

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
As U.S. economic sanctions continue to have devastating effects on people in targeted countries amid the ongoing coronavirus crisis, 55 humanitarian and civil society groups on Friday sent a letter to President Joe Biden urging him to "take immediate emergency measures" to allow people in sanctioned nations to have access to life-saving medical and other goods and services during the pandemic.
"The regular U.S. use of economic sanctions has had a devastating humanitarian impact on communities, with women and girls often the hardest hit."
--Sara Haghdoosti,
Win Without War
The letter from the groups--including human rights and faith-based organizations--praises Biden's announcement on his second day in office that his administration would review all existing U.S. sanctions "to evaluate whether they are unduly hindering responses to the Covid-19 pandemic."
Noting that the pandemic "has highlighted the precarious and, in some cases, critical state of the health infrastructures and economies of sanctioned countries and locations," the letter warns that "without immediate intervention, millions of people will continue to face severe economic hardship, infection, and death."
"Civil society, independent experts, and officials have noted that, even prior to the pandemic, sanctions were already causing shortages of medical supplies, decimating livelihoods, blocking banking channels, and exacerbating already dire situations in places like Iran, Venezuela, North Korea, and Syria," it continues.
"These targeted locations now represent severe global security vulnerabilities, as these populations remain at high risk of infection and, in most cases, current sanctions regulations still prevent meaningful responses from the humanitarian community," the letter asserts. "The virus presents an overwhelming challenge to these under-resourced health infrastructures."
"As a result, sanctioned countries and locations could continue to be, or could become, hotbeds of infection for years, and provide ample opportunities for the virus to mutate into more contagious and deadly strains," the letter warns, concluding with a call for Biden to "take immediate emergency measures and consider long-term measures as well, that would allow the peoples of sanctioned countries and locations to respond to the devastating human and economic fallout of Covid-19."
Sara Haghdoosti, deputy director of letter signatory Win Without War, said in a statement that "for too long, the United States has reflexively relied on suffocating, broad-based sanctions with absolutely no regard for their impact on everyday people."
"At any time--but especially during a pandemic--these sanctions regimes are inhumane, deadly, and a threat to global health," Haghdoosti added. "On top of it all, they are proven to undermine the work of changemakers struggling for progress within sanctioned countries. This is a no-brainer: it's time for reform."
As the letter alludes, U.S. sanctions were killing people before the pandemic. According to a 2019 report by the progressive think tank Center for Economic and Policy Research, as many as 40,000 Venezuelans have died due to U.S.-led sanctions, which have made it much more difficult for people to obtain food, medicine, and other necessities. The pandemic has only made such privation and suffering more acute.
Dina Behzadi, a student at Tehran University in Iran, told Borgen Magazine last November that "ever since [former President Donald] Trump reimposed sanctions in my country, it has been very difficult for me and my family financially. Food such as eggs and meat are very expensive. Sometimes, I have to stand hours in line at a subsidized grocery store for affordable meat rations."
"My country has been hit very hard due to the virus. I plead for these restrictions to be lifted for only a short time so that my country is able to access basic things like food and medicine."
--Dina Behzadi,
Iranian student
"My country has been hit very hard due to the virus," she added. "I plead for these restrictions to be lifted for only a short time so that my country is able to access basic things like food and medicine."
Yifat Susskind, executive director of the global women's rights group MADRE, said Friday in a statement supporting the letter that "the regular U.S. use of economic sanctions has had a devastating humanitarian impact on communities, with women and girls often the hardest hit."
"In much of the world, women and girls shoulder the responsibility of caring for family members and securing basic needs for their households," said Susskind. "By raising food and fuel prices, weakening water infrastructure, and making medical equipment and care harder to access, economic sanctions only deepen these burdens."
Friday's letter follows a resolution passed earlier this week by the United Nations Human Rights Council urging all member states to stop using unilateral sanctions as "tools of political and economic pressure," as well as a letter from Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) imploring the Biden administration to end the ban on diesel swaps "to provide lifesaving relief for millions of Venezuelans" and an earlier letter from 27 progressive U.S. lawmakers urging the president to "consider the humanitarian impact" and "catastrophic" consequences of sanctions.
Standing in stark contrast with the civil society groups' letter, the U.N. resolution, and Democrats' efforts, a bipartisan group of Iran hawks in Congress led by Sens. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) on Thursday sent their own letter urging Biden to "use the full force of our diplomatic and economic tools" in relations with Iran.
That letter was signed by 43 senators--28 Republicans, 14 Democrats, and independent Sen. Angus King of Maine.
Any schoolchild in the United States knows that the US Declaration of Independence guarantees individuals' rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".
Now, imagine what these principles mean for right-wingers and religious fundamentalists: where "life" refers to fetuses; "liberty" includes the prerogative to discriminate against LGBTIQ people; and "the pursuit of happiness" is reserved for straight, white patriarchs.
For more nightmare fuel, look no further than the new government body that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced earlier this month: The Commission on Unalienable Rights. For the uninitiated: this project's name might sound progressive, but it's most definitely not.
Everything we've heard about this Commission is full of coded language that's about as subtle as a brick through a window. This isn't business as usual - even for the Trump administration. It represents an acceleration of a longstanding fundamentalist agenda.
According to its statement of intent, the Commission is needed as human rights "discourse has departed from our nation's founding principles of natural law and natural rights".
In case you're wondering how to distinguish "natural" rights, they're the ones bestowed by God (at least according to Pompeo's commissioners). One of them, Peter Berkowitz, argues that Christianity is the source of all human rights. Another, Shaykh Hamza Yusuf Hanson, sees marriage equality for LGBTIQ people as a sign of the "End Times".
In typical fundamentalist fashion, this project seeks to impose the same interpretation of law and rights used for generations to uphold slavery, genocide, categorical disenfranchisement, marital rape, domestic violence, and the criminalisation of LGBTIQ lives. Turning the clock back 200 years: this is how Pompeo proposes to make America great again.
In an op-ed published by the Wall Street Journal, the Secretary of State attacks "politicians and bureaucrats [who have created] new rights", and thus "blur the distinction between unalienable rights and ad hoc rights granted by governments". He also asserts that "rights claims are often aimed more at rewarding interest groups and dividing humanity into subgroups".
But people whose rights are in danger because of their race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or any other real or perceived identity are not "interest groups". We are the majority of the world. And we've fought for generations to ensure that human rights frameworks are truly inclusive of all people. Now, this Commission wants to undo our gains.
The Commission chair, former US Ambassador to the Holy See Mary Ann Glendon, says it will "work at the level of principle, not policy". This should set off alarm bells. Policies, after all, can be reversed. But principles set the parameters of what kinds of policies are even possible. That's their real aim: to circumscribe the range of acceptable ideas, scale back hard-won universal rights, and thus limit our possibilities.
We expect they'll start with foreign policy, taking a page from a tried-and-true playbook. For decades, what American ultra-conservatives couldn't get away with at home, they've exported abroad - through such heinous policies as the so-called Global Gag Rule, and the Helms Amendment, for instance, which have limited women's access to safe abortion services around the world.
And once these right-wing policies are established - and legitimated - in foreign policy, they're brought home to roost. Recently, a US court of appeals ruled that Trump's Domestic Gag Rule can go into effect (further limiting abortion access here as well).
As the directors of international organisations for women and LGBTIQ people, OutRight Action International, and MADRE, we're working to create a world of human rights and gender justice, where all people live free from violence and discrimination.
This work threatens the aims of ultra-conservatives, whose worldview depends on women being subservient within societies and LGBTIQ people disappearing altogether.
Their frontal assault is against abortion and the rights of LGBTIQ people, but that's only their opening salvo. Unless you are part of the narrow demographic of rich, white men deemed to have rights in 1776, they're coming for you too. In fact, their ideology threatens the vast majority of people - which is one reason it must be justified as "natural" and God-given.
The right's concerted attack on reproductive rights and LGBTIQ people reflects the centrality of gender as a system for asserting the control and domination they seek. They target us because we're upending that system. But allying feminist and LGBTIQ rights movements is more than a mutual defense pact: it's a strategy to defeat the right.
Just last month, our organisations won a major victory after a year-long campaign around a pending international treaty on crimes against humanity. We ensured that this draft treaty dropped an outdated definition of gender, affirming the rights of all people.
In that campaign, we saw many of the same attacks that are now embedded in Pompeo's new Commission - including claims that we were assaulting the 'natural order' and that our advocacy threatened traditional conceptions of rights.
One right-wing organisation C-FAM even claimed that our victory represented an attack by homosexual men on "our mothers and our sisters and our daughters". That might seem a strange charge against an effort led jointly by LGBTIQ and women's organisations, but they see the threat represented by our unified efforts and seek to drive a wedge between us.
One of the greatest successes of human rights advocates over generations is this: When our own governments and constitutions fail us, we can turn to international human rights to seek justice and reparation. We can share our testimonies about the abuses we've endured and, perhaps most importantly, change the global conversation. In doing so, we've influenced policies and practices at home and around the world.
Attacks on human rights, gender protections, and the multilateral system are a transparent attempt to close down that channel of progressive change-making. But by aligning our efforts as women's and LGBTIQ rights organisations, and making common cause with other progressive movements, we can face down this latest assault.
Right-wingers are not coming after us because we're weak. They're coming after us because they're afraid, we're strong, and we know how to take them on.
When it comes to the letter of the law, a few words can mean the difference between having your rights protected - or not.
Earlier this month, the International Law Commission (ILC) formally recommended a final draft of the new crimes against humanity (CAH) treaty for adoption by states--a treaty that promises to bring justice to victims of atrocities.
Previous drafts of the treaty adopted a 20-year-old definition of gender that isn't explicit on whether it includes LGBTIQ persons, and more broadly, women and men persecuted for not following oppressive dress codes or gendered roles prescribed by the perpetrators who abuse them.
There's a long history to this gender definition, how it came about, how it has come to be interpreted, and how we've ultimately settled the inclusion debate through advancements over the last twenty years of international law: You cannot persecute someone because of their gender, including when it is based on sexual orientation, gender identity or sex characteristics.
The final draft removed this outdated definition -- but getting the treaty to this point wasn't easy. It took immensely coordinated campaigning from MADRE, OutRight Action International and the Human Rights and Gender Justice Clinic at CUNY Law School.
The last twenty years of international law seemed to have settled thedebate. The bottom line: You cannot persecute someone because of their gender, including when it is based on sexual orientation, gender identity or sex characteristics.
There's never a justification for persecution. But not everyone agrees with international law. Fundamentalists who promulgate fear justify discrimination against women and LGBTIQ people by arguing that gender should be defined as male and female, conflating the term with sex and reinforcing a false binary. Their argument is that giving equal rights to women and LGBTIQ people destroys "feminine values." Their primary fear is that women will break out of "traditional roles", such as mothers and caretakers, and instead seek an education or join the workforce. (Seems they believe that woman can't do both). They try to erase LGBTIQ rights from the history books altogether since their very existence is inconvenient to their rigid gender narrative. Such distorted prescriptions also have consequences for men.
Last year, the International Law Commission (ILC), the body charged with the drafting, opened the new treaty to UN, state, and civil society comments. At first, our request to remove the outdated definition of gender was met with a chilly response from treaty supporters. The pushback was simple: the more changes to the language, the more risk that states won't adopt the treaty. Reasoning like this has consistently led to the de-prioritization of gender concerns in conflict, from sexual and reproductive health care to LGBTIQ-tailored responses.
