Two residents of the tiny Caribbean island of Barbuda fight the government, seeking to protect land

DÁNICA COTO
Updated Wed, November 8, 2023 


Barbuda Land Rights
In this Thursday, Sept. 7, 2017, photo, damage is left after Hurricane Irma hit Barbuda. When Hurricane Irma slammed into the tiny Caribbean island as a powerful Category 5 storm in 2017, the government temporarily evacuated the entire population of some 1,600. Before many of them had trickled back, U.S. developers were allowed in and permitted to build an airport and luxury resort, a project that has angered islanders and that the U.N. warns is a danger to a wetland and other fragile environments.

 (AP Photo/Anika E. Kentish, File)

SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico (AP) — When Hurricane Irma slammed into the tiny Caribbean island of Barbuda as a Category 5 storm in 2017, the government temporarily evacuated the entire population of some 1,600.

Even before many people returned, U.S. developers were allowed in and given permission to build an airport and luxury resort, a project that has angered islanders while the U.N. warns of danger to wetland and other fragile environments.

Barbudans have waged largely unsuccessful legal fights against the project. But two islanders appeared Wednesday before the London-based Privy Council, hoping to win a ruling that will lead to communities having the right to protect pristine lands coveted by foreign investors amid the climate crisis.

The Privy Council, final court of appeal for the twin-island nation of Antigua and Barbuda, is being asked whether Jacklyn Frank, former member of Barbuda's governing council, and scientist John Mussington have standing to challenge decisions by the government.

“Our environment, our culture, our history and our right to be consulted and participate in the future of our lands have been totally ignored,” said a statement from Frank, who chaired the council from April 2021 to January 2022.

The pair are challenging the construction of an international airport in Barbuda that began in September 2017, the month that Hurricane Irma hit the island as the strongest hurricane ever observed in the open Atlantic.

Critics say the rapid welcoming of international developers into Barbuda is a glaring example of disaster capitalism.

“Events unfolding on the Caribbean island of Barbuda are a microcosm of what is wrong with our world,” David Boyd, a U.N. special investigator on human rights and the environment, wrote on the X platform in October. “A beautiful, idyllic island being transformed into a playground for wealthy elites, with ZERO concern for people who have lived there for 100s of years or the sensitive ecology.”

The ongoing airport construction is part of a deal involving the Antigua and Barbuda government, the Barbuda Council and PLH (Barbuda) Ltd., established by U.S. billionaire John Paul DeJoria, co-founder of the Paul Mitchell hair products company. Also involved is U.S.-based Discovery Land Co., founded by Michael Meldman of Casamigos Tequila.

The companies are seeking to build 495 luxury residences, an 18-hole golf course, a beach club and a natural gas storage facility on more than 600 acres of protected wetland.

But the issue goes beyond opposing the project.

Many Barbudans feel the deal exemplifies how they have been stripped of their right to say how their island should be developed. A centuries-old tradition of communal land ownership that emerged after Britain abolished slavery gave way to amendments in recent years that allow property to be privatized.

Currently, the government is leasing the land to the developers, but residents worry that could change.

Resentment over land changes has led to a tense relationship between highly developed Antigua and rural Barbuda, where some residents accuse the government of a land grab. In a 2017 interview, Prime Minister Gaston Browne was quoted as saying only a small group of “deracinated imbeciles” oppose development.

A spokesman for Browne's office did not respond to a message seeking comment about the dispute. An attorney for PLH (Barbuda) Ltd. and a representative for the development did not return messages for comment.

Roughly 400 acres (162 hectares) that is home to the red-footed tortoise and Barbuda fallow deer already have been cleared to build the airport.

Construction began without an environmental impact assessment or a license from the Barbuda Council to clear the forest, said Gearóid Ó Cuinn, director of U.K.-based nonprofit Global Legal Action Network, which is helping attorneys representing the two Barbudans.

In addition, there were no public meetings advising of the construction, and an application for a development permit wasn’t submitted until November 2017, after construction had started, said Jasmine Rayée, a lawyer with Global Legal Action Network.

As construction of the airport began, Antigua and Barbuda’s Department of Environment raised concerns about the violations and warned about the loss of archaeological sites, hydrogeological problems and construction on designated farmland.

The first two environmental impact assessments have not been made public. The third, conducted in August 2019, was reviewed by independent experts that found it “does not adhere to international standards” for such assessments, Rayée said.

The U.N. human rights office also raised concerns.

“Questions remain as to whether Barbuda’s population was meaningfully consulted, whether they gave their free, prior and informed consent at all stages of the project, and in specific, and whether recent additions to the project such as a golf course and the yacht marina were discussed,” it said in a February 2022 statement.

U.N. legal experts and others have warned that the development of an airport and the Barbuda Ocean Club could affect the rights to food, housing, water and sanitation of local residents.

Independent U.N. human rights experts also noted that as Barbuda struggled to recover from Irma, “proposals for large-scale projects began to flourish.” They warned that some developments violated government recommendations, exposed parts of low-lying Barbuda to natural disasters and led to saline intrusion due to floods at a time when global warming is generating stronger and wetter hurricanes.

PLH (Barbuda) Ltd., which is not involved in the case before the Privy Council, has contended that Barbuda already was facing “severe environmental degradation” prior to Irma as a result of government-sponsored sand mining, according to a response it sent to U.N. legal experts.

The company also said it had been “completely transparent” with the community about the project and held dozens of meetings with residents to update them, in addition to making such improvements as rehabilitating sand dunes and wetlands and increasing access to freshwater.

Global Legal Action Network contends the meetings the company held several months after Hurricane Irma cannot be considered valid because few people had returned to Barbuda following the government-mandated evacuation.

Wednesday’s hearing began with a lively debate over whether Mussington and Frank were qualified to have standing, with some justices noting that people with a specific type of expertise would be hard to find on such a small island.

King’s Counsel Marc Willers argued that both Barbudans should be entitled to present a challenge, saying they have genuine concerns: “The appellants are not busybodies. They are not meddlers."

David Dorsett, the attorney for the government, said that if everyone were allowed to challenge, “the floodgates would open.”

The hearing also focused on how no public consultations were held for the development. Dorsett asserted that wasn’t illegal: “It may have been unwise, but not unlawful.”

One of the five judges, George Andrew Midsomer Leggatt, countered: “It seems that nobody has the right to challenge the government on unlawful activity.”

