Category Archives: DISARMAMENT & SECURITY

US: The United National AntiWar Coalition – Call to Action

. .DISARMAMENT & SECURITY. .

Announcement of webinar from The United National AntiWar Coalition

The past months of the Black Lives Matter Movement have confirmed once again the only way to challenge this racist, militarized system is with the explosive power of people making demands and shutting it down.

Regardless of what happens in November our only way forward is to stay mobilized! The people must lead from below through organized, strategic protest.


• Demanding justice and accountability against racist killer cops!

• For economic justice in response to the economic collapse.

– For a public health response to the pandemic with Medicare for all.

• In defense of migrants rounded up and deported!

• In solidarity with LGBTQ+ and disabled people

• Against endless wars, sanctions and occupations

We face the greatest capitalist crash in US history and an out of control COVID-19 pandemic. At every level of government from the president to Congress down to mayors and local officials, the response to the pandemic and economic collapse shows a failed state.

The people must remain mobilized through the election and beyond. We will not win the change we need at the ballot box. The two candidates of the parties of the billionaires ignore the super-majority of people in the US who support improved Medicare for all, a robust Green New Deal, an end to inequality and taxation of the wealthy, an end to the never-ending wars and US imperialism. Neither party is responding to the call to stop racist militarized policing, invest in alternatives to policing while cutting police budget and democratic community control of the police. No matter who is elected the people must be mobilized in 2021 to make the country ungovernable until the people’s demands are met.

(Article continued in right column)

Question for this article:

The peace movement in the United States, What are its strengths and weaknesses?

(Article continued from left column)

We defend:

• Resistance and uprisings against racism and police violence

• Education workers opposing dangerous school reopening

• Organizing for rent strikes and against evictions

• Black Lives Matter Movement everywhere

• Social movements seeking peace and justice

• Solidarity with all those resisting US imperialist violence

Click here to register: bit.ly/DNCRNCWebinar

An Online RALLY supported by: March on DNC and RNC, UNAC – United National Antiwar Coalition, ILPS – International League of Peoples Struggles, BAYAN – Philippine Coalition, NAARPR – National Alliance Against Racism & Political Repression, BAP – Black Alliance for Peace, IAC – International Action Center, VFP – Veterans For Peace, Cuba Si, IFCO, FIRE – Fight for Im/migrants & Refugees Everywhere, AFGJ – Alliance for Global Justice, Code Pink, Popular Resistance, SanctionsKill Campaign, US Peace Council, WILPF – Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom -US chapter, Peoples Power Assemblies NYC, December 12 Movement, Call to Action on Puerto, Colectivo de Mujeres Mexicanas NY, Jornada: Se Acabaron Las Promesas, USPCN – U.S. Palestinian Community Network, POWIR – People’s Opposition to War Imperialism, and Racism, Southern Workers Assembly, SDS- Students for a Democratic Society, The People’s Forum, other groups to be added.

Enddorse the call: bit.ly/KeepItInTheStreets

Support UNAC

Please make a much needed contribution at: hppts://UNACpreace.org/donate.html

Join our Facebook group at: https://facebook.com/groups/unac1

Subscribe to the UNAC Youtube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC6zb1Rg8CiAO9Ff8kLlXXiQ

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, North America

The Elders call on world leaders to take action or risk nuclear catastrophe

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

A press release from The Elders

The Elders have called on the leaders of the five recognised nuclear-weapon states to use the 75th anniversary of the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a moment to reflect on the lives lost and begin substantive steps towards the total elimination of nuclear weapons. 

The atomic bombing of the two cities on 6 and 9 August 1945 led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, laying bare the true horror of nuclear weapons. Today, over 13,000 nuclear warheads are in existence.

In a direct appeal to the ‘P5’ heads of state, the Elders stressed that “leadership in tackling these nuclear threats is needed more than ever”. 

In letters to US President Donald Trump, Russian President Vladimir Putin, Chinese President Xi Jinping, French President Emmanuel Macron and UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson, the Elders expressed alarm that the breakdown of arms control agreements, the emergence of additional nuclear states and the resurgence of geopolitical tensions have significantly increased the risks of nuclear catastrophe.

