SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Arms Sales to the UAE Could Make US Responsible for More Deaths of Civilians in Yemen and Libya
WASHINGTON
Ahead of plans by the United States to sell 18 armed aerial drones worth approximately $2.9 billion to the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Philippe Nassif, the advocacy director for the Middle East and North Africa at Amnesty International USA said:
"The startling fact that the United States government continues its unflinching support of providing weapons that risk adding to the devastating toll of Yemeni civilians unlawfully killed and injured by U.S.-made weapons should shake to the core every person living in this country. The United States must resolutely refrain from supplying weapons that could be used in the conflict and not transfer weaponry to the UAE, or risk complicity in likely war crimes in Yemen.
"These U.S. drones could be responsible for UAE attacks that violate international humanitarian law and kill, as well as injure, thousands of Yemeni civilians already bearing the brunt of the one of the world's most devastating humanitarian catastrophes."
Since Saudi Arabia and UAE-led coalition air strikes began in March 2015, Amnesty International has visited and investigated dozens of air strike sites in eight governorates and repeatedly found remnants of munitions manufactured in the United States. U.S.-manufactured Raytheon Paveway bombs examined by Amnesty International that have struck hospitals, schools, and civilian homes, killing healthcare providers, teachers, and entire families, including children as young as two years old.
The sale to the UAE is particularly worrying as Amnesty International has acquired extensive evidence that the UAE used armed drones in Libya, to break the long-standing UN arms embargo, by operating these drones on behalf of the Libyan Arab Armed Forces, an armed group controlling large swaths of Eastern Libya, in the conflict against the internationally backed Government of National Accord. Furthermore, the UAE has used these drones to target civilian houses and health facilities, including field hospitals and ambulances which is especially concerning as medics, medical transport and medical facilities, including those treating wounded or sick fighters, are specially protected under international humanitarian law.
This sale would mark the first armed drone export since the Trump administration reinterpreted an arms agreement to allow United States contractors to sell more arms and ammunition, re-opening the floodgates for arms sales with weakened human rights criteria, and potential fuel for more brutal conflicts. It would also add to the worrying proliferation of this advanced weapon, which has been used around the world for unlawful killings.
Amnesty International USA is calling for the United States to immediately halt transfers of all arms, equipment, and military assistance to all parties to the conflict for use in Yemen; and to enforce the United Nations arms embargo on Libya by prohibiting the transfer of arms and equipment that may be used in the armed conflict there.
Amnesty International is a global movement of millions of people demanding human rights for all people - no matter who they are or where they are. We are the world's largest grassroots human rights organization.
(212) 807-8400LATEST NEWS
Dems Wouldn't 'Ignore' Parliamentarian to Raise Minimum Wage, But GOP Plans to for Massive Tax Giveaway to the Rich
"They are deciding that the way we're gonna do this is break the Senate and make up our own rules," said Sen. Cory Booker.
Apr 01, 2025
During 2021 battles to raise the minimum wage and advance the Build Back Better agenda, congressional Democrats refused to "ignore" the unelected U.S. Senate parliamentarian—but Republican lawmakers are now planning to do just that, so they can give the wealthy trillions of more dollars in tax cuts, at the expense of programs that serve working people.
GOP Senate leadership and the White House want to make permanent tax cuts that President Donald Trumpsigned into law in 2017, "without having to account for how much it would add to the deficit," Axiosreported Tuesday. "Now, they're saying all they need is for Budget Chair Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) to decide that's what they're going to do."
"Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) backed the argument, laid out by Graham, that Republicans don't need the Senate parliamentarian to bless the current policy approach during Tuesday's Senate GOP lunch," Axios detailed. "Graham is expected to release the language of the budget resolution as soon as Tuesday, according to GOP Whip John Barrasso (R-Wyo.)."
As a trio of experts at the Center for American Progress—including economist Lawrence Summers—wrote Tuesday: "The majority is attempting to force the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) to say the fiscal impact is instead zero dollars by using a 'current policy' baseline rather than the 'current law' baseline that is defined in statute. This approach is unprecedented in the 50 years since the CBO was formed and Congress acted within the current budget framework."
"Whether one believes the United States should be cutting taxes or increasing spending, there should be no question that forcing the CBO and JCT to pretend that policies have no fiscal impact would allow Congress to make major tax and spending decisions with no arithmetic recognition of the cost," they argued. "This would be the epitome of fiscal irresponsibility. Congress needs to responsibly bring down deficits. Establishing principles that make it possible to incur huge costs without recognizing them would be an egregious and dangerous error."
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.)—who has faced calls to resign from his leadership post after caving to congressional Republicans during last month's shutdown fight—spoke out against the plan on Tuesday, as NBC Newsreported.
"That would be going nuclear," Schumer said. "And it shows that Republicans are so hell-bent on giving these tax breaks to the billionaires that they're willing to break any rules, norms, and things they promised they wouldn't do."
While Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) was in the midst of holding the chamber's floor in remarks that began Monday night and were ongoing as of press time, to protest Trump's sweeping attacks on government, Schumer also informed him of the GOP plan.
Booker read in full a Center on Budget and Policy Priorities report from February titled, House Republican Budget's $4.5 Trillion Tax Cut Doubles Down on Costly Failures of 2017 Tax Law, as well as recent reporting in The New York Times about what the newspaper called "a maneuver so wonky that it might be best explained with sports cars and anime streaming."
"They found a way around the parliamentarian. They found a way around the rules of the Senate. They found a way around the ideals of reconciliation," Booker said of congressional Republicans. "They are deciding that the way we're gonna do this is break the Senate and make up our own rules. This is how they're gonna get a bill through that gives trillions [of] dollars of tax cuts to the wealthiest in our country who are doing very well."
While refusing to "hate on" wealthy Americans, Booker also had a message for them: "You don't need tax cuts, especially not that are gonna be given to you on the backs of the poor, on the backs of our elders, on the backs of our children, on the backs of expectant mothers, on the backs of my mom's, your mom's Social Security."
Booker's historic stunt—which set a new record for the longest Senate floor speech in history—came as polls show Democratic voters are frustrated with the party's failure to effectively stand up to Trump and fight for working people.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Cuts, NATO Withdrawals Weakening Landmine Treaty and Endangering Lives
"The Trump administration's deep cuts to foreign aid are now disrupting mine clearance operations," one campaigner said ahead of International Day of Mine Action.
Apr 01, 2025
International Day for Mine Action on April 4 is typically an occasion to take stock of humanity's progress toward eradicating the scourge of landmines; however, with the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump dramatically slashing foreign aid and several European Union and North Atlantic Treaty Organization members withdrawing from the landmark Mine Ban Treaty, campaigners say there's little worth celebrating this Friday.
Mary Wareham, deputy director of Human Rights Watch's Crisis, Conflict, and Arms program, said Tuesday that International Day of Mine Action "is a moment to highlight the work of the thousands of deminers around the world who clear and destroy landmines and explosive remnants of war."
"They risk their lives to help communities recover from armed conflict and its intergenerational impacts," Wareham—a joint recipient of the 1997 Nobel Peace Prize for her work with the International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL)—continued. "But due to devastating developments driven largely by two countries that have not banned antipersonnel landmines, the United States and Russia, this Mine Action Day does not feel like much of a celebration."
"For over three decades, the U.S. has been the world's largest contributor to humanitarian demining, mine risk education, and rehabilitation programs for landmine survivors," Wareham noted. "But the Trump administration's deep cuts to foreign aid are now disrupting mine clearance operations. Thousands of deminers have been fired or put on administrative leave pending the completion of so-called reviews. It's unclear if this crucial support will continue. The price of Trump administration cuts will be evident as casualties increase."
Responding to the Trump cuts, Anne Héry, advocacy director at the Maryland-based group Humanity & Inclusion—a founding ICBL member—said:
Any delay in clearance prolongs the danger of contamination by explosive ordnance for affected populations. Clearance operations save lives, especially children, who are often victims of explosive devices. They also enable communities to use land for agriculture, construction, and other economic activities. This funding cut will further displace vulnerable populations who cannot return home due to contamination. It will also result in limited access to schools, healthcare facilities, and water sources in contaminated areas.
The Trump administration's seeming disdain for Ukrainian—and by extension much of Europe's—security concerns, combined with Russia's ongoing invasion and occupation of much of Ukraine, has some E.U. and NATO members looking for other ways to defend against potential Russian aggression.
Earlier this month, Poland, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania said they would withdraw from the 1997 Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production, and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction, also known as the Ottawa Treaty and the Mine Ban Treaty.
In a joint statement, the four countries' defense ministers explained that "military threats to NATO member states bordering Russia and Belarus have significantly increased" and that "with this decision we are sending a clear message [that] our countries are prepared and can use every necessary measure to defend our security needs."
As Wareham also noted: "Russian forces have used antipersonnel landmines extensively in Ukraine since 2022, causing civilian casualties and contaminating agricultural land. Ukraine has also used antipersonnel mines and has received them from the U.S., in violation of the Mine Ban Treaty."
In another blow to the Mine Ban Treaty, Finnish Prime Minister Petteri Orpo announced Tuesday that Finland is preparing to quit the pact, a move he said "will give us the possibility to prepare for the changes in the security environment in a more versatile way."
#Estonia #Latvia #Lithuania #Finland #Poland – DO NOT EXIT the Mine Ban Treaty! Your choices shape the future. "Young people are watching, and we’re counting on you" to uphold the ban on landmines! #MineFreeWorld #ProtectMineBan
[image or embed]
— International Campaign to Ban Landmines (@minefreeworld.bsky.social) April 1, 2025 at 7:04 AM
Wareham said that "the proposed treaty withdrawals raise the question of what other humanitarian disarmament treaties are at risk: chemical weapons? cluster munitions? The military utility of any weapon must be weighed against the expected humanitarian damage."
