Feed aggregator

Die Diskussion um Einkaufstourismus erhitzt die Gemüter: Während der Bund die Zollfreigrenze auf 150 Franken senkt, fordert die Ostschweiz noch strengere Massnahmen. Die Blick-Community zeigt wenig Verständnis und kritisiert scharf.

Die VW-Belegschaft ist in Aufruhr: Nach Massenprotesten gegen die geplanten Werksschliessungen und Entlassungen kommts heute zur Betriebsversammlung mit dem Konzernchef Oliver Blume. Die Zukunft tausender Arbeitsplätze ist ungewiss.

Der Kanton Wallis und der WWF haben nach der fehlerhaften Entleerung des Stausees Lac des Toules im Unterwallis im vergangenen März Klage eingereicht. Diese hatte zum Tod zahlreicher Fische geführt und schwere Schäden in der Dranse verursacht.

Grosse Emotionen in der Nacht auf Mittwoch in Calgary. Vor dem Duell zwischen den Calgary Flames und den Columbus Blue Jackets wurde den bei einem Verkehrsunfall im Sommer verstorbenen Hockey-Brüdern Johnny und Matthew Gaudreau gedacht.

Kristrún Mjöll Frostadóttir, Vorsitzende der Sozialdemokratischen Allianz (SDA), erhielt am Dienstag (3. Dezember) von Präsidentin Halla Tómasdóttir den Auftrag zur Regierungsbildung. Im Fokus der Koalitionsverhandlungen stehen soziale Reformen, die EU-Frage und politische Differenzen.

Le budget pour la coopération bilatérale devrait être réduit de 150 millions. La gauche dénonce une «faute stratégique dramatique».

Frankreich und Polen führen den Widerstand gegen das EU-Mercosur-Abkommen an – eine Zweckallianz, welche die gegenseitige Konkurrenz auf dem europäischen Geflügelmarkt nur spärlich überdeckt. Dahinter wird ein harter Kampf Einfluss in der europäischen Landwirtschaft ausgetragen.

Deux câbles de données traversant la frontière terrestre entre la Suède et la Finlande ont été endommagés mardi 3 décembre, entraînant une certaine confusion à Stockholm et à Helsinki quant à la responsabilité de l’accident.

La 18e édition du Répertoire des Prix de Référence (RPR) validée (version 25.0) est rendue publique depuis lundi 2 décembre 2024.

Le Répertoire des Prix de Référence créé en 2007 dans le but de garantir la transparence et maîtriser les coûts des commandes publiques est désormais à sa 18e édition. Il contient 8 914 articles répertoriés (soit 742 de plus que l'édition précédente).

Avec l'utilisation de l'intelligence artificielle, la recherche et le traitement des données deviennent plus rapides et précis. Plus qu'un simple document, « cette édition marque une révolution numérique en introduisant la version 25.0 du RPR, désormais digitalisée et enrichie, accessible via la plateforme e-Répertoire. ».

Une commission interministérielle regroupant des experts du ministère de l'Économie et des Finances, de l'INStaD et de l'ASIN a été mise en place pour l'élaboration de cette édition.

La 18e édition du Répertoire des Prix de Référence, c'est également des innovations majeures telles que l'encadrement spécifique des prix (nouvelles références pour l'entretien des équipements médicaux et audiovisuels), l'harmonisation sous accords-cadres (meilleure gestion des prix des équipements informatiques), la soumissions 100 % digitale (demandes d'homologation en ligne, avec des délais de traitement réduits) et la gestion modernisée des homologations (responsabilisation accrue des acteurs et suivi simplifié).

Le RPR est un « outil clé pour la traçabilité et l'efficacité des dépenses publiques, reflétant l'engagement du Bénin en faveur d'une administration moderne, performante et transparente ».

Le nouvel ambassadeur de la République Populaire de Chine au Bénin, SEM. Zhang Wei, a présenté, lundi 2 décembre 2024, la copie figurée de ses lettres de créance au ministre des Affaires étrangères, Olushegun Bakari Adjadi.

Le Bénin a un nouvel ambassadeur de la République Populaire de Chine. SEM. Zhang Wei a été accueilli à Cotonou, vendredi 29 novembre 2024, par les autorités béninoises. Ce lundi 2 décembre, le diplomate chinois a présenté la copie figurée de ses lettres de créance au ministre béninois des Affaires étrangères Olushegun Bakari Adjadi. Cette séance a été marquée par des échanges. Le nouvel ambassadeur a fait part de sa volonté d'œuvrer au renforcement de la coopération entre Cotonou et Pékin. SEM. Zhang Wei succède à l'ambassadeur Peng Jingtao, a quitté le Bénin après environ 7 ans de mission.

