The Politics of Water Under Occupation

It is as simple as drinking a glass of water, but not in Palestine

By M. Reza Behnam

August 22, 2024

Source: Originally published by Z. Feel free to share widely.

"Severe problems with water supply in West Bank and Gaza, February 2014." Photo caption from source: "Elderly man fills water container at public multi-faucet sink of Khan Yunis Water Authority’s wastewater treatment plant." Muhammad Sabah, B’Tselem | Photo credit B’Tselem

The International Court of Justice released its historic advisory opinion in July 2024 just as I was finishing my essay on Israel’s theft and abuse of the water resources of Palestine.

The 80-page opinion, “Legal consequences arising from the policies and practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem,” unequivocally states that “the State of Israel’s continued presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory is unlawful” and should come to an end “as rapidly as possible.”

The “Exploitation of natural resources” section (V/B.4, 124-133) was of particular interest to me. In it, the Court confirmed what I had set out to disclose, that Israel has used, misused and abused its illegal control over the water resources of Palestine to gain a permanent hold over all of the land.

The Court concluded that the occupied West Bank (especially Area C), rich in natural resources, has been used by Israel to the exclusive benefit of its own population, while disadvantaging Palestinians and their communities. Area C covers 61 percent of the West Bank and is under the complete control of Israel.

Furthermore, the ICJ determined that Israel must relinquish control over all aspects of Palestinians’ lives, including its most vital natural resource, water.

The concept of water is deeply etched in the culture, politics, religion and mythology of the Middle East. For example, it is a tradition, in the extreme summer heat, to leave a jug of water outside the front door or gate in neighborhoods as an offering to the thirsty.

In Islam, water is a treasured resource. It played a central role in the birth of the new religion, in its narratives and rituals. Extreme drought may have been decisive in contributing to the upheavals in ancient Arabia and in the societal change from which Islam emerged in the early 7th century.

Water is central to the mythology of Islam. In Muslim lore, it was the bubbling waters of the Well of Zamzam in the Arabian peninsula that kept the young prophet, Ismael (son of Abraham and Hajar) alive. The well, located in the Masjid al-Haram in Mecca, Saudi Arabia, continues to miraculously generate water after 4,000 years. Water from the well is also distributed to the Prophet’s Mosque, Masjid al-Nabawi, in Medina, the resting place of the Prophet Mohammad.

Muslims in Gaza, much like the world over, stand prayerful in the direction of the two venerated mosques five times daily. However, Israel’s relentless bombing campaign since October 2023 has made access to ablution water impossible.

To fully understand the gravity and pain that Palestinians have endured it is essential to remember what they have lost.

Since European Zionist migration to Palestine in the early 20th century, life for its indigenous people has been changed.

Israel’s founders were mindful that their colonizing dream in Palestine was sustainable only if they secured hegemony over the water that flowed above and beneath the land.

At the 1919 Paris Peace Conference, ending World War I, Zionist leaders stated that a future Jewish state depended upon dominion over the Naqab (Negev) Desert, Syrian Golan Heights, the Jordan Valley, Litani River in Lebanon and the West Bank.

The Mount Hermon basin—whose mountain range is located on the border between Syria and Lebanon—was seen as essential to their colonizing ambitions. It is in this basin that its streams and rivers merge to become the Jordan River.

In December 1919, Russian-born Chaim Weizmann, Israel’s first president (1949-52), wrote to the British prime minister, Lloyd George, that “the whole economic future of Palestine is dependent upon its water supply for irrigation and for electric power, and the water supply must mainly be derived from the slopes of Mount Hermon, from the headwaters of the Jordan and from the Litany [Litani] River.” The Latani is the primary and largest watershed in Lebanon.

After seizing 78 percent of historic Palestine in the 1948 war, Israel moved quickly to implement its prepared plans to control the water resources of Palestine, which were nationalized and rationed in 1949.

The Arab-Israeli War of 1967 also had its origins over water. Israel began work in 1953 to build an elaborate water system, the National Water Carrier (NWC), to transport water from the Upper Jordan River in the north to the center of Israel and to planned colonies in the arid South. And in 1963, it began pumping water from the Sea of Galilee (Lake Tiberius) into the NWC, which posed a grave threat to Syrian, Lebanese and Jordanian water resources. As a consequence, Israel and the Arab states engaged in numerous clashes in what came to be known as the “War over Water” (1964-1967).

To thwart Israel’s scheme, in 1965, Syria and Lebanon implemented the Arab League plan to divert water from Jordan River sources (Banias and Hasbani Rivers) to their own territory.

In his memoirs, Israeli general and former prime minister (2001-2006), Ariel Sharon, revealed that the 1967 war was launched in response to Syria’s plan to reroute the headwaters of the Jordan. Israel attacked construction sites inside Syria that same year, leading to the war.

Completed in 1964, the National Water Carrier diverts 75 percent of the waters from the Jordan River to Israel, while Palestinians are prohibited from using any of it.