"To avoid further eroding humanitarian norms, Poland and the Baltic states should reject proposals to leave the Mine Ban Treaty," she added. "They should instead reaffirm their collective commitment to humanitarian norms aimed at safeguarding humanity in war."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Harvard and Princeton Are the Latest Ivies to Have Their Funding Targeted By Trump
One critic wrote that an email from Harvard University's president about the Trump administration's funding review capitulated to the "bogus premise that this is about 'protecting' students against antisemitism."
Apr 01, 2025
This week, Harvard University learned that Trump administration is reviewing nearly $9 billion in federal grants awarded to the school and Princeton University has had multiple research grants suspended by multiple federal agencies—making the two institutions the latest in series of elite colleges to have their funding threatened by U.S. President Donald Trump.
In the case of Harvard, the scrutiny from the Trump administration is explicitly tied to Trump's pledge to crackdown on what he sees as rampant antisemitism on college campuses.
In the name of opposing antisemitism, Trump has vowed to target foreign-born students who have engaged in pro-Palestine protests, activities that the president has described as "pro-jihadist." Several students who have taken part in pro-Palestine activism have already been targeted for deportation.
According to a Monday statement from the U.S. Department of Education, multiple federal agencies are launching a comprehensive review of federal contracts and grants at Harvard as part of the ongoing efforts of the Trump administration's Joint Task Force to Combat Antisemitism.
The task force will review over $255.6 million in contracts between Harvard, its affiliates, and the federal government, as well as $8.7 billion in multiyear grant commitments to the university and its affiliates to ensure "the university is in compliance with federal regulations, including its civil rights responsibilities."
"Harvard's failure to protect students on campus from antisemitic discrimination—all while promoting divisive ideologies over free inquiry—has put its reputation in serious jeopardy. Harvard can right these wrongs and restore itself to a campus dedicated to academic excellence and truth-seeking, where all students feel safe on its campus," said Education Secretary Linda McMahon in a statement on Monday.
In a message that was denounced by multiple observers, Harvard's president Alan Garber wrote in a Monday message to the Harvard community that the school has devoted "considerable effort" to addressing antisemitism on its campus over the past 15 months, including by "enhancing training and education on antisemitism."
"We still have much work to do," wrote Garber. "We will engage with members of the federal government's task force to combat antisemitism to ensure that they have a full account of the work we have done and the actions we will take going forward to combat antisemitism."
"If this funding is stopped, it will halt lifesaving research and imperil important scientific research and innovation," he also wrote.
Researcher Hannah Gais, a graduate of Harvard Divinity School, wrote on Monday that Garber's message "completely caves to the administration and its bogus premise that this is about 'protecting' students against antisemitism."
"What a disgraceful letter from Harvard president Alan Garber, surrendering entirely to Trump and the pernicious nonsense that America's universities, some of the greatest and most Jewish institutions in American life, are rife with antisemitism," wrote historian and editor Sam Haselby on X.
Meanwhile, the president of Princeton told the university community on Tuesday that several research grants to the university have been suspended by the federal government.
"The full rationale for this action is not yet clear, but I want to be clear about the principles that will guide our response," wrote Princeton president Christopher L. Eisgruber on Tuesday, according to The New York Times. "Princeton University will comply with the law. We are committed to fighting antisemitism and all forms of discrimination, and we will cooperate with the government in combating antisemitism."
In February, the Task Force to Combat Antisemitism announced that it would be investigating 10 universities, including Harvard and Columbia University—which recently had $400 million in federal grants revoked by the Trump administration. That list did not include Princeton, though Princeton was one of 60 colleges that received letters last month from the U.S. Department of Education that warned of potential actions against schools if the government found they had not done enough to protect Jewish students.
After the Trump administration stripped Columbia of the $400 million, the administration announced later in March that it was freezing $175 million in federal funds for the University of Pennsylvania, citing the university's policies on transgender athletes.
In March, Columbia announced a number of changes to the school that aligned with the wishes of the Trump administration as part of negotiations over the rescinded $400 million in federal grants—prompting a wave of criticism of the university.
In an opinion piece for Common Dreamspublished on Tuesday, Steve Striffler, the director of the Labor Resource Center at the University of Massachusetts Boston, argued that it is not wholly accurate to say that Columbia's changes were a "capitulation" to the Trump administration.
Instead, "it seems quite likely that Columbia's leaders accepted Trump's demands not so much because they were forced to (capitulate), or because they saw fighting as either futile or potentially disastrous, but because they welcomed the opportunity and political cover that Trump's order provided," he wrote.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular