It’s possible that I shall make an ass of myself. But in that case one can always get out of it with a little dialectic. I have, of course, so worded my proposition as to be right either way (K.Marx, Letter to F.Engels on the Indian Mutiny)
‘Schools are responsible’: Iran's student suicides highlight growing tensions over its hijab laws The enforcement of hijab rules in Iran is once again making tragic headlines. Over the past two weeks, two teenage girls took their own lives after reportedly facing intense pressure in their schools. Sixteen-year-old Arezou Khavari jumped from a building, and 17-year-old Ainaz Karimi hanged herself. Both were students at public schools in impoverished regions of the country.
Issued on: 13/11/2024 - L
eft: A photo of Arezou Khavari displayed at her funeral. Right: Photo of Ainaz Karimi posted by one of her friends on social media: "It was too soon to leave, my bestie."
According to Iranian teachers interviewed by FRANCE 24, the country's education system is structured to exert relentless pressure on students – particularly young girls – to conform to the strict dictates of Islamic Sharia law.
While news of student suicides occasionally surfaces in Iranian media for various reasons, this is the first reported instance of two teenage girls taking their lives specifically due to pressure over the hijab. The incidents have sparked fresh outrage across Iranian society.
Ever-present wars and trade tensions dominated the agenda, but G20 leaders, meeting in Rio, did agree to boost climate funding, tackle poverty and work toward a new tax on the ultra-rich.
Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva seemed satisfied with the final communique he got from G20 leaders
Eraldo Peres/AP Photo/picture alliance
The world's many geopolitical crises and Donald Trump's imminent return to the White House overshadowed this week's G20 summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, with leaders using a more neutral tone to describe the conflicts in Ukraine, Gaza and Lebanon in their final joint communique.
Unlike the 2022 summit in Bali, which explicitly condemned Russia's"aggression" against Ukraine, and last year's summit in New Delhi, India, which called on G20 members to shun the use of force, Brazil's G20 declaration avoided direct blame.
Instead, it vaguely referred to the "suffering" caused by the conflict — a likely compromise to achieve consensus from G20 members, especially those aligned with Moscow.
While the summit was underway, Ukraine used — for the first time — longer-range US missiles against Russian territory, prompting Moscow to revise the Kremlin's nuclear doctrine, setting out new conditions for how nuclear weapons would be used. This escalation caused consternation among G20 leaders.
Creon Butler, director of the global economy and finance program at the London-based Chatham House think tank, said the communique had already been agreed by the working groups. "After the latest barrage of missiles, some European countries wanted to reopen the text for more specific criticism of Russia, but the Brazilian presidency didn't want to do so," he told DW. Major geopolitical issues divide G20 leaders
The final communique hardly mentioned Israel, which has been criticized for its tactics against the Iran-backed Hamas and Hezbollah in the conflicts in Gaza and Lebanon. G20 leaders did, however, reaffirm the urgent need to boost humanitarian aid to the region, called for cease-fires and emphasized support for a two-state solution between Israel and the Palestinians.
Argentine President Javier Milei, known for his libertarian views and skepticism toward multilateral organizations, even signed the final communique. However, he later issued a statement, saying he did not support several points in the declaration.
"Milei signed the document. I would call that a victory," Tomas Marques, a research fellow at GIGA Institute for Latin American Studies in Hamburg, Germany, told DW, referring to the president's previous criticism of the G20.
Marques also said the Rio summit had achieved some "good results," considering the forum's limits and the numerous conflicts and economic issues that dominated the talks.
After Brazil's presidency, South Africa will take the lead and host the 2025 G20 summitImage: Kay Nietfeld/dpa/picture alliance
Lula pushes tax, climate and poverty relief
And while G20 host, Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, will have partially fulfilled his promise to bridge the gap between the West and the so-called Global South over the most pressing issues, his real achievement comes from agreements on topics pushed under Brazil's G20 presidency.
A cause close to Lula's heart is the Global Alliance Against Hunger and Poverty, an initiative launched in Rio on Monday to help lift incomes and food availability in the world. In the final communique, the G20 leaders emphasized their commitment to eradicating poverty and hunger, calling for new funding pledges and for other countries not yet participating to join the global effort.
"The fact that it [poverty and hunger relief] got such strong support is an indication that at the moment, there is a kind of consensus that groups like the G20 need to tackle this issue," Butler said. As Trump awaits, climate funding gets Biden's backing
Rio may have been the last chance for US President Joe Biden to back policies that Trump is more hostile to, like climate change and the proposed tax on billionaires. Biden told the gathering that developing countries need "enough firepower and access to capital" to protect their nations from the effects of climate change.
The G20 leaders recognized the need for trillions of dollars in climate finance for low-income countries, but failed to mention the need to transition away from fossil fuels. While the last point may have been welcomed by Trump, the US president-elect is set to wind down US financing of climate initiatives, which could now be an excuse for other countries to follow suit, citing their many domestic challenges.
"Because of the economic stress that advanced economies are under and the debt taken on during the pandemic, the likelihood of a step change in amounts of international public finance for climate action is pretty unlikely," said Butler.
New tax on ultra-rich moves forward
Lula continued the push for a new tax on the world's wealthiest people, who French economist Gabriel Zucman estimates pay an effective tax rate of just 0.3% of their wealth. The proposed levy could raise up to $250 billion (€237 billion) annually from the nearly 2,800 billionaires globally. Their combined fortune is some $13.5 trillion, according to the Forbes World's Billionaires List.
Advocates for the wealth tax have said the funds raised could be used to tackle growing global inequalities and climate projects, especially among heavily indebted low-income countries. And while the final communique said G20 would "seek to engage cooperatively to ensure that ultra-high-net-worth individuals are effectively taxed," the leaders didn't create a binding agreement on implementing a global wealth tax.
"Although the final G20 communique is purely political, it could now be a useful tool to help advocate for the wealth tax to pressure governments that are against the proposal — like Germany, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada," GIGA's Marques argued.
