Photo: PBI-Guatemala accompanied BDH human rights lawyers at a hearing of ex-army officers accused of extrajudicial executions, June 7.

Peace Brigades International accompanies lawyers and legal processes in Colombia, Guatemala, Honduras and Mexico.

This includes the José Alvear Restrepo Lawyers’ Collective (CCAJAR) and Luis Carlos Pérez Lawyers’ Collective (CCALCP) in Colombia, the legal team at Honduran Centre for the Promotion of Community Development (CEHPRODEC), lawyer Edgar Pérez Archila and the Human Rights Law Firm (BDH) in Guatemala, and lawyers with the Paso del Norte Human Rights Centre and Juan Carlos Flores, the lawyer for the Peoples’ Front in Defence of Land and Water (fighting the PIM gas pipeline-plant-aqueduct megaproject) in Mexico.

The dangers these lawyers face are real. In Colombia alone, over 400 lawyers have been killed since 1991. Colombian lawyer Alirio Uribe of CCAJAR has stated: “The death sentences against each and every one of us have not been carried out because we are not alone, we have the accompaniment of PBI.”

This past week we amplified the concern that CCAJAR lawyer Yessika Hoyos received a death threat on her cellphone while representing the father of a university student who had been killed by the Colombian police during a Special Jurisdiction for Peace hearing.

Last week we noted PBI-Honduras accompanied the CEHPRODEC legal team at the trial of five Indigenous leaders criminalized for defending their territory.

And this month PBI-Guatemala accompanied BDH lawyers during the eight days of first statement hearings for six former military officers in which the defendants were indicted for crimes against humanity and now stand accused of murder, attempted murder, or both relating to the forced disappearance of 20 individuals from 1983 to 1985.

PBI has also been accompanying legal processes including the trial a former hydroelectric dam company executive charged in the murder of COPINH co-founder Berta Caceres in Honduras and a court hearing seeking the release from prison of Maya Q’eqchi’ land defender Bernardo Caal Xol in Guatemala.

Beyond this, PBI-Guatemala interviewed Law Firm for Indigenous Peoples director Wendy Lopez earlier this month about the criminalization of land defenders. That law firm works with 32 Indigenous communities in Guatemala.

Photo: Prior to the pandemic, PBI-Canada organized this meeting between Colombian lawyer Julia Figueroa of  the Luis Carlos Pérez Lawyers’ Collective and Kate Gunn of First Peoples Law in Vancouver, November 7, 2019.

Trudeau arriving in Brussels for the NATO summit.

On June 14, while at the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) summit in Brussels, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau confirmed “Canada’s interest in hosting a NATO Centre of Excellence (COE) on Climate and Security.”

It is not clear in what city this Centre of Excellence, defined by NATO as an “international military organization”, will be based, when it will open or how much it will cost.

“Security implications of climate change”

A statement from the Prime Minister’s Office notes: “The [Centre of Excellence] would play an important role in helping the Alliance to better understand, adapt to, and address the security implications of climate change.”

Another statement from the PMO explains: “It would provide Allies with a central location to pool their knowledge and develop effective preparedness and responses to the security impacts of climate change.”

“Threat multiplier”

The UN Under-Secretary-General for Political and Peacebuilding Affairs has commented: “Major armies and businesses have long recognized the need to prepare for climate-related risks, rightfully assessing climate change as a threat multiplier.”

There is the concern that rather than committing to address climate change, the rationale will be that climate change requires more spending on the military.

The U.S. Department of Defense, the world’s single largest consumer of oil and one of the world’s top carbon polluters, has described climate change as an “urgent and growing threat to our national security.” In 2020, the United States spent $778 billion on its military, an increase of 4.4 percent over the previous year.

That also appears to be the Canadian military’s perspective on the pandemic.

Last year, Department of National Defence deputy minister Jody Thomas stated: “In a post-COVID world, there is, I would say as the deputy minister of defence, a need for [the $553 billion ‘Strong, Secure, Engaged’ strategy paper] to in fact be done more quickly rather than slow it down or cut the budget.”

Greening the military?

