A Movement Re-imagining Change

It has been a tumultuous 15 hours. Two buses, carrying 100 people from the Gaza Freedom March (GFM) and loads of humanitarian supplies, just departed from Cairo for Gaza. This was a victory and a concession.

The decisions and the manner in which this opportunity was framed and promoted by various actors fractured the GFM participants in familiar and unlikely, real and sectarian ways—all documented by media cameras and hundreds of Egyptian security forces. Ali Abunimah, myself, Veterans for Peace organizers, and Israeli journalist Amira Hess were among the 100 people on the list to go, who arrived at 6:30 this morning, on the corner of Ramsis by the 6th October Bridge at the Al Gona Bridge, to depart for Gaza.

Tuesday morning, delegates from several countries went to their embassies in Cairo to plead for help getting to Gaza. Most were met with predictable bureaucratic intransigence. The French, however, staged an extraordinary encampment in front of their embassy and their ambassador and his wife came out and spent time speaking with them individually and in small groups. That action continues today.

Bill [Ayers] and I went to the American Embassy at 10 a.m. and asked to see the Ambassador. We were ushered into a holding pen a block away from the embassy building where we joined 35 people already there, surrounded by Egyptian soldiers. Over the next 4 hours, another dozen Americans arrived, and those of us who asked to leave were denied. Meanwhile, Medea Benjamin, Kit Kiteredge, and Ali Abunimah were meeting with an embassy official and stressing that we intended to go to Gaza on a non-violent humanitarian mission, and requested their assistance. Further, they asked that the embassy officials release the U.S. citizens who were now clearly being detained outside.

Ali emerged first, to tell us that their discussion achieved nothing, and they were now requesting that we be free to go. This process took another hour. Ali refused to enter the holding cage, and spoke to us from outside. At one point, out of nowhere, military personnel grabbed Ali, and Medea – who was standing a few feet away – sprang to action, shouting “No! No!”, grabbing Ali’s arm and pulling him down to the ground with her. As soon as they were prone, the security backed off. It was an impressive display of non-violent direct action and solidarity in-the-moment, performed with speed, force and clarity.

In late afternoon, a huge demonstration took place outside the Syndicate of Journalists, a traditional site of political mobilizations in downtown Cairo. The GFM was a force, and joined by large numbers of Egyptian citizens chanting in solidarity with Palestine and in opposition to the visit that day by Netanyahu. This action got widespread coverage throughout the Arab world.

Late last night, it was announced at the nightly team leaders’ meeting that our three days of actions across Cairo, the international pressure around the world, and consistent efforts by Code Pink leadership to meet with high level Egyptian officials – including a meeting yesterday at the offices of Suzanne Mubarak – resulted in an agreement with the Egyptian government that two buses could leave for the Rafah crossing into Gaza early Wednesday.

The names of the 100, however, had to be submitted to Egyptian officials by Tuesday evening. This resulted in a (necessarily) rushed process, without the opportunity for full debate, discussion, and input about criteria for selection, or about the strategic goals of sending a smaller, incomplete team of people to enter Gaza and participate in the New Year’s freedom march with the people there. By mid-evening, whole delegations (South Africa, New York) announced that they would not participate. In part, they critiqued the process of decision-making; in part, they took the position, “all of us or none.”

As we stood in the morning chill of the stunningly polluted Cairo sky, those boarding the buses felt that it was a partial victory to have two busloads depart for Gaza, that we would take supplies, and witness the realities of life under the occupation/blockade. We thought that our primary objective was to break the isolation of Gaza, and to join with the civil society forces there who wanted us to come join them.

The GFM forces opposed to the compromise that left 1,300 of the GFM still in Cairo, gathered at the departure point and began painting banners and chanting against the departure of the buses. Egyptian security grew.

We boarded the buses, loaded supplies, handed over our passports and sat on the buses, excited and exhausted, watching the opposition to our departure gather steam. Signs were hoisted, some began shouting and crying, and chants to Don’t Go, Get off the Bus, and All of Us or None grew in force. Many, unhappy to have worked so hard to get here and who built critical support for Palestinian solidarity and human rights, felt that it was unfair to be left behind, and not to have been consulted. People wavered.

