COP29

Fears rise of gender setbacks in global climate battle


By AFP
November 21, 2024

Some 80 percent of people displaced by climate change are women and girls, heightening risks of human trafficking and other abuses, according to a United Nations study - Copyright AFP/File SEYLLOU

Shaun TANDON

As global climate negotiators seek to eke out progress, participants say they are witnessing backsliding in one unexpected area — gender.

Previous climate summits, like many UN events, have spoken routinely of the need to involve women, who studies say are facing a disproportionate burden from the planet’s rising temperatures and disasters.

But at COP29 in Azerbaijan, a draft proposal was stripped in negotiations of references to the experience of women and even of the word “diversity”, Ireland’s first female president, Mary Robinson, who has been in Baku for the talks, told AFP.

Saudi Arabia has been the key force in opposing gender language and has enjoyed support from Russia, which speaks of promoting traditional values, Robinson and other participants said.

After years of attempts, the opponents of gender language feel “emboldened” now, Robinson said.

“I think they’ve got a sense of entitlement to do it now, because gender is going backwards. There’s a backlash against gender in the United States, for example, and in parts of Europe where you have right-wing governance,” said Robinson, who has also served as the UN human rights commissioner and helped form a group of veteran leaders known as The Elders.

A draft text circulated at COP29, where the top priority has been ramping up money to the hardest-hit countries, has maintained one reference to gender, saying that climate finance must be “human rights-based and gender-responsive”.

More concretely, COP29 will decide on a proposal to extend by another 10 years an initiative established in 2014 in Lima to incorporate gender systematically in policy work of the UN climate body.

Opponents have refrained from openly campaigning against the gender language.

But a Saudi official speaking on behalf of the Arab Group at COP29 said that human rights matters were “not relevant” to climate finance.

“The final decision must be short, concise and crisp,” Albara Tawfiq told delegates.

Decisions at UN climate conferences need to be reached by consensus, although the meaning of consensus is debated.



– ‘Not so normal anymore’ –



Some 80 percent of people displaced by climate change are women and girls, heightening risks of human trafficking and other abuses, according to a United Nations study.

Yet policymakers are overwhelmingly men. At last year’s COP28 in Dubai, which activists credited with forward movement on gender, 34 percent of delegates were women, according to the Women’s Environment and Development Organization

At a UN-themed gender day on Thursday, German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock brought together fellow female envoys at COP29 for a group photo.

“Normally this is just a normal given thing, but we have realised — not only at this COP, also before, but especially at this COP — that somehow normal things are not so normal anymore,” she said.

Pointing to climate change’s effect on women, Baerbock urged a renewal of the Lima programme and language on gender.

“Fighting the climate crisis, it needs female power, it needs women power, and we can only fight the climate crisis together,” she said.

Ayshka Najib, a feminist climate activist at COP29, said that the Azerbaijani hosts did not make gender a priority but credited pressure with restoring some limited language.

“This COP was meant to be as much a gender cap as it is a finance COP, yet what we are witnessing is not progress, but an alarming backslide on gender across agenda items,” she said.

Canada’s climate negotiator, Catherine Stewart, said that preserving a focus on gender was bowing to reality.

“We are concerned,” she said. “A text that brings us back 10 years is unacceptable.”

COP29 

Fueling the Flames: How the West's Military Emissions Undermine Climate Action

It’s easy for world leaders to point fingers at Azerbaijan for its oil-dependent economy while failing to acknowledge the massive carbon bootprint of their own militaries.


The F-22 Raptor is part of the U.S. Air Force arsenal.
(Photo by Mai/Getty Images)

Nadia Ahmad
Nov 22, 2024

Common Dreams

As world leaders are finalizing another round of climate negotiations, they continue to sidestep the single largest institutional source of greenhouse gas emissions: the U.S. military. While frontline communities face devastation from climate disasters, the Pentagon pumps out more emissions than 140 countries combined.

Despite last year's commitment to move away from fossil fuels, current negotiations are hindered by disagreements among nations with some oil-producing countries resisting the reaffirmation of this pledge. The failure to uphold the COP28 agreement could undermine the credibility of international climate efforts and impede progress toward global emission reduction targets.

This year, COP29 met in Azerbaijan under the leadership of Mukhtar Babayev, the country’s Minister of Ecology and Natural Resources. Criticisms of Azerbaijan’s ties to the oil industry quickly surfaced with some Western voices highlighting the influence of the fossil fuel sector on the summit. While this concern is valid, these same critics conveniently ignore their own deep complicity in the climate crisis, most glaringly, the United States’ military emissions.

The U.S. Department of Defense remains the world’s largest institutional consumer of oil, yet its emissions are systematically excluded from climate negotiations. The omission is by design. Since the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, military emissions have been given a free pass, thanks to pressure from U.S. negotiators. The numbers are staggering. The U.S. military consumes more than 100 million barrels of oil annually, producing emissions equivalent to the entire nation of Sweden. Its 800 overseas bases require constant fuel resupply, while Navy carriers, Air Force jets, and Army vehicles guzzle fossil fuels at an astounding rate. During the Iraq War alone, the Pentagon’s daily consumption reached 1.2 million barrels—more than 94% of countries globally.

Yet, instead of tackling this massive source of emissions, Congress continues to expand the military budget, approving $886 billion for FY2024, while climate funding remains a fraction of that amount. The cruel irony is that the communities most vulnerable to climate impacts, poor, Black, and brown communities both domestically and globally, bear the heaviest burden of both military operations and climate devastation. The Pentagon itself acknowledges climate change as a “threat multiplier” that will intensify conflicts and migration. Yet, its massive carbon footprint accelerates the very crises it claims to be preparing for. Military climate emissions create a deadly feedback loop that sacrifices the most vulnerable communities for the sake of military dominance.

Some progressive voices are finally breaking through. Representative Barbara Lee introduced legislation in 2001 requiring the Pentagon to track and reduce its emissions. Organizations like Veterans for Peace have demanded that military emissions be included in climate agreements. But far more pressure is needed from civil society and frontline communities who cannot afford to wait decades for gradual carbon reductions while the Pentagon's emissions continue unabated.

It’s easy for world leaders to point fingers at Azerbaijan for its oil-dependent economy while failing to acknowledge the massive carbon bootprint of their own militaries. True climate leadership requires confronting all major sources of emissions, even those wrapped in national security rhetoric. Excluding military emissions from climate agreements is a moral failure that undermines any serious effort at emissions reduction. The climate crisis demands we finally confront the true cost of endless war and military expansion. Until we do, climate summits will remain elaborate theater while the Pentagon’s carbon bootprint stamps out hope for a livable future. The communities on the frontlines of climate chaos from the Louisiana coast to the Pacific Islands deserve better than empty promises while military emissions remain off the books.

