Tuesday, May 03, 2022

With each visit — the secretaries of state and defence travelled to Kyiv last weekend — the promise of US commitment to a Ukrainian victory appears to grow, even as how the US defines victory has remained uncertain.

On Sunday, a day after her visit to Ukraine, Pelosi told a news conference in Poland: “America stands with Ukraine. We stand with Ukraine until victory is won. And we stand with NATO.”

Pelosi, the second in line to succeed President Joe Biden, is the highest-ranking US official to visit Kyiv since the war began, and her words carry weight, seeming to underscore an expanded view of US and allied war aims.

Her visit, with a congressional delegation, followed a joint visit to Kyiv by Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin only last Sunday. Austin caused some controversy and debate afterward when he appeared to shift the goal of the war from defending Ukraine’s independence and territorial sovereignty to weakening Russia.

“We want to see Russia weakened to the degree that it can’t do the kinds of things that it has done in invading Ukraine”, Austin said, implying that the US wanted to erode Russian military power for years to come — presumably so long as President Vladimir Putin of Russia remains in power.

In one positive development Sunday, the United Nations and the International Committee of the Red Cross helped organise what was described as an “ongoing” evacuation of civilians from the Azovstal steel works in Mariupol, where they have been taking shelter with a dwindling number of Ukrainian soldiers who have refused to surrender to the Russians. Between 80 and 100 civilians arrived in a convoy of buses at a temporary accommodation centre 18 miles east of the city, in the village of Bezimenne.

The evacuation appeared to be the fruit of a visit to both Putin in Moscow and Zelensky in Kyiv last week by António Guterres, the UN secretary-general, who called the war in Ukraine “an absurdity.” Guterres and the Red Cross have been working to get humanitarian aid and supplies of food and water to civilians trapped by the fighting; any serious peace negotiations still appear far off.

In a Twitter message, Zelensky applauded the evacuation of what he said was a “first group of about 100 people”, and said that “tomorrow we’ll meet them in Zaporizhzhia.”

The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, or OCHA, said in a statement that it would not provide details of the effort while it was continuing; further evacuations are expected to resume Monday.

Russian forces have not yet been able to finally take the last slice of Mariupol, which no longer matters militarily but which has been an inspiring symbol of Ukrainian bravery, morale and resistance that is bound to go down in Ukrainian history.

But if there is a new allied consensus about supplying Ukraine with heavier and more sophisticated weapons for the latest stage of the war in eastern Ukraine, there is no allied consensus about switching the war aim from Ukraine to Russia.

There is a sense in Europe that “the US is dragging everyone into a different war”, said François Heisbourg, a French defence analyst, citing similar comments by Biden about “the butcher of Moscow” and how “Putin must go.”

Some wonder what Washington is trying to say — or do.

“To help Ukraine prevail is not about waging war against Russia for reasons related to its governance”, Heisbourg said. “Regime change may be a vision, but not a war aim.”

He and others said that such talk from Washington plays perfectly into Putin’s narrative that NATO is waging war against Russia, and that Russia is fighting a defensive war for its survival in Ukraine. That may give Putin the excuse on May 9, the annual celebration of the Soviet victory over Nazi Germany, to declare this “special military operation” a war, which would allow him, if he chooses, to mobilise the population and use conscripts widely in the battle.

Talk of victory over Russia “gives easy ammunition to the other side and creates the fear that the West may go further, and it’s not what we want”, said Ulrich Speck, a German analyst. “We don’t want to cut Russia into pieces.”

Gérard Araud, a former French ambassador to the US and the UN, commented on Twitter: “The support to Ukraine in its modalities and its objectives should be agreed at a political level between allies. Right now, we are sleepwalking to nobody knows where.”

In response, Moscow has raised the tone of its own rhetoric.

On Wednesday, Putin said that any countries who “create a strategic threat to Russia” during this war in Ukraine can expect “retaliatory strikes” that would be “lightning-fast.” Days before, the Russian foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov, said that “NATO is essentially going to war with Russia through a proxy and arming that proxy.”

Putin’s military, having lost what Britain estimates to have been at least 15,000 killed in action — that is more than in the Soviet Union’s entire war in Afghanistan — has been struggling to cut supply lines of Western arms, munitions and heavy weapons to Ukrainian forces in eastern Ukraine.

On Sunday, the Russians said they had bombed a runway and a munitions dump at a military airfield near Odesa that was storing Western arms, and Russia has been attempting to attack roads and especially railway terminals, since most heavy weapons are traveling east by rail. The Russian aim is to slowly cut off or encircle the bulk of Ukraine’s army east of the Dnipro River and starve it of new supplies.

But that grinding effort is going slowly, with fierce artillery battles and high casualties on both sides.

It is not just Ukraine’s military that is being starved of supplies. There is now a shortage of gasoline and diesel, at least for civilian use, stemming from Russia’s blockade of Ukrainian ports and attacks on refineries and fuel depots. Long lines for gasoline have been seen even in cities like Lviv, and there are concerns about the impact of the shortages on agriculture, even in fields untouched by the war.

A report by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization said that only one-fifth of almost 1,300 large agribusinesses surveyed by the government in mid-March had enough fuel to operate the farm equipment needed to plant corn, barley and other crops this spring, which is already causing rising food prices in countries far from Ukraine.

In a possible indication of flagging Russian morale, the chief of staff of the Russian armed forces, Gen. Valery Gerasimov, the country’s top uniformed officer, made a visit to a dangerous front-line position in eastern Ukraine this weekend in an effort to “change the course” of Russia’s offensive there, according to a senior Ukrainian official with knowledge of the visit.