However, with tax affairs being fiercely guarded at the national level, concerns about hurting economic growth, and administrative costs, Butler was doubtful that any binding agreement on a billionaire tax would be forthcoming.
"Even within a very aligned group of countries like the EU, it is difficult to get common approaches to taxation. So I'm skeptical that it can be done globally, and even more skeptical for when Trump returns to office," he said.
Edited by: Uwe Hessler
Could Trump 2.0 End the American Century?
ITS ALREADY ENDED
IT WAS LAST CENTURY
Trump’s second term will almost certainly be one of imperial decline, increasing internal chaos, and a further loss of global leadership.
Some 15 years ago, on December 5, 2010, a historian writing for TomDispatch made a prediction that may yet prove prescient. Rejecting the consensus of that moment that U.S. global hegemony would persist to 2040 or 2050, he argued that “the demise of the United States as the global superpower could come... in 2025, just 15 years from now.”
To make that forecast, the historian conducted what he called “a more realistic assessment of domestic and global trends.” Starting with the global context, he argued that, “faced with a fading superpower,” China, India, Iran, and Russia would all start to “provocatively challenge U.S. dominion over the oceans, space, and cyberspace.” At home in the United States, domestic divisions would “widen into violent clashes and divisive debates… Riding a political tide of disillusionment and despair, a far-right patriot captures the presidency with thundering rhetoric, demanding respect for American authority and threatening military retaliation or economic reprisal.” But, that historian concluded, “the world pays next to no attention as the American Century ends in silence.”
Now that a “far-right patriot,” one Donald J. Trump, has indeed captured (or rather recaptured) the presidency “with thundering rhetoric,” let’s explore the likelihood that a second Trump term in office, starting in the fateful year 2025, might actually bring a hasty end, silent or otherwise, to an “American Century” of global dominion. Making the Original Prediction
Let’s begin by examining the reasoning underlying my original prediction. (Yes, of course, that historian was me.) Back in 2010, when I picked a specific date for a rising tide of American decline, this country looked unassailably strong both at home and abroad. The presidency of Barack Obama was producing a “post-racial” society. After recovering from the 2008 financial crisis, the U.S. was on track for a decade of dynamic growth—the auto industry saved, oil and gas production booming, the tech sector thriving, the stock market soaring, and employment solid. Internationally, Washington was the world’s preeminent leader, with an unchallenged military, formidable diplomatic clout, unchecked economic globalization, and its democratic governance still the global norm.
Looking forward, leading historians of empire agreed that America would remain the world’s sole superpower for the foreseeable future. Writing in the Financial Times in 2002, for instance, Yale professor Paul Kennedy, author of a widely read book on imperial decline, argued that “America’s array of force is staggering,” with a mix of economic, diplomatic, and technological dominance that made it the globe’s “single superpower” without peer in the entire history of the world. Russia’s defense budget had “collapsed” and its economy was “less than that of the Netherlands.” Should China’s high growth rates continue for another 30 years, it “might be a serious challenger to U.S. predominance”—but that wouldn’t be true until 2032, if then. While America’s “unipolar moment” would surely not “continue for centuries,” its end, he predicted, “seems a long way off for now.”
Writing in a similar vein in The New York Times in February 2010, Piers Brendon, a historian of Britain’s imperial decline, dismissed the “doom mongers” who “conjure with Roman and British analogies in order to trace the decay of American hegemony.” While Rome was riven by “internecine strife” and Britain ran its empire on a shoestring budget, the U.S. was “constitutionally stable” with “an enormous industrial base.” Taking a few “relatively simple steps,” he concluded, Washington should be able to overcome current budgetary problems and perpetuate its global power indefinitely.
After the steady erosion of its global power for several decades, America is no longer the—or perhaps even an—“exceptional” nation floating above the deep global currents that shape the politics of most countries.
When I made my very different prediction nine months later, I was coordinating a network of 140 historians from universities on three continents who were studying the decline of earlier empires, particularly those of Britain, France, and Spain. Beneath the surface of this country’s seeming strength, we could already see the telltale signs of decline that had led to the collapse of those earlier empires.
By 2010, economic globalization was cutting good-paying factory jobs here, income inequality was widening, and corporate bailouts were booming—all essential ingredients for rising working-class resentment and deepening domestic divisions. Foolhardy military misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan, pushed by Washington elites trying to deny any sense of decline, stoked simmering anger among ordinary Americans, slowly discrediting the very idea of international commitments. And the erosion of America’s relative economic strength from half the world’s output in 1950 to a quarter in 2010 meant the wherewithal for its unipolar power was fading fast.
Only a “near-peer” competitor was needed to turn that attenuating U.S. global hegemony into accelerating imperial decline. With rapid economic growth, a vast population, and the world’s longest imperial tradition, China seemed primed to become just such a country. But back then, Washington’s foreign policy elites thought not and even admitted China to the World Trade Organization (WTO), fully confident, according to two Beltway insiders, that “U.S. power and hegemony could readily mold China to the United States’ liking.”
Our group of historians, mindful of the frequent imperial wars fought when near-peer competitors finally confronted the reigning hegemon of their moment—think Germany versus Great Britain in World War I—fully expected China’s challenge would not be long in coming. Indeed, in 2012, just two years after my prediction, the U.S. National Intelligence Council warned that “China alone will probably have the largest economy, surpassing that of the United States a few years before 2030” and this country would no longer be “a hegemonic power.”
Just a year after that, China’s president, Xi Jinping, drawing on a massive $4 trillion in foreign-exchange reserves accumulated in the decade after joining the WTO, announced his bid for global power through what he called “the Belt and Road Initiative,” history’s largest development program. It was designed to make Beijing the center of the global economy.
In the following decade, the U.S.-China rivalry would become so intense that, last September, Secretary of the Air Force Frank Kendall warned: “I’ve been closely watching the evolution of [China’s] military for 15 years. China is not a future threat; China is a threat today.” The Global Rise of the Strongman
Another major setback for Washington’s world order, long legitimated by its promotion of democracy (whatever its own dominating tendencies), came from the rise of populist strongmen worldwide. Consider them part of a nationalist reaction to the West’s aggressive economic globalization.