A ruling by the Privy Council is expected in eight to 12 weeks.

Both Israel and Palestinian supporters accuse the other side of genocide – here's what the term actually means

Alexander Hinton, Rutgers University - Newark
Tue, November 7, 2023 

People holding signs calling for an end to genocide in the Gaza Strip have been a common occurrence at pro-Palestinian protests. 

Christoph Reichwein/picture alliance via Getty Images


Is genocide taking place in the Middle East?

On both sides of the conflict in Israel and the Gaza Strip, many answer with an unequivocal “yes.”

Some Israelis and other Israel supporters are pointing a finger at Hamas, which killed 1,400 people, most of them civilians – while wounding many more – in Israel and took over 240 hostages in its surprise attack on Oct. 7, 2023.

The attack, some Israel supporters and political observers note, must be seen in the light of Hamas leaders repeatedly stated goal of destroying Israel and their recent promise to attack Israel “again and again” until it is gone.

But some Palestinian supporters also say that Israel’s mass displacement of civilians and its bombing campaign in Gaza – which has included the targeting of hospitals, refugee camps and ambulances, where Israel says Hamas personnel are hiding – is clear evidence of genocide.

As of Nov. 6, Israel’s attacks have resulted in more than 10,000 deaths, including thousands of children, according to the Hamas-run Ministry of Health. Pro-Palestinian supporters see this as part of a longer history of Israel’s treatment of Palestinians. Hashtags like #StopTheGenocide and #GenocideinGaza are circulating widely on social media.

U.S. Rep. Rashida Tlaib amplified these allegations when she said on Nov. 4 that President Joe Biden is guilty of supporting genocide in Gaza.

Regardless of people’s position, almost everyone would agree that the crisis is dire, war crimes have likely taken place, far too many civilians have suffered greatly or lost their lives – and the situation has arrived at, or is on the cusp of, genocide.

I am a scholar of genocide studies. As the Israel-Hamas conflict grinds on amid continuing genocide allegations, it’s crucial to understand what genocide actually is and how this term has been used for political purposes in the past.

People march in Brookline, Mass., on Nov. 5, 2023, in support of Israel’s right to defend itself from Hamas. 

Joseph Prezioso/AFP via Getty Images

What is genocide?

Raphael Lemkin, a lawyer who was Polish and Jewish, first devised the term “genocide” in his 1944 book, “Axis Rule in Occupied Europe.”

Lemkin defined genocide as “the destruction of a nation or of an ethnic group.” Such destruction, he wrote, involves a “coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups.”

For Lemkin, committing genocide involves not just physical killings, but an assault on the spirit of a group of people – including their social, economic and political ways of life. His definition also encompasses cultural genocide.

In 1948, following the Nazis’ atrocities during the Holocaust, Lemkin lobbied the newly established United Nations to pass a legal agreement, known as a convention, on preventing and punishing genocide.

The 1948 U.N. Genocide Convention specifies that genocide can happen by killing and destroying a group, preventing births and transferring children to another group, among other means.

At the time, some countries used the convention as a political tool to obscure their own histories of genocide. One example: The Soviet Union and others insisted that the definition exclude political groups. The USSR feared it could otherwise be charged for killing political enemies.

The U.S. also had concerns about being accused of committing genocide against Black people, a point I detail in my 2021 book, “It Can Happen Here: White Power and the Rising Threat of Genocide in the US.”

The U.S. successfully lobbied for the U.N. definition to emphasize intent and physical killing. This made it less likely the U.S. would be charged with genocide for Jim Crow policies that enforced segregation of Black Americans.


The lawyer Raphael Lemkin helped draft the U.N.‘s Genocide Convention, which countries approved in 1948. Bettmann/Getty Images

Using genocide for political reasons

Governments and political leaders have long used genocide claims to make threats against other countries or to provide a rationale for foreign intervention, ostensibly to ward off a genocide.

There is also a long history of government officials arguing about the definition of genocide to deny that it was actually happening.

One of the most notorious examples was the U.S. denial that the mass violence in Rwanda in 1994 was genocide, because it did not match the “precise legal meaning” of the term.

The U.S. feared that if it called the violence “genocide,” then it would be compelled to intervene in Rwanda. Armed militias representing an ethnic group of people called Hutus, who were in control of the government, killed an estimated 800,000 Tutsi people – an ethnic minority – during this genocide.

Today, countries like Russia and China continue to deny that they are committing what many experts consider genocide.
Three ways genocide is discussed

In my research, I have found that people often approach genocide in three ways.

First, legal scholars contend that before violence is considered genocide, it is necessary to demonstrate that what occurred neatly matches what the Genocide Convention spells out.

Others, including many scholars in the social sciences and humanities, have a broader view of what genocide means and maintain it could apply to a range of cases and dynamics, including settler colonialism and enslavement.

Many follow Lemkin in emphasizing that genocide can be carried out not just by killing, but through a multi-pronged attack on a group’s political, social, cultural, economic, religious, moral and economic way of life.

Finally, and most frequently, some people have a more conventional view that lacks a clear definition, but which generally associates genocide with any attempt to destroy a group of people.

This could mean not just mass death and destruction, but also things like abortion.
Genocide and the Israel-Hamas war

People are using these three different interpretations of genocide to characterize the Israel-Hamas war.

Many appear to want a way to understand and label the images of horrific violence that fill their screens.

Genocide, for all its conceptual limitations, provides a way of understanding the violence in Israel and Gaza. And so, people invoke the word genocide in its conventional sense, sometimes through genocide-related hashtags and slogans.

But long before the current crisis, scholars were debating whether Israel had committed genocide in Palestinian territories.

Along these lines, a high-ranking U.N. human rights official and lawyer named Craig Mokhiber resigned from his post on Oct. 28, 2023, because he said that, as in the past, the U.N. and Western countries were not preventing Israel’s genocide of Palestinians.

In response, Anne Bayefsky, the head of a New York-based human rights center, accused Mokhiber of “UN antisemitism” and wanting to wipe “ISRAEL OFF THE MAP!” Her remarks echo those of others who say that it is Israelis who are at risk of genocide.

This genocide debate is not going away. Amid mass death and suffering and skyrocketing rates of antisemitism and Islamophobia, however, I think it is critical not to get lost in a war of words and neglect the desperate need to find a path to short- and long-term peace.

Part of this article is adapted from The Conversation’s Feb. 25, 2022, story “Putin’s claims that Ukraine is committing genocide are baseless but not unprecedented.”

This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and analysis to help you make sense of our complex world.

It was written by: Alexander Hinton, Rutgers University - Newark.

Read more

Genocides persist, nearly 70 years after the Holocaust – but there are recognized ways to help prevent them

Putin’s claims that Ukraine is committing genocide are baseless, but not unprecedented

Why the U.S. isn’t stopping this war, and other Middle East realities

Nahal Toosi, Alexander Ward and Lara Seligman

POLITICO US
Tue, November 7, 2023 

Doaa AlBaz/AP

The Biden administration faces pressure from progressive Democrats, Arab officials and even some U.S. diplomats to help end the Israel-Hamas war. But the White House doesn’t necessarily want to stop the fight — at least not yet.

Even if it did, Israel probably wouldn’t listen.

Those are some of the hard truths emerging from the cacophony of this conflict — reflected in conversations with eight diplomats, analysts and administration officials, as well as a review of what American, Israeli, Arab and other leaders have or haven’t said in public.

As the body count rises, the calculations could shift dramatically. For now, here’s a reality check on the decisions being made from Washington to Amman:

The United States doesn’t want to stop Israel’s war on Hamas.

When U.S. officials lay out their objectives in this new conflict, they mention four specifics: making it clear the U.S. firmly supports Israel; stopping the fighting from spreading beyond the Gaza Strip; freeing more than 200 hostages taken by Hamas; and helping ease the humanitarian crisis.

Stopping the Israel-Hamas war is not on the list.

That’s primarily because the U.S. agrees with Israel’s goal of destroying Hamas, a Palestinian network designated by Washington as a terrorist organization, even if it’s not entirely clear what that will ultimately look like. When asked last month by CBS News if he believed Hamas “must be eliminated entirely,” President Joe Biden said, “Yes, I do.”

For now, the administration is pushing Israel to allow pauses in fighting for humanitarian purposes and to be careful in its targeting. But it won’t support a longer-lasting ceasefire.

“We still don’t believe that a general ceasefire is appropriate at this time,” National Security Council spokesperson John Kirby told reporters Monday. “When we talk about a general ceasefire, what that means is a complete cessation of fighting across all of Gaza, which we believe at this point in time benefits Hamas.”

Retired Israel Defense Forces Maj. Gen. Yaakov Amidror, Israel’s national security adviser from 2011 to 2013, said his country’s government currently feels no real push from the U.S. to end the war.

The only pressure, he said, “is that we will minimize the number of civilians that should be killed and the second one is to allow more humanitarian aid to the civilians in Gaza.”

What’s not said in public: Destroying — or at least degrading Hamas — is in the U.S. interest on multiple levels.

Hamas is a proxy of Iran, a major U.S. adversary, so dismantling it undercuts Tehran. Hamas is a destabilizing force in a region that remains critical to U.S. economic and security interests. The militant group also does not recognize Israel’s right to exist, making it a major barrier to a two-state solution, pointed out one U.S. official, who, like others in this story, was granted anonymity to speak candidly.

Plus, publicly breaking with Israelis could damage U.S. ties with a partner who is critical on fronts including intelligence sharing.

Israel would probably ignore the U.S. anyway.

The U.S. has significant tools it could use to pressure Israel beyond the mere words officials are sticking to now.

It could threaten to cut military aid to the country, stop defending it at the United Nations, or abandon long-term efforts to help Israel normalize diplomatic relations with Arab countries. Some congressional Democrats are even considering legislation to curtail intelligence sharing with Israel.

But the Biden administration has steadfastly rejected such moves.

Even in more normal times, the Israeli government has not always listened to Washington. For example, U.S. officials have for years fruitlessly urged Israel to stop building settlements on West Bank territory claimed by Palestinians.

When Biden was vice president, the Israeli government even announced new settlements while the American leader was visiting Israel.

The brutality of Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack also has so shaken Israeli citizens that many support military moves they might have decried before. This means the U.S. has to contend with the demands Israeli politicians get from their own constituents.

That’s why U.S. officials view what would typically seem like small victories as big wins. Among them: Convincing Israel to permit some humanitarian aid to flow into Gaza and to ease up on a 24-hour evacuation notice to the residents in the northern part of the territory.

“You need to understand the public sentiment in Israel,” one Israeli official said. “Israelis, including center-left Israelis, are mad about why we let humanitarian aid in when our hostages are there and denied visits and we know nothing on their condition.”

As Amidror put it: “Israeli society has lost its naivete.”

Several Arab governments privately hate Hamas.

Many Arab leaders despise Hamas, not least because of its Islamist roots and Iranian ties. So they wouldn’t mind seeing the group degraded.

“There has been a big difference between Arab countries’ public and private reactions,” a senior Israeli official told reporters in Washington last month. Most Arab countries regard Hamas “as enemies and want them deterred.”

Despite their disdain for Hamas, many Arab leaders are publicly and privately urging the U.S. to pressure Israel to accept a ceasefire. That’s partly because they worry that citizen fury over images of dead and wounded Palestinians could turn against them.

“By sending a lot of equipment and a lot of money to Israel, [the U.S.] encourages them to push and to escalate rather than to look for a solution,” one Arab diplomat based in Washington said.

Israel does not appear to be heeding the warnings of people such as Jordanian Foreign Minister Ayman Safadi to “stop this madness.” Officials insist they are doing what they must to spare civilians, but the level of Palestinian suffering is increasingly hard for Israel to explain.

Iran does not want a broader war.

Although Iran is not directly involved in the war, it is keenly interested in the conflict. Iran supports Hamas with funding, weapons and training, and has long sought to expel U.S. troops from the Middle East.

Tehran has seized on this moment to foment further instability in the region. Its proxies have attacked American troops in Iraq and Syria with aerial drones and rockets at least 38 times since Oct. 17, even as the Pentagon dispatches an increasing amount of firepower to the region.

But privately, U.S. officials say they believe Iran is simply trying to raise pressure on Washington, not provoke a wider regional war.

The best evidence for this calculation is the nature and scale of the attacks — particularly compared to Iran’s response to former President Donald Trump’s ordered assassination of a senior Iranian military commander, Qassem Soleimani, in 2020.

For one, the proxy groups have relied almost exclusively on cheap, one-way attack drones and rockets to launch the mostly unsuccessful strikes. Pentagon spokesperson Brig. Gen. Patrick Ryder called such moves “harassing.”

