united nations – RI Future

March 30, 2016March 30, 2016

Quaker group to protest Textron for selling cluster bombs to Saudi Arabia

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

As Saudi Arabian airstrikes threaten to cause a humanitarian crisis in Yemen, the American Friends Service Committee of Southeastern New England is planning to protest Textron outside the company’s headquarters in Providence.

“We will gather at 4:30pm with the long budget banner and signs addressing the use of Textron-made cluster bombs by Saudi Arabia in Yemen and a call for our taxes to be invested in addressing human needs not militarization,” according to a notice from AFSC-SENE, a Quaker organization that advocates for peace and justice.

The action – scheduled for April 18 at 4:30 outside of the Textron building, 40 Westminster St. – comes on the heels of RI Future exposing Rhode Island-based Textron’s role in Saudi Arabian military actions in Yemen, which is increasingly becoming a flashpoint for global human rights activists.

In February, Human Rights Watch criticized Saudi Arabia for its use of cluster munitions against Yemen. The report details civilian injuries and calls out the Textron-made bomb for malfunctioning more than 1 percent of the time – a violation of US trade policy. Last week, the World Health Organization said 6,200 people have died since the conflict began in March of last year and more than 30,000 were injured. The United Nations said this week more than 900 children have been killed since the conflict began, more than seven times more than the previous year.

Cluster bomblets & other unexploded ordnance are a particular hazard to young children. Warning poster in #yemen pic.twitter.com/tXIuX9BlsE

— paul tyson (@Tyson585) March 30, 2016

A New York Times report yesterday said the Saudi led airstrikes threaten to cause a “humanitarian catastrophe in Yemen, one of the world’s poorest countries” and listed cluster bombs as a contributing factor. “In addition to airstrikes, civilians must contend with hazards posed by unexploded bombs and cluster munitions dropped by the Saudi coalition.”

There are 118 nations that officially condemn the use of cluster bombs. The United States and Saudi Arabia are not among them.

The April 18 protest will include delivering letters to senators Jack Reed and Sheldon Whitehouse, both of whom expressed to RI Future a desire to better address the use of cluster bombs. Whitehouse is a co-sponsor of the Cluster Munitions Civilian Protection Act, which would add regulations to the use and sale of cluster bombs. The US already imposes some restrictions on the use and sale of cluster bombs. Textron is the only American company that makes cluster bombs, though there is at least one other company that makes a component of Textron’s cluster bomb.

“Shortly after we gather we will send someone to Senator Whitehouse’s and Senator Reed’s offices with a letter asking them to at the very least support the People’s Budget and to vote against a budget that spends war on militarism than all other things put together,” said the AFSC-SENE announcement. “We will also have a letter calling on Textron to stop the manufacture of these weapons.”

Read RI Future’s full coverage of Textron’s cluster bombs here:

December 11, 2015December 11, 2015

US must to pass Reach Every Mother and Child Act

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

As a medical doctor who graduated from the Faculty of Medicine of Mali, West Africa in 2001, I saw firsthand the tremendous healthcare difficulties that underserved populations, especially women and children, faced due to poor policies.

For example, during my two-year internship at Point G Hospital in Mali, the pulmonary service had two main units. One set aside for patients with non-tuberculosis diseases was never full, but the one designed for patients with tuberculosis functioned beyond its capacity, turning away many patients and redirecting them to other facilities. Despite poor working conditions, long hours, and minimal essential resources, I dedicated myself to my patients and made a personal commitment to increase the hospital’s resources, never again turning away needy patients or denying medical care.

Another experience that shaped me was when a 12-year-old boy in the final stage of pulmonary tuberculosis died in my arms the day after admission. The boy came from a remote village where health care facilities and road infrastructures for easy access to the closest health center were non-existent. This made me realize that there are too many children in Mali who don’t have access to proper health care.

These events and other experiences in various clinical settings fueled my determination to help underserved populations in my homeland and other West African countries. Since then I’ve been in the United States gaining more education in the highly specialized field of public health, particularly in infectious diseases, so that I can soon become a part of an effective health care system in West Africa.

A lot has changed in West Africa since 2001 with the enactment of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), a set of 8 global goals for reducing the root causes of poverty by 2015. According to World Health Organization (WHO) 2014 data, improvements have been made to the health systems in Mali and other West African countries. Mali has reduced by two-thirds the under-five mortality rate between 1990 and 2015, and maternal mortality has been reduced by three-quarters. Senegal, Benin and Nigeria have also made much progress. Niger has achieved the MDG for child survival by reducing by two-thirds the under-five mortality rate.

Despite the progress made on achieving the MDGs, challenges still remain in West Africa’s health systems. UNICEF’s Progress Report (2015): A Promise Renewed indicates that although Niger has made progress, it still remains among the ten countries with the highest under-five mortality rate with 96 deaths per 1,000 live births, or nearly 1 in 10 children dying because of a lack of basic maternal and child care. Mali, Nigeria, and Benin are in similar situations.