At the close of the Cold War in 1991, Washington became the planet’s sole superpower, using its hegemony to forcefully promote a wide-open global economy—forming the World Trade Organization in 1995, pressing open-market “reforms” on developing economies, and knocking down tariff barriers worldwide. It also built a global communications grid by laying 700,000 miles of fiber-optic submarine cables and then launching 1,300 satellites (now 4,700).
By exploiting that very globalized economy, however, China’s industrial output soared to $3.2 trillion by 2016, surpassing both the U.S. and Japan, while simultaneously eliminating 2.4 million American jobs between 1999 and 2011, ensuring the closure of factories in countless towns across the South and Midwest. By fraying social safety nets while eroding protection for labor unions and local businesses in both the U.S. and Europe, globalization reduced the quality of life for many, while creating inequality on a staggering scale and stoking a working-class reaction that would crest in a global wave of angry populism.
Riding that wave, right-wing populists have been winning a steady succession of elections—in Russia (2000), Israel (2009), Hungary (2010), China (2012), Turkey (2014), the Philippines (2016), the U.S. (2016), Brazil (2018), Italy (2022), the Netherlands (2023), Indonesia (2024), and the U.S. again (2024).
Set aside their incendiary us-versus-them rhetoric, however, and look at their actual achievements and those right-wing demagogues turn out to have a record that can only be described as dismal. In Brazil, Jair Bolsonaroravaged the vast Amazon rainforest and left office amid an abortive coup. In Russia, Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine, sacrificing his country’s economy to capture some more land (which it hardly lacked). In Turkey, Recep Erdogan caused a crippling debt crisis, while jailing 50,000 suspected opponents. In the Philippines, Rodrigo Duterte murdered 30,000 suspected drug users and courted China by giving up his country’s claims in the resource-rich South China Sea. In Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu has wreaked havoc on Gaza and neighboring lands, in part to stay in office and stay out of prison. Prospects for Donald Trump’s Second Term
After the steady erosion of its global power for several decades, America is no longer the—or perhaps even an—“exceptional” nation floating above the deep global currents that shape the politics of most countries. And as it has become more of an ordinary country, it has also felt the full force of the worldwide move toward strongman rule. Not only does that global trend help explain Trump’s election and his recent reelection, but it provides some clues as to what he’s likely to do with that office the second time around.
In the globalized world America made, there is now an intimate interaction between domestic and international policy. That will soon be apparent in a second Trump administration whose policies are likely to simultaneously damage the country’s economy and further degrade Washington’s world leadership.
As the world shifts to renewable energy and all-electric vehicles, Trump’s policies will undoubtedly do lasting damage to the American economy.
Let’s start with the clearest of his commitments: environmental policy. During the recent election campaign, Trump called climate change “a scam” and his transition team has already drawn up executive orders to exit from the Paris climate accords. By quitting that agreement, the U.S. will abdicate any leadership role when it comes to the most consequential issue facing the international community while reducing pressure on China to curb its greenhouse gas emissions. Since these two countries now account for nearly half (45%) of global carbon emissions, such a move will ensure that the world blows past the target of keeping this planet’s temperature rise to 1.5°C until the end of the century. Instead, on a planet that’s already had 12 recent months of just such a temperature rise, that mark is expected to be permanently reached by perhaps 2029, the year Trump finishes his second term.
On the domestic side of climate policy, Trump promised last September that he would “terminate the Green New Deal, which I call the Green New Scam, and rescind all unspent funds under the misnamed Inflation Reduction Act.” On the day after his election, he committed himself to increasing the country’s oil and gas production, telling a celebratory crowd, “We have more liquid gold than any country in the world.” He will undoubtedly also block wind farm leases on Federal lands and cancel the $7,500 tax credit for purchasing an electrical vehicle.
As the world shifts to renewable energy and all-electric vehicles, Trump’s policies will undoubtedly do lasting damage to the American economy. In 2023, the International Renewable Energy Agency reported that, amid continuing price decreases, wind and solar power now generate electricity for less than half the cost of fossil fuels. Any attempt to slow the conversion of this country’s utilities to the most cost-effective form of energy runs a serious risk of ensuring that American-made products will be ever less competitive.
To put it bluntly, he seems to be proposing that electricity users here should pay twice as much for their power as those in other advanced nations. Similarly, as relentless engineering innovation makes electric vehicles cheaper and more reliable than petrol-powered ones, attempting to slow such an energy transition is likely to make the U.S. auto industry uncompetitive, at home and abroad.
Calling tariffs “the greatest thing ever invented,” Trump has proposed slapping a 20% duty on all foreign goods and 60% on those from China. In another instance of domestic-foreign synergy, such duties will undoubtedly end up crippling American farm exports, thanks to retaliatory overseas tariffs, while dramatically raising the cost of consumer goods for Americans, stoking inflation, and slowing consumer spending.
Reflecting his aversion to alliances and military commitments, Trump’s first foreign policy initiative will likely be an attempt to negotiate an end to the war in Ukraine. During a CNN town hall in May 2023, he claimed he could stop the fighting “in 24 hours.” Last July, he added: “I would tell [Ukraine’s president] Zelenskyy, no more. You got to make a deal.”
Just two days after the November election, according toThe Washington Post, Trump reputedly told Russian President Vladimir Putin in a telephone call, “not to escalate the war in Ukraine and reminded him of Washington’s sizable military presence in Europe.” Drawing on sources inside the Trump transition team, The Wall Street Journalreported that the new administration is considering “cementing Russia’s seizure of 20% of Ukraine” and forcing Kyiv to forego its bid to join NATO, perhaps for as long as 20 years.