Resentment and criticism of leadership (legitimate and small-minded) and the obvious manipulation of the situation by the Egyptian (+Israeli and U.S.) governments escalated. Al Jazzira ran a story quoting the Egyptian Prime Minister who proclaimed that only the reliable and respectable people had been selected to travel to Gaza (!), leaving behind the rabble rousers and unruly GFM marchers, and claiming credit for delivering the humanitarian supplies to the people of Gaza.

It was clear to us in the hours of debate and delay that some would leave for Gaza, and that others would stay in Cairo to press the demand that the border be opened, the blockade ended, and that all of the GFM participants be allowed to enter Gaza. One of the great difficulties throughout these several days has been to keep ourselves and all participants focused on Gaza. We find ourselves unwillingly in Cairo, drawn into clashes with authorities and one another on side issues, when what we most want it to keep our eyes on the Palestinian people and our spirits with those confined in Gaza.

This is the challenge of the next three days. A large group of us is planning to try to walk to Gaza starting tomorrow, December 31. Buses and taxis containing smaller groups have been turned back all week, and the situation remains fluid, dynamic, and fraught. More »

Dear friends and allies:

The 1,300 people from 43 countries who came to break the blockade of Gaza, to witness the reality of life in occupied Gaza, and to join the civil society and people there in a huge demonstration for peace on December 31, are being denied passage to Rafah and entry into Gaza. We cannot accept this.

Today, in Cairo, Netanyahu is meeting with Mubarak at the presidential palace while occupied Gaza remains cut off from access to urgently needed supplies and the necessities for survival.

A team of 50 U.S. citizens rallied today outside the U.S. embassy, while Ali Abunimah and Medea Benjamin met with a first secretary inside the embassy to demand that the U.S. government press the Israeli government to open the borders and allow us into Gaza. U.S. officials insisted that it was not their affair, much as they remained silent last year during the onslaught. The French team continues their theatrical and militant encampment outside the French embassy. Twenty people are continuing their hunger strike. Tonight, a large pro-Palestinian rally is underway at the Syndicate of Journalists in Central Cairo.

Blockaded Gaza remains occupied, since it is surrounded by walls, razor wire, and outside military forces on all sides. It is urgent that citizens across the world awake the the suffering and displacement that is continuing one year after the inhuman Israeli assault on the civilian population of Gaza and the grave human rights abuses are ongoing. Our goal, to bring supplies, visibility and solidarity to the people of Gaza, continues, and with your help we intend to try to enter Gaza to initiate a new decade of global human rights.

It is dismaying to be in Cairo now, when our intent was to be in Gaza. That remains our focus, in spite of the challenges and obstacles put up by the United States and others. More »

Ed. Note: This week’s Diaspora is short due to the holidays. We’ll be back to full-length next week.

Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE), an arm of the Department of Homeland Security, apparently isn't beholden to US or international law. In The Nation,
Jacqueline Stevens reveals the "clandestine operations, akin to extraordinary renditions" carried out by ICE.

Beyond the department's public list of detention facilities—many of which are already sites of alleged abuse—ICE is also "confining people in 186 unlisted and unmarked subfield offices" around the nation. According to Alison Parker, deputy director of Human Rights Watch, these secret detention centers may violate the UN's Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which the United States is a signatory.

But what's most appalling is ICE's assertion that the department is some sort of super-police with powers of rendition. James Pendergraph, former executive director of ICE's Office of State and Local Coordination, said in late 2008 that "if you don't have enough evidence to charge someone criminally, but you think he's illegal, we can make him disappear." The boldness with which a law official would state such an idea is confounding; the confession, if true, is criminal.

Last week, The Diaspora wrote about the introduction of the CIR ASAP immigration bill by Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL). Freshman Congressman Ben Ray Luján (D-NM) is a recent addition to the list of 87 cosponsors on the bill, as The Colorado Independent reported last Wednesday. This is a positive step forward. The bill will most likely be sponsored in the senate by Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY). CIR ASAP establishes a basic layout of progressive immigration reform, but the final bill will probably become more focused on enforcement in Schumer's hands.

Finally, David Moberg reports on the Obama administration's controversial use of "audits" to purge employment payrolls of undocumented workers for In These Times. While the audit method is much quieter and less likely to make headlines, it is also ineffective. Not only do audits rely upon "flawed federal databases" to judge who is documented, they also purge immigrants who are "legal."

