Reconciling Canada: Hard truths, big opportunity

…. HUMAN RIGHTS ….

An article by Ry Moran, Director of the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation, published in rabble.ca

Yesterday [December 15] the Commissioners of the Truth and Reconciliation released their final report. Six years. Seven volumes. Thousands of pages.

Tens of thousands of tears.

canada

The materials contained within the reports will resonate for years to come but it will be up to us, collectively as Canadians, to determine whether the Calls to Action are implemented; whether the truth is fully acknowledged; whether reconciliation is achieved.

Through the work of the Commission I have witnessed thousands, sometimes tens of thousands, join together in collective actions of reconciliation and with the brave voices of Survivors leading the way, I have seen things change, both at home and abroad.

Last week I had the opportunity to visit the Organization of American States (OAS) located in Washington D.C.

I was part of a multi-person panel that included members of the Royal Winnipeg Ballet, former MP and well-known film producer Tina Keeper and Canada’s ambassador to the OAS. Two elders from Manitoba gave meaningful words of prayer and traditional perspective to open the day. Two dancers from the Royal Winnipeg Ballet performed an eight-minute version of the Going Home Star ballet which yet again left me moved and in awe of the power of the arts to convey emotion, truth and beauty all at once.

For me, the invitation was a call for deep reflection. What would I say to an international audience about this history we are trying to come to terms with?

For the past six years, much of my own work has focused on documenting Canada at its worst. The work of statement gathering and document collection for the Truth and Reconciliation Commission placed me in front of thousands of survivors — most of whom recounted terrible stories of abuse, neglect, pain and suffering. The documentary history we collected revealed long-standing knowledge that the residential school system was broken, mismanaged, misguided and deeply unethical.

Yet the residential school system endured for over 160 years.

We, as a country, are just now starting to come to terms with the sobering realization that the systematic destruction of indigenous cultures, languages, family structures, lands and ceremonies amounted to cultural genocide.

(Article continued in right column)

 

Question related to this article:

Truth Commissions, Do they improve human rights?

(Article continued from left column)

The cold hard truth is that Canada has failed indigenous peoples miserably.

Instead of protecting Indigenous rights, for many years our country eroded, attacked and beat those very rights out of Indigenous peoples. My own nation — the Metis nation — had guns turned against it when they sought to protect their way of life. Other nations have suffered the same. And we need remember that the attack on indigenous peoples through the residential schools attacked the most sacred of all bonds that exists in this world — that between parent and child.

What was I to say to an international audience with these historical realities of genocide and mass human rights abuse so deeply enmeshed in who we are as a nation?

I said that I remained proud to be a Canadian.

I remain proud to be a Canadian not because of who we were, but because I see us growing and embracing the calls for reconciliation that are now ringing out across the country.

Through the leadership of visionaries like Phil Fontaine, Paul Martin and Frank Iacobucci, massive achievements such as the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement were made possible. The TRC Commissioners have brought us further down the path and additional truths will emerge from the critically important inquiry into missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls.

Yesterday we heard a tearful prime minister state that Survivors of the schools would never be forgotten and that a total renewal of the relationship between Canada and Indigenous peoples is needed.

Through words like these and the powerful leadership of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, I sincerely believe we are reaching a tipping point where we as a nation are really beginning to take that long hard look in the mirror with new eyes.

Across the country, educators are rallying to the cry to incorporate a more accurate and fuller picture of the contributions of indigenous peoples in Canadian history. Universities are embracing indigenous achievement and inclusion, the courts are recognizing Indigenous rights time after time, and we now have a government actively listening to Indigenous peoples. We are transforming reconciliation from the leadership of a few to the collective will of the many.

Our nation’s treatment of Indigenous peoples should not and can not be a source of pride for us as a country. We need to address this and the work ahead of us is great.

But change is possible. We can change, we are changing, and I am very hopeful that this momentum we have collectively generated will continue.

I am excited about the future that lies ahead of us and I am proud to be part of this country that is embracing this cry for change and reconciliation.

(Thank you to Janet Hudgins, the CPNN reporter for this article.)

HUMAN RIGHTS, North America

Kumi Naidoo: let the youth be our climate leaders!

. . SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT . .

An interview with Kumi Naidoo, Director of Greenpeace, by Pavlos Georgiadis of the Ecologist (abridged)

With COP21 out of the way there is absolutely no time to lose, Greenpeace director Kumi Naidoo told Pavlos Georgiadis: ‘Because by tomorrow, there might be no tomorrow.’ We need substantial, structural, systemic change – and this change can only be led by the youth, who are not infected by the political pollution of the past. And whose future is it anyway? . . .

kumi Naidoo
Video with Kumi Naidoo

“The good thing about COP21 is that for the first time we have a great multilateral agreement to address climate change. This is the first time such a large number of countries agree on something, since the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) in 1948, again in Paris.

“The sad thing about it, is that for 21 years, we knew about the need to address climate change. But our political leaders have been in denial about how serious the problem is.”

For Kumi, governments dragged their feet in these talks. “The Paris Agreement is only one step on a long road, and there are parts of it that frustrate and disappoint me, but it is progress. This deal alone won’t dig us out the hole we’re in, but it makes the sides less steep.”

In his view, the most crucial work begins now, and is important to see what types of action will emerge in the next weeks and months after Paris.

Despite delays and conflicting opinions, at the end governments came up with the $100 billion support towards climate action. “They fudged the language here and there, but they had no other choice. If developed countries did not deliver on that, poor countries would not sign on to anything unless they got a guarantee that they are going to have predictable and transparent sources of funding.

But if you divide these $100 billion by the number of beneficiary countries, then you realise that is not any close to what is needed. When we are talking about climate finance poor countries are not really asking from rich countries to give them a donation or charity. They are telling them that since they have built their economies on the basis of carbon, they should now recognise their climate debt.”