Ukrainian forces launched an attack on a Russian headquarters in Izium on Saturday evening, but Gerasimov had already left to return to Russia, the official said. Still, some 200 soldiers, including at least one general, were killed, the Ukrainian official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive military operation. A US official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, confirmed that Gerasimov had been in eastern Ukraine but did not confirm the rest of the Ukrainian account.

Fighting has intensified around the large eastern city of Kharkiv in recent days as Ukrainian forces have attempted to push away Russian units. Though the gains have been small, they are emblematic of both the Ukrainian and Russian forces’ strategy as the war drags into its third month, one that focuses on a village at a time and leverages concentrated artillery fire to dislodge one another.

Ukraine’s military said in a statement Saturday that it had been able to retake four villages around Kharkiv: Verkhnya Rohanka, Ruska Lozova, Slobidske and Prilesne. The claims have been hard to verify since much of those areas are currently closed to the media; on Sunday, Ukraine announced that it had rebuffed Russian advances toward villages in the Donbas, but that, too, could not be confirmed.

Ukrainian forces were also suspected of another attack over the border near the Russian city of Belgorod, a staging area for Russian forces, where a fire broke out in a defence ministry facility, the regional governor said.

The Russian forces in control of the southern Ukrainian city of Kherson and its surrounding province started to enforce a transition to the Russian ruble from Ukrainian currency Sunday, a move that Ukrainian officials have described as part of an attempt to scrub a part of the country clean of its national identity and embed it in Moscow’s sphere of influence.

At the same time, the Ukrainians reported Sunday that nearly all cellular and internet service in the area was down. The Ukrainian Ministry of the Interior accused Russian forces of cutting service, saying it was an attempt to keep Ukrainians from seeing truthful information about the war.

Hollywood actor Angelina Jolie, who has been a special representative of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees since 2011, made her own surprise visit to Ukraine over the weekend, visiting the western city of Lviv to meet displaced Ukrainians from the east who have found refuge there, including children undergoing treatment for injuries sustained in Russia’s missile strike on the Kramatorsk railway station in early April.

Pelosi was accompanied by legislators whose comments largely echoed her own.

“This is a struggle of freedom against tyranny”, said Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif. “And in that struggle, Ukraine is on the front lines.”

Rep. Jason Crow, D-Colo, a veteran and a member of the House intelligence and armed services committee, said his focus was on the supply of weapons. “We have to make sure the Ukrainians have what they need to win”, he said. Praising Ukrainian bravery, he said, “The United States of America is in this to win, and we will stand with Ukraine until victory is won.”

But as ever, what is meant by “victory”, whether it involves pushing Russia entirely out of Ukraine or just blocking its advance until its offensive runs out of steam and negotiations ensue, remains an open question. So does the equally central question of what Putin decides is victory enough for his own war of choice.

'Absolutely tragic': Doctors tie Trump's 30-foot border wall to surge in injuries and deaths

Jessica Corbett,

Common Dreams
May 02, 2022

Border Wall (AFP)

Doctors in Southern California are connecting former President Donald Trump's efforts to build a U.S.-Mexico border wall that "can't be climbed" with soaring rates of serious injuries and deaths among migrants.

"We had come to save our lives, not to risk them in such an awful way."

Seven physicians at the University of California, San Diego detailed new statistics and their observations about local trauma cases in a research letter published Friday in the journal JAMA Surgery.

Under Trump, a 30-foot wall was installed across more than 400 miles, often replacing shorter barriers. The doctors focused on admissions to their trauma center after the new wall went up in California's Imperial and San Diego Counties.

Before the higher barrier was built, "there were 67 fall admissions from the border wall compared with 375 during the after period," the letter states, explaining that "this increase of more than five times is still significant" when the doctors factor in average apprehensions by U.S. immigration officials.

After the wall was raised, there was also a jump in deaths—from zero to 16.

"Once you go over 20 feet, and up to 30 feet, the chance of severe injury and death are higher," Dr. Jay Doucet, chief of the trauma division at UC San Diego Health, told The Washington Post. "We're seeing injuries we didn't see before: pelvic fractures, spinal cord injuries, brain injuries, and a lot of open fractures when the bone comes through the skin."

As the newspaper reported:

At Scripps Mercy Hospital, the other major trauma center for the San Diego area, border wall fall victims accounted for 16% of the 230 patients treated last month, a higher share than gunshot and stabbing cases, according to Vishal Bansal, the director of trauma.
"I've never seen anything like this," Bansal said in an interview. "This is crazy." His trauma ward treated 139 border wall patients injured by falls last year, up from 41 in 2020.

Hector Almeida, a 33-year-old dentist from Cuba who was sent to UC San Diego Health after fracturing his left leg Monday, told the Post that "I never expected we would have to climb the wall."

According to the paper, "Smugglers led his group to the wall with a ladder and told them to climb up and slide down the other side, said Almeida, who said he saw one woman fall and break both legs, and an older man with a severe head injury."

The San Diego Union-Tribune shared what happened to a Mexican family trying to flee drug cartel violence after they were turned away by U.S. officials under the Title 42 policy while seeking asylum at the San Ysidro Port of Entry:

On a foggy night in mid-March, several family members from the Mexican state of Michoacán followed smugglers' instructions to climb the first of two border barriers to reach U.S. soil near San Diego.

One of the women felt her grip slipping on the first fence from the moisture in the air as she struggled over. When she approached the second wall, looming 30 feet above her, she realized it would be impossible for her to get over safely. As she panicked, the smugglers told her to wait to the side for Border Patrol to get her so that other migrants could cross.