With Russia drained of manpower and its economy pummeled by three years of bloody warfare, a competent negotiator (should Trump actually appoint one) might indeed be able to bring a tenuous peace to a ravaged Ukraine. Since it has been Europe’s frontline of defense against a revanchist Russia, the continent’s major powers would be expected to play a significant role. But Germany’s coalition government has just collapsed; French president Emmanuel Macron is crippled by recent electoral reverses; and the NATO alliance, after three years of a shared commitment to Ukraine, faces real uncertainty with the advent of a Trump presidency. America’s Allies
Those impending negotiations over Ukraine highlight the paramount importance of alliances for U.S. global power. For 80 years, from World War II through the Cold War and beyond, Washington relied on bilateral and multilateral alliances as a critical force multiplier. With China and Russia both rearmed and increasingly closely aligned, reliable allies have become even more important to maintaining Washington’s global presence. With 32 member nations representing a billion people and a commitment to mutual defense that has lasted 75 years, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is arguably the most powerful military alliance in all of modern history.
Yet Trump has long been sharply critical of it. As a candidate in 2016, he called the alliance “obsolete.” As president, he mocked the treaty’s mutual-defense clause, claiming even “tiny” Montenegro could drag the U.S. into war. While campaigning last February, he announced that he would tell Russia “to do whatever the hell they want” to a NATO ally that didn’t pay what he considered its fair share.
Right after Trump’s election, caught between what one analyst called “an aggressively advancing Russia and an aggressively withdrawing America,” French President Macron insisted that the continent needed to be a “more united, stronger, more sovereign Europe in this new context.” Even if the new administration doesn’t formally withdraw from NATO, Trump’s repeated hostility, particularly toward its crucial mutual-defense clause, may yet serve to eviscerate the alliance.
In the Asia-Pacific region, the American presence rests on three sets of overlapping alliances: the AUKUS entente with Australia and Britain, the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (with Australia, India, and Japan), and a chain of bilateral defense pacts stretching along the Pacific littoral from Japan through Taiwan to the Philippines. Via careful diplomacy, the Biden administration strengthened those alliances, bringing two wayward allies, Australia and the Philippines that had drifted Beijing-wards, back into the Western fold. Trump’s penchant for abusing allies and, as in his first term, withdrawing from multilateral pacts is likely to weaken such ties and so American power in the region.
Although his first administration famously waged a trade war with Beijing, Trump’s attitude toward the island of Taiwan is bluntly transactional. “I think, Taiwan should pay us for defense,” he said last June, adding: “You know, we’re no different than an insurance company. Taiwan doesn’t give us anything.” In October, he toldThe Wall Street Journal that he would not have to use military force to defend Taiwan because China’s President Xi “respects me and he knows I’m f—— crazy.” Bluster aside, Trump, unlike his predecessor Joe Biden, has never committed himself to defend Taiwan from a Chinese attack.
Should Beijing indeed attack Taiwan outright or, as appears more likely, impose a crippling economic blockade on the island, Trump seems unlikely to risk a war with China. The loss of Taiwan would break the U.S. position along the Pacific littoral, for 80 years the fulcrum of its global imperial posture, pushing its naval forces back to a “second island chain” running from Japan to Guam. Such a retreat would represent a major blow to America’s imperial role in the Pacific, potentially making it no longer a significant player in the security of its Asia-Pacific allies. A Silent U.S. Recessional
Adding up the likely impact of Donald Trump’s policies in this country, Asia, Europe, and the international community generally, his second term will almost certainly be one of imperial decline, increasing internal chaos, and a further loss of global leadership. As “respect for American authority” fades, Trump may yet resort to “threatening military retaliation or economic reprisal.” But as I predicted back in 2010, it seems quite likely that “the world pays next to no attention as the American Century ends in silence.”
Alfred W. Mccoy is professor of history at the University of Wisconsin-Madison is the author of "In the Shadows of the American Century: The Rise and Decline of U.S. Global Power". Previous books include: "Torture and Impunity: The U.S. Doctrine of Coercive Interrogation" (University of Wisconsin, 2012), "A Question of Torture: CIA Interrogation, from the Cold War to the War on Terror (American Empire Project)", "Policing America's Empire: The United States, the Philippines, and the Rise of the Surveillance State", and "The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade". Full Bio >
Senate Rejects Sanders' Bid to Halt Arms to Israel Over Gaza Atrocities
"Our taxpayer dollars should be used to fund education, housing, and healthcare for Americans, not to support the destruction of innocent lives abroad," said one advocacy leader "deeply saddened" by the votes.
An injured child lies on a hospital bed following their forced displacement from the Beit Lahia project in the Gaza Strip on November 20, 2024. (Photo: Abood Abusalama/Middle East Images/AFP via Getty Images)
The U.S. Senate on Wednesday refused to pass joint resolutions of disapproval proposed by Sen. Bernie Sanders that would prevent the sale of certain offensive American weaponry to Israel, which has killed nearly 44,000 Palestinians in Gaza since last fall.
S.J. Res. 111, S.J. Res. 113, and S.J. Res. 115 would have respectively blocked the sale of 120mm tank rounds, 120mm high-explosive mortar rounds, Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAMs), the guidance kits attached to "dumb bombs."
The first vote was 18-79, with Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) voting present and Sens. Mike Braun (R-Ind.) and JD Vance (R-Ohio)—the vice-president-elect—not voting. In addition to Sanders (I-Vt.), those in favor were: Sens. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Angus King (I-Maine), Ben Ray Lujan (D-N.M.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.), Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Tina Smith (D-Minn.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), and Peter Welch (D-Vt.).
The second vote was 19-78—Sen. George Helmy (D-N.J.) joined those voting for the resolution. The third vote was 17-80.
"What this extremist government has done in Gaza is unspeakable, but what makes it even more painful is that much of this has been done with U.S. weapons and American taxpayer dollars."
Ahead of the votes, Sanders took to the Senate floor to highlight that his resolutions were backed by over 100 groups, including pro-Israel J Street; leading labor organizations such as the Service Employees International Union, United Auto Workers, and United Electrical Workers; humanitarian groups like Amnesty International; and various faith organizations.