Israel’s military victory in June 1967, had the effect of placing much of the Mount Hermon basin, the entire West Bank and Gaza Strip under Israeli control. It then declared the water resources of the captured land to be property of the state, putting them under complete military authority.

When it illegally annexed the occupied Syrian Golan Heights in 1981, Israel secured direct dominance over the headwaters of the Jordan River, fulfilling its early Zionist designs.

Israel has also coveted and remains determined to seize the water of southern Lebanon—the Litani River and the Shebaa Farms. The Shebaa Farms area has abundant ground water that flows from the slopes of Mt. Hermon.

Historical records from the 1950s indicate that then chief of staff of the Israel “Defense” Forces, Moshe Dayan and others, favored conquering and annexing southern Lebanon up to the Litani.

For that reason, Israel invaded Lebanon in 1978 (Operation Litani) and again in 1982. The Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon continued until its forces were driven out by Lebanese Hezbollah in 2000.

Claiming that the Shebaa Farms are part of the Golan Heights, Israel annexed it in 1981. Hezbollah continues to battle for the liberation of this 16 square miles on the western slopes of the Hermon Mountain range.

The Occupied West Bank

Israel’s objective has always been to decrease the supply of water to Palestinians so that they will inevitably have to leave.

Tel Aviv’s apartheid water policies were set in motion by the interim Oslo peace accords of the 1990s, which gave Israel control over 80 percent of the West Bank’s reserves. Under the Oslo II Accords, division of water resources was designated as an issue for “final status negotiations.” Final status and a future Palestinian state were never reached, as Israel continued to illegally appropriate Palestinian land and water resources.

The 1995 accords, meant to last five years, have remained entrenched. As a result, Israelis have access to water on demand, while Palestinians receive predetermined allocations set out in the “peace agreement,” that do not reflect population growth, climate change or average daily water consumption needs.

As the occupying power, Israel has defined responsibilities under international human rights law to respect Palestinians’ right to safe, sufficient and accessible water. Israel has never ended its illegal occupation or lived up to its obligations.

Israelis consume ten times the amount of water than West Bank Palestinians. Israel and its colonies (settlements) consume 87 percent of the water from West Bank aquifers, while Palestinians are allocated just 13 percent. And while they do not have enough water to bathe their children, Jewish children splash about in community pools.

The national Israeli water company, Mekorot, has forced Palestinians to depend on Israel for their water needs. It has systematically tapped springs and sunk wells in the West Bank to supply its population, including squatters, with a continuous supply of water, while Palestinians receive water sporadically. The company routinely reduces the Palestinian supply and shamelessly, sells them their own water at inflated prices. To counter the chronic water shortage, 92 percent of Palestinians store water in tanks on their rooftops.

Since 2021, according to the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, Israeli authorities have demolished nearly 160 Palestinian reservoirs, sewage networks and wells across the West Bank and East Jerusalem. While Israel continues to dig more wells, it has denied Palestinians’ drilling rights and blocks them from harvesting rainwater.

The expansion of Jewish colonies, Israeli industrial and military zones have contributed to water contamination, which has severely undermined the Palestinian agricultural sector. As Palestinian farms wither from a paucity of water, Israeli farms receive unlimited amounts, often to produce such water-guzzling crops as tomatoes, oranges and cotton.

The Gaza Strip

The catastrophic water crisis in Gaza today predates the October 2023 war. Israel’s 16-year blockade contributed to severe water shortages. And potable water was hard to find after decades of Israeli invasions.

With no surface sources of water, the coastal aquifer, on the brink of collapse, provided 81 percent of the enclave’s supply. Three desalination plants and three Mekorot pipes provided the remainder. Families had to buy often questionable drinking water from street vendors at high prices. On 9 October 2023, Israel cut off the piped water it had been sending Gaza.

Since Israel withdrew in 2005, it has conducted five major wars on the small densely-populated Strip, destroying much of its infrastructure. And for years, Gazans have lived with depleted, contaminated and salinated water because Israel has restricted the entry of construction and other materials like cement and iron needed to repair, maintain or develop the enclave’s water infrastructure.

The United Nations currently estimates that 70 percent of Gaza’s water and sanitation plants have been destroyed or damaged, including all five wastewater treatment facilities, water desalination plants, sewage pumping stations, wells and reservoirs. Those remaining are short on fuel to continue operating. Tons of untreated sewage have seeped into the ground or has been pumped into the Mediterranean Sea.

According to the UN, 95-97 percent of the underground water is not fit for human consumption. Most people are now getting drinking water from private vendors who operate small desalination facilities powered by solar energy.

According to Euro-Med Monitor, Palestinians have access to just 1.5 liters of water per person per day for all needs, including drinking and personal hygiene. It is worth noting that the established international emergency water threshold is 15 liters per person per day.

The inability to dispose of garbage, treat sewage and deliver uncontaminated water, in sweltering 90 degree (Fahrenheit) heat, has produced disastrous health consequences, including Hepatitis A, cholera, typhoid, diarrheal and skin diseases, and a stench that has made Gazans ill. Crowded together in tent camps, Palestinians are finding it difficult to sleep because of flies, cockroaches and fear of scorpions and rodents.