Can civil society organizations make a difference in treaty negotiations?
Just ask Ray Acheson. She led the advocacy coalition on the Arms Trade Treaty and managed to secure a legally binding provision on gender-based violence. As Ray tells it, "At the beginning, we were getting questions [from governments] like, 'What does gender-based violence have to do with the arms trade? I don't get the connection.' By the end, we had a hundred states saying that it had to be in the treaty and it had to be legally binding."
MADRE, OutRight and CUNY Law followed suit and organized a world-wide campaign that called for the outdated definition of gender to be removed or revised in the new treaty.
Time was against us. We had one year to rally states, UN agencies, and civil society organizations to make submissions. We spent the first six months organizing experts' briefings in New York and London to work out our legal arguments on gender, sexual slavery, and other key components in the treaty.
Ultimately, we were able to pull together seven briefings with key receive feedback on our recommendations and legal reasoning developed from the experts' workshops. The first briefing was held with members of the International Law Commission, the second two with states, and the last four--each on a different subject--with civil society groups from around the world. We also distributed a toolkit in four languages to ensure that there was broad civil society input for the ILC on the gender language and other key provisions in the draft treaty.
CUNY Law School then compiled feedback from the workshops, briefings and consultations, for a submission to the ILC that offered a holistic legal analysis and recommendation to either remove or revise the gender definition in the draft CAH treaty. We then circulated the arguments and recommendations in five languages as a sign-on letter.
Nineteen out of 33 declared that the rights of women and LGBTIQ people are protected under international criminal law and that the pending treaty must reflect this principle. No state spoke against gender rights.
An astounding twenty-four UN Special Rapporteurs and other experts signed onto another submission that also echoed our legal reasoning. About 600 organizations and academics representing over 100 countries signed our open letter.
At least nine other civil society submissions also answered our call, including from 60 human rights organizations in Africa led by the Southern Africa Litigation Center, twelve transgender rights groups, two intersex groups, and Human Rights Watch.
The final result: the ILC formally adopted the draft treaty with the recommendation to remove the definition from the draft convention, citing to our arguments.
But the campaign isn't over. The ILC will hand off the crimes against humanity draft treaty to the UN General Assembly this autumn, where states will debate its language and decide its fate.
Whether the treaty makes its way into law or not, one thing is clear: History will remember that all of us working together can make a difference, because all of us, not some of us, have rights that must be protected.
A scarred hillside stood before us, a reminder of a 2014 oil pipeline spill. Oil pumpjacks rose and fell relentlessly around us.
We had just arrived on the Fort Berthold Reservation in North Dakota, home to the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Mandan, Hidatsa and Arikara nations. MADRE, the organization I lead, in partnership with the Indigenous Environmental Network, was accompanying a delegation of Indigenous women climate defenders from Colombia, Guatemala, Israel, Kenya, Nepal, and Nicaragua to meet with local activists about the devastating impact of mega oil and gas projects on their livelihoods and their lands.
"This Mother's Day, we have an opportunity to honor mothers like all these, to amplify their calls for change and to put a spotlight on their essential work."It had taken no time to come face-to-face with the toxic imprint of extractive industries on the reservation. Natural gas flares, so many it was easy to lose count, spewed noxious fumes into the air everywhere we looked. At night, there was no respite: as the flares continued around the clock, we could barely see the stars as the reflection of natural gas flooded the sky.
Soon, we were also told of the less visible, but more terrifying impact: stories of mothers who had witnessed a spike in rates of asthma among their children; a rise in cancer and other illnesses community-wide; accounts of a rise in sex trafficking of young women and girls attributed to an influx of non-locals seeking work. These mothers told us of their powerful inner drive to protect their children, merging with the determination to protect their families' homelands.
These stories were all too familiar to the Indigenous women leaders who had traveled to bear witness to the struggles and survival of other Indigenous women and mothers, to build solidarity and share solutions to mitigate the impact of climate change and resist the encroachment of extractive industries on their land.
Lucy Mulenkei of the Indigenous Information Network in Kenya, shared how gold mining contaminated clean water supplies. This, coupled with severe drought from climate change, forces women and girls to travel long distances to procure water, placing them at increased risk of gender violence along their routes. Ana Ceto of the Indigenous women's organization MUIXIL, shared how communities in Guatemala have been displaced by hydroelectric dams, robbing them of their homes and offering no compensation. Meanwhile, across Central America, years of severe drought has forced families to submit to a harrowing migration journey north.
As we listened to these women exchanging their stories, I heard echoes of the resolve that resonates from Indigenous, Afro-descendant, and rural mothers throughout the Global South and in border communities in the United States with whom MADRE partners. They are committed to organize on behalf of their own and others' children so that today's and future generations will be healthy and safe, will know self-determination, economic and food security, will live sustainably in connection to their land.
In Sudan, for example, the local organization Zenab for Women in Development founded the first and only women's farmer's union in the country. Today, thanks to Zenab, union members--many of them mothers--are learning to tackle the effects of climate change by diversifying crops, increasing reforestation, and composting while simultaneously advocating for policies that will support climate justice on a national and international scale.
On the remote northern coast of Nicaragua, too, Indigenous Miskito women and girls are facing the worsening effects of climate change and environmental degradation at the hands of extractive industries. Here, mothers are mobilizing with the organization Wangki Tangni in response to disasters and, through community radio programs and intergenerational forums with adolescent girls, promoting environmental justice and women's and Indigenous Peoples' rights.
The risks for doing this visionary work - facing powerful forces responsible for climate crisis and environmental exploitation - are real. A mother and daughter, Tulia Maris Valencia and Sara Quinonez, have long worked to defend Afro-Colombian communities' collective rights, to confront extractive mega projects and mining, and to organize for peace. Over a year ago, their government imprisoned them on false charges in retaliation for that activism. This Sunday, Tulia Maris and Sara will spend their second Mother's Day behind bars. In retribution for her work to build a safer life for her own daughter and for all children, Sara has missed more than a year of her daughter's childhood.