As the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Executive Vice-President Eliseo Medina explains, workers fired as a result of ICE probes or audits do find other, lower-paying jobs that offer even less protection to the worker. Ultimately the number of undocumented workers in the US remains the same, and the entire exercise but "a losing game of musical chairs." Medina stresses that SEIU is not suggesting the law shouldn't be enforced, simply that it be enforced in a way that works.

This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about immigration by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. Visit the Diaspora for a complete list of articles on immigration issues, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, environment, and health care issues, check out The Audit, The Mulch, and The Pulse . This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets. More »

Early Monday morning, the senate voted 60-40 along straight party lines to defeat the initial attempt to filibuster the health care reform bill. Yesterday, it passed the second of three procedural votes, bringing the Senate one step closer to a final vote on the health care reform bill. Majority Speaker Harry Reid (D-NV) is on schedule to vote on the bill before Christmas.

In the last-minute negotiations leading up to these votes, Reid made stiff concessions to conservative Democrats, eliminating the public option and the expanded Medicare buy-in to placate Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT). Sen. Ben Nelson (R-NE) got tougher restrictions on abortion funding, though not as tough as those spelled out in the Stupak amendment to the House bill.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), a socialist who caucuses with the Democrats, has apparently given up his threat to filibuster a bill with no public option. Instead, he's taking his turn as "the 60 vote," reports Katrina Vanden Huevel in The Nation. Sanders is using his leverage to push for waivers which would allow states to develop their own health insurance systems, possibly including single payer. Canada's celebrated Medicare program began in a single province and eventually went national.

In AlterNet, Zaid Jilani argues that President Barack Obama failed his progressive base by all but abandoning the public option. As Jilani points out, Obama is even trying to rewrite his own record on the issue. Now he says he didn't campaign on a public option. Jilani reminds us that the Obama-Biden campaign platform promised that "any American will have the opportunity to enroll in [a] new public plan.” Obama was promising a sweeping public option. Even the House bill would only make a tiny fraction of the population eligible for the public option.

It's not surprising that the health care bills before us favor vested interests in the health insurance sector. Health care companies spent $635 million on lobbying over the past two years, and 166 former congressional aides who used to work on health care legislation have registered as lobbyists, reports Amy Goodman of Democracy Now!.

Rachel Larris reports in RH Reality Check that many pro-choice groups will not back the final bill if it contains Sen. Nelson's abortion funding restrictions. Elsewhere on the Hill, the 190-member House Pro-Choice Caucus is huddling with attorneys and insurance companies to plan their next move.

The Senate bill seems destined to pass. Then the negotiations to merge the House and Senate bills will begin. The House bill has a public option and draconian abortion funding restrictions. The Senate bill has no public options and slightly milder restrictions on abortion. Realistically, the conservative Democrats have most of the leverage at this point. If even one joins the filibuster, the final bill will die. Sen. Nelson has already threatened to filibuster the conference report if substantial changes are made to the bill in conference.

At the end of the day, health care reform seems likely to eliminate discrimination based on preexisting conditions, offer subsidies for the purchase of private insurance, and set up some insurance exchanges that might bring down costs some day. These are real gains, but have been won at the cost of subsidizing the insurance companies who caused the problem the first place and leaving women's rights by the wayside.

This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about health care by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. Visit the Pulse for a complete list of articles on health care reform, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, environment, health care and immigration issues, check out The Audit, The Mulch, and The Diaspora. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets.

More »

Over the past year, Wall Street's excess has helped push the unemployment rate to epic levels and created millions of foreclosures. Yet the rules of the financial road remain unchanged. As 2009 draws to a close, it's astonishing that so little progress towards financial reform has been made.

President Obama, Congress and federal regulators have not been tough enough on the nation's financial elite. As Monika Bauerlein and Clara Jeffery emphasize for Mother Jones, the government has committed about $14 trillion in bailout funds to save the banking system without demanding much of anything in return. Goldman Sachs and other big banks are now planning to pay giant bonuses that come straight from taxpayer giveaways rather than invest that money in socially constructive banking.

"Bankers aren't being rewarded for pulling the economy out of the doldrums," Bauerlein and Jeffery write. "Nope, they're simply skimming from the trillions we've shoveled at them."

The major banks are even spending our bailout money to lobby against reform. When President Obama called a meeting for leaders of the nation's largest banks to scold them for their lobbying, the heads of Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs and Citigroup didn't even bother to show up, as Matthew Rothschild describes in a podcast for The Progressive.

It's easy to see why the bank execs are so indifferent, Rothschild argues, even to the president. Now that almost all of these banks have repaid the loans they received under the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), Obama has no negotiating leverage and the bankers know it. Even though it represents just a tiny fraction of the $14 trillion bailout, TARP was the only program that attached any strings to that money. Prior to those TARP repayments, Obama could have demanded that banks do more lending to help the economy, work harder to keep troubled borrowers in their homes—or face executive compensation restrictions or other penalties.

And many of the same regulators who helped bring about today's economic disaster are still in power. As Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) explains for Brave New Films (video below), Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke blew just about every major policy decision he faced in the years leading up to the crisis. Bernanke, who was recently named person of the year by Time magazine, failed to rein in reckless mortgage speculation, predatory lending or excessive compensation packages. Nevertheless, President Obama has appointed him to another term.

"This recession was precipitated by the greed, recklessness and illegal behavior on Wall Street," Sanders says. "One of the key responsibilities of the Fed is to maintain the safety and soundness of our financial institutions ... The Fed was asleep at the wheel, Bernanke did not do the job."

Sanders notes that even Bernanke's financial clean-up operations have been deeply flawed. Bernanke has helped make today's too-big-to-fail banks even bigger. If we want to stop the lobbying and policy deference that politicians grant to Wall Street, we have to break up the biggest banks into smaller firms that do not endanger the economy if they fail.

Bernanke is not the only holdover from the Bush administration that wields significant economic power under Obama. As I note in a piece for The Nation, John Dugan, the top bank regulator appointed by President George W. Bush, remains in office today, despite failing to ensure the financial health of our largest banks and actively working to undermine consumer protection.

Campaign contributions from the bank lobby will not be enough to counter the voter outrage that President Obama and members of Congress are facing, nor should they. If our leaders want a serious shot at re-election, they need to recognize the need for significant change on Wall Street. That means breaking up the big banks and setting economic policy that helps all of our citizens, not just financiers.

This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about the economy by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. Visit the Audit for a complete list of articles on economic issues, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, environment, health care and immigration issues, check out The Mulch, The Pulse and The Diaspora. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets.

More »

After two weeks of negotiations for the United Nations Climate Change Conference (Cop15), global leaders produced a limited, non-binding agreement that was noted, but not adopted. President Barack Obama presented the Copenhagen Accord to the summit on Friday night, calling it an "important milestone." The accord promises global cooperation to combat climate change, recognizes the need to keep global temperatures from rising more than 2 degrees Celsius, and commits funding for developing nations to battle the impacts of global warming.

But on Saturday, after President Obama had returned to Washington, leaders from Europe and the least developed nations announced that the accord was not definitive and represented the views of only a few countries. In particular, Lumumba Stanislas Dia-ping, chair of the Group of 77, which represents the poorest nations in the world, pushed back, claiming that their interests had been abandoned.

As David Roberts reports in Grist: "Since the ... process requires unanimity to move forward, Danish Prime Minister Lokke Rasmussen could only look on, bewildered, as country after country restated its position in increasingly emotional terms."

Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, told reporters that the more powerful countries overlooked the interests of their less fortunate neighbors, according to Amy Goodman of Democracy Now!

"I think the countries that can really make a difference have not really got sensitive enough to the plight of the poorest of the poor. I think that’s a harsh reality which we have no choice but to accept," Pachauri said.

The accord left out crucial elements that tripped negotiators up throughout the week. David Corn and Kate Sheppard of Mother Jones report that the accord "...contains few specific numbers—beyond "recognizing the scientific view" that a global temperature rise should be 'below 2 degrees.' It dropped language from an earlier draft calling for cutting global emissions in half by 2050. The agreement urges developed nations to implement reductions they have already pledged—without spelling out those numbers or [establishing] baseline years. Developing nations would establish their own emissions curbs."

