The ghosts of Paul Weyrich, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, the OG’s (Old Guard) of the religious right are dancing these days. Since his inauguration, Trump has rewarded his religious right allies with executive orders creating a “Religious Liberty Commission” and a “Task Force to Eliminate Anti-Christian Bias.”

“Together they will put the force of the federal government behind the conspiracy theories, false persecution claims, and reactionary policy proposals of the Christian nationalist movement, including its efforts to undermine separation of church and state,” Right Wing Watch’s Peter Montgomery recently reported.

On May 1, members of the religious liberty commission were announced, and nearly all are ultra-conservative Christian nationalists with a huge right-wing agenda. The commission’s chair is Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, and its vice chair is Ben Carson.

Right Wing Watch profiled several of the commission’s members:

• Paula White, serving again as Trump’s faith advisor in the White House, has used her position to elevate the influence of dominionist preachers and Christian nationalist activists. A preacher of the prosperity gospel, White has repeatedly denounced Trump’s opponents as demonic. When Trump announced the Religious Liberty Commission, White made the startling assertion, “Prayer is not a religious act, it’s a national necessity.”

• Ryan Anderson, president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, who developed the Heritage Foundation’s “road map” for overturning marriage equality and was the face of Heritage’s anti-trans activism.

• Franklin Graham, the more-political son of the famous evangelist Billy Graham, is a MAGA activist and fan of Vladimir Putin’s anti-gay policies who backed Trump in 2016 as the last chance for Christians to save America from godless secularists and the “very wicked” LGTBT agenda. After the 2020 election Graham promoted Trump’s stolen-election claims and blamed the Jan. 6 violence at the Capitol on “antifa.”

• Eric Metaxas, a once somewhat reputable scholar who has devolved into a far-right conspiracy theorist and MAGA cultist, emceed a December 2020 “Stop the Steal” rally at which Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes threatened bloody civil war if Trump did not remain in power.

• Cardinal Timothy Dolan, who helped lead U.S. Catholic bishops’ opposition to legal abortion and LGBTQ equality, was an original signer of the 2009 Manhattan Declaration, a manifesto for Christian conservatives who declared that when it comes to opposition to abortion and marriage equality, “no power on earth, be it cultural or political, will intimidate us into silence or acquiescence.”

• Kelly Shackleford, president of First Liberty, who works to undermine church-state separation via the courts; Shackleford has endorsed a Christian nationalist effort to block conservative judges from joining the Supreme Court if they do not meet the faith and worldview standards of the religious right.

• Allyson Ho, a lawyer and wife of right-wing Judge James Ho, has been affiliated with the anti-abortion and anti-LGBTQ equality religious-right legal groups Alliance Defending Freedom and First Liberty Institute.

Other commission members include Bishop Robert Barron, founder of the Word on Fire ministry; 2009 Miss USA runner-up Carrie Prejean Boller; TV personality Dr. Phil McGraw; and Rabbi Meir Soloveichik.

Montgomery noted that “Advisory board members are divided into three categories: religious leaders, legal experts, and lay leaders. The list is more religiously diverse than the commission itself; in addition to right-wing lawyers and Christian-right activists, it includes several additional Catholic bishops, Jewish rabbis, and Muslim activists.”

Notable new advisory board members:

• Kristen Waggoner, president of the mammoth anti-LGBTQ legal group Alliance Defending Freedom, which uses the courts to make “generational” wins like the overturning of Roe v. Wade, has been named as a possible Supreme Court Justice by the Center for Judicial Renewal, a Christian nationalist project of the American Family Association’s advocacy arm. The ADF is active around the world.  

• Ryan Tucker, senior counsel and director of the Center for Christian Ministries with Alliance Defending Freedom.

• Jentezen Franklin, a MAGA pastor, told conservative Christians at a 2020 Evangelicals for Trump rally, “Speak now or forever hold your peace. You won’t have another chance. You won’t have freedom of religion. You won’t have freedom of speech.”

• Gene Bailey, host of FlashPoint, a program that regularly promotes pro-Trump prophecy and propaganda on the air and at live events. Bailey has said the point of FlashPoint’s trainings is to help right-wing Christians “take over the world.” FlashPoint was until recently a program of Kenneth Copeland’s Victory Channel.

• Anti-abortion activist Alveda King, a niece of civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr., once dismissed the late Coretta Scott King’s support for marriage equality by saying , ‘I’ve got his DNA. She doesn’t.”

• Abigail Robertson, CBN podcast host and granddaughter of Christian Coalition founder Pat Robertson.

Donald Trump claiming that he’s the front man for “bringing religion back to our country,” is as if the late Jeffrey Epstein claimed that he was working to end sex trafficking.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation called Trump’s religious liberty commission “a dangerous initiative,” that “despite its branding, this commission is not about protecting religious freedom — it’s about advancing religious privilege and promoting a Christian nationalist agenda”.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Bill Berkowitz.

A new Auckland-based kava business has found itself at the heart of a cultural debate, with critics raising concerns about appropriation, authenticity, and the future of kava as a deeply rooted Pacific tradition.

Vibes Kava, co-founded by Charles Byram and Derek Hillen, operates out of New Leaf Kombucha taproom in Grey Lynn.

The pair launched the business earlier this year, promoting it as a space for connection and community.

• READ MORE: PHOTOESSAY: Visual peregrinations in the realm of kava — Pacific Journalism Review
• Other kava reports

Byram, a Kiwi-American of Samoan descent, returned to Aotearoa after growing up in the United States. Hillen, originally from Canada, moved to New Zealand 10 years ago.

Both say they discovered kava during the covid-19 pandemic and credit it with helping them shift away from alcohol.

“We wanted to create something that brings people together in a healthier way,” the pair said.

However, their vision has been met with growing criticism, with people saying the business lacks cultural depth, misrepresents tradition, and risks commodifying a sacred practice.

Context and different perspectives
Tensions escalated after Vibes Kava posted a promotional video on Instagram, describing their offering as “a modern take on a 3000-year-old tradition” and “a lifestyle shift, one shell at a time”.

On their website, Hillen is referred to as a “kava evangelist,” while videos feature Byram hosting casual kava circles and promoting fortnightly “kava socials.”

The kava they sell is bottled, with tag names referencing the effects of each different kava bottle — for example, “buzzy kava” and “chill kava”.

Their promotional content was later reposted on TikTok by a prominent Pacific influencer, prompting an influx of online input about the legitimacy of their business and the diversity of their kava circles.

The reposted video has since received more than 95,000 views, 1600 shares, and 11,000 interactions.

In the TikTok caption, the influencer questioned the ethical foundations of the business.

“I would like to know what type of ethics was put into the creation of this . . . who was consulted, and said it was okay to make a brand out of a tradition?”

Criticised the brand’s aesthetic
Speaking to RNZ Pacific anonymously, the influencer criticised the brand’s aesthetic and messaging, describing it as “exploitative”.

“Their website and Instagram portray trendy, wellness-style branding rather than a proud celebration of authentic Pacific customs or values,” they said.

“I feel like co-owner Charles appears to use his Samoan heritage as a buffer against the backlash he’s received.

“Not to discredit his identity in any way; he is Samoan, and seems like a proud Samoan too.

“However, that should be reflected consistently in their branding. What’s currently shown on their website and Instagram is a mix of Fijian kava practice served in a Samoan tanoa. That to me is confusing and dilutes cultural authenticity.”

Fiji academic Dr Apo Aporosa said much of the misunderstanding stems from a narrow perception of kava as simply being a beverage.

“Most people who think they are using kava are not,” Aporosa said.

‘Detached from culture’
“What they’re consuming may contain Piper methysticum, but it’s detached from the cultural framework that defines what kava actually is.”

Aporosa said it is important to recognise kava as both a substance and a practice — one that involves ceremony, structure, and values.

“It is used to nurture vā, the relational space between people, and is traditionally accompanied by specific customs: woven mats, the tanoa bowl, coconut shell cups (bilo or ipu), and a shared sense of respect and order.”

He said that the commodification of kava, through flavoured drink extracts and Western “wellness” branding, is concerning, and that it distorts the plant’s original purpose.

“When people repackage kava without understanding or respecting the culture it comes from, it becomes cultural appropriation,” he said.

He added that it is not about restricting access to kava — it is about protecting its cultural integrity and honouring the knowledge Pacific communities have preserved for upwards of 2000 years.

‘We can’t just gatekeep — we need to guide’
Dr Edmond Fehoko, is a renowned Tongan academic and senior lecturer at Otago University, garnered international attention for his research on the experiences and perceptions of New Zealand-born Tongan men who participate in faikava.

He said these situations are layered.

“I see the cultural appreciation side of things, and I see the cultural appropriation side of things,” Fehoko said.

“It is one of the few practices we hold dearly to our heart, and that is somewhat indigenous to our Pacific people — it can’t be found anywhere else.

“Hence, it holds a sacred place in our society. But, we as a peoples, have actually not done a good enough job to raise awareness of the practice to other societies, and now it’s a race issue, that only Pacific people have the rights to this — and I don’t think that is the case anymore.”

He explained that it is part of a broader dynamic around kava’s globalisation — and that for many people, both Pacific and non-Pacific, kava is an “interesting and exciting space, where all types of people, and all genders, come in and feel safe”.

“Yes, that is moving away from the cultural, customary way of things. But, we need to find new ways, and create new opportunities, to further disseminate our knowledge.

‘Not the same today’
“Our kava practice is not the same today as it was 10, 20 years ago. Kava practices have evolved significantly across generations.

“There are over 200 kava bars in the United States . . . kava is one of the few traditions that is uniquely Pacific. But our understanding of it has to evolve too. We can’t just gatekeep — we need to guide,” he said.

He added that the issue of kava being commercialised by non-Pacific people cannot necessarily be criticised.

“It’s two-fold, and quite contradictory,” he said, adding that the criticism against these ventures often overlooks the parallel ways in which Pacific communities are also reshaping and profiting from the tradition.

“We argue that non-Pacific people are profiting off our culture, but the truth is, many of us are too,” he said.

“A minority have extensive knowledge of kava . . . and if others want to appreciate our culture, let them take it further with us, instead of the backlash.

“If these lads are enjoying a good time and have the same vibe . . . the only difference is the colour of their skin, and the language they are using, which has become the norm in our kava practices as well.

“But here, we have an opportunity to educate people on the importance of our practice. Let’s raise awareness. Kava is a practice we can use as a vehicle, or medium, to navigate these spaces.”

‘Getting judged for the colour of my skin’
“I completely understand the points that have been brought up,” Byram said in response to the criticism.

Tearing up, he said that was one of the most difficult things to swallow was backlash fixated on his cultural identity.

“I felt like I was getting judged for the colour of my skin, and for not understanding who I was or what I was trying to accomplish. If my skin was a bit darker, I might have been given some more grace.

“I was raised in a Samoan household. My grandfather is Samoan . . . my mum is Samoan. It’s tough to be this person and then get hurt online, without having a conversation with me. Nobody took the time to ask those questions,” he said.

The pair also pushed back on claims they are focused on profit.

“We went there to learn, to dive into the culture. We went to a lot of kava bars, interviewed farmers, just to understand the origin of kava, how it works within a community, and then how best to engage with, and showcase it,” Byram said.

“People have criticised that we are profiting — we’re making no money at this point. All the money we make from this kava has gone back to the farmers in Vanuatu.”

Representing a minority
Hillen thinks those criticising them represent a minority.

“We have a lot of Pasifika customers that come here [and] they support us.

“They are ecstatic their culture is being promoted this way, and love what we are doing. The negative response from a minority part of the population was surprising to us.”

Critics had argued that the business showcased confusing blends of different cultural approaches.

Byram and Hillen said that it is up to other people to investigate and learn about the cultures, and that they are simply trying to acknowledge all of them.

Byram, however, added that the critics brought up some good points — and that this will be a catalyst for change within their business.

“Yesterday, we joined the Pacific Business Hub. We are [taking] steps to integrate more about the culture, community, and what we are trying to accomplish here.”

They also addressed their initial silence and comment moderation.

‘Cycle so self-perpetuating’
“I think the cycle was so self-perpetuating, so I was like . . . I need to make sure I respond with candor, concern, and active communication.

“So I deleted comments and put a pause on things, so we could have some space before the comments get out of hand.

“At the end of the day . . . this is about my connection with my culture and people more than anything, and I’m excited to grow from it. I’m learning, and I’m utilising this as a growth point. We’re just doing our best,” Byram said.

Hillen added: “You have to understand, this business is super new, so we’re still figuring out how best to do things, how to market and grow along with not only the community.

“What we really want to represent as people who care about, and believe in this.”

Byram said they want to acknowledge as many peoples as possible.

“We don’t want to create ceremony or steal anything from the culture. We really just want to celebrate it, and so again, we acknowledge the concern,” he added.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

The Trump administration has issued a new executive order opening up vast swathes of protected ocean to commercial exploitation, including areas within the Pacific Islands Heritage Marine National Monument.

