CONTENT
International Tribunal on
Human
Rights Abuses
Against Black, Brown and Indigenous Peoples
--
New York City, October 22-25
• Opening
Celebration
•
Executive
Summary Verdict: Guilty on All Counts!
- Spirit of Mandela
Coalition -
Matters of Concern at
United Nations
•
General Assembly Debate
Reveals
Urgent Need to Uphold Principles of UN Charter
to Solve Problems
• Group
of
Friends in Defence of the Charter of the United
Nations Steps Up
Work for the Rights of All
•
Opposition to Imperialist
Conceptions of "Responsibility to Protect" and
"Rules-Based
International Order"
All Out to Make Canada a
Zone for
Peace!
• Canada's
Integration into U.S. War
Economy
•
Supplying Critical Minerals
to U.S.
War Economy
-
Fernand Deschamps -
•
Essence of Roadmap for a
"Renewed
U.S.-Canada Partnership"
For Your
Information
• United
States-Canada
Critical Minerals Cooperation
• Brown
University
Project -- Cost of War
• State
of Insecurity: The Cost of
Militarization Since 9/11
International
Tribunal on Human Rights Abuses Against Black,
Brown and Indigenous
Peoples -- New York City, October 22-25
The important International Tribunal
on U.S. Human Rights Violations was held in New
York City from October
22 to 25. The initiative brought together the most
experienced forces
involved in the fight for justice within the
United States. Its spirit
was positive and forward-looking. Informative and
moving testimony
permitted warranted conclusions to be drawn, which
will now be taken to
the United Nations charging the U.S. with
genocide.
The opening
celebration introduced members of the coordinating
committee of the
program and representatives of the Malcolm X and
Dr. Betty Shabazz
Memorial and Educational Center, the main venue
for the proceedings.
Organizers spoke to the role of the Tribunal as an
organizing tool to
unite forces and develop new institutions of the
people, like the
People's Senate that is planned as part of
continuing the Tribunal's
work. Holding the event at the Center was part of
honouring the life
and work of Malcolm X who, like Paul Robeson,
William L. Patterson and
W.E.B. Du Bois, also brought the charge of U.S.
genocide. As the
Tribunal's banner emphasized, "We Still Charge
Genocide."
There
were poems and music, all with a theme of
resistance and liberation of
Black, Brown, Indigenous and all oppressed people.
An Indigenous
drummer played and spoke of the brutal
incarceration of Leonard
Peltier, still in jail after more than 44 years at
the age of 77. Like
other political prisoners, Peltier refuses to
renounce his stand in
defence of the rights of Indigenous peoples and
all those fighting for
justice.
A trailer for a two-hour documentary, Radical
Conversations, was introduced by the
director Edwin Stokes.
It will be released at the African Diaspora
International Film Festival
online from November 26 to December 12. It
includes conversations with
former political prisoners, a number of them
present in the room. There
was a video message from Pete and Charlotte
O'Neal, former Black
Panthers who have been in exile in Tanzania since
the '70s, with a song
and a tribute to all political prisoners. There
was a powerful series
of readings from works by U.S. political
prisoners, titled Through
the Walls.
Several speakers, including
two of the emcees, Dequi Kioni-Sadiki and Matt
Meyer, emphasized the
fight to free all political prisoners and to put
an end to police
brutality, state oppression and genocide against
Black, Brown and
Indigenous peoples. They also spoke of the
international crimes against
Cuba and Venezuela in particular.
Oscar
López Rivera spoke about the history of U.S.
colonization
and repression in Puerto Rico and of his
experience in U.S. maximum
security prisons with Puerto Rican and Black
prisoners. He made clear
that despite solitary confinement and efforts to
take everything from
him, as also occurred with other political
prisoners, he persisted by
ensuring the state could never take his mind and
spirit. He spoke to
his work in Puerto Rico and the U.S. alongside
U.S. fighters for
justice for a free, independent and sovereign
Puerto Rico.
Pam
Africa, advocate for Mumia Abu-Jamal and other
political prisoners,
spoke about the effect people outside the prisons
have on changing
conditions and letting the public know about the
conditions and attacks
on prisoners. She gave the example of securing
treatment for hepatitis
C, which was won through national and
international demands on the U.S.
prison system. She brought out that political
prisoners often work to
assist and educate other prisoners, something they
are punished for,
using solitary confinement. She and Dequi
Kioni-Sadiki vigorously
denounced the U.S. state, state governments like
New York, and the
prison system at all levels for protecting police
killers and torturers
while criminalizing and imprisoning freedom
fighters.
There
was an audio message from Mumia Abu-Jamal, still
in prison, who
applauded the holding of the Tribunal. He spoke of
the iron grip of
slavocracy, which sees to it that the many efforts
at legislative
progress, against lynchings and police impunity,
die in Congress. The
government's white supremacy today wears the face
of neo-liberalism,
which wages war on the poor and Black communities,
he said.
Neo-liberalism has brought new life to the
industry of oppression,
where the Clinton period saw the greatest increase
in the building of
jails for youth. He called for increased
resistance inside and outside
of the prisons.
All of them spoke of the Tribunal
as an opportunity to expose state repression, call
for freedom of
Black, Brown and Indigenous peoples, an end to
mass incarceration and
the abolition of the prison system.
The main
speaker was Jihad Abdulmumit of the National
Jericho Movement (to free
all political prisoners) and the Spirit of Mandela
Coalition, and a
political prisoner himself for 23 years. He said
that the Tribunal is
going to do what Paul Robeson and William L.
Patterson did in taking a
petition opposing U.S. genocide to the UN. His
main theme was "We are
our own liberators." Colonialism is real and
oppression is normalized
until every once in a while, like with the killing
of George Floyd "it
pricks our dead consciousness" and we are in the
streets, he said.
With other genocides, such as the Holocaust,
there was a
beginning and an end, Jihad pointed out, but the
genocide in the U.S.
has been going on for 400 years, today in the form
of political
repression, mass incarcerations, lack of health
care and social
services. He said that the imperialists "have
taught us how to hate
each other" and, in spite of changes in various
laws, the system is
still the same. We hold meetings and rallies --
which we should -- but
we also have to do things differently, starting
from the point that we
are our own liberators. We are not fighting for
the slave masters to
treat us better but to do what Malcolm said, to
clean our own house.
Jihad said that this Tribunal, two years in the
making, is an
opportunity to do that because there is
organization, a disciplined
process. In the spirit of "Dare to Struggle, Dare
to Win," he said, "I
dare you," to participate in establishing the
People's Senate and join
work to build new institutions by building the
movement with family and
neighbours and communities. He called for
rejecting the institutions of
the slave masters and their constitution because
what we need is our
own new constitution.
The emcees, performers and
speakers all set a militant tone for the weekend
program and in various
ways affirmed that there is no doubt of the
genocide being committed by
the U.S., revealed in the testimony over the
following days. They
emphasized the need to keep fighting together.
![Haut de page](top.gif)
-
Spirit of Mandela Coalition -
![](../images/US/211025-New%20York-International%20Panel%20of%20Jurists%20Announe%20Guilty%20VerdicCRt-SpiritofMandelaCr.jpg)
After hearing
from over 30 witnesses and receiving hundreds of
documents, the Panel
of Jurists found the U.S. government and its
subdivisions GUILTY of
Genocide and Gross Human Rights Violations. The
Executive Summary
Verdict which follows is their preliminary report,
with a detailed and
cited ruling to appear in the near future.
Executive
Summary Verdict in the Case of Black, Brown and
Indigenous Peoples
Charging Human Rights Abuses and Genocide Against
the United
States of America as represented by its President,
Department of
State,federal and state policing agencies, and
other governmental
institutions,
As collected in evidence at the 2021
International Tribunal on U.S. Human Rights Abuses
Against Black, Brown
and Indigenous Peoples October 23-25, 2021, New
York, NY, Turtle
Island, Lenape land, USA
Introduction
The Context
of Our Work and Why We are Here
The fact that
the United States has committed an array of human
rights abuses against
Black, Brown, and Indigenous Peoples should be as
uncontroversial as it
is incontrovertible. There is widespread agreement
that settler
colonialists committed genocide and other crimes
against the Indigenous
populations while taking their lands. No one would
disagree that
enslaved Africans were forced to work the settler
colonial lands for
hundreds of years in subhuman conditions.
The
historical record tells the story of additional
human rights abuses
committed against Mexicans and other groups as the
U.S. expanded West
and colonized countries like Puerto Rico. No one
doubts that Japanese
were forced into concentration camps during World
War II or that Blacks
were lynched and brutalized during Jim Crow. The
current President of
the United States acknowledges these crimes. His
Secretary of State
recently confirmed this while stating, "great
nations such as ours do
not hide from our shortcomings; they strive to
improve with
transparency."
If laudable, such sentiments ring
hollow unless met by action. The Spirit of Mandela
Coalition petitioned
for the creation of this Tribunal because they
believe that not only
are U.S. human rights abuse "shortcomings" not
being fully
acknowledged, but that the U.S. has sought to bury
a number of these
crimes. The Coalition enlisted a prosecutor,
Nkechi Taifa, to argue
their case. Their indictment on behalf of Black,
Brown, and Indigenous
Peoples in the U.S. charges the U.S. government
and its state and local
political subdivisions with crimes committed in
five areas: police
racism and violence, mass incarceration, political
prisoners/prisoners
of war, environmental racism, public health
inequalities. Further, they
argue that the U.S. has committed genocide.
In
2021, the International Tribunal on U.S. Human
Rights Abuses against
Black, Brown, and Indigenous Peoples convened as
an independent body to
hear the case. We did so as a quasi-legal body in
the tradition of
People's Tribunals dating back to the Russell
Tribunal and Permanent
People's Tribunal, among others. While evaluating
the charges in terms
of international and domestic human rights law and
practice, we also
recognize that such legal structures have
limitations that can
reinforce racism and deny voice and redress to
Black, Brown, and
Indigenous peoples as the prosecution in this case
alleges.
To
assess the merits of the case, the Tribunal
convened from October
23-25, 2021. Over the course of two days, the
Jurists heard eighteen
attorneys and students of law solicit evidence
from thirty witnesses
from across the U.S.
Background
The
Panel of Jurists heard testimony emphasizing the
millions upon millions
of Indigenous and African peoples murdered,
disappeared, and nearly
exterminated over a period from 1492 through the
present. Further the
witnesses and prosecution argued that the wrongs
have been historic and
deliberate, with colonization, racism, militarism,
imperialism,
materialism, criminalization, patriarchy,
neocolonialism, and internal
colonialism as part of the larger process that now
manifests itself in
medical and digital apartheid, chemical warfare,
environmental violence
and racism, divestment, and a pandemic of
accessible guns and drugs --
with the majority of gun violence perpetrated by
police and security
forces in the false claim of upholding law and
order. Statements were
made testifying to new forms of colonialism which
include the Prison
Industrial Complex, the Military Industrial
Complex, and the
commercialization of our health and
privatization/commodification of
all social services.
The testimonies include
substantial evidence of the erasure of histories;
distortion and
cultural misappropriation contributes to and
exacerbates the attempted
invisibilization and denial of People's basic
humanity. The profound
impacts of all of these realities extend beyond
the erasure and attempt
to exterminate Black, Brown and Indigenous lives.
Hence, as one witness
stated, "the colonization of the spirit and mind
continues to this day."