There is also the concern that this “Centre of Excellence” could be spun as a commitment to somehow greening the NATO military alliance.

The Institute for Policy Studies has commented both on the immense challenges of making “the U.S. war machines more fuel efficient”, but also highlights that would “do nothing to make the U.S. military any less violent or oppressive.”

“Making peace with nature”

Those on the frontlines of the climate crisis are being killed. Four land and environmental defenders have been killed every week on average since the Paris climate agreement was reached at COP21 in Paris in December 2015.

Late last year, UN Secretary-General António Guterres stated: “Humanity is waging war on nature. …Making peace with nature is the defining task of the 21st century. It must be the top, top priority for everyone, everywhere.”

Front Line Defenders reports that 177 human rights defenders were killed in Colombia last year. Meanwhile, the NATO summit yesterday announced: “We are intensifying our interaction with Colombia, NATO’s partner in Latin America, on good governance, military training, interoperability, demining, and maritime security.”

A security strategy based on militarization can result in more human rights violations and attacks against climate defenders.

Military spending, fossil fuel subsidies

Massive amounts of money are poured annually into the drivers of climate change. G7 countries (all of which are NATO members except Japan) provide at least $87.7 billion a year in fossil fuel subsidies and spent $1.04 trillion on their militaries last year.

Until this spending is drastically reduced or eliminated, the prospects for climate justice are bleak. Thus, it is an urgent task for an intersectional movement committed to peace and climate justice (and by extension Indigenous rights and racial, economic and migrant justice) to call for the defunding of militarism and extractivism.

Murray Thomson, one of the co-founders of Peace Brigades International in 1981, called for Canada to withdraw from NATO. On March 30, 2019, he attended the ‘Say No to NATO’ demonstration in Ottawa during a blizzard. He passed away on May 2, 2019 at 96 years of age. Photo by Koozma J. Tarasoff.

Photo by Kevin Lamarque/Pool via AP.

Speaking to the United Nations Human Rights Council about the impacts of climate change, High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet warned: “The world has never seen a threat to human rights of this scope.”

How has the G7 responded to this warning?

Promises made at the G7 summit in Cornwall, England included committing to halving their carbon emissions by 2030 relative to 2010, achieving net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, and increasing climate finance contributions to cut carbon emissions and cope with the existing impacts (extreme weather, rising sea levels) of climate change.

Let’s look more closely at each of these commitments:

1- Halving carbon emissions by 2030

G7 countries are responsible for about 25 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions. That amounted to about 8.6 billion tonnes of CO2 in 2019. There is no clear plan yet from the G7 as to how they will reduce this by one-half.

2- Reaching net-zero emissions by 2050

The concept of “net zero” has been described by climate scientists as a dangerous trap. It does not strictly mean reducing emissions, but rather includes carbon offsets (for example, an oil company planting a forest) and employing technology that does not yet exist on a vast scale to capture carbon in the air.

3- Increasing climate financing

Current commitments from G7 countries amount to $36 billion by 2025. This despite their pledge in 2016 to provide $100 billion a year by 2020 to developing countries to help them cope with the impacts of climate change (such as rising sea levels) and to develop their economies within a net zero carbon framework.

Ending fossil fuel subsidies

G7 governments have also previously promised to phase out fossil fuel subsidies, a promise not highlighted in this G7 communique. G7 governments provide at least $87.7 billion a year in support for fossil fuels. This despite the pledge by G20 governments in 2009 and G7 governments in 2016 to eliminate “inefficient fossil fuel subsidies” by 2025.

We were also looking for bold statements on migration and military spending in the communique.

Migration

The UN says that weather emergencies have forced around 21.5 million people a year to move since 2010 and that roughly 90 per cent of refugees come from countries that are the most vulnerable and least ready to adapt to the impacts of climate change.

Military spending

In 2020, G7 countries spent $1.04 trillion on military expenditures. The US spent an estimated $778 billion, the UK $59.2 billion, Germany $52.8 billion, France $52.7 billion, Japan $49.1 billion, Italy $28.9 billion, and Canada $22.8 billion.

