Americas

Subterms

    More stories

    • 113 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      US expected to remove Farc from international terrorist list

      by

      US expected to remove Farc from international terrorist listThe announcement comes five years after the demobilised rebel group signed a peace deal with the Colombian government The US is expected to remove the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (Farc) from its international terrorist list, five years after the demobilised rebel group signed a peace deal with the Colombian government and formed a political party.The announcement is expected to bolster the struggling peace process, which has been implemented haltingly as violence from dissident rebel groups and drug traffickers continues to trouble the South American nation.US officials quoted by Reuters and the Wall Street Journal said the move could happen as early as Tuesday afternoon, while the state department said that it had provided notifications to Congress on “upcoming actions” regarding the Farc.The US added the Farc to its terror list in 1997, when the rebel group was at the height of its power, commanding thousands of fighters and launching large-scale attacks on regional capitals and military bases. The group kidnapped thousands of politicians and ordinary Colombians, and planted landmines across the country.Colombia’s ex-guerrillas: isolated, abandoned and living in fearRead more“Taking the Farc off the list is long overdue, since the group that the state department listed doesn’t exist any more,” said Adam Isacson, the director for defense oversight at the Washington Office on Latin America (Wola), a thinktank. “13,600 guerrillas demobilized and became ex-guerrillas in 2017.”“More than four years later, more than 90% of them remain demobilized and transitioning to civilian life. To keep penalizing and shunning all contact with them is not only absurd, it’s counterproductive,” he said.The Farc took up arms against Colombia’s government in 1964, claiming to fight in defense of peasant farmers. They soon turned to drug trafficking and kidnapping for ransom to bolster their war chest, carrying out massacres and atrocities over decades of civil war that killed more than 260,000 and left more than 7 million displaced. Government forces, state-aligned paramilitary groups and other leftist rebels contributed to the bloodshed.A peace deal was signed in October 2016, formally ending the war and promising rural development, though the accord failed to pass a public referendum. Colombia’s then-president, Juan Manuel Santos, won a Nobel peace prize for his efforts despite the defeat, and subsequently ratified a revised peace deal via Congress the following month.But since the signing of the peace deal, the limitations on Farc members imposed by the terror listing have hindered the accord’s implementation, analysts say, as individually listed former combatants are unable to access the local banking system.“US sanctions have handicapped economic and political reintegration, penalizing ex-combatants who laid down their arms in good faith and continue to remain committed to the process despite enormous challenges,” said Elizabeth Dickinson, a Colombia analyst at the International Crisis Group (ICG). “We have heard testimonies of ex-combatants who have had to go from bank to bank in order to open accounts, a basic requisite to start cooperative agricultural projects.”The terror listing also hamstrung the US government’s ability to support and influence the peace deal, which was negotiated with the backing of then-president Barack Obama’s administration, Dickinson said.“US officials cannot meet with the former Farc, they cannot sit in the same room, USaid cannot provide financing to any projects whose beneficiaries include the Farc, or might include them,” Dickinson said. “Five years after the signing of the accord, these restrictions are illogical and counterproductive.”TopicsFarcColombiaAmericasUS politicsUS foreign policynewsReuse this content More

    • 113 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Biden to reinstate Trump-era ‘Remain in Mexico’ migrant policy

      by

      US immigrationBiden to reinstate Trump-era ‘Remain in Mexico’ migrant policyDoJ says reinstatement depends on approval from MexicoCourt overturned Biden’s initial decision to suspend policy Amanda Holpuch@holpuchFri 15 Oct 2021 14.57 EDTLast modified on Fri 15 Oct 2021 15.55 EDTThe Biden administration said on Friday it plans to reinstate the Trump-era border policy known as Remain in Mexico, which forced at least 70,000 asylum seekers to stay in Mexico, many for extended periods and in deprived and dangerous conditions, while they waited for their cases to be considered US courts.Senior state department official calls Biden’s deportation of Haitians illegalRead moreJoe Biden suspended the policy formally known as the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) in his first days in office, but a federal judge ordered his administration to put it back into place.In a court filing late on Friday, the US justice department said the program’s reinstatement depended on approval from the Mexican government, which is asking for the asylum cases to be settled in six months and for the US to ensure the people affected have timely and accurate information as well as better access to legal counsel. The program is expected to be back in effect in mid-November.Donald Trump introduced Remain in Mexico in January 2019. From the beginning, advocates criticized the program because it put highly vulnerable migrants, mostly from Central and South America, at serious risk of physical harm and illness as they waited in some of the most dangerous cities in the world. It also fails to address the forces pushing people north to the US-Mexico border and the huge backlogs in US immigration courts.Campaign group Human Rights Watch said in a January report about the policy that affected asylum seekers it interviewed, including children, “described rape or attempted rape and other sexual assault, abduction for ransom, extortion, armed robbery, and other crimes committed against them”.The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) immigrants’ rights policy director, Omar Jadwat, said via Twitter that the news was “appalling” and acknowledged the Biden administration was required by a court order to make a “good faith” effort to restart it.“They had a lot of options here, including re-terminating MPP promptly and seeking to vacate the order,” Jadwat said.To restart the program, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) plans to spend $14.1m to reopen temporary courtrooms located in tents in Laredo and Brownsville, Texas, which will cost $10.5m a month to operate, according to a court filing.In June, the DHS secretary, Alejandro Mayorkas, formally put an end to the policy and in a memo said: “MPP had mixed effectiveness in achieving several of its central goals and that the program experienced significant challenges.”TopicsUS immigrationMexicoAmericasTrump administrationUS politicsBiden administrationUS-Mexico bordernewsReuse this content More

