerful navy to do good business. The previous Treaty of Peace and Commerce signed by Colombia and the United States in 1846 was also violated. As in Cuba, as in Puerto Rico, article, now article 136 assured Washington the power to intervene in any inconvenient situation. Still, rebellions are symbolic. Washington has decreed that citizens of that country cannot acquire weapons. Imperial practice is old: Treaties are signed so the weak will comply.
In the United States, voices are raised against what several congressmen call dishonesty and imperialism. Sen. Edward Carmack protests, “The idea of a revolution in Panama is a crude lie; the only man who took up arms was our president.” Sen. George Frisbie Hoar, a member of the commission investigating the war crimes that will go unpunished in the Philippines, rejects the versions about the Revolution in Panama and adds, “I hope not to live long enough to see the day when the interests of my country are put above its honor.”
Of course, this matter of honor can be fixed. The president resorts to the old resource of “we were attacked first.” As President James Polk did to justify the invasion of Mexico in 1846 or President William McKinley to occupy Cuba in 1898, Roosevelt invents a story about threats to the security of certain American citizens in the area. Like Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, when he denied in front of television cameras any involvement in the military coup in Chile in 1973, Roosevelt assured Congress and the public that Washington was not involved in the Revolution in Panama. On December 6, 1904, he gave a speech before Congress on the need to once again expand the Monroe Doctrine “to see our neighbors stable, orderly, and prosperous.” Otherwise, “intervention by a civilized nation will be necessary… The United States must, whether it wants to or not, intervene to solve any serious problem by exercising the power of international police.”
In 1906, Roosevelt visited the construction sites in Panama. He would be the first American president to dare to leave his country. On board, the USS Louisiana, Roosevelt wrote to his son Kermit, “With admirable energy, men, and machines work together; the whites supervise the construction sites and operate the machines while tens of thousands of blacks do the hard work where it is not worth the trouble to use machines.”
Despite the hard work of Panamanians, they are portrayed as lazy. Journalist Richard Harding Davis had already echoed the sentiment of the time: “[Panama] has fertile lands, iron, and gold, but it has been cursed by God with lazy people and corrupt men who govern it… These people are a menace and an insult to civilization.”
In 1909, the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, based on Roosevelt’s boastful statements to a class at a California university, investigated “the unilateral decision of a former president to take Panama from the Republic of Colombia without consulting Congress.” Considering Colombia’s requests to The Hague, the commission will question different protagonists. On November 6, 1903, three days after the revolution in Panama, the State Department sent a cable to its consul in Colombia informing that “the people of Panama, apparently unanimously, have resolved to dissolve their ties with the Republic of Colombia.”
Congressman Henry Thomas Rainey reads the cable from Washington in Congress. Rainey clarifies: “I do not believe any of this is true… When the Revolution occurred, only 10 or 12 rebels knew of the plans, apart from the Panama Railroad and Steamship Co. managers.”
It would be necessary to wait until 1977 when President Jimmy Carter’s government signed an agreement that the United States would return the canal to Central American country on the last day of 1999, three years before the mandatory rental period expired. A year earlier, at an event in Texas, the former governor of California and future president, Ronald Reagan, would declare: “It does not matter which ram dictator is in power in Panama. We built it! We paid for the canal! It’s ours, and we’re going to keep it.”
Omar Torrijos will be the dictator Reagan alluded to. Torrijos will claim sovereignty over the canal and will die, like other rebel leaders from the south, in a plane crash.
Imperialism is a disease that not only kills those who resist it but also does not let those who carry it inside live.
"A paradigm shift is necessary," said an advocacy group. "Let's recognize now that the Biobío River has value in itself."
Biodiversity and Rights of Nature defenders celebrated a "historic moment" on Wednesday as communities in Chile joined advocacy groups in launching the first Declaration of Rights protecting an ecosystem in the South American country, with the document aiming to safeguard "the rights of Chile's Biobío River against mounting environmental threats."
Communities located along the river—the second-longest in the country—joined environmental advocates, Indigenous tribes including the Pehuenche and Lafkenche people, and scientists in several months of "participatory dialogues" to determine how to protect the Biobío River from industrialization and other threats to the countless species it supports and to the river itself.
International Rivers, a group dedicated to protecting free-flowing rivers around the globe, said that the "cornerstone of the declaration lies in its profound acknowledgment of the intrinsic value held by the Biobío River" and its right to flow unimpeded by hydroelectic projects, disruptions to the riverbed, and other activities.
The Declaration of Rights affirms the river's right to:
Another proposed plant is in the planning stages, and like the others would "jeopardize the river's flow and water quality, resulting in loss of native biodiversity and affecting fish migration and ultimately leading to irreversible damage," said International Rivers.
The riverbed structure and water quality have also suffered from both legal and illegal extraction of boulders, rubble, gravel, and sand that have been taken for use in construction, and ecosystem defenders have warned about the negative impact of proposed road infrastructure projects in the Biobío region.