There are concerns that the world’s militaries, which themselves are responsible for an estimated 1.8 billion tonnes of carbon pollution each year, will be increasingly used against climate migrants at borders as they flee violence and disruption.

G7 on human rights defenders

The Open Societies Statement that accompanied the final communique from the G7 summit affirmed: “The importance of civic space and partnership with diverse, independent and pluralistic civil societies, including human rights defenders, in promoting human rights and fundamental freedoms.”

COP26 and human rights defenders

The UN COP26 climate summit is scheduled for November 1-12 in Glasgow, Scotland. Peace Brigades International continues to follow this with particular concern for the risks faced by human rights defenders challenging environmental breakdown.

Four land and environmental defenders have been killed every week on average since the Paris climate agreement was reached at COP21 in Paris in December 2015.

In the lead-up to COP26, PBI-Canada is highlighting this UN Human Rights Council resolution that affirms: “Human rights defenders, including environmental human rights defenders, must be ensured a safe and enabling environment to undertake their work free from hindrance and insecurity, in recognition of their important role in supporting States to fulfil their obligations under the Paris Agreement.”

Please follow us in the coming weeks and months for more on the relationship between climate change and human rights.

Photo by Nicholas Pfosi/Reuters.

Nearly 250 people were arrested in Minnesota on Monday June 7 protesting against a Canadian-owned tar sands pipeline being built on Indigenous lands.

The Associated Press reports: “Hubbard County Sheriff Cory Aukes said 179 people were arrested and charged with gross misdemeanor trespassing. An additional 68 people were cited for public nuisance and unlawful assembly. It was the largest show of resistance since protesters set their sights on the project.”

The Park Rapids Enterprise also reported: “Over 500 Indigenous people and allies shut down an active Line 3 pump station. Protesters linked arms and created blockades of debris at the site, including parking a boat across the roadway.”

That article adds: “According to Minnesota Public Radio, at one point, a U.S. Border Patrol helicopter flew in very low to try to flush out demonstrators from the site. It hovered about 20 feet off the ground, blowing up sand and dirt aggressively. A loudspeaker broadcast warned people they would be arrested if they didn’t leave the area.”

Canadian company pays for the police

This past March, Emily Atkin reported in Heated: “Enbridge established a financial relationship with Minnesota law enforcement in May 2020, when the state Public Utilities Commission approved Line 3’s route permit. That permit required the oil giant to set up a special fund that would reimburse police responding to anything pipeline-related.”

Atkin adds: “The permit said law enforcement could get reimbursed by Enbridge for any activity related to public safety and the pipeline.”

Notably, Atkin cites an article in The Intercept that reports a Minnesota Sheriff’s Office has requested Enbridge reimburse them for nearly $72,000 worth of riot gear and more than $10,000 in other costs including tear gas, pepper spray and batons.

The Line 3 pipeline financed by Canadian banks

The Calgary-based Enbridge Inc. 760,000 barrel per day Line 3 tar sands pipeline would run from Hardisty, Alberta to Superior, Wisconsin. It would be 1,659 kilometres in length, of which about 585 kilometres would be in the United States.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau approved the construction of the Line 3 pipeline in Canada in November 2016. Enbridge has reported that the Canadian portion of the pipeline is complete and began commercial service in December 2019.

The Rainforest Action Network (RAN) has documented that the top five financiers of Enbridge are Canadian banks: TD Bank, Bank of Montreal, Scotiabank, RBC and CIBC. Collectively they have provided billions of dollars in financing to Enbridge.

Current status of pipeline

RAN has noted: “The [542 kilometre] Minnesota stretch of the pipeline is all that remains to be built. In November 2020, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency approved the final permits for the pipeline.”

Work on the pipeline began in Minnesota on December 1, 2020 and was expected to take 6 to 9 months to complete.

Earlier this week, Winona LaDuke of Honor the Earth stated that the pipeline is “far from done” at this point with “35 or 40 percent” completed and that Enbridge still has many rivers to cross that they can’t begin to do until July.

Reuters has also noted: “Enbridge and opponents are waiting for a ruling from the Minnesota Court of Appeals, due by June 21, on whether there is sufficient evidence of crude oil demand to justify replacing Line 3.”