True climate leadership means having the courage to tackle all major emission sources, even those within their own borders. The time has come to end the military's exemption from climate accountability.

Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.

Nadia Ahmad is a law professor at Barry University School of Law and the author of the article, Climate Cages: Connecting Migration, the Carceral State, Extinction Rebellion, and the Coronavirus through Cicero and 21 Savage.
Full Bio >

LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment: Search results for PERMANENT ARMS ECONOMY

COP29: A Missed Chance for Climate Pragmatism

By City A.M - Nov 20, 2024

The UK's focus on ambitious climate targets, like net-zero by 2050, is criticized as being unrealistic and politically motivated.

The article calls for a more pragmatic approach to climate action that balances urgency with economic opportunities and achievable goals.

It emphasizes the need to move beyond virtue-signaling and towards practical solutions to address the challenges of climate change.



Those who shout the loudest about climate change tend to have a disproportionate influence, but we’ll never solve this challenge without being realistic and practical, says Eliot Wilson

There was a time when climate change – ”global warming” was the argot when I was young – was accepted by politicians as a major challenge. Margaret Thatcher gave an historic address to the United Nations General Assembly in 1989 in which she declared the threat “has grown clearer than any other in both urgency and importance – I refer to the threat to our global environment”. That consensus has since fractured, and differences over the scale, pace and mitigations have become fiercer, to the point that the climate has been subsumed into wider ideological clashes.

Those on the extremes, shouting loudest, are having a disproportionate influence. When Rishi Sunak tried to steer a middle course on achieving net-zero emissions in 2023, it had the opposite effect: the left howled at his betrayal and the right hailed the defeat of climate alarmists. We urgently need to restore a sense of pragmatism and reality to the issue, to address the threat and maximise the opportunities of mitigation and resilience. It was opportune, then, that last week saw the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP29) in Azerbaijan.

Unfortunately, the Prime Minister, having hurried to Baku from remembrance events in London and Paris, has chosen a course of action likely to exacerbate divisions rather than minimise them. Sir Keir Starmer told the delegates that his aim was “renewing UK climate leadership” and he was therefore setting “ambitious targets” to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 81 per cent by 2035 compared to 1990 levels.

Politicians are susceptible to the lure of targets as a substitute for action. To announce an eye-catching ambition is gratifying, headline-grabbing and cost-free, yet gives an impression of seriousness of purpose. That was part of the motivation behind Gordon Brown’s government passing the Climate Change Act 2008, which mandated an 80 per cent reduction in emissions by 2050. The Conservatives then raised this target to 100 per cent with the Climate Change Act 2008 (2050 Target Amendment) Order 2019.
Constitutional graffiti

This was declaratory legislation, the worst kind of constitutional graffiti: enshrining the target in statute did nothing to affect its achievability or otherwise, but allowed ministers to appear purposeful. It is the same trap into which Starmer has now fallen. Setting arbitrary targets is also a damaging act of self-delusion. The Climate Change Act showed how arbitrary these targets are: how likely is it that 80 per cent was a reasonable level of reduction to expect to achieve by the suspiciously convenient year of 2050? These are numbers picked for headlines rather than the outcome of rigorous scientific assessment.

The Prime Minister has also made a political miscalculation. When soi-disant moderates and pragmatists decide to take on extremists by doubling down, they generally succeed instead in making the situation worse and pushing the two sides further apart.

Sure enough, GB News wheeled out public relations veteran Piers Pottinger to denounce the “absurd conference, under the auspices of the UN” as a “pointless exercise”. The government’s new targets had been plucked out of thin air, “net zero by 2050 is not going to happen” and “it’s just because [Ed] Miliband is a mad zealot that we’re having to listen to this nonsense”.

Claire Coutinho, the shadow energy secretary, was more moderate but pointed to problems. She argued that the government’s policies will increase energy bills, and “all that would happen is that we would end up importing more from China, the world’s largest polluter. It makes no sense for the climate, the economy or for the British people.”

This is an area where we need to be realistic and practical. Emissions will fall as we wean ourselves of fossil fuels, as we must. Of course there must be a sense of urgency, but we should balance that against the undoubted economic opportunities in renewable energy and new technologies. There will be short-term compromises, but the overall goal remains the same.


There was an opportunity to take some of the heat out of global warming, but the Prime Minister has instead chosen virtue-advertising ambition in the hope we will be admired internationally. John Bunyan had extraordinary foresight: “the path made by the pilgrims… lay through this town of Vanity”.

By City AM

How Trump’s Return Emboldens the Brazilian Far-Right

Trump’s alliance with these extremist authoritarian populists should worry supporters of democracy, the rule of law, and human rights everywhere.


Jair Bolsonaro with Trump’s NSA Robert O’Brien in Brasília.
(Photo: Marcos Corrêa/PR)

Joseph Bouchard
Nov 22, 2024

Common Dreams


Last week, a far-right politician, Francisco Wanderley, from now-banned former President Jair Bolsonaro’s Liberal Party, detonated bombs at Brazil’s Supreme Court. The terrorist attack manifested growing tendencies for violence among Brazil’s far-right against the country’s democratic institutions, which they allege are “infiltrated by communists,” requiring them to “save Brazil.”

The attack comes nearly two years after the storming of the three branches of government in the Brazilian capital by Bolsonaro supporters attempting to overturn a fair and free democratic election, a tenet of fascism. These incidents will get increasingly more common, more dangerous, and are being egged on by U.S. President-elect Donald Trump and the MAGA movement, in the U.S. and Brazil.

With Trump’s second term two months away, the far-right in Brazil has been coordinating to become increasingly authoritarian, aiming to destroy democracy for its own gain.

Brazilian far-right leaders’ rhetoric and policies contribute to a climate of intolerance and authoritarianism, undermining Brazil’s democratic foundations and threatening the rights of marginalized communities.

Bolsonaro, a staunch admirer of Trump, was the first world leader to celebrate his victory with effusive praise, calling Trump “a true warrior” against “globalists and the deep state.” He hailed Trump’s victory as a win for “true democracy” that will “empower the rise of the right and conservative movements,” ironic given how neither of them stands for true democracy or conservative values.