It allows commercial fishing in areas long considered off-limits due to their ecological significance — despite overwhelming scientific consensus that marine sanctuaries are essential for rebuilding fish stocks and maintaining ocean health.

These actions threaten some of the most sensitive and pristine marine ecosystems in the world.

• READ MORE: Other President Trump executive order reports

Condeming the announcement, Greenpeace USA project lead on ocean sanctuaries Arlo Hemphill said: “Opening the Pacific Islands Heritage Marine National Monument to commercial fishing puts one of the most pristine ocean ecosystems on the planet at risk.

“Almost 90 percent of global marine fish stocks are fully exploited or overfished. The few places in the world ocean set aside as large, fully protected ocean sanctuaries serve as ‘fish banks’, allowing fish populations to recover, while protecting the habitats in which they thrive.

“President Bush and President Obama had the foresight to protect the natural resources of the Pacific for future generations, and Greenpeace USA condemns the actions of President Trump today to reverse that progress.”

President Trump signs executive order on Pacific fisheries     Video: Hawai’i News Now

Slashed jobs at NOAA
A second executive order calls for deregulation of America’s fisheries under the guise of boosting seafood production.

Greenpeace USA oceans campaign director John Hocevar said: “If President Trump wants to increase US fisheries production and stabilise seafood markets, deregulation will have the opposite effect.

“Meanwhile, the Trump administration has already slashed jobs at NOAA [National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration] and is threatening to dismantle the agency responsible for providing the science that makes management of US fisheries possible.”

“Trump’s executive order on fishing could set the world back by decades, undoing all the progress that has been made to end overfishing and rebuild fish stocks and America’s fisheries.

“While there is far too little attention to bycatch and habitat destruction, NOAA’s record of fisheries management has made the US a world leader.

“Trump seems ready to throw that out the window with all the care of a toddler tossing his toys out of the crib.”

‘Slap in face to science’
Hawai’i News Now reports that a delegation from American Samoa, where the economy is dependent on fishing, had been lobbying the president for the change and joined him in the Oval Office for the signing.

Environmental groups are alarmed.

“Trump right here is giving a gift to the industrial fishing fleets. It’s a slap in the face to science,” said Maxx Phillips, an attorney for the Centre for Biological Diversity.

“To the ocean, to the generations of Pacific Islanders who fought long and hard to protect these sacred waters.”

Republished from Greenpeace USA with additional reporting by Hawai’i News Now.

The executive orders, announced on April 17, 2025, are detailed here:

• Restoring American Seafood Competitiveness
• Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Unleashes American Commercial Fishing in the Pacific

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

Mammoth Hot Springs, Yellowstone National Park. Photo: Jeffrey St. Clair.

A few weeks ago, I watched a pack of wolves in Yellowstone National Park with perhaps several dozen other visitors.

Everyone was excited to glimpse one of the Park’s packs. People with scopes and telephoto lenses shared the view. “Here, take a look through my scope,” was a familiar invitation.

The group’s camaraderie reminded me of one of the critical attributes of public lands: Our public lands bring people together.

As we stood watching the wolves, no one was talking about politics. I’m sure there were Republicans and Democrats in the group. There were likely millionaires standing beside folks who struggled to make ends meet each month. People from different races, religions, and ethnicities were together as neighbors, enjoying the public lands. This was democracy in action.

We were all united in our love and passion for public lands. In this time of political discord and divisions, is there anything in our society that brings more people from different backgrounds together than our public lands? Where else do you find people helping each other just because it is the right thing to do?

While we may disagree about how public lands are managed, I think most Americans recognize that they are part of our nation’s heritage.

While we may all recognize that our public lands are valuable as wildlife habitats, recreation areas, water storage, carbon storage, and biodiversity protection, they are also part of America’s democratic traditions.

Any attempts to sell off or transfer public lands to private ownership is an attack on America’s fundamental value of equal opportunity and access for all. We must protect our public lands from all assaults on public ownership so we can continue to share what they preserve and represent as the best features of American culture.

The post Public Lands are an Essential Part of the Nation’s Heritage appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by George Wuerthner.

President Donald Trump issued an executive order on March 20, 2025, that calls for closing the U.S. Department of Education.

The president needs congressional approval to shutter the department. The order, however, directs Education Secretary Linda McMahon to “take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the Department of Education and return authority over education to the States and local communities while ensuring the effective and uninterrupted delivery of services, programs, and benefits on which Americans rely.”

The executive order reflects many recommendations from the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, a conservative political initiative to revamp the federal government. But it’s worth noting that the foundation’s attempt to abolish the Education Department goes back more than 40 years.

The think tank first called for limiting the federal role in education in 1981. That’s when it issued its first Mandate for Leadership, a book offering conservative policy recommendations.

As a sociology professor focused on diversity and social inequality, I’ve followed the Heritage Foundation’s efforts to eliminate the Department of Education since 1981. Although the idea didn’t garner enough support 44 years ago, the current political climate makes conditions more favorable.

Mandate 1981

In its 1981 mandate, the Heritage Foundation struck now-familiar themes.

Its education policy recommendations included closing the Department of Education and “reducing its controls over American education.”

Additionally, the think tank called on lawmakers to repeal the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which provides federal funding for disadvantaged students in K-12, so that “the department’s influence on state and local education policy and practice through discretionary grant authority would disappear.”

And the Heritage Foundation called for ending federal support for programs it claimed were designed to “turn elementary- and secondary-school classrooms into vehicles for liberal-left social and political change …”

Education experts disputed these proposed reforms just a few years later.

Four educational task forces, composed mainly of educators, corporate executives and politicians, published reports on education in 1983. All four reports were critical of the more liberal education policies of the 1960s and 1970s – such as an emphasis on student feelings about race, for example, rather than a focus on basic skills.

But they all saw the need for a strong federal role in education.

The four reports blamed the U.S. educational system for losing ground to Japan and Western Europe. And all called for more required courses rather than the “curriculum smorgasbord” that had become the norm in many public schools. They all wanted longer school days, longer school years and better-trained teachers.

Nevertheless, President Ronald Reagan tried unsuccessfully to abolish the Department of Education in 1983.

Project 2025

Jumping ahead more than 40 years, Project 2025 reflects many of the main themes the Heritage Foundation addressed in the 1981 mandate. The first line of Project 2025’s chapter on education states: “Federal education policy should be limited and, ultimately, the federal Department of Education should be eliminated.”

The charges of leftist indoctrination have expanded. Now, conservative advocates are calling to eliminate anything that has to do with diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI.

Other executive orders that Trump has signed reflect these attitudes.

For example, they call for defending women from “gender ideology extremism” and eliminating “radical” DEI policies.

According to Project 2025, school choice – which gives students the freedom to choose schools that best fit their needs – should be promoted through tuition tax credits and vouchers that provide students with public funds to attend private school. And federal education programs should either be dismantled or moved to other federal departments.

Current political climate

In the 1980s, the Heritage Foundation was seen as part of the New Right, a coalition that opposed issues such as abortion, homosexuality and affirmative action. The GOP’s alliance with conservative evangelical Christians, mobilized by advocacy groups such as Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority, was picking up steam, but it was still seen as marginal.

By 2025, things have moved significantly to the right.

Conservative Republicans in Congress view the Heritage Foundation as an important voice in educational politics.

The far right is emboldened by Trump after his Cabinet appointments and pardons of Jan. 6 rioters.

And Christian Nationalism – the belief that the United States is defined by Christianity – has grown.

Trump’s executive order does not abolish the Education Department. He needs congressional approval to do that.

But he has already weakened it. His administration recently canceled nearly $900 million in contracts at the Institute of Education Sciences, the independent research arm of the Education Department.

Despite public reluctance to eliminate the department – in February, 63% of U.S. residents said they opposed its elimination – it looks like Heritage Foundation influence could cause significant damage, with the additional firing of staff members and the reduced distribution of funds.

McMahon sent a directive to department employees in early March calling the dismantling of their agency a “final mission.”

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The post Trump’s Dismantling of the Education Department was Inspired by the Heritage Foundation’s Decades-long Disapproval of the Agency appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Fred L. Pincus.

Papua New Guinea being declared a Christian nation may offer the impression that the country will improve, but it is only “an illusion”, according to a Catholic priest in the country.

Last week, the PNG Parliament amended the nation’s constitution, introducing a declaration in its preamble: “(We) acknowledge and declare God, the Father; Jesus Christ, the Son; and Holy Spirit, as our Creator and Sustainer of the entire universe and the source of our powers and authorities, delegated to the people and all persons within the geographical jurisdiction of Papua New Guinea.”

In addition, Christianity will now be reflected in the Fifth Goal of the Constitution, and the Bible will be recognised as a national symbol.

• READ MORE: Other PNG Christianity reports

Father Giorgio Licini of Caritas PNG said that the Catholic Church would have preferred no constitutional change.

“To create, nowadays, in the 21st century a Christian confessional state seems a little bit anachronistic,” Father Licini said.

He believes it is a “cosmetic” change that “will not have a real impact” on the lives of the people.

“PNG society will remain basically what it is,” he said.

An ‘illusion that things will improve’
“This manoeuvre may offer the impression or the illusion that things will improve for the country, that the way of behaving, the economic situation, the culture may become more solid. But that is an illusion.”

He said the preamble of the 1975 Constitution already acknowledged the Christian heritage.

Father Licini said secular cultures and values were scaring many in PNG, including the recognition and increasing acceptance of the rainbow community.

“They see themselves as next to Indonesia, which is Muslim, they see themselves next to Australia and New Zealand, which are increasingly secular countries, the Pacific heritage is fading, so the question is, who are we?” he said.

“It looks like a Christian heritage and tradition and values and the churches, they offer an opportunity to ground on them a cultural identity.”

Prime Minister James Marape, a vocal advocate for the amendment, is happy about the outcome.

He said it “reflects, in the highest form” the role Christian churches had played in the development of the country.

Not an operational law
RNZ Pacific’s PNG correspondent Scott Waide said that Marape had maintained it was not an operational law.

“It is something that is rather symbolic and something that will hopefully unite Papua New Guinea under a common goal of sorts. That’s been the narrative that’s come out from the Prime Minister’s Office,” Waide said.

He said the vast majority of people in the country had identified as Christian, but it was not written into the constitution.

Waide said the founding fathers were aware of the negative implications of declaring the nation a Christian state during the decolonisation period.

“I think in their wisdom they chose to very carefully state that Papua New Guineans are spiritual people but stopped short of actually declaring Papua New Guinea a Christian country.”

He said that, unlike Fiji, which has had a 200-year experience with different religions, the first mosque in PNG opened in the 1980s.

“It is not as diverse as you would see in other countries. Personally, I have seen instances of religious violence largely based on ignorance.

“Not because they are politically driven, but because people are not educated enough to understand the differences in religions and the need to coexist.”

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

Not only had Donald J Trump presiding over a proto-fascist Maga mass movement been elected president of the United States, he will enjoy a comfortable Republican majority in the Senate, and he also may have a Republican majority in the House of Representatives.

He obtained about the same number of votes as in 2020, 74 million, and he scored an electoral victory because the Democrat candidate, Kamala Harris, got well over 10 million votes less than Joe Biden in 2020.

If one adds the strong political identification of the US Supreme Court with Trump’s overall political views, he will enjoy few obstacles from the key institutional structures of the United States to implement his cherished aim, the establishment of a strongly authoritarian government that would endeavour to turn all existing institutions into instruments of his political movement, his ideology and his government plans.

Throughout the election campaign and since he lost the 2020 election, Trump has projected a government programme of wholesale retribution against his political opponents including what he perceives as a hostile media, which he has labelled “the enemy within.”

He also intends to expel millions of — principally Latino — immigrants, who he accuses of “poisoning the blood of the country.”

His strategic plan for the US has been systematised in a 900-page document by the Heritage Foundation, Project 2025, which, if fully implemented, will erase most of the existing mechanisms and practices that, despite its gross imperfections, broadly qualify the US as a democracy.

Many have exhaled a premature sigh of relief when Trump in his victory speech promised “no more wars” in his coming administration. However, during his 2016-20 government he conducted a mutually damaging “trade war” against China, a country he harbours a deep hostility to.

Hostility to China is likely to become the centre of his concerns on foreign policy, for which he can escalate the intense cold war and the massive military build-up around the South China Sea, including arming Taiwan, already developed by Biden.

Open US hostility to China began with president Barack Obama’s “Pivot to East Asia” in 2011, which prepared the militarisation of US policy towards the Asian giant. US military build-up 8,000 miles away from the US is stirring trouble in the region.

There ought to be little progress to be expected from the coming Trump government on the Middle East and on Palestine-Gaza. In December 2017, less than a year in office, reversing nearly seven decades of US policy on this sensitive issue, Trump formally recognised Jerusalem as the capital city of Israel and moved the US embassy to Jerusalem. There was worldwide dismay, including in substantial sections of the US Establishment, because it “shattered decades of unwavering US neutrality on Jerusalem.”

About Latin America, the 2016-20 Trump government specifically targeted what his national security adviser, John Bolton, called the “troika of tyranny” — namely, Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua — which he also referred to as “a triangle of terror.”