“We now face the challenge of not allowing our governments to let us down, and that civil society – especially in developing countries- is part of the process that ensures this money is spent properly.”

It took 20 years for the world to reach this agreement, because of a reality that Kumi calls a “climate apartheid”, that showed its teeth in the Paris negotiations too:

“Most of the people in the countries that emitted the most carbon are white. Most of the people in the countries who are paying the first and highest price are people of colour. So, there is no question in my mind, that there is this subliminal racism at play in this discourse. And that is putting it kindly.”

(Interview continued in the right side of the page)

Question for this article:

Despite the vested interests of companies and governments, Can we make progress toward sustainable development?

(Interview continued from the left side of the page)

The challenge of financing climate action after Paris is immense. Naidoo believes that the aid system is a very messed up broken system, to start with:

“For every one dollar that is given to Africa, eight dollars are going out in capital flight. Therefore, it is important that the Green Climate Fund is set up in a way that takes that injustice into consideration. We cannot allow the current messed up banking system consume the world’s most vulnerable countries, that need funds to protect themselves from catastrophic climate change.

“A country like Kiribati, for example, that has contributed almost nothing in terms of carbon emissions, has very high possibilities that parts of it will disappear in the coming decades. Lending institutions will say that if Kiribati wants to borrow money in the international markets, it must pay higher interest rates, because the country’s ‘vulnerability’ is a threat to the credit system.”

“This exact case, highlights the big injustice existing in climate finance right now, where loans could leave all these countries back in a deep, unplayable debt situation. “But, why go to Kiribati, when there is Greece, a country you could get from Paris on a bicycle, to see it for yourself.

“We have to be very careful whether the mechanisms agreed in Paris will put poor countries in a kind of a terrible debt situation. Otherwise, they could be enslaved to financial institutions for many decades to come.”

Kumi Naidoo believes that the COP21 is just the beginning of a long road. “It sometimes seems that the countries of the United Nations can unite on nothing, but nearly two hundred countries have come together and agreed a deal. The human race has just joined in a common cause, but it’s what happens from now on that really matters.”

“Our political and business leaders must realise that nature does not negotiate. They have to realise that the agreement that was just signed is about their children and their children’s children’s futures. And for that reason, we cannot but recognise that in the moment of history that we live in, this is an one-way all of us. Especially young people need to stand up and say ‘this is about our future!'”

“The world is now on its feet and more determined than ever, continuing the fight and pushing the transition from an economy that is driven by dirty fossil fuels, to an economy that is driven by clean energy. As humans, we cannot afford this transition to be slow and wait until tomorrow. Because by tomorrow, there might be no tomorrow.”

In his words, climate change presents us with a very powerful opportunity. “For far too long, we lived in a world divided between rich and poor, north and south, east and west, developed and developing.

“What we need right now is not just baby steps in the right direction, given how much time we have already lost. We need substantial, structural, systemic change. And this change can only be led by the youth, who are not infected by the political pollution of the past.

“Either we secure a future for all our children and grandchildren, or we can get it wrong. Poor countries, that have contributed least to the problem, will pay the first and most brutal price. But, ultimately, everybody will get impacted.”

global, SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

Naomi Klein: We are going backwards, COP21 is the opposite of progress

. . SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT . .

An interview with Naomi Klein in New Internationalist Magazine (abbreviated)

Naomi Klein speaks with Frank Barat about the limits of the Paris climate talks and how climate change is an accelerator that makes pre-existing problems worse. This interview was originally published in the French publication Ballast.

Naomi Klein
People’s climate march in Prague, 29 November 2015. Friends of the Earth International under a Creative Commons Licence

. . . [what] is unfolding in Paris during the climate summit is really exposing the subjectivity of what gets declared a crisis and what does not. We are here to discuss an existential crisis for humanity and it has never received crisis treatment from elites. They give loads of wonderful speeches but they do not change laws. It is exposing the double standards in a very naked way. In the name of security, they would do almost anything, but in the name of human security, of protecting life on earth, there are loads of talk but no serious regulations of polluters and even the deal themselves they want not to be legally binding. So we are actually moving backwards. The Kyoto protocol was legally binding and now we are moving towards more volunteer, meaningless, non-regulations.

Question: Why would a climate deal be our best hope for peace?

N.K: The first part of it is simply that climate change is already driving conflict. So is the quest for fossil fuels. In terms of the Middle East, our thirst from fossil fuels is a major driver for illegal wars. Do we think Iraq would have been invaded if their major export had been asparagus [as journalist Robert Fisk once asked]? Probably not. We wanted that prize in the west, Iraq’s oil. We wanted this on the world’s market. It was certainly Dick Cheney’s agenda. This destabilized the whole region, which was not particularly stable to begin with because of earlier oil wars and coups and support for dictatorships. This is also a region that is one of the most vulnerable to climate change. Large parts of the Middle East would become unliveable on the emission trajectory that we are on. Syria has experienced the worst drought of its history in the run up to the outbreak of civil war. It is one of the factors that destabilized the country. There is no possibility for peace without very strong actions on climate. What drew me to this issue was understanding that if we are going to take climate change seriously it is going to require a redistribution of wealth, of opportunities and technologies. In this book I begin quoting Angelica Navarro who is a Bolivian trade and climate negotiator, talking about how climate change called for a Marshall Plan for planet earth. For countries that have their resources systematically plundered, like Bolivia and are on the front lines of dealing with the impact of climate change, it requires kind of a writing past wrongs, the transfer of wealth and turning the world right side up that I think are pre-conditions for a more peaceful world.

Question: How do you put to the masses of people that to change course, we have to deconstruct capitalism? I think that for most people it is too difficult a change to imagine?

(Interview continued in the right side of the page)

( Click here for the French version of this article.)

Question for this article:

Sustainable Development Summits of States, What are the results?