Bolsonaro also urged Brazilians to take inspiration from Trump’s resurgence, invoking divine intervention to complete Brazil’s “mission of freedom” and “reclaim its destiny of greatness,” echoing fascist language. The former president’s rhetoric is part of a broader trend within Brazilian far-right politics, which mirrors the U.S. far-right in its populist nationalism, disdain for “leftist elites,” and use of divine interventionist language to mobilize support.

This alignment was on full display when one of Bolsonaro’s sons, Eduardo, also a federal deputy with a large following, attended Trump’s election watch party at Mar-a-Lago, later wearing a MAGA hat. In social media posts, Eduardo, Flávio, and Carlos Bolsonaro claimed they would “defeat the left” and “liberate the country.” It is reported that Eduardo and Donald Trump Jr. are close friends. The Bolsonaros’ social media pages post daily Portuguese translations of Donald Trump’s speeches.

In recent municipal elections this fall, far-right parties such as the Evangelical Republicanos party and the nationalists with União Brasil achieved sweeping victories across large cities and rural areas, including in Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo, with the Federal District still dominated by the far-right. This marked a significant setback for President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva’s Workers’ Party (PT) and other leftist factions.

Despite Bolsonaro being banned from running for office until 2030, the former president has played a central role in shaping rhetoric and policy on the right, including pushing for tough-on-crime policies, removing secular government, removing Lula from office, and corruption. Still, beyond the Bolsonaro family, prominent right-wing governors, including in São Paulo (Tarcísio de Freitas), Rio de Janeiro (Cláudio Castro), Paraná (Ratinho Júnior), Santa Catarina (Jorginho Mello), and Goiás (Ronaldo Caiado) will likely be frontrunners in 2026. They all have higher approval ratings than Lula.

Brazil’s far-right movement has increasingly embraced militarism and anti-democratic actions, escalating polarization and undermining public safety. Besides the 2023 insurrection in Brasília, Bolsonaro himself has called the military dictatorship “a very good period,” justified the state’s killing and torturing of counter-militants including former President Dilma Rousseff (whom he helped impeach), and has said he would stage a military takeover if necessary. Polling by Datafolha reveals that 51% of Brazilians believe Bolsonaro could stage a successful coup, while Pew Research finds that 41% of Brazilians would favor military rule. Bolsonaro and other politicians on the far-right have also allegedly been involved in a plot to kill Lula and top cabinet officials, according to Brazilian intelligence.

Brazilian far-right leaders’ rhetoric and policies contribute to a climate of intolerance and authoritarianism, undermining Brazil’s democratic foundations and threatening the rights of marginalized communities. Their agendas include systematically dismantling all environmental regulations, opposing LGBTQ+ rights, marginalizing minority communities through broad police violence (including support for militias and death squads), supporting economic policies that exacerbate extreme wealth inequality, defunding all public education and social programs, increasing the role of religion in the state, weaponizing the judiciary against political opponents, and weakening democratic checks and balances, often under the guise of protecting “freedom” and “security.”

The Bolsonaros have even proposed banning subversive ideologies like communism. Trump’s alliance with these extremist authoritarian populists should worry supporters of democracy, the rule of law, and human rights everywhere.

Misinformation through social media has also played a large role in amplifying the far-right’s appeal, with politicians including the Bolsonaros being extremely active and amassing millions of followers. The Reuters Institute finds that 66% of Brazilians get their news mainly through social media. Platforms like Elon Musk’s Twitter/X have become hubs for misinformation. Musk himself has stoked tensions with Brazil’s Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes, tweeting in Portuguese, “One day, @Alexandre, this photo of you in prison will be real. Mark my words.”

Justice Moraes, who leads efforts to curb digital misinformation, has been accused by the far-right of censorship. However, Brazilian studies show that the vast majority of disinformation originates from far-right networks. Now, the Brazilian far-right, with direct support from MAGA and Musk, has framed any attempt to fight the disinformation as an attack on freedom of expression. Ironically, the Bolsonarist movement insists that they are “warriors for truth, freedom, and democracy.”

Just like with American MAGA, the Evangelical Church in Brazil has been another pillar of far-right support in the country. Edir Macedo, the founder of the Universal Church for the Kingdom of God, openly endorsed Bolsonaro in 2022, stating, “We evangelicals don’t have any doubts. We vote for Jair Bolsonaro.” The Universal Church and similar evangelical institutions wield significant influence, particularly in rural and impoverished areas, where they have propagated narratives linking progressive politicians to moral decay and criminality.

Macedo, this October, gifted an annotated Bible to Donald Trump. Political-Evangelical churches’ political endorsements and media presence have reached millions of voters and shaped public opinion to bolster the far-right’s agenda.

Brazil has also become a fertile ground for MAGA-backed organizations like CPAC Brasil, which serves as a conduit for the far-right to spread its messaging, funded principally by U.S. donors. Prominent members of the Bolsonaro family, including Jair, have attended multiple times. In 2023, the former president attended CPAC in the United States. Shortly before, Steve Bannon reportedly helped the Bolsonaros plan the Brasília insurrection. With Trump’s return to power, these financial and ideological pipelines are likely to expand, further entrenching the far-right in Brazil’s political landscape.

These factors all help construct a fast-moving machine for the Brazilian far-right, with support from the American MAGA world. As one political analyst told me, “Brazil is now the Americas’ largest democracy;” however, it might not be for very long.

We must remember that Brazil has only been a democracy for four decades, and Brazil’s own MAGA movement may lead it back into dictatorship. As the 2026 election draws near, the Brazilian people will have to decide whether to follow the trend of fascism, or return to being one of the most diverse democracies in the world. Whether indictments of key figures in the Brazilian fascist movements, including Jair Bolsonaro and top military aides to the insurrection, end up leading anywhere, also remains in the balance. For democracy’s sake, they need to be punished to the fullest extent.

Just like the U.S. helped plunge Brazil into a military dictatorship on March 31, 1964, a fascist U.S. administration may do the same again.


Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.

Joseph Bouchard is a freelance journalist from Canada and is currently based in Brazil. He has previously been published in The Diplomat, Mongabay, the Rio Times, the City Paper Bogota, among other outlets.
Full Bio >

OPINION

ICC arrest warrants: 'Binyamin Netanyahu's world has shrunk considerably'
Interview


Arrest warrants issued by the International Criminal Court on Thursday for Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, former Israeli defence minister Yoav Gallant and Hamas military chief Mohammed Deif mark a "historic moment" in the history of the court, according to international law specialist Johann Soufi.