"I would also point out that poll after poll shows that a strong majority of the American people oppose sending more weapons and military aid to fund Netanyahu's war machine," the senator said, referring to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. "According to a poll commissioned by J Street... 62% of Jewish Americans support withholding weapons shipments to Israel until Netanyahu agrees to an immediate cease-fire."
In addition to stressing that his proposals would not affect any of the systems Israel uses to defend itself from incoming attacks, Sanders argued that "from a legal perspective, these resolutions are simple, straightforward, and not complicated. Bottom line: The United States government must obey the law—not a very radical idea. But unfortunately, that is not the case now."
"The Foreign Assistance Act and the Arms Export Control Act are very clear: The United States cannot provide weapons to countries that violate internationally recognized human rights or block U.S. humanitarian aid," he continued. "According to the United Nations, according to much of the international community, according to virtually every humanitarian organization on the ground in Gaza, Israel is clearly in violation of these laws."
To illustrate the devastating impact of Israel's assault on Gaza—which has led to a genocide case at the International Court of Justice—Sanders quoted from an October New York Timesopinion essay authored by American doctors who volunteered in Gaza. For example, Dr. Ndal Farah from Ohio said: "Malnutrition was widespread. It was common to see patients reminiscent of Nazi concentration camps with skeletal features."
Sanders said that "what this extremist government has done in Gaza is unspeakable, but what makes it even more painful is that much of this has been done with U.S. weapons and American taxpayer dollars. In the last year alone, the U.S. has provided $18 billion in military aid to Israel... and by the way, a few blocks from here, people are sleeping out on the street."
"We have also delivered more than 50,000 tons of military equipment to Israel," he added. "In other words... the United States of America is complicit in all of these atrocities. We are funding these atrocities. That complicity must end, and that is what these resolutions are about."
Merkley, Van Hollen, and Welch joined Sanders in speaking in favor of the resolutions on Wednesday. Members of both parties also spoke out against them: Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Sens. Ted Budd (R-N.C.), Ben Cardin (D-Md.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), John Kennedy (R-La.), James Risch (R-Idaho), and Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.).
Cardin quoted talking points from the White House that were reported on earlier Wednesday by HuffPost. The outlet detailed how officials in outgoing President Joe Biden's administration suggested that "lawmakers who vote against the arms are empowering American and Israeli foes from Iran to the militant groups Hamas and Hezbollah, which the U.S. treats as terror organizations."
Just hours before the Senate debate, the Biden administration vetoed a United Nations Security Council resolution calling for an immediate cease-fire in Gaza—the fourth time it has blocked such a measure at the world body since the Hamas-led October 7, 2023 attack on Israel.
After the Senate votes, groups that supported Sanders' resolutions expressed disappointment.
Wa'el Alzayat, CEO of the Muslim advocacy group Emgage Action, said in a statement that "we have a moral obligation to stand up for the people of Gaza and demand an end to the constant bombardment they face. I'm deeply saddened that our U.S. senators shot down the joint resolutions calling for a halt in weapons to Israel. Our taxpayer dollars should be used to fund education, housing, and healthcare for Americans, not to support the destruction of innocent lives abroad."
"Continuing to provide Israel with unrestricted military aid to attack innocent civilians in Gaza and Lebanon is a moral failure—one the American government will look back on in horror as the situation gets unimaginably worse," Alzayat added. "While the resolution did not pass this time, we will continue working with lawmakers and allies to advocate for legislation that promotes justice and adherence to international law."
While these resolutions did not advance to the House of Representatives, Demand Progress senior policy adviser Cavan Kharrazian noted that "never before have so many senators voted to restrict arms transfers to Israel, and we are extremely grateful to those who did. This historic vote represents a sea change in how elected Democrats feel about the Israeli military's campaign of death and destruction in Gaza."
"We have all seen with our own eyes the thousands of innocent civilians who have been killed, displaced, and starved by weapons paid for with U.S. tax dollars," Kharrazian said. "Now, almost half of the Senate Democratic caucus is backing up our collective outrage with their votes. Supporters of this destructive war will try to claim victory but even they know that today's vote proves that the movement to end the war is growing, across America and in Congress, and we won't stop."
Center for International Policy executive vice president Matt Duss, who formerly served as Sanders' foreign policy adviser, similarly welcomed the progress, commending those who voted in favor of the resolutions for having "the courage to stand up for U.S. law, the rights of civilians in conflict, and basic decency."
"As civilian deaths, displacement, and disease among Palestinians in Gaza mount alongside open calls for ethnic cleansing by Israeli officials, the Biden administration is not merely failing to act—it is actively enabling the Netanyahu government's war crimes," he continued. "Rather than taking steps to bolster democracy, rights, and rule of law at home and abroad in advance of [President-elect] Donald Trump's second term, President Biden and his top officials are spending their precious last days in office lobbying against measures to protect U.S. interests and vetoing otherwise unanimously supported resolutions in the United Nations Security Council that reflect its own stated policies."
"The lawmakers who stood on the right side of history today will be remembered for their leadership and humanity," he added. "The same cannot be said about President Biden and those who help him abet starvation and slaughter in Gaza."
Bernie Sanders’s Vote on Gaza Genocide Forces Senators to Go on the Record
Today, US senators will be forced to record for posterity whether they condone US enabling of the genocide in Gaza.
Sen. Bernie Sanders, joined by fellow Senators Chris Van Hollen, Peter Welch and Jeff Merkley, speaks at a news conference on restricting arms sales to Israel at the U.S. Capitol on November 19, 2024, in Washington, D.C.Kevin Dietsch / Getty Images
Truthout is a vital news source and a living history of political struggle. If you think our work is valuable, support us with a donation of any size.
Since last October, Israel has been able to wage a genocidal war on Gaza while receiving little more than a light slap on the wrist. President Joe Biden and his administration have claimed to be working tirelessly toward a ceasefire, all while continuing to supply Israel with the billions of dollars in weapons it needs to prolong its assault.