During the summit, China objected to requirements that would allow outside monitoring of its emissions. That issue remained one of the thorniest points during Friday's negotiations. Corn and Sheppard report that President Obama proposed that instead of "examination and assessments," countries would commit to "international consultations and analysis."

“A 'consultation' is obviously less intrusive than an 'examination,' Corn and Sheppard write. "But what does "international consultations and analysis"—soon to be referred to as ICA—mean? Asked this, [Brazil's climate ambassador Sergio] Serra shrugged and said, "Ehhhh." He added, "The definition will be negotiated by a panel of people. They will decide what it means, like everything else."

The deal that Obama and major developing nations drafted on Friday represented the best result of a tumultuous conference. Going back to Grist, David Roberts writes that even at the beginning of the summit, leaked draft agreements were more promising than the actual outcome. The final accord, according to Roberts, "achieved only the barest of Obama’s aims: One, to draw the major emitters among the developing nations—China, India, and Brazil—into a process that would yield concrete commitments on their part, and two, to get funding flowing from developed countries to developing countries to aid their efforts to deal with climate change."

Throughout the two week summit, activists from around the world gathered to pressure leaders into significant action. But, thanks to Cop15's tepid outcome, some climate change advocates already are looking towards the next major global meeting, which will be held in Mexico, in 2010.

Beverly Keene, the international coordinator of Jubilee South, told Inter Press Service that “the primary challenge is to broaden and strengthen the links between the different civil society movements and networks in the region.”

And outside the conference in Copenhagen, activists gathered to broadcast their opinions of the summit’s achievements and their continuing commitment to change. As Jamie Henn writes in Yes! Magazine,

"In less than an hour, hundreds of us will gather in a snowy courtyard outside the Osknehallen to stand with candles and torches and form the words "Climate Sham" and then transform into the words "Climate Shame" for an aerial photograph. The image will express the frustration and anger that we want to convey to the world leaders who are blocking progress here at the talks yet still trying to spin Copenhagen as some sort of success.

"Yet, we’ll also be forming another message: "Climate Hope," Henn says. "It’s a reminder that this fight isn’t over."

Although the accord is a small step forward, politicians around the world have their work cut out for them. A few reminders of the consequences, should they fail to stop the effects of climate change on the planet:

AlterNet's Tara Lohan lists eight great things we could lose, including French wines and coral reefs.

At TAPPED, Alexandra Gutierrez posts about the island nation Tuvalu, which is “highly vulnerable to rises in sea level.”

For Mother Jones, Jen Phillips writes that “If we don't get emissions on track, fast, it'll be today's babies and kids who'll have to do it twice as quickly in 2050.”

This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about the environment by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. Visit the Mulch for a complete list of articles on environmental issues, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, health care and immigration issues, check out The Audit, The Pulse, and The Diaspora. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets. More »

On last Wednesday's edition of Chicago Public Radio's Worldview, Havana-born author Achy Obejas discussed the 50th Anniversary of the Cuban Revolution with host Jerome McDonnell. Obejas edited the In These Times special edition Inside Cuba: Voices From the Island, which features a series of exclusive articles and essays written by Cubans about contemporary Cuban life.

Check out full audio from the program here.

The WBEZ interview mentions several of the pieces from December's issue, including "From Fidel to Raul" by poet Norberto Codina, "Mystery Island" by novelist Leonardo Padura Fuentes, "We're Bad Cuz Nobody Loves Us, Nobody Loves Us Cuz We're Bad" by author and hard rock singer Yoss, and storyteller Yohamna Depestre's first work of nonfiction, "A Day in My Life (Any Day)."

Achy Obejas is also a member of the In These Times Board of Editors. More »

President Barack Obama's much-anticipated arrival in Copenhagen today has turned from a hopeful sign of success into a grim reality check. Immediately after arriving this morning, Obama joined an unscheduled meeting with 18 other world leaders before the most high-profile session of the United Nations Climate Change Conference (Cop15) began. The deal depends on the United States and China, the world's leading emitters of greenhouse gas emissions to reach an agreement on a course of action.

At this morning's session, Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jibao hailed his country's efforts to curb greenhouse emissions. Wen implied that China would keep its emissions voluntary and unilateral, which was out of step with suggestions that China place its reduction goals within a binding treaty. Then, Brazilian President Luiz Lula da Silva complained about the Cop15 negotiations' lack of progress.