Issued on: 22/11/2024 -
By: Marc DAOU

Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu speaks at a press conference in Jerusalem on September 4, 2024. © Abir Sultan, AFP

The International Criminal Court (ICC) earned Israel’s ire with its controversial decision to issue arrest warrants for Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and former defence minister Yoav Gallant for crimes allegedly committed in the Gaza Strip as part of the Israeli offensive in response to the deadly Hamas attacks of October 7, 2023.

The ICC said in its statement there were “reasonable grounds to believe” that Netanyahu and Gallant had committed war crimes and crimes against humanity, notably by “using starvation as a method of warfare” and “intentionally” targeting civilians. Hamas military chief Mohammad Deif, for his part, was accused of committing crimes against humanity including murder, torture and rape.

Netanyahu immediately rejected the ICC decision against him and Gallant as "anti-Semitic".

Israel "rejects with disgust the absurd and false actions and accusations made against it", Netanyahu said, accusing the ICC judges of being "driven by anti-Semitic hatred of Israel" and calling the decision a "modern-day Dreyfus trial" – a reference to the infamous 1894 trial of French Jewish army captain Alfred Dreyfus, who was wrongly convicted of treason and who has now become a symbol of anti-Semitic injustice.

Israel and the United States are not signatories to the Rome Statute that established the ICC and do not recognise the court’s jurisdiction. But the Israeli leader’s movements and those of his former defence minister are now effectively restricted, with each of the court's 124 member states theoretically obliged to arrest the men if they arrive on member territory.

While the ICC has no police force to enforce its warrants and instead relies on the goodwill of its member states to respect its decisions, EU top diplomat Josep Borrell quickly said the arrest warrants must be respected and implemented (all 27 EU states are ICC members).

So far, France, Italy, Ireland, Belgium and the Netherlands have indicated they would respect the ICC ruling and move to arrest the men if they were to arrive on their soil. Italy's Defence Minister Guido Crosetto said that although he felt it was "wrong" to equate Netanyahu and Gallant with Hamas, "we would have to arrest them" if they were to enter Italy.

According to some international law specialists, the ICC has made a landmark decision with these warrants. For international lawyer Johann Soufi, an ICC specialist and former head of the legal department of the UN Agency for Palestinian Refugees in Gaza (2020 and 2023), these decisions mark a "historic moment" for the court.
FRANCE 24: How important is this ICC move?

Johann Soufi: By issuing these warrants, the ICC has responded to the hopes of victims, but also to all those who believe in international justice. The decision is not a surprise, however, because it conforms to the legal conclusions of most international law specialists, who describe both the Israeli operations in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, and the Hamas attack of October 7, as violations of international humanitarian law and crimes under the ICC statute. This ICC prosecutor, Karim Khan, had come to the same conclusion when he asked the court’s judges to issue these arrest warrants six months ago.

These accusations reflect the gravity of the crimes committed in Gaza, documented daily by residents, humanitarian organisations on the ground and experts responsible for assessing such violations. More and more experts are going even further in their legal conclusions, now qualifying certain acts as genocide – notably Francesca Albanese, the special rapporteur on human rights in the occupied Palestinian territories, and the UN Special Committee charged with investigating Israeli practices in the occupied territories.
Is it a landmark decision?

Yes, I believe this is a historic moment for the ICC that will ultimately help strengthen its legitimacy. Since its creation, the court has often been accused of being a political instrument, incapable of taking on the powerful. It must be acknowledged that for nearly 20 years all of those prosecuted were African officials, most of them mid-level.

A first turning point came in 2023, when the ICC issued an arrest warrant for Russian officials, including President Vladimir Putin, for crimes committed in Ukraine. This was the first time the court had brought charges against the leader of a major power, and one with nuclear weapons. However, the criticisms have continued, including that the court has been used in the service of Western powers and that it is unable to investigate their own crimes or those committed by their allies, like in Afghanistan or Palestine.

These objections have gained in intensity in recent months, in the face of what was seen as the court’s silence regarding alleged crimes committed in Gaza. These prosecutions were eagerly anticipated, notably by countries of the Global South such as Mexico, Chile or South Africa.

The decision is also historic because the court has shown that all individuals – whether powerful or not, whether close to or distant from Western interests – must answer for their actions when they commit crimes that offend our collective conscience.

It demonstrates that all individuals are equal under international law and in international jurisdictions, whether they are the perpetrators of crime or its victims.
Netanyahu reacted fiercely to the arrest warrant, calling the court "anti-Semitic". Are the ICC magistrates politicised?

No, that is not the case. It is common, even systematic, for individuals prosecuted for international crimes to criticise and denigrate the jurisdiction that implicated them. Netanyahu's attacks on the court, and more broadly against any international entity denouncing the criminal nature of what is currently happening in Gaza, are part of this logic.

The ICC has demonstrated, over the years, that it knows how to remain independent and impartial. It is precisely this independence and impartiality that the parties to the Rome Statute – as well as victims and, more generally, the international community – demand of it.
Is it realistic to imagine that one day Netanyahu or Gallant will appear before the ICC, since Israel has not ratified the Rome Statute? Might a member state really take it upon itself to arrest them?

That is a wager on the future. And my professional experience has taught me that the reality of one day is not always that of the next. Today – and this also applies to Vladimir Putin – the probability that these two Israeli officials will be arrested seems low. However, one thing is certain: Binyamin Netanyahu’s world has just shrunk considerably. Now, 124 member states have a legal obligation to arrest him if he sets foot on their territory.

France and the Netherlands, for example, have already affirmed their willingness to cooperate fully with the court and to implement these arrest warrants if the opportunity arises. I am hopeful that other states will adopt a similar position, in line with their international commitments. Signing the Rome Statute means committing to respect it; this is the very foundation of international law.
So is the credibility of international law at stake here?

Yes, because international law is based, above all, on the willingness of states to respect and implement it. It is a constant battle, where every obstacle contributes to weakening it.

For example take Mongolia, which failed to meet its obligations to arrest him when Putin visited last September. This failure undoubtedly weakened the ICC.

But beyond that, it is above all the credibility of the states themselves that is at stake. When a state violates international law, which it has committed to respecting, it inevitably loses political credibility and contributes to global insecurity. The entire question is whether we want to pursue a world that is based on law or one based on force.

This article was translated from the original in French by Khatya Chhor.

US Complicity at a Crossroads: ICC Arrest Warrants Demand Accountability



Their entanglement in Israel’s war makes U.S. leaders vulnerable to legal accountability not just for aiding and abetting crimes, but for direct complicity in their commission.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (center) confers with Defense Minister Yoav Gallant (R), during their meeting with U.S. President Joe Biden at the start of the Israeli war cabinet meeting, in Tel Aviv on October 18, 2023. The International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants for both Netanyahu and Gallant this week.
(Photo by Miriam Alster / POOL / AFP via Getty Images)

Raed Jarrar
Nov 22, 2024

Common Dreams

The International Criminal Court (ICC) issued historic arrest warrants on Thursday for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, charging them with war crimes and crimes against humanity. This unprecedented move against Israeli officials holds profound implications not only for Israeli leaders but also for their enablers, including the United States. As the Biden administration continues to provide billions in military aid to Israel, these warrants serve as both a warning and a call to action. To avoid complicity in these crimes, top U.S. officials should immediately halt military assistance or risk legal repercussions for continued support of Israeli war crimes.

Significantly, the ICC also has a history of issuing sealed indictments that remain confidential until the targeted individuals enter a member state. This means that beyond Netanyahu and Gallant, other Israeli officials, most likely soldiers documented committing gross crimes, likely face undisclosed warrants, with far-reaching implications for Israeli military forces and those who support their actions.

As the Biden administration continues to provide billions in military aid to Israel, these warrants serve as both a warning and a call to action.

This development should serve as a wake-up call for the U.S. government. The Biden administration continues to provide billions of dollars in unrestricted military aid to Israel—$17.9 billion this year alone—despite a majority of Americans who now oppose such aid. Israeli forces have used these weapons to commit the very crimes for which the ICC has issued arrest warrants. This is not just morally indefensible; it is legally risky. Article 25(3)(c) of the Rome Statute explicitly outlines criminal liability for aiding and abetting war crimes. While the U.S. is not an ICC member state, its officials and leaders could still face prosecution for enabling crimes under the court’s jurisdiction, such as the crimes underway in Palestine.

It’s important to note that the Biden administration has not only armed Israel but has also contributed directly to operations on the ground, including intelligence sharing, targeting data, and direct military combat in Yemen and Iraq targeting armed groups who are fighting Israel. This entanglement in Israel’s war makes U.S. leaders vulnerable to legal accountability not just for aiding and abetting crimes, but for direct complicity in their commission. This moment calls for more than celebration—it demands meaningful and decisive action. For justice to prevail, the international community should rise to the occasion and ensure accountability at every level. A critical first step lies with the 124 member states of the ICC. These nations should publicly commit to upholding their obligations under international law by affirming their readiness to arrest Israeli officials if they enter their jurisdiction. Notably, countries such as the Netherlands, France, Canada, Spain, and Italy have already signaled their intent to enforce the ICC’s arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant.

By cutting ties with leaders implicated in war crimes and crimes against humanity, nations can exert pressure on Israel to change course and demonstrate their commitment to upholding justice and human rights.

Beyond national commitments, ICC member states could leverage international mechanisms to restrict the movement of indicted individuals. They should work collectively to request Interpol Red Notices for Netanyahu, Gallant, and any other officials facing charges. These notices would alert law enforcement worldwide to the existence of arrest warrants, ensuring that the accused cannot travel freely without risk of apprehension and extradition. Such measures are not merely symbolic; they serve as a tangible step toward accountability, signaling to perpetrators and their supporters that the international community will not tolerate impunity.

Equally important is the need for countries to reevaluate and sever their political and military ties with Israel’s leadership, at least as long as Netanyahu serves as Israel prime minister. This includes halting weapons sales and other forms of military cooperation with the Netanyahu government. Military aid and arms exports fuel the very crimes that the ICC is now investigating, making complicity in these actions inexcusable. By cutting ties with leaders implicated in war crimes and crimes against humanity, nations can exert pressure on Israel to change course and demonstrate their commitment to upholding justice and human rights. These steps, taken collectively, would not only support the ICC’s mission but also strengthen the principles of accountability and rule of law in international relations.

Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.

Raed Jarrar is the Advocacy Director for Democracy for the Arab World Now (DAWN).
Full Bio >

Alarm in France over fate of detained French-Algerian writer


By AFP
November 22, 2024

Boualem Sansal is a favoured writer among the right in France 

- Copyright AFP/File FRANCOIS GUILLOT

Valérie Leroux and Stuart Williams

Alarm grew in France on Friday over the fate of a prominent French-Algerian novelist detained in the country of his birth, with his publisher urging his immediate release and President Emmanuel Macron closely following the case.

Boualem Sansal, a major figure in francophone modern literature, is known for his strong stances against both authoritarianism and Islamism as well as being a forthright campaigner on freedom of expression issues.

His detention by Algeria comes against a background of tensions between France and its former colony which have also appear to have spread to the literary world.

The 75-year-old writer, granted French nationality this year, was on Saturday arrested at Algiers airport after returning from France, according to several media reports including the Marianne weekly.

The Gallimard publishing house, which has published his work for a quarter of a century, in a statement expressed “its very deep concern following the arrest of the writer by the Algerian security services”, calling for his “immediate release”.

There has been no confirmation from the Algerian authorities of his arrest and no other details about his situation.

Macron is “very concerned by the disappearance” of Sansal, said a French presidential official, asking not to be named.

“State services are mobilised to clarify his situation,” the official said, adding that “the president expresses his unwavering attachment to the freedom of a great writer and intellectual.”

A relative latecomer to writing, Sansal turned to novels in 1999 and has tackled subjects including the horrific 1990s civil war between authorities and Islamists.

His books are not banned in Algeria but he is a controversial figure, particularly since making a visit to Israel in 2014.

Sansal’s hatred of Islamism has not been confined to Algeria and he has also warned of a creeping Islamisation in France, a stance that has made him a favoured author of prominent figures on the right and far-right.

Prominent politicians from this side of the political spectrum rushed to echo Macron’s expression of concern for the writer.

– ‘Courageous opponent of Islamism’ –

Centre-right former premier and candidate in 2027 presidential elections Edouard Philippe wrote on X that Sansal “embodies everything we cherish: the call for reason, freedom and humanism against censorship, corruption and Islamism.”

Far-right figurehead Marine Le Pen, another possible 2027 contender, said: “This freedom fighter and courageous opponent of Islamism has reportedly been arrested by the Algerian regime. This is an unacceptable situation.”

In 2015, Sansal won the Grand Prix du Roman of the French Academy, the guardians of the French language, for his book “2084: The End of the World”, a dystopian novel inspired by George Orwell’s “Nineteen-Eighty Four” and set in an Islamist totalitarian world in the aftermath of a nuclear holocaust.

His publisher said that Sansal’s novels and essays “exposed the obscurantisms of all kinds which are tragically affecting the way of the world.”

The concerns about his reported arrest come as another prominent French-Algerian writer Kamel Daoud is under attack over his novel “Houris”, which won France’s top literary prize, the Goncourt.

A woman has claimed the book was based on her story of surviving 1990s Islamist massacres and used without her consent.

She alleged on Algerian television that Daoud used the story she confidentially recounted to a therapist — who is now his wife — during treatment. His publisher has denied the claims.

The controversies are taking place in a tense diplomatic context between France and Algeria, after Macron renewed French support for Moroccan sovereignty over the disputed territory of Western Sahara during a landmark visit to the kingdom last month.

Western Sahara, a former Spanish colony, is de facto controlled for the most part by Morocco.

But it is claimed by the Sahrawi separatists of the Polisario Front, who are demanding a self-determination referendum and are supported by Algiers.

Daoud meanwhile has called for Sansal’s release, writing in the right-wing Le Figaro: “I sincerely hope that my friend Boualem will return to us very soon”, while expressing his bafflement in the face of the “imprudence” that Sansal allegedly showed in going to  Algiers.

LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment: Search results for ALGIERS

NO SOUTHERN BORDER CRISIS

Panama says jungle crossing of U.S.-bound migrants down nearly 40%

Agence France-Presse
November 22, 2024 

Migrants face inhospitable terrain, wild animals and criminal groups in the Darien jungle (MARTIN BERNETTI/AFP)

The number of U.S.-bound migrants passing through the Darien jungle has fallen by 39 percent so far this year, with a total of 294,000 attempting the dangerous journey since January, Panama's president said Thursday.

In the same period last year, the number was 482,000 people crossing the jungle that separates Colombia and Panama, according to official data.

"There has been a 39 percent decrease in the flow of migrants," president Jose Raul Mulino told reporters in Panama City.

The so-called Darien Gap is a key corridor for migrants traveling overland from South America through Central America and Mexico to the United States.

Despite the dangers, including wild animals, treacherous terrain and attacks by criminal gangs, more than half a million undocumented migrants -- mostly Venezuelans -- crossed the inhospitable jungle last year.

Transit countries such as Panama and Mexico have come under increased pressure from Washington to tackle the highly contentious migration issue.


Panama has closed several routes in the Darien region, and has recently begun deporting migrants on flights funded by Washington.

Mulino said the decrease was partly due to "heavy rains that made it impossible to navigate the rivers."

But he said the migrant flow will not stop as long as the political and economic crisis continues in Venezuela.

Millions have fled the country since President Nicolas Maduro came to power over a decade ago, with elections this year bringing further turmoil after he and the opposition candidate both claimed victory.

Hundreds of migrants set out from the Mexican city of Tapachula on foot Wednesday, hoping to arrive at the US border before President-elect Donald Trump -- who has vowed massive deportations -- takes office in January.

Trump, who won an election in which illegal migration was once again a top issue, has vowed to declare a national emergency on border security and use the US military to carry out a mass deportation of undocumented migrants, a population estimated to be over 11 million.

Uruguay readies for polls with left hoping for comeback

Agence France-Presse
November 22, 2024

Frente Amplio candidate Yamandu Orsi (L) and rival Alvaro Delgado (SANTIAGO MAZZAROVICH/AFP)

Uruguayans go to the polls Sunday with the leftist alliance of celebrated ex-president Jose Mujica hoping to reclaim the country's top job five years after a right-wing victory based on concerns over crime and taxes.

Former history teacher Yamandu Orsi of the leftist Frente Amplio (Broad Front) will go head-to-head with ex-veterinarian Alvaro Delgado of the National Party, a member of outgoing President Luis Lacalle Pou's center-right Republican Coalition.

Orsi, 57, is seen as the understudy of 89-year-old "Pepe" Mujica, a former leftist guerrilla lionized as "the world's poorest president" during his 2010-2015 rule because of his modest lifestyle.

Orsi had garnered 43.9 percent of the October 27 first-round vote -- short of the 50-percent cutoff to avoid a runoff but ahead of the 26.7 percent of ballots cast for Delgado, 55.

The pair came out tops from a crowded field of 11 candidates seeking to replace Lacalle Pou, who has a high approval rating but is barred constitutionally from seeking a second consecutive term.

Polls point to a tight race Sunday, with Orsi only marginally ahead in stated voter intention in South America's second-smallest country.


Other parties within the Republican Coalition have since thrown their support behind Delgado, boosting his numbers.

"Conditions are in place for us to take charge... to make the changes the country needs," Orsi told a closing campaign rally Wednesday.

Delgado, for his part, told supporters Uruguay was better off today thanks to the Republican Coalition in charge, adding: "I am prepared" to lead.

- Liberal mold-breaker -

A victory for Orsi would see Uruguay swing left again after five years of conservative rule in the country of 3.4 million inhabitants.

The Frente Amplio coalition broke a decades-long conservative stranglehold with an election victory in 2005, and held the presidency for three straight terms.

It was voted out in 2020 on the back of concerns about rising crime blamed on high taxes and a surge in cocaine trafficking through the port of Montevideo.

Polling numbers show perceived insecurity remains Uruguayans' top concern five years later.

The first round of voting was accompanied by a referendum in which Uruguayans were asked whether police should be allowed to carry out nighttime raids on homes as part of the fight against drug trafficking. The initiative failed.


Voting is compulsory in Uruguay, one of Latin America's most stable democracies which boasts comparatively high per-capita income and low poverty levels.

During the heyday of leftist rule, Uruguay legalized abortion and same-sex marriage, became the first Latin American country to ban smoking in public places and the world's first nation, in 2013, to allow recreational cannabis use.

Common water disinfectant creates potentially toxic byproduct: study

Agence France-Presse
November 22, 2024

Dripping Faucet (Shutterstock)

A group of chemical compounds used to disinfect water for one-third of the US population and millions of others globally produces a potentially toxic byproduct, according to new research published Thursday, sparking calls for an "immediate" investigation into possible health impacts.

Inorganic chloramines have been used for decades to remove pathogens from public water supplies.

Though chlorine remains the most widely used disinfectant in the US and globally, chloramines have increasingly replaced it in many systems to reduce certain byproducts linked to bladder and colon cancer, low birth weight, and miscarriage.

Today, more than 113 million Americans rely on chloraminated drinking water, with the compound also in use across Canada, Asia, and Europe.

"However, chloramines themselves decompose into products that are poorly characterized," said Julian Fairey, lead author of the study published in the journal Science, during a press briefing.

One such product, identified more than 40 years ago but left chemically unresolved, was simply dubbed the "unidentified product."

Fairey and his team have finally cracked the mystery.

Using a combination of traditional chemistry methods and modern tools like high-resolution mass spectrometry and nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy, they identified the compound as "chloronitramide anion."

The compound was detected in all 40 chloraminated drinking water samples tested, with concentrations reaching up to 100 micrograms per liter -- exceeding typical regulatory limits for disinfection byproducts, which range between 60 and 80 micrograms per liter.


Although toxicological studies have yet to be conducted, the researchers sounded a warning.

"The chemical structure looks concerning, as does the concentrations at which this compound is forming, so we certainly think health effects studies are warranted," Fairey said.

Their study calls for the compound to be "an immediate candidate" for quantification in public waters and for closer health and toxicity studies.

Water utilities could consider reverting to chlorine, Fairey suggested, though this would require secondary disinfectants to neutralize the known toxic byproducts chlorine produces.

With further study and regulatory action likely years away, the researchers recommended home filtration systems using activated carbon blocks for people who are concerned.

Dems Rip Musk-Ramaswamy Plan for Spending Cuts as Illegal 'Power Grab'

"The legal theories being pushed by Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy are as idiotic as they are dangerous," said the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee.

Vivek Ramaswamy gestures as he speaks during an event in Las Vegas, Nevada on October 24, 2024.
(Photo: Patrick T. Fallon/AFP via Getty Images)

Jake Johnson
Nov 22, 2024
COMMON DREAMS

Democrats on the House Budget Committee said Friday that the plan Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy outlined to eliminate spending already appropriated by the U.S. Congress would run afoul of a federal law enacted in response to former President Richard Nixon's impoundment of funds for programs he opposed.

In a Wall Street Journalop-ed published earlier this week, Musk and Ramaswamy specifically mentioned the 1974 Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act (ICA) only to wave it away, arguing it would not hinder their effort to enact sweeping spending cuts as part of the "government efficiency" commission President-elect Donald Trump appointed them to lead.

But House Budget Committee Democrats said Friday that the Nixon-era law and subsequent Supreme Court rulings make clear that "the power of the purse rests solely with Congress."

"Fifty years after the ICA became law, Congress once again confronts a threat attempting to push past the long-recognized boundaries of executive budgetary power," the lawmakers wrote in a fact sheet. "During his first administration, President Trump illegally impounded crucial security assistance funding for Ukraine in an effort to benefit his reelection campaign. Now, Donald Trump and his far-right extremist allies are pushing dangerous legal theories to dismantle that system."

"They want to give the president unchecked power to slash funding for programs like food assistance, public education, healthcare, and federal law enforcement—all without congressional approval," the Democrats continued. "American families would be forced to pay more for basic necessities, investment in infrastructure and jobs would decline, and our communities would become less safe. Instead of working within the democratic process, Trump and his allies want to sidestep Congress entirely. But the Constitution is clear: only Congress, elected by the people, controls how taxpayer dollars are spent."

"House Democrats are ready to fight back against any illegal attempt to gut the programs that keep American families safe and help them make ends meet."

The fact sheet was released days after Musk and Ramaswamy, both billionaires, offered for the first time a detailed explanation of their plan to pursue large-scale cuts to federal regulations and spending, as well as mass firings of federal employees, in their role as co-heads of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

The pair noted that Trump "has previously suggested" the ICA is unconstitutional and expressed the view that "the current Supreme Court would likely side with him on this question." The former president appointed half of the court's right-wing supermajority.

"But even without relying on that view, DOGE will help end federal overspending by taking aim at the $500 billion-plus in annual federal expenditures that are unauthorized by Congress or being used in ways that Congress never intended, from $535 million a year to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and $1.5 billion for grants to international organizations to nearly $300 million to progressive groups like Planned Parenthood."

Other programs that would be vulnerable if Musk, Ramaswamy, Trump, and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.)—who's set to lead a new related House subcommittee—get their way are veterans' healthcare, Head Start, housing assistance, and childcare aid, according toThe Washington Post.


Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.), the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee, said in a statement Friday that "the legal theories being pushed by Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy are as idiotic as they are dangerous."

"Unilaterally slashing funds that have been lawfully appropriated by the people's elected representatives in Congress would be a devastating power grab that undermines our economy and puts families and communities at risk," said Boyle. "House Democrats are ready to fight back against any illegal attempt to gut the programs that keep American families safe and help them make ends meet."

Musk details mass cuts to US federal spending and staff

SPENDING IS SERVICES 

AUSTERITY IS POVERTY

By AFP
November 20, 2024

Elon Musk outlined plans Wednesday for his new role as “efficiency” czar — signaling an assault on federal spending and staffing that would be backed by President-elect Donald Trump’s executive powers and a conservative Supreme Court.

In the Wall Street Journal, the world’s richest man said he was taking aim at hundreds of billions of dollars in government spending — including funding for public broadcasting and abortion rights group Planned Parenthood — as well as at bureaucracy that represents an “existential threat” to US democracy.

The Tesla and SpaceX CEO said that he, along with fellow businessman and Trump loyalist Vivek Ramaswamy, would work to slash federal regulations and make major administrative cuts and cost savings.

“We are entrepreneurs, not politicians. We will serve as outside volunteers, not federal officials or employees,” Musk and Ramaswamy wrote in their most detailed remarks since Trump named them heads of a new Department of Government Efficiency.

Musk said DOGE — a nod to Musk’s support for a cryptocurrency — will prepare a list of regulations issued by government agencies without Congress approval, which Trump could then invalidate by executive order.

“When the president nullifies thousands of such regulations, critics will allege executive overreach. In fact, it will be correcting the executive overreach of thousands of regulations promulgated by administrative fiat that were never authorized by Congress,” Musk said.

He added that a reduction in regulations would pave the way for “mass head-count reductions across the federal bureaucracy,” and said DOGE would aim to cut more than $500 billion in government expenditures.

“With a decisive electoral mandate and a 6-3 conservative majority on the Supreme Court, DOGE has a historic opportunity for structural reductions in the federal government,” Musk said.

'Terror and fear': Elon Musk opens government workers to harassment after id'ing them on X

Sarah K. Burris
November 22, 2024 

RAW STORY

FILE PHOTO: Tesla CEO and X owner Elon Musk, who supports Republican presidential nominee former U.S. President Donald Trump, gestures as he speaks about voting during an America PAC Town Hall in Folsom, Pennsylvania, U.S., October 17, 2024. REUTERS/Rachel Wisniewski TPX IMAGES OF THE DAY/File

Donald Trump hasn't been sworn into office yet, but his ally Elon Musk is already getting started working for a government agency that hasn't yet been created.