This Mother's Day, we have an opportunity to honor mothers like all these, to amplify their calls for change and to put a spotlight on their essential work. Because in all corners of the world, mothers are turning their heartbreak and horror over climate change and environmental devastation into creative solutions. These solutions have immediate local impact, like building clean water systems and seed banking to preserve future harvests. And these solutions and strategies are generated from the perspective of mothers, who are responsible for those most vulnerable to climate change, and whose voices and leadership must be centered in national, regional and international policy debates.
These solutions remind us of what potential lies waiting, if each of us would only channel the power that comes from a mother's knowing what is and isn't right - and does something about it. If we could each be inspired by mothers like these, we would be well on our way to promoting more proactive, creative adaptations to climate change and to all crises we face. We would be ready to mobilize with a mother's urgent resolve, as if our land was spouting fire, to stand up to extractive industries that devastate biodiversity and Indigenous lands - from North Dakota to Nicaragua and beyond.
Rebuking the Trump administration's horrific treatment of migrants approaching the Southern border, Nobel laureate Malala Yousafzai on Thursday offered advice to U.S. lawmakers: "Don't greet refugees with tear gas."
Twenty-one-year-old Yousafzai made the remarks in Cambridge, Massachusetts where the Harvard Kennedy School's Center for Public Leadership awarded her the Gleitsman Award for her education activism. According to the Boston Globe, "Sixty members of Congress, both Republicans and Democrats, were in attendance."
The ceremony included a conversation with Samantha Power, who served as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations under the Obama administration. The Globe reports:
When asked by Power what she'd like to say to the members of Congress about refugees, Yousafzai paused briefly, before saying: "Firstly, don't greet refugees with tear gas."
"You should not assume it is these people's fault," Yousafzai said, before encouraging everyone to "just be human."
"We need to look at it from the human eye and be more welcoming and consider themselves as our brothers and sisters," Yousafzai said, according to the Harvard Crimson. "And let's understand that we are living on this one planet Earth, which is already in danger, which is already at a great risk because of climate change."
Among the lawmakers in attendance was Democratic Rep.-elect Deb Haaland of New Mexico, who called attention to the Malala Fund founder's comments on social media:
Yousafzai won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2014 for her activism promoting girls' education--and her work toward that equity made her a target of the Taliban; members of the extremist group shot her in the head in 2012.
"Malala speaks powerfully to the strength and perseverance of women and girls who are oppressed," said David Gergen, professor of public service at Harvard Kennedy School and director of the Center for Public Leadership in an earlier press release announcing the award. "Her remarkable story has inspired girls--and boys as well--to follow in her footsteps and has activated a generation of practitioners and legislators who are fighting for equality in their own communities."
Previous recipients of the Gleitsman Award have included African National Congress President Nelson Mandela in 1993; Maria Adela Antokoletz, Argentinean founder of the Madres de Plaza de Mayo, in 1997; and International Bridges to Justice founder Karen Tse in 2009.
Yousafzai's "inspiring and passionate work on behalf of girls' education in Pakistan" brought her to the Obama White House in 2013, though not all of her comments to the president were deemed headline-worthy. She urged then-President Barack Obama to end drone strikes, saying such "attacks are fueling terrorism."
The Trump administration, for its part, has drawn international outrage for, among other things, its recent firing of tear gas by U.S. Border Patrol agents against migrants including families with young children.
In my work, I have the privilege of partnering with visionary activists who fight each and every day for the rights of women and their communities -- and who often face retaliation for their activism.
I first met Yanar Mohammed, a prominent Iraqi feminist, just months after she founded the Organization of Women's Freedom in Iraq in 2003. She had set up an organization that would not only provide shelter and care for women facing sexist violence but would also expose the roots of that violence: religious fundamentalists and their enablers, boosted to power by the US occupation.
After Yanar spoke out, she received death threats from extremists seeking to silence her. But for 15 years since, undeterred, she has continued to resist misogyny and advance the rights of women and girls in Iraq.
"Don't take so many risks, some will say. Shrink yourself and your vision. Demand less. Live smaller lives. That's what we tell women when we blame them for the retaliation against them."Today in Iraq the climate of danger and fear persists. Recently, several high-profile women were murdered: women's rights activist Suad al-Ali, model Tara al-Fares, beauticians Rasha al-Hassan and Rafifi al-Yasiri. They were targeted simply for living their lives in ways that defied strict gender conventions, such as by working professional jobs or advocating for their rights - capital offenses in the eyes of violent extremists.
In Latin America, women are similarly targeted: Last month, Juana Ramirez Santiago, a 57-year-old Indigenous human rights activist in Guatemala, was shot and killed after receiving multiple death threats. Her murder followed that of Juana Raymundo, a 25-year-old Indigenous Ixil nurse and a vocal women's rights advocate.
In Colombia, Tulia Maris Valencia and Sara Quinonez, an Afro-Colombian mother and daughter who are at the forefront of Colombia's movements for environmental, racial and gender justice, have been imprisoned by the government for months, on baseless charges. Meanwhile, Colombia is the deadliest place on the planet for human rights defenders, with one activist killed every three days, on average. The government should be protecting them, not jailing them.
In the Philippines, the government has escalated a campaign of violence against human rights defenders and Indigenous Peoples. It's a tactic to eliminate people standing in the way of exploitative agendas - like Indigenous Peoples trying to block environmental threats including logging and mining on their lands. When advocates like Victoria Tauli Corpuz, the UN special rapporteur on the rights of Indigenous Peoples, have spoken out against these abuses, the government retaliated by officially designating them as "terrorists."