Conclusion

Ten months of unabated bombing has ravaged the ecosystem of Gaza and its population.

The recent advisory opinion of the UN’s highest Court has unequivocally confirmed that Israel’s presence in occupied Palestine is unlawful and must end, that it must cease “settlement” expansion and evacuate all “settlers,” that reparations are owed Palestinians and that nations are obliged not to “render aid or assistance” in maintaining Israel’s presence in the territory.

Most UN member states honor their obligations under international law. There is little reason to believe that Israel and its chief enabler, the United States, will comply, since both have a history of disregarding UN resolutions, including an ICJ ruling in 2004 that Israel tear down a concrete barrier wall it had erected in the West Bank to separate itself from Palestinian cities and towns.

For half a century, Israel, with U.S. support, and the mercenary corporate media, has had free rein to expand and grow economically fat on the stolen natural resources of Palestine.

It is as simple as drinking a glass of water; so the saying goes. But not in Palestine, where the people have been imprisoned between birth and death—for now. There are finally signs, however, of an epilogue to the tragic Palestinian al-Nakba (the catastrophe).



Dr. M. Reza Behnam is a political scientist specializing in the history, politics and governments of the Middle East.

 

How Central Banks Can Use Credit Guidance to Force Capitalism to Stop Climate Change

Central banks should stop pretending to be neutral about saving the planet.

By Jason Hickel, Charles Stevenson 

August 22, 2024

Source: Foreign Policy

It is clear to everyone that decarbonization is happening far too slowly. Even the best-performing high-income countries are not reducing their emissions fast enough to achieve the Paris Agreement objectives—not even close. And one big reason is that even though renewables are now routinely cheaper than fossil fuels, they are still not nearly as profitable. Returns on fossil fuel investments are around three times higher than returns on renewables, largely because fossil fuels are more conducive to monopoly power while the renewable sector is highly competitive.

Commercial banks allocate capital on the basis of profitability, not social and ecological objectives. The result is that we get massive investment in sectors such as SUVs, fast fashion, industrial animal farming, private jets, and advertising—even though we know they are ecologically destructive and must be reduced—but we suffer critical underinvestment in areas that are clearly necessary for the ecological transition, such as public transit, agroecology, or building retrofits, because they tend to be less profitable.

Remarkably, there is currently no plan for phasing down fossil fuel investments. This is a structural problem, and we need to face up to it. Waiting for capital to speed up decarbonization in line with the Paris Agreement is a strategy that’s doomed to fail.

Fortunately, there’s a straightforward solution. Credit guidance is the key to aligning finance with the aims of the green transition. Central banks have the power to guide credit in more socially and ecologically rational ways. The idea is to limit the quantity of credit that commercial banks and other financial institutions direct to destructive sectors (say, fossil fuels and SUVs) while increasing credit flows to more beneficial sectors (such as renewables and other green technologies).

Credit guidance was used extensively in the post-war period. The policy helped states build up their industrial capacity, expand their welfare systems, and accelerate technological innovation in key sectors where rapid development was needed. It is a central pillar of any successful industrial policy framework. And with the ecological crisis, it is gaining renewed attention: A recent report produced by the University College London’s Institute for Innovation and Public Purpose shows how credit guidance can be used to accelerate an effective green transition.

This approach can also be used to offset inflationary pressure. In a scenario where we need to increase public investment in necessary social projects—such as health care, housing, and transit—credit controls can be used to reduce commercial investments elsewhere in the economy (again, specifically in damaging and unnecessary industries that we need to scale down), thus regulating aggregate demand. This is a much more rational strategy for inflation control than using broad-brush interest-rate policy, which can have a devastating impact on people’s livelihoods and on socially important sectors.

At a time when fighting inflation has become the primary focus of central banks, credit regulations are more pertinent than ever. The inflationary crisis that deepened following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine demonstrated the limits of current tools that central banks use to realize the standard 2 percent inflation target—namely interest-rate policy and the purchase or sale of financial instruments. Mainstream monetary policy is ill equipped to confront what the economist Isabella Weber calls “sellers’ inflation.” Conventional tools failed to pinpoint the price of oil as an inflationary pressure point rippling out across the economy. These instruments are blunt, in that they reduce demand in the economy as a whole without troubling to identify the specific commodities for which demand outstrips supply. Credit regulations, alongside other measures such as price controls, constitute a far more precise instrument for maintaining price stability.

There are many other benefits that a credit-guidance strategy can confer. For instance, it can be used to prevent debt bubbles, by setting conditions to limit lending to financially unstable entities. Had credit guidance along these lines been in place in the United States at the turn of the century, it could have prevented the subprime mortgage crisis.