The Wall Street Journal reported Friday that the "Department of Government Efficiency" co-director is tweeting out the names and personal details of federal employees, leading to some of his more than 205 million followers to "launch blistering critiques of ordinary" workers.

Ashley Thomas, a little-known director of "climate diversity" at the U.S. International Development Financial Corp., was targeted by the billionaire, who called her job "fake." The tweet received 32 million views and spawned a flood of memes making fun of her and telling her that her job would be over soon, the report stated.

Musk was put in charge of the soon-to-be-created Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE. Biotech company founder Vivek Ramaswamy will be his co-chair. It's tasked with findings massive cuts in government spending.

Thus far, Ramaswamy hasn't targeted individuals. Instead, he's talked about his slashing of the federal workforce broadly, saying that he would fire people at random — suggesting it could be done based on Social Security number.

In his estimation, he could slash 75 percent of the workforce by choosing people whose Social Security numbers start or end with odd numbers.

Using X as a tool to attack people is nothing new, the report said.

"After taking over Twitter in 2022, Musk targeted Yoel Roth, the platform’s former head of trust and safety, who had recently left. Musk tweeted, incorrectly, that it looked like Roth had argued 'in favor of children being able to access adult Internet services,'" the Journal recalled. "Some of the platform’s users interpreted it as Musk calling Roth a pedophile, and they posted calls for Roth’s death. Roth moved out of his house temporarily because of threats."

“These tactics are aimed at sowing terror and fear at federal employees,” said Everett Kelley, president of the American Federation of Government Employees. It represents about 800,000 members of the 2.3 million federal employees.

“It’s intended to make them fearful that they will become afraid to speak up," said Kelley.

“We are a comparative steal, and we want to help clean it up too,” said Kelley, a former Army sergeant. “The people I represent have been called names like deep state, but they are working people just like you and I.”

Read the full report here.

Musk, Ramaswamy outline plans for government reform

US President-elect Donald Trump said Elon Musk would lead an efficiency drive under his new administration - Copyright AFP/File Kena Betancur

Nov. 20 (UPI) -- The federal government is "anti-democratic and antithetical to the founders' vision," Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy said Wednesday in a joint op-ed on Wednesday.

The nation was founded on the notion that citizens elect people to run the government, but that's not how it works now, Musk and Ramaswamy said in the op-ed that was published by the Wall Street Journal.

Instead, most legal regulations are not those passed by Congress and signed into law by the President. Instead, they are tens of thousands "legal edicts" created annually by millions of unelected bureaucrats.

"Most government enforcement decisions and discretionary expenditures aren't made by the democratically elected president or even his political appointees but by millions of unelected, unappointed civil servants within government agencies," Musk and Ramaswamy said.

The bureaucrats consider themselves "immune from firing" due to civil service protections and impose "massive direct and indirect costs on taxpayers," they said.

President-elect Donald Trump's election victory gives them a "historic opportunity to solve the problem" of a large and bureaucratic federal government through the proposed creation of the Department of Government Efficiency, they said.
Advertisement

The DOGE, led by Musk and Ramaswamy, will be tasked with reducing the size of the federal government.

"The entrenched and ever-growing bureaucracy represents an existential threat to our republic," Musk and Ramaswamy said, "and politicians have abetted it for too long."

The pair described themselves "entrepreneurs, not politicians" who will "serve as outside volunteers" who will cut costs.

They said they will help the incoming Trump administration to identify and hire a small team of "small-government crusaders"that includes "some of the sharpest technical and legal minds in America."

The DOGE team will work with the White House Office of Management and Budget to promote governmental reforms that include regulatory rescissions, administrative reductions and cost savings.

Executive action will be the prime driver of their reform efforts, Musk and Ramaswamy said.

They intend to advise Trump on executive actions that legally can impose "reductions in force" instead of targeting specific employees to reduce the size of federal agencies and departments without violating civil-service protections.

"Mr. Trump can implement any number of 'rules governing the competitive service' that would curtail administrative overgrowth," the pair said.

After being sworn in, Musk and Ramaswamy said President-elect Trump can impose firings of federal workers on a large scale and relocated federal agencies out of Washington, D.C., to make the federal government more efficient and less costly for taxpayers.

The DOGE and its leaders in Musk and Ramaswamy only can act in an advisory capacity and cannot make any legally binding changes to the federal government.

Any advice provided by the DOGE will require executive or congressional actions to carry the weight of law.

REMEMBER RUBY RIDGE AND WACO!

'Needs to be abolished': Republican sets sights on axing ATF and calls agency a 'disaster'

Erik De La Garza
November 22, 2024

ATF. (Photo credit: BreizhAtao / Shutterstock)

Congressional Republicans are aiming at a new target in their promise to gut federal agencies once Donald Trump reemerges in the White House with a GOP trifecta.

Rep. Eric Burlison (R-MO) said he plans to introduce a measure that would abolish the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, or ATF, which he attacked for continuously violating “citizen rights and Second Amendment rights.”

“The ATF is a disaster,” Burlison told Fox News Digital on Thursday. “For decades they’ve been a disaster agency and they’ve been violating the Constitution’s Second Amendment.”

Burlison, a member of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, added that states should have the ability to regulate the matters themselves without federal oversight.

“Every time they try to get involved, they mess things up," Burlison said. “They have a long history of mistakes of abusing individuals' Second Amendment rights – all the way back to Ruby Ridge, to what happened at Waco, and then you had the Operation Fast and Furious."

He added: “I think at the end of the day, this agency needs to be abolished, and we need to let the states police what happens to the states.”

An ATF spokesperson told Fox News Digital in a statement the agency “provides enormous benefits to the American public through all of its efforts fighting violent crime every day.”

The ATF isn't the only federal agency in Burlison's crosshairs.

He also told the network he thinks the Department of Education and the Environmental Protection Agency should be abolished, and said downsizing government was a top priority for Republicans next year that he hopes can be accomplished in the first 100 days.

“A lot of the ABCs of this town need to be abolished starting with the Department of Education, I think we should eliminate the EPA…let all of these decision be made at the state level.”

He added that he was “looking forward” to working with Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy in their new advisory roles to “consolidate or eliminate entire agencies.”

START WITH THE PENTAGON/DOD BUDGET