The testimonies of this Tribunal reaffirm the
traditional
wisdom and knowledge of Black, Brown, and
Indigenous Peoples. Strong
evidence was presented on the indomitable,
unbreakable resistance and
resilience of the peoples' struggle for justice
and dignity. In the
face of egregious human rights violations and
crimes against humanity,
this spirit of collective survival shone through.
The
2021 International Tribunal on U.S. Human Rights
Abuses Against Black,
Brown and Indigenous Peoples was initiated by a
U.S. coalition, In the
Spirit of Mandela. Its own recognized legacy,
based on efforts dating
from the 1951 "We Charge Genocide" petition to the
present, rests on
the idea that any examination of U.S. human rights
must be done in an
international context. The Panel of Jurists came
together as an
independent body made up of legal scholars, human
rights advocates and
activists, and community leaders. Utilizing the
International Criminal
Law on Genocide and other instruments, the Panel
convened to hear and
review the testimony organized by Spirit of
Mandela Legal Team. The
Accused, though informed, did not respond to the
charges and indictment
against them, nor did they appear as invited to
present a defense.
Proceedings
The following is a
summarized and preliminary presentation of the
testimony.
Police
Killings
Testimony was heard
regarding an alarming pattern and practice of
police murdering Black,
Brown, and Indigenous people with impunity. We
were informed that a
recent Commission of Inquiry found that "Black
people are 3.5 times
more likely than white people to be killed by
police when Blacks are
not attacking or do not have a weapon."
Disaggregated data for other
Peoples is lacking.
Mass
Incarceration
Testimony
emphasized that in the case of U.S. Constitutional
law, while the 13th
Amendment promised the abolition of the process of
chattel slavery, it
in fact created an exception incentivizing the
incarceration of people
of African descent and other peoples. Further they
argued that a
school-to-prison pipeline has been set in motion
by the racialized
policies and programs of the U.S. federal and
state governments. One
testimonial noted, "the law is used as a weapon of
war" against Black,
Brown and Indigenous Peoples. Further testimony
indicates that there
are U.S. policies of wars on poverty, wars on
drugs, wars on terror,
and others -- amounting to a war on Black, Brown,
and Indigenous
Peoples as they disproportionately criminalize
their youth and
communities.
Political
Prisoners/Prisoners of War
Arguments
were made presenting the criminalization of
legitimate political
struggles, most particularly of Black, Brown and
Indigenous Peoples.
One witness testified that it is like a
"Counter-Intelligence Program
on steroids." Several witnesses testified that
with regard to
traditional torture techniques, there is ample
evidence of solitary
confinement lasting for decades, which go so far
beyond the UN
constituted definitions of torture that they defy
any modern standard
of humane government. Further testimony was
presented arguing that
decades-long sentences have been imposed for those
imprisoned for their
political beliefs. One witness stated, "the U.S.
is the only
industrialized nation in the world that denies the
existence of
political prisoners."
Environmental
Racism
Testimony was received
arguing the impact of environmental violence. They
asserted that the
climate crisis disproportionately impacts Black,
Brown and Indigenous
Peoples, constituting environmental violence. The
Prosecution contended
that there is a deliberate and callous poisoning
of land, water, air,
and soil, reflecting the valuing of profits over
peoples which
threatens the survival of the planet and impacts
most devastatingly the
lives of Black, Brown and Indigenous peoples.
Public
Health Inequities
The
testimony highlighted deep public health
inequities including both
physical and mental health manifestations. Further
assertions were made
that the COVID-19 pandemic and an "inadequate and
incompetent Federal
response to this crisis" magnified the disparate
impact of structural
racism affecting access to health care. Moreover,
testimony was heard
regarding indifference to the suffering of groups
of people considered
expendable due to the profit model of U.S. health
care, leaving behind
those most vulnerable. The Prosecution argued
that, from forced
sterilization to "food deserts" and chemical
contamination, from toxic
stress based on the environment in which one lives
to the
criminalization of mental illness, Black, Brown,
and Indigenous people
are neglected and left out of any illusion of the
human right to health.
While these crimes are well-documented, they have
more rarely
been acknowledged, remedied and addressed with
some very distant from
public knowledge.
Judgement
Despite
the need for further deliberation on the extensive
submissions and
documents from varied expert witnesses, a deep
analysis from the
Jurists found that the process did sufficiently
cover the scope and
elements of all five counts in the indictment as
having legal standing
and hence legitimacy.
The Jurists further establish
that the grounds for each of the five counts in
the indictment
presented the basis for successful intervention
due to the extensive
testimonies of both witnesses and expert
witnesses.
A
full and detailed judgement will follow regarding
our findings on these
counts. Any minority position of the Jurists will
be developed, with
collective consensus on each count asserted to
further advance our
recommendations for remediation, reparations, and
future actions.
After having heard the testimony of numerous
victims
of Police Racism, Mass Incarceration,
Environmental Racism, Public
Health Inequities and of Political
Prisoners/Prisoners of War, together
with the expert testimonies and graphic
presentations, as well as the
copious documentation submitted and admitted in
the record, the Panel
of Jurists find the U.S. and its subdivisions
GUILTY of all five
counts. We find grounds that Acts of Genocide
have been
committed.
Signed, 25
October
2021, Panel of Jurists
Church
Center of the United Nations
Chief: Her
Honorable Magdalene Moonsamy (South Africa),
former Member of
Parliament (ANC); Deputy Chair of the African Peer
Review Mechanism, an
instrument of the African Union; attorney-director
of the Women's
Justice Foundation; Admitted Attorney of the South
African High Court;
lecturer of the Law Society of South Africa's
Legal Education and
Development (LEAD) school
Deputy Chief: Wilma E.
Reveron Collazo (Puerto Rico), long-standing
member and leader, Colegio
de Abogados de Puerto Rico (Puerto Rican Bar
Association); former
Executive Director of the Puerto Rico Center for
Research assigned to
the United Nations Office of Information on the
Right to Self
Determination; former Senior Staff Attorney,
American Civil Liberties
Union
Dr. Vickie Casanova-Willis (USA), Executive
Director, U.S. Human Rights Network; past
president, National
Conference of Black Lawyers (NCBL); founding
member of Black People
Against Police Torture; Co-organizer of the UN
Working Group of Experts
on People of African Descent and Working Group on
Arbitrary Detention
(U.S. Visits); co-author of multiple historic
policy-shaping reports
including the first UN Universal Periodic Review
raising the issue of
U.S. Political Prisoners and COINTELPRO
Kassahun
Checole (Eritrea/USA), CEO and publisher, Africa
World/Red Sea Press;
renowned Pan Africanist and Pan American scholar;
lifetime advisor of
the Association of Concerned African Scholars and
the African Studies
Association
Sherly Fabre (Haiti/USA), International
Fellowship of Reconciliation United Nations
Representative; member,
Muslim Peace Fellowship/Community of Living
Traditions; co-founder,
Proyecto Faro
Professor Mireille Fanon
Mendès-France (France), former Chair of the United
Nations
Working Group on People of African Descent; former
Commissioner of the
2020 International Commission on Inquiry (Systemic
Racist Police
Violence against U.S. People of African Descent);
Judge of Permanent
Peoples Tribunal; Co-Chair of the Frantz Fanon
Foundation
Dr.
Alexander Hinton (USA), Director of the Center for
the Study of
Genocide and Human Rights, Rutgers University;
UNESCO Chair on Genocide
Prevention; Distinguished Professor of
Anthropology
Chairman
Brian Moskwetah Weeden (Mashpee Wampanoag),
Chairman of the Mashpee
Wampanoag Tribe; Bear Heart from Eel Clan;
Co-President/Trustee of the
United National Indian Tribal Youth (UNITY);
Co-Vice President of the
National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) Youth
Commission
Binalakshmi "Bina" Nepram (Manipur/Northeast
India),
Founder-Director, Manipur Women Gun Survivors
Network;
Founder-Director, Global Alliance of Indigenous
Peoples, Gender Justice
and Peace; Board member of the International Peace
Bureau (1910 Nobel
Peace Laureate)
Special Advisor to the
Panel of Jurists: Matt Meyer, Secretary-General,
International Peace
Research Association
![Haut de page](top.gif)
Matters
of Concern at United Nations
![](../images/UN/210900-UNGeneralAssembly-TanzanianPres-XinhuaCr.jpg)
The 76th
session of the United Nations General Assembly
opened on September 14,
with Abdulla Shahid of the Maldives sworn in as
the General Assembly
President. The high-level General Debate by
government leaders began on
September 21 and concluded September 27. Many of
the interventions were
pre-recorded due to pandemic restrictions but over
100 Heads of State
or Government attended in person.
Vaccine access
and equity of distribution, the disproportionate
burden of climate
change that falls upon the underdeveloped nations
of the world and the
sovereign right of nations to determine their own
course without
coercion, acts of violence and threats of war
dominated much of the
debate. It is an expression of two worlds in
collision: one headed by
U.S. imperialism striving to impose upon the world
the will and dictate
of the oligopolies it represents; the other
calling for new relations
based on cooperation, collaboration, mutual
respect and mutual benefit
for all the world's countries and peoples, large
or small; and for
their right to be and to chart their own course.
Biden's
Remarks
U.S. President Joe Biden was one of the
first heads of government to address the General
Assembly on September
21. He stood before the world assembly desperate
to hide the utter
failure of U.S. imperialism to control Afghanistan
after 20 years of
war by declaring the U.S. was opening a new
chapter of diplomacy to
impose its dictate upon the world.
"We've ended 20
years of conflict in Afghanistan. And as we close
this period of
relentless war, we're opening a new era of
relentless diplomacy; of
using the power of our development aid to invest
in new ways of lifting
people up around the world; of renewing and
defending democracy. And as
the United States seeks to rally the world to
action, we will lead not
just with the example of our power but, God
willing, with the power of
our example."
"Instead of continuing to fight the
wars of the past," Biden said, "we are fixing our
eyes on devoting our
resources to the challenges that hold the keys to
our collective
future: ending this pandemic; addressing the
climate crisis; managing
the shifts in global power dynamics; shaping the
rules of the world on
vital issues like trade, cyber, and emerging
technologies; and facing
the threat of terrorism as it stands today."
To
that end, Biden declared: "We're back at the table
in international
forums, especially the United Nations, to focus
attention and to spur
global action on shared challenges. We are
re-engaged at the World
Health Organization and working in close
partnership with COVAX to
deliver lifesaving vaccines around the world. We
rejoined the Paris
Climate Agreement, and we're running to retake a
seat on the Human
Rights Council next year at the UN." He said his
administration will
make the United States a leader in public climate
finance, mobilizing
$100 billion to support climate action in
developing nations.
At the same time he made it clear the U.S. is not
limited by
international law and the principles of the United
Nations. It sets its
own rules, such as the U.S. definition of "freedom
of navigation" that
includes U.S. naval forces engaging in
brinksmanship against friend and
foe alike.
"Make no mistake," Biden said, "The
United States will continue to defend ourselves,
our Allies, and our
interests against attack, including terrorist
threats, as we prepare to
use force if any is necessary, but -- to defend
our vital U.S. national
interests, including against ongoing and imminent
threats."
Biden's
arrogance is such that before the UN General
Assembly itself, the U.S.
President shows his utter contempt for the
principles of the UN and for
international law by declaring that the U.S. will
continue to use
military power as "our tool of last resort" to
enforce its interests.