Some economists balk at the idea of central banks picking winners and losers in the market—even if this is done through democratic processes. Independence remains a core mandate of modern central banks. Nonetheless, the commitment to market neutrality needs to be balanced with other responsibilities. Central banks also perform a macroprudential function in maintaining market stability. Perhaps the greatest threat to stability in the 21st century is the risk of ecological breakdown. Diverting finance away from the sectors responsible for this threat is justified based on established need for “precautionary policy action to prevent the emergence of potentially catastrophic risks.”

The mirage of central bank independence has dissipated since the 1990s. In the aftermath of the European debt crisis and again during the COVID-19 pandemic, the European Central Bank, among others, embarked on massive quantitative easing programs that benefit investors at the expense of savers. Asset purchases on this scale muddy the traditional distinction between monetary and economic policy. Central banks have evolved from institutions narrowly focused on maintaining price stability to ones acting as backstops for the financial system as a whole. Central bank mandates, by contrast, have never been adjusted to reflect this marked change in central bank policy.

If central banks are not in fact as independent and impartial as they seem—if they in fact tend to serve the interests of some at the expense of others—then it makes sense to align them more transparently with democratically ratified social and ecological objectives. The crises of the 21st century call for a reevaluation of the new role played by central banks in an era of fiat currency and high private debt. Rediscovering the power of credit regulations is key both to fulfilling central banks’ macroprudential role and to guiding our economies away from ecological breakdown and instead toward a rapid green transition.

The Hidden Trade-Offs of Climate Policy

Today’s green dogmas cannot deliver an energy transition that is fast, just, and sustainable—all at the same time.

Credit guidance is not a silver bullet, of course. It does not prevent companies—including big oil—from investing their own capital in damaging activities. It cannot substitute other necessary regulations, such as safety and labor standards. And it does not obviate the need for public investment mechanisms to provide necessary services that do not return a profit. But credit guidance does empower us to channel private capital toward the most urgent objectives we must achieve. It should be seen as a necessary complement to what John Maynard Keynes called the socialization of investment.

Industrial policy along these lines is no longer just a nice idea. It has become an existential necessity. We know we need to scale down fossil fuel output on a science-based schedule, while rapidly accelerating renewable energy development alongside other activities that are necessary for a green transition. Credit guidance can help us achieve these goals, and any forward-thinking government should take steps in this direction.

Jason Hickel is a professor at the Institute of Environmental Science and Technology at the Autonomous University of Barcelona and a fellow of the Royal Society of Arts. Twitter: @jasonhickel

Charles Stevenson is a Ph.D. candidate at the Institute of Environmental Science and Technology at the Autonomous University of Barcelona.

What is Driving the Rise in Racism and Fascism in Ireland?

By Stephen McCloskey

August 22, 2024

Source: Originally published by Z. Feel free to share widely.


Protest demonstration in front of Leinster House, Dublin.

 (Photo: via Dublin Communities Against Racism)

On 3 August 2024, Tricolours and Union flags were held aloft by racists and fascists at Belfast City Hall, united in prejudice, railing against the organization of a ‘Unity over Division’ rally by anti-racist community organisations and trade unions. The far-right in Belfast was joined by agitators from Coolock in Dublin who have violently opposed the siting of an accommodation centre for international protection applicants in their area. The racists were prevented from marching on Belfast Islamic Centre by the police and turned their anger on businesses in South Belfast owned by members of the minority ethnic communities. They then attacked hotels housing asylum-seekers in what must have been a terrifying ordeal for vulnerable children and adults, many of whom had already suffered the trauma of fleeing their countries to seek sanctuary. Several nights of racist violence followed in which businesses, homes and a mosque were targeted. This wave of far-right violence in England, Wales and the north of Ireland followed the stabbing to death of three young girls in Southport on 29 July. Toxic social media posts attributed the killings to a Muslim and migrant despite the 17-year old suspect being born in Cardiff.

In the south of Ireland, there has been increasing levels of violence directed at international protection applicants forced to sleep in tents because of a lack of state-provided accommodation. There have also been at least 31 arson attacks on ‘properties or locations linked, or rumoured to be linked, to the housing of people seeking asylum or international protection’.

Housing crisis

So, what is driving this escalation in racist intimidation and violence? A common denominator in the north and south of Ireland is a housing crisis, particularly the lack of affordable social housing to buy and accommodation to rent. In the north, only 400 new social housing units are to be built in 2024-25 from a target of 2,000, with the lack of housing feeding the false narrative that the available stock is reserved for migrants. According to the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (NISRA), net migration increased by 2,300 people or just 0.1 per cent of the total population in 2022 which means that only 2.5 percent of asylum-seekers in the UK live in the north. The displacement rhetoric whipped up by the far-right on the basis that migrants are lengthening waiting lists for social housing and absorbing available supply is a fallacy as asylum applicants are not on social housing waiting lists. The housing crisis is caused by a supply issue and flawed government policies, not inward migration.