Such risks pose a serious threat to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which has made a critical contribution to limiting the spread of nuclear weapons since 1970. There are also serious concerns presented by new technologies, such as the development of hypersonic cruise missiles and the growth of increasingly sophisticated and opaque cyber capabilities. 

(Continued in right column)

Question related to this article:
 
Can we abolish all nuclear weapons?

(Continued from left column)

The Elders emphasised the heavy responsibilities of all nuclear-weapon states to reduce nuclear risks and to work in good faith towards the total elimination of nuclear weapons.  

In particular, the Elders called on President Trump to accept President Putin’s offer to immediately extend the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) for another five years and urged him not to make extension of the treaty conditional on China’s participation in new arms control negotiations.  

The Elders believe extending New START would provide a necessary basis for any new negotiations with China and other nuclear states as part of an expanded longer-term arms control framework. 

The Elders wrote in support of proposals to convene a P5 leaders’ summit on arms control, expressing hope that this could be arranged at the earliest opportunity and allow for constructive discussions to strengthen existing arms controls between the nuclear states.  

The Elders also called on the P5 to make a collective statement, building upon Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev’s declaration that “a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought”, as a means of building trust and improving the global atmosphere ahead of next year’s delayed NPT Review Conference.  

As the world marks 75 years since the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Mary Robinson, The Chair of The Elders, called for a moment of reflection:  

“The 75th anniversary of the atomic bombing should give the entire world pause for thought. We must all recognise the horrendous human cost of this tragic event and renew our commitment to never letting it happen again.” 

Ban Ki-moon, the Deputy Chair of The Elders, reiterated the need for political action from the US and Russia: 

“I urge Presidents Trump and Putin to extend the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty. Without action, New START will expire in February 2021, meaning there would be no binding agreement on arms control between the world’s two nuclear superpowers.”

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY

USA: New Haven Alders Put Peace On The Ballot

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

An article by Thomas Breen in the New Haven Independent

Peace will be on the ballot this November — in the form of a nonbinding referendum asking New Haveners how they’d like Congress to spend the majority of the federal budget.

On the military, as is currently the case? Or on jobs, education, environmental sustainability, and other human services instead?


Monday night’s virtual aldermanic hearing.

During Monday night’s regular monthly meeting of the full Board of Alders, local legislators voted unanimously in support of adding that question about federal spending priorities to the Nov. 3 general election ballot.

The non-binding advisory referendum, proposed by the city’s Peace Commission, will ask New Haveners the following question: “Shall Congress prepare for health and climate crises by transferring funds from the military budget to cities for human needs, jobs and an environmentally sustainable economy?”

Hill Alder Ron Hurt urged his colleagues to vote in favor of the resolution that included the ballot update. He said the purpose of the resolution and nonbinding referendum is to give New Haven voters an opportunity to weigh in on whether or not they would like to see Congress and the President “end foreign wars, scrap all nuclear weapons, rebuild infrastructure, and develop a new economy based on renewable energy.”

According to a June committee hearing on the item, 53 percent of the current federal budget is devoted to military spending. Many who testified during that two-and-a-half-hour hearing spoke of the perversity of this country spending so much on weapons and vehicles of destruction when that money could instead be going to bolster the nation’s public health infrastructure, which has so struggled to keep up with the pandemic. The Department of Defense’s budget, meanwhile, has proven seemingly impossible to audit because of bookkeeping errors, deficiencies, and irregularities.

In a press release put out after the vote, Downtown/Yale Alder Eli Sabin, who is the aldermanic representative on the Peace Commission, applauded the move. He quoted Peace Commission Chair Joelle Fishman as saying, “this ballot referendum will allow New Haven voters to express their hopes and dreams, and perhaps inspire other cities to do the same, building the momentum needed to create the political will for every person to be treated with dignity and respect, for every person to have health care, housing, a living wage job, food security, in a peaceful and sustainable world.”

(Article continued on the right column)

Questions for this article:

Does military spending lead to economic decline and collapse?

How can culture of peace be developed at the municipal level?

(Article continued from the left column)

Westville Alder and Health and Human Services Committee Chair Darryl Brackeen, Jr. is also quoted in that release as saying that supporting the peace resolution “is the right thing to do and now it’s time to hear from the people.”