Despite the vested interests of companies and governments, Can we make progress toward sustainable development?

(Interview continued from the left side of the page)

N.K: In Canada we did this exercise of trying to use climate change and the fact that it puts us on a deadline. Not only do we have to change but we have to change now and if we do not make the most of this remaining decade, it will indeed be too late. What does this mean for healthcare, education, indigenous rights, inequality, what would it look like for refugee rights to take climate change seriously? Our team hosted a meeting of 60 movement leaders and we drafted a document called The Leap. We are really hoping that it would help break through this problem. We found in Canada that the only way to break through is to do it. To get together and act. Everybody is working on such urgent issues. If you are an anti poverty activist or a refugee rights activist, you do not have any spare time. It is only when climate change does not distract from your issue and in fact brings another layer of urgency and a really powerful tool and argument and brings you new allies as well, then people have that space to go, ‘oh yeah, ok, this is actually hopeful, this is not a distraction.’

There are a couple of things we did in Canada. One, we organized a march under the banner ‘jobs, justice, climate’. It was not a theoretical exercise but really an organizing one. How do we talk to people in trade unions about climate in a way that really resonates, how do you talk to people who are just fighting for basic services, for housing, and transit, what would it mean for the Black Lives Matter movement, what are the messages that are different? It really helped. Then we drafted and launched the LEAP manifesto. Not that it is perfect, but it is a start. To me it is shocking the extent to which the anti-austerity movement and the climate movement in Europe do not seem to talk to one another. You could have [Greek Prime Minister Alexander] Tsipras suddenly talking about climate change this week, for the first time from what I can tell since he took office.

Climate change is the best argument against austerity that you are ever going to have. If you are negotiating with Germany, a government that claims to take climate change very seriously and that has some of the most ambitious energy policies in the world, why wouldn’t you talk about climate change in every meetings and say that we cannot have austerity because we have an existential crisis, we have to act. And yet Syriza, Podemos, you almost never hear them talking about climate change. I spoke at a blockcupy rally in Frankfurt a few months ago and climate change was not mentioned. When I talked about the connections, people understood instantly, it is not abstract. If you are dealing with the endless of budget crisis and this false sense of public scarcity, of course governments are going to cut their support for renewables, of course they are going to increase fares for public transit, of course they are going to privatize the rail system as they are doing in Belgium, of course they are going to say that we have to drill for oil and gas to get ourselves out of debt.

These issues are the same stories, so why is it that it seems far off, right? I do not think it is a hard argument to make. I think that people are creatures of habit. There is a lot of fear around talking about climate change. It has been so bureaucratized. A little bit like trade used to be. When we first started talking about free trade deals there was all of this talk about having a degree in international law to understand it as it was so bureaucratic. It was designed to repel public participation. But somehow people started to educate themselves and found ways to talk about it and really understood how it impacted their lives and the things that they understood. They realised they had a right to participate in this conversation. I think that why climate change people are afraid of making mistakes about the science. You have got three levels of bureaucratic language. The scientific, the policy and the UN language. It is very difficult to understand. The UN one is a nightmare. Look at the schedule for the Cop21! It is not in any language anybody could recognize. All of that is part of the reason why even though it is obvious to connect climate to austerity somehow it is not done. . . .

Governments are fighting for those paltry targets to not be legally binding. It is the opposite of progress – we are going backward. Kyoto was legally binding. This is headed towards not being binding. The target in Copenhagen was 2 degrees, which was already too high, and here we are headed towards 3. This is basic laws of physics. It is not forward.

global, SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT, United Nations,

COP21 vue par Naomi Klein : « Le changement climatique génère des conflits »

. . DEVELOPPEMENT DURABLE . .

Un article par Naomi Klein dans la revue Ballast (abrégé)

Tandis que les dirigeants du monde se réunissent pour « remédier » au problème du changement climatique à la Conférence de Paris, dite COP21, nous retrouvons l’essayiste canadienne Naomi Klein, auteure des ouvrages phares No Logo et La Stratégie du choc, dans les bureaux de l’un de ses éditeurs. . . .

Naomi Klein
People’s climate march in Prague, 29 November 2015. Friends of the Earth International under a Creative Commons Licence

Tout cela [qui] arrive ici, à Paris, au moment du sommet international sur le climat, nous éclaire également sur ce que les gouvernants décident de qualifier de crise ou pas : nous voyons aujourd’hui que cela est très subjectif. Nous sommes ici pour débattre de la crise climatique, une crise majeure pour l’humanité, mais qui n’a jamais été traitée comme telle par les élites. Nos dirigeants font tous de très beaux discours mais ne changent jamais les lois. Il y a clairement deux poids, deux mesures. Pour des raisons sécuritaires, ils feraient n’importe quoi, mais quand il s’agit de la sécurité de l’humanité, de protéger la vie sur Terre, c’est beaucoup de paroles et très peu d’actes. Ils n’ont jamais mis en place aucune mesure de régulation sérieuse pour les pollueurs, par exemple, et ils ne veulent pas que les accords qu’ils passent entrent eux soient juridiquement contraignants. Le protocole de Kyoto l’était. Mais voilà que nous faisons marche arrière.

Pourquoi est-ce qu’un accord sur le climat est notre principale chance pour la paix ?