And although Ryder said the U.S. would hold Iran responsible for the strikes, Tehran has not claimed responsibility for them.

By contrast, in January 2020, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps launched more than 12 ballistic missiles against multiple U.S. bases in Iraq, leaving more than 100 U.S. troops with traumatic brain injuries. Iran said it was revenge for Soleimani’s killing.

Tehran has not used the current crisis as an opportunity to ratchet up its harassment of commercial ships in the Persian Gulf, behavior that has previously drawn U.S. condemnation.

The limited U.S. response — or lack thereof — to the most recent attacks is also telling. Biden ordered an Oct. 26 airstrike against two facilities in Syria used by Iranian-linked groups, but the attacks did not kill any militants.

Gaza activist on speaking tour in France faces deportation

Reuters
Wed, November 8, 2023 

Palestinian activist Mariam Abudaqa poses for Reuters in Paris

PARIS (Reuters) - A French court has approved the deportation of Palestinian activist Mariam Abudaqa, who came to France for a speaking tour in September and was put under house arrest after the Oct. 7 attack on Israel by Hamas militants.

The ruling, which overturns a court decision last month that the interior minister appealed, said 72-year-old Abudaqa, a member of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), was "likely to seriously disturb public order."

The French government has cracked down on expressions of solidarity with Palestine in the wake of Hamas's Oct. 7 attack which killed 1,400 people, banning protests, cancelling events and accusing some pro-Palestine groups of condoning terrorism.

More than 10,000 people have been killed in Gaza by Israel's retaliatory assault on the enclave. Abudaqa said she had lost 30 members of her family since the beginning of the war.

"We are supposed to die without even saying ouch, without expressing pain," said Abudaqa of her arrest and speaking ban on Tuesday before the court decision came.

The anti-occupation and women's rights activist had been invited to speak at the French national assembly at an event on Thursday, but her participation was blocked in October by the Assembly president.

The Conseil d'Etat, France's highest administrative court, based its ruling on Abudaqa's membership of the PFLP, stating that she occupies a "leadership" position.

The PFLP is the second largest faction in the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO), which is recognised by the UN and Israel, but is blacklisted by the EU and has carried out attacks on Israelis.

Pierre Stambul, activist with the Union of French Jews for Peace which supported Abudaqa's challenge in court, said she hadn't held a senior position in the group for more than twenty years.

The decision is a "continuation of the criminalisation of the Palestinian population", he said.

The interior minister's office did not respond for comment.

The court ruling does not specify by what date Abudaqa must leave and where she must go. Abudaqa said she plans to fly to Egypt on Saturday and hopes the border crossing will open so that she can return to Gaza.

She said she had trouble sleeping as Israeli strikes on Gaza continue and has become scared of checking her phone, for fear of more bad news.

"Death is much easier than staying here, while my heart aches for them. Or having to receive news everyday of one of them dying," she said.

(Reporting by Layli Foroudi, Antonia Cimini, Noemie Olive; Editing by Christina Fincher)

Gazans raise white flags to flee Israeli onslaught on foot

AFP
Tue, November 7, 2023 

Palestinian refugees have been ordered by Israel to flee south for their own safety, although nowhere in Gaza is free of bombing. (MAHMUD HAMS)

Clutching makeshift white flags, Gazans made their way in between dead bodies and Israeli troops on Tuesday as they followed Israel's orders to flee across the Palestinian territory.

"It was so scary," said Ola al-Ghul, one of the masses of Gazan civilians displaced in the month-old war between Israel and Hamas.

"We held our hands up and we kept walking. There were so many of us, we were holding white flags," she told AFP.

The majority of the Gaza Strip's 2.4 million residents have been displaced by the fighting, with around 1.5 million fleeing within the territory according to the United Nations.

Clutching one of her toddlers, Amira al-Sakani recalled Israel's repeated air drops of flyers, seen by AFP, telling civilians to flee to the south.

"We came by foot from the centre of Gaza to the south," she said. "I was not expecting the distance to be that long."

On the way, Sakani saw "bodies of martyrs, some in pieces".

"We want peace, enough is enough, we are tired, we want a happy future," she said.

More than 10,300 people have been killed across the Gaza Strip, according to the Hamas-run health ministry, mostly civilians, including more than 4,200 children.

The bombardment came in response to the unprecedented October 7 attacks by Hamas, which killed around 1,400 people in Israel, also mostly civilians, according to Israeli officials.

Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has vowed to destroy Hamas.

Sakani said her children have by now learnt what bombs are: "They tell me: 'That's dangerous mum, I don't want any strikes'."

Those seen fleeing by AFP journalists had few belongings with them, while some carried children or were using wheelchairs.

- 'It was really horrible' -

Haitham Noureddine said he walked four kilometres (2.5 miles) with his mother and other relatives until they reached the southern Bureij refugee camp.

He told AFP the family left their Gaza City home near Al-Shifa hospital, due to the heavy bombardment in the area, and saw decomposing bodies en route.

The Israeli military says its troops have encircled Gaza City but will allow civilians to leave the north.

But casualty figures show no area in the territory is safe, with nearly 3,600 people killed in southern and central Gaza, according to health ministry data.

Holding a walking stick, Hatim Abu Riash recounted his fear of walking past Israeli forces.

"Next to the soldiers, next to the guns, next to the tanks, the aeroplane... it was really horrible," he said, after fleeing the northern Jabalia refugee camp, which has been repeatedly bombed since the start of the assault.

"We are not terrorists -- we are civilians -- we want to live in peace," he added.

The Gazans' plight does not end once they flee to central or southern areas, where more than 550,000 people are sheltering in 92 establishments run by the United Nations agency for Palestinian refugees (UNRWA).

Facilities are limited and disease is rife.

In one, UNRWA reported that more than 600 people were sharing one toilet.

There are also thousands of cases of acute respiratory illness, skin infections, diarrhoea and chicken pox, the UN says, while accessing basic supplies such as bread has become tough.

Standing on a dual carriageway as fellow Gazans walked past, resident Motaz El-Ajala described the conditions as "inhumane".

"The situation is catastrophic," he told AFP, as an elderly woman was pushed past in a baby's buggy.

