Thursday, December 05, 2024

A Strategically Timed ICC Arrest Warrant Request


 December 5, 2024
Facebook

Photograph Source: Tony Webster – CC BY 2.0

On November 27, Karim Khan, the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, announced that he is seeking an arrest warrant against Gen. Min Aung Hlaing, the head of Myanmar’s military junta, for his role in the commission of crimes against humanity against his country’s Rohingya minority.

This announcement comes at an awkward moment for American politicians of both parties who have been promising to impose sanctions on the ICC, its Prosecutor, its judges and their families as punishment for the ICC’s “outrageous” issuance of arrest warrants against Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant for their roles in the continuing atrocities in the occupied State of Palestine that the International Court of Justice has ruled evidence a “plausible” case of genocide.

Senator Tom Cotton has threatened, in accordance with genuinely outrageous American law, to invade the Netherlands to rescue any Israeli taken into ICC custody, and Senator Lindsey Graham has said, “So to any ally, Canada, Britain, Germany, France, if you try to help the ICC, we’re gonna sanction you. We should crush your economy.”

However, the U.S. State Department has formally called the Myanmar regime’s atrocities against its Rohingya minority a genocide.

Logically, the U.S. government, which praised the ICC for issuing an arrest warrant against President Vladimir Putin, should now praise the ICC Prosecutor for seeking this arrest warrant against Gen. Min Aung Hlaing and urge the relevant panel of judges to issue it promptly.

However, this new arrest warrant request is seriously problematic for Israel’s loyal and obedient servants in Washington, risking, should they either praise it or proceed to sanction the ICC or both, a truly dazzling demonstration of hypocrisy on steroids and a vivid confirmation of Rule No. 1 of the American-dictated “rules-based order“: “It is not the nature of the act that matters but, rather, who is doing it to whom.”

While the timing of the ICC Prosecutor’s announcement is clearly awkward for American politicians, it may well have been strategic for the ICC.

It is worth noting that the ICC commenced its investigation of the Myanmar/Rohingya case in 2019, after its judges had ruled in 2018 that, although Myanmar is not an ICC member state, the court had jurisdiction over crimes that were “completed” on the territory of a member state, Bangladesh, where many Rohingya took refuge.

It is also worth noting that, with the sole exception of the Prosecutor’s announcement in May that he was seeking arrest warrants for Israeli and Palestinian leaders, the ICC has only made public announcements regarding arrest warrants when it has issued them.

In the context of the institutional and personal threats emanating from Washington after the Israeli arrest warrants were issued, it would have made sense for the ICC to seek some way to make it awkward for Washington to carry out these threats, and the Myanmar/Rohingya case may have served as a conveniently ripe, low-hanging fruit to pick for this purpose.

Indeed, Chris Gunness, former UNRWA spokesman and current Director of the Myanmar Accountability Project, has written that the Prosecutor’s announcement is “a masterstroke of timing that exposes the U.S.’s double standards”.

The degree to which the ICC takes these threats seriously was made clear when the President of the ICC, Tomiko Akane, addressed the annual Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court on December 2. She warned that “International law and international justice are under threat. So is the future of humanity. The International Criminal Court will continue to carry out its lawful mandate, independently and impartially, without giving in to any outside interference” and detailed how “the court has been subjected to attacks seeking to undermine its legitimacy and ability to administer justice and realize international law and fundamental rights: coercive measures, threats, pressure, and acts of sabotage”.

This new arrest warrant request has so far been greeted with a stunned silence by the American political class, which, ideally, might now prudently reconsider whether it is really desirable to further embarrass and disgrace the United States by sanctioning the ICC and its personnel, as Russia has already done, for trying to apply international law, in accordance with its mandate from its 124 member states, independently and impartially and without fear or favor.

John V. Whitbeck is a Paris-based international lawyer.


The Evils of Mass Deportation



 December 5, 2024
Facebook

Image by Joseph Lockley.

As America braces for the return of Donald Trump to the White House, the policies of his second administration will cause severe damage to the nation.

Chief among them, of course, is Trump’s promise to carry out a mass deportation of refugees and migrants who have arrived in the country over the last several years in pursuit of a better life for themselves and their families.

Will the Trump administration stomp on humanitarian values?

Mass deportation disrupts families, many of whom include longtime U.S. citizens or legal residents. Deportations will only end up targeting vulnerable populations, including asylum seekers, refugees, and individuals who have lived in the U.S. for decades. In fact, many individuals targeted for deportation have no criminal record and are active contributors to their communities.