Tout d’abord parce que le changement climatique génère déjà des conflits. Comme la quête aux énergies fossiles. Si on prend le Moyen-Orient, par exemple, notre course à l’énergie fossile est l’une des raisons principales de nombreuses guerres illégales. Est-ce que l’Irak aurait été envahi s’il avait principalement exporté des asperges (comme l’a fait remarquer Robert Fisk) ? Probablement pas. Ce que l’Occident voulait, c’était le pétrole irakien, afin de le mettre en vente sur le marché mondial. Voilà ce qu’était le projet de Dick Cheney. Cela a déstabilisé toute la région — qui n’était déjà pas très stable, à cause des précédentes guerres pour le pétrole et des nombreux coups d’États et des dictateurs installés et soutenus par les puissances occidentales. Il faut également savoir que cette région est une des plus vulnérables face au changement climatique, à cause duquel de très larges parties du Moyen-Orient sont devenues invivables. La Syrie a connu la pire sécheresse de son histoire juste avant que la guerre civile n’éclate. Ce fut l’un des facteurs de déstabilisation du pays. La paix ne sera pas possible tant que des mesures fortes ne seront pas prises pour le climat. Je me suis intéressée de plus près à cette problématique quand j’ai compris que si nous voulons vraiment prendre le changement climatique au sérieux, il faudra en passer par une redistribution des richesses, des opportunités et des technologies. Dans mon dernier livre, je cite Angelica Navarro, négociatrice bolivienne pour le commerce et le climat, qui dit que le changement climatique a engendré l’obligation d’un plan Marshall pour la planète.

Vous dites que pour inverser cette tendance, il nous faut déconstruire le capitalisme. Comment faire passer cette idée qui peut être difficile à imaginer, pour la plupart des gens ?

(Voir suite sur colonne de droite. . . )

( Clickez ici pour la version anglaise .)

Question for this article:

Despite the vested interests of companies and governments, Can we make progress toward sustainable development?

(. . . suite)

Au Canada, nous avons essayé de travailler en partant du postulat que le changement climatique nous impose un ultimatum. Il ne faut pas seulement changer les choses, il faut les changer maintenant ; et si nous ne le faisons pas dans les dix prochaines années, il sera trop tard. Qu’est-ce que cela entraîne dans le domaine de la santé, de l’éducation, des droits des indigènes, de l’inégalité ? Quel serait l’impact sur les droits des réfugiés si nous prenions le changement climatique au sérieux ? Nous avons réuni les leaders de soixante organisations et rédigé un document, intitulé « The Leap Manifesto », qui, nous l’espérons, permettra de trouver une solution. Nous avons pensé que le meilleur moyen de parvenir à régler ce problème était de nous réunir et d’agir. Ça n’a pas été facile de réunir toutes ces organisations, car toutes travaillent sur des problématiques très importantes. Si vous travaillez contre la pauvreté, vous n’avez pas le temps de faire autre chose. Mais lorsque le changement climatique devient une cause de ce contre quoi vous luttez, quand il devient un outil pour poursuivre votre combat, quand il vous permet de trouver de nouveaux partenaires, de nouveaux alliés, alors il n’est plus une distraction mais un moteur. On a également mené quelques actions. Nous avons, entre autres, organisé un rassemblement sur le thème « Travail, Justice, Climat ». Ce n’était pas un exercice théorique mais une vraie réflexion sur comment s’organiser : comment aborder le sujet du climat avec les syndicats pour que cela ait un impact, avec les personnes qui luttent pour les services de base, le logement, les mouvements de population ? Quels messages faire passer, de quelle manière ? Ça a été très riche en enseignements, donc très utile. Ensuite, nous avons rédigé et lancé le manifeste « The Leap », qui n’est probablement ni parfait ni suffisant, mais c’est un bon début…

Je suis vraiment choquée de voir à quel point les mouvements anti-austérité et ceux pour le climat ne semblent pas du tout communiquer en Europe. J’ai entendu Tsipras soudainement évoquer le changement climatique cette semaine — et je crois que c’est la première fois, depuis qu’il a pris ses fonctions. Le changement climatique est le meilleur argument contre l’austérité. Pourquoi ne pas utiliser ce levier dans les négociations avec l’Allemagne, à qui ce sujet tient apparemment énormément à cœur et qui a une des politiques énergétiques les plus ambitieuses du monde ? Pourquoi ne pas utiliser cet argument dans chaque réunion, et dire que l’austérité est impensable parce que nous sommes devant une crise majeure pour l’humanité et que nous devons agir ? Et, pourtant, nous n’entendons quasiment jamais Podemos ou Syriza parler du changement climatique. J’ai donné une conférence pendant un rassemblement « Blockupy » à Francfort, il y a quelques mois, et le sujet n’a jamais été abordé. Quand j’ai évoqué les connexions entre le changement climatique et les autres mouvements, tout le monde a compris ; c’est très concret. Si on reste uniquement sur le terrain de la crise économique, les gouvernements vont évidemment couper leurs aides aux renouvelables, augmenter les tarifs des transports publics, privatiser les chemins de fer, comme ils le font en Belgique, dire qu’il faut forer pour se procurer du pétrole et du gaz et nous sortir de la dette.

Mais tout est lié ! Alors pourquoi la problématique du changement climatique semble-t-elle si lointaine ? Il n’est pas difficile du tout d’utiliser cet argument, mais le changement climatique a tellement été bureaucratisé que les gens ont peur d’en parler. Un peu comme ils avaient peur de parler du commerce, à l’époque où on a commencé à évoquer les accords de libre-échange, parce que c’était tellement bureaucratique qu’ils pensaient qu’il fallait avoir un diplôme de droit international pour comprendre. Tout cela a été pensé pour que la population ne veuille pas en parler, ne participe pas. Et puis, malgré tout, les gens se sont éduqués, ont trouvé des manières d’en parler et compris quel impact cela avait sur leur vie. Ils ont réalisé qu’ils avaient le droit de prendre part à cette conversation. Pour ce qui concerne le changement climatique, je pense que les gens ont peur de faire des erreurs scientifiques. Il y a trois niveaux de langage bureaucratique : le niveau scientifique, le niveau politique et le niveau des Nations unies. C’est très compliqué à comprendre, en particulier le langage de ces dernières, qui est un cauchemar. Il suffit de jeter un œil au programme de la COP21 ! C’est écrit dans une langue que personne ne comprend. Tout cela fait partie de la raison pour laquelle, même s’il est évident de mettre en lien le changement climatique et l’austérité, ce n’est jamais fait. . . .