Belgium wants sanctions against Israel for Gaza bombings - deputy PM

Marine Strauss
Wed, November 8, 2023 


Deputy PM Swearing-in ceremony of new Belgian government at the Royal Palace in Brussels

By Marine Strauss

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - Belgium's deputy prime minister called on the Belgian government on Wednesday to adopt sanctions against Israel and investigate the bombings of hospitals and refugee camps in Gaza.

“It is time for sanctions against Israel. The rain of bombs is inhumane," deputy prime minister Petra De Sutter told Nieuwsblad newspaper. “It is clear that Israel does not care about the international demands for a ceasefire,” she said.

Israel struck at Gaza in response to a Hamas raid on southern Israel on Oct. 7 in which gunmen killed 1,400 people, mostly civilians, and took about 240 hostages, according to Israeli tallies. The war has descended into the bloodiest episode in the generations-long Israel-Palestinian conflict.

De Sutter said the European Union should immediately suspend its association agreement with Israel, which aims at better economic and political cooperation.

She also said an import ban on products from occupied Palestinian territories should be implemented and violent settlers, politicians, soldiers responsible for war crimes should be banned from entering the EU.

At the same time, she said, Belgium should increase funding for the International Criminal Court in The Hague to investigate the bombings while cutting money flows to Hamas.

“This is a terrorist organization. Terror costs money and there must be sanctions on the companies and people who provide Hamas with money," De Sutter said.With the war now entering its second month, UN officials and G7 nations stepped up appeals for a humanitarian pause in the hostilities to help alleviate the suffering in Gaza, where buildings have been flattened and basic supplies are running out. Palestinian officials say more than 10,000 people have been killed, 40% of them children.

(Reporting by Marine Strauss; Editing by Chizu Nomiyama)

Michael Moore on Gaza: 'We need to stop the slaughter' | UpFront

Oakland teachers union passes controversial resolution supporting Palestinian liberation

Amber Lee

FOX NEWS
Tue, November 7, 2023 

OAKLAND, Calif. - The Oakland Education Association passed a non-binding resolution Monday night demanding "freedom for Palestine," a ceasefire and "Israeli de-escalation," which some fear could lead to more antisemitism at Oakland schools.

The vote – on the heels of similar controversial messages on social media last weekend that causes a massive rift in the community – came after a meeting that lasted about two and a half hours and left most of the Jewish teachers very upset.

The resolution is one-sided, placing blame squarely on Israel and uses triggering language, glossing over the complicated history of Israel and Palestine.

It reads in part, "the Israeli government created an apartheid state and the Israeli government leaders have espoused genocidal rhetoric and policies against the people of Palestine."

Roosevelt Middle School music teacher Randy Porter, who is Jewish, joined the union meeting remotely. It was open only to its members.

"I will stop paying my dues to OEA," Porter said.

He said this resolution will cause harm district wide because Jewish students feel unsafe.

"A lot of hurt, shock and disbelief. It's short-sighted," Porter added. "Jewish families are going to pull out of this district. We don't need more families leaving the district."

After teaching in Oakland public schools for nearly four decades, Porter may do more than withdraw from the union.

"We'll have to see what the environment is like. See how safe it feels," he said. "I know that a lot of colleagues don't feel safe with antisemitism on the rise."

But not everyone felt that way.

"You need to have sympathy for the other side, too," said Hatim Nasser, a father from Yemen who has a daughter who attends an elementary school in north Oakland.

Nasser agreed with the OEA's resolution.

"You cannot act desensitized and have no emotions and have no reactions to what's taking place elsewhere," he said. "What happens there impacts people here, too."

Nick Landry, another parent with a daughter who attends 5th grade at an Oakland school, said it makes sense for the teachers union to weigh in.

"A lasting peace in Palestine and Israel starts with folks being educated on the history and current reality of life for Palestinians in Gaza," Landry said.

In response to the resolution, the Anti-Defamation League issued a written statement saying that "it's painful for parents and students of OUSD schools to learn of the one-sided condemnation of the war in Israel, issued by the OEA which endorses dangerous and false narratives."

The Anti-Defamation League said it will be working with the school superintendent on this matter.

KTVU reached out to the school district but it declined to comment on the resolution.

Amber Lee is a reporter with KTVU. Email Amber at Amber.Lee@Fox.com

Google workers publish letter criticizing company’s Israel-Palestine ‘double standard’

They cite bias in internal communications as well as technical support for Israel's military.

Will Shanklin
·Contributing Reporter
Updated Wed, November 8, 2023 

REUTERS/Loren Elliott


A group of Google employees has published an open letter on Medium calling out an alleged double standard in the company related to freedom of expression surrounding the Israel-Palestine war. The essay condemns “hate, abuse and retaliation” within the company against Muslim, Arab and Palestinian workers. The employees who penned the letter, which doesn’t include specific names out of fear of retaliation, demand that CEO Sundar Pichai, Google Cloud CEO Thomas Kurian and other senior leaders publicly condemn “the ongoing genocide in the strongest possible terms.” In addition, they urge the company to cancel Project Nimbus, a $1.2 billion deal to supply AI and other advanced tech to the Israeli military.

“We are Muslim, Palestinian, and Arab Google employees joined by anti-Zionist Jewish colleagues,” the letter opens. “We cannot remain silent in the face of the hate, abuse, and retaliation that we are being subjected to in the workplace in this moment.”

The letter cites specific examples of emotionally charged and inappropriate workplace behavior. These include unnamed Googlers accusing Palestinians of supporting terrorism, committing “slander against the Prophet Muhammad,” and publicly calling Palestinians “animals” on official Google work platforms. The group describes leadership as “standing idly by” in the latter two cases, and it says Google managers have called employees “sick” and “a lost cause” for expressing empathy toward Gaza residents.

The employees say Google managers have publicly asked Arab and Muslim people in the company if they support Hamas as a response to their concern for Palestinian families. “There are even coordinated efforts to stalk the public lives of workers sympathetic to Palestine and to report them both to Google and law enforcement for ‘supporting terrorism,’” the letter reads.

Google CEO Sundar Pichai (ASSOCIATED PRESS)

Other examples cited include “heartfelt appeals” to donate to a charity for Gaza citizens being “met with multiple comments dehumanizing Gazans as being ‘animals,’ disregarding their plight and calling upon Googlers to boycott relief work for civilians due to the fact that Palestinian schools and hospitals were being used for ‘terrorism.’” The letter also accuses Google managers of using their rank to “question, report, and attempt to get fired Muslim, Arab, and Palestinian Googlers who express sympathy with the plight of the besieged Palestinian people.” It describes one manager endorsing “surveillance of Google employees on social media,” and then openly harassing them on Google work platforms.