It was only after she reached the Border Patrol station that she learned that her 14-year-old daughter, whom the smugglers sent with an earlier group, had fallen from the 30-foot wall.

"It was the worst night of my life," said the woman, whose daughter remains mostly bedridden after spending a week in the hospital with a fractured skull, neck, and back. "We had come to save our lives, not to risk them in such an awful way."

Along with the human impact, the rise in falls has taken a financial toll. The letter notes that "the increased hospital costs of the surge in admissions exceeded $13 million in 2021 dollars."

The surge also coincided with the Covid-19 pandemic, which has strained the U.S. healthcare system, the paper points out, adding:

The care of these injured immigrants is not only a humanitarian problem but also a public health crisis that further worsened trauma center bed capacity, staff shortages, and professionals' moral injury. Most of these patients had significant brain and facial injuries or complex fractures of the extremities or spine, with many requiring intensive care and staged operative reconstructions. Lack of health insurance made most patients ineligible for rehabilitation facilities or post-discharge physical therapy, further lengthening prolonged hospital stays.

"This isn't a fracture you get when you fall off your bike, and you get a cast on it," Dr. Amy Liepert, medical director of acute care surgery at UC San Diego Medical, told the Union-Tribune. "These are bones broken in multiple pieces that need to be pinned back together, sometimes with external fixation devices."

The letter says that the Title 42 policy enabling U.S. officials to swiftly expel many migrants like the family from Michoacán "may have increased the numbers and desperation of persons crossing the border away from ports of entry and increased the number of falls."

The Title 42 policy was implemented under Trump and continued under Biden, who plans to end it next month—though some lawmakers are pushing to extend it with a bill that critics say "ignores individuals and families in desperate need of safety and their right to seek protection from persecution."

The doctors' paper asserts that "future border barrier policy decisions should include assessment of the impact of increased injuries on the local healthcare systems as well as humanitarian consequences."

As for the existing segments of the wall raised under Trump, Jules Kramer of the Minority Humanitarian Foundation, a San Diego nonprofit that has cared for injured migrants, told the Post that "it's absolutely tragic, and it's not deterring anyone—it's only harming people."

SOCIAL JUSTICE EVANGELICAL

Jimmy Carter's landmark moment:

The birth of the disability rights movement

Matthew Rozsa, Salon
May 01, 2022

Former US President Jimmy Carter

(AFP Photo/Kena Betancur)

Standing up could be intensely painful for Franklin D. Roosevelt, but he was determined that the public would never know.

Roosevelt was paralyzed from the waist down in 1921 — it's not clear whether that was caused by polio or Guillain–Barré syndrome — and went to great lengths to conceal his disability. Aside from his inner circle of confidants and journalists who covered his political career, few Americans ever understood that FDR, who became the longest-serving president in our history, could not stand or walk unaided. He stood upright only with clunky, awkward braces that placed constant pressure on his abdomen. Yet he bore this burden silently, and when necessary went above and beyond the non-disabled people around him.

This article first appeared in Salon.

One incident stands out: A moment during the 1932 presidential when Roosevelt remained standing during an unexpected rainstorm, even as everyone around him ran for cover. This was more than showmanship, although it certainly helped his public image as he campaigned to defeat President Herbert Hoover that year. Roosevelt, at the time governor of New York, also remained standing in order to doff his hat to every National Guard platoon commander who passed him on parade. More than a quarter-century later, a Hungarian Jewish immigrant who was a corporal in the 71st Infantry at the time wrote a letter to Eleanor Roosevelt recalling what he had observed (the former First Lady replied with gratitude):

I noticed that all of the occupants in the car had covered their heads or were endeavoring to ward off the rain, but there stood President Roosevelt, hat over his heart, the rain beating down over him, never flinching, every inch a man. This was an example of military, moral and spiritual courage. I have never forgotten it.

That infantry corporal almost certainly didn't know that Roosevelt had a significant disability, and was essentially standing there locked in place. Disabled people throughout history have had to make those kinds of sacrifices, or cover up their limitations even at risk of pain or injury, simply to function in society.

RELATED: "Autism is not a disease — it's a disability": Journalist Eric Garcia debunks autism myths

Roosevelt's suffering was not for nothing. Among other things, he founded a comprehensive disability treatment facility in Warm Springs, Georgia, which today is named for him. Over the years, Warm Springs has become a political mecca for aspiring public officials and others who wish to express support for the disability rights movement. When another Democrat, Jimmy Carter, decided to establish himself as a supporter of disability rights during the 1976 presidential election, he visited Warm Springs to make that promise. After he was elected president, however, Carter often struggled to implement key parts of his agenda, and disability rights was no exception. So disabled people had to step in to do the work that the non-disabled simply couldn't get done on their own.

Prior to Carter's presidency, disability activists had struggled to convince government officials to take their concerns seriously. When Congress in the early 1970s passed a law to expand states' abilities to provide comprehensive vocational rehabilitation services, a staffer at what was then called the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW) added a few sentences protecting disabled individuals from discrimination. No one expected that to be controversial; it was worded to resemble the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and merely merely extending that bill's logic and language to another marginalized group. Yet this provision, known as Section 504, would become the cornerstone of a massive controversy and an entire movement. It stated that any entity that received federal funding could not discriminate against disabled people, at risk of losing that funding.

