… on a quiet day, I can hear her breathing

Tag: Canada

  • Tax Dodging by Super-Rich, Big Corporations Costs Nations Half a Trillion Per Year: Study

    Spread the love

    Original article by Jake Johnson republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0).

    A crowd of demonstrators marches in Saint-Brieuc, France on May 1, 2024. (Photo: Emmanuelle Pays/Hans Lucas/AFP via Getty Images)

    “The U.K. and the U.S. are both among the biggest enablers and the biggest losers of this lose-lose tax system,” said the chief executive of the Tax Justice Network.

    A study published Tuesday estimates that tax dodging enabled by the United States, the United Kingdom, and other wealthy nations is costing countries around the world nearly half a trillion dollars in revenue each year, underscoring the urgent need for global reforms to prevent rich individuals and large corporations from shirking their obligations.

    The new study, conducted by the Tax Justice Network (TJN), finds that “the combined costs of cross-border tax abuse by multinational companies and by individuals with undeclared assets offshore stands at an estimated $492 billion.” Of that total in lost revenue, corporate tax dodging is responsible for more than $347 billion, according to TJN’s calculations.

    “For people everywhere, the losses translate into foregone public services, and weakened states at greater risk of falling prey to political extremism,” the study reads. “And in the same way, there is scope for all to benefit from moving tax rule-setting out of the OECD and into a globally inclusive and fully transparent process at the United Nations.”

    The analysis estimates that just eight countries—the U.S., Canada, the U.K., Japan, Israel, South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand—are enabling large-scale tax avoidance by opposing popular global reform efforts. Late last year, those same eight countries were the lonely opponents of the United Nations General Assembly’s vote to set in motion the process of establishing a U.N. tax convention.

    According to the new TJN study, those eight countries are responsible for roughly half of the $492 billion lost per year globally to tax avoidance by the rich and large multinational corporations, despite being home to just 8% of the world’s population.

    “The hurtful eight voted for a world where we all keep losing half a trillion a year to tax-cheating multinational corporations and the super-rich,” Alex Cobham, chief executive of the Tax Justice Network, said in a statement Tuesday. “The U.K. and the U.S. are both among the biggest enablers and the biggest losers of this lose-lose tax system, and their people consistently demand an end to tax abuse, so it’s absurd that the U.S. and U.K. are seeking to preserve it.”

    “It’s perhaps harder to understand why the other handful of blockers, like Australia, Canada, and Japan, who don’t play anything like such a damaging role, would be willing to go along with this,” Cobham added.

    https://twitter.com/TaxJusticeNet/status/1858880408357888306?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1858880408357888306%7Ctwgr%5E212231be390df1278a214d4c3357d2bb5ea63942%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.commondreams.org%2Fnews%2Fglobal-tax-dodging

    Sorry, this content could not be embedded.
    X

    TJN released its study as G20 nations—a group that includes most of the “hurtful eight”—issued a communiqué pledging to “engage cooperatively to ensure that ultra-high-net-worth individuals are effectively taxed.” Brazil, which hosted the G20 summit, led the push for language calling for taxation of the global super-rich.

    The document drew praise from advocacy groups including the Fight Inequality Alliance, which stressed the need to “transform the rhetoric on taxing the rich into global reality.”

    The communiqué was released amid concerns that the election of far-right billionaire Donald Trump in the U.S. could derail progress toward a global solution to pervasive and costly tax avoidance.

    The new TJN study cites Trump’s pledge to cut the statutory U.S. corporate tax rate from 21% to 15% and warns such a move would accelerate the global “race to the bottom” on corporate taxation.

    “People in countries around the world are calling in large majorities on their governments to tax multinational corporations properly,” Liz Nelson, TJN’s director of advocacy and research, said Tuesday. “But governments continue to exercise a policy of appeasement on corporate tax.”

    “We now have data from these governments showing that when they asked multinational corporations to pay less tax, the corporations cheated even more,” Nelson added. “It’s time governments found the spines their people deserve from their leaders.”

    Original article by Jake Johnson republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0).

  • Alberta Conservatives Pass Climate Denial Resolution 12 to Celebrate CO2 Pollution

    Spread the love

    Original article by Danielle Paradis and Taylor Noakes republished from DeSmog

    UCP members voted in favor of a resolution to “recognize the importance of CO2 to life and Alberta’s prosperity.” Credit: Danielle Paradis

    Alberta’s United Conservative Party has passed a resolution to rebrand carbon dioxide — the chief gas whose overabundance in Earth’s atmosphere is causing the climate emergency — in a brazen display of climate science denial that harkens back to the 1990s fossil fuel industry playbook.