Les gouvernements se battent pour que ces cibles dérisoires ne soient pas légalement contraignantes. C’est l’inverse du progrès: nous reculons : Kyoto était légalement contraignant ; là, on se dirige vers des accords non contraignants. L’objectif à Copenhagen était 2 degrés, ce qui était déjà trop, et là nous allons vers 3. C’est de la physique basique. On n’avance pas.

Uncategorized

2015 Black Solidarity Statement with Palestine

. DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

A statement by Black activist individuals and organizations

The following statement was signed by Black people in 25 different countries, 37 U.S. states, and the District of Columbia, including South Africa, Australia, Ghana, Nigeria, Ethiopia, Egypt, Palestine, & Puerto Rico. Of the 1,100+ signatories, there are 650 activists or organizers, 400 current students, 240 artists, 165 scholars or professors, and 22 clergy. 11 currently incarcerated political prisoners, at least 5 former members of the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense, and 6 professional hip-hop artists signed the statement. Nearly 50 organizations signed onto the statement:

blackforpalestine
Photo courtesy of Christopher Hazou

The past year has been one of high-profile growth for Black-Palestinian solidarity. Out of the terror directed against us—from numerous attacks on Black life to Israel’s brutal war on Gaza and chokehold on the West Bank—strengthened resilience and joint-struggle have emerged between our movements. Palestinians on Twitter were among the first to provide international support for protesters in Ferguson, where St. Louis-based Palestinians gave support on the ground. Last November, a delegation of Palestinian students visited Black organizers in St. Louis, Atlanta, Detroit and more, just months before the Dream Defenders took representatives of Black Lives Matter, Ferguson, and other racial justice groups to Palestine. Throughout the year, Palestinians sent multiple letters of solidarity to us throughout protests in Ferguson, New York, and Baltimore. We offer this statement to continue the conversation between our movements:

On the anniversary of last summer’s Gaza massacre, in the 48th year of Israeli occupation, the 67th year of Palestinians’ ongoing Nakba (the Arabic word for Israel’s ethnic cleansing)–and in the fourth century of Black oppression in the present-day United States–we, the undersigned Black activists, artists, scholars, writers, and political prisoners offer this letter of reaffirmed solidarity with the Palestinian struggle and commitment to the liberation of Palestine’s land and people.

We can neither forgive nor forget last summer’s violence. We remain outraged at the brutality Israel unleashed on Gaza through its siege by land, sea and air, and three military offensives in six years. We remain sickened by Israel’s targeting of homes, schools, UN shelters, mosques, ambulances, and hospitals. We remain heartbroken and repulsed by the number of children Israel killed in an operation it called “defensive.” We reject Israel’s framing of itself as a victim. Anyone who takes an honest look at the destruction to life and property in Gaza can see Israel committed a one-sided slaughter. With 100,000 people still homeless in Gaza, the massacre’s effects continue to devastate Gaza today and will for years to come.

Israel’s injustice and cruelty toward Palestinians is not limited to Gaza and its problem is not with any particular Palestinian party. The oppression of Palestinians extends throughout the occupied territories, within Israel’s 1948 borders, and into neighboring countries. The Israeli Occupation Forces continue to kill protesters—including children—conduct night raids on civilians, hold hundreds of people under indefinite detention, and demolish homes while expanding illegal Jewish-only settlements. Israeli politicians, including Benjamin Netanyahu, incite against Palestinian citizens within Israel’s recognized borders, where over 50 laws discriminate against non-Jewish people.

(Article continued in right column)

Question for this article:

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

Are we making progress against racism?

(Article continued from left column)

Our support extends to those living under occupation and siege, Palestinian citizens of Israel, and the 7 million Palestinian refugees exiled in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and Palestine. The refugees’ right to return to their homeland in present-day Israel is the most important aspect of justice for Palestinians.

Palestinian liberation represents an inherent threat to Israeli settler colonialism and apartheid, an apparatus built and sustained on ethnic cleansing, land theft, and the denial of Palestinian humanity and sovereignty. While we acknowledge that the apartheid configuration in Israel/Palestine is unique from the United States (and South Africa), we continue to see connections between the situation of Palestinians and Black people.

Israel’s widespread use of detention and imprisonment against Palestinians evokes the mass incarceration of Black people in the US, including the political imprisonment of our own revolutionaries. Soldiers, police, and courts justify lethal force against us and our children who pose no imminent threat. And while the US and Israel would continue to oppress us without collaborating with each other, we have witnessed police and soldiers from the two countries train side-by-side.

US and Israeli officials and media criminalize our existence, portray violence against us as “isolated incidents,” and call our resistance “illegitimate” or “terrorism.” These narratives ignore decades and centuries of anti-Palestinian and anti-Black violence that have always been at the core of Israel and the US. We recognize the racism that characterizes Israel’s treatment of Palestinians is also directed against others in the region, including intolerance, police brutality, and violence against Israel’s African population. Israeli officials call asylum seekers from Sudan and Eritrea “infiltrators” and detain them in the desert, while the state has sterilized Ethiopian Israelis without their knowledge or consent. These issues call for unified action against anti-Blackness, white supremacy, and Zionism.

We know Israel’s violence toward Palestinians would be impossible without the US defending Israel on the world stage and funding its violence with over $3 billion annually. We call on the US government to end economic and diplomatic aid to Israel. We wholeheartedly endorse Palestinian civil society’s 2005 call for Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) against Israel and call on Black and US institutions and organizations to do the same. We urge people of conscience to recognize the struggle for Palestinian liberation as a key matter of our time.

As the BDS movement grows, we offer G4S, the world’s largest private security company, as a target for further joint struggle. G4S harms thousands of Palestinian political prisoners illegally held in Israel and hundreds of Black and brown youth held in its privatized juvenile prisons in the US. The corporation profits from incarceration and deportation from the US and Palestine, to the UK, South Africa, and Australia. We reject notions of “security” that make any of our groups unsafe and insist no one is free until all of us are.

We offer this statement first and foremost to Palestinians, whose suffering does not go unnoticed and whose resistance and resilience under racism and colonialism inspires us. It is to Palestinians, as well as the Israeli and US governments, that we declare our commitment to working through cultural, economic, and political means to ensure Palestinian liberation at the same time as we work towards our own. We encourage activists to use this statement to advance solidarity with Palestine and we also pressure our own Black political figures to finally take action on this issue. As we continue these transnational conversations and interactions, we aim to sharpen our practice of joint struggle against capitalism, colonialism, imperialism, and the various racisms embedded in and around our societies.

Towards liberation,

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, Mideast

UNHCR welcomes first arrivals of Syrian refugees in Canada

TOLERANCE AND SOLIDARITY .

An article by The UN Refugee Agency

This is a summary of what was said by UNHCR spokesperson Adrian Edwards – to whom quoted text may be attributed – at the press briefing, on 11 December 2015, at the Palais des Nations in Geneva.

unhcr

UNHCR welcomes news of the arrival in Canada last night of the first group of Syrian refugees under a recently announced humanitarian programme which will provide a new life for 25,000 Syrian refugees. This first group of 163 refugees arrived from Lebanon by Royal Canadian Air Force jet.

Canada has acted swiftly to implement this initiative, which was announced in late November. UNHCR is continuing to work with the Canadian authorities in identifying vulnerable Syrians for settlement in Canada. The refugees’ welcome to Canada will be underpinned by its well-recognised community integration programmes.

The Canadian programmes are a practical expression of support to Syrian refugees and demonstration of solidarity to those countries in the region hosting more than four million Syrian refugees. The difficult situation for Syrian refugees continues to deteriorate, with increasing numbers living below national poverty lines.

UNHCR encourages other states to engage in these programmes. They provide critical support for refugees currently hosted in countries neighbouring Syria. To date some 30 countries have pledged a total of more than 160,000 places for Syrians under resettlement and other humanitarian admissions schemes. UNHCR estimates 10 per cent of the 4.1 million registered refugees in countries neighbouring Syria are vulnerable and are in need of resettlement or humanitarian admission to a third country.

Question for discussion
North America, TOLERANCE & SOLIDARITY

UN Security Council adopts resolution on Youth, Peace and Security

TOLERANCE AND SOLIDARITY .

A blog by UNOY, United Network of Young Peacebuilders

On 9 December 2015 the United Nations Security Council adopted resolution 2250 on Youth, Peace & Security. The historical document is the first of its kind to recognize the positive role young people play in building sustainable peace and to lay out the need for governments and other stakeholders to support young people in this role. It represents a landmark for the participation of young people involved in transforming conflict, peacebuilding and countering violence.

unoy

With a larger global youth population than ever before, there is a demographic and democratic imperative to meaningfully involved youth in matters of peace and security, especially considering how conflicts impact on young people’s lives and futures.

At UNOY Peacebuilders we have been working intensively since 2012 to lay a path leading to this resolution. We have fostered dialogue between young peacebuilders and policy makers at the international level, bringing young peacebuilders to discuss with representatives at the UN in New York. At the same time, we have been working for the recognition of young people as actors of positive change with civil society partners including Search for Common Ground and World Vision, as well as key institutional partners through the Inter-Agency Working Group on Young People’s Participation in Peacebuilding.

The dominant policy discourse around youth has traditionally viewed young people as threats to global peace and security, or occasionally as vulnerable groups to be protected. In short, either as victims or perpetrators of violence. This is a harmful reduction of the role youth play in conflict and post-conflict settings and that’s why we have been calling for a third point of view – a point of view which sees youth as peacebuilders who deserved to have their efforts recognized and supported. It is this third point of view which is now being recognised by the UN Security Council.

(article continued on the right side of the page)

Question for this article

Is there a renewed movement of solidarity by the new generation?

(article continued from the left side of the page)

The new UN Security Council resolution outlines the duties of parties to armed conflicts to protect young people during conflict and in post-conflict contexts. Importantly, the resolution goes further and also calls on governments to promote youth participation in processes of peacebuilding and peacekeeping at all levels, including peace processes and dispute resolution mechanisms.  

The resolution calls on Member States to facilitate an enabling environment for youth to prevent violence, and to create policies which support youth socio-economic development and education for peace equipping youth with the ability to engage in political processes. It urges member states to support youth peace efforts in conflict and post-conflict settings, including through the the work of UN bodies involved in peacebuilding and development. The resolution also encourages all those involved in disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration to ensure that programs are designed to consider the special needs of youth in these processes.

Finally, the resolution requests the UN General-Secretary to carry out a study on the impact of conflict on young people, as well as their contributions to peace, and to report to the Security Council on the implementation of the resolution in one year’s time.

UN Security Council Resolution 2250 is a huge step forward in the right direction, recognising and supporting young people’s contributions to building peace. However, a UN Security Council resolution is not the end of the road. Young peacebuilders around the world, youth-led and youth-focused organizations must now focus their efforts on ensuring that the resolution gets translated into real policies at regional, national and local levels.

UNOY Peacebuilders welcomes the adoption of the declaration as a tool for young people’s empowerment and calls on every young peacebuilder to join us in the next steps.

Read the full text of UN SCR 2250 here and take part in the conversation through #Youth4Peace and #scr2250 on Twitter or following us on Facebook.