Richard Nixon and his successor, Gerald Ford, weren't especially sympathetic to Section 504, and supported the arguments of business advocates who claimed it was unenforceable and overly expensive. At first Republicans wanted to kill the bill entirely, with Nixon vetoing two versions, in 1972 and 1973, because he thought the Section 504 language was too strong. After the first veto, a group of 80 disability activists in New York, many in wheelchairs, protested by stopping traffic on Madison Avenue. Eventually there was enough pressure from Democrats (who controlled Congress at the time) to compel Nixon to sign the law, but both he and Ford delayed implementing it. Even after a judge ordered the Republican administration to cease "unreasonable delays," regulations needed to implement the law remained unsigned through the end of Ford's tenure.

Activists were heartened when Carter took office because, starting with his visit to Warm Springs in 1976, he had cast himself as their ally. While Carter's heart was in the right place, he often waffled when it came to following through on his goals — not a problem of intention, perhaps, but conceivably one of competence. Carter wound up passing the buck on Section 504 to his new HEW head, Joseph Califano, formed a task force on the issue — that included no people with disabilities.

Around that time, activist and advocacy groups run by people with disabilities were emerging, and a number merged into the American Coalition of Citizens with Disabilities. The coalition found out that Califano's task force was likely to weaken the regulations needed to be implemented Section 504, in an effort to strike a compromise with the business community. So the ACCD told the Carter administration it would launch a series of protest actions if the existing regulations weren't signed unchanged.

"I think this was brilliant, because rather than waiting until watered-down regulations were issued publicly and then responding, issue by issue, this meant the government would have to respond to the demonstrators," wrote Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund activist Kitty Cone, who participated in the protests. "Additionally, it was not that easy to organize people, particularly people with physical disabilities, in those days, due to lack of transit, support services and so on. A sit-in meant people would go and stay, until the issue was resolved definitively."

So began the 504 sit-ins, in which activists organized by the ACCD either occupied or picketed HEW offices in Washington, Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Denver, Los Angeles, New York, Philadelphia and Seattle. Like Roosevelt forcing his body to remain standing in the rain, the protesters willingly underwent physical and emotional pain because they believed they were doing so for a just cause. The most notable protest was a San Francisco sit-in that lasted more than three weeks. One of the organizers, activist Judith Heumann, recalled that "at the start of our demonstration at the HEW offices, officials treated us with condescension, giving us cookies and punch as if we were on some kind of field trip."

Once authorities realized that the protesters really weren't going to go home, the magnitude of the moment became clear. This was a highly diverse group of people with different kinds of disabilities: injured Vietnam veterans, lifetime wheelchair users, deaf people, blind people, individuals with mental disabilities. Asking the cops to roust them out of the building would have been terrible optics. Carter's administration was in a bind. More important still, this was effectively the first moment that Americans in general were compelled to confront their condescension and lack of comprehension when it came to disabled individuals. Cookies and punch weren't going to cut it.

As one activist later recalled, "discomfort and anxiety was the order of our day to day existence. Everyone faced these questions, How can I get my meds? Where will I sleep? What about food?" People lost their sense of privacy as they performed intimate personal care in close proximity to strangers. Two protesters suffered long-term exacerbation of their multiple sclerosis symptoms because of going for a prolonged period without treatment. People had to live without catheters, back-up ventilators and medicines. The food problem was mitigated for one reason: Black Panthers stepped in and made sure the protesters, at the very least, would not starve.

It worked — and to a greater degree than most activists expected. In the most immediate triumph, the Section 504 regulations were signed intact on April 28, 1977. From that moment on, the climate around disability in America was forever transformed: No longer could an employer fire a disabled person just because having them around was too much trouble, or made others uncomfortable. While the stereotype of disabled people as helpless is still with us, the Section 504 protesters demonstrated that they could fight for their rights just like anyone else. Furthermore, they accomplished that by establishing an alliance based on the premise everyone with a disability was in the same boat, regardless of the specifics. Finally, Section 504 laid the foundations for the landmark bill that would arrive more than a decade later, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.

I am an autistic person with a hand-eye coordination disability, and am among the millions of beneficiaries of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and by extension of Section 504. I am also the grandson of the Hungarian Jewish immigrant who saw Franklin D. Roosevelt standing through that rainstorm, and was so impressed awed in 1932 when he witnessed Roosevelt's inspiring act of physical sacrifice during that rainstorm. I never met Laszlo Rozsa, who died three years before I was born. I know he was head of the proof room at the New York Times, working the "lobster shift" and continuing the family tradition of newspaper jobs that began with his father, a Budapest printer named Mores Rozsa. Laszlo's only child, Lance Rozsa, worked in education rather than journalism (he became a school superintendent in New Jersey). My passion is for both: I'm a PhD candidate in history at Lehigh University and I've been a journalist for 10 years (and a staff writer at Salon for six).

When I interviewed Jimmy Carter in 2018, I thanked him for his support of Section 504 and for what he had done for the disability community. When I asked him what advice he had for younger Americans today, he responded: "Never give up, and follow the advice of my school teacher: 'We must accommodate changing times but cling to principles that do not change.'"

The Vulnerabilities of the Pacific People with Disability in the midst of a Climate Crisis

By Belyndar Maonia Rikimani

2 May 2022 at 15:51

Government, NGOs and other actors need to recognise the barriers faced by people living with disabilities in the midst of a Climate Crisis, writes the author

People are helping a person with disability to cross over a flooding river in a community in Solomon Islands.

Opinion by Belyndar Maonia Rikimani

While the conversation on the impact of climate change globally and here in the Pacific tend to focus more on the vulnerabilities of Pacific communities in the events of slow onset and extreme events of the climate crisis, there has been very little attention given to listening to the men, women, girls and children living with disabilities in our communities.

People living with disabilities are very vulnerable even before a disaster hits or a climate rapid onset occurs. Therefore, governments, non-governmental organisations and other actors in this space need to recognise the specific needs of this ‘at risk’ population to ensure they are not forgotten or left behind before, during and after a disaster.

