11 Sept 2020

Women are bearing the brunt of the pandemic disproportionately

Sananda Dasgupta

During the initial months of the Covid-19 crisis, experts expressed their concern that this pandemic could set women back decades and rollover 50 years of progress in gender equality. As time passes, data from across the world are proving that the threat is real.
With extra burden of childcare and household chores, unsecured jobs, job loss, risk-prone working conditions, hard to access reproductive and sexual rights, and rising cases of domestic violence— women are being pushed over the edge.
Job loss, burden of extra unpaid care, working in front line – women are impacted disproportionately worldwide
Women constitute 39 percent of global employment, but they make up for 54 percent of the job losses caused by this recent recession. Reports estimate, women are 1.8 times more likely to lose their jobs during this crisis than men. According to the estimate by the Pew Research Center, between February and May, 11.5 million women in the US lost their jobs compared to 9 million men.
During this latest recession, job losses are concentrated in the sectors like leisure and hospitality, retail trade, and education— the sectors with an overwhelming majority of women workers. Besides, jobs in the informal sectors are quickly disappeared following the pandemic and consequent lockdown. In the developing nations, t wo-third of employed women work in the informal economy, and they lost their jobs overnight.
Another factor that is contributing towards this reducing women workforce is the extra burden of unpaid caregiving. Even in normal times, women are heavily burdened with the responsibility of childcare and household chores. There is no country in the world where domestic works are evenly distributed among the men and women.
A UN report suggests, globally on average, women spend 3.2 times more hours in unpaid household works than men. The International Labor Organization estimates, in Asia and the Pacific, women spend 4.12 times more hours in household chores, as compared to men.
Surveys show all over the world, COVID-19 is intensifying women’s workload at homeA study conducted in the US suggests, from February to April in heterosexual married households with children, the mother’s professional work hours dropped four to five times more than father’s hours did. When both parents worked from home, fathers continued to work for 40 hours a week while mothers had to reduce their work hours to spend time in childcare.
According to the Institute of Fiscal Studies, in the EU, where both parents were employed before the lockdown, mothers are 1.5 times more likely to have either lost their job or quit it. Women are also more likely to have taken an unpaid leave of absence.
recent study found that the papers related to Covid-19 published in the medical journals during the first half of the year had fewer women authors in the US. The study compared the gender distribution of the authors who wrote medical papers on Covid-19 with that of the papers published in the same journals in 2019 and found the participation of women researchers as a first author has dropped and this is particularly significant in the initial months of the pandemic when the lockdown was in effect.
This shows, women across their class and social position are having to take up the extra burden of childcare and household works and are having to juggle between office-work and household chores. The situation is even more difficult for single parents who are mostly women.
Besides bearing the brunt of the extra unpaid care works, women are also largely over-represented in caregiving jobs. Globally, women account for 70.6% of the workers employed in the health and social sector.
In the health sector, while men are overrepresented among the physicians, women are concentrated in low-ranked jobs which makes them even more vulnerable to the virus. In the US, 90% of the nurses and nursing assistants are women. In India, 83% of nurses and midwives are women, whereas 84% of doctors are men.
This medical hierarchy explains why female health workers are getting infected by the virus at a higher rate than male workers.
Surge of gender violence, denied access to reproductive health rights- lives of women are under threat 
Just after the lockdown was imposed, mounting reports of domestic abuse started pouring in from all over the world. The lockdown and other social isolation measures trapped women with their abusers in domestic spaces and restricted their access to friends and support network. Access to legal and medical support for the survivors has also become extremely limited in most parts of the world. Women who used to find respite from the violence while staying outside for their job are now being forced to stay with their abusers throughout the day enduring trauma and violence. Furthermore, job losses and pay cuts have made it more difficult for them to escape abusive partners.
From China to Spain, from the US to India, from Germany to Singapore— irreparable losses are done across the world with very little measures taken by the respective governments. The support networks and activist groups are crippled with the movement restriction and survivors are left behind, scrambling for support.
Women’s access to the right to reproductive and sexual rights are also being highly jeopardized by the pandemic situation in various countries. UNFPA predicts, due to this crisis there could be up to 7 million unintended pregnancies worldwide. It can also lead to thousands of deaths from unsafe abortion and complicated births.
During the lockdown, many countries including some of the states in the US forced sexual and reproductive health services to close down because these services were not classified as essential. Also, with the overwhelmed health care system, restricted mobility, and faulty government policies, it has become extremely difficult for many of the women to access safe sexual and reproductive health care.
Availing maternal healthcare services has also become a challenge for many. Especially in the countries with strained and underfunded health care system the pregnant women are routinely being denied admission to the hospitals for institutional delivery. In many less developed areas where women already had limited access to maternity healthcare are now being forced to deliver their babies at home with the help of quack doctors.
In 2018, the World Economic Forum estimated that at the current rate of progress it will take 257 years to close the economic gender gap and the pandemic has pushed us backward. The policy interventions need to take this into account while drawing the roadmap to recovery.
policy brief published by the UN in April states, “Across the globe, women earn less, save less, hold less secure jobs, are more likely to be employed in the informal sector. They have less access to social protection and are the majority of single-parent households. Their capacity to absorb economic shocks is, therefore, less than that of men.”
Besides fighting the virus, measures targeted at closing this gender gap with a particular focus on the women living in the lower strata of the society, women from the marginalized communities, women from economically disadvantaged class, women of color, and women with a disability needs to be taken immediately. Because the fight against pandemic cannot be successful if half of the population is left behind.

Open Letter Mark Zuckerberg-CEO Of Facebook

Shibu Thomas

“I think there’s a comfort in knowing and having confidence that there are things bigger than you…it’s why I have so much faith in democracy overall, it’s why I care so much about giving people a voice”
-Mark Zuckerberg
Dear Mark,
Very few have the privilege, convenience and power to give the masses a voice, like you do. Facebook has triumphed not only over Print Media but all social networks including the likes of Instagram, Messenger, WhatsApp etc.
Back in 2004, you probably never imagined where you are today. I believe the creation of Facebook was envisioned with all good intentions to ‘Join’ and ‘Connect’ the world, breaking all human barriers and promoting unity.
However, with the passing of time came the distortion of vision as well. Facebook is now in a position to be a catalyst in the systematic dismantling of humanity. It has become a handy and effective tool for the enemies of peace.
India, which is supposed to be the world’s largest democracy and a secular state, is presently reeling under the cruel curse of religious intolerance. Religious minorities are facing intensifying persecution owing to the propagation of religious nationalism.
At present, no other social network can be compared with Facebook, in terms of influence and vastness. Such caliber must be used to build and encourage, not break and discourage. Highlighting issues faced by religious minorities is one of the most beneficial ways to express solidarity with them.
Persecution Relief is one such organization that provides comprehensive support to persecuted Christians in India. Between January 2016 to August 2020, we have served and recorded over 2100 cases of hate crimes against Christians in India. With over 50,000 Churches and numerous Christian entities partnering with us from across the world, we are the largest advocacy to the 2.3 % of Christians living in India.
From observing latest trends, we conclude that most efforts of bridging the gulf between religious communities in India are gradually proving to be futile. What is even more alarming is the dangerous influence Facebook is having on the 1.3 billion strong nation.
Facebook has played a key role in endorsing communal harmony in other nations. However, in India, your organization seems to be doing just the opposite. This observation is rather disturbing and raises many questions.
My personal experience with Facebook has been bitter-sweet too. Since our first post on Facebook, our page has reached more than 3 million people, without any form of propaganda. To tell you the truth, Facebook has been very instrumental in helping us sensitize the world about Christian persecution in India.
Unfortunately, I have been witnessing several challenges with Facebook lately. My page was blocked for months, despite many grievances being made to your support team. I also have a difficult time uploading posts if the content is related to minorities, Christianity, persecution etc. On many occasions I have also been blocked.
The content that we post is, in fact tailored to bridge the gap across the growing gulf. Our organization specifically believes in SERVING PERSECUTED & LOVE PERSECUTORS. We do not make hate speeches or propagate violence. Instead we promote forgiveness towards those who hate us on account of our Christian faith.
Many speculations came to light recently concerning Facebook India’s interference in India’s electoral democracy and the pro-BJP bias of its India policy chief, Ankhi Das. In communications to Facebook staffers, she said punishing violations by politicians from Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s party could ‘hurt the company’s business interests in the country’.
How do you react when such inconsiderate acts concerning your social network, see the light of day? Would you still retain people that pose a threat to a nation’s secular and democratic fabric? Or would you prefer being known as an entity that unifies a diverse nation.
My sincere hope is that Facebook is not bending their own rules to appease Mr. Modi’s party and its 33 million strong market in India. If that be true, then I would like to quote you here- “I think there’s a comfort in knowing and having confidence that there are things bigger than you.”
If you keep muffling the voices of the persecuted minorities in India, then Facebook will not have a long way to go. Owing to your Jewish upbringing, you can be certain that there is a God who is much bigger than you. He is the defender of the defenseless and is famous for raising up great kings and bringing them down as well.
Dear Mark, have you progressively deviated from your vision? As a social media giant, you have designated teams to care for your business in every country. Over time, many elements could have contributed towards the deviation of your vision. I understand that it is easier said than done.
Ultimately, you are the boss and Facebook is your baby!Would you just sit and watch someone destroy your family and lead your children astray? Definitely not! Who would understand this better than a family-oriented person like you? Providing comprehensive care to your family is of prime importance.
The future of India looks grim and Facebook is being widely used to inject hatred and spread communal violence within the country. I am sure you are aware of this and also disappointed by it too. In spite of the many appeals being made, you have not made any commentsconcerning this grave issue.
I urge you to take a stand and pledge to support the minorities and their wellbeing. It is high time. I would like to quote you again, “it’s why I have so much faith in democracy overall, it’s why I care so much about giving people a voice” Yes, you can be their voice!
I highly recommend that you appoint capable and unbiased representatives from amongst the religious minorities to assist the team at Facebook India and to encourage transparency in decisions concerning the same. A panel consisting of people from religious minorities must be instated to make policies and counter such matters that threaten communal harmony.
I would also appreciate if you could take some time out ofyour busy schedule to discuss with me how Facebook could be a catalyst in promoting religious tolerance in India. I would be more than willing to fly out and meet you. The truth must not be hidden, the truth must not be suppressed- this is my humble appeal to you.
May you and your family be a blessing to the nations,
Shibu Thomas
Founder
Persecution Relief