In the south of Ireland, the homeless total has surpassed 14,000, 4000 of whom are children. A chronic lack of social housing combined with unaffordable rental charges and rising numbers of tenant evictions has created a gridlocked housing sector. The 2022 Irish census revealed that 41 per cent of young people, aged between 18 and 34, are living with their parents because they are unable to afford a mortgage or secure a tenancy in the rental sector. The housing crisis is compounded by investor funds from the private sector buying up properties to rent out and create ‘a permanent income stream for their shareholders and wealthy investors’. The Department of Finance revealed that a total of 623 homes were bought by 16 investors in 2023, compared to 395 in 2022 and 187 in 2021. This is the reckless outcome of neoliberal policies that enlarge the role of the private sector and landlords whose only imperative is to turn a healthy profit.

Inner city neglect

But the lack of affordable social housing is not the only driver of poverty and racism in Ireland. Pobal, a government agency designed to support social inclusion and community development, found in 2023 an increase in the gap between Ireland’s most disadvantaged areas and the national average. The Pobal Deprivation Index uses a composite of ten indicators to measure an area’s level of disadvantage including educational attainment, unemployment, access to services and the number of persons per room. It found that 195,992 people ‘now live in areas classed as very or extremely disadvantaged’ including Coolock in Dublin’s northside, where arsonists targeted a site designated for housing units for Ukrainian refugees. With Ireland riding a corporate tax windfall which resulted in an €8.6 billion surplus this year, there is an obvious case to be made for increased investment in services that address the fault-lines in Irish society that have manifested themselves in racially-motivated violence stirred by inflammatory and, in some cases, ‘false and racially-motivated, toxic speech’. While there is no tax boon to be had in the north of Ireland, the newly elected Labour government needs to shed itself of the ‘non-negotiable’ fiscal rules that are constraining much needed expenditure on failing services, particularly on the National Health Service. The north of Ireland has the ‘highest per capita waiting list in the UK’ for health appointments, including patients who have waited more than a year for an appointment. Nearly one-in-five people in the north live in poverty, including over 100,000 children, with one in fourteen households food insecure.

Wealth redistribution

Governments in Dublin and London need to use taxation to redistribute wealth given the polarising effects of neoliberalism in accelerating inequality in Britain and Ireland. Oxfam has reported that the richest one per cent of Britons hold more wealth than 70 per cent of the population combined. The same report found that 95 food and energy corporations more than doubled their profits in 2022 and paid out $257 billion (£211 billion) in dividends to shareholders. The timing of this windfall for the super-rich coincided with millions of families struggling to manage food and energy bills, and unprecedented numbers making recourse to foodbanks to survive. It’s a similarly unequal and depressing situation in Ireland, with the richest one per cent controlling 35.4 per cent of Irish financial wealth. Ireland’s two billionaires have more wealth – €15 billion – than fifty per cent of the Irish population combined, who own €10.3 billion. A progressive wealth tax on Irish millionaires and billionaires could generate up to €8.2 billion a year, argues Oxfam, a war chest that could help address the persistent social and economic problems that are creating so much disadvantage, anger and alienation from mainstream politics.

Since the 1970s, neoliberalism has created the ideal conditions that allow the far-right to prosper. It privatises public services, suppresses wages, erodes the welfare state and undermines the social contract. The atomisation of society under neoliberalism collapses the political into the personal and denies the capacity for systemic thinking. So, in addition to addressing the material causes of poverty through a more equitable redistribution of wealth, is the need for education and critical thinking that demystifies and challenges the fallacies that are driving racism and fascism. As Henry Giroux argues: ‘Education both in its symbolic and institutional forms has a vital role to play in fighting the resurgence of false renderings of history, white supremacy, religious fundamentalism, an accelerating militarism, and ultra-nationalism’. Transformative education is needed to challenge the epistemic injustice that blinds communities on the frontlines of poverty in Ireland from the systemic failures that underpin inequality. The alternative is to allow the far-right to prey upon the effects of neoliberalism to foster prejudice and hate.

ZNetwork is funded solely through the generosity of its readers. Donate

Stephen McCloskey

Stephen McCloskey works in the global education sector in Ireland. He is the author of Global Learning and International Development in the Age of Neoliberalism (Routledge, 2022). He is writing in a personal capacity.

Accusations of US Regime-Change Operations in Pakistan and Bangladesh Warrant UN Attention

The very strong evidence of the U.S. role in toppling the government of Imran Khan in Pakistan raises the likelihood that something similar may have occurred in Bangladesh.

By Jeffrey Sachs

August 23, 2024

Source: Common Dreams


Two former leaders of major South Asian countries have reportedly accused the United States of covert regime change operations to topple their governments. One of the leaders, former Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan, languishes in prison, on a perverse conviction that proves Khan’s assertion. The other leader, former Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheik Hasina, fled to India following a violent coup in her country. Their grave accusations against the U.S., as reported in the world media, should be investigated by the UN, since if true, the U.S. actions would constitute a fundamental threat to world peace and to regional stability in South Asia.

The two cases seem to be very similar. The very strong evidence of the U.S. role in toppling the government of Imran Khan raises the likelihood that something similar may have occurred in Bangladesh.

In the case of Pakistan, Donald Lu, Assistant Secretary of State for South Asia and Central Asia, met with Asad Majeed Khan, Pakistan’s Ambassador to the U.S., on March 7, 2022. Ambassador Khan immediately wrote back to his capital, conveying Lu’s warning that PM Khan threatened U.S.-Pakistan relations because of Khan’s “aggressively neutral position” regarding Russia and Ukraine.

The Ambassador’s March 7 note (technically a diplomatic cypher) quoted Assistant Secretary Lu as follows: “I think if the no-confidence vote against the Prime Minister succeeds, all will be forgiven in Washington because the Russia visit is being looked at as a decision by the Prime Minister. Otherwise, I think it will be tough going ahead.” The very next day, members of the parliament took procedural steps to oust PM Khan.

On March 27, PM Khan brandished the cypher, and told his followers and the public that the U.S. was out to bring him down. On April 10, PM Khan was thrown out of office as the parliament acceded to the U.S. threat.

We know this in detail because of Ambassador Khan’s cypher, exposed by PM Khan and brilliantly documented by Ryan Grim of The Intercept, including the text of the cypher. Absurdly and tragically, PM Khan languishes in prison in part over espionage charges, linked to his revealing the cypher.


The U.S. appears to have played a similar role in the recent violent coup in Bangladesh. PM Hasina was ostensibly toppled by student unrest, and fled to India when the Bangladeshi military refused to prevent the protestors from storming the government offices. Yet there may well be much more to the story than meets the eye.

According to press reports in India, PM Hasina is claiming that the U.S. brought her down. Specifically, she says that the U.S. removed her from power because she refused to grant the U.S. military facilities in a region that is considered strategic for the U.S. in its “Indo-Pacific Strategy” to contain China. While these are second-hand accounts by the Indian media, they track closely several speeches and statements that Hasina has made over the past two years.

On May 17, 2024, the same Assistant Secretary Liu who played a lead role in toppling PM Khan, visited Dhaka to discuss the US Indo-Pacific Strategy among other topics. Days later, Sheikh Hasina reportedly summoned the leaders of the 14 parties of her alliance to make the startling claim that a “country of white-skinned people” was trying to bring her down, ostensibly telling the leaders that she refused to compromise her nation’s sovereignty. Like Imran Khan, PM Hasina had been pursuing a foreign policy of neutrality, including constructive relations not only with the U.S. but also with China and Russia, much to the deep consternation of the U.S. government.

To add credence to Hasina’s charges, Bangladesh had delayed signing two military agreements that the U.S. had pushed very hard since 2022, indeed by none other than the former Under-Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, the neocon hardliner with her own storied history of U.S. regime-change operations. One of the draft agreements, the General Security of Military Information Agreement (GSOMIA), would bind Bangladesh to closer military-to-military cooperation with Washington. The Government of PM Hasina was clearly not enthusiastic to sign it.

The U.S. is by far the world’s leading practitioner of regime-change operations, yet the U.S. flatly denies its role in covert regime change operations even when caught red-handed, as with Nuland’s infamous intercepted phone call in late January 2014 planning the U.S.-led regime change operation in Ukraine. It is useless to appeal to the U.S. Congress, and still less the executive branch, to investigate the claims by PM Khan and PM Hasina. Whatever the truth of the matter, they will deny and lie as necessary.

This is where the UN should step in. Covert regime change operations are blatantly illegal under international law (notably the Doctrine of Non-Intervention, as expressed for example in UN General Assembly Resolution 2625, 1970), and constitute perhaps the greatest threat to world peace, as they profoundly destabilize nations, and often lead to wars and other civil disorders. The UN should investigate and expose covert regime change operations, both in the interests of reversing them, and preventing them in the future.

The UN Security Council is of course specifically charged under Article 24 of the UN Charter with “primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security.” When evidence arises that a government has been toppled through the intervention or complicity of a foreign government, the UN Security Council should investigate the claims.

In the cases of Pakistan and Bangladesh, the UN Security Council should seek the direct testimony of PM Khan and PM Hasina in order to evaluate the evidence that the U.S. played a role in the overthrow of the governments of these two leaders. Each, of course, should be protected by the UN for giving their testimony, so as to protect them from any retribution that could follow their honest presentation of the facts. Their testimony can be taken by video conference, if necessary, given the tragic ongoing incarceration of PM Khan.

The U.S. might well exercise its veto in the UN Security Council to prevent such a investigation. In that case, the UN General Assembly can take up the matter, under UN Resolution A/RES/76/, which allows the UN General Assembly to consider an issue blocked by veto in the UN Security Council. The issues at stake could then be assessed by the entire membership of the UN. The veracity of the U.S. involvement in the recent regime changes in Pakistan and Bangladesh could then be objectively analyzed and judged on the evidence, rather than on mere assertions and denials.