The United Nations defines vulnerable groups as “populations that live in poverty without access to safe housing, water, sanitation and nutrition and those who are stigmatized, discriminated against, marginalized by society and even criminalized in law, policy and practice. These populations may struggle to fulfil their human rights, including their rights to access health and social services. They live in environments of inequality where they are unable to thrive, feel safe and actively participate in all aspects of society.”

In times of a natural crisis, there is a higher risk that people living with disabilities are not only vulnerable to issues of violence or abandonment but are also faced with the difficulties to access basic needs and services like food, water, sanitation and health care services.

In Vanuatu, the government with its development partners have set up a partnership with the Society of People with Disability and Disabled Peoples Advocacy Association to work through these issues to reduce the barriers faced by people living with disabilities there. They’ve established a hub or one-stop centre where people living with disabilities can access information and resources that can empower them to participate fully in community life.

Stephanie Stephens who is the climate campaign manager at Save the Children Vanuatu said when people living with disabilities suffer from the impact of climate change, it increases their vulnerabilities and deprive them of their rights.

“People living with disabilities are one of the groups that are very vulnerable professionally, mentally, socially and physically adverse events in their communities. It’s very important that these groups of vulnerable people are prioritised in community settings to ensure their needs, health and safety are well looked after.

“When the weather becomes worse, people with disabilities are likely to move out from their homes and relocate to evacuation centres or a home of a relative, depriving them of their privacy. People living with disabilities, especially those that are using wheelchairs are denied basic needs like access to the nearest shop or a healthcare facility.

Naomi Tai and Melvina Voua, two passionate young women leading the office of People with Disability in the Solomon Islands identified with the challenges faced by people living with disabilities in neighbouring Vanuatu.

In the Solomon Islands, people with disabilities have faced heightened protection and barriers to inclusion and are likely to have specific and additional needs related to the context of disasters and climate change.

“The Mamana Water Ren Lau Community is located at the mouth of the Mataniko River, in Central Honiara and people living in that community are faced with severe coastal erosion due to sea level rise and flash flooding on rainy seasons. Many people residing in that community have lost their homes, have no access to clean water, safe environment and food security. People living with disabilities in that community have been very vulnerable to the changes posed by climate change.

“There is a high risk of forced displacement in some communities in Solomon Islands due to the intensity of the extreme weather changes such as cyclones, droughts and environmental degradation that have impacted the livelihood and survival of people living with disabilities, according to Tai and Voua.

There needs to be a thorough feasibility study on identifying the different types of impairments that people with disabilities need and include them in the country’s adaptation and mitigation plans. That conversation needs to start between government, NGOs and communities to raise the specific needs of vulnerable groups. The inclusive dialogue and consultation with people with disability and disability organisations and stakeholders needs to evolve into actions and policies that reflect our governments commitments not to leave anyone behind!

About the Author:

Belyndar Maonia Rikimani is a Climate Activist and a One Young World Ambassador from Solomon Islands. She is a Final Year Law student at the University of the South Pacific and is a member of the Pacific Students Fighting Climate Change (PISFCC).

Cardinal Czerny: Sustainable development must put solidarity and human rights first

Apr 28, 2022

by Brian Roewe

20220425T0915-DICASTERIES-APPOINTMENTS-1526401.jpg

Cardinal Michael Czerny looks on as Pope Francis delivers his Easter message and blessing "urbi et orbi" (to the city and the world) from the central balcony of St. Peter's Basilica at the Vatican April 17. The pope has named Cardinal Czerny as the new prefect of the Dicastery for Promoting Integral Human Development. (CNS/Paul Haring)

A true system of global sustainable development hinges on recognizing others as siblings in a shared world whose dignity and rights must take precedence over corporate interests, said a top Vatican official this week.

As new economic models emerge and the world increasingly becomes a global marketplace, seeing one another as siblings is essential to upholding the human rights of all, said Cardinal Michael Czerny, the recently appointed head of the Vatican Dicastery for Promoting Integral Human Development.

But viewing that human fraternity through a lens of individual liberties "threatens the universality of human rights," he said. "The same is true of the absolute and unquestionable freedom of the market: the rights of commercial enterprises cannot be put before the dignity of the poor or the care of the environment.

"The right to human development cannot be subjected to any calculation of profit, nor to any claim of social utility, which ends up justifying the option to leave the weaker or less gifted behind," he added.

Czerny made the remarks April 26 during a virtual conference co-hosted by two Canadian universities. The speech was one of the first Czerny delivered in his new role after Pope Francis removed the interim tag from his title three days earlier.

The speech also came months ahead of an expected papal visit to Canada this summer, where Francis is expected to meet with Indigenous people in the wake of a national reckoning around abuses at church-run residential schools after mass graves were uncovered in recent years. Czerny, who as a child moved with his family from Czechoslovakia to Montreal, said he hopes the papal trip, along with Francis' recent apologies at the Vatican, will bring about a new stage in the church's relationship with Indigenous people.

20220401T0945-POPE-CANADA-INDIGENOUS-1524698.jpg

Pope Francis meets with with Indigenous elders, knowledge keepers, abuse survivors and youth from Canada, along with representatives of Canada's Catholic bishops in the Vatican's Clementine Hall April 1. (CNS/Vatican Media)

"I believe there is a movement away from colonial and contemporary injustice and toward all being siblings in social friendship," the cardinal said.