So, when Biden said last month that the United States would limit arms transfers to Israel if it did not stop blocking the flow of humanitarian aid into Gaza, his threat understandably rang hollow. The administration’s 30-day deadline for Israel to “surge” food and other aid into Gaza has now passed. And, just as predicted, the Biden administration said it will continue sending Israel weapons — even though aid groups like the World Food Programme say conditions in Gaza have only worsened since Biden first floated the possibility of consequences.
This is not only a moral failing, but also a violation of the law. The Foreign Assistance Act and the Leahy Law dictate that the U.S. cannot send weapons to governments committing human rights violations. But time and time again, the U.S. has failed to abide by its own legal code. In 2019, for instance, Donald Trump vetoed a congressional vote to end military support for Saudi Arabia’s war in Yemen, which at that time had killed more than 70,000 people. Shortly after taking office, Biden announced he would halt sales of “offensive weapons” to Saudi Arabia, citing their use in human rights abuses. The arms suspension was a major break from the status quo — but one that was quickly rolled back earlier this year.
The U.S. has also continued to shirk accountability in the case of Israel. The United Nations and Human Rights Watch are among those who have resoundingly documented the rampant violations of human rights that Israel has committed in the last year alone. This includes the systematic destruction of Gaza’s healthcare system through “relentless and deliberate attacks on medical personnel and facilities,” the torture and rape of Palestinians detained in Israeli military camps, deliberate home demolitions, the bombing of safe zones and evacuation corridors, and the forced displacement of 90 percent of Gaza’s population.
The latest evidence that the country is systematically and deliberately blocking humanitarian aid in Gaza arrives months after the International Court of Justice already found it “plausible” that Israel is committing acts of genocide. Citing the humanitarian crisis, hundreds of human rights organizations around the world have called for the U.S. to stop the weapons transfers. But the State Department still claims it doesn’t see a problem.
Today, for the first and probably last time, U.S. Senators will have an opportunity to tell Biden to chart a new course — and honor his own word. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) is bringing six measures, known as the Joint Resolutions of Disapproval, to the Senate floor for a vote. The bills, also backed by Sens. Peter Welch (D-Vermont), Jeff Merkley (D-Oregon) and Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), would block the sales of six different kinds of weapons to Israel, worth a total of $20 billion.
It’s the first time Congress has voted on legislation blocking arms sales to Israel. Hassan El-Tayyab, an organizer with the Friends Committee on National Legislation, a Quaker peace group, described the vote as “historic.”
“I have met with doctors who have served in Gaza, treating hundreds of patients a day without electricity, anesthesia or clean water, including dozens of children arriving with gunshot wounds to the head,” Sanders wrote in a Washington Post op-ed this week, urging his fellow senators to pass the Joint Resolutions of Disapproval. “As Americans, we are complicit in these horrific and illegal atrocities. Our complicity must end.”
More than 100 civil society organizations have publicly backed the resolutions. Even J Street, which describes itself as a “pro-Israel, pro-peace” group, acknowledged that Israel’s mass killing and starvation of civilians in Gaza is “unacceptable” and expressed support for passing the resolutions in order to send a strong message to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Still, the Joint Resolutions of Disapproval are unlikely to pass. They would need to be approved by both the House and the Senate to be enacted, with at least a two-thirds majority to prevent the guaranteed presidential veto. But even if the resolutions won’t stop the bloodshed in Gaza, the vote still has a meaningful symbolic importance that will set a congressional precedent.
“Just the fact that this is happening is already sending that political signal,” El-Tayyab told Al Jazeera. “It’s not business as usual.”
All Senate members will now be forced to go on the official legislative record about whether or not they condone the United States’ continued facilitation of a genocide in Gaza. Polls have consistently shown that most Americans want the U.S. to halt weapons sales to Israel, yet our politicians have consistently ignored their constituents’ voices.
On the campaign trail this election cycle, Democrats have tried to fashion themselves as the political party that cares about the democratic process and the rule of law. Today’s vote is an opportunity for Democratic lawmakers to, in a sense, prove it.
In fact, the Biden administration released its own Conventional Arms Transfer policy in February 2023, which expanded the framework for evaluating the legality of arms transfers. The updated policy prohibits the sale of weapons that are “more likely than not” to be used to violate international law and bans arms transfers that “facilitate” or “aggravate risk” or human rights violations. This language is actually stronger than what was previously on the books — “actual knowledge” of violations is not required. The risk of human rights abuses is supposed to be sufficient.
Nine months later, the U.S. authorized more than $14 billion in new Israeli military funding. War crimes were documented within weeks.
Schuyler Mitchell is a writer, editor and fact-checker from North Carolina, currently based in Brooklyn. Her work has appeared in The Intercept, The Baffler, Labor Notes, Los Angeles Magazine, and elsewhere. Find her on X: @schuy_ler
Report: Biden Admin Lobbying Against Sanders Push to Block Israel Arms Deal
The administration claimed that blocking arms transfers would embolden Hamas — ignoring Israel’s genocidal slaughter.
President Joe Biden speaks in the Roosevelt Room of the White House on October 11, 2024, in Washington, D.C.Andrew Harnik / Getty Images
The Biden administration has levied a strong effort to lobby against a set of resolutions introduced by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) to block several proposed arms sales to Israel ahead of a scheduled vote Wednesday, new reporting finds.
In a memo circulated to the Senate by the White House, obtained by HuffPost, the administration urges senators to vote against the resolutions. The memo claims that voting to block certain weapons to Israel would only empower Hamas and other entities opposed by the U.S. — invoking several such arguments meant to distract from the fact that Israel is making extensive use of U.S.-provided weapons in its genocidal assault of Gaza.
“Disapproving arms purchases for Israel at this moment would … put wind in the sails of Iran, Hezbollah, and Hamas at the worst possible moment,” the memo says, per HuffPost.
“Now is the time to focus pressure on Hamas to release the hostages and stop the war,” the document goes on. “Cutting off arms from Israel would put this goal even further out of reach and prolong the war, not shorten it.”