Peace Resolution

Below is the resolution adopted by the Board of Alders Monday night. The title of the resolution is: From the Peace Commission, a Resolution calling on Congress and the President to prepare for health and climate crises by transferring funds from the military budget to cities and states for human needs, jobs, and an environmentally sustainable economy and placing a non-binding advisory referendum to that effect on the November 3, 2020 New Haven municipal ballot.”

Whereas, the severity of the U.S. economic crisis, compounded by the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic, has caused severe budget shortfalls at all levels of government, necessitating a re-examination of national spending priorities; and

Whereas, every dollar spent on the military produces fewer jobs than spending the same dollar on education, healthcare, clean energy and other beneficial programs; and

Whereas, U.S. military spending has ballooned to more than half of federal discretionary spending – more than during the Cold War, the Vietnam conflict, or the Korean War; and

Whereas, the United States trails many other nations in life expectancy, infant mortality, education, housing, and environmental sustainability;

Now, therefore, be it resolved that the Board of Alders of the City of New Haven, Connecticut calls on the U.S. Congress and the U.S. President to end foreign ground and air wars; refrain from new military ventures; work toward an end to all nuclear weapons; reduce military spending in order to meet human needs; promote job creation; re-train and re-employ those losing jobs in the process of conversion to non-military industries; rebuild infrastructure; assist municipal and state governments; and develop a new economy based on renewable energy.

Be it further resolved that the most honorable City Clerk of New Haven is hereby directed to accomplish any and all actions necessary to place the following non-binding advisory referendum on the November 3, 2020 municipal ballot:

“Shall Congress prepare for health and climate crises by transferring funds from the military budget to cities for human needs, jobs and an environmentally sustainable economy?”.

DEMOCRATIC PARTICIPATION, DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, North America

US: Progressive Caucus Announces Opposition to ‘Wasteful, Bloated’ $740 Billion Pentagon Budget Proposal

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

A article by Jake Johnson from Common Dreams (reprinted under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License)

The Congressional Progressive Caucus said Sunday that it will formally oppose the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2021 unless “significant action” is taken to reduce the bill’s proposed Pentagon outlay.


Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) speaks during an oversight hearing in the Rayburn House Office Building on Capitol Hill February 8, 2019 in Washington, D.C. (Photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

“Rubber-stamping a record $740 billion for the Pentagon shortchanges millions of families trying to get by in this crisis,” tweeted the CPC, which has more than 90 members. “Enhanced unemployment benefits expire in less than two weeks. The federal eviction moratorium expires in six days.”

“Congress should be focused on addressing these urgent crises,” the CPC added, “not passing a wasteful, bloated $740 billion defense bill to line the pockets of defense contractors.”

(Article continued on the right column)

Question for this article:

Does military spending lead to economic decline and collapse?

(Article continued from the left column)

Along with Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), CPC co-chairs Reps. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) are advocating the passage of an NDAA amendment that would cut the proposed Pentagon budget by 10%—$74 billion—and redirect the savings toward healthcare, housing, and education in poor communities.

“This 10% cut is eminently doable and reasonable,” Jayapal said  during an event late last month. “But it’s not going to be easy… As progressives, it is our job to redefine and reimagine what it is to be strong. Strong means an end to endless wars and a return to robust diplomacy and international coalition building.”

Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt) and Ed Markey (D-Mass.) are co-sponsoring a companion amendment in the Senate. In a speech on the Senate floor last month, Sanders described the proposed 10% cut as a “modest” way to begin shifting U.S. spending priorities away from endless war and toward urgent domestic concerns.

With the amendment expected to receive a vote this coming week, Sanders wrote in an email to supporters Sunday that “the time is now to cut military spending and use that money for human needs.”

“How can it be that we have enough to spend more on defense than the next eleven countries combined, but we don’t have enough to make sure every American child has a roof over their head and enough food to eat?” Sanders wrote. “A great nation is not judged by the size of its military budget, it is judged by how well it treats its weakest and most vulnerable citizens.”

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, North America

The growing use of weaponised drones risks destabilising global peace and security

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

An article from UN News

The growing use of weaponised drones risks destabilising global peace and security and creating a “drone power club” among nations, that face no effective accountability for deploying them as part of their “war on terror”, a senior UN-appointed independent rights expert said on Thursday.