The half-day online conference explored the Catholic Church's contribution to global sustainable development, both in a diplomatic role in world affairs and through the laity. The conversations among the panelists drew heavily from Francis' two encyclicals, "Laudato Si', on Care for Our Common Home" and Fratelli Tutti.

Among the participants were Anne Leahy, a former Canadian ambassador to Russia and the Holy See, Archbishop Ivan Jurkovič, apostolic nuncio to Canada, Jenny Cafiso, executive director of Canadian Jesuits International and Villanova church historian Massimo Faggioli.

In 2015, all member countries of the United Nations adopted the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, consisting of 17 sustainable development goals to collectively reach within 15 years. Among them: eliminating poverty, promoting gender equality, reversing biodiversity loss and limiting climate change

But the world has made limited progress on those goals. The COVID-19 pandemic dealt the agenda a massive blow, with the World Bank estimating that millions of people have fallen back into poverty in the past two years. The Russian invasion of Ukraine has also drawn increased international attention, and in some cases, has resulted in a doubling down on fossil fuel use.

"Simply put, we are currently facing a crisis in global sustainable development," said Michael Manulak, an assistant professor in the Norman Paterson School of International Affairs at Carleton University, which organized the conference along with the University of St. Michael's College in the University of Toronto.

Manulak added that the current world landscape, particularly on climate change, makes Laudato Si' more relevant today than when it was issued in 2015. Referencing the latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, he said it "paints a stark picture" of challenges facing countries this decade to rein in rising temperatures — what he called "a fundamental prerequisite to achieving sustainable development and integral human development on a global level."

20200928T1445-CLIMATE-NATURE-1006023 (1).jpg

A bald eagle is pictured in a file photo perched in a tree in Baddeck, Nova Scotia. (CNS/Reuters/Carlo Allegri)

Delivering the opening keynote address, Czerny said at the core of integral human development is the recognition that fulfillment of each person's potential is a right for all people and a responsibility for all to uphold. He said the church in its diplomacy keeps focus on the goal of the common good, and when necessary, calls out obstacles to it.

The cardinal said that in Fratelli Tutti, Francis states that an understanding of liberty and equality must begin with "consciously cultivated" fraternity, and that the individual is best understood "within the fabric of a social 'we.' " Seeing fellow people as siblings goes beyond national borders, Czerny said, and the promotion of integral development is also a responsibility from nation to nation, especially for more advanced economies.

"If we do not recognize that every human being has a fundamental and inalienable right to his or her integral development, then 'there will be no future either for fraternity or for the survival of humanity,' " Czerny said, quoting Fratelli Tutti.

"Since there's only one common home, only one planet, then we can't just keep on growing, advancing, speeding faster," Czerny said. "And since there's only one human family created by God, we're all siblings and urgently need to treat each other as such."

20211228T1545-CHRISTMAS-SEASON-CANADA-1514832.jpg

Snow in East Bolton, Quebec, covers the heart-shaped and frozen Baker Pond Dec. 24, 2021. (CNS/Reuters/Bernard Brault)

Séverine Deneulin, director of international development for the Laudato Si' Research Institute based at Oxford University's Campion Hall, said that a major contribution the church can make is in changing the current narrative around global sustainable development.

"Because as it stands, sustainable development encompasses green growth, net zero [greenhouse gas emissions], but we can continue with business as usual" rather than make changes to address problems with current development models, she said.

Deneulin pointed to problems arising from the growth of clean energy. The push for electric cars, for instance, has led to increased demand for rare earth minerals like copper, cobalt and lithium, which in turn has resulted in more mining — an industry whose history is rife with land disputes and human rights violations — and with it more instances of water scarcity and infringements on lands of Indigenous communities, particularly in Africa and the Global South.

"So this so-called green solution is not working, either, and it does create injustice," she said. "And the role of the church is precisely to highlight these injustices and these connections, too."

Beyond that, Deneulin said the church can not only propose a new narrative around development, one "of solidarity and personal and structural ecological conversion," but then must also promote it and live it out through the church's actions and institutions with programs like the Vatican's Laudato Si' Action Platform, an initiative launched by the integral human development dicastery.

John Milloy.jpg

John Milloy speaks during a virtual conference April 26. (EarthBeat screenshot)

Should all Catholics in Canada not only call for action on climate change but also support the lifestyle changes and sacrifices it would require, it "would bring about a sea change," said John Milloy, director of the Centre for Public Ethics at Martin Luther University College and a senior staff member of former prime minister Jean Chrétien.

"As Laudato Si' reminds us … we can't leave [political issues like climate change] to the market to sort out, as Catholics we have a duty and a responsibility to get involved in a real and meaningful way to our political system," he said.

Panelists suggested that Canadian Catholics can engage the work of integral human development through organizations like Development and Peace, the Canadian church's Caritas affiliate, Jesuit Refugee Services and a Canadian-based chapter of the Laudato Si' Movement, which recently produced an eco-investment accelerator toolkit to examine redirecting finances from fossil fuels toward cleaner alternative energy sources.

The ongoing process of reconciliation and decolonization around the church's relationship with Canadian Indigenous communities also provides a path for Catholics and the local church to embrace integral ecology, the panelists said.

"It's only when their voice is at the table, that the change will happen," Cafiso of Canadian Jesuits International said.

Jenny Cafiso.jpg

Jenny Cafiso speaks during a virtual conference April 26. (EarthBeat screenshot)

While the church has sought to play a leading diplomatic role, perhaps its greatest means to influence international discussions is by supporting grassroots social movements and the people and communities at the front lines of environmental destruction, panelists said. Several pointed out that many of the overseas mining companies are based in Canada, providing an opportunity for the nation's Catholics to press businesses to ensure human rights protections.