And what about the economic impact?

Trump’s inhumane mass deportations will adversely affect industries reliant on immigrant labor, such as agriculture, construction, and hospitality. Many immigrants, documented or not, contribute significantly to local economies through labor and taxes. If they are forced to leave, these industries will be the first to feel the effects of deportations.

We must have humane immigration policies in which we expand legal immigration pathways and improve the efficiency of the immigration system.

Deporting everyone does not accomplish this nor does closing the border completely. Refugees seeking to enter the U.S. should have easier and more viable options available instead of queuing for days at the border as has occurred in the past.

Refugees escaping armed conflicts, persecution, humanitarian crises, and economic hardship are coming from countries as close as El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. They are also arriving from as far away as the Democratic Republic of Congo and China.

They are in desperate need of asylum and a better life. By turning many of these people away as well as mass deporting those who have succeeded in entering the U.S., the Trump administration will be committing an act against humanity.

This is vile, unacceptable, and should be condemned at the highest levels.

Sending people in need across the border and back to their country of origin or elsewhere means sentencing them to at least a life of continued hardship and at most to violence and persecution and even death.

As citizens of the free world, we cannot allow such an atrocity to occur on our watch. We cannot abide this nor can we stand idly by as innocents are captured against their will and marched out of the country by gunpoint by a fascist Trump regime.

Germany has also taken the step to close its borders and carry out mass deportations as well and has come under fierce criticism for doing so.

The U.S. should take notes and learn from Germany’s mistakes on this. There are better ways to deal with this issue such as focusing on assimilation and education. This would be money well spent as immigrants who become integrated into society succeed in giving back to the country through taxes for instance.

It is true that the U.S. is in need of immigration reform and what this means is the need to institute better methods of absorbing refugees.

What this does not mean is closing the border completely and deporting all immigrants and refugees from the country regardless of their background or family connections.

Like a bull in a china shop, Trump will reenter the White House with bombastic decrees and threats. Unlike former U.S. President Teddy Roosevelt, Trump will carry a little stick and yell loudly.

His border and immigration policy stinks and Americans who voted for Trump should be ashamed of themselves. And hopefully they are willing to work in agriculture, construction, and hospitality, because the people who work in these industries now are about to get unjustly deported.

Chloe Atkinson is a climate change activist and consultant on global climate affairs.

 

Truce in Lebanon: Can Diplomacy Rise From the Ruins?


On November 26th, Israel and Lebanon signed an agreement for a 60-day truce, during which Israel and Hezbollah are both supposed to withdraw from the area of Lebanon south of the Litani River.

The agreement is based on the terms of UN Security Council resolution 1701, which ended the previous Israeli assault on Lebanon in 2006. The truce will be enforced by 5,000 to 10,000 Lebanese troops and the UN’s 10,000-strong UNIFIL peacekeeping force, which has operated in that area since 1978 and includes troops from 46 countries.

The truce has broad international support, including from Iran and Hamas. Israel and Hezbollah were apparently glad to take a break from a war that had become counterproductive for them both. Effective resistance prevented Israeli forces from advancing far into Lebanon, and they were inflicting mostly senseless death and destruction on civilians, as in Gaza, but without the genocidal motivation of that campaign.

People all over Lebanon have welcomed the relief from Israeli bombing, the destruction of their towns and neighborhoods, and thousands of casualties. In Beirut, people have started returning to their homes.

In the south, the Israeli military has warned residents on both sides of the border not to return yet. It has declared a new buffer zone (which was not part of the truce agreement) that includes 60 villages north of the border, and has warned that it will attack Lebanese civilians who return to that area. Despite these warnings, thousands of displaced people have been returning to south Lebanon, often to find their homes and villages in ruins.

Many people returning to the south still proudly display the yellow flags of Hezbollah. A flag flying over the ruins of Tyre has the words “Made in the USA” written across it, a reminder that the Lebanese people know very well who made the bombs that have killed and maimed so many thousands of them.

There are already many reports of ceasefire violations. Israel shot and wounded two journalists soon after the truce went into effect, and then, two days after the ceasefire, Israel attacked five towns near the border with tanks, fired artillery across the border and conducted airstrikes on southern Lebanon. On December 2nd, Hezbollah finally retaliated with mortar fire in the disputed Shebaa Farms area, and Israel responded with heavier strikes on two villages, killing eleven people.

An addendum to the truce agreement granted Israel the right to strike at will whenever it believes Hezbollah is violating the truce, giving it what Netanyahu called “complete military freedom of action,” which makes this a precarious and one-sided peace at best.