    Resolution 12, which falls under the “environmental stewardship and emissions reduction” area of the policy discussion, will “recognize the importance of CO2 to life and Alberta’s prosperity.” 

    In approving the resolution, the UCP resolved to abandon the province’s net zero targets, remove the designation of CO2 as a pollutant, and further “recognize that CO2 is a foundational nutrient for all life on Earth.”

    “We must prioritize policies that protect our economy and our way of life. CO2 is an essential nutrient for mass, driving growth and boosting plant production. According to the CO2 Coalition, higher CO2 levels have led to healthier crops and improved food security worldwide,” said a UCP member speaking in favour of the policy who cited the notorious CO2 Coalition. 

    The resolution passed by a wide majority. 

    UCP members vote in favor of Resolution 12. Credit: Danielle Paradis

    A member who spoke against the bill, saying that just like like someone can drink too much water and experience water poisoning, too much CO2 can be bad. He was booed by the crowd. 

    The policy discussion took place in Red Deer, Alberta, where 6,085 UCP members and observers debated 33 policy resolutions at their annual general meeting. Earlier in the day, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith pledged to “triple down” on conservative priorities, including further expanding oil production and attacking Canadian climate policies.

    As several outlets have reported previously, Resolution 12 flies in the face of the scientific consensus on climate change, and the party’s rationale for the resolution states a widely debunked claim that “the Earth needs more CO2 to support life and to increase plant yields.”

    Carbon dioxide is the gas principally responsible for exacerbating the greenhouse effect, the consequence of which is global warming. Whereas carbon is a foundational building block of life on Earth, carbon dioxide is an asphyxiating gas whose atmospheric proportions are so high they’re disrupting the normal function of the carbon cycle. 

    The resolution was submitted by the members of the legislative assembly (MLA) representing the provincial ridings of Athabasca-Barrhead-Westlock (Glenn van Dijken), and Red Deer-South (Jason Stephan). 

    The argument that carbon dioxide is a “gas of life” has been a common yet easily refutable talking point popularized by climate change deniers and other right-wing extremists. One such group, the anti-wind energy group Wind Concerns, referred to carbon dioxide as a “gas of life” in an interview with DeSmog last year. Their leader, Mark Mallett, took credit for contributing to the anti-renewable energy moratorium instituted by Alberta UCP Premier Danielle Smith.

    Climate scientists have long confirmed that increased CO2 in the atmosphere does not, as climate change deniers insist, create better growing conditions for plants.

    The argument that carbon dioxide is beneficial for the environment appears to have first been made by the Greening Earth Society (GES) in the mid-late 1990s. GES was a creation of the Western Fuels Association, and it was later determined the two groups were one and the same. GES published the World Climate Report, a non-academic and non-peer-reviewed journal that served as a platform for climate change denial. They were transparent in acknowledging their funding from fossil fuel companies, and appear to have originated several talking points now common amongst climate change deniers, including those that advocate for increased atmospheric carbon dioxide, which would result in faster plant growth and greater agricultural yields.

    In the “rationale” section of the resolution, the United Conservative Party document argues that “CO2 is a nutrient foundational to all life on Earth.”

    While plants need both light and carbon dioxide to thrive, the over-supply of CO2 in recent decades is leading to plants being deprived of their nutrients. One biologist was quoted in a 2017 Politico article describing this as akin to “the greatest injection of carbohydrates into the biosphere in human history,” and that injection is diluting the nutrients in the food supply.

    While the resolution notes that the “carbon cycle is a biological necessity,” it doesn’t appear the resolution’s sponsors are aware that increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere throws the carbon cycle off balance. This is precisely what’s causing the climate emergency: too much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere combined with the destruction of natural carbon storage is destroying the carbon cycle as we know it. The proposed resolution is as contradictory as it is scientifically illiterate.

    The resolution also states that current CO2 levels are around 420 PPM, which is described as being “near the lowest level in over 1000 years.” Where this idea comes from is not clear, but it is not supported by verifiable scientific evidence. To the contrary, CO2 levels were 34 percent lower than today in the year 1024, at about 280 PPM. CO2 levels have climbed steadily since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, though they have grown most aggressively since 1950. NASA estimates that, despite wide fluctuations over time, CO2 levels had not exceeded 300 PPM over the last 800,000 years, but have stayed above that level since 1950.