This line of reasoning is false. Israel is heavily dependent on U.S. weaponry to continue its genocide in Gaza, and Israeli officials have shown no indication that they would stop the assault if the remaining Israeli hostages are released. The memo also said that halting weapons transfers would jeopardize ceasefire talks between Israel and Hezbollah — despite the fact that Israeli leaders have categorically rejected the idea that they would stop their assault of Lebanon.
The White House’s memo is yet another show of the White House’s insistence that it back Israel’s genocide no matter what — to the extent that it is lobbying “aggressively,” as HuffPost reports, to block a set of resolutions that are likely to fail anyway, given the strong support for Israel within Congress. Indeed, despite the administration’s insistence that officials are “tirelessly” working for a ceasefire, the U.S. also vetoed a resolution in the UN Security Council calling for a ceasefire on Wednesday.
The Senate is slated to vote on three of Sanders’s joint resolutions of disapproval on Wednesday, regarding blocking sales of tank rounds, mortar rounds, and JDAMs to Israel. Together, the three sales represent just over $1 billion worth of the weapons in the Biden administration’s proposed $20 billion deal.
Despite widespread evidence that Israel is using these weapons to kill civilians in Gaza and violate international humanitarian law — and strong support from the public to half weapons transfers — just seven senators have so far come out in favor of the resolutions. Experts have repeatedly said that stopping weapons sales to Israel is one of the only ways to stop Israel’s genocidal slaughter in Gaza.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-New York) is also reportedly asking senators to vote against the legislation — a move that lines up with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s plea for colleagues to reject the bid.
Though the resolutions are unlikely to advance to the House, roughly a dozen House Democrats so far have expressed their support for the legislation, saying they would vote for them if given the opportunity. This includes prominent advocates for Palestinian rights like Representatives Rashida Tlaib (Michigan) and Cori Bush (Missouri).
“[President Joe Biden] has refused to enforce US law and stop sending weapons to the Israeli government as they commit genocide in Gaza and use starvation as a weapon of war. Today, every Senator will have to decide if they will vote to uphold our own laws and block arms sales to Israel,” said Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Michigan) on social media on Wednesday.
“We urge Senators to support these joint resolutions of disapproval to block specific offensive arms sales to Israel, upholding U.S. law that prohibits arms transfers to countries that engage in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights or restrict the delivery of U.S. humanitarian assistance,” said a group of nine Democrats in a joint statement led by Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Washington).
Iran has taken steps to halt the expansion of its stockpile of highly enriched uranium, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) chief Rafael Grossi said, welcoming this "concrete step in the right direction" on Wednesday. Grossi's comments came after Western powers submitted a resolution censuring Iran for its poor cooperation with the IAEA.
UN atomic watchdog chief Rafael Grossi on Wednesday welcomed Iran's "concrete step" on agreeing to cap its stockpile of highly enriched uranium after Tehran implemented preparatory steps to stop adding to its inventory.
"I think this is ... a concrete step in the right direction -- we have a fact which has been verified by us," Grossi told reporters in Vienna.
"I attach importance to the fact that for the first time... since the distancing of Iran from its past obligations, they are taking a different direction," he said.
But he said he could "not exclude" that Iran's commitment might falter "as a result of further developments".
The comments by Grossi came after Western powers submitted a resolution censuring Iran for its poor cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to its board meeting.
Earlier Wednesday, Grossi said "a lot" of work still needed to be done, while urging countries to "avoid unnecessary escalations, in particular, in a region that has suffered too much".
Last week, Grossi travelled to Tehran for talks with President Masoud Pezeshkian and other top officials.
During the meeting, Iran agreed to freeze its sensitive stock of near weapons-grade uranium enriched up to 60 percent.
According to the IAEA, Tehran is the only non-nuclear weapon state to enrich uranium to 60 percent, a short step from the 90 percent level needed for atomic weapons.
Iran has always denied seeking a nuclear weapon.
Tensions between Iran and the agency have repeatedly flared since a 2015 deal curbing Tehran's nuclear programme in exchange for sanctions relief fell apart.
In recent years, Tehran has decreased its cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) by ramping up its nuclear activities, deactivating surveillance devices to monitor the nuclear programme and barring UN inspectors.
(AFP)
Study calls for city fashion waste shakeup
With most donated clothes exported or thrown away, experts are calling for a shakeup of how we deal with the growing fashion waste issue.
Credit: Photo by Aеden Ratcliffе, RMIT University.
With most donated clothes exported or thrown away, experts are calling for a shakeup of how we deal with the growing fashion waste issue.
A first of its kind study, published in Nature Cities, analysed what happens to clothes and other textiles after consumers no longer want them in Amsterdam, Austin, Berlin, Geneva, Luxembourg, Manchester, Melbourne, Oslo and Toronto.
Across most western cities from Melbourne to Manchester it found the same pattern of textile waste being exported, going to landfill or being dumped in the environment.
Global textiles waste each year weighs 92 million tonnes and this could double by 2030.
Charity shops handle a large amount of used clothes, but the study found because many are poor quality and there's little financial benefit to manage them locally, charities trade some valuable items and discard or export the rest.
In Melbourne, charities export high-quality, often vintage, second-hand clothes to Europe, forcing the city’s independent resale businesses to import similar apparel back from Europe or the United States.
But overall, charities and collectors have been reporting the plummeting quality of garments over the past 15 to 20 years, decreasing resale potential.
Study co-author, Dr Yassie Samie from RMIT University in Melbourne, Australia, said local governments and charities need to coordinate more to manage textile waste.
“We're used to charities doing the heavy lifting, but they’ve been unable to fully handle the volume of donated clothes for a long time now,” Samie said.
“Charities are driven by social welfare values and need to raise funds for their programs.
“However, their operations are ill-equipped to deal with the volume of used textiles that need to be reused and recycled.
“Given the role of charities within communities, it's essential they expand beyond direct resale in second-hand shops and explore other business models, such as swapping and repair centres.”
Overconsumption and oversupply were the main drivers of the cities’ textile waste, causing the export of between 33% (Australia) and 97% (Norway) of donated clothes.
Collaboration in local networks the key
Most local governments in the cities studied did not get involved in textile waste beyond providing public spaces and licenses for charity bins and commercial resellers.