For more information, contact Matilda Flemming (matilda.flemming@unoy.org) or Sölvi Karlsson (solvi.karlsson@unoy.org).

global, TOLERANCE & SOLIDARITY, United Nations,

Porto Alegre, Brazil: Fifteenth anniversary of the World Social Forum

FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION

An article by Suzy Scarton, Jornal do Comércio

From 19 to 23 January next year, Porto Alegre will host the 2016 Thematic Social Forum (TSF) which aims to address challenges and perspectives under the theme “another world is possible .” In addition to taking stock of the actions taken in the last decade and a half the event also celebrates the 15th anniversary of the first World Social Forum that was held in Porto Alegre in 2001. The opening march will be held on January 19, at 15h, from Glênio Peres.

forum
Jonathan Heckler/JC

Topics of the meeting include the crisis of capitalism, domestic and international political context, youth participation, culture of peace, racism, Latin American integration, activism and how to combat xenophobia and homophobia. Mayor Jose Fortunati reaffirmed the importance of the event to consolidate ideas that can change the world. “Just changing the current system is enough to allow us to move forward,” he said yesterday to the social and trade union leaders who are organizing the event. He reiterated that the city will contribute to the organizational and structural support.

The activities will be carried out mainly in the old Gasometer factory, at the City Council, in the Park of Redenção, at the Legislative Assembly and in the plaza Zumbi dos Palmares. The Deputy Municipal Secretary for Local Government, Carlos Siegle added that while the guidelines have changed in the space of 15 years, “we need to reflect for a profound debate on the role of the citizen.”

Registration to participate in the forum is now open and can be made on the site www.forumsocialportoalegre.org.br.

The first forum in 2001 was considered a novelty in the international arena by its coordination capacity in the anti-capitalist struggle as well as for its radical policy proposals regarding social, economic and environmental issues. Among the guests this year will be former President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva , former Uruguayan President Pepe Mujica, the writer and sociologist Manuel Castells Spanish, the Brazilian activist against violence to women Maria da Penha and the Pakistani activist and Nobel Peace laureate Malala Yousafzai.

(Click here for the original version in Portuguese.

 

Question related to this article.

FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION, Latin America

Brasil: Evento fará balanço de ações dos últimos 15 anos do Fórum Social Mundial

. LIBERTAD DE INFORMACIÓN .

Um artigo de Suzy Scarton, Jornal do Comércio

Entre os dias 19 e 23 de janeiro do ano que vem, Porto Alegre será sede do Fórum Social Temático (FST) 2016, cujas discussões pretendem abordar desafios e perspectivas na luta por outro mundo possível, além de realizar um balanço das ações realizadas na última década e meia. O evento também comemora os 15 anos do primeiro Fórum Social Mundial realizado em Porto Alegre, em 2001. A marcha de abertura será realizada no dia 19 de janeiro, às 15h, a partir do Largo Glênio Peres.

forum
Jonathan Heckler/JC

Crise do capitalismo, contexto político brasileiro e internacional, participação da juventude, cultura de paz, racismo, integração latino-americana, ativismo e combate à xenofobia e à homofobia são alguns dos temas que serão trabalhados durante o encontro. O prefeito José Fortunati reafirmou a importância do evento para a consolidação de ideias que podem mudar o mundo. “Só alterando o atual sistema conseguiremos avançar”, declarou ontem, no lançamento da edição do evento do ano de 2016. Fortunati também destacou a liderança de movimentos sociais e sindicais para que o evento tenha tomado forma, reiterando que a prefeitura contribui com o suporte organizacional e de estrutura.

As atividades serão realizadas, principalmente, na Usina do Gasômetro, na Câmara de Vereadores, no Parque da Redenção, na Assembleia Legislativa e no largo Zumbi dos Palmares. O secretário municipal adjunto de Governança Local, Carlos Siegle, afirmou que, embora as pautas tenham mudado neste espaço de 15 anos, “a reflexão segue necessária para um profundo debate sobre o papel do cidadão”.

As inscrições para participar do fórum já estão abertas e podem ser feitas no site www.forumsocialportoalegre.org.br. A primeira edição do evento, que se considera uma novidade no cenário internacional pela capacidade de articulação de matizes na luta anticapitalista e pela radicalidade de propostas políticas, sociais, econômicas e ambientais, foi em 2001. Entre os convidados dessa edição estão o ex-presidente Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, o ex-presidente uruguaio Pepe Mujica, o escritor e sociólogo espanhol Manuel Castells, a ativista brasileira de violência contra a mulher Maria da Penha e a ativista paquistanesa Malala Yousafzai.

(Clique aqui para uma versão inglês

 

Question related to this article.

Uncategorized

ICLEI Declaration to the Ministers at COP21, Paris, France

. . DEMOCRATIC PARTICIPATION. .

A Declaration by ICLEI, Local Governments for Sustainability, a network of over 1,000 cities

In these days, the world anxiously follows your national and global efforts to collectively agree on an ambitious and inclusive global Paris Climate Package as the outcome of COP21.

With the recently adopted Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), in particular Goal 11 on sustainable cities, all countries have a mandate and an obligation to create the necessary conditions for a peaceful and healthy planet. We expect that the Habitat III Conference next year on the new Urban Agenda will further strengthen these.

iclei-2

However, it will not be possible to transform our world towards a sustainable world without a clear commitment from Parties and a pathway towards low-carbon and high-resilient societies and economies.

A failure in Paris to agree on a global framework will worsen our life scenarios. We do not see the negotiations of this agreement as one among Parties but as one with people at risk.

We worriedly take note of the fact that the Intended Nationally Determined Commitments and Contributions (INDCs), curb the global GHG emission trajectory to only 2.7-5.0 °Celsius until the end of this century, and not below 2°C, as requested by the IPCC to ensure a climate-safe future for all people.

This will gravely impact the most vulnerable citizens and populations who suffer from the impacts of climate change that they have not caused.