    • 138 Shares189 Views

      in UK Politics

      I was abandoned by Tory peer’s son, claims socialite Jasmine Hartin

      by

      Canadian socialite Jasmin Hartin, who shot dead a policeman on a beach in Belize, has saidshe feels abandoned by her former partner, the son of Tory grandee Lord Ashcroft, and his family.Ms Hartin, who has been charged with manslaughter by authorities after accidentally shooting Henry Jemmott with his own gun, was granted bail during a court hearing last month.She was released on bail on Wednesday after a family friend, Wendy Auxillou, reportedly posted her bail.In an online clip teasing an extended interview with Hartin, which will air on local television, the socialite discusses her treatment.“Since the accusation of the manslaughter, from what I’ve been told from the family they have been told to distance themselves from me immediately, that they couldn’t have bad press associated with their reputation,” Ms Hartin said.She went on to say that no family members visited her in jail and that she wasn’t able to speak to her two children, although some friends visited her in jail.She said that her parents, who were “worried sick” were told by Mr Ashcroft that she was getting visitors every day, which she said was “a little bit exaggerated”.Despite enduring a “complicated” and sometimes “hostile” relationship with Mr Ashcroft, Ms Hartin said: “I can’t believe how I’ve been treated.”The Independent has reached out to Lord Ashcroft for comment. More

    • 175 Shares199 Views

      in UK Politics

      130 countries back global minimum corporate tax rate of 15 per cent, OECD says

      by

      Plans to force multinational companies to pay fairer tax by setting a global minimum have taken a step forward with the backing of 130 countries and jurisdictions, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development announced on Thursday. The US-backed deal sets a corporation tax rate of no less than 15 per cent in a bid to discourage companies from moving from one country to another to exploit lower rates. G7 leaders gave their approval at the summit in Cornwall last month. Collectively, countries that have agreed to the plan represent more than 90 per cent of the world’s GDP. “Today is an historic day for economic diplomacy,” treasury secretary Janet Yellen said in a statement.“For decades, the United States has participated in a self-defeating international tax competition, lowering our corporate tax rates only to watch other nations lower theirs in response. The result was a global race to the bottom: Who could lower their corporate rate further and faster?”She added that the agreement showed that “the race to the bottom is one step closer to coming to an end. In its place, America will enter a competition that we can win; one judged on the skill of our workers and the strength of our infrastructure”.“We have a chance now to build a global and domestic tax system that lets American workers and businesses compete and win in the world economy. President Biden has spoken about a ‘foreign policy for the middle class,’ and today’s agreement is what that looks like in practice,” she added.Ireland, Barbados, Hungary, and Estonia are among the OECD members who have not yet agreed to the deal.The OECD said the new plan “updates key elements of the century-old international tax system” that is no longer fit for purpose in today’s global and digital economy. The framework was decided over negotiations “for much of the last decade” and would ensure that global corporations “pay tax where they operate and earn profits”. The OECD said that this would add “much-needed certainty and stability to the international tax system”. The first “pillar” of the plan will “ensure a fairer distribution of profits and taxing rights among countries” concerning large international companies, including digital ones. This part of the plan is also meant to “reallocate some taxing rights” over multinational enterprises “from their home countries to the markets where they have business activities and earn profits, regardless of whether firms have a physical presence there”. The second pillar “seeks to put a floor on competition over corporate income tax, through the introduction of a global minimum corporate tax rate”. The OECD said countries can use the minimum rate to “protect their tax bases”. The organisation said the new framework would help countries “repair their budgets and their balance sheets” as they try to recover from the Covid-19 pandemic. Taxing rights on more than $100bn worth of profits will be reallocated to “market jurisdictions” every year. The minimum global corporate income tax rate of at least 15 per cent is estimated to generate around $150bn in additional global tax revenue each year. “After years of intense work and negotiations, this historic package will ensure that large multinational companies pay their fair share of tax everywhere,” OECD secretary general Mathias Cormann said. “This package does not eliminate tax competition, as it should not, but it does set multilaterally agreed limitations on it. It also accommodates the various interests across the negotiating table, including those of small economies and developing jurisdictions. It is in everyone’s interest that we reach a final agreement among all Inclusive Framework Members as scheduled later this year,” he added.The “deadline for finalising the remaining technical work on the two-pillar approach” is set for October of this year and the new system’s implementation is scheduled for 2023. Each country that has agreed to the new framework will have to implement their own policies in their home countries, which might become an issue in the US as some Republicans have indicated that they’re not happy with this new development. The ranking member on the House Ways and Means Committee, Texas Republican Rep Kevin Brady, said in a statement: “In negotiations with the OECD, the Biden Administration has already given up significant US ground.” He said the new framework would give a leg up to companies with headquarters outside of the US. “This is a dangerous economic surrender that sends US jobs overseas, undermines our economy, and strips away our US tax base,” he added. More