At the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, Agnes Callamard, Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, said that more than 100 countries have military drones and more than a third are thought to possess the largest and deadliest autonomous weapons.

‘No red lines’ in drone warfare?

States who used them on the grounds of self-defence, “defined in a very elastic fashion” against purported terrorists, risked creating a situation where “there will be no red lines really”, she told journalists later.

“As more Government and non-State actors acquire armed drones and use them for targeted killing, there is a clear danger that war will come to be seen as normal rather than the opposite of peace,” Ms. Callamard said. “War is at risk of being normalized as a necessary companion to peace, and not its opposite.”

Appealing for greater regulation of the weapons, and lending her support to calls for a UN-led forum to discuss the deployment of drones specifically, the Special Rapporteur insisted that their growing use increased the danger of a “global conflagration”.

(Article continued in right column)

Question for this article:

Drones (unmanned bombers), Should they be outlawed?

(Article continued from left column)

‘Influential States’ rewriting the rules

Such a move was necessary because “a small number of rather influential States” had sought to reinterpret the law of self-defence under Article  51 of the UN Charter, she explained.

She urged UN Security Council to meet in formal session to review and debate all such self-defence claim, before recommending that the High Commissioner for Human Rights should produce an annual report on drone strikes casualties for the Human Rights Council.

There was now the “very real prospect that States may opt to ‘strategically’ eliminate high-ranking military officials outside the context of a ‘known’ war”, she explained, and that they might seek to justify the killing “on the grounds of necessity – not imminence” as the target was classified as a “terrorist who posed a potential, undefined, future threat”.

Iranian general’s chilling death

In particular, she cited the killing by drone strike in Iraq of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani on 3 January for which the United States claimed responsibility and which she insisted was a violation of the UN Charter.

“Targeted killings until very recently to drones had been limited to non-state actors,” she told journalists. Until, for the first time in January 2020, a State armed drone targeted a high-level official of a foreign State and did so on the territory of a third State.”

Drone strikes were the preferred option for “decision makers and military alike for their relative efficiency, effectiveness, adaptability, acceptability, deniability, and political gain”, the rights expert maintained.

But she noted that their benefits were as “illusory” as the “myth of a surgical strike”. 

Because of the current absence of effective oversight, it was “practically impossible to know whether a person(s) killed in a drone strike was, in fact, a lawful target”, Ms. Callamard said, adding that harm to civilian populations, including deaths, injuries and trauma, was likely largely under-reported.   

(Thank you to Phyllis Kotite, the CPNN reporter for this article.)

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, global, Uncategorized, United Nations,

Dutch pension fund divests from two Israeli banks over settlements’ finances

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

An article from WAFA, Palestinian News and Info Agency

The ABP, the largest pension fund in the Netherlands, has decided to divest from Israeli banks, Hapoalim and Leumi, for their finance of construction projects in illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank, according to a statement attributed to the ABP’s spokesperson.

The spokesperson reportedly pointed out that the location where companies operate plays a role in investment appraisals and criteria, which include revenue, costs, risks, and sustainability.

(continued in right column)

Question related to this article:

Presenting the Palestinian side of the Middle East, Is it important for a culture of peace?

Divestment: is it an effective tool to promote sustainable development?

(continued from left column)

“We expect companies operating in areas with high risk of human rights violations to have a human rights policy,” said the spokesperson.

In January 2014, PGGM, the country’s second largest pension administrator, announced the divestment from five Israeli banks, citing their activities in the illegal Israeli settlements built in the West Bank.

The Netherlands and the European Union consider Israeli settlements as illegal.
Last April, the European Union issued a warning against the Israeli government’s intention to annex parts of the occupied West Bank, saying that such a move “would constitute a serious violation of international law.”

The EU’s foreign policy chief, Josep Borrell, said the 27-member bloc does not recognize Israeli sovereignty over the Palestinian territory and that it will “continue to closely monitor the situation and its broader implications, and will act accordingly.”

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, Mideast

The Elders urge European leaders to stand firm on Israeli annexation threats

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

A press release from The Elders

The Elders have called on European leaders to maintain their resolve against Israel’s plans to annex swathes of the West Bank, and to insist that any such moves would have negative political and economic consequences for bilateral relations.