What do all of these stories have in common? These women all have tried to remake the world, in ways big and small. They all saw an unjust status quo - one that threatens and constrains the lives of women, girls and other marginalized people - and acted in defiance. And powerful forces reacted by trying to silence them, to end their activism and to preserve that status quo.
A Guardian article about the recent killings of Iraqi women referred to them as "reckless" in the way that they had chosen to live their lives, a label that blames women for their own murders. This victim-blaming is a common trend where violations of women's rights are concerned. When anonymous perpetrators may never be identified or when powerful government agents seem beyond the reach of justice, it becomes tempting to point the finger elsewhere: back at women.
Don't take so many risks, some will say. Shrink yourself and your vision. Demand less. Live smaller lives. That's what we tell women when we blame them for the retaliation against them.
But that's the thinking that allows impunity and injustice to reign. Instead, we have to stay focused on what is behind these abuses.
"Today, International Women Human Rights Defenders Day, is an opportunity to recommit yourself to stand with those women who refuse to back down, who reveal what the powerful want to keep hidden and who won't be held back."
Who stands to benefit when women are harassed, assaulted, and killed? The fundamentalists in Iraq whose worldview and hold on power depend on enforcing rigid gender ideologies - and who killed Suad al-Ali, Tara al-Fares, Rasha al-Hassan and Rafifi al-Yasiri. The government agents intent on running roughshod over community rights as they seek to exploit the land - and who imprisoned Sara Quinonez and Tulia Maris Valencia in Colombia. The criminal networks, paramilitary agents and governments who claim control over communities and their resources - and who target Indigenous Peoples with violence to squash their resistance in places as far afield as Guatemala and the Philippines.
Too often, policymakers take the easy way out, offering platitudes about the need to protect women human rights defenders while failing to name the powers that threaten them. As a coalition of women human rights defenders recently declared, "We don't want more speeches that are soft on the governments and private interests that are devastating our land, territories, and bodies."
Today, International Women Human Rights Defenders Day, is an opportunity to recommit yourself to stand with those women who refuse to back down, who reveal what the powerful want to keep hidden and who won't be held back.
The next time you hear about women who are threatened or killed for asserting their basic rights, ask who benefits. The answer will uncover the policies and beliefs that we need to transform to ensure that human rights and environmental justice become a reality for all.
One night last fall, an armed group in Iraq raided a women's shelter run by a local women's group. Men armed with assault rifles kidnapped a member of their staff for ransom and forced the women's group to negotiate for release.
This prohibition prevents survivors from accessing life-saving services, particularly in areas beyond the reach of international humanitarian actors.
The local women's group is called OWFI - the Organization of Women's Freedom in Iraq - and they are the only Iraqi organization that provides shelter for women at risk of violence.
You may ask yourself how there could be only one. It's because, despite the unprecedented security crisis in post-ISIS Iraq, outside of the Kurdistan region it remains against public policy for Iraqi NGOs to provide shelter for those escaping gender-based violence. This prohibition prevents survivors from accessing life-saving services, particularly in areas beyond the reach of international humanitarian actors. And it forces OWFI to operate their shelters clandestinely - keeping their locations secret and routinely relocating them.
This latest attack on OWFI's shelter starkly reveals the consequences of the Iraqi government's anti-shelter policy. It continually places local organizations, and the women and girls who seek their services, in danger of torture or death. Illicit armed actors know that these shelters operating "off-the-grid" can't expect protection from the police or government. They can stage raids like this one with impunity.
Meanwhile, despite failing to offer official legal protection to OWFI's shelter, when pressed by UN human rights experts on how they are confronting gender-based violence, Iraqi officials continue to point to OWFI's work meeting the urgent needs of survivors of gender-based violence. Ironically, the government made this acknowledgment while still maintaining its anti-shelter stance and harassing OWFI on the ground.
For the last two years, OWFI and MADRE, with the help of CUNY Law School and other allies have been calling attention to a simple policy fix that could save the lives of thousands of women and girls: lift the ban on local NGOs providing shelter.
The number of reasons for making this change has only grown in those years. With 11 million people in need of assistance in Iraq and over 3 million internally displaced, the government of Iraq and international organizations are struggling to meet the increasing demand for humanitarian support. When the Iraqi army retook Mosul, thousands of displaced women and girls were freed from ISIS showing signs of both physical and psychological trauma requiring specialized medical care. Despite the clear need for the type of life-saving services that shelters provide to women and girls fleeing gender-based violence -- a service local NGOs are ready, willing and able to provide -- the Iraqi government has neither abolished its prohibition on NGO-run shelters, nor provided protection for them.
UN human rights bodies have affirmed the government's behavior is in violation of international human rights law.
Providing legal protection to NGO-run shelters would give organizations like OWFI the ability to operate openly and to expand their services and reach more survivors. This would reduce the burden on the government of Iraq to meet the growing need for humanitarian support and shelter. Local organizations are often better equipped to support survivors in areas that are inaccessible to international organizations, and have gained the trust of local communities while building good working relationships with local officials. Many of these local organizations provide additional services to help survivors rebuild their lives and reduce their vulnerability to future violence.
The UN has a role to play. UN human rights bodies have affirmed the government's behavior is in violation of international human rights law. And when the UN began working with the Iraqi government to pass the Family Protection Law, designed to protect women from domestic violence, OWFI and MADRE quickly organized a campaign calling for a provision in that law clarifying that Iraqi NGOs may provide much-needed shelter and other services to gender-based violence survivors.
At first, the general response was that it was "too difficult" to include such a provision in the draft law. The Deputy Chairman of the Committee for Women and Family in the Parliament, Haifa El-Hilfi, responded that, "there is a fear that if these shelters are opened, many women will use them to leave their families." This, she described, would be a "real risk that would threaten many Iraqi families."
Yet, we've seen progress: the UN Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI) recently released a human rights report, calling on the Iraqi government to pass the draft Family Protection Law with the requested shelter provision and acknowledging that civil society organizations are already providing the much-needed service without legal recognition.
UNAMI's call adds to a chorus of national and international bodies and institutions pushing for change. But UNAMI can still do more.
In addition, the Security Council's Informal Expert Group on Women, Peace and Security (IEG) and numerous other international bodies have called for the government of Iraq to clarify that Iraqi NGOs may indeed "provide much-needed services to survivors of gender-based violence, including shelter." When Lise Grande and other representatives of UNAMI and the Iraq Country Team briefed Council members in June, they called attention to the UN's pledge to continue "to advocate and support the adoption of the Family Protection Act with provisions to allow NGOs to operate shelters for women and other vulnerable individuals fleeing violence." Ms. Grande recommended that "[i]n the meantime, a government directive providing similar legal coverage for national NGOs and eliminating access barriers, such as the need for a judge order for entry or release into a shelter, is urgent."
UNAMI's call adds to a chorus of national and international bodies and institutions pushing for change. But UNAMI can still do more. They should issue a call for the government to issue an immediate directive protecting such shelters.
Recognition by UNAMI and these international bodies of the importance of allowing NGO-run shelters to protect survivors of gender-based violence is only the first step towards saving women's lives in Iraq. While advocates on the ground and in the international arena continue to push the Iraqi government to pass the Family Protection Law, in the immediate term, UNAMI should support the call of Iraqi civil society organizations like OWFI and urge the government of Iraq to issue a directive providing legal coverage for Iraqi NGOs to operate shelters.
Tumaco - Afro-descendant women's organizations in Colombia are marking International Women's Day by highlighting Black women's role in peacebuilding and calling for reparations for conflict-related gender-based violence and other human rights violations. As members of communities that have long suffered governmental neglect, Afro-Colombian women and girls have faced disproportionate rates of conflict-related human rights violations with minimal access to justice or services. Ongoing violence in the wake of Colombia's peace accord with the FARC, including killings of human rights defenders and displacement of entire communities, has especially impacted Afro-Colombian and Indigenous Peoples.
Today, in Tumaco, Narino several organizations, including Caminos de Mujer and Palenque Tumaco will hold film forums in local neighborhoods, and will march for justice and reparations for Afro-Colombian victims of conflict-related gender-based violence. They will call for action to prevent ongoing gender-based violence, and to end the impunity, silence and invisibility that fuel attacks on women human rights defenders. Tumaco is among areas that have witnessed deepening insecurity as armed actors filled the post-FARC security vacuum that resulted in part from the government's failure to consult with Afro-descendant and Indigenous authorities in security planning. The march aims to counter the fear and silence that ongoing violence imposes in Tumaco.
Proceso de Comunidades Negras (PCN), or Black Communities Process, a national network of Afro-descendant organizations and activists, will publish interviews with Afro-Colombian women activists who have struggled tirelessly for meaningful peace, inclusive of racial and gender justice in Colombia. The interviews serve to memorialize the role of Black women leadership in peacebuilding, including the successful struggle for inclusion of a chapter in Colombia's Peace Accord devoted to ethnic and racial justice. They also document direct participation of Black women in decision-making during implementation of the Peace Accord.
"Black women in Colombia have been at the center of the struggle for Black people's self-determination and they are today significantly leading this process; that is why Black women have been directly targeted in the last decade by violent forces looking to take or maintain control of their territories and bodies to halt the resistance and the power that comes from that leadership," said Charo Mina-Rojas of Proceso de Comunidades Negras.
March 8th will also witness the launching of a report analyzing the economic roots of violence against Afro-descendant women. It focuses on the port city of Buenaventura and the Northern Cauca region, as exemplifying the harmful impacts of neoliberal policies and projects on Afro-descendant ancestral and traditional territories, and on the physical, cultural and spiritual integrity of Black women. In the majority Black city of Buenaventura, for example, port activity contributes significantly to Colombia's economy, but local residents lack regular running water, hospitals, and adequate education. The report finds the economic system to be a major perpetrator of violence against Black women in Colombia, and Black women to be "victims of capitalist development." It suggests that meaningful peace in Colombia requires addressing the systemic neglect and discrimination undergirding the extreme inequality that fuels conflict in Colombia and leaves Black women disproportionately in poverty and vulnerable to additional human rights violations.
"They [government and armed forces] have tried for centuries to take everything from us, but it has been impossible to take away our dignity and our sense of who we are, where we belong and where we want to be; that is, our vision. That is why their mission is to annihilate us, as people, as women, as a political and economic force and power," said Danelly Estupinan, of Palenque Kongal, Proceso de Comunidades Negras. She added, "it is proven that they won't succeed,"
At a time when Colombia's peace implementation is threatened in part by government failures to fulfill obligations under its peace accord with the FARC, global advocates are encouraging international solidarity with women who are struggling for a peace that includes their human rights. "Afro-descendant and Indigenous grassroots women leaders in Colombia provide an example for how to organize for meaningful and inclusive peace," said Yifat Susskind, Executive Director of MADRE, an international women's human rights and humanitarian organization. "On this International Women's Day, we stand with them in their call for Colombia's government to uphold its commitment under the Peace Accord to meaningfully consult with Afro-Colombian and Indigenous authorities and organizations, including women's groups, in peace implementation."
Today is the beginning. It may be the start of the Trump Administration, but let it also be the inauguration of something much more powerful: a renewed feminist social justice movement that takes root in each of our lives, throughout the country and around the world.
"What did you do to protect people and to fight for our rights, our health, and our planet when it was all under threat?"