Sadly, the 2014 Ebola outbreak further weakened the health systems in other West African nations, putting the healthcare of women and children at significant risk. Due to fear of being infected at health facilities, women stopped going to clinics for non-Ebola-related services such as family planning, pre- and post-natal services. The number of women giving birth in hospitals and health clinics dropped by 30%, according to a report by the United Development Group.

Save the Children’s 2015 report, A Wake-Up Call: Lessons from Ebola for the World’s Health Systems, reveals that 97% of children in the Monrovia suburb of Clara Town had routine vaccinations before the outbreak, yet during the outbreak only 27% were getting vaccinated. In Sierra Leone, coverage of the measles vaccine has fallen by 20% across the country in a year. Three epicenter countries suffered three to four times more cases of measles in the year of the Ebola outbreak than in the previous year. Children have been left untreated for preventable diseases. For instance, there was a 40% fall in the number of children under five treated for malaria between May and September 2015 in Sierra Leone. Moreover, travel restrictions and low agriculture productivity during the outbreak led to food shortages. As a result, children under the age of five were at serious risk of acute malnutrition in the three countries. Children also lost school hours, which makes them more vulnerable to poverty and diseases.

More recently, I experienced another personal tragedy. One of my closest friends died from postpartum hemorrhage in hospital, in Bamako, the capital of Mali, after a cesarean section. The baby did not survive either. Postpartum hemorrhage is the leading cause of maternal deaths in Mali. In addition to a lack of continuing medical education of specialized health care workers in urban settings, a large proportion of births occur at home and deliveries are carried out by unskilled birth attendants in rural areas. Furthermore, the proportion of births attended by skilled providers in health facilities remains low. The overall antenatal care coverage in the country is also insufficient.

Through my personal experiences and study of healthcare systems, I am constantly reminded that public health challenges are still ahead of us, and we still have a long path to walk to reach the unreached in West African cities and rural areas, especially women and children. No child should die from preventable diseases, and no woman should die from giving birth in the 21st century. We need to act.

The good news is that efforts are underway to help us become the greatest generation on accessing health care. The bipartisan Reach Every Mother and Child Act of 2015 was recently introduced by Senator Collins and Coons and Representatives Reichert, McCollum, Lee and McCaul (S. 1911 and H.R. 3706). The bill lays out a road map for ending preventable maternal and child deaths by 2035 largely by reforming current efforts to enact smarter and more effective approaches to saving more lives. Returns will be measured in lives saved and healthy prosperous communities.

The Reach Act enshrines into law the need for:

An ambitious, coordinated U.S Government strategy with clear, measurable goals and increasing accountability and transparency at all levels for ending preventable maternal and child deaths and helping ensure healthy lives by 2035.
Focusing on the poorest and most vulnerable populations in 24 partner countries; and recognizing the unique needs within different countries and communities.
Scaling up the most evidence-based interventions with a focus on country ownership by requiring a coherent all-of- government plan on maternal and child health.
Enshrining a Child and Maternal Survival Coordinator responsible for oversight and coordination of resources directly linked to reducing maternal and child mortality.
Creating new innovative funding sources to complement U.S. investments.

Senators Reed and Whitehouse, and Representatives Langevin and Cicilline have expressed support, but have not yet cosponsored the bill – they should cosponsor in the increase the likelihood that these important reforms are enshrined into law. In passing the legislation, they will enhance US leadership on serving underserved populations, especially women and children; furthermore, this strategy that puts kids and mothers first give us the chance to make sure every child regardless of where he/she’s born has healthy start to life. The bill does not call for additional dollars, only that we make the best possible use of the dollars we do spend. As I discovered in my work in Mali, policies can make all the difference in the world.

September 25, 2015September 30, 2015

Disinvited from speaking at the UN, global women labor leaders hold forum during Pope’s address

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

As Pope Francis spoke before the United Nations General Assembly on Friday morning in New York City, I attended a forum entitled “Women Leading the Global Labor Rights Movement” featuring two speakers who were actually dis-invited from speaking at the U.N.’s Post-2015 Development Summit.

Nazma Akter is one of Bangladesh’s most respected and influential labor leaders. She founded AWAJ (“voice” in Bengla) in 2003 to organize women garment workers, and represents 37,000 workers.

Eni Lestari is the chairperson of the International Migrants Alliance (IMA).

According to organizer Leanne Sajor, Lestari and Akter received “an incredible amount of votes from a U.N. convened selection committee comprised of civil society representatives from all over the world. Eni was supposed to be speaking as the openning speaker of the post 2015 summit and Nazma was also nominated for a panel on the economy and poverty. Both of them received the highest votes, Eni was actually ranked first. When their names were processed through the office of the president of the General Assembly, that democratic process was overruled, and instead it was given to Amnesty International, which placed tenth on the list.”