Korean Peninsula
Clever crafting of
words and phrases does nothing to change the
reality of the kind of
world order the U.S., its allies and client states
seek to perpetuate.
For example, Moon Jae-in, President or the
Republic of Korea, in his
intervention, repeated a call to formally end the
1950-1953 Korean War.
In the present condition of ongoing U.S.
hostilities against the
Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) such
declarations have no
meaning, except to confuse the gullible as to what
is the trouble and
who is the troublemaker on the Korean peninsula.
Ri
Thae Song, Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs of the
DPRK, answered this
non-serious remark in a press statement issued on
September 23. He said
it would be truly remarkable "if peace comes to
the Korean Peninsula
just by relevant parties holding a ceremony while
having photos taken
with the declaration document on the termination
of war of no legal
binding force."
"The whole world knows," he said,
"that the Minuteman-3 ICBM test-launch in
Vandenberg air force base in
California in the U.S. mainland in February and
August this year, the
hasty declaration of the termination of the
U.S.-south Korea missile
guidelines in May this year and the U.S. approval
for the sale of
billions of dollars worth of military hardware to
Japan and south Korea
are all targeted against the DPRK. We are also
following with alarm the
U.S. recent decision to transfer a nuclear-powered
submarine building
technology to Australia."
Ri Thae Song continued:
"The U.S. forces and a huge number of its latest
war assets which have
already been deployed or are in the state of
movement on the Korean
Peninsula and in its vicinity, including the
ground, waters, air and
underwater, and war drills annually held with
various code names all
point to the U.S. hostile policy toward the DPRK
getting vicious day by
day."
"The DPRK's just measures to bolster up the
capability for defence to cope with the U.S.
military threat to bring
us down by force are described as 'provocations'
while the arms buildup
escalated by the U.S. and its vassal forces to
threaten the DPRK is
justified as 'deterrent.' Such American-style
double-dealing attitude
is also a product of the hostile policy toward the
DPRK."
The
DPRK Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs concluded:
"What's clear is that
as long as there remains the U.S. hostile policy
towards the DPRK, the
biggest stumbling block in ending the war, the
termination of the war
will merely be nominal even though it is declared.
It should be clearly
understood that the declaration of the termination
of the war is of no
help at all in stabilizing the situation of the
Korean Peninsula at the
moment but can rather be misused as a smokescreen
covering up the U.S.
hostile policy. The U.S. withdrawal of its
double-standards and hostile
policy is top priority in stabilizing the
situation of the Korean
Peninsula and ensuring peace on it."
Cuba: U.S.
Aggressiveness Exceeds All Limits
Cuban President
Miguel Díaz-Canel also addressed the high-level
debate in
the opening days of the 76th Session of the UN
General Assembly,
refuting the fairy tale spun by President Biden
that the U.S. has
turned the page on its history of war, aggression
and dictate against
humanity. Díaz-Canel pointed out that the Biden
administration has not lifted even one of the 243
coercive measures
adopted by the Trump administration, including
Cuba's inclusion in the
spurious and immoral list of countries allegedly
sponsoring terrorism.
"For more than 60 years," Díaz-Canel said, "the
U.S. government has not ceased for a single minute
in its attacks
against Cuba. However, at this crucial and
challenging moment for all
nations, its aggressiveness exceeds all limits.
"A
dangerous international schism, permanently headed
and instigated by
the United States, is being promoted.
"Through the
pernicious use and abuse of economic coercive
measures, which have
become the instrument defining the foreign policy
of the United States,
the government of that country threatens, extorts
and pressures
sovereign States so that they speak and act
against those it has
identified as adversaries.
"It forces its allies to
create coalitions to overthrow legitimate
governments; break trade
agreements; abandon and prohibit certain
technologies and adopt
unjustified judicial measures against citizens
from the countries that
refuse to submit.
"It often uses the term
'international community' to refer to the small
group of governments
that tend to irretrievably follow Washington's
dictates. The rest of
the countries, which account for the overwhelming
majority of this
Organization, seem to have no place in the
'international community'
definition advocated by the United States.
"It is a
kind of behavior associated to ideological and
cultural intolerance,
with a remarkable racist influence and hegemonic
ambition. It is
neither possible nor acceptable to identify the
right of a nation to
economic and technological development as a
threat; nor is it possible
to question the right of every State to develop
the political,
economic, social and cultural system that has been
sovereignly chosen
by its people.
"In short, today we are witnessing
the implementation of unacceptable political
practices in the
international context that go against the
universal commitment to
uphold the Charter of the United Nations,
including the sovereign right
to self-determination. Independent and sovereign
states are being
driven under multiple pressures to force them to
subordinate to the
will of Washington and to an order based on its
capricious rules."
Vaccine Equity, Climate Justice, Debt Relief
Issues
related to vaccine equity, climate justice and
debt relief were
addressed by scores of leaders in their remarks
during the debate.
UN Secretary-General António Guterres said that
while most wealthier countries are vaccinated
against coronavirus, more
than 90 per cent of Africans are awaiting their
first dose. Things are
"moving in the wrong direction," he said.
Lazarus
McCarthy Chakwera, President of Malawi, cited
reports that developed
states now possess 500 million COVID-19 vaccines
set to expire in 90
days, while innoculation rates are less than two
per cent among least
developed countries and 16 member states of the
Southern African
Development Community. He also held the developed
nations who pollute
the planet to account that they must now pay the
$100 billion "cleaning
fees" they pledged in the Paris Agreement on
climate change.
Namibia's
President, Hage G. Geingob, said the state of
affairs is so severe it
amounts to "vaccine apartheid," with many
developing countries left out
of the equation. "It is a pity that we have a
situation where, in some
countries, citizens are at a stage of receiving
booster shots, while in
other countries, many are still waiting to receive
their first doses."
President Cyril Ramaphosa of South Africa said
that 82 per
cent of vaccine doses have been acquired by
wealthy countries, while
less than one per cent have been sent to
low-income ones. He urgently
called for a temporary waiver of some Agreement on
Trade-Related
Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights
provisions, which would allow
low-income nations to produce vaccines.
Luis
Alberto Arce Catacora, President of Bolivia,
likewise condemned the
continued inequality in distribution between the
main capitalist
countries and those on the periphery. He said,
"Capitalism has
transformed all areas of social life into
merchandise, and health has
not escaped its tentacles." Stressing that no one
should seek to profit
from health during a pandemic, he called for
transnational companies to
lift their patents and the United Nations and
governments to work in
solidarity to avoid hoarding vaccines.
Mohamed
Irfaan Ali, President of Guyana, said the burden
of emission reduction
was not shared equitably. For example his country
was one of the lowest
emitters of greenhouse gas emissions yet it would
be among the first
countries to suffer from climate-change-related
disasters. He said
Guyana expects binding commitments and
contributions from the
wealthiest countries to the most vulnerable
economies to build up
resilience against climate events. He called for
debt rescheduling, a
moratorium on debt servicing and for the United
States to normalize
relations with Cuba for the benefit of the entire
Caribbean.
Vietnam's
President Nguyen Xuan Phuc also expressed deep
concern over the adverse
impacts of climate change. Speaking on September
23 at a UN Security
Council forum on climate change, he proposed that
the UN should
establish a comprehensive database system on
multi-dimensional impacts
of sea-level rise in support of global response
policy formulation. He
proposed three concrete measures to be taken:
First, the UN Security
Council must uphold its leading role in
establishing mechanisms for
assessment, forecast and warning of climate
security risks at the early
stage and while they are still distant; second,
that the people's
interest, especially that of vulnerable groups,
needs to take centre
stage in order to harmoniously address the
inseparable relationship
between security, development and humanitarian
activities; and third,
that it is necessary to continue to safeguard the
sovereignty, key role
and resilience of nations in climate change
mitigation and adaptation
efforts.
After the high-level General Debate
concluded on September 27, attention turned to
reports of the various
UN standing committees.
![Haut de page](top.gif)
![](../images/UN/210923-MeetGroupFriendsUNCharter-BRoderiquezcr.png)
First ministerial
meeting of the Group of Friends, held on the
sidelines of the UN
General Assembly, September 23, 2021.
On July 6
representatives of 18 countries met virtually to
officially launch the
Group of Friends in Defence of the Charter of the
United Nations. Most
of the countries are subject to unilaterally
imposed U.S. economic
"sanctions" and blockades, considered acts of war
under the UN Charter
and international law.[1]
In October, Zimbabwe became the 19th member.
Opening
remarks were made by the Permanent Ambassador to
the United Nations of
the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Samuel
Moncada whose country
played a key role during its presidency of the
120-member Non-Aligned
Movement (NAM) in getting the UN to celebrate the
first ever
International Day of Multilateralism and Diplomacy
for Peace in April
2019. To mark the occasion, over two days a high
level plenary of the
General Assembly became a platform for demanding
adherence to the rule
of law and condemning the unilateral coercive
measures and other forms
of unlawful warfare engaged in by the U.S. in
particular against the
peoples of Cuba, Iran, Venezuela, Syria and other
targeted countries.[2]
After
Ambassador Moncada spoke, brief remarks were
delivered by
representatives of the Presidency and Cabinet of
the UN General
Assembly welcoming the new group, followed by
statements of the
ambassadors of member countries. The meeting
concluded with the reading
out of a joint declaration and a call to other
members of the
international community to consider joining the
Group of Friends at
their earliest convenience. Among other things the
Declaration stated:
"We reaffirm our determination to fulfill our
promise with "We
the Peoples of the United Nations," as well as our
pledge of leaving no
one behind, while stressing the need to ensure the
prevalence of
legality over force. In this regard, we vow to
spare no effort in
preserving, promoting and defending at all
relevant fora the prevalence
and validity of the Charter of the United Nations,
which, in the
current international juncture, has a renewed and
even more important
value and relevance. We also underscore the need
to avoid selective
approaches and call for the full compliance with
and strict adherence
to both the letter and spirit of the tenets
contained in the Charter of
the United Nations, which are at the core of
multilateralism and serve
as the basis for modern day international law."
A
Concept Note published in advance of the Group's
official launch
recalls that the experience of two destructive
world wars led nations
and world leaders to work together towards the
establishment of
multilateral formulas that would allow for
overcoming the approach that
had prevailed up to then in international
relations: large vs. small;
strong vs. weak.[3]
It says that after a failed attempt with the
League of Nations, the
United Nations emerged out of the ashes of World
War II with a firm
purpose, expressed in the Preamble of its founding
Charter, of "saving
succeeding generations from the scourge of war
while ensuring the
maintenance of international peace and security,
the development of
friendly relations among nations, the promotion of
human rights, and
the achievement of international cooperation."
It
notes that the UN Charter, the first international
legally-binding
agreement of a multilateral nature, contains
within it the tenets and
pillars of modern-day international law and
expressly forbids war as an
instrument of foreign policy. It expresses concern
that the
multilateralism at the core of the UN Charter is
under unprecedented
attack at this time, with the imposition of
unilateral coercive
measures by some UN member states against others
one manifestation of
this. It also decries the systematic violations of
the norms of
international law, and the "non-existent
exceptionalism" that certain
powers seem to claim for themselves as they
disregard the principles
enshrined in the Charter such as the sovereign
equality of states,
among others.
The Group's stand is that even though
the UN has not always lived up to expectations, it
remains the best
option to face the complex and emerging threats
and challenges faced by
humanity, making compliance with and strict
adherence to the purposes
and principles of its Charter indispensable for
"preserving and
promoting peace and security, the rule of law,
economic development and
social progress, and all human rights for all."
The objective of the Group is to serve as a
platform for promoting the
prevalence of legality over force and for
discussing possible means and
coordinating joint initiatives for fostering
respect for the principles
of sovereignty, the equality of States and
non-interference in their
internal affairs, the peaceful settlement of
disputes, and to refrain
from the use or threat of use of force against the
territorial
integrity or political independence of any State,
as enshrined in the
UN Charter. As well it intends to promote the
values of dialogue,
tolerance and solidarity, "mindful of the fact
that these are all at
the core of international relations and necessary
for the peaceful
coexistence among nations."
Since the Group was
launched in July it has held three more meetings.
![](../images/UN/210923-NYCity-Felix-Plasencia-UN-friends-of-charter-ZoepdCR.jpg)
Venezuelan
Foreign Minister Felix Plasencia speaks in
a press conference following
Group's September Meeting
|
The foreign ministers of its 18 member
countries met on the sidelines of the High-Level
Debate at the 76th
Session of the General Assembly of the United
Nations in New York in
September to assess recent developments
internationally, including
challenges and threats to the Charter of the
United Nations, and
adopted a political declaration.[4]
In it they conveyed their support to nations and
peoples subjected to
unilateral and arbitrary approaches that violate
both the purposes and
principles enshrined in the Charter of the United
Nations and the basic
norms of international law, and called for full
respect for "the
inalienable right of peoples to
self-determination, as well as the
territorial integrity and political independence
of all nations." They
also resolved to expand the work of the Group of
Friends beyond the
United Nations Headquarters in New York to Offices
of the UN in Geneva,
Nairobi, and Vienna and the Headquarters of other
UN Specialized
Agencies.
At the General Assembly Debate,
presidents, prime ministers and foreign ministers
of countries
belonging to the Group of Friends in Defence of
the Charter used their
interventions to draw attention to their mutual
concerns and the need
for all UN members to be held to the same
standards of international
law.
The Group held two meetings in October. One
was at the Commemorative Meeting in Belgrade,
Serbia marking the 60th
anniversary of the First Conference of the NAM on
October 11. The other
one took place on the sidelines of the General
Assembly in New York
when the annual report of the UN Human Rights
Council was delivered. A
statement issued at that meeting reiterated Group
members' "serious
concern at the current and growing threats against
the Charter of the
United Nations," zeroing in on "attempts to ignore
and even substitute
the purposes and principles contained in the UN
Charter with a new set
of so-called 'rules' that have never been
discussed in an inclusive or
transparent manner; and to selective approaches or
accommodative
interpretations of the provisions of the UN
Charter." These practices,
the statement said, have resulted in "massive
violations of human
rights and other tenets of international law,
which, in many instances,
remain unpunished to this very date."
It further
said that the Group rejected "all kinds of double
standards that
undermine human rights and prevent a harmonious
environment and
progress in this field and expressed concern at
the proliferation of
unilateral mechanisms that pretend to conduct an
impartial assessment
of the human rights situation in specific States,
especially when that
is done without the due consent and participation
of their governments.
The statement called for an end to the
politicization of human
rights and preventing the name of the United
Nations being misused for
objectives contrary to the purposes and principles
of its founding
Charter.
The Communist Party of Canada
(Marxist-Leninist) considers the initiative taken
by member countries
of the Group of Friends in Defence of the Charter
of the United
Nations, in opposition to the flouting of
international law in a
hundred and one ways, especially by the U.S. and
those appeasing it, to
be an important one deserving of everyone's
support. The momentum
building on many fronts of international affairs
to expose the
concocted "rules-based order" for what it is -- an
attempt by the U.S.
to impose its "rule" on everyone else out of a
desperation to maintain
the fiction of it being the world's
"indispensable" nation -- is
encouraging.
Proceedings of the July 6, 2021
Virtual Launch of the Group of Friends in Defence
of the UN Charter can
be viewed here.
Notes
1. The
founding members are Algeria, Angola, Belarus,
Bolivia, Cambodia,
China, Cuba, the Democratic People's Republic of
Korea, Equatorial
Guinea, Eritrea, Iran, the Lao People's
Democratic Republic, Nicaragua,
the State of Palestine, Russia, Saint Vincent
and the Grenadines,
Syria, and Venezuela.
2. "Non-Aligned
Movement
Calls for Reaffirmation of Fundamental
Principles of
International Law and an End to Unilateral
Coercive Measures," TML
Weekly, April 27, 2019
3. Concept
Note
- Group of Friends in Defence of the Charter
of the United Nations
4. Political
Declaration
Adopted During the First Ministerial Meeting
of the Group
of Friends in Defense of the Charter of the
United Nations
![Haut de page](top.gif)
Venezuela's
Ambassador to the United Nations, Samuel Moncada,
made an intervention
earlier this year explaining why Venezuela opposed
inclusion of a
resolution in support of "The Responsibility to
Protect and Prevent
Genocide, War Crimes, Ethnic Cleansing and Crimes
Against Humanity" put
forward by Canada and others on the agenda of the
75th session of the
General Assembly. The Ambassador made clear the
need to oppose attempts
to introduce concepts into international relations
to justify
undermining the purposes and principles of the UN.
Specifically he
denounced the "instrumentalization and selective
use of the
Responsibility to Protect (R2P) as a tool of
colonial intervention that
has resulted in the suffering, death and
destruction of countries
subjected to its false protection, citing the case
of Libya in 2011."
The
same powers that promised the salvation of nations
but actually
destroyed them under the banner of R2P, he said,
are using the same
discourse today, threatening to destroy the
independence, territorial
integrity and peace of the Venezuelan nation with
the use of armed
force.
He pointed out
that in Colombia, where the president attacks the
civilian population
as if they were a military target; where dozens of
peaceful protesters
have been assassinated in its cities; where
hundreds of social,
community, Indigenous and political leaders and
human rights defenders
are systematically assassinated; and where those
who have been
disappeared number in the thousands, the
interventionist powers never
speak of the R2P. The U.S. military bases in that
country are not for
protecting Colombians, he said, but the
government, while the people
are left to fight for their human rights alone.
Nor do the powers
pushing R2P feel any obligation to apply it when
Israel, the occupying
power, perpetrates war crimes and ethnic cleansing
against Palestinians.
Moncada concluded by pointing out that unilateral
coercive
measures are acts of economic aggression which
violate the human rights
of hundreds of millions of people in more than 29
member countries of
the United Nations. The first responsibility to
protect consists of
stopping the use of the economy as a weapon of
mass destruction against
the peoples, he stated.
At the virtual launch of
the Group of Friends in Defence of the UN Charter
on July 6, Vassily
Nebenzia, the Permanent Ambassador of the Russian
Federation, focused
on attempts by the same group of powers to
"replace the UN
Charter-based system of international law with
ambiguous concepts such
as 'rules-based international order' or
'rules-based multilateralism,'
when the 'rules' are being elaborated by a narrow
group of states and
adjusted on a case-by-case basis." He said this
can be seen in their
arbitrary labeling of the sovereign internal
processes in different
countries as "democratic" or "authoritarian,"
their undermining and
even overthrowing of legitimate governments, and
their imposition of
illegal coercive measures against those who do not
comply with the
"rules" formulated by "closed groups of allegedly
democratic nations."
Russia's position was further elaborated in the
High-Level
Debate at the 76th UN General Assembly in
September by its Foreign
Minister, Sergey Lavrov, who devoted a good part
of his intervention to
the same topic. He said, "Lately we have witnessed
persistent attempts
to diminish the role of the UN in solving today's
key problems, to
sideline it, or transform it into a malleable tool
that furthers
someone's selfish interests." These attempts, he
said, were clearly
visible in the so-called "rules-based order"
concept that the West is
persistently introducing into political discourse
in opposition to
international law.
Cuba's
president, Miguel Díaz-Canel, used the same venue
to expose
who is behind the notion of a "rules-based
international order" and
why, saying, "Today we are witnessing unacceptable
practices and
policies in the international context, which go
against the universal
commitment to defend the Charter of the United
Nations, including the
sovereign right to self-determination. Independent
and sovereign states
are being led by multiple pressures to subordinate
themselves to the
will of Washington and to an order based on its
capricious rules."
Others singled out some of the most pernicious
examples of the
U.S. applying its "rules" in violation of the
principles of the UN
which its members, particularly those that sit on
the Security Council
are charged with upholding. Many called for the
U.S. to honour the
unequivocal will of the international community
expressed in 29
consecutive General Assembly resolutions by ending
its blockade on Cuba
and by ending the use of unilateral coercive
measures generally,
understood to be a preferred form of so-called
non-violent warfare
practiced mainly by the U.S. against the peoples
of countries whose
governments it targets for destabilization and
regime change.
Similar messages were conveyed at meetings of
different UN
Committees and bodies held since the opening of
the current session of
the General Assembly, thanks to the efforts of
those who have come
together to wage the necessary fight to defend the
UN Charter and
international law against U.S.-led attempts to
impose its own "rules"
in a modern day version of might makes right.
![Haut de page](top.gif)
All Out
to Make Canada a Zone for Peace!
Anti-War
Events November 19-20
All
Out to Oppose the Halifax
International Security Forum!
![](../images/Antiwar/Slogans/120501-HalifaxMayDay-MediaCoopl.jpg)
Webinar:
Friday,
November 19 – 8:00 pm AT
Rally:
Saturday,
November 20 – 1:00 pm AT
For
details
click here
|
|
The
militarization of the U.S. economy has gone beyond the pale, as has the
activity of the government of Canada to integrate Canada into the U.S.
war economy and suggest it is done to further the cause of peace. The
channelling of trillions of dollars into the militarization of the
economy and society and its culture to serve the rich are well
documented and have increased dramatically since the tragic events of
September 11, 2001. They are important exposures of how far the U.S.
has descended into a war economy and militarized society.
In the U.S.,
the use of violence is out of control because of
the usurpation of the
decision-making power by narrow private interests
that profit from it.
The result is a war economy dominating not only
the U.S. but
drawing Canada and others into its clutches.
Through treachery and
deception, no matter which cartel party forms the
government, they have
integrated Canada into the U.S. war machine and
economy and contributed
to the expansion of the NATO and NORAD military
alliances and to
U.S.-led wars of aggression for global hegemony.
The danger of a
conflagration of worldwide proportions is
palpable.
In
this supplement, TML Monthly exposes the
role
Canada is playing by supplying critical minerals
to the U.S. war
machine. Excerpts from two reports from the
Institute for Policy
Studies and the Brown University Cost of War
Project show the extent of
U.S. militarization and degeneration of social
life into corruption and
violence. The reports reveal how important and
urgent the anti-war
movement and movements for rights continue to be
to build the New on
the basis of modern definitions in opposition to
the limitations
imposed by the ruling oligarchy.
The people's
opposition to solving problems through the use of
force and their
striving to bring into being the necessary changes
as demanded by the
peoples of the U.S. and of the world are crucial.
![Haut de page](top.gif)
-
Fernand Deschamps -
Canada is increasing its
supply of critical minerals to benefit the U.S.
war economy. Canadians
are not consulted when agreements are reached
between the U.S. and
Canada and they are opposed to the exploitation
and plunder of natural
resources to benefit war production. A lot of this
is done in the name
of a "green economy" and high ideals about
creating jobs and economic
development which favours the regions, but the
truth lies elsewhere.
Canadian
provinces and territories and Quebec are already
the sites for the
extraction of critical minerals for the U.S. war
industry including
nickel, cobalt, scandium, uranium, etc. or will
soon start production
of other critical minerals including lithium, rare
earth elements (REE)
and graphite, in such places as the Yukon,
Saskatchewan, Ontario,
Quebec and Newfoundland.
Provincial and territorial
governments, along with the federal government,
are already bending
over backwards to supply the mining oligopolies
with the
infrastructure, subsidies and tax breaks these
rich private interests
are seeking. This was referred to in a
presentation made in February by
Simon Moores, CEO of Benchmark Mineral
Intelligence, to the
House of Commons' Standing Committee on Natural
Resources:
"Pricing
is simply a function of supply and demand. It
doesn't matter if the
market is 10 times the size in the future or if
it's the size it is
now. Lithium, for example, is going through a
period of shortage right
now, so the price is going up. In the last four
years, when the EV
[electric vehicle] demand increased 30 per cent
for lithium, the price
was coming down at that time.
"What happens when
lithium's price stays down, and the same for
cobalt? If it stays too
low for too long, you just don't get investments
in new mines. There's
always an incentive price to bring on a new
supply. As a result, at the
moment, because it's left to the capital markets,
you're not getting
the money for those new mines, and that's really
where there could be a
role for the government to play and underpin
that."[1]
In other words, it will be up to the Canadian
state and
different levels of government to take all the
risks and subsidize
these mining companies through all kinds of
pay-the-rich schemes. Here
is what Liz Lappin, President of the Battery
Metals Association of
Canada (BMAC) said to the Standing Committee on
Natural Resources that
same day:
"The first area of focus is support for
critical minerals project development. The World
Bank and a host of
forecasters anticipate greatly increased global
demand for critical
minerals in the years ahead. While Canada has an
abundance of
resources, they have been slow to develop due to a
variety of
challenges. Examples include high volatility in
emerging pricing,
competition for capital against established
critical minerals
jurisdictions, the highly complex nature of
battery metals production,
and delays in regulatory and policy development.
Canada needs to move
swiftly to support the needs of its domestic
economy.
"To
support critical minerals development, BMAC
recommends financial
support for qualified domestic battery metals
companies that are
capable of demonstrating viable prospective
projects; promoting
exploration and identification of resources by
amending the Income
Tax Act to ensure that lithium brine
resources are eligible
for flow-through shares; encouraging provinces to
rapidly develop
responsible yet industry-friendly mineral policy
and regulations to
accelerate critical mineral resource development;
and promoting
streamlined tenure and regulatory frameworks to
incentivize responsible
development. Finally, we recommend prioritizing
innovation funding for
industry cluster applications, which would incent
Canadian
collaborations and strengthen connections along
the supply chain."[2]
The House of
Commons' Standing Committee on Natural Resources
issued a report in
June entitled "From Mineral Exploration to
Advanced Manufacturing:
Developing Value Chains for Critical Minerals in
Canada." It states:
"Critical minerals are essential components of
many new
technologies, from low-greenhouse gas energy
sources to electric
vehicles to advances in cutting-edge sectors such
as medicine,
electronics, aerospace and defence."
In the same
report the Committee underscored the importance of
"securing a supply
of critical minerals ... because access to these
resources is not
entirely stable and production is concentrated in
a few countries,
notably China." In addition, it said that "Canada
could also pursue a
'continental' approach to guarantee a supply of
critical minerals in
cooperation with the provinces and territories, as
well as the United
States," in order "to compete with other regions
that are major players
in the sector, namely, Asia and Europe."[3]
The Committee made important key recommendations
that are a
call for more pay-the-rich schemes and the further
integration of
Canada into the "continental" U.S. war economy.
The first two
recommendations are:
"That the Government of Canada
work with the provincial and territorial
governments, Indigenous
communities and governments, the mining industry
and research and
education institutions to develop a strategic
vision for developing
Canada's critical minerals industry;"
and
"That the government of Canada renew its support
for the
Canadian mining sector so that it can take
advantage of the many
opportunities offered by developing critical
minerals and recognize
their unique contribution to advanced technologies
and the energy
transition by:
- increasing its capacity to carry
out geoscience work...;
- expanding the scope of financial and
tax measures...; and
- investing in transportation and
communication infrastructure in remote and
Northern regions...."
The natural and social environment cannot be
harmonized
unless the people oppose government pay-the-rich
schemes, as they are
presently doing in actions from coast to coast to
coast. By relying on
themselves, Canadians can achieve a sustainable
economy that provides
for all, respects their rights and is
human-centred.
No
to Pay-the-Rich Schemes in the Name of a "Greener
Economy"!
No to the
Integration of Canada into the U.S. War Economy!
Notes
1. Simon
Moores,
CEO, Benchmark Mineral Intelligence,
presentation to the
Standing Committee on Natural Resources
Committee of the House of
Commons, Feb. 22, 2021.
2. Liz
Lappin,
President, Battery Metals Association of
Canada, presentation
to the Standing Committee on Natural Resources
of the House of Commons,
Feb. 22, 2021.
3. "From
Mineral
Exploration to Advanced Manufacturing:
Developing Value Chains
for Critical Minerals in Canada," Report of
the Standing Committee on
Natural Resources, Ottawa, June 2021.
![Haut de page](top.gif)
Five months after Canadian Prime Minister Justin
Trudeau and U.S.
President Joe Biden agreed to implement the Roadmap
for a
Renewed U.S.-Canada Partnership (Roadmap)
the Woodrow Wilson
International Centre for Scholars hosted a webinar
on July 23 to
provide an update.
The two invited guests for the
one-hour webinar were Arnold Chacon, Acting U.S.
Ambassador
to Canada, and Kirsten Hillman, Canada's
Ambassador to the
United States, who were both, in the words of the
moderator, "at the
heart of implementing [the Roadmap] agenda." They
were asked "to
explain how the Roadmap fits into U.S.-Canada
relations" and to "give
some background on how we go from here."[1]
As described by
Ambassador Chacon, the Roadmap "touches on nearly
every aspect of our
bilateral relationship and our multilateral
relationships too."
Reporting on "the progress made over the last five
months," Chacon
recalled the exchanges that had taken place
between Canada, the United
States and Mexico on the trade front since the
signing of the United
States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (CUSMA), all part
of "building a robust
and sustainable economy" where supply chains are
an important aspect of
this trade agreement.
Chacon said "accelerating
climate ambitions" and "combating the climate
crisis," are "a top
priority for both our countries," adding that "the
measure of our
ambition and achievement will undoubtedly be
linked to the measure of
our cross-border collaboration." In that same vein
he added that "the
United States has set an economy-wide target for
2030 to reduce our net
greenhouse gas emissions by 50 to 52 per cent
below 2005 levels."
As part of their "cross-border collaboration,"
the U.S.
administration is working closely with the
Canadian government to
attain three objectives. In Ambassador Chacon's
words, these objectives
are "to increase climate ambition globally," "to
innovate and deploy
low and zero-emissions technologies and create
jobs" and "to enhance
adaptation and resilience to climate impacts." He
went on to say that
"an essential element in our transition into a
net-zero economy is the
adoption of electric vehicles." Chacon then added
that "we are going to
need raw materials for batteries such as cobalt
and lithium. We will
also need to establish in North America the
necessary supply chains and
build production facilities." He reminded the
audience that the
U.S.-Canada Critical Minerals Working Group was to
meet on July 28,
reiterating that "our two governments must align
on priorities and
policies on critical minerals to spur research,
development and
innovation necessary to make North America
competitive and secure in
this pivotal sector."[2]
Listening to Ambassador Chacon was like hearing a
script taken
from the Roadmap itself, which was agreed to by
the Biden
administration and the Trudeau government on
February 23. Under it
different measures are being taken by both the
Canadian and U.S.
governments to establish what is now referred to
as a "Value-Added
Critical Minerals Strategy."
On the same day that
the Roadmap was announced, the Biden
administration
issued Executive Order 14017 on America's
Supply Chains,
which amongst other things states:
"The Secretary
of Defense (as the National Defense Stockpile
Manager), in consultation
with the heads of appropriate agencies, shall
submit a report
identifying risks in the supply chain for critical
minerals and other
identified strategic materials, including rare
earth elements (as
determined by the Secretary of Defense), and
policy recommendations to
address these risks. The report shall also
describe and update work
done pursuant to Executive Order 13953 of
September 30, 2020
(Addressing the Threat to the Domestic Supply
Chain From Reliance on
Critical Minerals From Foreign Adversaries and
Supporting the Domestic
Mining and Processing Industries)."[3]
The report of the Secretary of Defense was to be
part of what
is described in this Executive Order as the
"100-Day Supply Chain
Review." To undertake this comprehensive review,
the Biden
administration established an internal task force
spanning more than a
dozen federal departments and agencies, including
the Secretaries of
Commerce, Energy, Defense, and Health and Human
Services.
In
the 250-page follow-up report entitled "Building
Resilient Supply
Chains, Revitalizing American Manufacturing, and
Fostering Broad-based
Growth, 100-Day Reviews under Executive Order
14017," the White House
writes on the issue of critical minerals:
"Given
the importance of lithium batteries to the
warfighter, assured sources
of critical minerals and materials and both
domestic and allied
capability for lithium cell and battery
manufacturing are critical to
U.S. national security. The supply chain security
of minerals,
materials, cells, and battery components is of
concern today.
"Yet the rising demand and diversity of
applications for
lithium battery technologies within DOD
[Department of Defense], the
decreasing role of defense in driving commercial
lithium battery
markets, and the prominence of adversary influence
over supply make the
future strategic concern even graver. To meet
surface, undersea, space,
air, and ground operational requirements, DOD will
need reliable and
secure advanced storage technologies."[4]
This issue of "adversary influence over supply"
of lithium
battery technology as part of the U.S. military
apparatus, as well as
"reliable and secure advanced storage
technologies" is not something
new. It is integral to the striving of U.S.
imperialism for world
domination, in contention with China, Russia and
other countries which
refuse to submit to its dictate. Canada is part
and parcel of that plan.[5]
This military use of natural resources is
worrisome to
Canadians who aspire to end the climate crisis by
setting a new
direction for the economy. The plunder of natural
resources to benefit
war production is both unacceptable and
unsustainable.
Notes
1.
Arnold Chacon was appointed Acting Ambassador to
Canada by the Biden
Administration in May 2021. In late July David
Cohen was nominated as
United States Ambassador to Canada, confirmed by
the U.S. Senate on
November 2, 2021.
2. Roadmap
for
a Renewed U.S.-Canada Partnership,
Woodrow Wilson
International Centre for Scholars, July 23,
2021.
3. Executive
Order
14017 on America's Supply Chains,
Presidential Actions, White
House, February 24, 2021.
4."Building
Resilient
Supply Chains, Revitalizing American
Manufacturing, and
Fostering Broad-based Growth, 100-Day Reviews
under Executive
Order 14017," a report by The White
House, June 2021, page 129.
5. See
also: "Summit
Between
Canadian Prime Minister and U.S. President:
Further Integration
into U.S. Economy and War Machine Will Not
Resolve Canada's Lack of a
Nation-Building Project," by K.C. Adams, TML
Monthly,
March 7, 2021
![Haut de page](top.gif)
For
Your Information
As part of Executive
Order 14017 on America's Supply Chains,
issued on February
23, the "100-Day Supply Chain Review" was
published by the White House
in June. This led to the formation of the
U.S.-Canada Critical Minerals
Working Group that held its third meeting on
July 28, co-chaired by
U.S. Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of State
for Western Hemisphere
Affairs, Laura Lochman, and Assistant Deputy
Minister of the Land and
Minerals Sector of Natural Resources Canada,
Jeff Labonté.
A July 31 media communication on the U.S.
Department of
State's website, entitled "United States and
Canada Forge Ahead on
Critical Minerals Cooperation," notes the
following:
"The
working group discussed implementation of
President Biden and Prime
Minister Trudeau's commitment to strengthen
cooperation on critical
minerals supply chains as outlined in the
Roadmap for a Renewed
U.S.-Canada Partnership. ... They also shared
perspectives on
strengthening supply chains that utilize
critical minerals, and
reviewed President Biden's Executive Order on
America's Supply Chains
and the related 100-day supply chain review of
critical minerals and
materials and other key sectors issued in June."[1]
When the U.S. State Department refers to
"strengthening supply
chains" it has in mind, amongst other things,
what Marc D. Gietter, a
retired industrial engineer with the Tactical
Shelters Branch of the
U.S. Army Communications-Electronics Command
(CECOM) termed "priming
the pump." In an article entitled "Viewpoint:
Offshore Battery
Production Poses Problems for Military,"
published in the November 8,
2018 issue of the U.S. magazine National
Defense,
he writes:
"Lithium batteries -- both rechargeable
and non rechargeable -- have become ubiquitous
in almost every weapon
system used by the Defense Department. Although
it is a relatively
small consumer of lithium battery technologies
when compared to the
commercial market, the importance of these
technologies cannot be
understated.
"Just about every piece of
man-portable electronic equipment crucial to the
success of U.S.
warfighters on the battlefield is powered by
some form of lithium
battery. The reliance on them is expected to
grow exponentially as the
next generation of weapons -- such as new
tactical ground vehicles,
unmanned systems and directed energy weapons --
are designed around the
high energy density and low weight of a lithium
battery technology.
[...]
"The lithium-ion battery market, alone, is
expected to reach $26 billion in less than 10
years. With electric
vehicles, clean energy storage and mobile
electronics requiring
ever-more advanced batteries, the overall market
for batteries is only
just emerging, and is expected to reach $150
billion in just the next
two years.
"With a relatively minimal investment
the Defense Department can not only secure
domestic sources for
critical technologies, but 'prime the pump' to
enable these same
suppliers to capture and hold large
international market shares. For
example, the Defense Logistics Agency has
procured batteries with a
total value of more than $1.1 billion to support
the military power
source supply chain.
"This does not include
batteries that each of the services buy directly
from vendors and
manufacturers, or batteries purchased by prime
contractors to integrate
into various weapon systems."[2]
In other words, the role of the U.S. Defense
Department is to
enable these same private suppliers of critical
minerals "to capture
and hold large international market shares" by
developing processing
facilities and advanced manufacturing here
within North America,
countering what the U.S. Department of Defense
calls the "decreasing
role of defense in driving commercial lithium
battery markets."
This is why, in the case of permanent rare
earth magnets used
for civil and military applications, there is
presently a bill before
the U.S. House of Representatives (Bill HR 5033
-- Rare Earth
Magnet Manufacturing Production Tax Credit Act
of 2021) that
would give private companies tax credits of $20
per kilogram for
magnets manufactured in the United States or $30
per kilogram for
magnets that are both manufactured in the U.S.
and for which all
components made up of rare earth material are
produced and recycled or
reclaimed wholly within the United States. It
also means that to be
eligible for these subsidies, the rare earth
magnets must not include
any "component rare earth material" that was
"produced in a non-allied
foreign nation," meaning countries opposed to
U.S. imperialist world
domination, such as the "Russian Federation,
People's Republic of
China, Democratic People's Republic of Korea and
Islamic Republic of
Iran."[3]
The "component rare earth material" refers to
six rare earth
elements (REE) known as neodymium, praseodymium,
dysprosium, terbium,
samarium, and gadolinium, along with cobalt.
These are the primary REEs
used to manufacture the world's two most
powerful permanent magnets,
known as samarium cobalt magnets and
neodymium-iron-boron magnets.
Their applications are numerous and diverse --
from electric vehicles
to radar, precision-guided missiles and "smart
bombs."[4]
Notes
1.
United
States
and Canada Forge Ahead on Critical Minerals
Cooperation, U.S.
Department of State, July 31, 2021.
2. "Viewpoint:
Offshore
Battery Production Poses Problems for
Military," in National
Defense, November 8, 2018.
3. Bill
HR
5033, Rare Earth Magnet Manufacturing
Production Tax
Credit Act of 2021, U.S. House of
Representatives,
Washington, DC, 2021.
4. Rare
Earth
Elements in National Defense: Background,
Oversight Issues, and
Options for Congress, Valerie Bailey
Grasso, Congressional
Research Service, Washington, DC, December
23, 2013.
![Haut de page](top.gif)
(Excerpts
from Summary)
Over 929,000 people have died in the
post-9/11 wars due to direct war violence. Many
times more have died
indirectly in these wars, due to ripple effects
like malnutrition,
damaged infrastructure and environmental
degradation.
Over
387,000 civilians have been killed in direct
violence by all parties to
these conflicts.
Over 7,050 U.S. soldiers have died
in the wars.
We do not know the full extent of how
many U.S. service members returning from these
wars became ill or were
injured while deployed.
Many deaths and injuries
among U.S. contractors have not been reported as
required by law, but
it is likely that approximately 8,000 have been
killed.
38
million people have been displaced by the
post-9/11 wars in
Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen,
Somalia and the
Philippines.
The U.S. federal price tag for the
post-9/11 wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan,
Syria, and elsewhere
totals about $8 trillion. This does not include
future interest costs
on borrowing for the wars.
The U.S. government is
conducting counter-terror activities in 85
countries, vastly expanding
this war across the globe.
The wars have been
accompanied by violations of human rights and
civil liberties in the
U.S. and abroad.
The post-9/11 wars have
contributed significantly to climate change. The
Defense Department is
one of the world's top greenhouse gas emitters.
The
human and economic costs of these wars will
continue for decades with
some costs, such as the financial costs of U.S.
veterans' care, not
peaking until mid-century.
Most U.S. government
funding of reconstruction efforts in Iraq and
Afghanistan has gone
towards arming security forces in both countries.
Much of the money
allocated to humanitarian relief and rebuilding
civil society has been
lost to fraud, waste and abuse.
The ripple effects
on the U.S. economy have also been significant,
including job loss and
interest rate increases.
Pentagon spending has
totaled over $14 trillion since the start of the
war in Afghanistan,
with one-third to one-half of the total going to
military contractors.
A large portion of these contracts -- one-quarter
to one-third
of all Pentagon contracts in recent years -- have
gone to just five
major corporations:
Lockheed
Martin,
Boeing,
General Dynamics,
Raytheon,
and Northrop Grumman.
The $75
billion in Pentagon contracts received by Lockheed
Martin in fiscal
year 2020 is well over one and one-half times the
entire budget for the
State Department and Agency for International
Development for that
year, which totaled $44 billion.
Weapons makers
have spent $2.5 billion on lobbying over the past
two decades,
employing, on average, over 700 lobbyists per year
over the past five
years. That is more than one for every member of
Congress.
Numerous
companies took advantage of wartime conditions --
which require speed
of delivery and often involve less rigorous
oversight -- to overcharge
the government or engage in outright fraud. In
2011, the Commission on
Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan
estimated that waste, fraud
and abuse had totaled between $31 billion and $60
billion.
As the U.S. reduces the size of its military
footprint in Iraq
and Afghanistan, exaggerated estimates of the
military challenges posed
by China have become the new rationale of choice
in arguments for
keeping the Pentagon budget at historically high
levels. Military
contractors will continue to profit from this
inflated spending.
The report Cost
of
Militarization is available here.
![Haut de page](top.gif)
The
following excerpts are from a report produced by
the Institute for
Policy Studies.
The Pentagon budget is
higher than at the height of the Vietnam War or
the Cold War, and
growing, accounting for more than half of the
federal discretionary
budget in typical years.
The Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) formed in 2003 [has become] a
mammoth new government
agency.
The formation of DHS also marked the
creation of the now-infamous Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (ICE)
agency and Customs and Border Protection (CBP),
which have drawn
attention for terrorizing immigrant communities,
suppressing protests,
and tearing children from their parents.
At a time
when awareness of police brutality and
militarization has skyrocketed,
militarism has reached new heights in two other
long-standing wars: the
war on crime and the war on drugs.
Over 20 years,
the U.S. has spent more than $21 trillion on
militarization,
surveillance, and repression -- all in the name of
security.
But
the COVID-19 pandemic, the January 6 Capitol
insurrection, wildfires
raging in the West, and even the fall of
Afghanistan have shown us that
these investments cannot buy us safety.
Twenty
years after 9/11, the response has contributed to
thoroughly
militarized foreign and domestic policies at a
cost of $21 trillion
over the last two decades.
Of the $21 trillion the
U.S. has spent on foreign and domestic
militarization since 9/11, $16
trillion went to the military (including $7.2
trillion for military
contractors), $3 trillion to veterans' programs,
$949 billion to
Homeland Security, and $732 billion to federal law
enforcement.
U.S. Militarized
Spending Over 20 Years, (FY 2002 - FY 2021)
Military $16.26 trillion
Veterans $3.07 trillion
Homeland security $949 billion
Federal law enforcement $732
billion
Total $21.02 trillion
The military is one of the most costly government
functions. For our
purposes, military expenses include the Department
of Defense (DoD) and
all direct costs of war, nuclear weapons
activities at the Department
of Energy and elsewhere, intelligence expenses
including the Central
Intelligence Agency (CIA), international military
assistance, military
retiree benefits and the selective service system,
and smaller
military-related expenses at the National Science
Foundation, Maritime
Administration, and other federal agencies.
We
include the cost of veterans' benefits because
military service and
military activities give rise to the need for
these benefits.
We include most programs in the Department of
Homeland
Security (DHS) because of the agency's origins in
the post-9/11
response.... Although the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) is
situated within DHS, we exclude it from this
analysis.
Federal
law enforcement programs are included because
counterterrorism and
border security are part of their core mission,
and because the
militarization of police and the proliferation of
mass incarceration
both owe much to the activities and influences of
federal law
enforcement. Federal law enforcement agencies use
the same militarized
tactics to combat terrorism, crime, and narcotics,
with frequently
violent and racially inequitable results. Federal
law enforcement
agencies like the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Drug Enforcement
Agency, and U.S. Marshals operate both in and
outside of the U.S.,
frequently cooperating with the Department of
Defense (DoD).
Unless
otherwise noted, all figures in this report are
based on Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) budget authority data
and are
inflation-adjusted to FY 2021.
According to the
Department of Justice (DoJ), 88 per cent of its
budget goes toward
counterterrorism, border security and violent
crime goals, while 12 per
cent goes toward its goal of promoting the rule of
law and good
government.
Over the span of 20 years, the War on
Terror has expanded to dozens of countries,
claimed 900,000 lives, and
has cost trillions of dollars.
Beyond the forever
wars, the U.S. military has more than 750 outposts
in around 80
countries, with about 220,000 U.S. troops
stationed permanently abroad
as of June 2021. Military operations extend well
beyond the confines of
the War on Terror, and in some cases, actions
billed as military
exercises have been fronts for real military
operations.
As
part of its supposed shift from the War on Terror
to "great power
competition," the military is looking to reinvest
in nuclear
weapons.... The U.S. has far more nuclear weapons
than any other
country, and far more than can be justified based
on theories of
nuclear deterrence. The U.S. also has the
distinction of being the only
country to use a nuclear weapon on human beings --
which it has done
twice. The danger of these weapons far outstrips
rationales for their
continued deployment. Yet the military has planned
a $1.5 trillion
renewal program to keep U.S. nuclear weapons in
service.
Recently,
the U.S. military has also been active within U.S.
borders, with
deployments to the southern border, where 3,000
troops remain today in
a surveillance role. Some states have also sent
National Guard troops
to the border. From 2016-17, National Guard
soldiers were deployed to
suppress Indigenous-led protests against the
Dakota Access Pipeline
near the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation, and in
June 2020 were called
into Washington, DC, to suppress Black Lives
Matter protests. National
Guard troops also stepped in after the Capitol
insurrection on January
6, 2021.
Altogether, military expenditures over the
last 20 years totalled more than $16 trillion,
including the budget for
the DoD, nuclear weapons and activities, and
certain intelligence and
military retirement costs.
We also include aid to
foreign militaries, and much smaller civil defense
expenses including
the selective service, military cemeteries, and
others.
Military Spending, FY 2002 - FY 2021
Department of Defense -- $14.14 trillion
Military retirement
and other programs -- $1.27 trillion
Nuclear weapons programs
-- $460 billion
Aid to foreign militaries -- $267 billion
CIA and Intelligence* -- $28 billion
Total --
$16.26 trillion
Note*: CIA and
Intelligence costs here are far from complete. The
total appropriated
for national and military intelligence in FY 2020
alone was $85.8
billion. Most of that is likely hidden in the
military budget, but not
identifiable through public documents.
The calculus
of 9/11 led to runaway growth in military
spending. From FY 2001 to FY
2002 (the fiscal year that began on October 1,
2001), military spending
increased by 5.8 per cent. By the following year,
FY 2003, military
spending had increased by 30 per cent over FY 2001
levels. It would
eventually peak at nearly a trillion dollars in
2010 before falling
moderately due to budget sequestration, and then
rising again. Today,
military spending is higher than at the height of
the Vietnam War, the
Cold War, the Korean War, and the first Gulf War.
Forever
Wars
The U.S. invaded Afghanistan in 2001,
followed by Iraq in 2003. These occupations
represent the longest
active occupations in U.S. history -- the forever
wars. Even as U.S.
troops are exiting Afghanistan, the War on Terror
continues in multiple
countries, taking different forms.
The costs of the
global War on Terror have been staggering: about
900,000 lives lost to
violence, many thousands more gone due to the loss
of critical
infrastructure like hospitals, and 37 million
people displaced,
according to Brown University's Costs of War
project.
In
2019, pro-government airstrikes (including U.S.
airstrikes) killed the
highest number of Afghan civilians in any year
since the start of the
war. In Afghanistan alone, 47,000 civilians have
been killed since the
start of the War on Terror.
A study from Brown
University's Costs of War project has estimated
total War on Terror
costs at $8 trillion through 2021, including $800
billion in non-war
DoD spending increases from 2001 to 2020 that were
attributable to the
War on Terror. From 2002 to 2019, about $127
billion in aid to foreign
militaries went to the two main targets of U.S.
occupation: Afghanistan
($91 billion) and Iraq ($36 billion).
From 2018 to
2020, the U.S. conducted counterterror operations
in 85 countries,
including combat operations in 12 countries, and
air and drone strikes
in seven. This represents more than half the
countries on earth.
The Pentagon and Military Aid
Spending
on the DoD totalled $14 trillion over the last 20
years, including $1.9
trillion in funds appropriated specifically for
wars through the
Overseas Contingency Operations fund. Even though
in recent years the
fund was increasingly used for routine military
expenses (or "base
requirements"), this total falls short of
estimating the true costs of
the War on Terror.
More than 70 per cent of the
Pentagon's $14 trillion in spending over the last
20 years was for
operations, purchasing and research and
development. Operations and
maintenance ($5.7 trillion) includes costs for
operating, deploying,
and maintaining weapons systems, including the
military's nearly 300
ships and more than 13,000 aircraft, and
facilities, as well as
training and other costs.
Procurement ($2.8
trillion) includes the purchases and upgrades of
major weapons systems
such as ships and aircraft, as well as land
vehicles, missiles, and
ammunition.
Just $3.3 trillion, or 23 per cent of
the total, went to compensation for military
personnel. Entry-level pay
for an enlisted service member in 2021 was just
over $20,000, the
equivalent of a $10.30 hourly wage. Service
members also receive
housing or a housing allowance, but that isn't
designed to cover the
full cost of housing.
The three biggest recipients
of foreign military assistance, Afghanistan ($91
billion), Israel ($57
billion), and Iraq ($36 billion) accounted for
nearly 70 per cent of
all military assistance. But the U.S. gave
military aid to the majority
of countries on earth during the years of
2002-2019.
Military
Contracts
In a typical year, around half of the
DoD budget goes to contractors. Over the last 20
years, the contractors
took in more than $7.2 trillion in DoD funds,
compared to only $4.7
trillion in the 20 years before that, which
included the peak years of
the Cold War and nuclear arms race. In FY 2020,
with a total DoD budget
of $753 billion, $422 billion went to military
contractors.
The
top Pentagon contractors bring in more in one year
than many government
agencies. In FY 2020 alone, Lockheed Martin took
in more than $75
billion in DoD contracts. By comparison, the
Center for Disease Control
(CDC) budget was only $16 billion in 2020,
including emergency COVID
funding.
The War on Terror has been a huge profit
generator for these companies. Stocks in the top
five defense companies
that were worth $10,000 when the War on Terror
began are worth nearly
$100,000 today, versus only $61,000 for the
overall stock market.
Military Equipment and the Police
The
Pentagon provides military equipment to state and
local law enforcement
agencies through its 1033 program. Today, state
and local law
enforcement agencies are in possession of $1.83
billion worth of
military equipment transferred since 9/11,
including mine resistant
vehicles, aircraft, drones, military weapons, and
ammunition. DoD also
transfers equipment to federal agencies including
the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of
Justice (DoJ).
Military
equipment transfers skyrocketed (in 2012), peaking
at $386 million in
2014. Today, transfers are still far higher than
they were early in the
War on Terror, totalling $152 million in 2020 and
$101 million in just
the first half of 2021.
This equipment is used by
local police for SWAT raids, which are often used
indiscriminately,
most often for suspected drug crimes, and
disproportionately targeting
people of colour. In one incident, a Georgia
toddler was critically
injured when a SWAT team's flash-bang grenade
landed in his playpen.
Military equipment has also appeared as part of
police responses to
protest, notably during the uprisings against
police killings in the
summer of 2020 and previously. Indigenous people
are the racialized
group most likely to be killed in confrontations
with police.
Veterans
The services that the U.S.
provides to military veterans have totalled $3
trillion over the last
20 years. Of course, these services are provided
to veterans of many
wars, not just the wars on terror. There are 19
million veterans in the
U.S., 14 million of whom served during wartime,
and 3.5 million of whom
served during the global War on Terror.
Veterans of
the War on Terror have been subject to nonstop
deployments over the
last 20 years, taking a toll on physical and
mental health, family
stability, and civilian career opportunities.
Veterans suffer from high
risks of suicide, homelessness, and family
violence, among other
long-lasting consequences of serving in U.S. wars.
The
Costs of War project at Brown University has
estimated that future
costs to care for veterans of the War on Terror
alone will total $1
trillion through FY 2059.
Veterans'
Programs, FY 2002 - FY 2021
Income security --
$1.26 trillion
Veterans' Health -- $1.26 trillion
Other -- $254 billion
Readjustment benefits -- $196 billion
Pensions -- $103 billion
Total -- $3.07 trillion
Homeland Security
The
formation of the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) has been
characterized as "the largest, most important
restructuring of the
federal government since the end of World War II."
The creation of DHS
in 2003 rolled all or part of 22 different federal
departments and
agencies into a single department. The Federal
Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA), the Transportation Security
Administration (TSA), the
Coast Guard, the Secret Service, immigration
agencies, and others were
all brought under DHS.
Despite the ostensible
founding of DHS as a response and preventative
against terrorism, it
has instead become an agent of repression. DHS has
surveilled political
groups and infiltrated communities, violently
repressed protest, and
waged a war on immigration, often in direct
coordination with the
military and other law enforcement agencies.
Transforming the apparatus of border and
immigration enforcement, the
department also absorbed the Immigration and
Naturalization Service
(INS), formerly housed in the Department of
Justice, and transferred
its functions to three new agencies within DHS:
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS),
Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (ICE), and Customs and Border
Protection (CBP).
The DHS immigration agencies have militarized the
border and
disrupted immigrant communities even where there
is no claim of a
terrorist threat, in what has been coined as a
"war on immigrants,"
beginning as early as 2003. From 2002 to 2019 (the
most recent year
with complete data), 5.8 million people were
deported. Annual
deportations in 2019 were double the number in
2002.
The militarization of ICE and CBP has been
well-documented, with cases
of excessive force and racial profiling. ICE has
an "Office of Firearms
and Tactical Programs" that provides equipment and
training to its
agents, while Border Patrol agents are supplied
with weapons of war
including M4 rifles with silencers and night
vision sights and tactical
vehicles, and borders are patrolled by Predator
drones. In extreme
cases, overzealous deportations have even targeted
American citizens.
Recent reports suggest that CBP drones have been
used to surveil
Indigenous activists. The war on immigration has
become a lightning rod
for white supremacy and violence, feeding growing
white supremacist
movements including those that carried out the
January 6, 2021
insurrection at the U.S. Capitol. And, much like
in local law
enforcement, white supremacists have held
positions of power in federal
immigration agencies.
Homeland Security
and Selected Programs, FY 2002 - FY 2021
U.S.
Customs and Border Protection -- $267 billion
U.S. Coast
Guard -- $232 billion
U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement -- $125 billion
Transportation Security
Administration -- $109 billion
U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services -- $64 billion
Secret Service -- $43
billion
Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency
--
$33 billion
Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction Office --
$6.5 billion
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center -- $6.2
billion
Total -- $949 billion (excludes
FEMA)
Since 2002, spending for DHS has
totalled $949 billion, primarily for militarized
border and immigration
operations: CBP, the U.S. Coast Guard, and ICE
together account for 65
per cent of the total.
Homeland
Security Spending, FY 2002 - FY 2021 -- $392
billion
ICE, Customs and Border Protection
Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the agency
tasked with borders and
customs enforcement includes the Border Patrol,
and Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (ICE), the agency tasked with
punitive immigration
law enforcement, such as immigrant detention and
deportation
operations. Together they accounted for more than
$392 billion over the
last 20 years -- nearly half of DHS's spending
(excluding FEMA).
Almost every year, Congress approves massive
funding increases
to these agencies that profile, jail, and deport
immigrants. Combined
spending on ICE and CBP was more than six times
greater than the $64
billion spent on Citizenship and Naturalization
Services since FY 2002.