“You have to be very, very, very careful, because any sort of criticism toward the Israeli state can be easily taken as antisemitism,” Sarmad Gilani, a Google software engineer who tells Engadget he did not take part in the letter, said in an interview with The New York Times. “It feels like I have to condemn Hamas 10 times before saying one tiny, tiny thing criticizing Israel.”

In an emailed statement to Engadget, Google spokesperson Courtenay Mencini wrote, “As we’ve shared, this is a highly sensitive time and topic in every company and workplace, and we have many employees who are personally affected. The overwhelming majority of those employees are not engaged in internal discussions or debate, and many have said they’ve appreciated our fast response and our focus on the safety of our employees.” The company said the situation involves a small number of Googlers whose views don’t represent the entire workforce. It encourages employees to voice concerns to HR, and it adds that it has taken action within the last month when conduct violates company policy.

The tensions inflamed in the last month by the Israel-Palestine war have resurfaced resentments about Google’s involvement in Project Nimbus. In 2021, Google and Amazon workers penned a similar open letter calling on their companies to pull out of the deal, which they said would enable surveillance of and unlawful data collection on Palestinians. Today’s letter echoes that sentiment. “We demand that Google stop providing material support to this genocide by canceling its Project Nimbus contract and immediately cease doing business with the Israeli apartheid government and military,” it reads.

In response to the Project Nimbus concerns, Google spokesperson Mencini wrote to Engadget, “This is part of a longstanding campaign by a group of organizations and people who largely don’t work at Google. We have been very clear that the Nimbus contract is for workloads running on our commercial platform by Israeli government ministries such as finance, healthcare, transportation, and education. Our work is not directed at highly sensitive or classified military workloads relevant to weapons or intelligence services.”

Update, November 8, 2023, 11:04 PM ET: This story has been updated to correct an error that interpreted the NYT interview with Sarmad Gilani as indicating he participated in the letter. However, he clarified to Engadget that he was not involved with the letter to Google management. We regret the error and apologize to Mr. Gilani.

Western miners seek premium pricing for rare earth metals to break China grip

Updated Wed, November 8, 2023

• By Divya Rajagopal

  TORONTO (Reuters) - A handful of Canadian, German and Australian critical mineral explorers plan to command premium prices for key metals used in electric vehicles, promising quality and consistency in exchange for shifting reliance away from China, the dominant producer and price-setter.

  China controls 95% of the production and supply of rare earth metals, integral to manufacturing magnets for electric vehicles (EVs) and wind farms, and this monopoly has allowed China to dictate prices and stir turmoil among end users through export controls.

  Now, mining companies such as TSX-listed Aclara Resources and Australia's Ionic Rare Earths are discussing plans that may loosen China's grip on the critical minerals market, moving towards market-determined prices, company officials told Reuters.

  Canadian miner Neo Performance Materials and Germany's Vacuumschmelze are also discussing similar plans, people familiar with the matter said. The two companies did not offer comment when reached by Reuters.

  "The controls on strategic minerals (by China) continues to escalate, it comes as no surprise if rare earths are next," said Ramon Barua, CEO of Aclara Resources, which is developing a heavy rare earth project in Chile.

  Aclara is looking to mine heavy rare earth metal, such as dysprosium, and is in talks with original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) for a premium pricing as part of a long-term offtake deal.

  The previously unreported plans come as the miners seek to benefit from the Group of Seven (G7) countries' move to incentivize miners and automakers to produce and procure critical metals domestically or from friendly nations.

  In exchange, these miners expect end users to pay a premium.

  They argue that geopolitical tensions between the West and China risk the reliable supply of rare earth minerals. If China persists with export restrictions, as it has with commodities like as germanium and graphite, supply could be further compromised.

  Rare earths, a group of 17 elements used in various products including EVs, wind turbines, and consumer electronics due to their magnetic and electronic properties, garnered renewed attention after Beijing last month announced export permit requirements for some graphite products from December to protect national security, citing national security concerns.

  For instance, the current price of neodymium, used to make the most powerful magnet in the world, varies between $73 to $520 per kg and companies say ex-China prices could be 30% more than the current quoted price.

  Aclara's Barua said that Western supply of rare earth elements will not develop if it depends on Chinese prices.

  "The West will be able to supply environmentally responsible and traceable rare earths, but the cost structure is different to the Chinese and hence it comes at a premium," he said, adding that the additional cost to OEMs by sourcing rare earths from Western companies would be negligible.

  IRA LEVERAGE

  The miners believe manufacturers will absorb extra costs due to new environmental, social and governance-related legislation and tax incentives like the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act and argue that a premium price is warranted for reliable and sustainably sourced rare earths that are key to the transition to cleaner energy.

  For any OEM, the quandary of differential pricing is about being able to judge a quantifiable value that paying higher price brings.

  "What we as OEMs want is a global level playing field, and that means having a transparent, sustainable and reliable pricing," Badrinath Veluri, chief specialist at Grundfos, an OEM based out of Denmark that manufactures water pumps that use rare earth magnets.

  Veluri added that if any supplier is claiming that they bring value by charging higher prices, he wants to see the specific merits of that claim.

  "The price of any metal (rare earth or otherwise) that is coming from China or from western countries has the same pricing, so why should rare earth pricing be different?" Veluri asked.

  The discussion on pricing has come up often in the Rare Earth Industry Association, said Veluri, who is also the president of the global organization with partners representing the whole rare earth value chain.

  U.S.-based MP Materials and Australia's Lynas, the world's two biggest rare earths companies outside of China, were not immediately available for comment.

  Developing rare earth mining projects can take decades, and investor risk aversion has derailed the viability of some projects outside of China. While Vietnam, Malaysia, and Myanmar offer alternatives to China, their final production remains distant.

  Companies have suggested pricing alternatives such as selling rare earth concentrates at their cost of production plus capital cost, ensuring mines remain profitable. Another option is to cap prices at those offered by Chinese rare earth makers, protecting OEMs from drastic price fluctuations.

  The other option is taking into account the price offered by Chinese rare earth makers and putting a ceiling to it, so even if there is a 100% jump in rare earth prices, OEMs do not end up paying for those fluctuation.