As a venal sexual-predator-in-chief ushers white supremacists into the highest offices of government, the unthinkable is becoming commonplace. And the commonplace has a way of bleeding into the acceptable. That's why I'm writing you this letter--to recommit to what I believe in.
I'm writing this letter to the future, too, because our children and new generations will ask us:
What did you do to protect people and to fight for our rights, our health, and our planet when it was all under threat?
I will tell them that we never accepted the unacceptable. We pressed steadily ahead to achieve our vision of social justice. We faced setbacks, and kept going. We had the wisdom to celebrate every victory, no matter how small. We were radical in our thinking and mainstream in our appeal. We created unlikely alliances. We mobilized masses of new and committed activists. We seized any opportunity to block harmful policies and build safer, healthier communities at home and abroad. We made resistance a way of life, and we made our connection to people worldwide our guiding principle. We took care of each other and we were brave.
If we can look back and say that, it will be thanks to the work that is before us now. It will be thanks to our abilities to bring movements together and work across issues to:
Right now, we stand on the shoulders of generations of activists past who risked everything to give us a chance at a life of dignity and rights. I gain inspiration from women worldwide who've refused to give into despair, who've imagined a new way of life even in the midst of war and disaster, and who are bringing that new world into being.
Alice Walker said that "resistance is the secret of joy." The reverse is also true: "joy is the secret of resistance." Remember that laughter dilutes fear and opens the way forward to action. I'm committing with this letter to daily, joyful resistance, and I hope you will, too, whatever that looks like for you.
Hope lives in action.
Early in the morning of March 3, Berta Caceres was assassinated as she slept.
A world-renowned environmental activist, Berta had been a driving force in protecting the lands and waters of rural communities in Honduras. Among the many victories of the organization she founded was the delay of a megadam project on the Gualcarque River that could be disastrous for the indigenous Lenca people living there.
Berta is not alone, nor is her story unique to Honduras. Across the Global South, mega hydroelectric projects are expanding -- driven by governments and multinationals as a source of cheap energy, and branded by international institutions as a solution to poverty and the climate crisis.
But despite claims that they create clean energy, dams often have devastating impacts. They can displace communities, destroy the local social fabric and spiritual ties to land, lead to privatization of land and water, and generate food insecurity. Often used to power mining and fossil fuel extraction, they're part of a system that damages the ecosystem and advances climate change.
Increasingly, communities throughout Latin America have been resisting these projects. Some have succeeded in protecting their territories in the face of violent repression. Yet when these groups go so far as to speak out about the root causes of the projects -- corporate greed, unfettered capitalism, political impunity -- they, like Berta, may be targeted and killed.
Megadams and Neoliberalism
International development banks and transnational corporations are pushing an expansion of megahydroelectric dams at a rate never seen before. In Honduras, the Agua Zarca dam that Berta fought against is far from the only project: The Lenca people alone are facing the prospect of 17 dams being imposed within their territories.
This picture is being replicated across the region. In Colombia, President Juan Manuel Santos' master plan for the strategic use of the Magdalena River calls for adding 11 to 15 megadams to those already in operation. In Peru, former President Alan Garcia made the construction of 20 megadams along the Maranon River into a national priority with the signing of a single decree in 2011.
Overall, 829 hydroelectric projects were approved in South America during 2014, with a total investment of $22 billion.
The power and resource grab going on throughout Latin America has roots stretching back to Spanish colonization. The river Gualcarque -- with its deep spiritual significance for the Lenca people -- was famously defended against Spanish invaders by indigenous resistance leader and hero, El Lempira. Although the form has evolved, the struggle against powerful foreign forces in the region has continued to this day.
Conquering not with swords and horses but with a ruse of "corporate social responsibility" and market-based mechanisms, the plunderers of the 21st century are bolstered by a deepening and globalized neoliberal agenda. The package of privatizations, deregulations, and loosening of restrictions on trade and finance prescribed under the "Washington Consensus" for global trade -- widely implemented by institutions like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank in the 1990s -- tipped the balance of power towards the interests of corporate global elites.
In Honduras, market-oriented principles reached a new extreme following the U.S.-backed military coup in 2009. The new de facto government immediately overhauled Honduras' legal frameworks in a bid to create favorable conditions for foreign investment. In practice, the sweeping changes -- ranging from enforcing eminent domain to repealing laws preventing the construction of dams in protected areas -- were intended to facilitate the rapid and cheap transfer of the country's natural wealth into global markets.
Berta was highly critical of the coup and of the subsequent handover of the country's wealth. "There are a projected 300 hydroelectric projects planned," she said in a 2015 interview with El Tecolote. "We are a small country with many riches. To give 30 percent of the territory to the transnational mining companies is worse than the colonization of 500 years ago. And, they do it with impunity."
The explosion in the number of megadams under construction in Latin America follows a decade-long hiatus in the World Bank's hydroelectric strategy -- a pause that was prompted by social protests.
After being rebranded as a "clean energy" solution to the climate crisis, however -- a position amplified by industry representatives at the Paris climate talks last December -- the megadam staged its comeback. Taking advantage of the new business opportunities created to respond to the climate crisis, corporations are now being effectively bankrolled by UN-sponsored market solutions such as the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM).
But mega hydroelectric projects are anything but clean. In tropical regions like Honduras, they are a major source of the potent greenhouse gas methane. Moreover, mega hydroelectric facilitates the extraction of fossil fuels, such as coal and fracked gas, as well as other minerals. In Peru, as in Colombia and Brazil, mega hydroelectric dams are being brought online with the express intention of generating cheap energy for extractive industries.
This unprecedented expansion of mega hydroelectric power is increasingly generating resistance. Berta's fight against dams is being repeated in community after community in Latin America.
Resistance in Rio Blanco
To defend the territorial rights of indigenous and campesino people against logging and other extractive projects, Berta cofounded the National Council of Popular and Indigenous Organizations of Honduras, or COPINH. For over 20 years, COPINH has been a major player in resisting Agua Zarca, and in 2015 Berta was awarded the Goldman Environmental Prize for her role in that effort.
COPINH and local communities have pursued formal routes of resistance against the dam. Yet their calls for prior, free, and informed consent as required by international law have not been heard. Cases brought to the Honduran courts denouncing the illegality of the dam were also not pursued. The imbalance of power between the industry and local communities is evident: While Agua Zarca's backers benefit from police protection, the communities' legal cases against the dam lapse. In these situations -- a story repeated throughout Latin America -- affected communities are left with little choice but to take direct action.
In 2013, defying a military lockdown of the area, the Rio Blanco community took a stand. They maintained a road blockade that prevented machinery from reaching the dam site for over a year.
In clashes with police and paramilitary guards hired by the corporation, Tomas Garcia was shot several times at close range by a soldier. Garcia died instantly, and his son was left injured. The activist's assassination brought the number of deaths suffered by defenders against the Agua Zarca project to three.
In a video made for the Goldman Prize ceremony, Berta explained how Garcia's death prompted increased local resistance during that conflict. The resistance prompted Chinese Sinohydro, the largest dam builder in the world, to pull out of the project. That accomplishment "cost us in blood," Berta said. The World Bank's International Finance Corporation also pulled its investment from Agua Zarca.
This was a temporary victory, however, because threats against the defenders failed to abate. In an interview with El Universo newspaper in 2015, Berta said: "I never doubted I would continue the struggle despite the threats; they even gave me more resolve. Today we are receiving death threats not only against me, but against other companeros."
With Latin America being the most dangerous region in the world for environmental defenders, Honduras tops the list.

Berta Caceres founded the Council of Popular and Indigenous Organizations of Honduras. (Photo: Goldman Environment Prize)
Berta's resolve to continue resisting led to her voice being prominent on the international stage. In conversation with the Guardian in 2015, Berta asserted:
"The political, economic, and social situation in Honduras is getting worse, and there is an imposition of a project of domination, of violent oppression, of militarization, of violation of human rights, of transnationalization, of the turning over of the riches and sovereignty of the land to corporate capital, for it to privatize energy, the rivers, the land; for mining exploitation; for the creation of development zones."
Publicly calling out the dirty politics, human rights abuses, impunity, and systemic drivers behind the dam made her even more of a threat to the powerful actors involved. Her supporters have no doubt that's what led to her death.
"We know very well who murdered her," COPINH said in a statement on March 3. Speaking of the Honduran government, corporations, and financial institutions backing the Agua Zarca dam, COPINH wrote, "their hands are stained with indigenous blood and with the blood of the Lenca people." In a statement, her family concurred: "Her assassination is an attempt to end the struggle of the Lenca people against exploitation and dispossession of their territories."
The repression in Honduras is the kind of backlash to resistance all local communities face as extractivism and mega hydro expands across Latin America.
Some examples will show the scope of these killings.
Before the 2014 climate talks in Lima, Peru, four indigenous environmental defenders in the Amazon were murdered for protecting their territory from illegal logging. "Edwin Chota had received numerous death threats for his resistance to the criminal gangs who were gutting his community's forests," reports Global Witness, "but his appeals to the authorities were ignored." The loggers are reputed to have connections to the government.
Similarly, indigenous tribes living in the area of the Belo Monte megadam in Brazil have been resisting the dam for decades. They've suffered threats of imprisonment, police violence and militarization of the area, killings of defenders, and sexual abuse. There have been a number of legal cases made against the dam that have gone nowhere.
And the megadam El Quimbo in Colombia has provoked strong resistance from local communities -- who in response have faced assaults and arrests at protests, and violent evictions from their homes.
Accompanied by militarization, privatization of land and water, violence, and power imbalances in the judicial system, megadams are a symptom of a new form of colonization. The resistors who have died throughout Latin America have been doing the same thing Berta did: challenging the powerful.
The Fight Continues
Opposition to dams isn't only taking place in dispersed communities. It's also spurred a global movement.
The effort officially began 19 years ago. On March 14, 1997, representatives of affected peoples from 20 countries assembled in Curitiba, Brazil to take part in the first International Meeting of People Affected by Dams. Recognizing a common struggle -- one that transcended different economic and political contexts -- activists decided that the Brazilian Day of Struggles Against Dams would be globalized. And so was born the International Day of Action for Rivers and Against Dams, held annually on March 14.
This new international platform aimed to make visible and to connect the diverse struggles taking place across the globe to protect rivers and the communities that depend upon them. But for those losing their homes and sovereignty to megadam expansion, these battles are fought not once a year, but on a daily basis.
The need for international action against megadams has been underscored by Berta Caceres' murder. Following her example, there's an urgent need for global activists to continuously and vociferously denounce the mega hydroelectric dam complex -- calling it out as a false solution to the climate crisis that it's helping to drive. Berta not only put her body on the line to protect the rivers, lands, and communities she felt a part of. She also went beyond her own community struggle, relentlessly shining a light on the global dynamics of power that lay behind local injustices.
Like transnational corporations, resistance movements are strongest when they connect beyond fenceline struggles. Berta's strength of resistance and international perspective posed a threat to a development paradigm based on the enrichment of global elites -- so much so that the forces pushing that agenda felt it necessary to take her life.
But there can be no silencing of a movement. As those celebrating Berta's life cried just days after her murder, "Berta lives, and the fight continues!"
As of this writing, Gustavo Castro Soto, the only witness to Berta's murder (who himself suffered two gunshots) is still being held by Honduran authorities for questioning. Please sign the petition calling for his release and safe passage out of Honduras. Additionally, organizations and activists across the world are calling for an independent investigation into Berta's murder and an end to the ongoing criminalization of members of the COPINH. Please add your voice here.