Over the span of 20 years, spending on ICE and
CBP more than
doubled, from $12 billion in FY 2002 to more than
$25 billion in FY
2021. During that period, spending on ICE and CBP
was more than twice
the funding for the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention (CDC)
(even accounting for pandemic spending in 2020 and
2021), and four
times the funding for the Substance Abuse and
Mental Health Services
Administration, even as the opioid crisis became a
matter of national
concern, causing more than 49,000 deaths in 2019.
CBP,
which includes the Border Patrol, is among the
largest law enforcement
organizations in the world. Even as the number of
migrants crossing the
southern border has decreased, the number of
border patrol agents has
grown alongside CBP's swelling budget. With just
over 10,000 agents in
FY 2002, by FY 2020 the Border Patrol had more
than 19,000 agents.
Contributing to the militarized ethos of Border
Patrol policing, nearly
one-third of CBP agents are military veterans.
There
have been at least 177 fatal encounters with CBP
since 2010. Despite
this violent history of misconduct, little to no
oversight or
accountability measures have been put in place to
hold the agency
accountable for excessive, deadly use of force and
abuse of power.
The United States maintains the world's largest
immigration
detention system, which has ballooned in recent
decades. Every year,
hundreds of thousands of immigrants are locked up
in over 200 ICE
detention centers, where they often face abusive
conditions while they
await determination of their immigration status. A
majority of these
detention facilities are operated by private,
for-profit companies.
Immigrant detention has grown in recent decades
alongside the mass
incarceration of non-immigrant Black and Brown
communities in the
United States. In fact, local, state, and federal
police often
coordinate with ICE and CBP, creating pipelines
between criminal
punishment and immigration enforcement systems.
Despite
mass protests and its prominence as an issue in
the presidential
campaign, the number of immigrants held in
detention more than doubled
under the Biden administration since the end of
February 2021.
The Border Wall
In recent years, the
notorious border wall became emblematic of the
militarization of the
United States' southern border region. Under the
Trump administration,
taxpayers spent a whopping $16.3 billion on border
wall construction --
including nearly $10 billion that the
administration diverted from the
military budget.
The Biden administration pledged
not to build "another foot of wall" and has
characterized its support
for border surveillance and technology funding as
a gentler alternative
to Trump's border wall. But high tech surveillance
systems, known as
"smart borders" or "virtual walls," don't
represent the softer approach
their proponents claim. Surveillance technologies
are environmentally
destructive, threaten privacy and civil liberties,
and can lead to more
migrant deaths as individuals are funnelled into
more dangerous routes.
Far from "humane," these technologies only
perpetuate militarization
and mass surveillance in the borderlands and
beyond.
Federal
Law Enforcement
The Department of Homeland
Security (DHS)'s militarized approach to the
border is echoed
internally by federal law enforcement's activities
as part of the war
on immigrants, the war on drugs, and the war on
crime. Federal law
enforcement activities have led to violent police
tactics,
indiscriminate surveillance practices, racial
profiling and racist
outcomes, and mass incarceration.
According to a
2018 report to the U.S. Sentencing Commission, 34
per cent of federal
sentences were for immigration offenses, marking
the federal
prosecution system as a key component of the war
on immigrants. Another
28 per cent of sentences were for drug crimes.
Federal arrests were
also dominated by immigration offenses, which made
up 56 per cent of
all federal arrests in FY 2018. Just 1.9 per cent
of federal arrests
were for violent offenses.
Black and Latinx people
bear the brunt of federal law enforcement.
Hispanic people were the
subjects of 54 per cent of federal sentences in
2018, and Black people
another 20 per cent. Black people make up 38 per
cent of the federal
prison inmates, far greater than their share of
the population.
The recent uprisings in response to the killings
of George
Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and others have brought the
nation's police
forces under close examination. While local police
have received the
lion's share of scrutiny for violent tactics,
recent investigations
have found that U.S. Marshals are more likely to
use their guns
compared to local police. Yet the Department of
Justice (DoJ) has
refused to publicly release information on
Marshal-involved shootings
that major police departments are obligated to
publish.
Federal
law enforcement also hands down its tactics to
local police. The FBI
both trains chief executive officers for local
police departments, and
develops a firearms training curriculum for police
officers.
Most
federal law enforcement activities are overseen by
the DoJ, whose four
strategic goals are to 1) "enhance national
security and counter the
threat of terrorism;" 2) "secure the borders and
enhance immigration
enforcement and adjudication;" 3) "reduce violent
crime and promote
public safety;" and 4) "promote rule of law,
integrity, and good
government." According to the Department of
Justice, 88 per cent of its
budget goes toward the first three goals:
counterterrorism, border
security and violent crime.
Agencies like the
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Drug
Enforcement Agency (DEA),
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
Explosives (ATF), and the U.S.
Marshals have long been at the forefront of the
wars on crime and
drugs, and have played an increasingly large role
in the war on
immigrants.
Federal prosecutors (U.S. Attorneys)
and federal prisons carry out aggressive
prosecutions and harsh prison
sentences. These agencies do not just operate
inside the U.S. The FBI
has more than 90 offices overseas, and nearly half
of its spending ($84
billion) over the past 20 years was considered
defense-related.
Likewise, the DEA has 91 overseas offices in 68
countries, the U.S.
Marshals have three foreign field offices, and ATF
has at least eight
foreign offices.
Federal law enforcement's foreign
exploits have often been associated with local
violence. In 2012, DEA
agents in Honduras were involved in an incident in
which four civilians
were killed, including two pregnant women and a
child. DEA agents left
the scene without aiding the killed and injured
civilians. They
subsequently attempted to cover up their role to
Congress. In Haiti, a
former DEA informant was one of the suspects
arrested in the
assassination of President Jovenel Moïse.
Federal law enforcement spending, FY 2002 - FY
2022
Federal law enforcement and litigation -- $445.4
billion
Federal Bureau of Investigation -- $174 billion
Drug
Enforcement Administration -- $53 billion
U.S. Attorneys --
$44 billion
Assets forfeiture -- $35 billion
Bureau
of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives --
$26 billion
U.S. Marshals -- $24 billion
Federal Prisoner Detention --
$15 billion
Executive Office for Immigration Review -- $8
billion
Other -- $66 billion
Federal prison system
-- $146 billion
State and local law enforcement assistance --
$138 billion
Other, defense-related -- $2 billion
Total
-- $732 billion
The War on Terror
With major expansions of a number of bureaus
following the
passing of the Patriot Act and the Protect
America
Act during the Bush administration, the DoJ
claimed a
mandate for "unrelenting focus and unprecedented
cooperation" in
service of counterterrorism -- claiming to protect
civil liberties
while in fact violating them through aggressive
law enforcement tactics
and expansion of surveillance powers.
Even prior to
9/11, federal law enforcement agencies like the
DEA had for decades
collected information on all U.S. phone calls to
116 countries.
Post-9/11, the surveillance of ordinary citizens
exploded, giving law
enforcement access to phone records for tens of
millions of Americans.
The FBI has monitored political and religious
groups exercising their
First Amendment rights, including the anti-war
Quakers. In the
aftermath of the January 6, 2021 attempted
insurrection, the DoJ is now
seeking new powers in the name of combating
domestic terrorism, raising
concerns of an expanded surveillance and security
state that targets
even more sectors of the population -- without
meaningfully curtailing
terrorist attacks.
Meanwhile, a number of purported
foiled terrorist plots have been revealed as cases
of entrapment,
diverting law enforcement resources from pursuing
real threats and
instead coaxing vulnerable individuals into
participating in plans
manufactured by FBI agents.
Some analysts have
concluded that the nature of the FBI's
counterterrorism strategies
seems to create "terrorists" out of ordinary
citizens -- certainly not
the purpose for which funds were legislated.
An
investigation by The Intercept found that
of the
almost 1,000 prosecutions for terrorism-related
offenses since 2001,
many of whom were caught in FBI sting operations,
the majority had
never committed a violent crime, did not have the
means or opportunity
to commit acts of violence, and had no direct
connections to terrorist
organizations.
The War on Immigrants
More than half of all federal arrests, and more
than one-third of all
federal sentences, have been for immigration
crimes in recent years.
The five districts that handed out the most
federal sentences were all
in border states: two in Texas, one in Arizona,
one in New Mexico, and
one in Southern California. More than 40 per cent
of sentences were for
non-citizens, almost all convicted of immigration
offenses.
While
ICE and CBP round up immigrants, it is the DoJ
that prosecutes
immigration cases. Federal law enforcement
agencies including the FBI,
DEA, ATF, and U.S. Marshals Service all formally
collaborate with ICE
and CBP.
Federal law enforcement's early approach
to the War on Terror provided some of the opening
shots in the war on
immigrants. In the year after the 9/11 attacks,
the Bush administration
created a program administered by DoJ called the
National Security
Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS), which
registered non-citizen
visa holders, and disproportionately targeted Arab
and Muslim people.
The program was widely regarded as a failure at
leading to terrorism
convictions, and was suspended during the Obama
administration. In
2017, the Trump administration revived an open
policy of targeting
Muslims with a travel ban from seven
Muslim-majority nations, a
decision defended by the Trump Justice Department.
Racial
and Ethnic Profiling
The targeting of Muslims has
not been limited to immigration, and Muslims have
not been the only
group targeted. An ACLU report found that a
Michigan FBI office
initiated an effort to collect information on all
Muslims and people of
Middle Eastern descent in Michigan, without any
evidence of criminality
by individuals or groups. These FBI tactics both
alienate many Muslim
Americans from the government and feed systematic
negative views of
Muslims, that have contributed to xenophobia and
ongoing immigration
restrictions.
The same report noted an effort by
the FBI office in Knoxville, Tennessee to map
mosques; an FBI effort in
Atlanta, Georgia to track overall Black population
growth in pursuit of
"Black Separatist" groups; and plans to monitor
entire Chinese
communities in San Francisco for organized crime.
None of these efforts
were tied to specific evidence or crimes. Rather,
they were based
primarily on race, ethnicity, or religion.
Racist
patterns of surveillance and harassment are also
reflected in arrests
and prison sentences. In the 10 years before 2019,
179 people were
arrested in reverse-sting incidents (often
considered entrapment) by
the DEA's Southern District of New York. Not a
single one of them was
white.
Mass Incarceration
The war on drugs is a major driver of mass
incarceration. In federal
prisons, more than 67,000 people, accounting for
nearly half the
federally incarcerated population, are serving
time for drug charges.
Federal policy and spending have been drivers of
mass incarceration at
the local and state levels as well. In 1986, the Anti-Drug
Abuse
Act enshrined the now-infamous imposition of
harsh
mandatory minimum sentences for crack cocaine. The
passage of the 1994
crime bill created new federal funding streams
that encouraged states
to pass "tough on crime" sentencing laws and to
build more prisons.
Many of these programs are still active today.
Federal
prison funding has increased by more than 11 times
since 1976,
exploding from $901 million in 1976 to $10 billion
in 2021. During that
time, the number of people incarcerated in federal
prisons increased
ninefold, from 24,000 in 1980 to more than 219,000
by 2013, though the
number has been steadily declining since. Over the
past 20 years, the
federal prison system has cost $146 billion, and
federal prison funding
has increased by 23 per cent, despite the recent
downturn in the number
of federal prisoners.
The report Cost
of Militarization
is available here.
![Haut de page](top.gif)
(To
access articles individually click on the black
headline.)
PDF
PREVIOUS
ISSUES | HOME
Website: www.cpcml.ca
Email: editor@cpcml.ca
|