The U.S. engaged in at least 64 covert regime change operations during 1947-1989, according to documented research by Lindsey O’Rourke, political science professor at Boston Collage, and several more that were overt (e.g. by U.S.-led war). It continues to engage in regime-change operations with shocking frequency to this day, toppling governments in all parts of the world. It is wishful thinking that the U.S. will abide by international law on its own, but it is not wishful thinking for the world community, long suffering from U.S. regime change operations, to demand their end at the United Nations.

 

Shining Light on Energy Equity

By Ian Carbone

August 23, 2024

Source: Resilience

Image credit Allegheny College

As a faculty member at Allegheny College in Northwestern Pennsylvania, I work with students to design and install solar arrays for churches, housing nonprofits, and other organizations that serve our community. Collaborating on local solar projects has taught me a great deal. But what stands out most from my experience is that vulnerable populations are being left out of the energy transition.

As I meet individuals and organizations who are actively pursuing solar installations, it is clear that these stakeholders possess a certain degree of time, knowledge, and/or financial resources that enable them to entertain the idea of a solar investment. Unfortunately, this is a luxury that many others in my community do not have. While the rapid growth of solar will provide clean energy and security to many, others will face an uncertain future without the direct benefit of solar and other green energy technologies. This disparity will have significant consequences on the equity and resiliency of our society.

The roadblocks to resilience

If you own your home, have a suitable roof or yard, and can afford solar, you can dramatically reduce your electric bills. If you combine those solar panels with battery storage, you can even fortify your home against blackouts and other grid disruptions. Lower-income households, however, face significant barriers to solar adoption. Older homes might need expensive roof replacements before solar becomes a viable option. Renters who do not own their roofs and those without access to financing may be entirely out of luck. These barriers to solar mean that wealthier households are lowering their energy bills and receiving more reliable electricity while everyone else is left purchasing electricity from providers with steadily increasing rates.

To make matters worse, low-income households are already facing daunting challenges when it comes to energy consumption. According to the Energy Information Administration, more than a quarter of US households are energy insecure, meaning that they are unable to meet their energy needs due to financial constraints, substandard housing conditions, and other factors that disproportionately impact low-income populations. Many of these households have sacrificed food and medicine to pay their energy bills, and not surprisingly, researchers have identified links between energy insecurity and mental health, respiratory health, thermal stress, sleep quality, and child health. Energy insecurity means less access to air conditioning, refrigeration, and electric-powered medical devices in a time of increasingly extreme weather and more frequent grid disruptions. In other words, energy-insecure communities are less resilient in the face of aging energy infrastructure and a changing climate.

Of course, low-income households are not the only ones impacted by energy insecurity. We all suffer the impacts of inefficient buildings pumping additional greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. We all pay for the social safety nets that keep families afloat when they are unable to meet monthly expenses. And we all pay for heat-related emergency room visits that would be completely avoidable in a more equitable society. We would all be better off emotionally, physically, and financially if we addressed the root cause of energy insecurity rather than its symptoms.

Solar represents an incredible opportunity to address the lack of access to affordable electricity and create a more resilient society. If photovoltaics have the power to widen income and energy disparities, solar can also be harnessed to buoy families facing the worst financial hardships, extreme weather, and grid disruptions. The only question is: How do we get solar in the hands of those who could benefit the most from the technology?

Solar solutions: we can do more

There are several policy approaches that can close the energy divide and help communities become energy resilient. Solar incentives have historically been the go-to strategy for expanding the use of solar power, and the most notable residential incentive in the U.S. is called the solar Investment Tax Credit (ITC). As its name suggests, the ITC is a federal tax credit that can be worth anywhere between 30% to 60% of a solar installation. The only downside is that homeowners must owe more in taxes than they would receive from the tax credit in order to receive the full benefit. Low-income families rarely meet this criterion, and this means that they face higher costs when installing solar. The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 provided a direct payment option for tax-exempt organizations to receive solar incentives, but this new payment mechanism does not apply to individual households. Going forward, we need our federal government to extend these direct payments to individuals who do not earn enough to take advantage of this tax incentive.

Another challenge is that residents cannot put solar panels on their homes if they do not own their own homes or if their roofs cannot support solar panels. That is why some states have adopted community solar programs that allow households to receive credit for solar that is installed off-site. In other words, renters and homeowners with unsuitable roofs can be credited with the energy savings produced by solar panels on another building, a shared apartment building roof, or a brownfield site. My home state of Pennsylvania and 25 other states have yet to pass bills to make this an option for residents. This means that millions of families lack the opportunity to benefit from solar directly. Enabling community solar should be priority number one for states that have yet to address this issue.

Of course, incentives and community solar can only go so far when the core problem is a lack of financial resources. Arguably, the most impactful strategy for getting solar energy into vulnerable communities is direct investment. The Biden administration made a historic investment towards this end when it announced its $7 billion Solar For All grant. Awardees will use these funds to pursue solar installations and workforce development projects in low-income communities all over the nation for the next five years. That said, individual households spent several times this amount on residential solar installations in 2023 alone. Unless we allocate more resources towards low-income solar, our most vulnerable communities will continue to fall behind. Local, state, and federal governments all need to invest in low-income solar if we hope to close the gap in solar spending.

The energy transition as an opportunity

Fortunately, solar is just one of several green technologies with the potential to reduce inequality. Access to quality public transportation and active transportation (walking, biking, etc.) programs has been shown to save money, reduce congestion, and promote economic development. Energy-efficient homes have significant financial and environmental benefits, and they are also the first line of defense against physical and mental illness. And when all of these technologies are implemented in coordinated and equitable ways, the co-benefits could be transformative. Communities can become healthier and wealthier while maintaining access to safe environments, medicine, and mobility, even during extreme weather and grid disruptions.

To these ends I and several of my colleagues at Allegheny College are collaborating with local partners to create efficient and affordable homes, walkable and bikeable neighborhoods, and government buildings powered by renewables. These local initiatives are rewarding and essential, but citizens pushing for equitable energy policies would be far more impactful. Residents and organizers must push for more inclusive policies and more direct investment when it comes to solar and other green technologies. More importantly, we must elect politicians who understand the connections between equity, energy, and climate resilience. The energy transition represents the opportunity of a lifetime to invest in a more equitable and resilient future.

Workplace Safety Is Not a Game

By United Electrical Workers Education Department

August 23, 2024

Source: Labor NotesFacebook

At a New Jersey workshop, Communications Workers identified and mapped hazards. Bosses try to make safety into a game to get us not to report issues or blame each other for unsafe conditions. Photo: NJWEC

Employer-sponsored “safety games” or “safety contests” may seem benign on the surface, but there’s a deadly motive.

Employers are rediscovering an old scheme to con workers into undermining their own job safety. These games are designed to reward employees for not reporting accidents.

In one United Electrical Workers (UE) shop, management (without consulting with the union) announced a new safety game. Each month the names of employees are put into a pool for a $100 prize drawing, but only if their department has not reported any accidents.

If your department has reported an accident, you’re not eligible. If more than three accidents are reported in the plant, the drawing is not held.

WHAT’S WRONG HERE?

The union objected to this “game” precisely because it makes a game of safety. It pits workers against each other. Some workers will blame someone who gets hurt for ruining their chances to win the prize.

The focus is switched from the removal of unsafe working conditions to not reporting accidents. It places the blame on workers, as if workers have accidents on purpose.

There are other variations on this game. “Safety Bingo” turns up every once in a while. Workers are all given bingo cards and there’s a prize. Numbers are only drawn each week that there’s no accident.

In the worst versions of this game, management will post the names of workers who had accidents and thereby “ruined” everybody’s chance to play bingo that week.

HARD TO STOP

These games can easily get divisive, especially when the union tries to put a stop to them. Members may get angry that the union is “spoiling their chance to win.” There’s nothing a boss likes more than a divided union membership.

So it’s best to pull the band-aid off right away, before people get invested in the game. Stewards must quickly oppose the games and explain why.

Try to make people see reason. These “safety games” are daredevil stunts that, for example, we’d never let our teenage sons and daughters participate in.

MONEY

Why don’t bosses want accidents reported? Money.

Insurance companies base the premiums they charge for workers compensation on the nature and frequency of accidents and injuries. As more accidents are reported, premium costs go up.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration requires all employers to keep logs that list every accident or injury, called OSHA 300 logs. If the logs show too many accidents and injuries, OSHA may come in and inspect the worksite.

If an injury is not reported as a workplace injury, the boss’s obligations to the worker under the workers compensation laws don’t exist. If the injury causes problems in the future, the company has no long-term obligation to the worker, especially if the person no longer works there.

SAFETY REWARDS: ALWAYS BAD?

The union should oppose all programs that:

• cause workers not to report accidents or injuries
• try to pit worker against worker
• start with the idea that employees are the cause of accidents and injuries

The union can be in favor of programs that give rewards for pointing out unsafe working conditions or for suggesting ways to eliminate accidents and injuries. Not surprisingly, very few such programs exist.

The best solution is an active union health and safety committee that is trained to look for unsafe working conditions, and stewards who grieve such conditions.

CAN THEY DO THIS?

Health and safety is a mandatory subject of bargaining. So if the employer wishes to start any sort of health and safety program that affects wages, hours, or working conditions, it must bargain with the union.

In some cases these “behavior-based safety programs” may also violate the law.

OSHA and most state workers compensation laws forbid punishing or discriminating against a worker for reporting an accident or injury. Taking the worker out of a prize drawing may violate these laws.

Contests that make public the names of workers who get hurt and therefore stop other workers from getting prizes can be deemed illegal because they subject the injured worker to discrimination from others.

Programs that encourage workers not to report accidents or injuries may also violate the law. OSHA mandates that every accident or injury must be reported and logged.

This article is adapted from the UE Steward, which publishes many great how-to articles. Browse them all at bit.ly/UESteward.