  These mechanisms could boost the cost of an EV, which uses rare earth magnets in its motor, by at least 30% to 50%, said an rare earth industry official who was not authorized to talk to the media.

  "Everything ultimately is about trade off," said Tim Harrison, managing director of Ionic Rare Earths. "If you want a product tied to sustainability metrics, minimizing carbon footprints etc, then obviously that is being delivered with cost and that needs to be reflected in the price that supply chain is prepared to pay," Harrison added.

  "The OEMs probably won't pay a higher price for stuff that they buy in high volumes, such as lithium," said Flavio Volpe, president of Automotive Parts Manufacturers Association, the lobby group that represents Canada's OEM producers of parts and equipment.

  "But for things like cobalt, copper, or rare earth metals there is a good strategic play to find with a mining partner." Volpe added.

  (Reporting by Divya Rajagopal; Editing by Denny Thomas and Marguerita Choy)

GM, Stellantis among group investing $33M in company that makes magnets without rare earth metals

Associated Press
Updated Wed, November 8, 2023 



DETROIT (AP) — The venture capital arms of General Motors and Stellantis are among investors sinking $33 million into a Minnesota company with technology to make magnets for electric vehicle motors without using expensive rare-earth metals.

Niron Magnetics of Minneapolis says it can build permanent magnets by using iron nitride, which is abundant and inexpensive compared with rare-earth minerals.

The investment announced Wednesday comes as electric vehicle sales growth is starting to slow and GM and Ford have started to pull back on their spending. But Kai Daniels, supervising principal of GM Ventures, said the company is proceeding with its EV plans.

“I can tell you today that GM’s commitment to our EV strategy is as strong as ever," she told reporters.

Last month GM announced that it was delaying by about a year the start of electric pickup truck production at a factory north of Detroit. Ford is pushing back $12 billion of EV investment including postponing construction of one of two new EV battery factories in Kentucky.

Neither GM nor Stellantis would say how much they are investing in Niron, but GM said the companies will co-develop EV magnet motor technology. Daniels said the investment will help GM locate its EV supply chain in North America, a key component to make vehicles eligible for U.S. federal tax credits.

Niron Magnetics CEO Jonathan Rowntree said testing shows that the company's magnets work, and the agreement with GM will help the company start large-scale manufacturing.

“The critical path for us is really scaling the technology, so it's implementing the new equipment, the larger scale equipment, to ramp up our manufacturing,” he said.

Niron has 60 employees and plans to double that number by the end of the year, and double again next year as it makes more magnets.

The magnets can be used in consumer electronics, industrial motors, pumps, compressors, wind turbines and other products, Niron said.

GM, Stellantis invest in EV magnet startup in move to reduce China reliance

Reuters
Wed, November 8, 2023 

(Reuters) - General Motors and Stellantis said on Wednesday they will invest in startup Niron Magnetics, part of a plan to develop electric-vehicle magnets without rare earths as the automotive industry aims to curb its reliance on China.

The automakers joined Niron's latest $33 million funding round and plan to collaborate to help develop permanent magnets built without rare earths, a step that would, if successful, reshape how the materials are used for the transition to EVs.

"Permanent magnets are the unsung heroes and essential components of countless parts of your vehicle," Niron CEO Jonathan Rowntree told reporters on a call. "Where they have the greatest impact for GM is in the drivetrain to their future EVs. Today, roughly 90% of the rare-earth magnet supply is dependent upon China."

The move follows China's announcement in October that it would require export permits for some graphite products, which are also used in EVs, to protect national security.

Financial terms of the Niron round were not disclosed by the companies, but a person familiar with the deal, who asked not to be identified, said GM invested $7 million and Stellantis $5 million.

"We believe Niron's unique technology can play a key role in reducing rare earth minerals from EV motors and help us further scale our North American-based supply chain for EVs," GM Ventures President Anirvan Coomer said.

Permanent magnets are essentially the motors of an EV, helping to transfer power into motion.

EV motors consist of parts typically made from rare-earth minerals like terbium, dysprosium, praseodymium and neodymium, which are expensive and currently processed almost entirely overseas.

"Making powerful magnets from plentiful commodity materials decouples new production from rare earth mine development and lowers overall environmental impact," Stellantis Ventures managing partner Adam Bazih said.

Minneapolis-based Niron said it believes its iron nitride magnet - which it has branded as a Clean Earth Magnet - is more magnetic than a traditional permanent magnet made with neodymium and praseodymium.

"There's a lot of manufacturing steps and a lack of price transparency in this industry with rare earths, given the concentration of supplies in China," Niron Senior Director Tom Grainger said.

The deal comes despite GM's 2021 agreement to buy rare-earth magnets from MP Materials. MP has struggled to refine its own rare earths in California, but has been building a magnet facility in Texas.

(Reporting by Nathan Gomes in Bengaluru and Ernest Scheyder in New York; Editing by Ben Klayman and Matthew Lewis)

GM plants start voting on UAW deal but some concern lingers over the loss of a bonus

Jamie L. LaReau, Detroit Free Press
Wed, November 8, 2023 

As the voting starts at General Motors facilities on the tentative agreement between the automaker and its union-represented workers, there is some confusion about the loss of two annual bonuses that amount to $1,500.

But the perceived loss will be a gain in the long run with the addition of a cost-of-living adjustment and wage increases, said a person with the union who is familiar with the GM tentative agreement but not authorized to speak publicly about it.

The GM tentative agreement White Book shows that a $1,000 performance bonus that was paid in June of each year since 2020 has been deleted from the contract. Similarly, a quality bonus of $500 often paid in December has been removed. Those were replaced by the union winning back its COLA formula lost in 2009 and a 25% wage increase over the 4½-year contract.

Members hit the picket line after UAW President Shawn Fain called for a strike after contract negotiations stalled with all three Detroit automakers, UAW members walked off the job at Ford Michigan Assembly Plant just after midnight on Friday, Sept. 15, 2023. The current four-year contracts with General Motors, Ford and Stellantis were in effect until 11:59 p.m. on Thurs., Sept. 14 and without an agreement, the UAW initiated a stand-up strike, a strategic plan that the union is said to have for a strike targeting certain plants at the different automakers in waves.

But some union members have reached out to the Detroit Free Press saying losing that $1,500 annual bonus is a hit unless COLA consistently holds or rises.

Not true, said the UAW person, adding, the bonuses were paid in the past in place of general wage increases and COLA. Members will do much much better with COLA and wage gains.