Across cities like Melbourne, local governments send dumped textiles directly to landfill, instead of diverting to recycling or reuse facilities or other local alternatives.
“This indicates the lack of mechanism and incentives in place to drive real systemic change,” Samie said.
Amsterdam was the opposite – its municipality manages collection and sorting of unwanted clothes and encourages collection of all textiles, including nonreusable ones.
From January 2025, European Union Member States must establish separate collection systems for used textiles.
But the biggest per capita discarders of textile waste, Australia and the US, have no such regulation.
Fashion advertising ban
Samie said it was important to incentivise promotion of local alternatives to fast fashion, including reselling, swapping and repairing.
“Sustainable fashion initiatives like second-hand retailers struggle to compete with fashion brands’ big marketing budgets and convenient locations,” she said.
“Fast fashion alternatives exist but they are under-promoted, despite their potential to significantly reduce cities’ textile waste.”
To create more space for these alternatives, the study’s authors called for a ban on fashion advertising in cities.
“A ban on fashion advertisements would give more space to promote more sustainable alternatives,” Samie said.
France recently introduced a ban on advertising ultra-fast fashion, while each item will come with a penalty of up to 10 euros by 2030.
Samie said she would like to work with local governments to find better uses for discarded textiles.
‘Urban transitions toward sufficiency-oriented circular post-consumer textile economies’, with Katia Vladimirova, Yassie Samie, Irene Maldini, Samira Iran, Kirsi Laitala, Claudia E. Henninger, Sarah Ibrahim Alosaimi, Kelly Drennan, Hannah Lam, Ana-Luisa Teixeira, Iva Jestratijevic and Sabine Weber, is published in Nature Cities (DOI: 10.1038/s44284-024-00140-7).
Canada is the biggest supplier of heavy crude oil to U.S. refiners.
Alberta’s government is in talks with energy infrastructure majors to construct more oil pipelines to the United States.
The Canadian oil industry is not particularly worried about the prospect of tariffs
When the expanded Trans Mountain pipeline came online earlier this year, some media reported U.S. refiners should start worrying about the supply of Canadian crude. With a bigger TMX, Canada could now export overseas. Yet now, with a pro-oil administration coming in, Canada’s top oil-producing province is looking south again.
Alberta’s government is in talks with energy infrastructure majors to construct more oil pipelines to the United States, the premier of the province told Bloomberg in a recent interview.
“I know the Americans have increased production pretty dramatically in the last 10 years, but it might not always be that way,” Smith told the publication, adding, “They need to know that if they’re looking for additional supply, they shouldn’t be looking to Iran or Venezuela. They should be looking to their friend up north.”
Indeed, Canada is the biggest supplier of heavy crude oil to U.S. refiners who need to blend it with local light crude to produce fuels. U.S. crude is predominantly light and sweet, which refiners cannot process on its own—and it’s getting lighter and sweeter, which might become a problem down the road. The solution to that problem would be more Canadian heavy.
Canada’s energy exports to the United States two years ago were worth close to $160 billion—most of that in the form of crude oil, refined products, and natural gas. A year later, crude oil exports alone hit a record of some 4 million barrels daily. Of those, 97% went to the U.S., the Canada Energy Regulator reported earlier this year. Speaking of this year, Canadian crude oil exports south of the border broke last year’s record to reach 4.3 million barrels daily in July, the most recent month, for which the Energy Information Administration has factual numbers.
“Since TMX came online in May, early data indicate that refiners on the U.S. West Coast have been key buyers of the new export volumes,” the EIA said in its report on Canadian oil imports. “Between June and September, the U.S. West Coast accounted for just over half of all maritime crude oil exports out of Western Canada, with the rest going to destinations in Asia, according to data from Vortexa Analytics,” the EIA also said.
So, it appears U.S. refiners had nothing to worry about really because even with the Trans Mountain pipeline with tripled capacity, most of Alberta’s heavy crude is going to them as the closest destination for the crude—and as alternative supply options remain challenging due to factors such as distance and sanctions. No wonder, then, that Alberta’s government wants to increase the flow of oil south.
Some observers point out Trump's tariff promise as a potential problem in this respect. “The one thing that's the big cloud that's hanging over in terms of uncertainty is Trump's proposed tax on all imports, anything between 10 to 20 per cent,” Al Salazar, head of macro oil and gas research at Enverus, told CBC. “It kind of doesn't make sense to tax crude imports into the U.S. because that's going to push up gasoline prices and be inflationary for U.S. citizens. But on the other hand … in terms of supply chain, that is really concerning.”
Reuters, however, reported last week that the Canadian oil industry is not particularly worried about the prospect of tariffs—because it is the biggest supplier of heavy crude to the U.S. and because of those abovementioned problems with potential alternative suppliers.
"If you were to slap on a bunch of tariffs for Canadian oil, it's not like there's an alternative readily available,” BMP Capital Markets analyst Jeremy McCrea told the publication. Other analysts agree that the chances of Trump taking his tariff promise literally and imposing import levies on every single commodity entering the U.S. were rather limited.
On the other hand, Trump may take action on a pipeline project that President Biden killed as soon as he entered office in 2020: Keystone XL. Dubbed unnecessary by the pro-transition Democratic federal government, whose term ends in January, the pipeline could significantly increase Canadian crude flows to the U.S. if built. And with Trump in the White House, it might get built.
“I think Keystone XL might be back on the table. It’s all about providing cost-effective energy,” the president of oil producer Ensign Energy Services told the Calgary Herald’s Chris Varcoe. “I don’t think they will hit Canadian oil and gas (with a tariff) … He won’t want to increase the cost of energy coming into the U.S,” Bob Geddes added.
So, it seems there is a will to boost the flow of Canadian crude oil to U.S. refiners on both sides of the border. There is a way as well, with an industry-friendly administration in office. Now, the big problem that remains for Albertan oil producers is how to respond to the planned 35% emission cut mandate that the Trudeau government announced earlier this month.
L