USA’s Strangulation of the International Criminal Court

Yanis Iqbal

On 2 September, 2020, the US sanctioned two officials of the International Criminal Court (ICC) for investigating into alleged war crimes by US forces and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in Afghanistan since 2003.The officials are ICC prosecutor Fatou Bensouda, and the ICC’s head of Jurisdiction, Complementary, and Cooperation Division, Phakiso Mochochok (sanctioned for having materially assisted Prosecutor Bensouda). Announcing this decision, Secretary of State Michael Pompeo said, “the United States is taking action to protect Americans from unjust and illegitimate investigation by the International Criminal Court (ICC), which threatens our sovereignty and poses a danger to the United States and our allies…The ICC’s recklessness has forced us to this point, and the ICC cannot be allowed to follow through with its politically-driven targeting of U.S. personnel.”
The sanctions have racially targeted the two African individuals among the five officials in the ICC’s Office of the Prosecutor (OTP). Despite possible links to the Afghanistan investigation on account of their judicial positions, the US has chosen not to sanction Director of the Investigations Division Michel de Smedt, Deputy Prosecutor James Stewart, and Director of the Prosecutions Division Fabricio Guariglia.
Through the sanctions, Bensouda and Mochochok have been included in the Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons list, maintained by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC). The consequences of being designated include:
  • “any assets the person has in the United States are frozen;
  • the individual can no longer conduct transactions in U.S. dollars which may occur anywhere in the world;
  • persons, including financial institutions, cannot conduct transactions with or provide services to the designated individual;
  • the designated individual and their family members are barred from entering the United States; and
  • anyone who materially assists the designated individual can themselves be designated.”
American Hostility toward ICC
The US government’s hatred of the ICC boils down to one primary concern: the possibility that US citizens may be prosecuted and convicted by the court for grisly conduct supported by the American empire. As a result, the US has been in conflict with ICC from the start, trying to subvert its judicial capacities. One month after the ICC officially came into existence on July 1, 2002, US President George Bush signed the American Service members’ Protection Act (ASPA), which limited U.S. government assistance to the ICC; curtailed military assistance to countries that ratified the Rome Statute (the treaty establishing ICC); and authorized the President to use “all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release” of certain U.S. and allied persons who may be detained or tried by the ICC.
As the US believes that ICC is a threat to its imperialist excesses, top officials of the country have never relented in their vituperation and destabilization of the intergovernmental organization. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has called ICC a “kangaroo court”. Similarly, Attorney-General William Barr said that the US Justice Department had “received substantial credible information that raises serious concerns about a long history of financial corruption and malfeasance at the highest levels in the office of the prosecutor.” President Trump, while addressing UN General Assembly, stated, “United States will provide no support or recognition to the International Criminal Court. As far as America is concerned the ICC has no jurisdiction, no legitimacy, and no authority.” Such villificatory language reached its apogee when John Bolton gave a speech to the Federalist Society in Washington, D.C on 11 September, 2018. During the speech, he dubbed ICC as (1) a “supranational tribunal” that targeted “America’s senior political leadership” and (2) a “free-wheeling global organization claiming jurisdiction over individuals without their consent.” If that was not enough, he further said in a thuggish tone: “The United States will use any means necessary to protect our citizens and those of our allies from unjust prosecution by this illegitimate court. We will not cooperate with the ICC. We will provide no assistance to the ICC. We will not join the ICC. We will let the ICC die on its own. After all, for all intents and purposes, the ICC is already dead to us.”
The Afghanistan Investigation
In November 2017, the currently sanctioned Prosecutor Bensouda asked for authorization from the ICC’s judiciary to investigate crimes against humanity and war crimes by the Taliban and their affiliated Haqqani Network; war crimes of ill-treatment by the Afghan intelligence agency National Directorate for Security and the Afghan National Police; and war crimes of torture by US military forces deployed in Afghanistan and in secret detention facilities operated by the CIA. Bensouda requested a full investigation because US administrations and courts have consistently chosen not to prosecute the torturers. While torture was banned in 2009 by former President Barack Obama, the torturers were allowed to get off scot-free. Talking about this decision to award impunity to the torturers, Obama had said, “You know, it is important for us not to feel too sanctimonious in retrospect about the tough job that those folks had. And a lot of those folks were working hard under enormous pressure and are real patriots.”
In response to this potential investigation, the US revoked Bensouda’s entry-visa on 4 April, 2019 and Pompeo hubristically stated, “I’m announcing a policy of US visa restrictions on those individuals directly responsible for any ICC investigation of US personnel…If you’re responsible for the proposed ICC investigation of US personnel in connection with the situation in Afghanistan you should not assume that you still have, or will get, a visa or that you will be permitted to enter the United States,”.
Facing the US-sponsored public campaign of defamation and aggressions, the Pre-Trial Chamber II of the ICC rejected Bensouda’s request on 12 April, 2019, – 8 days after the visa revocation- expressing concern over (1) the “availability of evidence for crimes dating back so long in time”; (2) the prospect of attaining meaningful cooperation from relevant actors; and (3) the “significant amount of resources” necessary to fund this sort of investigation considering the ICC’s budget. The Pre-Trial Chamber believed that there was no reasonable basis to believe the investigation served “the interests of justice” although it accepted that there was a reasonable basis to believe that war crimes and crimes against humanity were committed in the territory of Afghanistan by various actors.
The rejection of Bensouda’s request was closely tied with USA’s attempts to prevent its imperialist cruelty from being fully exposed by a judicial body. Article 15 of the Rome Statute provides that “victims may make representations to the Pre-Trial Chamber either in support or opposition to the Prosecutor’s request for an investigation.” In Ms. Bensouda’s case, 680 out of 699 applications submitted to the court by victims and victims groups welcomed the requested investigation. Despite the support of the victims, the US unilaterally impeded the investigation, nakedly asserting the ruthlessness of its imperial power.
To contest the rejection of Bensouda’s Afghanistan investigation, the OTP and the legal representatives of 3 victims appeared before the Pre-Trial Chamber in June 2019. Six months later, the Appeals Chamber of the ICC held a three-day public hearing where the OTP, victims’ representatives, the defense lawyer of the Afghan government and several civil society members presented their arguments against or in support of the Pre-Trial Chamber’s decision. After this public hearing, the Appeals Chamber of the ICC decided unanimously on 5 March, 2020, to authorize the Prosecutor to commence the investigation into the crimes committed on the territory of Afghanistan since 1 May 2003, as well as other crimes that have a nexus to the armed conflict in Afghanistan and were committed on the territory of other States Parties, including Poland, Romania and Lithuania by the US army and CIA.
Enraged by ICC’s actions, President Donald Trump issued an executive order  on 11 June, 2020, that authorized asset freezes and family travel bans against ICC officials and potentially targeted others who assist ICC investigations. In the executive order, Trump said that the authorization of investigation into US war crimes in Afghanistan threatens “to infringe upon the sovereignty of the United States and impede the critical national security and foreign policy work of United States Government and allied officials”. Building upon these unfounded claims, he went on to say: “I therefore determine that any attempt by the ICC to investigate, arrest, detain, or prosecute any United States personnel…constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States, and I hereby declare a national emergency to deal with that threat.” All these statements amount to an arrogant declaration of impunity for any American involved in war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity. Furthermore, through these conceited declarations, the US is blatantly asserting that it is justified to kill people in pursuit of expansionist aims.
USA’s Contorted Arguments
In view of the audacity shown by the ICC in authorizing the Afghanistan investigation, new sanctions have been imposed on two ICC officials in the contemporary period. To legitimize its aggressive actions against the ICC, the US has relied on contorted legal arguments.
Repeatedly, the US has declared that it is not a party to the Rome Statute that created the ICC and, being a non-signatory national, is not bound by the norms created by the ICC. Contrary to this reasoning, the core crimes within the ICC’s jurisdiction-genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes-are crimes of universal jurisdiction and thus, the nationals of the US can be subject to prosecution before the court. Echoing this point, the UN General Assembly has declared: “States shall co-operate with each other on a bilateral and multilateral basis with a view to halting and preventing war crimes and crimes against humanity, and shall take the domestic and international measures necessary for that purpose.” Moreover, nationals of non-Party States have long been exposed to potential prosecution without the consent of their governments. The US itself has accepted this by becoming party to treaties such as the Geneva Conventions and the UN Convention against Torture which obligate the parties to pursue the malefactor regardless of whether they are a national of a state that is party to the treaty in question.
By punishing the ICC for attempting to expose the barbarism of its war on Afghanistan, the US has overtly outlined the coercive foundations upon which its empire is built. Slowly and steadily, it is becoming clear that the US is guided by imperialist interests and is willing to flout any law to expand its empire.

Species in Peril: Loss, Love and Protection

Subhankar Banerjee

Human calamities abound. The unrelenting coronavirus pandemic has already claimed more than 900,000 lives worldwide. The images of exploding wildfires from the American Southwest—California, Colorado, Oregon, and Washington—look apocalyptic. Racial injustice and inequity in the United States marches on. And, the economic suffering?—painful.
In this moment of so much death and suffering—do we even have the capacity to extend our care, our love for nonhuman kin—bears, bees, bugs, butterflies, and all the other nonhuman animals and plants with whom we share this Earth? Perhaps, for most, not, or not that much. And yet, there are committed people all over the world who have long fought for, and will continue to fight for, the natural world, which is really a fight for our survival too.
But let us peek into the nonhuman world for a moment, which is also our world.
The Living Planet Report 2020 is out now. Two years ago, in an article, “Biological Annihilation: A Planet in Loss Mode,” I had summarized the findings in the Living Planet Report 2018 with the following words:
As a comprehensive survey of the health of our planet and the impact of human activity on other species, its key message was grim indeed: between 1970 and 2014, it found, monitored populations of vertebrates had declined in abundance by an average of 60% globally, with particularly pronounced losses in the tropics and in freshwater systems. South and Central America suffered a dramatic loss of 89% of such vertebrates, while freshwater populations of vertebrates declined by a lesser but still staggering 83% worldwide.
The Living Planet Report 2020 updates those numbers with two additional years of data. Between 1970 and 2016, monitored populations of vertebrates—or amphibians, birds, fishes, mammals, and reptiles—have declined in abundance by an average of 68% globally, up from 60%; in South and Central America, the loss is still most pronounced: at 94%, up from 89%; and for freshwater species globally: 84% decline, up from 83%.
In other words, our nonhuman relatives are vanishing at an extraordinary scale and pace. But that tragedy is not yet registering in our collective imagination.
Have you witnessed, or organized a collective mourning to honor our dead nonhuman relatives? Have you seen any flowers, real or plastic, placed by the roadside, or at a city square to honor the dead bears, bugs and bees?
While the Living Planet Report serves up, every two years, a health assessment of our living Earth—the present compared to the recent past—another report, the landmark May 2019 UN biodiversity assessment offered a glimpse of where we are headed: one million animal and plant species face extinction, many within decades, due to human activity.
Are we even awake to the fact that we are doing our damnedest to ensure that our nonhuman relatives don’t have a snowball chance in hell to survive on this planet?
That is only half of the story, however.
Many committed people around the world—Indigenous land, water and species protectors; biologists and ecologists; the species conservationists; policy makers; artists; writers; educators; and community organizers—are all working hard to chart more-just and livable multispecies futures.
The crisis of biological annihilation, which includes human-caused species extinctions, mass die-offs and massacres, is as much a scientific issue as it is cultural and political.
War on Biological Nurseries and Conservation Laws
How has the United States’ White House responded to the intensifying biodiversity crisis since President Trump took office in January 2017?
The answer: By waging an all-out war on nonhuman lives.
Shortly after assuming office, President Trump announced his intention to make America “energy dominant” and, then Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke suggested that that dominance would come from drilling for oil and gas in Alaska, including in the Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The Coastal Plain of the Arctic Refuge is a biological nursery of global significance, and a place the Indigenous Gwich’in people call Iizhik Gwats’an Gwandaii Goodlit (“the sacred place where life begins”). The Trump administration also proceeded to expand oil and gas development around Chaco Canyon in New Mexico, a place considered sacred by the Indigenous peoples of the Southwest. In response, I convened a national conference, the last oil: a multispecies justice symposium in February 2018.
Things are heating up on the Arctic Refuge issue. Last month, the Trump administration “finalized its plan to open up part of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska to oil and gas development, a move that overturns six decades of protections for the largest remaining stretch of wilderness in the United States,” the New York Times reported on August 17. Interior Secretary David Bernhardt is hopeful that “there could be a lease sale by the end of the year.”
But licking your chops doesn’t always lead to eating.
On Wednesday, September 9, Gwich’in Tribal governments continued their decades-long fight to protect the Coastal Plain from fossil fuel development by filing suit against the Interior Department.
Additionally, fifteen state governments, led by the State of Washington’s Attorney General Bob Ferguson, stood alongside the Tribes and filed a separate lawsuit in the federal district court in Alaska.
Two years ago, when I was in Washington, DC, for a two-day Arctic Refuge campaign strategy workshop—the morning started with New Mexico’s Senator Tom Udall addressing us. Sen. Udall has long been our champion in Congress to protect the Arctic Refuge, and a true friend to the Gwich’in Nation. After all, it was his uncle, Arizona Congressman Morris “Mo” Udall who was one of the principal architects of the most expansive environmental protection laws in U.S. history—the 1980 Alaska National Interest Land Conservation Act (ANILCA), which doubled the size of the original Arctic National Wildlife Range, renamed it a Refuge, and granted subsistence rights to the Indigenous peoples, including inside designated wilderness.
Back to Trump’s war on conservation.
On July 15, 2020, President Trump “unilaterally weakened one of the nation’s bedrock conservation laws, the National Environmental Policy Act, limiting public review of federal infrastructure projects to speed up the permitting of freeways, power plants and pipelines,“ the New York Times reported.
Earlier this year, when the Trump administration was moving to gut the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, Sen. Udall called “move to gut NEPA is one of the worst decisions made by the worst environmental administration in history. … At a time when we are staring down the serious threat of climate change to our way of life—especially in states like New Mexico—and are in peril of another mass species extinction, NEPA is one of the few tools we have to limit further damage to our environment.”
After all, NEPA was established during the tenure of the Senator’s father, Stewart Udall, a passionate conservationist who served as U.S. Secretary of the Interior during the 1960s.
And, how did the Trump administration respond last year to the landmark May 2019 UN biodiversity assessment which warned that one million animals and plant species face extinction due to human activity?
Three months later, on August 12, 2019, the Trump administration announced its intention to gut the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the hallowed legal framework to protect imperiled species.
The community members in the U.S.-Mexico borderlands had offered a different kind of response last Fall to the UN biodiversity assessment. Artists and academics across the Rio Grande watershed, from southern Colorado to Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, responded creatively by organizing more than a dozen exhibitions and programs that expressed both sorrow and hope, our connection to the living earth and need for action.
“This may be the first time that communities across a large region spanning two nations have engaged the biological crisis in such an expansive and distributed manner with a shared concern and generosity,” I wrote in the exhibition catalog essay.
During the same time, responding to a call from scientists, in October 2019, Sen. Udall co-sponsored the Thirty by Thirty Resolution to Save Nature, which calls on the federal government to establish a national goal of conserving at least 30 percent of the land and the oceans within the territory of the United States by 2030. The following month, in November, Sen. Udall sponsored the Tribal Wildlife Corridors Act which would support wildlife management efforts by tribal governments.
And, on February 7, 2020, New Mexico Rep. Deb Haaland with support from her colleagues, introduced a companion Thirty by Thirty Resolution to Save Nature in the House.
Building on the foundations of these community-engaged and culturally inclusive creative and federal policy initiatives, Sen. Udall and I will be co-hosting UNM Biodiversity Webinar Series—Fall 2020, which will launch on Monday, September 14, and will conclude on Thursday, December 3. The webinar series will foster conversations on the escalating biodiversity crisis and inspire public participation to mitigate the tragedy. This online symposium is FREE and open to the public, but registration is required. I hope to see you at the inaugural webinar on Monday.
These times can seem bleak, but we take inspiration in the endurance of people like the Gwich’in and members of the Udall family, who resolutely maintain the struggle to better protect the natural world. Our nonhuman relatives need us and, we need them.

Human disturbances of wild areas increase the likelihood of future pandemics

Philip Guelpa

As if rapidly accelerating climate change and environmental degradation were not reason enough to undertake major efforts to halt and reverse the ongoing destruction of natural ecosystems by uncontrolled human activities, another urgent incentive is now making itself painfully evident.
New research reinforces the already growing scientific understanding that human incursions into wild areas are increasing the likelihood that disease organisms endemic to animal populations in such areas will “cross over” to humans. The coronavirus that causes COVID-19, most likely originating in bats, appears to be only the latest example of this process.
The zoonotic (animal) origin of a significant number of human diseases has been known for decades (e.g., plague, rabies, Lyme disease, SARS, MERS, West Nile virus). According to a CDC report released last year, “Six out of every 10 infectious diseases in people [in the US] are zoonotic, which makes it crucial that the nation strengthen its capabilities to prevent and respond to these diseases using a One Health approach.
“One Health is an approach that recognizes the connection between people, animals, plants, and their shared environment and calls for experts in human, animal, and environmental health to work together to achieve the best health outcomes for all.” It is notable that a number of these are of recent origin. However, little has been done to address the problem because to do so would collide with powerful economic interests.
A just released study, published in the scientific journal Nature (Gibb et al., 5 August 2020), explores the dynamic between human activities and the spread of such diseases. It is based on an analysis of approximately 6,800 ecological communities, focusing specifically on 376 host (i.e., disease-carrying) species on six continents.
The analysis indicates a pernicious relationship between human incursion into wild areas (e.g., by deforestation or urban expansion) and the promotion of animal species that tend to be carriers of diseases likely to infect humans. Such activities tend to reduce biodiversity, creating conditions favorable to species that reproduce rapidly and are flexible in their diets and physical habitat requirements—mice, rats, and pigeons come to mind—at the expense of those with narrower, and thus less flexible, adaptations.
Specifically, the researchers found that species that tend to do well in environments disturbed by human activities, such as rodents, bats, and passerine birds, have a higher probability of carrying disease organisms which have a known propensity for transfer to humans. For those species, the richness (number of species) is 18 to 72 percent higher and the total abundance (size of population) 21 to 144 percent higher in such environments as compared to less disturbed settings.
As we have noted previously, environments with reduced biodiversity (i.e., a lower variety of species) tend to be more unstable than those with greater species diversity. This creates a positive feedback loop. Opportunistic species that thrive in unstable environments outcompete those that are less tolerant of ecological disruption. As human incursions increase, the imbalance is magnified, resulting in animal populations dominated by an abundance of a small number of highly successful species. When these animals harbor pathogens likely to spread to humans, which is what the recent study found, the potential for deadly outbreaks is created.
Deforestation and other human incursions into wild areas increase the ecological “edge” (i.e., length of the border) between developed and undeveloped areas. As a result, not only do people increasingly penetrate deeper into the natural areas to collect plant and animal resources, but wild animals tend to wander into developed areas due to reductions in their habitats and food supplies, increasing exposures between the two. Stress on wild animal populations is also likely to increase their susceptibility to disease, creating an enlarged reservoir for pathogens that are available for transmission to humans.
The same research team that conducted the study published in Nature has found a correlation between socioeconomic factors, development trends and the presence of probable host species with Ebola outbreaks in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
An important factor contributing to the virulence of zoonotic diseases has to do with the evolutionary history of the disease organisms and their hosts. SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, and its presumed host, bats, have likely been evolving together for a very long time. The bat population has, through genetic adaptation (i.e., large numbers of deaths), evolved a tolerance to the virus, similar to that of humans to the common cold.
For humans, on the other hand, SARS-CoV-2 is a “novel” pathogen. There has been no co-evolution. Therefore, the interaction between the two is highly unbalanced. This is analogous to the devastation suffered by Native Americans to European diseases, to which they had no prior exposure. The same is true for future potential zoonotic disease, emphasizing the urgent need to address the mechanisms that promote such outbreaks.
In a recent essay in the journal Science, an interdisciplinary team urged that controlling deforestation and a reduction in the wildlife trade (sale and consumption of wild animals) would reduce the potential for similar pandemics in the future.
Increasing human incursions into wild areas are primarily driven by economic factors. These include both large scale industry, such as oil exploration, mining and agribusiness, and the movement of small agriculturalists driven by economic necessity. The common underlying force is capitalism—the rapacious quest for profit at any cost on the one hand and impoverishment of workers and peasants on the other. Until this system is abolished, more pandemics on the scale of COVID-19 or greater are inevitable.

Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences plan for racial and gender criteria: A right-wing attack on artistic freedom

David Walsh

The decision by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS) in Hollywood to demand, in effect, that films conform to racial and gender criteria to qualify for its Best Picture award is a vicious attack on artistic freedom and a step down a very sinister path.
The actions reveal that the affluent layer in charge in Hollywood, allied with the Democratic Party, is either indifferent or hostile to the process by which art is created and ruthlessly determined to pursue its selfish, grasping political and economic agenda. Far from resulting in greater “diversity” and “inclusion” in any meaningful sense, the rules mandated by the AMPAS thought police will further narrow studio filmmaking and implicitly set limits on what can and cannot be said.
Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences website
What’s taking place, in effect, is an attempt to impose a second Production Code, the set of censorship regulations, enforced by an infamous political and quasi-religious apparatus, that from 1934 to the mid-1960s severely restricted American filmmakers.
The new policies are the outcome of several years of intense pressure by identity politics activists, Democratic Party-aligned figures in Hollywood and media outlets like the New York Times. The #OscarsSoWhite controversy, which erupted in 2016 when for the second year in a row all 20 performers nominated in the lead and supporting acting categories were white, provided a pretext for the launching of the new initiative.
The Academy set about “diversifying” itself, which has largely meant inviting several thousand individuals, a considerable proportion of whom are women and members of “underrepresented ethnic/racial communities,” to join its ranks. This year, for example, the organization, according to Deadline, touted that its invitees were “49 percent international, 45 percent women, and 36 percent underrepresented ethnic/racial.”
In June, AMPAS officials ominously announced that a task force was working on the next phase of its “equity and inclusion initiative,” known as “ Academy Aperture 2025. ” A September 8 press release announced the new “Representation and Inclusion Standards” for the Best Picture award proposed by the task force, chaired by Academy governors DeVon Franklin (producer, motivational speaker and preacher!) and Jim Gianopulos (multi-millionaire chairman and CEO of Paramount Pictures).
The formulas this body has come up with are both foul and absurd. To be deemed eligible for the Best Picture award at the 2024 Academy Awards (in 2022 and 2023, producers will only have to submit “a confidential Academy Inclusion Standards form”), a movie will have to meet two out of four standards (A through D).
To achieve “Standard A,” a film must meet one of the following criteria:
  • At least one of the lead actors or significant supporting actors is Asian, Hispanic/Latinx, Black/African American, Indigenous/Native American/Alaskan Native, Middle Eastern/North African, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander or from another “underrepresented race or ethnicity.”
  • At least 30 percent of all actors in secondary and more minor roles are from at least two of the following underrepresented groups: “Women, racial or ethnic group, LGBTQ+ or people with cognitive or physical disabilities, or who are deaf or hard of hearing.”
  • “The main storyline(s), theme or narrative of the film is centered on an underrepresented group(s).”
“Standard B” mandates that a certain number of “creative leadership positions and department heads” (“Casting Director, Cinematographer, Composer, Costume Designer, Director, Editor, Hairstylist, Makeup Artist, Producer,” etc.) come from the aforesaid “underrepresented groups.” It would require that at least 30 percent of the film’s crew is from the same underrepresented groups.
“Standard C” concerns “industry access and opportunities,” including the provision of paid apprenticeships or internships for women and members of racial or ethnic groups, and “Standard D” requires a given studio and/or film group to have “multiple in-house senior executives” from the various “underrepresented groups… on their marketing, publicity, and/or distribution teams.”
Academy invites 819 to membership in 2020
Where does one begin?
The underlying premise of this effort, as we argued in 2016 when the issue became a prominent one, is that “artwork should be categorized and presumably appreciated according to whether it represents a male or female, black or white perspective.” Whether they liked it or not, we warned, such forces were setting up this basic standard: “women gain more from art produced by women, Jews from work created by Jews, African-Americans from ‘African-American art,’ etc.”
Assuming that artistic perspective is thoroughly framed by race or gender, the AMPAS bureaucrats and their advisers elevate such matters to the level of a worldview. In ideological terms, in their obsession with race in particular, such views have been identified historically with the far right.
We pointed out in 2016 that the “Nazis asserted the existence of distinct ‘Aryan’ and ‘Jewish [Bolshevik, liberal, degenerate]’ cultures, separated out ‘Aryan music’ from ‘Jewish music,’ and so forth. They classified human beings collectively as ‘races,’ with inherited characteristics, as one commentator notes, ‘related not only to outward appearance and physical structure, but also shaped internal mental life, ways of thinking, creative and organizational abilities, intelligence, taste and appreciation of culture, physical strength, and military prowess.’”
We added that “those who view art and culture in racial (or gender) terms and make race (or gender) the basis for a theory of aesthetics give credence to and encourage this type of filth.” Our warnings at the time that the Academy was heading in the direction of racial or gender quotas have been confirmed in spades.
According to the outlook of the Academy brain trust, “art” is a mere means to an end, little more than the spelling or fleshing out, through the use of actors, sets, décor, of one’s racial or gender essence. Again, how far is that from the Hitler view that art’s exterior form should embody “an inner racial ideal” (Henry Grosshans, Hitler and the Artists)?
Astonishingly, the Academy, in its press release, has the temerity to assert that its goals “will not compromise the creative freedom filmmakers must have.”
To the extent that the task force members and Academy governors actually believe this, it only underscores the extent to which identity politics has saturated their entire beings. “Creative freedom,” in their minds, is reduced to expressing one’s ethnic or gender identity.
In fact, film artists are being pushed in a definite direction. There is nothing neutral or “innocent” about the new standards.
By their very existence and insistence, they inevitably draw the artist’s and the public’s attention toward questions of ethnicity, nationality and gender and away from the problems of class, inequality, poverty and the danger of war and dictatorship. It is an only slightly veiled mandating of themes and storylines. Hollywood’s officialdom is telling producers, writers and directors: this is what should concern you, these are the officially sponsored and endorsed issues we want you to bring before the public.
The question of genuine artistic truth never arises for such people. That a filmmaker should dedicate him or herself wholeheartedly, self-sacrificingly, to the pursuit of portraying what is, regardless of the consequences, is unimaginable to them.
They begin with various cynical calculations as to what sort of movie might be acceptable to middle class public opinion or profitable to investors, and assume the artists have the same starting point. No serious work was ever created with a recipe book in hand from which the artist simply selects the proper ingredients.
“Diversity” and “inclusiveness,” when raised by identity politics operators in Hollywood, are empty, fraudulent slogans. What’s involved from an economic point of view is the attempt by an already privileged layer of African Americans and females to lay hands on a bigger share of the entertainment industry profit bonanza for themselves.
There’s no added “diversity” in one affluent petty-bourgeois layer replacing another, the only difference being the color of their skin or their gender. All the considerable efforts at “inclusiveness” to this point have not improved the generally miserable output in Hollywood one iota. White or black, male or female, the not very inspiring thoughts and feelings of the top five or seven percent of the population are what we see represented on movie screens.
The selfishness of these layers knows no bounds. Their hostility in recent years to such films as Lincoln, Free State of JonesGreen Book and others has revealed their deep hostility to work that pointed to more general, broader concerns, the healthier concerns of the mass of the population.
As we wrote on another occasion four years ago: “Of course, there is a massive ‘lack of diversity’ problem in Hollywood, but it is not a racial one. The United States is an immensely complex society with a population of some 320 million people, the vast majority of whom work for a wage—or would like to. How well represented is the working class in American filmmaking, including the overwhelmingly proletarian African American and Latino population? In general, how thoroughly are the complexities of US society and its people depicted by Hollywood?
“With a few honorable exceptions, contemporary American and global filmmaking solely investigates the lives and feelings of a small fraction of the population, the affluent, self-absorbed upper-middle class, residing in their various pockets of affluence.”
Every serious artist must experience a feeling of revulsion on being told what and how to create a work, especially by an alliance of racialist snake-oil salesmen and CEOs. The formula, complete freedom for art, takes on an ever greater and more concrete, and revolutionary, significance.

Solomon Islands’ renegade province threatens separatist split over China diplomatic recognition

Patrick O’Connor

The leader of one of Solomon Islands’ nine provinces, Malaita, has said he is organising an independence referendum, possibly to be held within weeks.
The separatist threat is the latest in a series of provocations by Malaitan Premier Daniel Suidani, who is being backed by US and Australian imperialism in his campaign against the national government’s diplomatic switch from Taiwan to Beijing that was announced in September last year.
After diplomatic ties were established between the Solomon Islands and China, Suidani immediately insisted that Malaita province did not recognise the move. He organised pro-Taiwan demonstrations on the island and sought to whip up anti-Chinese sentiment through anti-communist and evangelical Christian, anti-atheist rhetoric. The Malaitan provincial administration has effectively sought to maintain its own foreign policy, coordinating aid and economic assistance from Taipei. Suidani also declared that no Chinese aid projects or economic investment would be permitted on Malaita, and no Chinese nationals would be allowed to visit.
The provincial government has created a pogromist atmosphere. A pro-independence outfit “Malaita 4 Democracy,” issued a threat at the beginning of this month to all ethnic Chinese businesspeople to leave the island within 24 hours. Many shops in the Malaita provincial centre of Auki were boarded up on September 2, before police intervened to prevent attacks.
Suidani used as the pretext for the threatened independence referendum the national government’s authorisation of a flight on August 31 from Guangzhou, China to Solomon Islands. The Chinese-funded flight carried returning Solomon Islands’ citizens as well as Chinese aid workers sent to help construct facilities for the 2023 Pacific Games, and the first Chinese ambassador to the country, Li Ming. All passengers tested negative for COVID-19 three times before boarding the flight. Suidani nevertheless attempted to whip up a fear campaign over coronavirus infections. (Solomon Islands is one of the few countries to have avoided any positive cases.)
It remains to be seen whether Suidani will be able to proceed with the separatist ballot. Opposition members of the Malaitan provincial legislature have also said they hope to move a no confidence resolution against the premier. The national government has declared the proposed referendum illegal and threatened court action to stop it.
Suidani’s administration responded with a statement that absurdly accused the elected, multi-party coalition national government of “moving into the area of dictatorship; Solomon Islands is slipping into the direction of the one-party system of China.”
The Malaitan administration’s reckless actions threaten a civil war within the impoverished South Pacific country. Between 1999 and 2003, a low-intensity civil war that involved the separatist Malaita Eagle Force militia cost around 200 lives and forced tens of thousands of people to flee their homes.
The threat of renewed conflict has been deliberately stoked by the United States, as part of its aggressive drive to undermine China’s influence in the Pacific.
When Solomon Islands’ Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare announced the diplomatic switch from Taipei to Beijing last year, US officials reacted with fury. Vice President Mike Pence cancelled a scheduled meeting with Sogavare at a United Nations meeting, Republican Senator Marco Rubio threatened economic sanctions, and other Republican congressmen demanded that aid be cut-off.
These public declarations followed an earlier, highly secretive deployment of US officials to Malaita. Dispatched to the province in August last year, just prior to Sogavare’s confirmation of the diplomatic switch, members of the Department of State, Department of Defense, Department of Trade, as well as embassy and aid personnel met with Daniel Suidani. No doubt CIA operatives were also represented in the delegation. After the meeting, unusually, no press statements, photographs, or social media posts were issued to explain what had been discussed.
Subsequently, Suidani boasted of American support and said he would invite the US and Australian governments to assist with “Malaitan security.”
Solomon Islands is an isolated country of just 600,000 people, with an undeveloped economy largely based on subsistence agriculture. Its location, however, makes it geo-strategically significant. The 1942–43 Battle of Guadalcanal was among the bloodiest of the US military’s confrontations with Japanese forces during World War II. US imperialism’s post-war declaration that the entire Pacific Ocean constituted an “American lake,” is now threatened by the economic and military rise of China.
The US ruling elite is seeking to maintain its Pacific and global hegemony through diplomatic provocations, economic pressure, and threats of military violence. US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo signaled a shift towards a de facto “regime-change” policy against China in a major speech last July. The Solomon Islands’ government has been targeted for destabilisation and potential removal as part of this campaign.
The US Defense Department’s annual report to Congress on China’s military capacity, “Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China (PRC) 2020,” was issued on September 1. Without presenting any evidence, it accused Beijing of having “likely considered” twelve countries (among them Sri Lanka, Burma, Indonesia, and Kenya) as potential sites for overseas military bases. The Chinese government, the report alleged, “has probably already made overtures” to three other countries—Namibia, Vanuatu, and Solomon Islands.
The report added: “Known focus areas of PLA planning are along the SLOCs [Sea lines of communication] from China to the Strait of Hormuz, Africa, and the Pacific Islands.”
Washington is accelerating its military buildup in the Pacific. Defense Secretary Mark Esper visited Palau on August 28, a small archipelago chain east of the Philippines with a population of about 20,000 people. The islands, which were a “trust territory” administered by the US after World War II, received formal independence in 1994 but the state continues to function as an American semi-colony. Palau is one of just four Pacific states that maintain diplomatic relations with Taiwan and not China. Esper used his visit to hypocritically denounce Beijing for “its ongoing destabilising activities in the region.”
The Wall Street Journal reported on Tuesday that the visit may be followed by the establishment of a permanent US military base: “The Republic of Palau has asked the Pentagon to build ports, bases and airfields on the island nation, officials said, offering a boost to US military expansion plans in Asia, as Washington aims to counter China.”