The absence of any direct military and legal moves towards annexation on 1 July – the deadline unilaterally declared by Israel’s Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu – should not be taken as grounds for complacency. Annexation of any part of the West Bank, including illegal settlement blocs, would constitute a flagrant breach of international law.

(continued in right column)

Question related to this article:

Presenting the Palestinian side of the Middle East, Is it important for a culture of peace?

(continued from left column)

In letters to French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson, EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs Josep Borrell, The Elders underscored the damage annexation would cause not only to any hopes of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but also to global respect for the rule of law.

Annexation “is fundamentally contrary to the long term interests of both the Israeli and the Palestinian peoples. [It] will not dampen future Palestinian demands for rights and self-determination, but destroying hopes in a two-state compromise will increase the risks of future violence in one of the most combustible areas in the world”, the Elders warned in their appeal to Europe’s leaders.

They called on the EU leaders to consider suspending the bloc’s Association Agreement with Israel if annexation does go ahead in any form, and recalled the UK’s historical and abiding responsibility to the region as the colonial Mandate holder in pre-1948 Palestine.

The Elders also reiterated their support for human rights defenders and civil society activists in Israel and Palestine, whose voices need to be protected and amplified at this challenging time.

[Editors’s note: The Elders is an international non-governmental organisation of public figures noted as elder statesmen, peace activists, and human rights advocates, who were brought together by Nelson Mandela in 2007.  They have included Desmond Tutu, Jimmy Carter, Gro Harlem Brundtland, Graça Machel, Mary Robinson, Ban Ki-Moon, Juan Manuel Santos and Kofi Annan, among others.]

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, global

Oppostion to Israel’s proposed annexation of occupied Palestinian territory

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

A letter from Members of US Congress

Despite lack of attention by the commercial media, described by Jan Oberg, Israel’s proposed annexation of occupied Palestinian territory has been opposed by 100 US organizations and by the following letter by members of the US Congress.


Palestinians are gathering in Gaza City and occupied West Bank for demonstrations against the Israeli plan [Mohammed Salem/Reuters]

June 30, 2020

To: The Honorable Mike Pompeo, Secretary of State, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC 20520

Dear Secretary Pompeo:

We write to you to express our deep concern over the planned annexation of occupied Palestinian territory by the government of Israel. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said annexation could begin as early as July 1, 2020. Should the Israeli government move forward with these plans, they would actively harm prospects for a future in which all Israelis and Palestinians can live with full equality, human rights and dignity, and would lay the groundwork for Israel becoming an apartheid state, as your predecessor John Kerry warned in 2014.We call on you to take all necessary action available to reverse course on this proposal, which will cause more tension and conflict for decades to come. While the full scope and details of the plan are not yet public, Palestinians have overwhelmingly rejected the idea of annexation, and have understandably refused to participate in a process that is not grounded in a recognition of their national rights under international law.

Leading human rights experts warn that annexing parts of the West Bank will perpetuate and entrench human rights violations against the Palestinian people, including limitations on freedom of movement, mass expropriation of privately-owned Palestinian land, further expansion of illegal settlements, continued demolitions of Palestinian homes, and a loss of Palestinian control over their natural resources.

Furthermore, Israel has stated it will not grant citizenship to Palestinians living in annexed territory or to the many more Palestinians living in the isolated enclaves that Israel will opt not to annex, formalizing in law the separate and unequal treatment of the two populations and paving the path toward an apartheid system. Indeed, the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967 has stated that it would “crystalize a 21st century apartheid, leaving in its wake the demise of the Palestinians’ right to self-determination.”

Of further concern, Israeli annexation of the West Bank is a clear violation of international law. Annexation is prohibited by Article 2(4) of the UN Charter and is a prohibited act of aggression under Article 47 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, of which Israel is a party. Forty-seven of the independent Special Procedures mandates appointed by the Human Rights Council at the United Nations reaffirm this. Further, already existing Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank, including East Jerusalem, amount to a war crime under Article 8(2)(b)(viii) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court because Israel, as the Occupying Power, is prohibited from transferring, either directly or indirectly, parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

(continued in right column)

Question related to this article:

Presenting the Palestinian side of the Middle East, Is it important for a culture of peace?