A.A.A

Le Jurassien Alan Braichet est un as du vol en plein air avec ses oiseaux. Notamment avec «Dakota», un jeune ara qui a fière allure.

Mardi 3 décembre, la présidente islandaise Halla Tómasdóttir a donné à Kristrún Mjöll Frostadóttir, cheffe de file de l’Alliance sociale-démocrate, le mandat de former un nouveau gouvernement.

Two Lebanese children residing in a school-turned-shelter in Beirut following an escalation of hostilities in Lebanon. Credit: UNICEF/Fouad Choufany

By Oritro Karim
UNITED NATIONS, Dec 4 2024 (IPS)

On November 27, Israel, Lebanon, and a host of mediating states agreed upon a ceasefire agreement that would establish a permanent cessation of warfare between the two parties. As of December 3, there have been no reported instances of Hezbollah directing attacks toward Israel that resulted in any casualties. Despite this, there have been numerous reported violations committed by Israel, causing extensive harm to civilian lives and local infrastructure. Many parties have warned for the international community to hold Israel accountable for these violations.

The ceasefire agreement mandates both Israel and Hezbollah withdraw their forces from each other’s territories and report any and all violations of peace to the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) and the committee of mediating nations. Israel has been given a 60-day period to retreat the entirety of its troops from southern Lebanon, while Hezbollah must withdraw its forces north of the Litani River.

According to a December 1 report released by the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), 578,641 internally displaced persons began moving back to their place of origin in Lebanon. It is also stated that further airstrikes and military restrictions imposed by the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) have left many unable to return to their communities.

The Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor issued a press release on December 2, reporting that Israel had violated the terms of the agreement at least 18 times in southern Lebanon alone. As of December 1, there have been 62 reported violations committed by Israel that have targeted civilians and infrastructure in Lebanon. It’s been reported that Lebanese civilians were killed through the IDF opening fire on them and commanding drone strikes. Additionally, the IDF have issued further restrictions of movement south of the Litani River.

December 2 marked the deadliest day of hostilities in Lebanon since the ceasefire came into effect. It began when Hezbollah launched two projectiles toward Israel, responding to a series of violations committed by Israel over the past week. The attack, described as a “defensive warning strike”, landed in an open area and caused no injuries.

In a statement posted to X (formerly known as Twitter), Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu confirmed plans to retaliate against Hezbollah, describing the attack as “a serious violation of the ceasefire”, adding that Israel will “respond to any violation by Hezbollah-minor or serious.”

Israeli Minister of Military Affairs Israel Katz urged Lebanon to uphold their conditions of the ceasefire. “If the ceasefire collapses, there will be no more exemption for the state of Lebanon. We will enforce the agreement with maximum impact and zero tolerance. If until now we have differentiated between Lebanon and Hezbollah, that will no longer be the case,” Katz said. He did not address Israel’s numerous reported violations.

The IDF responded by launching a series of strikes on two southern Lebanese towns, Talousa and Haris, killing at least eleven civilians and causing considerable damage to local infrastructure.

In a statement issued on X, the IDF stated that they struck Hezbollah terrorists, dozens of launchers, and terrorist infrastructure throughout Lebanon in response to several acts by Hezbollah in Lebanon that posed a threat to Israeli civilians, in violation of the understandings between Israel and Lebanon They added that the state of Israel remains allegiant to the conditions laid out in the ceasefire agreement but will continue to defend itself.

Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar denied Israel’s reported violations of the agreement, adding that Israel would “not accept a return to the situation as it stood [prior to the escalation of hostilities].” French Foreign Minster Jean-Noël Barrot was reported speaking to Saar over a phone call noting that it was urgent “for all sides to respect the ceasefire in Lebanon”.

Despite this, the Biden administration has expressed concern that the “fragile” ceasefire agreement might unravel due to repeated violations of the agreement. Israeli public broadcaster Kan reported that the U.S. envoy Amos Hochstein issued a warning to Israel over its ongoing violations.

An Israeli official informed news publications that Hochstein believes that Israel is enforcing the ceasefire “too aggressively”. Hochstein also reportedly expressed uncertainty over the endurance of the ceasefire, opining that the situation is dependent on how Hezbollah responds to the recent attacks.