The current U.S. inflation rate is 3.7% for the 12-month period leading up to September 2023, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics. Inflation rose 0.4% in September from August.

But for simple math, the union person used 2.5% as a conservative yearly rate of inflation. So if the agreement is ratified, by year-end the contract shows that the new base wage for a production worker is $36 an hour. So multiply the 2.5% inflation rate by $36 an hour base wage. It is 90 cents. Then multiply 90 cents by 2,080 hours worked in a year based on a 40-hour workweek. That equals a $1,872 increase in wages for the year, well above $1,500.

And as the wages go up, that will add up to more money at the end of each year than $1,500, the person explained.

The chances that there is no increase in inflation and therefore in the COLA is "extremely slim," the person said.

For evidence, according to www.worlddata.info, the inflation rate for consumer prices in the United States over the past 62 years has moved between negative 0.4% and 13.5%. For 2022, an inflation rate of 8% was calculated. From 1960 to 2022, the average inflation rate was 3.8% per year. According to WorldData, the price increase was 903.96% meaning something that cost $100 dollars in 1960 costs $1,003.96 at the beginning of this year.

Meanwhile, voting at some GM facilities has started. Flint Assembly plant is expected to vote Thursday, Flint Engine voted earlier this week and rejected the tentative deal, as did Romulus Engine. Factory Zero in Detroit and Hamtramck voted yes on it. The UAW is working to set up a place on its website to report the overall vote at locals as they come in. Some other GM plants such as Fort Wayne Assembly and Bowling Green Assembly will not vote until next Tuesday.

The vote process is as follows: The membership votes, the UAW's election committee then certifies the ballots and the results are shared with the local union leadership and then sent to the UAW International, where they are recorded and reported to the public. On May 12, 2021, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan appointed Neil Barofsky of Jenner & Block LLP as the independent monitor of the UAW. If Barofsky requests to review the voting, the UAW leadership would comply.

More: UAW President Shawn Fain urges GM members to ratify tentative agreement

More: Unifor members ratify deal with Stellantis, ending Detroit 3 bargaining in Canada

Contact Jamie L. LaReau: jlareau@freepress.com. Follow her on Twitter @jlareauan. Read more on General Motors and sign up for our autos newsletter. Become a subscriber.

This article originally appeared on Detroit Free Press: GM plants start voting on UAW deal but concern lingers over a bonus

The UAW and the Big Three can turn America’s ‘Great Rebalancing’ into a win-win for both sides. Here’s how

Adam Hanft
Tue, November 7, 2023

Emily Elconin—Bloomberg/Getty Images


The United Auto Workers (UAW) was a primal David vs Goliath struggle. It triggered deeply ingrained tropes: Fat-cat, Scrooge-y bosses vs. under-paid and noble workers.

The recent strike is just one swing of the pendulum in a long struggle. For decades, the unions were losing. Membership plummeted, and support waned.

It took decades for the union movement’s brand to recover, but recover it has. Last August, a Gallup poll found that 71% of Americans approve of unions, the highest percentage since 1965. The question for the UAW is: How can it extend its economic and perceptual win to keep the momentum going?

On the other side, how can the auto industry build a narrative around the concessions it just made? This can begin the process of making the American public–especially the younger car buyers of the future– less ready to hate the auto industrial complex.

It will be a tough road ahead. Americans have always had a love-hate relationship with car companies–and that sentiment has not improved.

Cost is one reason. As analysts have noted, new cars are for well-off people–and less affluent consumers have turned to the used car market or do not own cars. If you can’t afford the industry’s cars, then it’s hard to love the industry.

Despite that reality, during the strike, the auto industry’s response was an uninspiring combination of offense (attacking UAW leader Shawn Fain for challenging the unwritten labor rules) and argumentative defense.

Automakers need a jiu-jitsu move

Now that the UAW is about to ratify the deal, the industry should seize the moment and elevate the settlement to a declaration of how much it respects and honors auto workers–trade their predictable corporate bluster for an unexpectedly humane response.

Their messaging must focus on two key audiences: younger consumers, as well as people who already own their cars. Data shows that more than half of car owners would prefer to buy from the company they purchased from previously.

To build those relationships, Detroit should praise the strikers for doing what they thought was right and standing up for what they believed in–an unexpected but necessary jiu-jitsu move.

The automakers should also speak with pride about the significant pay raises they have conceded. “We are proud to support the skilled women and men who make amazing cars right here, in America.”

Most Americans would be thrilled to get a raise of that size, and with the right framing, will be delighted that UAW members are getting it. These companies are losing the revenue anyway–they should gain the street cred.

The industry should also remind the American public of the middle class their businesses, in partnership with the unions, have built, citing objective third parties.

Of course, each auto company will need to tell this story in its own way, propelled by this narrative framework.

The union can now move on

During the strike, the UAW fell into their standard-issue spiel of corporate greed and non-living wages. Sean Fain loves wearing his "Eat the Rich" T-shirt–but data shows that "support for redistributive policies tends to be low."

Fain must rise above his opposition stance and seize this moment to leave divisiveness behind. This is an opportunity to strategically link the union's success to America’s "great rebalancing." Wherever you look, power is de-concentrating at the top: Employees are demanding remote work. Unions are organizing at Amazon and Starbucks. Hollywood actors are on strike. Children are suing energy giants. Millions are speaking up for social and climate justice.

The settlements reached with automakers must feed into that narrative: “We did our part by taking on the Big Three, which is why more than half of Americans support us. Our country is changing, and the UAW respects management for being tuned into this new reality.”

In short, position the union as a culture changer. Declare that the fight for higher wages, work-life balance, and a shorter workweek is not just auto workers’ fight–it’s everyone’s. Remind people of what history has shown: “When we fight for ourselves, you are more likely to get what you want.”

These new narratives will allow both sides to move beyond divisiveness–and achieve unity. The industry gets to take credit for its concessions and the union links its success to larger social forces. America wants and needs that. Vicious political debates have triggered a widespread chronic polarization fatigue syndrome.

Yes, it’s easier said than done. It’s tough for the UAW and the Big Three to get there because their leadership has grown up in an us vs. them environment. Today, it’s time to replace these calcified narratives with consensus thinking.

Adam Hanft is a brand strategist who advises Fortune 500 companies, some of the world’s most innovative startups, and world leaders.