04/27/22 04/27/22 [captioning made possible by democracy now!] amy: from new york, this is democracy now! >> the world is watching as the destruction ukraine goes on unchecked. the united states has tried diplomacy. the world has tried sanctions. nothing seems to be working. but there is a simple, blinding, obvious solution, way to punh

putin, slow the more, and found the reconstruction of ukraine. amy: as russia's invasion of ukraine enters its third month and the u.s. and europe provide increasing military support, we will look at "how to end the war in ukraine: a solution beyond sanctions." with university of wisconsin professor alfred mccoy. in the u.s. supreme court considers a case on the trump-era remain in mexico policy that forced non-mexican -- forced tens of thousands of non-mexican asylum-seekers to wait in mexico while their cases played out in u.s. courts come often in extremely dangerous conditions. >> what are we supposed to do, drive truckloads of people in new mexico and leave them without negotiating with mexico? amy: the ruling could have an enormous impact on asylum-seekers who seek refuge in the united states. but first, today is a big day on

capitol hill as to rican elected officials from both the island and mainland u.s. gathered to support the puerto rico self-determination act. this comes after the supreme court just ruled the government can continue to deny benefits to seniors and people with disability's who lived in puerto rico. congressmember alexandria ocasio-cortez says the court's decision gives off "2022 imperialist neo-colony vibes." we will get the latest with democracy now!'s juan gonzalez. all that and more, coming up. welcome to democracy now!, democracynow.org, the war and peace report. i'm amy goodman. russia has cut off natural gas supplies to poland and bulgaria as tension over the war in ukraine continues to escalate. the russian company gazprom said it suspended gas delivery because both countries refused to begin paying in rubles. the president of the european commission accused russia of

using gas as a "instrument of blackmail." both poland and bulgaria rely heavily on russian gas. meanwhile, a series of explosions occurred inside russia this morning in three provinces bordering ukraine. at least one of the blasts occurred at an ammunition depot. this comes as germany has announced it will begin sending dozens of armored antiaircraft vehicles to ukraine in a marked shift of policy. on tuesday, u.s. defense secretary lloyd austin met with military leaders from 40 nations at the u.s. air base in ramstein, germany. austin vowed allied nations would do more to help arm ukraine. >> we don't have any time to waste. laid out clearly why the coming weeks will the so crucial for ukraine. so we have got to move at this need of war. i know all the leaders leave today more resolved than ever to support ukraine in its fight

against russian aggression and atrocities. amy: more details are emerging about how the united states is providing real-time intelligence, even specific coordinates, to ukraine to help them attack russian forces. nbc news is reporting ukraine shot down a russian transport plane carrying hundreds of troops in the early days of the war based on information proved by thunited state thu.s. intelligence has also helped ukraine move its air defenses to avoid russian strikes. in addition, nbc is reporting the cia is "devoting significant resources" by gathering intelligence to help protect ukrainian president volomyr zelenskyy. on tuesday, russian foreign minister sergei lavrov said the west's arming of ukraine is jeopardizing negotiations to end the fighting. he accused nato of waging a proxy war in ukraine saying it could lead to world war iii. >> of course these weapons will

be a legitimate target for russia's military compacting within the context of the special operation. in the storage facilities, including those in western ukraine, have been targeted more than once i russian forces. -- i russian forces. how could it be otherwise? war means war. amy: russian foreign minister sergei lavrov also warned about the risk of a nuclear war. >> really, the risks are considerable. i would not want to elevate those risks officially. e danger is serious, real. we must not unrestimate it. amy: the u.s. denounced lavrov's comments about nuclear as the height of irresponsibility. on tuesday, u.n. secretary general antonio guterres met with lavrov and russian president vladimir putin in moscow.