Bolton in outlining Trump’s policy accused the three governments of being “the cause of immense suffering, the impetus of enormous regional instability and the genesis of a sordid cradle of communism.”

In 2018, Trump’s state secretary, Rex Tillerson, affirmed the Monroe Doctrine because it had asserted US “authority” in the western hemisphere, stating that the doctrine is “as relevant today as it was when it was written.” Tillerson’s was a strong message to Latin America that the US would not allow the region to entertain building links with emerging world powers such as China.

It was during Trump’s 2016-20 administration that, after several years of careful and methodical preparations, the US orchestrated and financed the 2018 coup attempt against Nicaragua. It convulsed the small Central American nation for more than six months of vicious levels of violence, leading to wanton destruction of property, massive economic losses, and nearly 200 innocent people killed. The Biden administration, under pressure from cold warriors in the US, has continued its policy of aggression against Nicaragua by applying an array of sanctions.

Trump inflicted hundreds of sanctions on Venezuela with horrible human consequences, since in 2017-18 about 40,000 vulnerable people died unnecessarily. Venezuela’s economy was blockaded to near asphyxiation. Its oil industry was crippled with the double purpose of denying the country’s main revenue earner and preventing oil supplies to Cuba. Trump repeatedly threatened Venezuela with military aggression; Venezuela (2017) was subjected to six months of opposition street violence; an assassination attempt against President Nicolas Maduro (August 2018); Juan Guaido proclaimed himself Venezuela’s “interim president” (January 2019, and he was recognised by the US); the opposition tried to force food through the Venezuela border by military means (February 2019); the State Department offered a reward of $15 million for “information leading to the arrest of President Maduro” (March 2020); a failed coup attempt (May 2019); a mercenary raid (May 2020); and in 2023 Trump publicly admitted that he wanted to overthrow Maduro to have control over Venezuela’s large oil deposits.

Although Cuba has endured the longest comprehensive blockade of a nation in peace time (over six decades, so far), under Trump the pressure was substantially ratcheted up. In 2019 Trump accused the government of Cuba of “controlling Venezuela” and demanded that, on the threat of implementing a “full and complete” blockade, the 20,000 Cuban specialists on health, sports culture, education, communications, agriculture, food, industry, science, energy and transport, who Trump falsely depicted as soldiers, leave.

Due to the tightening of the US blockade, between April 2019 and March 2020, for the first time its annual cost to the island surpassed $5 billion (a 20 per cent increase on the year before).

Furthermore, Trump’s policy of “maximum pressure” against Cuba meant, among other things, that lawsuits under Title III of the Helms-Burton Act, were allowed; increased persecution of Cuba’s financial and commercial transactions; a ban on flights from the US to all Cuban provinces (except Havana); persecution and intimidation of companies that send fuel supplies; an intense campaign to discredit Cuban medical co-operation programmes; USAid issued a $97,321 grant to a Florida-based body aimed at depicting Cuban tourism as exploitative; Trump also drastically reduced remittances to the island and severely limited the ability of US citizens to travel to Cuba, deliberately making companies and third countries think twice before doing business with Cuba; and 54 groups received $40 million in US grants to promote unrest in Cuba. Besides, Cuba has had to contend with serious unrest in July 2021 and more recently in March 2024, stoked by US-funded groups in as many cities as they could. The model of unrest is based on what has been perpetrated against Nicaragua and Venezuela.

Trump’s final act of sabotage, just days before Biden’s inauguration, was to return Cuba to the State Sponsors of Terrorism (SSOT) list by falsely charging it with having ties to international terrorism. The consequences have been devastating: between March 2022 and February 2023, 130 companies, including 75 from Europe, stopped any dealings with Cuba, affecting transfers for the purchase of food, medicines, fuel, materials, parts and other goods.

Trump, despite being so intemperate and substantially discredited worldwide due to his rhetorical excesses, threats and vulgarities, leads a mass extremist movement, has the presidency, the Senate and counts on the Supreme Court’s explicit complicity, and is, therefore, in a particularly strong position to go wacko about the “troika of tyranny,” especially on Cuba. In short, Trump’s election as president has a historic significance in the worst possible sense of the term.

From his speeches one can surmise he would like to make history and he may entertain the idea of doing so by “finishing the job” on Cuba (but also on Venezuela and Nicaragua). If he does undertake that route, he has already a raft of aggressive policies he implemented during 2016-20. Furthermore, he will enjoy right-wing Republican control over the Senate foreign affairs committee.

Worse, pro-blockade hard-line senators Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio are leading members of this committee and have a fixation with Cuba. Trump got stronger support in Florida, where the anti-Cuban Republicans in Florida bolstered his support and election victory. He also has a global network of communications owned by his ally, billionaire Elon Musk. Furthermore, no matter who the tenant in the White House, the “regime change” machinery is always plotting something nasty on Cuba.

So, buckle up! Turbulent times are coming to Latin America. Our solidarity work must be substantially intensified by explaining the increased threat that a second Trump term represents for all Latin America, but especially for Cuba.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Francisco Domínguez.

Israel is escalating its bombardment of Lebanon, leveling numerous buildings, including the offices of Lebanese news station Al Mayadeen. The Israeli military has also attacked the ancient city of Tyre, a UNESCO-designated World Heritage Site, and killed three Lebanese soldiers in a strike in southern Lebanon, all while continuing to defy international calls for a ceasefire. “What we’re seeing is a complete degeneration into a war that has no rules, that respects no international conventions. There’s one side in this war that has complete impunity,” says Lebanese sociologist Rima Majed in Beirut. “Israel is targeting civilians in most cases. … This is just terrorism.”

This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

Three investigators for the Heritage Foundation have deluged federal agencies with thousands of Freedom of Information Act requests over the past year, requesting a wide range of information on government employees, including communications that could be seen as a political liability by conservatives. Among the documents they’ve sought are lists of agency personnel and messages sent by individual government workers that mention, among other things, “climate equity,” “voting” or “SOGIE,” an acronym for sexual orientation, gender identity and expression.

The Heritage team filed these requests even as the think tank’s Project 2025 was promoting a controversial plan to remove job protections for tens of thousands of career civil servants so they could be identified and fired if Donald Trump wins the presidential election.

All three men who filed the requests — Mike Howell, Colin Aamot and Roman Jankowski — did so on behalf of the Heritage Foundation’s Oversight Project, an arm of the conservative group that uses FOIA, lawsuits and undercover videos to investigate government activities. In recent months, the group has used information gleaned from the requests to call attention to efforts by the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency to teach staff about gender diversity, which Fox News characterized as the “Biden administration’s ‘woke’ policies within the Department of Defense.” Heritage also used material gathered from a FOIA search to claim that a listening session the Justice Department held with voting rights activists constituted an attempt to “rig” the presidential election because no Republicans were present.

An analysis of more than 2,000 public-records requests submitted by Aamot, Howell and Jankowski to more than two dozen federal offices and agencies, including the State Department, the Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Trade Commission, shows an intense focus on hot-button phrases used by individual government workers.

Those 2,000 requests are just the tip of the iceberg, Howell told ProPublica in an interview. Howell, the executive director of the Oversight Project, estimated that his group had submitted more than 50,000 information requests over the past two years. He described the project as “the most prestigious international investigative operation in the world.”

Among 744 requests that Aamot, Jankowski and Howell submitted to the Department of the Interior over the past year are 161 that seek civil servants’ emails and texts as well as Slack and Microsoft Teams messages that contained terms including “climate change”; “DEI,” or diversity, equity and inclusion; and “GOTV,” an acronym for get out the vote. Many of these FOIAs request the messages of individual employees by name.

Trump has made clear his intentions to overhaul the Department of the Interior, which protects the nation’s natural resources, including hundreds of millions of acres of land. Under President Joe Biden, the department has made tackling climate change a priority.

Hundreds of the requests asked for government employees’ communications with civil rights and voting rights groups, including the ACLU; the Native American Rights Fund; Rock the Vote; and Fair Count, an organization founded by Democratic politician and voting rights advocate Stacey Abrams. Still other FOIAs sought communications that mention “Trump” and “Reduction in Force,” a term that refers to layoffs.

Several requests, including some sent to the Department of Defense, the Department of Homeland Security and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, focus on personnel. Some ask for “all employees who entered into a position at the agency as a Political Appointee since January 20, 2021,” the first day of the Biden administration. Others target career employees. Still other FOIAs seek agencies’ “hierarchy charts.”

“It does ring some alarm bells as to whether this is part of an effort to either intimidate government employees or, ultimately, to fire them and replace them with people who are going to be loyal to a leader that they may prefer,” Noah Bookbinder, president and CEO of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, or CREW, said of the FOIAs.

Asked whether the project gathered the records to facilitate the firing of government workers, Howell said, “Our work is meant to just figure out who the decision-makers are.” He added that his group isn’t focused on simply identifying particular career employees. “It’s more about what the bureaucrats are doing, not who the bureaucrats are,” he said.

Howell said he was speaking on behalf of himself and the Oversight Project. Aamot requested questions in writing, but did not respond further. Jankowski did not reply to a request for comment.

Bookbinder also pointed out that inundating agencies with requests can interfere with the government’s ability to function. “It’s OK to make FOIA requests,” said Bookbinder, who acknowledged that CREW has also submitted its share of requests. “But if you purposely overwhelm the system, you can both cause slower response to FOIAs … and you can gum up other government functions.”

Indeed, a government worker who processes FOIAs for a federal agency told ProPublica that the volume of requests from Heritage interfered with their ability to do their job. “Sometimes they come in at a rate of one a second,” said the worker, who asked to remain anonymous because they were not authorized to speak to the press. The worker said they now spend a third of their work time processing requests from Heritage, including some that seek communications that mention the terms “Biden” and “mental” or “Alzheimer’s” or “dementia” or “defecate” or “poop.”

“They’re taking time away from FOIA requesters that have legitimate requests,” said the worker. “We have to search people’s accounts for poop. This isn’t a thing. I can’t imagine a real reporter putting in a request like that.”

Asked about the comment, Howell said: “I’m paying them, so they should do their damn job and turn over the documents. Their job is not to decide what they think is worth, you know, releasing or not.” He added that “we’re better journalists by any standard than The New York Times.”

Project 2025, which is led by Heritage, became politically toxic — with Trump disavowing the endeavor and Kamala Harris seeking to tie her opponent to the plan — in part for proposing to identify and fire as many as 50,000 career government employees who are deemed “nonperforming” by a future Trump administration. Trump attempted to do this at the end of his first term, issuing an executive order known as “Schedule F” that would have allowed his administration to reclassify thousands of civil servants, making them easier to fire and replace. Biden then repealed it.

Project 2025’s 887-page policy blueprint proposes that the next conservative president reissue that “Schedule F” executive order. That would mean a future Trump administration would have the ability to replace tens of thousands of career government employees with new staffers of their choosing.

To fill those vacancies, as ProPublica has reported, Project 2025 has also recruited, vetted and trained future government employees for a Republican administration. In one training video obtained by ProPublica, a former Trump White House official named Dan Huff says that future government staffers should prepare to enact drastic policy changes if they join the administration.

“If you’re not on board with helping implement a dramatic course correction because you’re afraid it’ll damage your future employment prospects, it’ll harm you socially — look, I get it,” Huff says. “That’s a real danger. It’s a real thing. But please: Do us all a favor and sit this one out.”

Howell, the head of the Oversight Project and one of the FOIA filers, is a featured speaker in one of Project 2025’s training videos, in which he and two other veteran government investigators discuss different forms of government oversight, such as FOIA requests, inspector general investigations and congressional probes. Another speaker in the video, Tom Jones of the American Accountability Foundation, offers advice to prospective government employees in a conservative administration about how to avoid having sensitive or embarrassing emails obtained under the FOIA law — the very strategy that the Oversight Project is now using with the Biden administration.

“If you need to resolve something, if you can do it, it’s probably better to walk down the hall, buttonhole a guy and say, ‘Hey, what are we going to do here?’ Talk through the decision,” Jones says.

“You’re probably better off,” Jones says, “going down to the canteen, getting a cup of coffee, talking it through and making the decision, as opposed to sending him an email and creating a thread that Accountable.US or one of those other groups is going to come back and seek.”

The records requests are far reaching, seeking “full calendar exports” for hundreds of government employees. One FOIA submitted by Aamot sought the complete browser history for Interior Secretary Deb Haaland, “whether exported from Chrome, Safari, Windows Explorer, Mozilla.” The most frequent of the three requesters, Aamot, whose online bio describes him as a former psychological operations planner with the Army’s Special Operations Command, submitted some FOIAs on behalf of the Heritage Foundation and others for the Daily Signal. The publication spun off from the Heritage Foundation in June, according to an announcement on the think tank’s website, but another page on the site still seeks donations for both the foundation and the Daily Signal.

ProPublica obtained the Department of Interior requests as well as tallies of FOIAs from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Health Resources and Services Administration through its own public records requests.