Asked how to ensure that new models of sustainable development don't become a new version of colonialism, Czerny said, "The only way is dialogue, dialogue, dialogue."

While the pandemic has led many people to prioritize individual liberties and push back against public health measures, several panelists agreed that church teaching on integral human development can play a key role in disrupting turns inward toward instead solidarity and working together to create a better world for everyone.

"If we do want to apply Catholic social teachings, we cannot do that in isolation. It's not a private conversion. It's a global action," Cafiso said.

Brian Roewe

Brian Roewe is NCR environment correspondent. His email address is broewe@ncronline.org. Follow him on Twitter at @brianroewe.

6 Ways the G20 Can Maximize the Role of Forests in Climate Action

April 27, 2022

By Rizky Haryanto, Dean Affandi and Smita Tanaya

Despite current targets and commitments to combat climate change, global temperatures look set to increase by 2.4°C by 2100 — way above the Paris Agreement target. Climate action has never been more urgent, and in light of the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, a sustainable, inclusive and resilient recovery is also essential.

Natural forests have an important part to play as, when conserved, they contribute significantly to carbon removal; globally, forests represent around 25% of planned emissions reductions by 2030. Also, healthy forests provide food and livelihoods for 1.6 billion people — including around 400 million people who live within 1 kilometer of a forest in G20 Member States alone*. And to prevent future pandemics it’s important that forests remain healthy, as studies show that deforestation can lead to the spread of zoonotic diseases.

The G20 has a strategic role in conserving forests. The United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organisation has stated that eight G20 members are among the top 10 countries with the largest forest area. In 2021, the G20 also declared a commitment to halt and reverse biodiversity loss by 2030.

However, challenges of deforestation and the disconnect between food policy and forest conservation remain. In Brazil, for example, forest conversion for agricultural commodities is a key driver of forest loss, while in Mexico, agriculture and livestock account for 80% of deforestation. In Indonesia, a study has shown that oil palm plantation and small-scale agriculture accounts for up to 40% of deforestation.

The 2021 Glasgow Leaders’ Declaration on Forests and Land Use, signed by 17 G20 countries at COP26, demonstrates a commitment to halt and reverse forest loss, promoting food security while conserving forests. But there is still some way to go for the G20 to strengthen this commitment. The last two G20 declarations in Rome (2021) and Riyadh (2020) did not explicitly mention the word “forest.” The upcoming G20 Summit in Indonesia, in October 2022, provides an opportunity to enhance G20 commitment to fully maximize the potential of forests for climate mitigation, food security and resilient pandemic recovery.

A bird's eye view of the stark contrast between the forest and agricultural landscapes near Rio Branco, Acre, Brazil. Photo by Kate Evans/CIFOR

How the G20 Can Give Forests a Boost

To fully realize the role of forests as nature-based solutions for climate mitigation, food security and resilient pandemic recovery, G20 leaders should adopt these six measures:

1. Encourage legal commitment to minimize deforestation of natural forests.

The G20 should promote the need for stronger legal measures and encourage the streamlining of policies and actions on forest use and protection to curb deforestation. For example, in Argentina — despite having lost 10% of its Gran Chaco forest area over the last 20 years, it still plans to increase the number of cattle production up to 700,000 in the next decade.

In Indonesia, the recent establishment of the Job Creation Law raised questions on the rollback of environmental protections which may harm forests. And its recent Food Estate plan, aimed to secure food supplies, could put 1.5 million hectares of natural forests at risk of deforestation. The law, and plan, emerged despite Indonesia’s acclaimed forest moratorium policy in reducing deforestation to the lowest in five years in 2020. The recently increasing price of crude palm oil may further put forest conservation at risk in Indonesia.

2. Reiterate the goal to collectively plant 1 trillion trees by 2030.

This point was part of the G20 Rome Declaration, and its importance in creating new carbon sinks must be re-emphasized to improve both forest increase and governance. The G20 commitment to restoration is aligned to the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration, and as such some G20 countries have been working on major restoration activities: Indonesia has committed 600,000 hectares of mangrove forest restoration, South Africa has aimed to plant 3.6 million hectares of forest and land areas since 2017, and China has plans for 30% forest coverage of land by 2050. The G20’s collective restoration target will strengthen the global pursuit of trees and forests as nature-based solutions for climate change.

3. Promote food system transformation that aligns with social and environmental safeguards in association with forest ecosystems.

The High-Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition in 2017 suggested recognizing nuanced, multiple pathways linking forest conservation and food security — including the importance of forest ecosystem services and subsistence for local communities. There are emerging practices and efforts within G20 countries in this area, which must be supported further through relevant policies.

In Indonesia, for instance, some local communities collect fruit and sweet potatoes from forests as alternative source of food, and adopt agroforestry systems to reduce soil erosion. Meanwhile, initiatives such as the Food and Land Use Coalition develop science-based solutions and policy dialogue to encourage food system reform to tackle climate and poverty challenges — including in G20 countries such as Australia, Germany, the United Kingdom and India.

Mangrove area in Sumbawa, Indonesia. Creating new carbon sinks is essential to improve both forest increase and governance, and Indonesia has committed 600,000 hectares of mangrove forest restoration.

Photo by Donny Iqbal/CIFOR-ICRAF

4. Ensure the rights and participation of Indigenous peoples and local communities within forest ecosystems.

Indigenous and local communities help de-escalate climate change and biodiversity loss. Their role and importance in natural resources, including forest, management are recognized in several platforms, such as the Convention on Biological Diversity, the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and the International Union for Conservation of Nature nature-based solutions principle.