Projects including the Concesión Vial Puente Industrial, a viaduct and road connection, and road projects such as Costa Mar and Costanera "would cause the total destruction of the wetlands of these localities," said the group.
"These developments underscore the inadequacy of the national legal framework in ensuring the protection of riparian ecosystems and citizen participation, lacking international standards that prioritize sustainable development in harmony with nature," said International Rivers.
Alejandro Gatica, a member of the community group Defensa Ribera Norte Chiguayante, said the Declaration of Rights "revalues and protects the water network," which is "in an environmental crisis due to extractivist actions on its banks, with uncontrolled logging, lack of protection of its wetlands, and the coastal project that threatens to intervene in its structure."
In a video about the Declaration of Rights, International Rivers said the Biobío "has been sadly silenced" by industrialization, despite the crucial support it provides to "multiple ecosystems and countless riverine and terrestrial species, many of them endemic," in addition to "water security and food sovereignty of its riparian communities for whom it is a crucial element in agriculture, fishing, and tourism."
"When we deny its right to flow we are silencing it. When we pollute, exploit, degrade, and urbanize it we are silencing it. When we block its access and connection to communities we are silencing it," said the group. "A paradigm shift is necessary. Let's recognize now that the Biobío River has value in itself."
The launch of the declaration "signifies a pivotal moment," said Monti Aguirre, Latin America program director of International Rivers.
"This initiative underscores our shared dedication to preserving this vital ecosystem amidst mounting destructive pressures," said Aguirre. "The well-being of the Biobío River, along with that of surrounding communities, is imperiled by the pressures imposed on its ecosystem, stemming from established dams such as Ralco, Pangue, and Angostura, as well as proposed hydro-projects and extractive activities."
The recognition of the waterway's rights is "a bridge that not only guarantees the inherent value of rivers and natural entities, but is also key to the full realization of the human rights of their communities," said Constanza Prieto Figelist, Latin America director for Earth Law Center.
The international Rights of Nature movement has celebrated several victories in South America in recent months, including a court decision in Peru that granted rights to the Marañón River and a ruling in Ecuador that found pollution violated the rights of the Machángara River.
"The Rights of Nature favor the incorporation of more powerful standards of environmental protection and citizen participation in environmental issues through, for example, the figure of representatives or guardians of nature," she said. "Likewise, comparative experience shows that they are a powerful instrument for combating activities that favor biodiversity loss or climate change."
"The world is watching and cannot wait for the Amazon basin and other precious ecosystems in the continent to be saved from extinction."
Amnesty International on Monday called for an "unprecedented response" from South American leaders as the continent faces wildfires that threaten the Amazon rainforest and other important ecosystems.
Citing two months of record-breaking wildfires, Amnesty issued an open letter to the presidents of Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Paraguay, and Peru calling for coordinated government action.
"The world is watching and cannot wait for the Amazon basin and other precious ecosystems in the continent to be saved from extinction," Ana Piquer, Amnesty's director for the Americas, said in a statement.
"South American leaders must, more than ever, take urgent action to prevent climate catastrophe that could have irreversible consequences for the entire planet and future generations," she added. "The time to act is now."
Official satellite data from Brazil showed earlier this month that the continent had seen more fire hotspots this year than any other on record. Fires in the Amazon have created a "toxic smoke cloud" in an area larger than the entire United States, according to Live Science.
Wildfire smoke leads to thousands of premature deaths in South America per year. The recent upsurge in fires has led to cries for action from public health advocates and climate justice activists in many countries.
Indigenous leaders from the region will hold a press conference to address the crisis on Wednesday, September 25, in New York, according to Amazon Watch.
The words of Brazil's president, a potential mediator in Venezuela, signal that leftist leaders may be withdrawing support for Maduro.
Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, a potential mediator in the ongoing electoral dispute in Venezuela, spoke harshly on Friday about the government of President Nicolas Maduro, calling it a "very unpleasant regime" with an "authoritarian slant"—perhaps the first time he has been so publicly critical of his fellow leftist.
Venezuala has been in turmoil since its presidential election on July 28, pitting Maduro against opposition candidate Edmundo González Urrutia, came to a disputed result. The electoral council controlled by Maduro's government announced that he'd won reelection with 51.95% of the vote, but provided no evidence. However, the opposition also claimed victory, and did have some evidence: copies of vote tallies from more than 83% of precincts.
The international response has been broadly anti-Maduro, whose government has been widely accused of human rights violations and is often characterized as autocratic. Many countries—even Chile, led by a left-leaning government—declared fraud on the part of the Venezuelan government, and some, such as the United States, recognized González as the winner. Only a handful of small Latin American countries did so for Maduro.
Lula hasn't take sides in the electoral dispute but, like other international actors, called for Maduro to release the full tallies. Lula and Colombia President Gustavo Petro, another leftist, have indicated they could be intermediaries between the two Venezuelan sides. The U.S. came out in support of the Brazil- and Colombia-led dialogue. But Lula's role as interlocutor didn't stop him from making the critical remarks on Friday.
"I think Venezuela is living under a very unpleasant regime," Lula said on Rádio Gaúcha.
The Brazilian president said that Maduro was not a dictator but had authoritarian leanings:
"It's different to a dictatorship—it is a government with an authoritarian slant but it isn't a dictatorship the likes of which we know so many in this world."
Brazilian president, Lula da Silva, condemns “very unpleasant regime” Maduro regime in Venezuela
He says it has “authoritarian slant” & refuses to accept that Maduro won the election. Lula demands publication of suppressed local election tallies. YES!
https://t.co/YLWuddKhcL
— Peter Tatchell (@PeterTatchell) August 16, 2024
Lula and Petro had earlier this week suggested that Venezuela might redo the election—and U.S. President Joe Biden appeared to support the idea, though the administration later walked back the comment—but both Maduro and the opposition dismissed the idea.
Maduro's government has cracked down on dissent since the election, arresting more than 2,000 people, in what experts have called an unprecedented level of repression, The New York Times reported Saturday. Maduro is "bent on punishing those he considers disloyal," according to the Times.
A panel of four U.N. experts who were in Venezuela during the election issued an interim report last week that found that "the announcement of an election outcome without the publication of its details or the release of tabulated results to candidates has no precedent in contemporary democratic elections."
The Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR), a left-leaning, U.S.-based think tank, released a report on Tuesday arguing that the Brazil and Columbia-led mediation was the best way forward, and that more U.S. sanctions would only deepen the political crisis in Venezuela.
The report says that sanctions "have taken the lives of tens of thousands of Venezuelans and fueled the migration of millions more," and argues that failed U.S. policies and U.S.-supported coup attempts in 2002 and 2019, per CEPR's characterization, contributed to the current crisis in Venezuela.
Maduro has held power since 2013, when his predecessor and former boss, the socialist Hugo Chávez, died after ruling the country for 13 years. Chávez, buoyed by fossil fuel reserves, helped lift the standard of living for working-class Venezuelans, but the country has faced a combination of political and economic challenges in the past decade, and Maduro appears to have lost working-class support.
The court ordered the city of Quito to clean up the Machángara River, citing the rights of nature enshrined in Ecuador's Constitution.
Environmentalists around the world this week cheered what they called a "historic" ruling by an Ecuadorian court that human-caused pollution violates the rights of a river running through the capital city of Quito.
Responding to an application for a protective action filed by the Kitu Kara Indigenous people, a Quito judge on Friday found that municipal authorities are responsible for violating the Machángara River's rights and ordered officials to devise a decontamination plan.
The city of Quito said it will appeal the ruling. Mayor Pabel Muñoz said last week that an approved cleanup plan for the Machángara, which includes new water treatment plants, would cost $900 million and take 17 years to complete, according to La Hora.
An editorial in El Comercio called the ruling a "significant step forward in defending the rights of nature" and "a milestone in the fight for environmental preservation in Ecuador."
"The recognition of the Machángara River as an entity with its own rights goes beyond considering it a mere natural resource," the editorial asserted. "This progress means that the river now has legal protection, and the authorities have an obligation to ensure its health and well-being."
Kitu Kara organizer Darío Iza said in a statement that "this is historic because the river runs right through Quito, and because of its influence, people live very close to it."
Quito must now implement a comprehensive wastewater treatment plan to reduce the discharge of pollutants into the river, restore riverbanks, and replant vegetation in degraded areas. The city of more than 2 million inhabitants has long used the Machángara—whose source is high in the Andes Mountains—as a dump, a problem exacerbated by a lack of adequate wastewater treatment infrastructure.
"It is alarming what happens with the Machángara because it should be full not of bacteria and chemicals, but of animal and plant life."
"The river carries away tons of garbage that comes down from gullies and hillsides," Global Alliance for the Rights of Nature said on social media. "This decision represents a breakthrough in the protection and decontamination of one of the most vulnerable rivers in the country."
Experts have likened the section of the Machángara running through Quito to a sewer in a Paris-sized city. The river is contaminated with heavy metals, fats, detergents, oils, bacteria, fecal matter, and a wide array of chemical pollutants.
"It is alarming what happens with the Machángara because it should be full not of bacteria and chemicals, but of animal and plant life," Blanca Ríos, an ecologist who has studied the river for 20 years, told Primicias on Tuesday.
Ecuador—one of the world's most biodiverse nations—is one of just a handful of countries to enshrine rights of nature in its constitution. Previous court rulings, including a 2021 decision against mining in the Amazon Rainforest and an earlier block on dumping in the Vilcabamba River, have upheld this right.