Several of the Heritage Foundation’s requests focus on gender, asking for materials federal agencies presented to employees or contractors “mentioning ‘DEI’, ‘Transgender’, ‘Equity’, or ‘Pronouns.’” Aamot sent similar requests to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Office of Management and Budget, Americorps and the Chemical Safety Board, among other agencies. Howell said he believes that the group has uncovered evidence that “unpopular and just frankly sexually creepy and sexually disordered ideas are now being translated into government jargon, speak, policies, procedures and guidance documents.”

Heritage’s FOIA blitz has even sought information about what government employees are saying about Heritage and its employees, including the three men filing the thousands of FOIAs. One request sent to the Interior Department asks for any documents to and from the agency’s chief FOIA officer that mention Heritage’s president, Kevin Roberts, as well as the names of Aamot, Howell and Jankowski.

Irena Hwang contributed data analysis. Kirsten Berg contributed research.

This content originally appeared on ProPublica and was authored by by Sharon Lerner and Andy Kroll.

Speculation that the historic Lao town of Luang Prabang could be stripped of its World Heritage status because of a massive dam planned upstream is worrying local residents.

Although the Lao government denies there is cause for concern, a former senior UNESCO official has reportedly warned that it’s a real threat hanging over one of the country’s main tourist attractions.

Luang Prabang was named a UNESCO World Heritage Site in 1995 for its “unique, remarkably well-preserved townscape.”

It's known for its daily parade of monks collecting alms, vibrant night market, well-preserved Buddhist temples, including the 16th-century gilded Wat Xieng Thong, and colonial-era architecture. 

Nearly 780,000 foreign and domestic visitors in the first nine months of 2023, according to Lao tourism figures. 

Questions about the town’s status arose after Minja Yang, a former deputy director of the UNESCO World Heritage Centre, told Nikkei Asia in January that Luang Prabang was at risk of losing its status because of increasing development related to a hydropower dam project about 25 kilometers (16 miles) upstream on the Mekong River. 

In March 2023, UNESCO issued a report recommending that Laos continue efforts to ensure that the Luang Prabang Dam would not have a negative impact on the town’s heritage sites, and take measures to regulate tourism-related activities and infrastructure development.

The US$3 billion, 1,460-megawatt dam project on the Mekong mainstream is located between the upstream Pak Beng hydropower project and the downstream Xayaburi Dam, and will provide power for export to Thailand and Vietnam after completion in 2027.

It is one of many dams the Lao government is building along the Mekong River in the country’s quest to become the “battery of Southeast Asia.”

The U.N.’s Paris-based cultural agency requested that Laos submit to the World Heritage Centre an updated report on the state of conservation and the implementation of the measures by Feb. 1, 2024, to preserve the city’s “outstanding universal value.”

“If the second dam is indeed constructed, I believe Luang Prabang should be delisted,” Yang told Nikkei in an email.

“Without the World Heritage status, ill-conceived projects of shopping malls and casinos aimed for certain categories of tourists that we have so far succeeded in stopping over the past 20 years, will now cave into various vested interests,” Yang told Nikkei. “So, I can only imagine what the future of the town will be.”

RFA could not reach Yang or officials in UNESCO’s Bangkok office for comment.

Mixed reactions

An official from the World Heritage Department of the Lao Ministry of Information, Culture and Tourism,  who wanted to be identified only by his first name Pheune, told RFA on Feb. 2 that Luang Prabang would not be delisted and that UNESCO officials had expressed concerns outlined in the March 2023 report.

Pheune also said that construction of the Luang Prabang Dam would not affect the town’s World Heritage status because the site is far from the city.

A Luang Prabang province official, who like the other sources in this report requested anonymity for safety reasons, agreed. “To delist the town of Luang Prabang is not easy,” he said. 

“Yes, many Chinese are leasing buildings and transforming them to hotels and restaurants, and some of them might not be complying with the rules and regulations of UNESCO, so our city officials should be aware of those issues and should step up the control,” he said.

But other Lao officials and city residents say they are concerned that Luang Prabang might be at risk because of too many Chinese-backed developments, as Chinese investors lease more buildings and turn them into hotels and restaurants.

A Lao businessman in the city said he heard about the delisting rumor, but believes that Luang Prabang is still preserving its heritage, culture and tradition, especially in the city center. 

The development is occurring mainly in the suburbs, and builders must receive permission before erecting structures, he said. The man cited the example of a Chinese company that wants to build a cable car line near the town, though city authorities have not yet given it the green light.

But a town resident was not so optimistic, noting that Chinese investors in various businesses are not interested in preserving local tradition and culture.  

“I heard that Luang Prabang could be stripped of its World Heritage status because there are too many Chinese businesses here,” he told RFA. “Don’t forget, getting World Heritage Site status is not easy. Our government should be careful because Luang Prabang as a World Heritage Site attracts a lot of tourists from around the world. We, the residents, enjoy better living conditions because of that status.”

Another resident raised concern about the future dam. 

“What would happen if the dam broke in the future?” he asked about the fate of Luang Prabang, which lies in a valley at the confluence of the Mekong and Nam Khan rivers. “Certainly, that break would wreak havoc on our town and people.”

Phakhanxay Sikhanxay, director general of the Heritage Department under the Ministry of Information, Culture, and Tourism, issued a statement in December, saying that a rumor that UNESCO would remove the city was unfounded, and that Laos has not received any official documents from about the matter, the Vientiane Times reported. 

Translated by RFA Lao. Edited by Roseanne Gerin and Malcolm Foster.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By RFA Lao.

*****

Painting by Sliman Mansour

“I hugged the olive tree. It was precious to me, so I hugged it. I felt like I was hugging my child. I’d raised the tree like my child. They attacked around 500 trees filled with olives. Each tree could have filled two sacks of olives. They destroyed my olive tree, but I grew them back. I tended them and they came back even better than before. Settlers will never be able to take my land. This is our land not theirs. We will keep resisting until the world ends.”
Mahfodah Shtayyeh (2005 video)

November 26 will be World Olive Tree Day according to the 40th session of the UNESCO General Conference (2019). The olive tree has symbolised peace and harmony for millennia.

World Olive Tree Day was proclaimed at the 40th session of the UNESCO General Conference in 2019 and takes place on 26 November every year. The olive tree, specifically the olive branch, holds an important place in the minds of men and women. Since ancient times, it has symbolized peace, wisdom and harmony and as such is important not just to the countries where these noble trees grow, but to people and communities around the world.

Think ‘holding out an olive branch’, an idiom that comes from Genesis 8:11 where we read “And the dove came into him in the evening; and, lo, in her mouth was an olive leaf plucked off: so Noah knew that the waters were abated from off the earth.”

However, in Palestine where the people have been cultivating olives for thousands of years, the olive tree has itself become a subject of destructive battles as settlers cut down or burn the olive groves. Al-Walaja, for example, is a Palestinian village in the occupied West Bank, four kilometres northwest of Bethlehem and is the site of Al-Badawi, an ancient olive tree “claimed to be approximately 5,000-year-old and therefore the second oldest olive tree in the world after “The Sisters” olive trees in Bchaaleh, Northern Lebanon.”

It is estimated that about 700,000 Israeli settlers are living illegally in the occupied West Bank and extremist elements are becoming more violent. In October this year (2023) a Palestinian farmer harvesting olives “was shot dead by settlers in the occupied West Bank city of Nablus. ‘We are now during the olive harvest season – people have not been able to reach 60 percent of olive trees in the Nablus area because of settler attacks,’ according to Ghassan Daghlas, a Palestinian Authority official monitoring settler activity.”

Olive Tree by the late Ismael Shammout

Traditionally, harvest time would bring families and neighbours together, helping each other in a process called “al Ouna”. The importance to these communities for unity and an income has led to the trees being depicted in the arts, and in particular the visual arts. Many paintings show farmers and families gathering the olives or show the ancient trees as symbols of their struggle and resilience.

Olive Harvest by Maher Naji.

The close connection between the farmers and their trees was famously illustrated in the photo of Mahfodah from the village of Salem hugging what is left of one of her olive trees. This photo has since been the source of many posters and paintings illustrating the political conflicts that the people have been forced to endure.

Salem (2005)

Life for the artists has not been easy either. They have focused on themes such as nationalism, identity, and land. As a result, their art can be political and the artists “sometimes suffer from the confiscation of artwork, refusal to license artists’ organizations, surveillance, and arrests.”

Olive picking (1988) by Sliman Mansour

According to Sliman Mansour, a Palestinian painter based in Jerusalem, the olive tree “represents the steadfastness of the Palestinian people, who are able to live under difficult circumstances”, and like the “way that the trees can survive and have deep roots in their land so, too, do the Palestinian people.”

Painting by Salam Kanaan

Sometimes the paintings and posters incorporate other symbols of Palestinian identity like the City of Jerusalem (al-Quds), plants like Jaffa oranges, watermelon and corn, religious symbols, or the Palestinian flag.

Other traditional Palestinian arts like embroidery have used the olive tree in different ways. For example, the Palestinian History Tapestry “uses the embroidery skills of Palestinian women to illustrate aspects of the land and peoples of Palestine – from Neolithic times to the present. In the past, Palestinian embroiderers have mainly used cross stitch (tatreez) and geometric designs to decorate dresses and other items.”

Olive harvest  [59 x 110 cm]. Design: Hamada Atallah [Al Quds] Al Quds, Palestine
Embroidery: Dowlat Abu Shaweesh [Ne’ane], Ramallah, Palestine

The symbolism in art can take on even harsher characteristics like Sliman Mansour’s painting of an olive tree wrapped in barbed wire (Quiet morning). The subject, a woman in a beautifully embroidered dress, is contrasted with the denial of access to the olive tree and therefore access to her birthright (the past) and an income (the future).

Quiet morning (2009) by Sliman Mansour

The olive trees have provided a steady source of income from their fruit and the “silky, golden oil derived from it”. Moreover, it is believed that “between 80,000 and 100,000 families in the Palestinian territories rely on olives and their oil as primary or secondary sources of income. The industry accounts for about 70 percent of local fruit production and contributes about 14 percent to the local economy.”

Poster by Abu Manu (1985)

However, the idea of recovery and renewal is also a common theme as the resilient olive tree with its deep roots is shown to be able to recover its vigour despite being chopped down. This has provided inspiration for the farmers and artists alike. The struggle for nature has always been intertwined with the struggle for life, and respect for the olive tree has always been reciprocated with abundance over the millennia.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Caoimhghin O Croidheain.

As we mark Hispanic Heritage Month in the United States, Congressmember Jesús “Chuy” García says it’s important to celebrate the contributions of activists who fought racial and economic inequality. The Illinois Democrat is the first Mexican immigrant from the Midwest elected to Congress and recently delivered a speech on the House floor to mark the 40th anniversary of the killing of Chicago activist Rudy Lozano, whom García considered a friend and mentor. Lozano was murdered in 1983, after working to build multiracial support for the historic election of Chicago’s first Black mayor, Harold Washington. “Activists like Rudy Lozano … were responsible for movements that have empowered Latino, African American, Asian and other discriminated communities over a 40-year span,” says García. He also recalls the work of Bert Corona, who started the Mexican American labor organization CASA, which had nationwide chapters that served as organizing hubs and protested the Vietnam War.

This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

Below is a statement Adam Markham, the deputy director of the Climate and Energy Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS).

“As occurred with Australia’s Great Barrier Reef in recent years, member nations of the World Heritage Committee punted on adding Venice to UNESCO’s list of endangered sites. Today’s decision by the World Heritage Committee signals an alarming trend of nations not being held accountable for protecting some of the most iconic and irreplaceable natural and historic sites around the globe. Venice is a city in crisis facing rising sea levels and flooding that threaten the structural integrity of homes, businesses, critical infrastructure, and world-renowned historical sites. Uncontrolled mass tourism has also made affordable housing scarce for locals as demand for vacation rentals increases and the growth of cruise ship traffic has caused significant damage to the Venice lagoon. If nations continue to ignore the existential threat climate change poses to places like Venice, they could be irrevocably damaged or lost forever. Sadly, climate change and tourism are killing Venice.”

If you have questions or would like to interview Markham, please contact UCS Climate and Energy Media Manager Ashley Siefert Nunes.

Additional Resources:

• A recent blogpost by Markham detailing some of the key issues being discussed at this year’s World Heritage Committee meeting.
• A joint report by UCS, UNESCO and U.N. Environment Program titled “World Heritage and Tourism in a Changing Climate,” which identifies the World Heritage sites most at risk from climate change.
• A case study on the threat climate change poses to the Great Barrier Reef, which was originally in the aforementioned report but ultimately removed at the request of the Australian government, as well as a statement by Markham about this government interference.
• A UCS report titled “National Landmarks at Risk: How Rising Seas, Floods, and Wildfires are Threatening the United States’ Most Cherished Historic Sites.”

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Newswire Editor.

The post Ancient Roots: A Promising New Project to Organize Humanity’s Universal Heritage appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Eric Laursen.

An academic says the power of Pacific voters is growing, giving them increasing influence in upcoming Aotearoa New Zealand elections.

University of Auckland associate professor in statistics Andrew Sporle said the Pacific population was growing faster than other groups, meaning the voter base of people with Pacific heritage was growing.

“More than half of the Pacific population is under the age of 25, so every election, what that means is [that] there’s another 25,000 Pacific voters.”

• READ MORE: NZ election 2023: Raucous Northland debate crowd rails at covid, te reo Māori mentions
• Other NZ election 2023 reports

A/Professor Sporle told the Pacific Media News morning show those extra votes could be the difference between a candidate getting into Parliament or not — especially in the largest city.

“You can see in all these marginal electorates, especially in Tāmaki [Auckland], what really drives the result is voter turnout, and imagine being able to mobilise those 25,000 people and get them out to vote.”

Tongan Advisory Council Auckland chair Melino Maka said some parties make the mistake of overlooking Pacific voters.

“Our community is traditionally ‘Don’t vote’. People who vote, that’s where the resources of the government of the day will be directed.

“So it’s mainly if you are palagi, and if you’re middle income, you vote, and your interest will be served before us.”

Pacific communities care about promises
Maka said Pacific communities care about election promises on issues like public transport and dental care, but also remember the Dawn Raids apology, marred by recent events and inaction.

“The apology, personally, was a hollow apology. As you can see, a few weeks after, they raided a man right in front of his kids and family.

“Immigration policy, they talk about it and they say they’re doing something about it. They’ve been looking at it for the last six years, and I think if they [Labour] get back into power, they’ll still be looking into it for the next three years.”

What about the opinion polls which are trending towards a National-led government?

Associate Professor Sporle warns people not to read too much into the election opinion polls, saying there are things to consider.

“Timing of the poll, if it was two weeks ago, does that really reflect what’s going on today, because there might have been some big news. The further out from the election, the worse it is for predicting the results.

“Then I look at the margin of error, and I look at how many people said they don’t know, because at the moment, 40 percent of people haven’t made up their mind, but that’s still a large amount.”

Need to take Pacific seriously
Meanwhile, Maka said the Labour Party and others needed to take Pacific voters seriously.

“The Pacific block has always been underestimated, and if they manage to get their people to sell [their policies] to our community in a way that’s not complicated, I think they will have a turnout and maybe the result will be closer . . . but the time is running out.”

The election takes place on October 14.

The outgoing Parliament contains 12 Pasifika MPs including the Deputy Prime Minister Carmel Sepuloni.

This article was first published by the Pacific Media Network and is republished thanks to a community partnership with RNZ Pacific.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

The United Liberation Movement for West Papua has responded cautiously over the Melanesian Spearhead Group’s surprise denial of full membership at its leaders summit last week, welcoming the communique while calling for urgent action over Indonesia’s grave human rights violations.

In a statement released today by President Benny Wenda after the second ULMWP leaders’ summit in Port Vila, the movement said the MSG had “misinterpreted” its founding principles based on the “inalienable right” of colonised countries for independence.

Strong speeches in support of the West Papuan struggle were made at the ULMWP summit by Vanuatu’s Ralph Regenvanu, the current Climate Minister and a former foreign minister, and Barak Sope, a former prime minister.

• READ MORE:  OPM accuses Melanesian group of taking Jakarta’s ‘blood money’ at expense of West Papuan justice
• MSG throws away golden chance to reset peace and justice for West Papua
• MSG leaders defer Papua membership decision to Pacific Islands Forum
• Flashback: Fiji, PNG lead betrayal, but still West Papuans triumph (in 2015)
• Other MSG reports

Wenda said the ULMWP agreed to the MSG chair asking the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) to ensure that the requested visit of the UN Human Rights Commissioner to Indonesia takes place, and to asking Jakarta to allow the commissioner to visit West Papua and have the report considered at the next MSG summit in 2024.

But he added the hope that the MSG chair would “honour” these commitments urgently, “given the grave human rights violations on the ground in West Papua, including the recent warnings on human rights issues from the UN Special Advisor on Genocide”.

The ULMWP also expressed:

• Scepticism about the impact of the renewed call for a UN visit, given that the visit had been continually denied in spite of the 2019 calls by the Pacific islands Forum (PIF) and the Organisation of African, Caribbean and Pacific States (OACPS);
• Reservation on the possibility of future dialogue with the Indonesia government. Full MSG membership was a precondition;
• Reservation on the discussion of “closer collaboration” with the Indonesian government when the people of West Papua had asked for full MSG membership; and
• Reservation on the statement: “Membership must be limited only to sovereign and independent states, with special arrangements for FLNKS”.

On the FLNKS statement, Wenda said: “This appears to be a misinterpretation of the founding principles of the Melanesian Spearhead Group which state that, ‘having come together, the Melanesian Spearhead Group commit themselves to the principles of, respect for, and promotion of, independence as the inalienable right of colonial countries and people.’”

Meanwhile, as condemnation of the MSG’s position on West Papua has grown since the “disappointing” summit last week, Governor Powes Parkop of Papua New Guinea’s capital Port Moresby, has made renewed criticism.

“I am totally disappointed but I will never give up until my last breath,” he told Asia Pacific Report.

“Our heritage is that we defend our land and our people. For thousands of years we defeated the Melayu people of Indonesia or the various Muslim and Hindu empires which tried to enter our ancestral land.

“They never succeeded. We only were overwhelmed by European superior weapons and abilities in 1800s and subsequently Indonesians took over after arming themselves with these superior weapons left by colonial powers and the Japanese invading army,” said Parkop, who has long been a critic of Papua New Guinea’s failure to take a stronger stance over Indonesia.

“I will honour our heritage and our ancestors by continuing to challenge Indonesian rule over West Papua our ancestral land. We have lost many battles, heroes and heroines, but Indonesia has and will never win the war.

“We are fighting for our rights, our dignity and our heritage and nothing Indonesia does will dent that drive and energy.”

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

A coalition of climate groups this week called out the Biden administration's support for the partially completed Mountain Valley Pipeline, highlighting how its ongoing construction and potential operation threaten "the well-being of people, endangered species, streams, rivers, farms, national forests, and the planet."

The letter, led by Protect Our Water, Heritage, Rights (POWHR) and 7 Directions of Service and backed by 149 other organizations, is in response to U.S. Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm writing to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) last month to reiterate the administration's position on the contested 303-mile fracked gas pipeline across Virginia and West Virginia.

"We are incredibly disappointed with your recent actions to promote the destructive and unneeded Mountain Valley Pipeline (MVP)," the climate coalition wrote to Granholm, noting that her letter to FERC coincided with President Joe Biden signing an executive order to implement "environmental justice policy across the federal government."

"You should be supporting environmental justice as the bedrock of every new policy and piece of infrastructure, advocating for climate reparations, and aggressively promoting distributed, decentralized renewable energy and energy democracy."

After condemning the administration's endorsement of the pipeline and recent approvals of the Willow oil and Alaska liquefied natural gas (LNG) projects as "hypocritical betrayals," given Biden's campaign trail pledges, the coalition laid out how the MVP impacts "livelihoods, drinking water sources, property values, and important cultural resources," pointing to Indigenous cultural sites as well as communities of "low-income, elderly, and medically underserved populations" dependent on private wells.

MVP construction has involved over 500 violations of permit conditions, laws, and regulations, the letter emphasizes, and almost 75% of the route "slices through 'moderate-high' or 'high' landslide risk terrain."

The pipeline developer's website states that "MVP's total project work is nearly 94% complete, which includes 55.8% of the right-of-way fully restored." While proponents of the project often cite the former figure, letter signatories are drawing attention to the latter—and that completion would require complex construction involving "incredibly complex and fragile" water crossings.

"The MVP, its greedy political backers, and some journalists continue to claim that the project is nearly complete despite the company's own repeated reports that it is just over half complete with some of the hardest construction yet to come, including hundreds of stream crossings," POWHR managing director Russell Chisholm told Common Dreams.

"This disinformation is not only an insult to frontline communities monitoring and enduring the unfinished pipeline's construction, but it furthers the risk of another planet-killing fossil fuel pipeline built during a climate crisis... on a planet that we all live on," Chrishold added. "Shame on all people in power who tout this falsehood."

Released as climate scientists continue to stress the need for a swift global transition to renewable energy, the letter argues that "this project is not inevitable, and is completely counter to the overwhelming evidence that we must stop creating new fossil fuel infrastructure immediately."

Taking aim at claims in the energy secretary's letter, the coalition wrote:

Asking the commission to proceed "expeditiously" with any further action on the project and misstating the project's relation to "national security" while providing no evidence undermines the administration's commitment to advancing environmental justice. An economy tied to fossil fuels during a climate crisis is unpredictable and makes us vulnerable to foreign governments and the greed of corporate CEOs. This country's energy independence can only come from a swift and just renewable energy transition. This will help protect us from foreign supply chain disruptions and conflicts, as well as deliver lower costs to consumers. The MVP will not assist our allies in Europe, and nor is it needed in the Southeast as you claim. No matter where MVP's gas is intended to be delivered, sacrificing communities to free up gas to export overseas for corporate profit is not "national security." Building this project prolongs fracked gas buildout, accelerates LNG infrastructure buildout and export, and sacrifices communities, all of which are counter to the just future we deserve.

Your letter contains open appeals for dangerous distractions that will prop up the fossil fuel industry for decades to come. The dangerous distractions of carbon capture and hydrogen propagate the untrue belief that we can continue wholesale destruction of the earth, continue creating sacrifice zones, release millions of tons of greenhouse gasses from fossil fuel projects, and continue massive corporate capture of regulatory agencies while embarking on a just transition off of fossil fuels. Instead, you should be supporting environmental justice as the bedrock of every new policy and piece of infrastructure, advocating for climate reparations, and aggressively promoting distributed, decentralized renewable energy and energy democracy.

"Your letter states that MVP is part of the clean energy transition. In reality, MVP would exacerbate the very climate crisis that is causing an increasing number of extreme weather events," the organizations continued, referencing expert estimates that its "lifecycle would be comparable to the operation of 26 to 37 new coal-fired power plants."

"We request that you immediately rescind your letter of support for the project," the coalition concluded, "and that you meet with directly impacted communities as soon as possible who live on the route of the project, so you can gain an increased understanding of the destruction and danger that you are promoting."

The groups' letter comes as U.S. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.)—whose personal fortune and political campaigns are tied to fossil fuels—renews his push for a "dirty deal" on energy permitting reforms, despite three defeats last year. On Tuesday he introduced the Building American Energy Security Act, which calls for the completion of the MVP.

In a backroom deal with Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) last summer, Manchin agreed to vote for the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) if Democrats—who then controlled both chambers of Congress—subquently pushed through his permitting measure. Progressive lawmakers and grassroots opposition have so far blocked such efforts, but the House is now narrowly held by Republicans willing to serve Big Oil, and Manchin expressed confidence this week that he can advance a bipartisan bill.

Despite Manchin's recent votes to gut some of Biden's climate and environmental policies, the White House is backing his bill. "We supported it last year, we'll support it this year," John Podesta, who directs IRA implementation for the president, toldReutersTuesday. "It's a high priority for us to try to find a path forward on bipartisan, permanent reform."

Meanwhile, "dirty deal" critics remain committed to killing it. According to Chisholm, "Sen. Manchin is desperate to complete the Mountain Valley Pipeline through federal shortcuts that circumvent normal regulatory and judicial processes because he knows our movement is growing stronger every day and we will stop the unnecessary, unwanted climate nightmare that is the MVP."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Jessica Corbett.

The rivers that run through the steep valleys and rocky cliffs of the Laponian Area are fed by crystalline alpine lakes and glacial streams. Many of the forests that tower over the land have stood for more than 700 years and teem with wildlife. In the spring and summer, when the midnight sun traces wide circles across the bright blue sky, crowberries blanket the meadows and yellow globe flowers dot the snow-capped peaks.

In those warm months, this region in the far north of Sweden provides a bounty for large migrating herds of reindeer: grass, birch, and herbs. Snow patches in the high mountains provide relief from insects on hot days, and the verdant lowland provides ample grazing as the nights cool. When winter arrives, rivers and marshes ice over, and the reindeer venture south beyond the Laponian Area along well-worn pathways, traveled by generations of Sámi reindeer herders, to winter grazing lands. This migration of both the reindeer and the Sámi who tend to them, reveals an ancient relationship with the land that persists to this day.

“It is the variation of landscape that makes the area so good,” said Helena Omma, who is Sámi and president of the Association of World Reindeer Herders. “Reindeer use all these landscapes during different times and conditions.”

Nestled deep in the heart of Sápmi, the traditional homelands of the Sámi, the Laponian Area covers nearly 4,000 square miles. The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, or UNESCO, considers it a place of “exceptional beauty” and its stewardship by Sámi hunters, fishers, and herders “an outstanding example” of traditional land use. That combination of natural and Indigenous values was essential in the agency’s decision to declare it a World Heritage Site. 