Officials from the United States have confirmed that despite sporadic strikes from both sides of the border, they remain confident that the ceasefire agreement will not waver.

U.S. State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller told reporters; “Obviously, when you have any ceasefire, you can see violations of it. Broadly speaking, it is our assessment that despite some of these incidents that we are seeing, the ceasefire is holding.” White House spokesperson John Kirby added that “there has been a dramatic reduction in the violence. The monitoring mechanism is in full force and is working”.

IPS UN Bureau Report

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');  

Negotiations on a future global drought regime got underway at UNCCD COP16 in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia December 2-13.

By Simone Galimberti
KATHMANDU, Nepal, Dec 4 2024 (IPS)

Courage and not compromise. That was the motto desperately launched by members of the civil society in the twilight of the negotiations of the Plastic Pollution Treaty in Busan, South Korea last week.

As we now know, the negotiations did not yield the results that would have helped Planet Earth set a groundbreaking target to reduce the amount of plastic being produced.

Meanwhile, the international community is onto another crucial meeting in Riyadh, the capital of Saudi Arabia to discuss global efforts against desertification. It is going to be another COP process, what is formally known as the 16th Session of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification or UNCCD. (COP16, December 2-13).

Apparently, this time, the host, Saudi Arabia, is going to lead a tremendous effort to ensure a strong outcome. Over the last two and half months, Riyadh, rather than being a global leader to ensure the survivability of our planet, a champion of sustainability, has been a disruptor.

The Saudis were among those who have been undermining the recently concluded Climate COP 29 in Baku and, to a lesser extent, the COP 16 on Biodiversity in Cali, Colombia.

But a review of what unfolded over the last two and half months, would also bring an indictment for act of omission not only to the Petro states but also to all developed nations.

Indeed, the eleventh-hour rallying cry– “courage, not compromise”– should have been embraced as the North Star by all those nations who were ready to take bold steps in the three recently concluded COP processes.

In Busan, as explained by the Center for International Environmental Law, CIEL, ” negotiators had several procedural options available, including voting or making a treaty among the willing”. Yet the most progressive nations, around 100 countries, including the EU and 38 African nations and South American countries, did not dare to go beyond the traditional approach of seeking a consensus at any cost.

Ironically what happened at COP 16 and COP 29 was equally a travesty of justice as developed nations did not budge from their positions. At the end, the final deals on biodiversity and climate financing, were in both cases extremely disappointing especially in relation to the former.

Indeed. in Cali, there was no agreement at all in finding the resources needed to implement the ambitious Kunming- Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.

According to BloombergNEF (BNEF), in its Biodiversity Finance Factbook, ” the gap between current biodiversity finance and future needs have widened to $ 942 billion”.

The Global Biodiversity Framework Fund (GBFF), the financial vehicle to implement the Framework, is still very far from becoming a true game changer.

The millions of dollars that a small group of European nations have pledged during the negotiations in Cali, are still a miniscule contribution in relation to what was agreed two years ago in Montreal where the second leg of the COP 15 was held.

There, the final outcome underpinning the Framework, required the mobilisation of financial resources for biodiversity of at least US$200 billion per year by 2030 from public and private sources and identifying and eliminating at least US$500 billion of annual subsidies harmful to biodiversity.

What unfolded in Baku at the climate COP was also, in terms of financing, embarrassing for developed nations. The hardly negotiated agreement of tripling the US$ 100 billion per year by 2035 with a commitment to reach up to US$ 1.3 trillion by the same year through different sources of money, including difficult to negotiate levies, is far from what is required.

On this front, the embarrassment was not only on the traditional developed nations but also on countries like China and the Gulf Nations who stubbornly rejected their responsibility to play their part in climate financing.

At least, as part of a last minute compromise, the developed nations (G7 and few others like Australia) will now co-lead the responsibility of finding the resources. China and others wealthy nations that, according to an outdated UN classification are still officially considered as “developing”, will contribute but only on voluntary basis.

As we see, the final outcomes of these three COPs were far from being courageous. Compromising, epitomized by concepts like ” constructive ambiguity”, agreeing on something that can be interpreted differently by the nations at the negotiating tables, instead dominated.

At this point, considering the frustrations of these mega gatherings, what could be done? Is the existing model of the COP with its complexities and endless delays and bickering, still viable?

The influential Club of Rome, on the last days of COP 29, had released a strongly worded press release asking for a major reform of the ways negotiations were carried out. “The COP process must be strengthened with mechanisms to hold countries accountable”. The document went even further with calls to implement robust tracking of climate financing.

Also, with each COP, a series of new initiatives are always launched, often just for the sake of visibility and prestige.

The risk is having a multitude of exercises and mechanisms that drains resources that, are at the end, are neither productive nor meaningful but rather duplicative and ultimately, a waste of money.

We should be even more radical, I would say. For example, the international community should introduce the same peer to peer review process in place in the Human Rights Council that, frankly speaking, is hardly a revolutionary tool.

And yet, despite the fact that nations with a solid track record in human rights abuses remain unscathed in the Council, such a change would represent some forms of accountability in the areas of biodiversity and climate.

This could be envisioned as a reform that should accompany the implementation of the upcoming 3rd wave of Nationally Determined Contributions due by 2025. Getting rid of the consensus model is also something that should truly be considered.

Why not holding votes that would break the vetoes of even one single nation? Why being so attached to unanimity when we do know that it is not working at all?

As show in Busan, it is the traditionally developed nations that lack courage and farsightedness in pursuing a procedure that might backfire against them. This is, instead, a cause that at least the EU, Canada and Australia should embrace. Yet we are still very far from reaching this level of audacity.

Another fanciful thinking relates to tie nations’ actions to the possibility of hosting prestigious sports tournament. Why not forcing international sport bodies like FIFA to reward the hosting rights for its mega events only to nations which are climate and biodiversity leaders in practice rather than through empty but lofty declarations?

Unfortunately, there will never be consensus within the football federations that run FIFA governing body or say, within the International Olympic Committee. A more promising area, though also not easy to put into practice, would be to find ways in which non state actors would have a real say in the negotiations.

Both the COP 16 and the COP 29 reached some breakthroughs in relation to giving more voice, for example, to indigenous people. In Cali, it was decided to establish a new body that will more power to indigenous people.

It is what is formally known, in reference to the provision related to the rights of indigenous people of the International Convention on Biodiversity, as the Permanent Subsidiary Body on Article 8(j).

The details of this new body will be object of intense negotiations but at least a pathway has been created to better channel the demands of a key constituency who, so far, has struggled to gain its due recognition.

Also at COP 29 saw some wins for indigenous people with the adaption of the Baku Workplan and the renewal of the mandate of the Facilitative Working Group (FWG) of local Communities and Indigenous Peoples Platforms.

Surely there can be some creative solutions to strengthen what was supposed to be the platform to incorporate and engage non state actors, the Marrakesh Partnership for Global Action.

The members of civil society could come up with new ideas on how to formally have a role in the negotiations. While it is impossible to have non state actors at the par of member states party to the conventions around which the COPs are held, surely the latter should be in a better place and have some forms of decision power.

Lastly one of the best ways to simplify these complex and independent from each other negotiations, would be to work towards a unifying framework in relation to the implementation of the biodiversity and climate conventions.

On this, the Colombian Presidency of the COP 16 broke some important grounds with Susana Muhammad, the Minister of Environment and Sustainable Development of Colombia who chaired the proceedings in Cali, pushing for bridging the gap between biodiversity and climate negotiations.

None of the propositions listed here are going to be easy to implement. What we need is simple to understand but also extremely hard to reach.

Only more pressure from the below, from the global civil society can push governments to make the right choice: setting aside, at least for once, the word compromise and instead chose another one that instead can make the difference while instilling hope.

This word is called courage.

Simone Galimberti writes about the SDGs, youth-centered policy-making and a stronger and better United Nations

IPS UN Bureau

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');  

Mit dem Vorschlag, man müsse auch über westliche Soldaten in der Ukraine nachdenken, schockte Frankreichs Präsident Emmanuel Macron Anfang des Jahres seine Verbündeten. Doch nun wird diese Option wieder halbwegs offen in Betracht gezogen.

L’ancien ministre belge et ex-commissaire européen Didier Reynders a été entendu par la police belge mardi 3 décembre, et son domicile bruxellois perquisitionné, dans une enquête sur des soupçons de blanchiment d’argent.

By CIVICUS
Dec 4 2024 (IPS)

 
CIVICUS discusses threats to the security, rights and ancestral lands of Brazil’s quilombola communities with Wellington Gabriel de Jesus dos Santos, leader and activist of the Pitanga dos Palmares Quilombola community in Bahia state.