In overall terms, we request Parties to provide an ambitious response to address 4 basic realities:

* the legacy of a fossil-dependent era and ineffectiveness of piecemeal solutions;

* the unstoppable transformation into a development model that is based on 100% renewables and a circular economy;

* the need to develop innovative governance models in a multi-polar, multi-stakeholder, multi-level Urban World of the 21st Century;

* the need to develop a global and sufficient framework to mobilize additional financial resources for climate change mitigation, adaptation and loss-and-damage through public as well as private finance, including carbon pricing, phasing out of fossil-fuel subsidies, divestment of carbon intensive infrastructure and other assets, and revenues to be generated from regulations on international finance markets or transactions;

Acknowledging the fact that some 50% of submitted INDCs refer to local and subnational action, we urge our Ministers to be more ambitious and to:

* Emphasize the importance of taking into account human rights, gender equality, rights of indigenous peoples, and the needs of particular vulnerable groups when taking action to address climate change;

* Confirm the recognition of the crucial role of local and subnational governments as governmental stakeholders and non-state actors, as key partners in the global climate efforts;

* Develop innovative processes to enhance engagement of local and subnational governments as governmental stakeholders, building on the experiences of the ADP Workstream-2 Technical Examination Processes, and the efforts through the Lima-Paris Action Agenda (LPAA);

* Adopt long-term mitigation goals with a clear vision and target for2050, and for the end of the century, in particular goals on carbon/climate neutrality, phase-out of fossil fuels, and 100% renewables by the latest by 2050;

* Close the emission gap and accelerate the implementation of the pre-2020 mitigation commitments in particular by developed countries, so that transformation happens faster, based on the principles of differentiated responsibilities, equity, and solidarity;

* Support developing countries to achieve their mitigation INDCs, technically and financially, and adopt a finance plan that includes five year financial commitments and assessment periods to help achieve their pre-2020 and post-2020 goals;

* Agree on a global, periodic revision process, every five years, of the individual and aggregate implementation progress of the mitigation INDCs and their upscaling, with science and equity-based assessments, and with civil society participation;

(Article continued in right column)

Question for this article

Sustainable Development Summits of States, What are the results?

Can cities take the lead for sustainable development?

(Article continued from left column)

* Set specific goals and targets for adaptation until 2050, including a financial target to reach at least 35 billion USD via grant-based provisions for developing countries,

* Create a robust framework that addresses loss and damage from the impacts of climate change; and

* Mobilize and ensure direct access to financing authority, legislative capacity, and other tools to maximize our climate change actions based on territorial/place-based approaches and empower each level of government, together with enhanced multilevel governance and vertical integration to make its maximum potential contribution toward climate change progress.

As the world’s leading sustainability network of over 1,000 cities, towns and metropolises, and building on our Seoul Declaration and Strategy 2015-2021 adopted in April 2015, ICLEI commits to:

1. INSPIRE – EXPAND – SCALE UP LOCAL CLIMATE ACTION

Our combined sustainability actions currently reach over 20% of the global urban population.

We commit to lead ICLEI members through our GreenClimateCities Program and other initiatives, and to mobilize more local and subnational governments so as to reach 30% by 2030 and 50% by 2050 of the global urban population, as well as to explore 100% renewables scenarios by 2030 and 2050.

2. INTENSIFY – DEEPEN – INTEGRATE CLIMATE ACTION TO ALL AREAS OF SUSTAINABILITY

Our ICLEI 10 Urban Agendas help our members to make their cities and regions sustainable, low-carbon, resilient, eco-mobile, biodiverse, resource-efficient and productive, healthy and happy, with a green economy and smart infrastructure.

Building on the achievements of our Low Carbon City Agenda, we commit to engage all our members in the 10 Urban Agendas and thus comply with SDG.11 by 2030 as well as mobilize more like-minded local and subnational governments.

3. CONNECT – INCLUDE – ENGAGE WITH GOVERNMENTS AND STAKEHOLDERS

Our climate work since 1990, strengthened by the Local Government Climate Roadmap since 2007, has mobilized an unprecedented scale of political commitment and action towards a climate-friendly human development at our levels of government.

We commit to raise compliance with national, subnational, and global initiatives, including the Compact of Mayors, Compact of States and Regions, Mexico City Pact, Durban Adaptation Charter, Earth Hour City Challenge, Covenant of Mayors, working in partnership with citizens, the business sector, and other stakeholders.

We commit to support vertically integrated climate action and explore collaboration with national governments, in particular those that have included local and subnational climate action in their INDCs.

4. TRANPARENT – ACCOUNTABLE – OPEN MUNICIPAL ACTIONS AND GOVERNANCE

Our carbonn Climate Registry with publicly available commitments, emissions inventories and actions reported by more than 600 local and subnational governments, currently aggregates to 1 billion tons of GHG emission reductions until 2020.

We commit to expand the number of reporting entities to include all ICLEI members reporting in the carbonn Climate Registry, to annually aggregate these commitments and to report to the UNFCCC NAZCA.

5. RESOURCE – EMPOWER – ADVOCATE FOR TRANSFORMATIVE ACTION

Our pilot of the Transformative Actions Program (TAP) 2015 has brought forward 125 applications to demonstrate ambitious, crosscutting, and inclusive local action plans that have the potential to contribute to keeping global warming below 2°C.

We commit to continuing the TAP on an annual basis, and present the applications to the climate finance institutions and programs. In addition, we commit to providing an interactive platform to share best TAP projects from around the world, as well as providing tools and knowledge systems necessary for local and subnational governments to design and implement transformative climate actions.

This ICLEI Declaration was adopted unanimously at the Joint Meeting of ICLEI Council and ICLEI Global Executive Committee at Paris City Hall on 6 December 2015

DEMOCRATIC PARTICIPATION, global, United Nations,