    The argument that more CO2 will support life, increase yields, and “contribute to the health and prosperity of all Albertans” — as stated in the resolution — is not supported by scientific evidence. The opposite is a far likelier outcome. As the principal driver of the climate crisis and global warming, increasing CO2 levels will exacerbate droughts, wildfires, and floods, among other disasters, in turn resulting in loss of life and major disruptions to global supply chains. The consequent economic disturbances and their aftereffects will worsen the affordability crisis and result in increasingly negative economic outcomes for all, not just Albertans. Rather than stimulate Alberta’s agricultural sector, climate change will destroy it, and the evidence this is already happening is quite clear.

    Another policy resolution is focused on the provincial government’s “scrap the cap” program. The policy builds on a previous resolution to repeal the carbon tax and instead: “Prohibit any consumer carbon tax or carbon pricing scheme or carbon cap and trade system from being implemented in Alberta.” 

    The resolution also proposes to support “any federal or interprovincial government’s efforts to “axe the tax” (the federal conservative campaign) by eliminating the federal carbon pricing backstop from being imposed on Albertans and Canadians.” 

    Other resolutions over the weekend have focused on print-based identification, and a requirement for in-person voting “to deal with all the voter fraud.”

    Original article by Danielle Paradis and Taylor Noakes republished from DeSmog

  • Canada’s New Greenwashing Law Hasn’t Stopped Politicians’ CCS Claims

    Spread the love

    Original article by Taylor Noakes republished from DeSmog.

    Environment minister Steven Guilbeault championed carbon capture in a recent funding announcement. Credit: Wikimedia Commons

    Major companies have scrubbed references to carbon capture. Yet government officials continue to promote it.

    While Canadian oil companies and their lobbyists have scrubbed mentions of carbon capture from their websites amid greenwashing concerns, Canadian government officials continue repeating unproven claims about the controversial technology.

    Various government ministers, including environment minister Steven Guilbeault, have championed carbon capture (CCS) technology in recent press announcements and social media statements, despite mounting evidence CCS is not a viable climate change mitigation strategy.

    It is in part because of the oil and gas industry’s allegedly misleading statements about CCS that the Canadian government introduced new anti-greenwashing amendments to the Competition Act. These new amendments provoked many Canadian oil and gas companies to remove environmental pledges and goals from their websites, including information about CCS. The Pathways Alliance, a consortium of Canadian tar sands oil producers that has been aggressively promoting a carbon capture project in Alberta, removed all content from their website on June 19 in anticipation of these new regulations. Pathways has since added some new content to their website, though there are far fewer details about the group’s interest in CCS.

    In recent weeks, sitting ministers in the government of Canada have made several announcements or statements concerning carbon capture projects. In mid July, Strathcona Resources Ltd. announced it would enter into a partnership with the Canada Growth Fund — a public investment agency of Canada’s federal government — to split $2 billion CAD of new investments in CCS infrastructure for the company’s tar sands operations in Alberta and Saskatchewan.

    The joint funding may not actually be as equal as government and industry have indicated. According to Julia Levin, Associate Director, National Climate, with Environmental Defence Canada, Strathcona may not even cover half their capital costs,  given their expectation these costs will be covered by the federal CCS investment tax credit and other grants. Indeed, according to Strathcona’s press release concerning the project, the company that “Substantially all of Strathcona’s share of capital costs is expected to be recouped through the federal CCS investment tax credit and other grants.”

    “The Government of Canada is providing yet another oil company with a massive handout,” said Levin in a statement to DeSmog.

    “Almost exactly a year ago, the Government of Canada released new rules ending fossil fuel subsidies. Yet they continue to break their promise by providing billions of dollars to some of the wealthiest companies in Canada. Despite carbon capture’s terrible track record, governments keep subsidizing the technology.”

    Despite these and other concerns from environmentalists and climate scientists about CCS, Canada’s environment minister, Steven Guilbeault, was particularly enthusiastic about the news, writing on social media that “it pays to put the tools in place that build a cleaner economy and a more sustainable future.”

    Whether this is in fact the case — that investments in CCS will lead to either a cleaner economy or a more sustainable future — is an issue at the heart of the government’s new anti-greenwashing regulations. Environmental claims must be based on an adequate and proper test, according to the legislation, and the burden of proof lies with whoever makes the original claim.