Founded by formerly enslaved Africans, quilombola communities represent a legacy of resilience and freedom. But their way of life is increasingly disrupted by harmful infrastructure projects and their members face constant threats from land grabbers and speculators. Community leaders demanding justice and reparations are met with intimidation and violence while public institutions look the other way. The National Coordination of Rural Black Quilombola Communities urges the Brazilian government to grant them protection and ensure accountability.

Wellington Gabriel de Jesus dos Santos

What are quilombola communities, and what’s the focus of their struggle?

Quilombola communities were born out of resistance to slavery. My community, Quilombo Pitanga, was founded by the descendants of those who fought for freedom when slavery was officially abolished in 1888. Even after slavery ended, the struggles continued because former slave owners and landowners continued to exploit and persecute our people.

Today, quilombola communities continue to fight for our land and culture. It’s important to us to preserve our heritage for future generations because it’s a testament to the strength of our ancestors, our survival and our resilience.

We advocate for justice and land rights through a combination of local and international strategies. We work with organisations such as the National Articulation of Quilombola Communities, which brings together quilombo leaders from across Brazil. We also hold protests, develop public awareness campaigns and work with international organisations to draw attention to our struggles.

What threats does your community face and who’s responsible?

My community faces significant threats, particularly from drug traffickers and powerful business interests. These threats became very real when my great-grandmother, María Bernadete Pacífico, was murdered by drug traffickers last year. She fought for the preservation of our culture and the wellbeing of younger generations, and I believe that’s what got her killed. She was part of a human rights protection programme, but the promised protection failed when she needed it most. My father was also murdered in 2017, during a battle against the construction of a landfill near our territory.

After my great-grandmother was killed, I haven’t been able to visit my family or enter the community. I live in constant fear, watching over the community and its heritage from afar.

Our community also faces institutional racism, reflected in the fact that the state built a prison on our land but fails to provide basic services such as schools and hospitals. We lack any public security, as a result of which some believe they can act with impunity. The prison, which was inaugurated in 2007, was supposed to be a shoe factory that would bring prosperity to the community. Suddenly, it was announced that it would be a prison, and it brought rising criminality and contamination of water resources and wetlands. Quilombo Pitanga dos Palmares hasn’t been the same since.

The bigger problem is that many quilombola communities, including ours, own valuable land. My community has a large territory, so we’ve been targeted by powerful interests that view our land as prime real estate for expansion. In 2012 we fought against the construction of an industrial road that would have cut through our land. There were large corporations involved, which made this fight particularly hard.

How do authorities respond?

The state not only turns a blind eye, leaving us vulnerable to exploitation, but it’s also complicit in these attacks because it protects the interests of big business rather than people. INEMA, the agency responsible for granting environmental licences to companies, has been investigated for corruption that has led to the approval of projects that harm communities like ours.

The authorities say they care about our safety, but the reality is different. The laws that are supposed to protect us are ignored and often the government is either unconcerned or in collusion with those causing harm.

What support do quilombola communities need?

Several issues need immediate attention, including securing our land rights, gaining access to basic services such as health and education and preserving our cultural heritage. A practical issue that needs attention is the toll we are forced to pay to enter the city, which constitutes arbitrary discrimination and isolates us from the wider community.

We are fighting the prison built on our land and the expansion of harmful companies that threaten our environment. We need more than words; we need tangible action, including stronger laws to protect us.

We need international support because local and national authorities often ignore or dismiss our struggles. Financial support is crucial, particularly for community leaders under threat. Many of us, including myself, face death threats. Our lives are far from normal and we need resources to ensure the safety of our families and communities.

United Nations human rights agencies could play a vital role in protecting our rights and securing the support we need. Unfortunately, despite local efforts to raise awareness, we often feel isolated in our struggles.

GET IN TOUCH
Instagram

SEE ALSO
Brazil: a step forward for Indigenous peoples’ rights CIVICUS Lens 20.Oct.2023
Brazil back on the green track CIVICUS Lens 21.Jul.2023
Brazil: ‘If Bolsonaro continues as president, it is a threat to the Amazon and therefore to humanity’ Interview with Daniela Silva 21.Sep.2022

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');  

Bien que les relations entre Trump et Netanyahu aient connu des hauts et des bas, sa première présidence est considérée en Israël comme l'« âge d'or » des relations avec les États-Unis.

Bien que les relations entre Trump et Netanyahu aient connu des hauts et des bas, sa première présidence est considérée en Israël comme l'« âge d'or » des relations avec les États-Unis.