Since earning that designation in 1996, Sámi leaders and the Swedish government have, for the most part, enjoyed a successful and cooperative relationship managing the area. But an iron mine, recently approved on land barely 20 miles south of the Laponian Area’s border, is straining that collaboration. If the British-owned Kallak mine is built, it will impede the migration of reindeer to critical winter grazing lands and sever routes Sámi families and villages have relied upon for centuries. 

“We need the lands outside of Laponia to ensure that the Sámi culture within Laponia can survive,” said Omma, who is also co-chair of the Laponiatjuottjudus Association, the administrative body that oversees the World Heritage Site. “We want to protect the land because the reindeer need the land, and we need the land.”

To protect the Laponian Area, their culture, and their livelihoods, Sámi leaders say Sweden must stop the mine. By threatening their way of life, they argue, the mine threatens the Laponian Area’s status as a UNESCO site.

These tensions highlight growing international concerns about UNESCO’s treatment and inclusion of Indigenous communities in establishing and managing World Heritage Sites. Although this occurs around the world, it is perhaps most explicit in Thailand and Tanzania, where violent evictions and killings define relations between Indigenous peoples, governments, and the U.N. agency’s reputation.

The issue, which has unfolded over decades, could grow more widespread. World Heritage Sites, which are protected by the United Nations, are rich with biodiversity, making them a small, but essential, part of the successful implementation of the global conservation program 30×30. That ambitious effort calls for setting aside 30 percent of the world’s land and sea for permanent protection against development by 2030. Given that Indigenous territories comprise almost 20 percent of Earth’s land and shelter almost 80 percent of its remaining biodiversity, human rights experts worry that a history of systemic mistreatment of Indigenous peoples coupled with so rapid a timeline could be detrimental — even deadly — if it does not specifically include and respect those communities and their knowledge. 

“UNESCO cannot turn away from its obligations,” said Lola García-Alix, senior adviser on global governance at the International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs, or IWGIA, a human rights advocacy organization. “States can, but not UNESCO, and we should not allow it to do so.”

When Sweden sought World Heritage Site status for the Laponian Area, its application was based solely on the region’s natural beauty. UNESCO rejected that application, saying Laponia’s splendor was not unique enough to warrant protection. However, the committee said the inclusion of its cultural values in a subsequent application could reopen the process. The country followed that guidance, and in 1996, with essential help from Sámi reindeer herders, secured the land’s protection. It remains just one of a few World Heritage Sites with an internationally recognized connection to living Indigenous cultures, effectively making the Sámi true stakeholders with authority over its management. 

The Laponian Area is one of the 1,157 World Heritage Sites worldwide. The U.N. established UNESCO in 1959 after Egypt proposed building a dam that would flood the valley containing the Abu Simbel temples and other antiquities. The campaign saved those treasures, leading to similar efforts in Italy, Pakistan, and Indonesia. Today, 167 countries have at least one place on the list, ranging from iconic locales like the Taj Mahal and Chichen-Itza to smaller gems like the Madriu-Perafita-Claror Valley in Andora, which provides, in the words of UNESCO, “a microcosmic perspective of the way people have harvested the resources of the high Pyrenees over millennia.”

Such a designation often brings a boom in tourism. Worldwide, these sites attract some 8 billion visitors per year and generate as much as $850 billion in revenue. But the infrastructure needed to handle those tourists often strains the very places and ecosystems UNESCO hopes to protect. Angkor Wat, which was designated a World Heritage Site in 1992, in Cambodia, for example, saw tourism increase 300 percent between 2004 and 2014 alone. Beyond the on-site human impact, places like the Great Barrier Reef, near Australia, and the city of Venice, Italy, face mounting threats from climate change. 

Yet many of these cherished places could prove essential to the planet’s survival. The International Union for Conservation of Nature, which advises UNESCO, estimates that two-thirds of natural World Heritage Sites are crucial sources of water, while those in tropical regions store nearly 6 billion tons of carbon. These locations make up more than 1 million square miles of protected terrain and represent approximately 8 percent of all protected areas worldwide. However, only 48 percent of them are considered by the Union to have effective protection and management while nearly 12 percent raise serious concern.

Sámi communities tended the Laponian Area centuries before the Kingdom of Sweden in 1532. That kind of history is not uncommon across the UNESCO system; many World Heritage Sites are near, or overlap, traditional Indigenous territories. What is uncommon is how it has been managed.

It took more than a decade after its inscription as a World Heritage Site to establish Laponia’s oversight board, Laponiatjuottjudus. “It started when I was a child, in ’96, ” said Omma. “It was a 15-year-long struggle where the Sámi’s really worked hard to get a majority on the board, to create consensus-based decision-making processes, and to get reindeer herding rights respected within the Laponia site. It was a long, long struggle against authorities.”

Today, Laponiatjuottjudus is legally responsible for managing the entire region. Representatives of nine Sámi villages work with local and county officials and the national Environmental Protection Agency to manage and maintain the area. Decision-making is grounded in Sámi cultural values and the collaboration has been so successful that the U.N. special rapporteur on the rights of Indigenous peoples lauded the relationship.

But Indigenous peoples worldwide have long raised concerns about violations of their rights within UNESCO sites. Three U.N. special rapporteurs on the rights of Indigenous peoples — independent human rights experts appointed by the U.N. Commission on Human Rights — have reported recurring problems at World Heritage Sites, including a lack of Indigenous participation in the nomination, declaration, and management process of sites; significant restrictions on access to resources and sacred sites; and harassment, criminalization, violence, and killings of Indigenous peoples.

As a United Nations agency, UNESCO must comply with international obligations, including the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Traditionally, the challenge has been doing so in countries where the government regularly mistreats, or even refuses to recognize, Indigenous peoples and declarations of their rights. The United Nations has no punitive tools for dealing with such cases, and UNESCO can only threaten to delist a site — something that has happened only twice in the last 50 years, and never as retribution for human rights violations. 

Putting aside that serious shortcoming, UNESCO fails to consider Indigenous communities in even the most fundamental tasks, like telling people the land they’ve lived on for centuries is slated for conservation.

“Many Indigenous peoples are not aware that there will be a World Heritage Site perhaps until they are in a World Heritage Site,” said García-Alix of the International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs. “They have never been informed. Information is not publicly available.”

Currently, 186 proposed World Heritage Sites are pending review, and although UNESCO’s website states that fact, it offers no details about how they are considered. Evidence suggests the process is increasingly politicized. One study found that political or economic factors played heavily in cases in which the World Heritage Committee ignored recommendations that it decline designation or defer a decision pending additional information. 

In other cases, the body seemingly overlooks any consideration of the communities impacted by its decision. Such was the case in 2021, when the World Heritage Committee ignored reports of human rights violations in Thailand’s Kaeng Krachan Forest Complex, and inscribed it to the World Heritage List despite pleas from the Indigenous Karen communities within the park, a U.N. human rights panel, and the International Union for the Conservation of Nature to defer the nomination.

“Kaeng Krachan is a stain on the whole U.N. system,” said García-Alix. “It raises questions about the accountability of UNESCO as a U.N. organization.”

The Karen have for hundreds of years lived as gatherers and farmers in what is now known as the Kaeng Krachan Forest. In 1981, the Thai government named the area a national park and began relocating the Karen communities from the upper Bangkloy to the Pong Luik-Bang Kloy in 1996. In exchange for voluntarily leaving their traditional homeland, they would receive land to farm and financial support. 

Many of them agreed, but upon arriving at their new homes, some families found only sandy, rocky land unfit for farming. What’s more, the support the Thai government promised never arrived, or very little did. The Karen immediately demanded authorities follow through on their promises. When good land and support failed to materialize, communities faced two options: return home or migrate to towns looking for jobs.

“When we talk with the Karen people who live there, they say that they are not against the World Heritage Site, but their concerns and issues need to be resolved,” said Kittisak Rattanakrajangsri, who is Mien and chairs the Council of Indigenous Peoples in Thailand. “The land issues remain. That’s why they decided to go back to their homelands again.”

The Karen have tried to return home at least three times. Each time, Thai authorities responded with violence, harassment, and forced evictions. Park officials have burned homes and rice barns, confiscated ceremonial items, seized fishing nets, and arrested Indigenous residents and activists.

At least two human rights defenders have been killed. Tatkamol Ob-om, who was helping the Karen report illegal logging and human rights abuses, was shot by an unknown assassin in 2011. Three years later park officers arrested Por La Jee “Billy” Rakchongcharoen, who assisted affected villagers to file a legal complaint against park officials over the destruction of Karen housing. He vanished until 2019, when Thailand’s Department of Special Investigation identified his remains after discovering a burnt skull fragment in an oil barrel at the bottom of a reservoir. This had no impact on the World Heritage Committee’s decision to add the site to the list.

Rattanakrajangsri says there will be a review of the site’s World Heritage status every five years. “If the independent study shows that the situation is not getting better, and on the contrary, is getting worse, I think that it sends a strong message to UNESCO and other conservation agencies,” he said.

Such abuses, and what appears to be a history of indifference to them, go back decades. The Maasai of Tanzania have faced repeated violent evictions from the Ngorongoro Conservation Area, a UNESCO site since 1979. The Maasai, mobile pastoralists much like the Sámi, have moved through the region for centuries, and although UNESCO has insisted that it never called on Tanzanian authorities to expel them from the park, it has done little to address the tens of thousands of Maasai who have been forced from their homelands, injured, and even shot and killed. In the last year alone, nine U.N. human rights experts and the International Union for the Conservation of Nature have called on Tanzanian officials to halt relocation until consulting with the Maasai. Human rights defenders have demanded UNESCO sever ties with the Tanzanian government.

“The World Heritage Committee is closely monitoring the state of conservation of the mentioned properties,” said a spokesperson for the World Heritage Centre. “Including the issues related to the rights of the Indigenous peoples.”

The agency could begin to address such injustices by establishing a mechanism under which Indigenous peoples and human rights watchdogs could bring evidence of violations to its attention, said Nicolás Süssmann, conservation and Indigenous peoples project director with Project Expedite Justice, a human rights organization. He also says UNESCO could be more open and clear in its handling of human rights complaints.

“The consequences cannot just be removing or firing an eco-guard who conducted an operation,” he said. “This is not a problem of rogue eco-guards. This is a problem with a conservation model that is incompatible with Indigenous peoples.”

But that conservation model has been the global standard for more than a century, and with more than 100 countries expressing support for 30×30, Süssmann and other human rights experts say the situation will get worse. “You can say you respect Indigenous peoples,” said Süssmann, “but when you have a deadline and you’re used to doing things without Indigenous peoples’ real, and meaningful, involvement, you’re not going to change the way you do things if you don’t have to.”

Read Next

How the world’s favorite conservation model was built on colonial violence

Joseph Lee

Süssman says this is especially true when you read the fine print: Under 30×30, countries don’t have to preserve 30 percent of their own lands and waters by 2030. The plan calls only for preserving 30 percent of the world’s land and waters by then. “Nobody is going to demolish a couple of buildings near Central Park to make it bigger,” said Süssmann. “They’re going to get that 30 percent from other parts of the world.”

Much of that land will, almost inevitably, encompass Indigenous territories, which make up nearly a quarter of the planet. In 2016, human rights experts estimated that 50 percent of protected areas worldwide encompassed traditional Indigenous lands covering more than 6 million square miles. Today, protected areas comprise nearly 9 million square miles – an area roughly the size of China, India, Mongolia, and the United States combined. To reach 30% by 2030, more than 15 million square miles must be protected – an area nearly the size of Russia.

All told, protected areas represent just 16 percent of the Earth’s surface, and while there is no disagreement that safeguarding biodiversity is critical to planetary survival, advocates say failing to make human rights foundational to global conservation efforts may continue to drive evictions, violence, and killings in Indigenous territories.

“World Heritage Sites, which are U.N. protected areas, at the minimum, should be the ones who respect and protect Indigenous people’s rights,” said García-Alix. “If I have to be diplomatic: UNESCO has a lack of sensitivity about human rights issues, particularly when it comes to World Heritage.”

Beyond ensuring Indigenous rights and traditional knowledge are respected, such arrangements could advance UNESCO’s preservation goals and help mitigate the impacts of climate change. 

A rapidly expanding body of science shows that working with Indigenous communities can accelerate conservation efforts. Legal recognition of Indigenous territories in Brazil’s Atlantic Forest have led to increased reforestation. Studies show that the world’s healthiest forests often stand on protected Indigenous lands, and sustainable pastoralism, like that of Maasai or Sámi herders, offers benefits ranging from preserving soil fertility to maximizing genetic diversity. Formal recognition of territory and rights also creates legal pathways to stopping the development of extractive industries: Indigenous resistance to fossil fuel projects in North America is thought to have stopped or delayed the creation of greenhouse gas pollution equivalent to at least 25 percent of annual U.S. and Canadian emissions. That resistance, however, is often criminalized by state authorities.

Humans have shaped and sustained landscapes for more than 12,000 years, and Indigenous communities continue to care for the territories that have sustained them for generations. Embracing and applying that knowledge – and the understanding that Earth is an interconnected system of physical, biological, cultural, and spiritual networks that extend beyond borders — could go a long way toward addressing the climate crisis. In some cases, like the Kallak iron mine, it even means the difference between life and death.