    If Guilbeault were representing a tar sands producer, rather than the government of Canada, he may have reconsidered his statement. Canadian tar sands producers removed similar claims from their websites in the days before the anti-greenwashing regulations went into effect June 20. Cenovus, a partner in the Pathways Alliance, removed a section of their website titled “Innovation: The gateway to sustainable advancements” that concerned carbon capture technology. DeSmog found 70 distinct URLs linking to the websites of Pathways members, or the website of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP), that mentioned carbon capture that had been removed since the federal anti-greenwashing regulations took effect.

    CCS studies shed some light on these sudden website deletions. A landmark Global Witness report from 2022 revealed Shell Canada’s Quest hydrogen project, which uses carbon capture, created more emissions than it sequestered. According to an International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) report from November of 2023, there are just 30 commercial CCS projects operating globally, capturing less than 0.2 percent of the emissions required to close the emissions gap by 2030. Moreover, a majority of the 149 CCS projects that were to be operational by 2020 were either cancelled or put on indefinite hold due to technological challenges or exceptionally high costs. 

    Another IISD study found CCS is inconsistent with Canada’s net zero ambitions. It is expensive, slow to implement, energy intensive, and unproven at scale. Nearly all CCS projects are either being used for enhanced oil recovery, and irrespective of however much carbon dioxide is captured by the process, it has no positive impact whatsoever on downstream emissions.

    “Carbon capture technology has failed to make a dent in reducing climate pollution, despite decades of subsidies,” said Environmental Defence’s Julia Levin. “It is a dangerous distraction driven by the same big polluters who have caused the climate emergency. Why should taxpayers be on the hook to pay for ineffective, unnecessary, and risky technology?” asked Levin.

    There doesn’t appear to be any obligation for Canada’s environment minister to be held to the same standard as oil and gas companies when it comes to making claims about the effectiveness of carbon capture.

    Canada’s natural resources minister, Jonathan Wilkinson, made similarly enthusiastic and unverifiable comments concerning carbon capture in a recent interview with the Globe and Mail. Wilkinson said that he believes 20 to 25 new carbon capture projects would break ground in Canada in the next decade. Wilkinson said this would likely be the case owing to a new federal government investment tax credit for carbon capture and storage projects, which could cover up to half the capital costs of new projects.

    Wilkinson stated to the Globe and Mail that the new Shell Polaris CCS project was a direct result of the investment tax credit. 

    Wilkinson’s statements on social media concerning the Strathcona project insinuated that the tax credit was helping companies achieve their net zero ambitions: “Canada’s new investment tax credits have helped companies move expeditiously to improve their competitiveness in a world that’s rapidly moving towards net-zero.” Wilkinson continued, insinuating that the Strathcona CCS project would work towards decarbonization, stating: “Strathcona Resources is innovating to seize the economic opportunity decarbonization presents and creating jobs now and into the future.”

    When asked by the Globe and Mail for his thoughts on Pathways Alliance’s massive CCS proposal, Wilkinson was optimistic the project would be completed, and that “We are still working a little bit on the structure of that. But I do believe that it will move forward. There’s just a bit more work to do to finish the job.”

    In May 2023, Pathways Alliance was the subject of an investigation by Canada’s Competition Bureau over allegations of false and misleading claims. The complaint was initiated by Greenpeace Canada. Pathways scrubbed its website of all content in advance of the new anti-greenwashing regulations, something Wilkinson told the Globe and Mail he thought was an over-reaction.

    A study published by the journal Energy Research & Social Science in the spring of 2024 indicated “instances of selective disclosure and omission, misalignment of claim and action, displacement of responsibility, non-credible claims, specious comparisons, nonstandard accounting, and inadequate reporting,” in their analysis of Pathways’ advertising over a two-year period.

    Original article by Taylor Noakes republished from DeSmog.

  • For decades, governments have subsidised fossil fuels. But why?

    Spread the love
    Sobrevolando Patagonia/Shutterstock

    Bernard Njindan Iyke, La Trobe University

    Even now, decades after we first began trying to avert the worst of global warming, more than 80% of the world’s total energy comes from fossil fuels.

    You might think this would make fossil fuel production extremely profitable. But it’s not always the case. Much of the most accessible oil has already been extracted and burned. Many countries want to shore up domestic sources of fossil fuels to boost energy security. Energy price fluctuations and competition from new energy sources such as solar, wind and fossil gas have made it harder for some fossil fuel companies to make money, especially in coal.

    This is where fossil fuel subsidies come in. Australia gave A$14.5 billion in subsidies to major fossil fuel producers and consumers in 2023–24 alone.

    You might have wondered – why would some of the largest companies on Earth need subsidies? Here’s why.

    LNG tanker
    Australia’s surging liquefied natural gas industry has been boosted by government funding. KDS Photographics/Shutterstock

    Private companies, public money

    Globally, private companies dominate fossil fuel production, though fossil fuel-rich nations often have state-owned companies, such as Saudi Arabia’s Aramco and Russia’s Rosneft.

    Why would governments give fossil fuel companies money? Many reasons. But the most important is that wealthy countries have historically needed huge volumes of fossil fuels for manufacturing, transport and power. Many countries have some sources of fossil fuels inside their borders, but only a few are self-sufficient. This has enabled fossil fuel giants such as Saudi Arabia to become wealthy beyond belief.

    Many governments have used subsidies to boost their energy security and encourage local producers to seek out new sources of coal, gas and oil. These subsidies can make all the difference in making fossil fuel companies competitive internationally. For instance, Canada spent billions on subsidies to boost its oil sands and fracking projects.

    Subsidies were essential in the United States’ fracking revolution. Novel approaches to extracting fossil gas and oil – boosted by major tax incentives – turned the US from a major importer of oil and gas into a net exporter by 2019.

    You can see why the US did this. At a stroke, it went from being dependent on energy provided by foreign nations to being independent.

    Once subsidies are in place, they become very hard to remove. Indonesia’s lavish fuel subsidies now account for 2% of the nation’s GDP. When the national government tried to walk these back, there were riots.

    And there’s another reason, too. Fossil fuels are still playing an important role in boosting the economy in most nations. Subsidising them has long been seen as a way to maintain economic growth and stability.

    Globally, these subsidies are estimated at a staggering $10.5 trillion each year.

    This figure has grown sharply in recent years, after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. As European nations tried to wean themselves off Russia’s gas, energy prices surged worldwide. In response, some countries introduced new subsidies to support businesses and consumers.

    The top-line figure of $10.5 trillion includes two types of subsidy – explicit (meaning real dollars change hands) and implicit (for example, governments building roads and railways to encourage crude oil transport).

    Explicit subsidies

    Explicit fossil fuel subsidies are direct financial incentives from governments to fossil fuel producers and consumers. These incentives come in different forms, such as tax breaks, direct payments, grants and price controls. All of them aim to reduce the financial burden associated with fossil fuel production and use.

    In Australia, explicit subsidies include fuel tax credits and exploration tax reductions. Fossil fuel companies can get subsidies to offset the losses they make during the years it takes to find and begin extracting new fossil fuels.

    In the US, oil and gas companies benefit from the oil depletion allowance, which permits them to deduct a percentage of their gross income from oil and gas sales as an expense. They can also claim tax deductions for intangible drilling costs, such as the wages of workers and material needed to find new sources of oil and gas.

    China, too, uses direct subsidies, discounted land-use fees, and preferential loans as explicit subsidies to boost coal production and consumption. The national government also supports fossil fuel consumption through direct payments to consumers.

    coal miners China
    China has used subsidies to encourage exploitation of its large coal resources. zhaoliang70/Shutterstock

    Implicit subsidies

    Implicit subsidies are often described as “imaginary”. That doesn’t mean they don’t exist, just that they’re not a direct transfer to directly paid to fossil fuel producers.

    For instance, the cost of burning fossil fuels is borne by the global community and the natural world, in the form of climate change, damage to human health and other harms. Most fossil fuel companies don’t have to pay a cent for the pollution their products cause – so in effect, they are being granted an indirect subsidy.

    Implicit incentives also include government investment in facilities such as transport networks, pipelines, oil refineries and port infrastructure, which will accelerate fossil fuel production and delivery. Think of the Middle Arm development in Darwin, funded by both the federal and territory government.

    Why are these subsidies still being paid?

    As the world grapples with a worsening climate crisis, fossil fuel subsidies are under great scrutiny.