Israel/Palestine, is the situation like South Africa?

(continued from left column)

Annexation is specifically prohibited because it incites armed conflict, political and economic instability, systematic human rights abuses, and, most importantly, legitimizes the erasure ofidentity. There is no question that the acre by acre de facto annexation since 1967 for the purpose of new Israeli settlements is a blatant attempt to suppress Palestinian identity and nationhood.

Unilateral annexation in the West Bank is in direct opposition to the principles of democracy and human rights that the United States of America is supposed to stand for. At a time when the American people are taking to the streets to demand justice for all in our own country, there is no question but that such an action would alienate many U.S. lawmakers and citizens. Members of Congress should not be expected to support an undemocratic system in which Israel would permanently rule over a Palestinian people denied self-determination or equal rights.

Should the Israeli government continue down this path, we will work to ensure non-recognition of annexed territories as well as pursue legislation that conditions the $3.8 billion in U.S. military funding to Israel to ensure that U.S. taxpayers are not supporting annexation in any way. We will include human rights conditions and the withholding of funds for the offshore procurement of Israeli weapons equal to or exceeding the amount the Israeli government spends annually to fund settlements, as well as the policies and practices that sustain and enable them.

The United States must remain committed to a future in which all Israelis and Palestinians live with full rights, dignity, and democracy. This means that we do not support policies that would prevent that future, as annexation would. We therefore urge you to make clear to the Israeli government that such a move is unacceptable.

Thank you for your consideration of this request.

Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

Representative Pramila Jayapal

Representative Betty McCollum

Senator Bernard Sanders

Representative Rashida Tlaib

Representative Ayanna Pressley

Representative André Carson

Representative Jesús G. “Chuy” García.

Representative Bobby Rush

Representative Raul Grijalva

Representative Ilhan Omar

Representative Danny Davis

Representative Nydia Velázquez

(Thank you to Phyllis Kotite, the CPNN reporter for this article.)

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, Mideast, North America,

USA: The Failure of Police Use of Force Policies to Meet Fundamental International Human Rights Law and Standards

. HUMAN RIGHTS . .

Introduction and Conclusion from a report by the University of Chicago Law School – International Human Rights Clinic

Introduction

This Report is being published in the midst of a long series of horrifying incidents of police abuse of power in the United States. The deaths of George Floyd, Lacquan McDonald, Eric Garner, Michael Brown, Ahmaud Arbery, Tony McDade, Regis Korchinski-Paquet, Breonna Taylor and many others, have echoed throughout the communities of this nation and prompted protests across the country. The video and testimonies from these incidents provide grim illustrations of the power law enforcement officers have over the people they are sworn to serve and protect, and the deadly consequences when they abuse that power.

Society vests law enforcement with the responsibility to protect public safety and enforce the law when necessary. For these reasons, and these reasons only, law enforcement officers are granted the immense power to use force, including lethal force. This authority – state sanctioned violence – necessarily comes with limits and obligations to ensure those who enforce the law do not abuse it. These limits and obligations require that police use their power in a manner that protects and serves the entire community that has vested them with this privilege. The exercise of this authority also requires accountability when abuses occur. Without accountability, state sanctioned violence is nothing but the exercise of arbitrary brute force, a common tool of tyrannical and despotic governments.

Yet, as endless reports and studies have indicated, the police in the United States do not always use their power in a manner that reflects the restraint, care and humility promised to its people. The many and terrible deaths of unarmed African Americans, the targeting of poor communities and communities of color, and the absence of a mandate to protect individuals from domestic violence, all sanctioned by the Supreme Court of the United States in the name of police discretion, have scarred many and raised questions of whether the police sufficiently serve their mandate.

Even as the evidence of criminality and misconduct permeates the news, drives thousands to the streets, and garners national outrage, the exact scope and scale of lethal use of force remains unknown. The United States does not count the number of lives lost nationally due to police use of force. And police departments vary as to how and whether data on officer use of force, including the discharge of police firearms and deaths, is collected and published. This absence of comprehensive reporting and publishing of data on police use of force severely limits our ability to see the full picture and to accurately evaluate police misconduct. It also constrains our ability to identify practices and institutional mechanisms in need of reform. The failure by states and the federal government to address this lack of transparency and accountability tells its own story and is, on its own, a cause for great concern.

The human rights of people living in the United States are profoundly affected by how law enforcement officials carry out their duties. Police use of force implicates the basic rights of every individual subject to this power – the rights to life, security of person, freedom from discrimination and equal protection of the laws. These rights, established following the atrocities of World War II in the Charter of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, form the cornerstone of the human rights system. The challenge of managing police power is a global one. People in every country face the difficult and complex balance between granting police the discretion and resources needed to achieve their purpose, while holding them accountable when they abuse their power in violation of the human rights of the communities they serve.

To address this global challenge, the 193 member states of the United Nations, which include the United States, have developed principles and standards to constrain, direct and ensure the proper use of lethal force. These principles – legality, necessity, proportionality and accountability – have been developed and concretized in various forms in the international system, and have been articulated in resolutions by the U.N. General Assembly, rules by committees of experts, and findings by U.N. Special Procedure Mechanisms. These principles and the rules they establish represent the best global effort to consider how police discretion and accountability can contribute to a just and humane society that respects and protects the rights of all its individuals.

In the United States, some of these principles have been adopted and articulated by our courts and law makers. However, this country lacks a comprehensive and effective national legal framework that places specific conditions on the use of force and establishes mechanisms of accountability.5 While the Constitution sets some limits on the use of force, the standards set by the Supreme Court in its case law fall woefully short of meeting the international standards, and Congress has failed to take action to fill this critical gap in federal law.6 Due to the decentralized nature of law enforcement in the United States, and the failure of national leadership to set uniform, federal standards, the main restrictions on police use of force exist at the state and local level. State law and police departmental policies provide the principles and standards on use of force and the consequences for when that authority is abused.

(Report continued in right column)

Questions for this article:

Where are police being trained in culture of peace?

(Report continued from left column)

While, in many states, legislation provides some direction on the use of force to police departments, research and data indicates that state laws have overwhelmingly failed to do so in an effective manner. In 2015, Amnesty International, USA released “Deadly Force: Police Use of Lethal Force in the United States,” evaluating state laws’ compliance with international human rights standards. Alarmingly, the report found that not a single state’s law fully complied.

This Report builds on Amnesty’s findings by examining the other main source of accountability for the use of force: police department policies. To capture a large portion of the population and a diverse set of contexts, this Report evaluates the police policies from the 20 largest cities in the United States during 2017 to 2018.7 These internal departmental policies provide the primary guidance to police officers on when and how they may use lethal force.8 They are intended as manuals for officers on how to execute their duties, written by police leadership and, for the most part, adopted by the governing police boards.9 These policies provide the substantive standards that officers are trained on and the principles that departments must operationalize. Policy violations trigger internal and sometimes external reviews and possible disciplinary measures.

While police policies vary, a use of force policy generally establishes the magnitude and nature of the threat that must exist, and the level of certainty police officers must have, to justify the use of lethal force.10 Some policies call for a gradual escalation of the use of force; some list a series of measures an officer must or should take before resorting to lethal force.11 They also prescribe what must happen after force has been used, who must be notified, and how an investigation unfolds.

This Report reviews and analyzes these policies to better understand how and whether police departments provide meaningful and effective direction to officers on the use of lethal force in a manner that respects the rights of the people they are charged to protect and serve. To evaluate use of force policies, authors developed and applied a grading system based on international law and standards on police lethal use of force. Through this evaluation, authors found that the policies in all 20 cities reviewed fail to meet international human rights law and standards. These use of force policies grant police undue discretion and insufficient guidance on when lethal force can be used, and they fail to establish strong enough accountability mechanisms.

Part I of this Report provides summary of findings and recommendations for the development of a robust mechanism to constrain police lethal use of force. Police departments across the country allow for the use of force in circumstances where there is no immediate threat to life, such as allowing exceptions for the capture of a fleeing suspect. And almost none of the city policies provide adequate oversight and accountability mechanisms.

Part II presents the international law and standards governing police use of lethal force in the United States. It highlights the four main principles derived from these standards – legality, necessity, proportionality, and accountability – and explains their application to police use of force policies.