Read Next

How protecting the Earth became an excuse for murder

Gord Hill

“We know how this will affect our culture and our livelihoods,” said Omma. “But it’s very common that our knowledge is viewed as opinions, not as knowledge.”

Human rights experts continue to urge Sweden to stop the project, and the World Heritage Centre says a report on its potential impacts will be presented to the World Heritage Committee at its annual conference this September. The committee will then offer recommendations to the Swedish government. For the Sámi, there can be one way forward.

“You can’t coexist with a mine,” said Omma. “It’s not possible.”

But to Indigenous communities like the Sámi, the issue is so much bigger than one mine. Truly protecting a place goes beyond preserving its landscapes and historic sites. It must include the protection, respect, and participation of the people who have, for millennia, lived in good relation with that land and know, perhaps better than anyone, how to protect it for future generations.

“Protection of land is good,” said Helena Omma, “if Indigenous peoples are part of that protection.”

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline In Sweden, a proposed iron mine threatens a World Heritage Site, and the culture that made it on Apr 18, 2023.

This content originally appeared on Grist and was authored by Tristan Ahtone.

Télécharger un PDF de Bande dessinée de la « Fortress Conservation » : Un Héritage de Violence

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Bande dessinée de la «Fortress Conservation» : Un Héritage de Violence on Apr 12, 2023.

This content originally appeared on Grist and was authored by Gord Hill.

A U.S. appellate court panel on Monday unanimously struck down a key water permit for the Mountain Valley Pipeline, a nearly completed fracked gas project long opposed by people living along the over-300-mile route through Virginia and West Virginia.

Three judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit vacated a Clean Water Act certification from the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP), without which the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers cannot allow ongoing MVP construction at stream and wetland crossings.

"The certification reflected the department's conclusion that MVP's activities during the pipeline's construction would not violate the state's water quality standards," the panel said. "Disagreeing with that determination, landowners and members of various environmental organizations in the state have petitioned for this court's review of the department's certification. We find the department's justifications for its conclusions deficient and vacate the certification."

"West Virginia communities have endured Mountain Valley Pipeline's damage to their water resources and environment for far too long."

The MVP gained national attention last year because of efforts by U.S. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) to force the completion of the pipeline as part of his thrice-defeated "dirty deal" on permitting reforms. House Republicans, who recently passed their own fossil fuel-friendly energy package, are also now pushing for legislation to finish the project.

While Manchin said Monday that "it is infuriating to see the same 4th Circuit Court panel deal yet another setback for the Mountain Valley Pipeline project and once again side with activists who seem hell-bent on killing any fossil energy that will make our country energy independent and secure," MVP opponents praised the decision.

"Today's ruling uplifts the tireless efforts of every single coalition member and volunteer fighting to protect land, water, and people," said Russell Chisholm, managing director for the Protect Our Water, Heritage, Rights (POWHR) Coalition. "MVP should abandon their ill-fated project because we will defend every stream and river crossing that can still be saved from permanent harm."

Several campaigners stressed that damage has already been done during the construction of the incomplete pipeline.

"MVP has already gone too far in damaging West Virginia's water resources, particularly in some of our most valuable mountain headwater systems. WVDEP clearly cannot make a good conscience argument that MVP will not further violate water quality standards," said West Virginia Rivers Coalition executive director Angie Rosser.

Similarly charging that "West Virginia communities have endured Mountain Valley Pipeline's damage to their water resources and environment for far too long," Jessica Sims, Virginia field coordinator for Appalachian Voices, agreed that "this ruinous project must be canceled."

Along with violating water standards, this "disastrous" project "is already more than three years behind schedule, and billions over budget," noted Sierra Club's Patrick Grente. "With continuous legal setbacks, it has never been more clear that investors should stop throwing money at this doomed project and walk away."

Bloombergreported that the ruling likely thwarts plans to put MVP into service in 2023 and delays the project by at least a year.

"People need investment in clean, fossil fuel-free, nonextractive energy—not the MVP—and developers should cancel the project," said Crystal Cavalier-Keck, co-founder of 7 Directions of Service, who was far from alone in pointing to the broader climate argument against continuing the pipeline, or any fossil fuel project, given scientists' warnings.

Chesapeake Climate Action Network general counsel Anne Havemann declared that "we're in a climate crisis and need to stop digging the hole deeper."

"It's time to move away from polluting fracked gas infrastructure projects such as MVP that harm our rivers and streams, rip through private property, and contribute to climate change," Havemann said, "and move towards clean, renewable energy."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Jessica Corbett.

As congressional Democrats launch new clean energy and environmental justice efforts, House Republicans outraged climate campaigners and frontline communities on Thursday with a move to fast-track a long-delayed fracked gas pipeline.

Congresswoman Carol Miller (R-W.Va.), backed by 10 other Republicans, introduced an amendment to the GOP-led Lower Energy Costs Act (H.R. 1) to ensure that the controversial Mountain Valley Pipeline (MVP) is "constructed expeditiously."

Russell Chisholm, managing director of the Protect Our Water, Heritage, Rights (POWHR) Coalition, highlighted that Miller's fresh push for the MVP came just a day after Democrats introduced the A. Donald McEachin Environmental Justice for All Act.

"As they watch the demise of the fossil fuel industry that lines their pockets, they are desperate to fast-track this unnecessary and disastrous pipeline."

"Hours after our environmental justice movement released a positive vision for a livable future, the Environmental Justice for All Act, these Republicans are throwing a tantrum," Chisholm said in a statement Thursday. "As they watch the demise of the fossil fuel industry that lines their pockets, they are desperate to fast-track this unnecessary and disastrous pipeline—to the point that they want to strip away judicial review and nullify bedrock environmental law."

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report released Monday "makes clear that we must stop all new fossil fuel expansion immediately," he continued. "We demand our representatives to silence this ridiculous whining while our regulatory agencies and courts assess the science and evidence that mandates the MVP be stopped."

Jason Crazy Bear Keck, co-founder of 7 Directions of Service, said, "The fact that some of our elected representatives have been bending over backwards to fast track the MVP, a poster child pipeline for corruption and environmental injustices, is appalling to us as impacted community members, water protectors, and land defenders."

"Only a short-sighted, greed-driven person who stands to profit would go to such great lengths to attempt to revive a failing zombie project like the MVP," he asserted. "Time and time again the people have risen up against the backroom deals and slimy maneuverings at the federal level to push MVP through, and we will keep standing up until our basic rights and protections, like those granted by the EJ for All Act, are secured and upheld."

While residents living along the over 300 miles of pipeline route through Virginia and West Virginia have long fought against MVP, the project got national attention last year as Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) tried to force a "dirty deal" on permit reforms.

Though Manchin's proposals were thrice defeated, the right-wing Democrat and MVP supporter signaled in February that he would continue to work with the new House GOP majority to try to advance a fossil fuel-friendly measure.

E&E Newsreported Wednesday that "other politicians hailing from the mid-Atlantic are eager to see the pipeline operate. But Republicans have previously opposed the idea of singling out one project for special congressional treatment. And they might not want to hand Manchin a win at a time when the moderate Democrat mulls running for reelection."

House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) last week introduced the Lower Energy Costs Act—which, while unlikely to make it through the divided Senate and reach President Joe Biden's desk, is intended to wipe out the administration's climate agenda.

As E&E detailed:

Republicans say the proposal, which will be debated and voted on next week, would allow the United States to produce more oil, gas, solar, and wind in a manner that is more environmentally sound than anywhere else on the planet.

The bill, the work of three committees, would require the federal government to hold quarterly oil lease sales in Western states. It would speed up environmental permitting that GOP lawmakers complain drags on years longer than it should. The package would also allow for more hardrock mining in mineral-rich states like Minnesota and Idaho.

Meanwhile, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) on Tuesday sent supporters of the GOP bill a clear message from the floor of the upper chamber: "You can do all the hoopla you want in the House, it ain't passing."

The IPCC this week put out "their most dire warnings to date: Unless the world swiftly transitions to clean energy and curbs emissions, our planet risks crossing a point of no return sometime in the next decade," Schumer said. "What awaits us on the other side could be severe and irreversible: droughts, storms, crop failures at a level we can scarcely imagine today."

"House Republicans seem to think the best solution for our energy needs is not to help America transition to clean energy... Unfortunately, they think doubling down on more giveaways to Big Oil is the way to go," he added. "Democrats want to see a bipartisan, commonsense energy proposal come together in Congress, but Republicans' H.R. 1 proposal is dead on arrival in the Senate."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Jessica Corbett.

ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up for Dispatches, a newsletter that spotlights wrongdoing around the country, to receive our stories in your inbox every week.

For the second time in six months, a federal agency reprimanded a Louisiana developer for its failure to offer an adequate assessment of the harm that its proposed $400 million agricultural development would cause to neighboring Black communities and historic sites.

In a forceful letter dated Dec. 23, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers rejected claims by the developer, Greenfield LLC, that its massive grain transfer facility in St. John the Baptist Parish upriver from New Orleans will have “no adverse effects.” The Corps is considering a permit application by Greenfield to build on federally protected waters and has the power to halt the project.

This is the second time the Corps has intervened.

In May, ProPublica revealed that a whistleblower had raised alarms about the project after the report she drafted on behalf of Greenfield — concluding that the facility would inflict damage on communities and historic sites — was gutted by the consulting firm where she worked to exclude any mention of that harm. In response to that story, the Corps deemed the drastically edited archaeological and historical survey “insufficient” and ordered Greenfield to produce a new report.

That new report, which the Corps received in November, did not address the agency’s demand that the developer conduct a more complete assessment of how the project could damage historic sites and harm residents of nearby towns, according to the Corps’ December letter.

“The report,” the letter reads, “just doesn’t demonstrate adequate engagement and that must be rectified.”

A Greenfield spokesperson said in a statement that “we and our team of respected expert consultants have done thorough evaluations to consider any and all potential impacts.” The statement went on to say that “Greenfield takes seriously its responsibility to provide regulatory agencies with accurate and complete information consistent with the regulatory requirements.”

The Corps’ letter criticizes Greenfield and its contractors for failing to meaningfully consult with people whose lives would be impacted by the dozens of looming grain silos, new rail, truck and shipping traffic and pollutants from the facility. It says Greenfield and its consultants have not done enough to account for the ways that the development project might harm communities of color, a requirement under federal environmental justice standards.

“It’s very disappointing that they would continue to double down on the report, that they are still saying there will not be any detrimental effects,” Erin Edwards, who blew the whistle on the earlier report, told ProPublica in a recent interview. Edwards co-authored the first version of the report when she worked as an architectural historian for Gulf South Research Corporation, the for-profit cultural resources and archaeological consulting firm that had been hired by another of Greenfield’s consultants to conduct a federally required assessment of historic sites.

Edwards resigned in late 2021 after her report was stripped of every mention of possible harm to communities or cultural properties, including her conclusion that the area surrounding the development should be listed as a historic district because of its connection to histories of slavery. In internal Gulf South emails obtained by ProPublica, a company manager wrote that it would lose its contract for the report — and could lose future work — if it didn't change the findings.

“Gulf South knew all along that the project would have an adverse effect on the historic plantations there, and they knew that it would have an adverse effect on the area as a whole,” Edwards said. “There’s no way to look at the evidence and not see that it’s going to be detrimental.”

Gulf South, which did not respond to questions about the new report or the Corps’ response letter, had earlier told ProPublica that it stood by the edited report and that Edwards’ version had been nothing more than a draft. Ramboll LLC, the consulting firm Greenfield hired to clear permitting hurdles and had in turn contracted Gulf South, also did not respond.

In response to the Corps’ recent letter, Ramboll said in a letter of its own that it and its client have consulted with community members and local groups. The company cited meetings between Greenfield and members of the environmental justice group Rise St. James, including the group’s founder, Sharon Lavigne. Ramboll’s letter claimed that Rise St. James “expressed support for Greenfield and its engagement approach.”

But when contacted on Friday, Lavigne told ProPublica that she said no such thing.

“I am not in favor of it. I oppose it,” Lavigne told ProPublica. “I don’t know how the writing got changed around to say that I support the grain elevator.”

When asked about the inconsistency, a Greenfield spokesperson told ProProPublica in an email, “There was an error in the characterization which has been corrected, and we’ve apologized to Rise St. James for the error.”

Greenfield added that the response by the Corps and the community to the new report “helps to make a good project even better. In areas where more information will help the Corps understand what we've proposed, we'll provide it.”

The Greenfield grain facility has been the target of sustained pushback from nearby communities, civil and human rights groups and historic preservation organizations, as well as from other federal agencies, including the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, which oversees federal preservation policy. The land where the development is planned sits beside the Whitney Plantation Museum, which serves as a memorial to people who were enslaved in Louisiana. One plot of land down the river is another unusually well preserved plantation designated as a National Historic Landmark.

The Corps is also asking questions about the impact that the Greenfield development will have on existing communities. In its letter, the Corps asks Greenfield to more rigorously account for the grain facility’s likely impact on Wallace, a small, nearly all-Black rural community that sits directly beside the planned construction.

“Wallace will be directly impacted by the proposed action,” the letter said, adding that other federal agencies, including the National Park Service and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, have urged the Army Corps “to ensure that the community of Wallace is considered in the evaluation of the permit decision.”

Because the project would be built on federally protected waters, including wetlands and the Mississippi River, Greenfield had to apply for a permit from the Corps. Before it can grant the permit, the Corps has to enforce provisions of the National Historic Preservation Act.

“What we feel is that Greenfield intentionally ignored people in our community, that they just moved ahead without us,” said Joy Banner, who lives in Wallace and is the co-founder, along with her sister Jo Banner, of a group called the Descendants Project. The group supports communities whose members trace their ancestry to people enslaved in the region. “Now the Corps is backing that up,” she said. “The Corps is saying, ‘You did not talk to them about cumulative impacts, and the information that you provided is not consistent with the actual impact that a massive grain terminal would have.’ The story they offered is not adding up.”

In response to ProPublica’s reporting last year, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation raised concerns about Greenfield’s plans. In an interview, Sara Bronin, the agency’s incoming chair, said that federal agencies like the Corps need to hold developers and their consultants accountable when they don’t follow the law.

“There should be an alignment between environmental justice, equity and historic preservation,” Bronin said. “Especially in communities that have lacked power, that have been underrepresented in our histories, we must be more cognizant about and motivated to address the historical injustices that people still feel very deeply today.”

This content originally appeared on Articles and Investigations - ProPublica and was authored by by Seth Freed Wessler.

A mother, daughter of a migrant and an “OG Taranaki girl” – they are some of the ways Aotearoa New Zealand’s new Deputy Prime Minister Carmel Sepuloni describes herself, reports TVNZ’s 1News.

She is also the first New Zealander of Pacific Island heritage to take on the role.

Addressing reporters in the Beehive Theatrette with incoming Prime Minister Chris Hipkins on Sunday, Sepuloni said she would back Hipkins “every step of the way” and was humbled to be chosen as his deputy.

• READ MORE: Chris Hipkins becomes NZ’s new prime minister – there are two ways it can go from here
• Hipkins energised and excited about chance to become NZ’s PM
• Chris Hipkins: From Head Boy to Prime Minister
• Former NZ PM Helen Clark calls for rethink on political debate in wake of Ardern resignation
• Other reports

“It’s very hard to fathom that a working class girl from Waitara who turned westie . . . can become the deputy prime minister of New Zealand — and now I get to back up the boy from the Hutt”

Sepuloni, who was also New Zealand’s first MP of Tongan descent, was referencing Hipkins’ description of himself from a press stand-up interview on Saturday, reports 1News political reporter Felix Desmarais.

On Sunday, Sepuloni said she was “proudly Samoan, Tongan and New Zealand European”.

She will be the first Pacific Islander and third woman to hold the position.

She said she represented “generations of New Zealanders with mixed heritage” and acknowledged the significance of the moment to Pacific communities.

“As deputy prime minister I will continue to be focused [on] serving our communities and whānau and Aotearoa.”

Carmel Sepuloni makes history.                                 Video: Television New Zealand News

She acknowledged outgoing prime minister and deputy Jacinda Ardern and Grant Robertson and said they were “big shoes to fill”.

The deputy leader of the Labour Party remains Kelvin Davis.

Curated by Pacific Media Watch from Television New Zealand News.

The ‘girl from Waitara’ – Carmel Sepuloni makes history https://t.co/Sj5E0eGcOn

— 1News (@1NewsNZ) January 22, 2023

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by Pacific Media Watch.

The list, for which UNESCO is responsible for observing, includes some 678 traditions from 140 countries. The Slovenians have beekeeping, for instance; Tunisia has harissa; Zambia can call upon the significance of the Kalela dance.  Such traditions can span several countries: the listing of states for the Lipizzan horse breeding tradition reads like an inventory of the lost Austro-Hungarian empire, echoing Joseph Roth’s Radetzkymarsch.

The baguette, one of France’s grandest gastronative examples, is celebrated as a labour-intensive product marked by patience.  Lengthy periods of fermentation are required, including wheat of appropriate quality, leaving a distinct gold crispness.  Fats are eschewed, as are any improvers or additives, which are prohibited by the decree of September 13, 1993.  The characteristic cuts with 14 facets act like ceremonial scars.  It is also the hallmark of the traditional boulangeries, which are struggling, notably in rural areas, to survive.

“Many have tried to make it; they just made something industrial which has no taste,” the grinning Macron exclaimed.  “And this ‘French touch’ we have in our baguette is the one we have in other sectors: It’s this additional know-how, this extra soul.  So, congratulations to our baguette for today.”

Macron’s dig at the industrialised, quickly made baguette is well-founded, and it was appropriate for him to be doing it in the land of mass-industrialised food practices.  But the baguette has become, in time, a French imperial marker with local variations. The Vietnamese famously have their Bánh mì, which has become an international food presence across the global diaspora, though modifications in terms of part substitution of rice flour for wheat flour take place.  The influence in western and northern Africa is also clear.  The streets of Dakar are marked by baguette stands.

As food is as much a political statement as a culturally boisterous one, political figures expressed their delight at the baguette’s listing.  Culture Minister Rima Abdul Malak tweeted about the ubiquity of the baguette in terms of French habits: “morning, noon and evening, the baguette is part of the daily life of the French”.  The listing was “a great recognition for our artisans and the unifying places that are our bakeries.”

Another important figure in promoting the baguette’s case for UNESCO recognition, Dominique Anract, called the announcement “good news in a complicated environment.”  As president of the National Federation of French Bakeries and Patisseries, Anract almost struck a wistful note about old habits.  “When a baby cuts his teeth, his parents give him a stump of baguette to chew off.”

Much of this belies the fact that the French, as serious as they are about eating bread, consume less of it and are facing changing lifestyles and the hollowing out of its evocative rural villages.  Since 1950, the consumption of bread has fallen by a startling two-thirds.  But modern food politics demands modern laws; and a recent promulgation demands the use of certain percentages regarding the use of wheat. Eventually, much is at stake for the continued making and consumption of this thin bread morsel.

For an individual such as Steven Kaplan, a Brooklyn-born historian who has spent almost all his academic life focused on bread, the UNESCO addition could only cause displeasure.  The ecstasy of French politicians about the baguette belies the fact that such a listing will simply serve to encourage inferior alternatives.  Under the generic term of “baguette de pain”, as opposed to “baguette de tradition”, the white flour baguette, “which is generally of very mediocre quality” is legitimised.  “For me, who has long campaigned for artisanal savoir-faire, this is an appalling regression.”

Whenever a committee meets, politics will arise.  The decision making of UNESCO is no exception.  Was there a reason why Ukrainian borscht soup needed to make the list?  Yes, according to committee members, because of Russia’s warring efforts in Ukraine.  A gastronomic threat had been identified, with UNESCO claiming that “armed conflict has threatened the viability” of the dish, as “people not only cannot cook or grow local vegetables for borscht, but also cannot gather [to make the dish] … undermining the social and cultural well-being of communities.”

Borscht brings its own brand of culinary politics, and charting countries which consume this soup is to revisit dead empires and their shadows: Imperial Russia, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.  Igor Bednyakov, chef at the Moscow restaurant Bochka, advises that the Cossacks cooked up the stew during the siege of Azov in 1637, a fascinating twist to the tale that has done little to neutralise Ukrainian-Russian debates on the issue.

Ukrainian food nativists, for one, point to earlier dates and the addition of beetroot, while the Russian Federation’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs is adamant that borscht is a “symbol of traditional cuisine” and a “timeless classic” of Russian origin.  Not only do they want to steal our territory, comes the Ukrainian retort, but they want to appropriate our dishes.  Be that as it may, empires may perish but the dishes linger, their origins of necessity lost.

The UNESCO listing of borscht was merely another front in the battle between Kyiv and Moscow.  “Victory in the war for borscht is ours!” exclaimed Ukrainian Minister for Culture Oleksandr Tkachenko.  Food, as the late Anthony Bourdain reminded us, really is politics.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Binoy Kampmark.

Because Australia's efforts to protect the Great Barrier Reef from damages wrought by the fossil fuel-driven climate crisis, pollution, and overfishing are falling short, the planet's largest coral reef system should be placed on a list of World Heritage sites considered "in danger," a pair of experts said Monday.

"Despite the unparalleled science and management efforts" made by Australia in recent years, the Great Barrier Reef is "significantly impacted by climate change factors," Eleanor Carter of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and Hans Thulstrup of the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) wrote in a report.

The much-anticipated report, based on a 10-day mission to the reef in March, warned that the climate emergency presents a "serious challenge" to the health of the biodiverse ecosystem, which was deemed a global wonder in 1981.

"The resilience of the property to recover from climate change impacts is substantially compromised, in particular—but not exclusively—due to degraded water quality," said the report. Soaring greenhouse gas emissions are causing oceans to heat up at an unprecedented rate, with disastrous consequences for marine life, and must be curbed immediately.

In addition, Carter and Thulstrup warned that not enough is being done to prevent agricultural runoff from polluting the reef's waters. The IUCN and UNESCO representatives advocated for greater investment to improve water quality and recommended adding the reef to the "World Heritage in danger" list.

According to The Guardian, "The report's recommendation the reef be placed on a list of World Heritage sites 'in danger' will be taken into account alongside responses from the Queensland and federal governments before UNESCO makes a formal recommendation to the World Heritage Committee before its next meeting."

As Agence France-Presse reported:

To be included on UNESCO's World Heritage list, a site must have "outstanding universal value." A spot on the list usually means boosted tourism, and improved access to funds and to scientific expertise.

Those benefits are threatened when a site is declared "in danger"—which is currently the case of about 50 sites worldwide. Only three sites have ever been dropped from the heritage list completely.

A UNESCO spokesperson told AFP that "a constructive dialogue is ongoing with the current government," which is led by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese of the Australian Labor Party.

Another unnamed source familiar with the matter described the report as "a roadmap submitted to the Australian government which should say what it intends to do with it and produce results."

"The path to saving the Great Barrier Reef is narrow, but it exists," the source added. "Strong and rapid action can produce results."

The U.N.-backed reef mission was requested by Australia's ex-environment minister Sussan Ley after former Prime Minister Scott Morrison's right-wing government and its pro-fossil fuel allies, including Saudi Arabia, successfully lobbied against categorizing the Great Barrier Reef as endangered in the summer of 2021.

IUCN's Carter and UNESCO's Thulstrup traveled to Queensland to meet with government officials, scientists, and other stakeholders in March, two months before Morrison was defeated by Albanese. Following a six-month delay stemming from Russia's invasion of Ukraine, their final report, published Monday in Paris, outlined 10 steps that they said should be pursued "with utmost urgency."

Australia's Reef 2050 plan must be strengthened before the end of this year to include "clear government commitments to reduce greenhouse emissions consistent with the efforts required to limit the global average temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels," the report noted.

According to The Guardian: "Since the mission, the Albanese government has legislated an improved national target to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 43% from 2005 levels by 2030 and to reach net-zero by 2050. Independent analysis has found Australia's new target is consistent with keeping warming to 2°C—above the 1.5°C goal seen as critical for the reef's long-term health."

Surging ocean temperatures—fueled by the burning of coal, oil, and gas—have caused widespread bleaching of corals in 1998, 2002, 2016, 2017, 2020, and 2022.

"The U.N.-backed mission coincided with the first mass bleaching on the reef to take place during a La Niña year which, in the past, has kept ocean temperatures cool enough to protect corals," The Guardian reported. "Scientists fear that without cooler conditions in the coming weeks, the reef could face bleaching again this summer."

Although Albanese's government announced a $1.2 billion package last month to fund water quality improvements and research to try to enhance the resilience of corals and reefs, the report said that progress remains too slow.

Among other things, Carter and Thulstrup asked the Queensland state government "to accelerate the rollout of its sustainable fisheries strategy and to phase out the use of gillnets in the marine park," The Guardian noted.

As the newspaper explained:

The mission report was originally scheduled for release by May 2022 in time for a meeting of the world heritage committee in Russia in July, where the reef was due to be debated again. But the meeting—to be chaired by Russia—was postponed following the invasion of Ukraine.

UNESCO will now prepare a new report on the state of the reef that will consider the findings of the mission and any responses from the state and federal governments. That report will make formal recommendations directly to the World Heritage Committee ahead of the rescheduled meeting likely to take place in the first half of next year.

Last week, Russia resigned as chair of the 21-member committee, with Saudi Arabia reportedly considering taking on the role of chair.

Should Australia implement all of the recommendations, it could "drastically improve" the country's ability to "ensure and advance" conservation of the Great Barrier Reef and to preserve the ecosystem's "outstanding universal value" for future generations, said Monday's report.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams - Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community and was authored by Kenny Stancil.