Indigenous peoples and local communities’ rights can be safeguarded by allocating forest area permits for conservation and sustainable use, and implementing a robust legal framework to protect Indigenous environmental rights.

5. Improve values and market demand of non-timber forest products (NTFPs) and services.

In general, the potential of NTFPs remains largely untapped, hence its contribution to incomes has been limited. This is unfortunate because NTFPs are key to supporting food security and rural livelihoods in low- and middle-income countries.

One study in Indonesia shows NTFPs account for as much as 53% of the income of communities around the forest. The G20 could therefore promote joint measures to enhance NTFPs value chain and market demand, while also ensuring mechanisms for sustainable product harvesting to avoid over exploitation. This would give much needed support — not just for the preservation of natural resources but also in promoting inclusive economic growth by reducing inequalities in urban/rural areas, and rich/poor countries.

6. Establish policy for nature-based carbon credits that upholds environmental and social safeguards.

The G20 includes several countries with strong nature-based credits potential from forests — such as Indonesia, Brazil and India — as well as industrialized countries that may use nature-based credits for carbon offsets. These credits have only been recently included in compliance carbon markets, where the governing rules remain uncertain.

In line with the emerging needs for high-quality nature-based credits, it's important to have a policy that encourages the creation of carbon credits from forests in G20 countries that preserves biodiversity, provides equitable socio-economic benefits to local communities, and ensures environmental integrity (such as addressing the issues of double counting, among others).

How Indonesia Can Lead by Example in the G20 Presidency

During Indonesia’s G20 Presidency in 2022, it must show how to advance forest-based climate actions. This has already started through discourse and rhetoric: At the 2021 G20 Summit, Indonesia’s President Joko Widodo stated his intention for the G20 to lead the world in tackling climate change, and emphasized the country’s strategic position given one of its largest assets in the world are tropical forests.

This has become more relevant since the release of 2022 IPCC Climate Change Mitigation Report, which highlights that holding global temperature to 1.5 degrees C is still possible, but only if we urgently act now.

Joko Widodo, President of Indonesia, arriving to COP26 World Leaders Summit in Glasgow, 2021.

Photo by Doug Peters/ UK Government

More than ever, these words must be turned into action. To lead by example, Indonesia must:Double down on its ambition to halt and reverse the deforestation of natural forests. Indonesia’s step in permanently extending permit moratorium policy in primary forests and peatlands should be applauded. To enhance this ambition, the country can consider expanding the moratorium to include secondary natural forests and mangroves — both of which can contribute toward emissions reductions and community livelihoods.

Accelerate the provision of Social Forestry permit provision to local communities. Until 2021, the provision only reached up to 40% of the 12.7 million hectare target by 2024 in Indonesia. A proactive role to fill the provision gap is needed. Indonesia must mobilize more resources to work with local forest communities in obtaining the permit. Further, for those who have obtained this permit, Indonesia must incentivize communities and build their capacity to pursue sustainable livelihood options and safeguard the forests.
Pursue food production systems that preserve forest ecosystems. Indonesia needs to find alternative ways of producing food without causing land conversion. One way to achieve this is by putting more emphasis on the improvement of the production and consumption of local food. Transforming our diet to be focused on consuming locally has the potential to reduce GHG emissions, reduce food loss during transportation, and help to shorten the food-supply chain. Eating locally also means diversifying our food sources, for example consuming forest-based food while at the same time promoting the protection and restoration of the sustainable use of forest ecosystems.

Stimulate and incentivize non-wood products and services from Indonesia’s natural forests. Indonesia should rally other members of G20 by championing four cross-cutting enablers/accelerators: technology, innovation, data and governance in all programmatic interventions to accelerate impact while minimizing trade-offs. This is necessary to encourage a strategic and systems-oriented approach to generate sustainable impacts in the future.

Set up the regulatory framework to ensure high-quality nature-based credits. Being regarded as a "carbon superpower" — thanks to their forests, peatlands and mangroves, among others — Indonesia could set the tone of what defines high-quality nature-based credits in practice. To start, Indonesia should develop a robust framework on credit verification and validation, safeguarding environmental and community benefits, and aligning the crediting mechanism with ambitious emissions reduction targets. The framework development should ensure effective participation from targeted companies, local forest communities, NGOs and other entities. Indonesia should also scale up the lessons learned from local-level carbon credit projects.

Looking ahead, G20 leaders must strengthen their commitment and actions to reverse and halt deforestation and promote truly environmentally sustainable forest-based food resilience and recovery. Indonesia, hosting the G20 in 2022, should use this moment of leadership to enhance G20 commitment on forest conservation and restoration, while also leading by example through strengthening its own forest governance.

ENDNOTE:

*Approximation provided excludes the European Union.

Towards a new Minimum Wage Policy in Germany and Europe

:WSI MINIMUM WAGE REPORT 2022

The past year has seen a much higher political pro file for the issue of minimum wages, not only in Germany, which has seen fresh initiatives to tackle low pay, but also in those many other countries in Europe that have embarked on substantial and sus tained increases in statutory minimum wages. One key benchmark in determining what should count as an adequate minimum wage is the threshold of 60% of the median wage, a ratio that has also played a role in the European Commission`s pro posals for an EU-level policy on minimum wages. This year`s WSI Minimum Wage Report highlights the feasibility of achieving minimum wages that meet this criterion, given the political will. And with an increase to €12 per hour planned for autumn 2022, Germany might now find itself promoted from laggard to minimum wage trailblazer.

Lübker, Malte; Schulten, Thorsten: WSI Minimum Wage Report 2022
WSI Report, Düsseldorf, 20 Seiten

LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment