news

The document listed Poland, Austria, Italy and Hungary as countries that the US should “work more with…with the goal of pulling them away from the [European Union]”, according to Defense One.

https://archive.ph/3ct6s

Snip:

The Venezuelan parliament said it voted to repeal the law endorsing the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC).

"The National Assembly of Venezuela has approved the repeal of the law endorsing the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court," the parliament said on Telegram on Thursday.

National Assembly President Jorge Rodriguez noted that the decision was made to "announce to the world the futility of an institution that should serve to protect the people, but instead serves only the goals of American imperialism."

The jurisdiction of the ICC is not recognized by countries with more than half of the world's population. In addition to Russia, the list includes the US, China, India, Turkey, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Kazakhstan, and Saudi Arabia. The Rome Statute has been signed by 137 states, yet only 124 countries have ratified the document.

Sky News is saying the quiet part loud.

cross-posted from: https://news.abolish.capital/post/13235

What human rights experts and scholars of international law have described as nothing short of calculated and cold-blooded "murder," Republican Speaker of the House Mike Johnson on Thursday claimed was "entirely appropriate"—the extrajudicial killing of two shipwrecked sailors clinging to the side of their exploded boat after it was bombed in the middle of the Caribbean Sea by the US military.

The murder of the two men on Sept 2., which followed approximately 45 minutes after all the others on the boat were already killed in an initial strike that shattered the boat in a ball of fire, has become the center of controversy in terms of the legality of such attacks on nearly two dozen boats that have left at least 87 people dead over recent months.

Following a Thursday briefing, Johnson emerged to say that we was convinced the killings were justified despite the chorus of expert voices who have said—even if you accept the Trump administration's dubious claims about the justifications and authority to eviscerate alleged drug boats and everyone on board them with no due process—that killing people so clearly defenseless and unable to harm anyone, let alone the United States, would be a textbook war crime in the context of war and a murder on the high seas in the context of international maritime law.

In his remarks, Johnson said the killings of the two men was "entirely appropriate," though he has not yet called for the full video of the killing to be released, unlike others among the small handful of lawmakers who have seen it.

"They were able-bodied, they were not injured," Johnson said of the two victims, "and they were attempting to recover the contents of the boat, which was full of narcotics."

"The individuals on that vessel were not helpless castaways," he added. "They were drug runners on a capsized drug boat, and by all indications, attempting to recover it so they could continue pushing drugs to kill Americans."

According to experts, however, the claim—which numerous Republicans and high-ranking Trump officials have now made—that two men who have just survived a massive missile strike on their boat, clinging to life on bits of debris in the middle of the ocean were in the act of "pushing drugs to kill Americans," defies belief.

Kenneth Roth, former executive director of Human Rights Watch and now a visiting professor at Princeton’s School of Public and International Affairs, argued this week in The Guardian that such claims must be resolutely countered and these 87 killings at sea—ordered by President Donald Trump and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth—condemned for what they are: murder.

"The Pentagon has also fallen back on the claim that the two were trying to right the remains of the boat that might have still contained cocaine," wrote Roth. "But the stricken boat was clearly going nowhere and could easily have been intercepted. There was no need to kill the two men clinging to its wreckage."

"In an armed conflict, it is a war crime to attack people who have been shipwrecked at sea, as some in Congress have alleged happened. They are considered hors de combat—outside the fight—and hence no longer combatants who can be shot on sight. They are akin to wounded or surrendering combatants. Opposing forces have a duty to receive and care for them, not kill them."

Going beyond the "war crime" narrative, Roth echoes in his column what many other rights experts have said, that there can be no "war crimes," in fact, when there is no declared armed conflict that constitutes a war.

"There can be no war crime if there is no war," argues Roth. "But there can still be murder, which these attacks were. So were every one of the other killings at sea that Trump and Hegseth have ordered."

Baher Azmy, legal director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, which earlier this week filed a lawsuit demanding release of the internal Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) memo justifying the killings, accused the administration of warping the law beyond recognition in defense of what people should recognize as a murder spree, not legal military operations.

“The Trump administration is displacing the fundamental mandates of international law with the phony wartime rhetoric of a basic autocrat,” Azmy said. “If the OLC opinion seeks to dress up legalese in order to provide cover for the obvious illegality of these serial homicides, the public needs to see this analysis and ultimately hold accountable all those who facilitate murder in the United States’ name.”

From Common Dreams via This RSS Feed.

cross-posted from: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/10048474

https://archive.ph/J4E87

cross-posted from: https://news.abolish.capital/post/13256

US President Donald Trump has signed a so-called peace deal between the US, Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), and the Republic of Rwanda.

Naturally, given the Americans are involved the deal is no more than a resource grab. Trump said that the US will be:

involved with sending some of our biggest and greatest companies over to the two countries… we’re going to take out some of the rare earth and take out some of the assets and pay… and everybody’s going to make a lot of money.

Historically, when an American president says “everybody’s going to make a lot of money” that tends to be the signal for American companies to ravage other nations for their resources, before legging it back home.

Trump: colonialism with a fresh coat of paint

Trump continued that:

Today, the United States is also signing our own bilateral agreements with the Congo and Rwanda that will unlock new opportunities for the United States to access critical minerals and provide economic benefits for everybody.

Ultimately, this deal is colonialism with a fresh coat of paint. Anthropologist Jason Hickel said:

The US-brokered “peace deal” between the DRC and Rwanda is actually wild. The US is getting access to $2 trillion worth of DRC minerals in exchange for forcing the withdrawal of Rwandan-backed M23 militias. That’s one-tenth of the DRC’s total mineral wealth, more than any single foreign country claims.

He exposed thebrutal mechanics of this deal: first the Western powers starve a nation of instability, then demand its minerals as the price for peace. And, as Hickel explained:

This is strange, because analysts of the region have long argued that the US has effectively enabled Rwandan support for the M23 in order to destabilize the DRC, prevent a functional state from arising and achieving sovereignty over its mineral wealth, and thus ensure minerals stay cheaply available for US firms.

The Democratic Republic of Congo produces nearly 70% of the world’s cobalt and substantial shares of global copper and coltan, minerals essential for everything from electric vehicles to advanced weapons systems. So far, so predictable.

Fragile Peace

Trump further boasted that his administration had concluded deals with other countries including with Australia, Japan, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, South Korea for mineral supplies this year.

The president of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Felix Tshisekedi, has already accused Rwanda of violating a newly signed US-brokered peace deal, as the Kigali-backed M23 armed group pressed ahead with a rapid advance on a town near the border with Burundi.

Scholars have warned that this so-called deal might not bring lasting resolution. According to Dr Philipp Kastner, this peace deal lacks the four essential elements for a lasting resolution: real commitment (not tactical pauses), unambiguous (not vague promises), clear timelines (for disarmament and justice), and implementation provisions.

UK’s Critical Mineral Strategy

In their desperate scrabble for geopolitical power, the UK is eager to follow in American footsteps. Military think tank Royal United Services Institute has hinted at a more “muscular” critical mineral policy for the UK. Put plainly, the kind of colonial theft that Hickel describes above.

The recent Critical Mineral Strategy from Starmer’s government was praised by Chatham House for being a “foundation” of the UK’s green growth and security agenda. However, the strategy completely fails to lay out a plan for fair and reciprocal partnerships with resource-rich countries in the global south.

In a statement Global Justice Now said:

Beyond buzzwords, the UK’s Critical Minerals Strategy completely fails to lay out a plan for fair and reciprocal partnerships with resource-rich countries in the global south. While the strategy offers warm words on the value addition and local benefit they need, the trade policy levers outlined solely prioritise the UK’s access to markets.

In other words, the UK is clearly looking to Trump’s example in Rwanda and Congo to steal more resources.

US-led institutions will continue to play an important role for the UK. The UK critical mineral strategy says:

We will support this more targeted international approach through engagement in multilateral forums such as the G7, G20, Minerals Security Partnership (MSP), International Energy Agency (IEA) and NATO, along with promoting responsible and transparent supply chains through initiatives such as the Global Clean Power Alliance (GCPA).

Let’s be clear. Despite framing critical minerals as part of a plan for national security and green transition – the strategy means that the West wants to mine more resources from the Global South. Not exactly very fucking green, is it?

Industrial ecologists hold that global extraction and use of materials should not exceed 50 billion tons per year. In 2015, the global economy was using 87 billion tons per year, overshooting the boundary by 74% and driving ecological breakdown. This overshoot is driven almost entirely by excess resource consumption in Global North countries.

Trump’s latest deal with Rwanda and Congo is modern colonialism in action. And, if Starmer gets his way, the UK could soon follow with a deal that greenwashes colonial theft.

Featured image via the Canary

By Nandita Lal

From Canary via This RSS Feed.