The prospect for a full withdrawal of both Israeli and Hezbollah forces in 60 days seems slim, since Hezbollah has built large weapons stockpiles in the south that it will not want to abandon, and Netanyahu himself has warned that the truce “can be short.”

Then there is the danger of confrontation between Hezbollah and the Lebanese military, raising the specter of Lebanon’s bloody civil war, which killed an estimated 150,000 people between 1975 and 1990.

So violence could flare up into full-scale war again at any time, making it unlikely that many Israelis will return to homes near the border with Lebanon, Israel’s original publicly stated purpose for the war.

The truce agreement was brokered by the United States and France, and signed by the European Union, Australia, Canada, Germany, Italy, Japan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the UAE. France was a colonial power in Lebanon and plays a leading role in UNIFIL, but Israel initially rejected France as a negotiating partner. It seems to have accepted France’s role only when the Macron government agreed not to enforce the ICC arrest warrant against Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu if he comes to France.

The U.K. also signed the original truce proposal on November 25th, but doesn’t appear to have signed the final truce agreement. The U.K. seems to have withdrawn from the negotiations under U.S. and Israeli pressure because, unlike France, its new Labour government has publicly stated that it will comply with the ICC arrest warrants against Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Gallant – although it has not explicitly said it would arrest them.

Netanyahu justified the truce to his own people by saying that it will allow Israeli forces to focus on Gaza and Iran, and only die-hard “security” minister Ben-Gvir voted against the truce in the Israeli cabinet.

While there were hopes that the truce in Lebanon might set the stage for a ceasefire in Gaza, Israel’s actions on the ground tell a different story. Satellite images show Israel carrying out new mass demolitions of hundreds of buildings in northern Gaza to build a new road or boundary between Gaza City and North Gaza. This may be a new border to separate the northernmost 17% of Gaza from the rest of the Gaza Strip, so that Israel can expel its people and prevent them from returning, hand North Gaza over to Israeli settlers and squeeze the desperate, starving survivors in Gaza into an even smaller area than before.

And for all who had hopes that the ceasefire in Lebanon might lead to a regional de-escalation, those hopes were dashed in Syria, when, on the very day of the truce, the rebel group Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) launched a surprise offensive. HTS was formerly the al-Qaeda-linked al-Nusra Front. It rebranded itself and severed its formal link to al-Qaeda in 2016 to avoid becoming a prime target in the U.S. war in Syria, but the U.S. still brands it as a terrorist group.

By December 1st, HTS managed to seize control of Syria’s second largest city, Aleppo, forcing the Syrian Arab Army and its Russian allies onto the defensive. With Russian and Syrian jets bombing rebel-held territory, the surge in fighting has raised the prospect of another violent, destabilizing front reopening in the Middle East.

This may also be a prelude to an escalation of attacks on Syria by Israel, which has already attacked Syria more than 220 times since October 2023, with Israeli airstrikes and artillery bombardments killing at least 296 people.

The new HTS offensive most likely has covert U.S. support, and may impact Trump’s reported intention to withdraw the 900 U.S. troops still based in Syria. It may also impact his nomination of Tulsi Gabbard as Director of National Intelligence. Gabbard is a long-time critic of U.S. support for al-Qaeda-linked factions in Syria, so the new HTS offensive sets the stage for an explosive confirmation hearing, which may backfire on Syria hawks in Washington if Gabbard is allowed to make her case.

Elsewhere in the region, Israel’s  genocide in Gaza and war on its neighbors have led to widespread anti-Israel and anti-U.S. resistance.

Where the United States was once able to buy off Arab rulers with weapons deals and military alliances, the Arab and Muslim world is coalescing around a position that sees Israel’s behavior as unacceptable and Iran as a threatened neighbor rather than an enemy. Unconditional U.S. support for Israel risks permanently downgrading U.S. relations with former allies, from Iraq, Jordan and Egypt to Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

Yemen’s Ansar Allah (or Houthi) government has maintained a blockade of the Red Sea, using missiles and drones against Israeli-linked ships heading for the Israeli port of Eilat or the Suez Canal. The Yemenis have defeated a U.S.-led naval task force sent to break the blockade and have reduced shipping through the Suez Canal by at least two-thirds, forcing shipping companies to reroute most ships all the way around Africa. The port of Eilat filed for bankruptcy in July, after only one ship docked there in several months.