Part III uses these four principles to analyze and grade the use of lethal force policies of the 20 largest U.S. cities. Like the laws of the 50 states, not a single policy fully complied with international human rights law and standards. In fact, some policies fell well below full compliance, for example, failing to require that lethal force only be used in response to the immediate threat of deadly force.

Ultimately, deep, structural reform of the United States’ law enforcement system is needed. The police in the United States kill more people than any of our peer nations.12 In a 24-day period in 2015, police in the United States shot more people than the police did in England and Wales in 24 years.13 By all measures, the current system is broken. As this Report demonstrates, the very laws and departmental policies that are meant to guide police officers on how to make the difficult, life and death decisions that are required of them, do not comply with human rights. Structural reform to end police killings of unarmed black and brown men and women must start in the police departments themselves with human rights-compliant use of force policies.

Conclusion

Not one of the police departments in the 20 largest cities in United States has a human rights compliant use of force policy. None of the policies are constrained by a state law that complies with human rights law and standards. And too many police departments allow the use of lethal force in response to a non-lethal threat, thereby sanctioning unnecessary and disproportionate use of force.

These policy failures have contributed to the tragic killings of unarmed black and brown men and women by police officers around the country. Ensuring police use of lethal force in the United States is constrained by international human rights law and standards requires a broad range of legal, institutional and practical measures, from a solid grounding in legislation, to a committed political and police leadership. Human rights compliant laws and police policies are an absolutely necessary component, but they alone cannot operationalize and make real the human rights law and standards embodied in the four core principles. Instead, law and policies provide the foundation on which a structure of reinforcing attitudes, practices and mechanisms must be built.

Making law and police policies more than just paper promises requires, among other things: comprehensive, effective and ongoing officer training; effective supervision and planning; robust corrective measures applied to officer misbehavior; independent and transparent investigating and reporting; disciplinary measures; and mechanisms with real independence, resources, power and will to provide accountability. Nevertheless, true structural transformation of law enforcement practices in the United States must begin with police policies that comply with international human rights law and standards.

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, HUMAN RIGHTS, North America

Film From USA: Camden’s Turn: A Story of Police Reform in Progress

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

A film from Not in our town, a movement to stop hate, racism and bullying, and build safe, inclusive communities for all.

Camden’s Turn is a documentary about a police department and a community in the process of transformation. As views of police and the communities they serve have become polarized across the country, Camden, NJ Police Chief Scott Thomson works to build relationships and calls on his officers “to shift from a warrior mentality to that of a guardian and community builder.”


Video of Camden’s Turn

The film follows Chief Thomson, his command staff and officers, as they work to implement community policing reforms in Camden County.

After the entire police force was laid off in 2012, Chief Thomson rebuilt the department and instituted a culture of community policing — incorporating de-escalation training, engaging officers in sports, school programs and community events, putting officers on bikes in neighborhoods and parks, and getting officers out of patrol cars and walking the beat.

(Article continued in right column)

Questions for this article:

Where are police being trained in culture of peace?

(Article continued from left column)

Camden’s strategy was highlighted by President Obama’s national efforts to implement the recommendations outlined in the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing. After years of mistrust, violent crime, high arrests rates and devastating poverty, the film looks at how things are starting to turn around in Camden. Crime rates are down, people feel safer, and jobs are coming back to the city. (29 minutes)

Guide for film

This guide is designed as a tool for law enforcement and community stakeholders to facilitate screenings and discussions of the 29-minute Camden’s Turn: A Story of Police Reform in Progress. The guide provides: discussion questions and tips for organizing internal law enforcement agency and community screenings; information about community-oriented policing; and supplemental resources. Used together, the film and guide can help agencies and community groups work together to help improve law enforcement-community relations and build collaborative public safety partnerships.

Download the guide here.

[Editor’s note: According to an article in CNN published on June 9, Camden dissolved its entire police department in 2012 because it was corrupted with the drug trade and replaced it with a new police force with “community-oriented policing.” “It starts from an officer’s first day: When a new recruit joins the force, they’re required to knock on the doors of homes in the neighborhood they’re assigned to patrol, he said. They introduce themselves and ask neighbors what needs improving.”]

DEMOCRATIC PARTICIPATION, DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, EDUCATION FOR PEACE, North America