Global Justice Now Cambridge

Pushback

by

Battered dinghy
We don’t know who used this boat. Pic by ‘The Monkey’ (aka zaza_bj), CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

Jacob Berkson writes:

The ‘illegal Channel crossers’ story is all over the news at the same time that the government is in trouble. It is a classic rallying cry to the core Boris Johnson constituency. Populist racism is beginning to look a bit like a bad move with the breakthrough of the Black Lives Matter movement.

We are in a strong position to respond to the latest provocation. “What a surprise that just when the government is losing its grip, we suddenly have to make another defence of refugee rights”.

Campaigns like ‘Europe must act’ need amplifying. Give the lie to the idea that Britain First is mainstream. People say things like “build bridges not walls”.  They are quite right. They also need to do the building.

Refugee conventions are a bare minimum standard. We must not let the powers that be get away with redefining refugee protection as a cellar to hide in while the shooting goes on. That is the general drift of asylum policy across Europe:

  • in the reconsideration of your need for protection after five years rather than a more or less automatic right to indefinite leave to remain
  • in the idea that France is a safe third country and so nobody coming from France could possibly be a refugee.

Refugee conventions do not require you to claim asylum in the first safe third country. Legally speaking, you could well be a refugee and still be trying to get cross the Channel. Some of the people at the Home Office know that.

When they claim that people crossing the Channel in boats can’t possibly be refugees, they mean that the only person whom I have any obligation towards is somebody in immediate danger. It is such a nasty position and it needs calling out.

Let’s not insist that everybody getting in a boat crossing the Channel is a refugee. Anybody getting in one of those boats is desperate, but not every one of them has a fear of persecution. Let’s defend people’s right to the pursuit of “happiness” — “the well lived life”). There is a link with the Black Lives Matter movement. People have been made desperate by 400 years of European exploitation. The wealth that exists in this country, albeit badly distributed, is also a direct consequence of those policies. Having lost land, mineral resources, and access to social goods because of colonialism and its legacy, you might be desperate enough to try your luck over here. Good luck to you.

We need an expansion of search and rescue operations. International maritime conventions require the rescue of any person in distress. The UK should do more than the bare minimum to fulfil those obligations. The obligation of rescue exists even when the person in need of rescue is not a European. To treat distress in the Channel as an issue of border security is to say black lives don’t matter. RNLI have been very clear that they would not be border guards. Anybody in distress needs rescue and that’s what they would do. That message needs amplifying.

And it’s not just about upholding maritime conventions. If people in distress are going to be rescued and brought to the nearest port of safety, that would be an insanely risky back route into the UK. People move. They have every right to do that. They will do it regardless of the barriers that Europe or the UK puts up. The choice is between supporting life and supporting death. What else can you choose but life?

A hundred groups are demanding safe routes now. It’s not a bad demand, but safe routes exist. There are ferries. I think that we should be saying let people get on the boat. Visa free travel for all. You can come and claim asylum in the UK if that is what you want to do. It is not a radical demand. It’s easier to administer than resettlement schemes or screenings in Calais or any of the other suggestions. It also would mean that the UK was actively promoting the provision of sanctuary. #FerriesNotNavies is my proposed hash tag.

Global Justice after Covid-19 — hear Nick Dearden

by

Nick Dearden
Nick Dearden; pic from Global Justice Now

 

What’s the struggle for global justice going to look like after the Covid-19 pandemic recedes? Global Justice director Nick Dearden has plenty of ideas.  Hear him — and quiz him — by Zoom, 19:45 for 20:00 on Wednesday 17 June.  Contact us for further details.

COVID-19

by

When the COVID-19 vaccine, which scientists worldwide are chasing, is a thing, let’s make sure it’s affordable to all!  Sign Global Justice Now’s current petition,

 

Picture by Prachatai. CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

 

 

 

Trade deals, a disaster for the climate

by

Photos taken at the Global Climate Strike in London on Friday 29/11/2019.  By Garry Knight.  Public domain.

Dorothy Guerrero is Global Justice Now’s Head of Policy and Advocacy.  She was born and brought up in the Philippines and has worked in justice and advocacy for around 30 years.

Her activism began in the late 90s. Debt was a major problem for the Philippines, and environmental issues were seen as a middle-class concern along with birdwatching. But Dorothy came to see that climate was as important as protecting wildlife and ecosystems.

Her MA was in ‘development studies’. She started to visit the poorer islands of the Philippines, sharing her political knowledge and discussing issues with the local people.  She came to see that many of those she met were victims of ‘development’, when this is enacted in ‘structural adjustment’. There are similar problems throughout Africa, Asia and South America.

This led to an interest in combating climate change through structural change. She was involved in the UN framework on climate change in the Philippines from 2007 to 2009 and worked as a consultant for the Filipino delegation.

Large international meetings display an imbalance between North and South. Northern countries – and some other large nations, such as China – have huge delegations; other countries much smaller ones. Delegations mainly represent the views of a country’s middle and upper classes, and are unaware of how things are at the sharp end of crises. They present the views of the Chamber of Commerce rather than civil society, and sign up to what they are prepared to do, not what they need to do.

After colonialism, in the 60s and 70s, ‘development’ was still conducted very much along the lines of the Western model. Allende (for example) talked about the need to regulate corporations at the UN, but this was delegated to UNCTAD and agreement was very difficult.

The same problems beset the issue of controlling greenhouse gas emissions at the time of the Kyoto protocol.  Every country was required to sign up to reduce its emissions. This is a step beyond the much later Paris agreement, which is voluntary. Rich countries had become less persuadable because of the influence of transnational corporations (TNCs).

The notion of ‘climate debt’ is becoming more important in the thinking of the global South. No rich country has been prepared to accept that they owe a climate debt to developing ones, but progress has resulted from poorer countries working as blocs. The Marshall Islands, the Maldives and some other small states formed a bloc to press for climate mitigation in 2017. This is even including funding the movement of entire populations from some low-lying small islands to larger and higher ones.

They are dedicated negotiators but they need to be.  They risk losing everything. The movement is helped by children and young people who take part in the global ‘youth strikes for the climate’.

The Philippines have always had typhoons.  But they’re more frequent and ferocious now. Dorothy’s family has had to move to higher ground to escape three times since the typhoon of 2001.  Her mother lives in a 4th floor apartment and may need to move again. The family has the resources to move, but many can’t. The archipelago can also now experience night-time temperatures above 35oC.

Global Justice Now is highlighting the link between trade and climate change. Global trade deals are increasing the power of TNCs even further, particularly through investor-state dispute settlement courts (ISDS , effectively ‘corporate courts’).  There have been ~1000 ISDS cases since 2005, mainly aimed at the governments of southern countries, and they have often been forced to legislate to promote carbon-generating activities such as coal extraction and logging. Progressive governments that have moved to limit these activities have been sued for huge sums. Even Germany and the Netherlands have been sued for commitments to stop burning coal and oil by 2026 and 2030 respectively. We in the UK are now facing a potential UK/US trade deal with ISDS in it.

So, whatever progress is made to clean up the environment and reduce emissions, trade is set up to frustrate it. The UK’s lukewarm commitment to achieve 0% carbon emissions by 2050 is under threat, and this target already has lots of loopholes: it doesn’t include import/export, aviation, shipping, or fossil fuel investment in other countries.

Corporations have a worse record and are more of a threat than rich countries. The emissions of BP and Shell together are four times those of the UK as a whole. To reach 0% emissions, we will need to target those corporations. Technically, we have the solutions – solar and wind power are becoming very cheap and easy to produce – but we need to curb the power of the extractive corporations. Civil society and some governments in southern countries are very clear about this.

There is a glimmer of hope in the new social movements that are springing up all over the world. At the very least, the climate emergency is now towards the forefront of all our minds. The struggle of indigenous leaders in Brazil, the Philippines, Colombia and elsewhere who were killed fighting for the environment lives on.

The kids’ street protests are right. More is needed than ‘lifestyle solutions’.  For a start, lifestyle choices won’t work unless backed up by policy.   Taking a train needs to be made cheaper than taking a plane.

Corporate power and climate politics

by

Come and IMG_ClimateCentreManila_20191012hear Dorothy Guerrero (Global Justice Now head of policy & advocacy) on corporate power in climate politics, drawing on her long experience in Asia & elsewhere in the South. She will focus particularly on why mining companies and trade deals are such obstacles to achieving climate justice.

To be followed by discussion, and more networking.

The venue is situated approximately 1 mile from the railway station and half a mile from Cambridge Leisure.

Nearest bus Citi 3 along Cherry Hinton Road to Hartington Grove traffic lights OR

Citi1 or Citi7 along Hills Rd to Blinco Grove & walk down Hartington Grove.

Alternatively, the venue has a small car park.

Entry free — but please book.

Picture: Marulas, Valenzuela, Metropolitan Manila. By Red Cross/Red Crescent Climate Centre. CC BY-NC 2.0

Cambridge Welcome and Cambridge Welcome 2

by

On 20 October, a group of people gathered in Cambridge to think about ways to challenge the Government’s ‘hostile environment’ for migrants and refugees.  They had some ideas.  On 24 November, they’ll be meeting again to look at ways to take those ideas forward.  13:00-15:45, Mill Road Baptist Church Hall.  Book at http://bit.ly/2zBOgLR .  See you there!