Other resistance forces have conducted attacks on U.S. military bases in Iraq, Syria and Jordan, and U.S. forces have retaliated in a low-grade tit-for-tat war. The Iraqi government has strongly condemned U.S. and Israeli attacks in Iraq as violations of its sovereignty. Attacks on U.S. bases in Iraq and Syria have flared up again in recent months, while Iraqi resistance forces have also launched drone attacks on Israel.

An emergency meeting of the Arab League in Cairo on November 26th voted unanimously to support Iraq and condemn Israeli threats. U.S.-Iraqi talks in September drew up a plan for hundreds of U.S. troops to leave Iraq in 2025 and for all 2,500 to be gone within two years. The U.S. has outmaneuvered previous withdrawal plans, but the days of these very unwelcome U.S. bases must surely be numbered.

Recent meetings of Arab and Muslim states have forged a growing sense of unity around a rejection of U.S. proposals for normalization of relations with Israel and a new solidarity with Palestine and Iran. At a meeting of Islamic nations in Riyadh on November 11th, Saudi crown prince Mohammed Bin-Salman publicly called the Israeli massacre in Gaza a genocide for the first time.

Arab and Muslim countries know that Trump may act unpredictably and that they need a stable common position to avoid becoming pawns to Trump or Netanyahu. They recognize that previous divisions left them vulnerable to exploitation by the United States and Israel, which contributed to the current crisis in Palestine and the risk of a major regional war that now looms over them.

On November 29th, Saudi and Western officials told Reuters that Saudi Arabia has given up on a new military alliance with the U.S., which would include normalizing relations with Israel, and is opting for a more limited U.S. weapons deal.

The Saudis had hoped for a treaty that included a U.S. commitment to defend them, like U.S. treaties with Japan and South Korea. That would require confirmation by the U.S. Senate, which would demand Saudi recognition of Israel in return. But the Saudis can no longer consider recognizing Israel without a viable plan for Palestinian statehood, which Israel rejects.

On the other hand, Saudi relations with Iran are steadily improving since they restored relations 18 months ago with diplomatic help from China and Iraq. At a meeting with new Iranian prime minister Pezeshkian in Qatar on October 3rd, Saudi Foreign Minister Faisal Bin Farhan declared, “We seek to close the page of differences between the two countries forever and work towards the resolution of our issues and expansion of our relations like two friendly and brotherly states.”

Prince Faisal highlighted the “very sensitive and critical” situation in the region due to Israel’s “aggressions” against Gaza and Lebanon and its attempts to expand the conflict. He said Saudi Arabia trusted Iran’s “wisdom and discernment” in managing the situation to restore calm and peace.

If Saudi Arabia and its neighbors can make peace with Iran, what will the consequences be for Israel’s illegal, genocidal occupation of Palestine, which has been enabled and encouraged by decades of unconditional U.S. military and diplomatic support?

On December 2, Trump wrote on Truth Social that if the hostages were not released by the time of his inauguration, there would be “ ALL HELL TO PAY in the Middle East.” “Those responsible,” he warned, “will be hit harder than anybody has been hit in the long and storied History of the United States of America.”

Trump and many of his acolytes exemplify the Western arrogance and lust for imperial power that lies at the root of this crisis. More threats and more destruction are not the answer. Trump has had good relations with the dictatorial rulers of the Gulf states, with whom he shares much in common. If he is willing to listen, he will realize, like they do, that there is no solution to this crisis without freedom, self-determination and sovereignty in their own land for the people of Palestine. That is the path to peace, if he will take it.

Medea Benjamin and Nicolas J. S. Davies are the authors of War in Ukraine: Making Sense of a Senseless Conflictpublished by OR Books, with an updated edition due in February 2025.

Medea Benjamin is the cofounder of CODEPINK for Peace, and the author of several books, including Inside Iran: The Real History and Politics of the Islamic Republic of Iran

Nicolas J. S. Davies is an independent journalist, a researcher for CODEPINK and the author of Blood on Our Hands: The American Invasion and Destruction of Iraq.

 

Swelling streams – climate change causes more sediment in high-mountain rivers



University of Potsdam
Abrasion of hydropower plant turbines due to increased sediment transport. Example from Nepal. 

image: 

Abrasion of hydropower plant turbines due to increased sediment transport. Example from Nepal.

view more 

Credit: Bodo Bookhagen




“The specific sediment yield in catchments with high glacial cover is on average an order of magnitude higher than glacier-free basins, and appears overall higher in Asia’s glacierized catchments than those reported for the European Alps, the Andes, or Norway,” says Bodo Bookhagen, professor for Geological Remote Sensing at the University of Potsdam. The fluvial suspended sediment threatens the water quality downstream and thus the aquatic ecosystems, the river infrastructure such as hydropower plants and bridges as well as agriculture and pastoralism.