    It’s politically difficult to withdraw subsidies once given. This is why governments around the world have instead begun to give subsidies and tax incentives to green energy developers, including the enormous $500 billion Inflation Reduction Act in the US, the European Union’s Green Deal, and China’s massive subsidies of green technologies such as electric vehicles and solar panels.

    The goal here is to make renewable energy and electrified transport steadily more affordable and competitive – just as fossil fuel subsidies did for oil, gas and coal.

    Bernard Njindan Iyke, Lecturer in Finance, La Trobe University

    This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

  • 93 Countries Back ICC Probe Into Israeli War Crimes in Gaza

    Spread the love

    Original article by JON QUEALLY republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). 

    Palestinian child, injured in the Israeli attack on Abu Aisha family house is taken to Al-Aqsa Martyrs Hospital in Deir al-Balah, Gaza on June 14, 2024.
     (Photo by Ashraf Amra/Anadolu via Getty Images)

    A joint statement calls on “all States to ensure full co-operation with the Court for it to carry out its important mandate of ensuring equal justice for all victims of genocide, war crimes, [and] crimes against humanity.”

    Ninety-three nations on Friday, all them state parties to the Rome Statute that created the International Criminal Court, reiterated their support for the ICC as it assesses an application for arrest warrants of high level Israeli government officials accused of perpetrating war crimes in Gaza.

    The 93 countries—including Canada, Bangladesh, Belgium, Ireland, Afghanistan, Costa Rica, Chile, Germany, France, Mongolia, Mexico, New Zealand, and scores of other—cited separate ICC statements defending its mandate for independence and upheld in their joint statement “that the Court, its officials and staff shall carry out their professional duties as international civil servants without intimidation.”

    Though neither nation is named in the joint statement, both the United States and Israel have publicly condemned ICC chief prosecutor Karim Khan for his May 20 arrest warrant applications for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant over alleged “war crimes” and “crimes against humanity” in the Gaza Strip.

    Khan also submitted arrest warrants for Hamas leaders Yahya Sinwar, Mohammed Diab Ibrahim Al-Masri, and Ismail Haniyeh for their alleged roles in the October 7 attack on southern Israel. Following Khan’s announcement in May, U.S. President Joe Biden said, “Whatever this prosecutor might imply, there is no equivalence—none—between Israel and Hamas. We will always stand with Israel against threats to its security.”

    In April it was reported that the U.S. government was working behind the scenes to block the ICC from issuing any arrest warrants targeting Israel officials. Neither Israel nor the U.S. is party to the Rome Statute, though the United Nations has recognized the ICC’s jurisdiction over the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT), where the alleged war crimes by the occupying power, Israel, took place.

    After Khan made his application for warrants, White House spokesperson Karine Jean-Pierre said, “We’ve been really clear about the ICC investigation. We do not support it.” On June 4, Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives, along with 42 Democrats, passed a measure that would sanction ICC officials if the arrest warrants for any Israeli officials were approved or carried out.

    Balakrishnan Rajagopal, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the right to adequate housing, was among those who applauded Friday’s public statement.

    Rajagapol thanked the signatory nations “for defending the ICC and standing up against the bullies, including the relics from the U.S. Senate whose idea of engaging with the world is to use threats,” a possible reference to Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.) who denounced Khan’s applications as “outrageous,” applauded the House approval of sanctions, and vowed further punishment for the ICC.

    Such punitive measures and high-profile threats directed at the ICC appeared to be the exact kind of intimidation Friday’s joint pledge of support is responding to.

    “The ICC, as the world’s first and only permanent international criminal court, is an essential component of the international peace and security architecture,” the statement reads. “We therefore call on all States to ensure full co-operation with the Court for it to carry out its important mandate of ensuring equal justice for all victims of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and the crime of aggression, grave crimes that threaten the peace, security and well-being of the world.”

    With their show of unified support for the ICC and its mandate, the countries said they aim to “contribute to ending impunity for such crimes and preventing their recurrence while defending the progress we have made together to guarantee lasting respect for international humanitarian law, human rights, the of law and the enforcement of international criminal justice.”

    Original article by JON QUEALLY republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). 

    America Crawls Further Into Global Isolation by Backing Gaza Genocide

    Why the Senate Must Reject the Dangerous Antisemitism Awareness Act

    Despite Mainstream Headlines, Israel’s Tents Massacre Was Not a ‘Tragic Mistake’

    The Nuseirat Massacre Shows How Israel and the West Devalue Palestinian Lives