A visibly frustrated Obama took the stage immediately after (video below), saying he was in Copenhagen "not to talk, but to act." The question is no longer the nature of the challenge, Obama said, but leaders' capacity to meet it: "For while the reality of climate change is not in doubt, I have to be honest as the world watches us today. I think our ability to take collective action is in doubt right now and it hangs in the balance. I believe we can act boldly and decisively in the face of a common threat."



David Corn of Mother Jones wrote that Obama's speech "signaled a global train wreck... Obama was clearly venting. ... If an accord is not reached at this summit, Obama remarked, 'we will be back having the same stale arguments month after month, year after year, perhaps decade after decade all while the danger of climate change grows until it is irreversible.'"

Although Obama didn't mention China directly, he "took a dig at the way the country has resisted transparency measures for monitoring emissions cuts," as Jonathan Hiskes writes for Grist. "Is this a sign that the Copenhagen talks may fail to produce even a weak, tentative accord—a so-called 'fig leaf' deal that would provide world leaders the barest of cover? That’s one line of speculation. Of course, that could be out of date within a few hours."

Obama reminded the delegates of the United State's commitment to action on climate change, reiterating Hillary Clinton's statement Thursday that the country plans to mobilize $100 billion in financing for developing nations by 2020, but "if, and only if, it is part of a broader accord."

But is a broader accord still possible in Copenhagen? Grist reports that in a one-on-one meeting after Obama's speech, Obama and Prime Minister Wen discussed "three of the most contentious areas blocking the path to a climate deal on the last day of the summit: Verification guarantees, financing to help developing nations deal with climate change, and permitted emission levels." Afterward, they asked their negotiators to meet to search for an agreement.

Although China and the U.S. are the biggest players in these talks, it would be remiss to ignore the work of the G77 block of poor nations who are "still playing hardball," as Jacob Wheeler writes for In These Times. "They’re on the front lines, their people are already dying in the hundreds of thousands due to climate change, and they don’t have the infrastructure to greenify their infrastructure."

It looks like the world will continue to wait for our leaders to determine the course of action in Copenhagen. Check out LinkTV's live stream for Cop15 news as it unfolds.

This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about the environment by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. Visit the Mulch for a complete list of articles on environmental issues, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, health care and immigration issues, check out The Audit, The Pulse, and The Diaspora. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets. More »

COPENHAGEN—While a two-dimensional view casts the COP15 climate summit in Copenhagen as a battle between the United States and China — over monetary commitments for developing countries on the frontlines of climate change, over what temperature rise the world's leaders will permit (anything over 1.5 degrees Celcius gets scary), and over transparency (the U.S. wants China's efforts to reduce pollution to be monitored) — the G77 bloc of poor nations (mostly African nations, Latin American countries, and Pacific island states) is still playing hardball.

They're on the frontlines, their people are already dying in the hundreds of thousands due to climate change, and they don't have the infrastructure to greenify their infrastructure.

On behalf of TheUptake.org, I was able to capture the voices of two particular strong voices representing the weak at the COP15 summit: President Mohammed Nasheed of the Maldives, a Pacific island state which is two meters high at its highest point and will die a watery death within this century if climate changed is not stopped, and Lumumba Stanislaus di-Aping, a Sudanese native and the chief negotiator for the G77 block. Watch those videos below:

—Jacob Wheeler, In These Times contributing editor and videographer for TheUptake.org.

















More »

COPENHAGEN—On Wednesday, December 16, about 1,000 people from several activist groups came together to form the "Reclaim the Power" demonstration outside the Bella Center, where the international climate conference is being held here.

Protesters marched to the center hoping to interrupt and confront delegates, but police held demonstrators at bay just outside the site with a limited use of force. Protesters built makeshift rafts and attempted to ford the moat-like waterway around the venue in order to circumvent police forces. But they were immediately detained by K-9 squads. They then used the raft as a barricade briefly and ineffectively—police soon confiscated and deflated it.

Soon afterward, tensions softened after police began to remove their riot gear helmets. Chants ceased and both sides eased into smiles as protesters danced to drum beats. Demonstration leaders eventually made a deal with police to leave the site peacefully, dancing to Samba music as they departed... Check out video of the clashing and dancing below.

More »