The team investigated 151 rivers around the Tibetan plateau and demonstrated that glaciers exert a first-order control on fluvial sediment yield, especially with high precipitation and in high glacier-cover basins. “Our work highlights the many competing factors in controlling the transported material in river catchments and shows that a more accurate prediction of the sediment volume should consider not only climate change, but also glacier dynamics and vegetation changes and their interactions with slope,” Bodo Bookhagen emphasizes. Vegetation influences sediment transport especially in the Eastern Tibetan Plateau and Tien Shan. Depending on climate zone, vegetation can either promote erosion of material or have a stabilizing effect on slopes. These findings call for a systematic basin-wide approach to climate change adaptation in high mountain regions.

Link to Publication: Dongfeng Li et al. The competing controls of glaciers, precipitation, and vegetation on high-mountain fluvial sediment yields. Sci.Adv.10, eads6196(2024). https://www.doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.ads6196

Image 1: Abrasion of hydropower plant turbines due to increased sediment transport. Example from Nepal. Photo: Bodo Bookhagen.
Image 2: A sediment-covered glacier in the northwest Himalayas in a region where a lot of sediment is produced and transported away in the rivers. Photo: Bodo Bookhagen.
Image 3: Union of two rivers with high and low sediment content in India. Photo: Bodo Bookhagen.

 SOCIAL ECOLOGY


Challenging stereotypes



UC Irvine findings highlight role of ecology in shaping social biases



University of California - Irvine

Oliver Sng 

image: 

Oliver Sng

view more 

Credit: UC Irvine School of Social Ecology



In new research published in the Journal of Personality and Social PsychologyOliver Sng, UC Irvine assistant professor of psychological science, presents findings that could transform how we understand the origins of stereotypes and social bias. 

Sng’s research introduces a novel concept — ecology stereotypes — and reveals how people's perceptions of others are deeply influenced by the environments they believe others live in. These stereotypes may override traditional biases related to race and family structure.

In Sng’s paper, titled “Ecology stereotypes exist across societies and override race and family structure stereotypes,” he argues that stereotypes about race and family types (such as single-mother households) may stem from assumptions about the environments these groups live in. By highlighting the environmental context in which different races and family structures are believed to exist, Sng shows how ecology stereotypes can sometimes supersede biases related to ethnicity and family types.

“We found that when people are provided with information about the environments in which different races or family structures live, they may change or even eliminate their stereotypical beliefs about these groups,” Sng says. “This suggests that these stereotypes may be more connected to perceptions of the environment than we previously thought.”

Sng’s research involved surveying people from diverse cultural backgrounds, including the United States, India, Japan, Romania and the United Kingdom. Across all these societies, Sng and his team discovered that people consistently held ecology stereotypes, regardless of race, age or educational background.

“I was struck by how consistent these stereotypes were across cultures,” Sng reflects. “In psychology, we often find significant differences in how people think and behave across societies. But with ecology stereotypes, the patterns were remarkably uniform.”

The concept of ecology stereotypes arises from growing research suggesting that harsh environmental conditions — such as high crime rates, poverty, or other stressors — can influence people's psychological development and behavior. According to Sng, environmental factors might also shape societal perceptions of individuals who live in such conditions.

Sng’s findings challenge traditional notions of stereotypes, emphasizing the need for a more nuanced understanding of how environmental factors shape perceptions of others. He also suggests that one potential strategy for combating harmful stereotypes is to question assumptions about how certain groups live in particular environments.

“Why do we think people of a certain race or family type live in a harsh ecology? Have we seen it firsthand, or is it based on assumptions? If our group stereotypes are based on assumptions about the ecologies that a certain group lives in, challenging those assumptions can open a way to changing these group stereotypes,” Sng says.

His research holds significant implications for understanding and addressing stereotypes related to race, family structures, and other social categories. He hopes his work will inspire future research and public discourse on the role that environmental factors play in shaping social bias.

“This research is not just about race or family structure; it could apply to any group — immigrants, religious groups, or others — who are stereotyped because people assume they live in harsh conditions,” Sng says.

Sng’s work represents a pioneering step in the study of how ecological context shapes human psychology and social perception. His findings open up new avenues for future research and practical interventions aimed at reducing harmful stereotypes and promoting a more empathetic understanding of others.