Organizers believe that the message the two women would have brought was considered too radical by the powers that be at the United Nations. “This silencing of both Eni and Nazma, who are both grassroots activists, is absolutely outrageous.”

The U.N. offered the two organizers the consolation prize of quietly observing the summit, but instead they decided to collaborate with Kate Lappin, regional coordinator for the Asia Pacific Forum on Women, Law and Development and Chaumtoli Huq, attorney and editor of Law@theMargins. With 7000 reporters covering the Pope, I figured they could spare one to cover those not allowed to speak their mind at the United Nations.

“I’m a migrant, I’m a woman. I am not high profile, not the Pope,” said Eni Lestari. In her career as a migrant worker Lestari was sometimes not paid, was underpaid, or had an agency take high fees. Many like her have worked for companies with the promise of future payment, only to come to work one morning and find the company closed, their labor stolen. “We are the low ranking class, un-respected.”

Eventually Lestari got involved in organizing. “There is no way out of this problem except through empowerment,” she said, “You need to be brave enough to fight back.”

Fighting for women migrant worker’s rights is never easy. They are marginalized and infantilized. “Whenever you go to the embassy for help they ask you who your agency is and they call the agency.” Workers are euphemistically referred to as the “children” of the agency. Since the agency is often the problem nothing comes of complaining, and sometimes the situation can become worse.

Additionally, said Lestari, “workers have no time outside. [They are] emotionally and physically exhausted.”

It is difficult to organize the exhausted.

Nazma Akter started working in a Bangladeshi garment factory at the age of eleven, first as an assistant to her mother. “I worked hard, had no time to study.” Workers who attempted to organize for rights and pay were routinely beaten, fired, blacklisted or had false charges brought against them. The big media ignored their complaints. In Bangladesh, “If you want to be in a union you must get permission from government,” said Akter, “It’s not a worker friendly government.”

When Akter started organizing there were five unions. Today there are 31, and there are applications to the government for 100 more.

Akter’s main campaign these days is for a universal living wage. “A company like Walmart will not help us,” she noted without irony, “We need respect and dignity. Charity is not important.”

If women can be paid adequately, then their children will receive educations and health care. “The next generation of garment workers,” says Akter, “can become members of parliament.“

Kate Lappin says that the Asia Pacific Forum on Women, Law and Development tries to bring voices like Akter and Lestari to the U.N. They “have a more radical perspective than NGOs.”

The “pivot to Asia,” championed by the Obama administration, is “driven by a desire for cheap, exploited labor” and amounts to “little more than a race to see who gets to exploit women workers,” says Lappin. “The value of moving to Asia is the value of cheap women’s labor.”

Lappin’s group champions a different kind of feminism, she says. She’s not interested making sure that half the 1% is made up of women, what she calls “Hilary Clinton feminism.” Instead, Lappin advocates system change. “Changing the relationship between capital and labor is the kind of feminism we espouse,” she says, which is why she campaigns for a living wage as a way to abolish poverty.

“A universal living wage prevents corporations from jumping to a different company,” says Lappin,”We need the garment industry to be decent work. We can’t target one country at a time.”

The challenges are vast. In some countries joining a labor union is outlawed. Migrant workers in other countries are required to leave the country every few years, keeping them mobile and unorganized. “The capacity to show solidarity has been made unlawful, says Lappin, Anti-unionism “is a tool of globalization.”

Women labor leaders need space to organize, governments need to enforce laws in favor of workers rights and pass laws that empower them. Women need decent wages, health care, safe working environments, access to education, and free time to live their lives.

They need to be treated like human beings and not grist for corporate mills that derive profits from their blood, their sweat and their lives.

But first, women have to be heard. Pope Francis surely raised some important moral concerns when he addressed the United Nations, but its hard to believe that his message was more important or or pertinent than those of Eni Lestari or Nazma Akter.

The video below is a trailer for a documentary being produced by Chaumtoli Huq, who organized and moderated this excellent forum.https://youtu.be/m1uzkEmWmlY

March 12, 2015

Ending life imprisonment without parole for juveniles

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Rep. Chris Blazejewski introduced House bill 5650, sparking a debate in the Rhode Island House Judiciary Committee hearing as to whether or not juvenile defendants should be subject to mandatory life sentences without parole. The American Bar Association, Amnesty International and the ACLU are just three highly regarded civil and human rights groups who have called for an end to this practice.

Juan Méndez, the United Nations special rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment, said, in a recent report, “The vast majority of states have taken note of the international human rights requirements regarding life imprisonment of children without the possibility of release.” And, “life sentences or sentences of an extreme length have a disproportionate impact on children and cause physical and psychological harm that amounts to cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment.”

According to Amnesty International, in written testimony submitted at the hearing, “The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child expressly prohibits life imprisonment without the possibility of release for crimes committed by people under 18 years of age. All countries except the USA and South Sudan have ratified the Convention. Somalia just recently ratified the treaty in January 2015 and South Sudan has already begun the process to become a signatory to the Convention.”

What a terrible place for the United States to find itself as an outlier.

The United States Supreme Court has been evolving on this issue for a decade. In 2012 the Court ruled in Miller v. Alabama that “mandatory sentences of life without the possibility of parole are unconstitutional for juvenile offenders,” yet stopped short of issuing a blanket ban. Judges are simply required to consider the defendant’s youth and the nature of the crime when determining a sentence.

Rhode Island has a historical claim to judicial sentencing temperance, having eradicated the death penalty in 1852. Yet on the issue of life sentences for juvenile defendants, our state is lagging behind. Al Jazeera reports that, “Fourteen states and the District of Columbia have banned life sentences without parole for juveniles.”

Recognizing the potential for rehabilitation, especially of juvenile defendants, is one of the hallmarks of a civilized society. Attorneys general in other states are getting behind similar legislation, according to testimony from Steve Brown of the RI ACLU, yet Attorney General Peter Kilmartin opposes the bill currently under consideration.

Speaking against the bill, Joee Lindbeck, who heads the AG’s Legislation and Policy Unit, brought up the specter of Craig Price, who committed four murders in 1989 while under the age of 16. Reacting to Price’s crimes, the General Assembly “passed a law in 1990 to allow the state to prosecute as an adult any juvenile charged with a capital offense.” Lindbeck maintains that keeping this law on the books prepares us for “worst-case scenarios” like Price.

From a prosecutors point of view, having draconian sentences on the books is important because of the leverage they provide. A kid who committed a crime is much more willing forgo a trial and plead out to a 10 or 20 year sentence if the AG has the power to potentially ask for life without parole. This brings up a question: Should we be empowering the AG with tools to intimidate, or tools to render justice?

Threatening defendants with life destroying sentences seems to save money in the short term, but in long run we have learned that such “cheap justice” is neither.

September 5, 2013September 5, 2013

Thanks for asking Congress but what about the UN?

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

It’s nice that President Obama has asked for congressional approval to bomb Syria, but it’s at least worth noting that even with congressional approval a unilateral strike would still be considered a war crime by the United Nations.

“Aggression without UN authorization would be a war crime, a very serious one, is quite clear, despite tortured efforts to invoke other crimes as precedents,” Noam Chomsky told Ryan Grim of the Huffington Post.

Yale Law School professors Oona Hathaway and Scott Shapiro made the same point in a recent New York Times op/ed.

“If the United States begins an attack without Security Council authorization, it will flout the most fundamental international rule of all — the prohibition on the use of military force, for anything but self-defense, in the absence of Security Council approval,” they wrote. “This rule may be even more important to the world’s security — and America’s — than the ban on the use of chemical weapons.”

The United Nations is, in case you care, is opposed to military intervention in Syria. This story was buried on page A11 of Wednesday’s New York Times.

“Ban Ki-moon, the United Nations secretary general, said Tuesday that he appreciated President Obama’s efforts to engage Congress and the American people before deciding on possible armed strikes against Syria over chemical weapons use, but reaffirmed his opposition to any further military action without Security Council approval.”

If you didn’t care that the United Nations opposes military intervention in Syria, then my guess is you really don’t care that the UN is focusing its efforts on working with the neighboring countries that are harboring the more than 2 million Syrian refugees. There are another 4.5 million Syrians displaced inside the country.

The USA Today has a really good article about what Syrian refugees and rebels think about an American show of force.

Here are three perspectives from that story:

“A difficult question,” said Firas Al-Hussain, a Syrian ambulance driver for the hospital, when asked how he felt about a possible U.S. strike. “If they stop the killing,” he said, he would favor it.
“With 100,000 dead, millions displaced, and the country destroyed, it’s over,” said Ahmad Kuliyeh, a 26-year-old rebel soldier from his hospital bed, where he lay with one leg blown off, the other injured, and his arm in a cast. He said it didn’t matter which nation intervened, only that something be done and that a few strikes at buildings would change nothing in Syria. “Support us with weapons,” said . “If you give us weapons,” particularly anti-aircraft weapons, “then we don’t want Obama.”
“If they are such weak strikes, Assad will show up stronger (militarily) than before, and he will eventually do more massacres than before,” said pharmacist Mohammad Agol from Idlib. “If the strike is going to be so limited, we don’t want it to happen. Either it’s a knockout, or nothing. We’d rather stick to the daily massacres that we’re used to.”

Florida Congressman Alan Grayson has been an outspoken opponent of military intervention.