during their meeting, putin agreed in principle to allow the u.n. and the international committee of the red cross to help evacuate civilians from a besieged steel plant in mariupol. guterres is meeting with zelenskyy in kyiv thursday. we will speak to professor alfred mccoy about the war in ukraine come his latest piece is "how to end the war in ukraine: a solution beyond sanctions." the head of the international atomic energy agency visited the chernobyl nuclear power station in ukraine on monday on the 36th anniversary of the plant's meltdown. rafael grossi vowed help for ukraine to repair damage caused when russian forces seized the facility in february. he praised workers at the plant for helping to prevent what could have been another nuclear disaster. >> what we had was a nuclear safety situation that was not normal, that could have

developed into an accident. i think the first credit must go to the operators, to these people here because they carried on their work in spite of all the difficulties, in spite of the stress, in spite of the fact they could not be working normally. they continued working as if nothing had happened so they kept the situation stable, so to speak. and russia and the united states have participated in a prisoner swap. russia has released marine veteran trevor reed in exchange for russian pilot who was jailed in connecticut on drug charges. reed had been jailed and russia since 2019. russia has continuing to hold w nba player britney greiner was arrested in february after authorities say they found vaped cartridges containing cannabis oil in her luggage at the airport near moscow. vice president kamala harris has tested positive for covid. according to her office, she is

not showing any symptoms. due to her recent travel schedule, she has not been in recent close contact with president biden. this comes as new research from the cdc suggests that more than 60% of adults and 75% of children in the united states have been infected with by -- with covid at some point during the pandemic. that's a far higher total than the official number of confirmed cases. meanwhile, the world health organization is warning that cuts to covid testing is making it harder for public health officials to track the pandemic. who chief tedros adhanom ghebreyesus spoke tuesday in geneva. >> as many countries reduce testing, who is receiving less and less information about transmission and sequencing. this makes us increasingly blind to patterns of transmission and evolution. but this virus won't go away just because country stop looking for it. it is still spreading.

it is still changing. and it is still killing. amy: "the new york times" has published new audio of house republican leader kevin mccarthy privately signed members of his own party were putting people in jeopardy by using dangerous rhetoric following the deadly january 6 insurrection. this recording is from january 10, 2021. >> use: people's names out saying anti-trump and in this type of atmosphere, some of the other places, this is serious stuff and has to stop. >> a lot of members have said concerning things. potentially illegal what he is doing. >> he is putting people in jeopardy. he doesn't need to be doing this. we saw what people will do in the capitol. amy: that was kevin mccarthy as

well as republican congressmember steve scalise on a call with other republican lawmakers january 10, 2021. mccarthy would later defend the same lawmakers he privately criticized. tensions continue to escalate over the solomon islands after the pacific island nation signed a security deal with china. on tuesday, a high-ranking u.s. diplomat refused to rule out the u.s. taking military action against the solomon islands if china established a military presen on the islands. during a news briefing, the state department official, daniel kritenbrink, said the u.s. respects the solomon islands sovereignty but warned against china's presence in the region, saying the united states would "very naturally respond to those concerns." by some counts, the u.s. operates over 800 military bases around the world. china opened its first overseas base just four years ago in the african nation of djibouti. in burma, aung san suu kyi has

been sentenced to another five years in prison after a closed military court found her guilty on corruption charges. suu kyi was overthrown alongside burma's civilian leadership in a deadly military coup in february 2021. at least one migrant is dead and 24 others are missing after their boat capsized about 135 miles from spain's canary islands. the spanish coast guard has rescued people so far. 36 this comes just days after at least 20 migrants died after a group of boats sank off the coast of tunisia. israel has carried out deadly air strikes in syria targeting several locations near damascus. the syrian observatory for human rights is reporting nine people have died, including five syrian soldiers. israeli forces have killed an 18-year-old palestinian after israel conducted an armed raid near jenin in the occupied west bank. three other palestinians, including a 16-year-old, were

shot. on tuesday, hundreds of palestinians gathered in jericho for the funeral of a 20-year-old palestinian man who was shot in the head by israeli troops during raid on a refugee camp. in news from colombia, the nation's human rights ombudsman has revealed at least 52 colombian human rights activists and local leaders were killed in the first three months of the year, marking a significant increase over last year. the victims included 28 land defenders and nine indigenous activists. meanwhile, 10 retired members of colombia's military have publicly admitted to assassinating more than 100 civilians about 15 years ago and then covering up their deaths by falsely portraying their victims to be militants killed in combat, so called false positives. the soldiers admitted to their role in the deaths and disappearances during a tribunal organized by colombia's transitional justice tribunal, the special jurisdiction for peace. this is nestor gutierrez, a former colombian army official.

>> we made theater to show supposed comments because the pressure from the high command. i executed, i killed relatives of the people who are here, taking them with lives and deceit shooting and murdering them cowardly, planting guns, saying they died in combat. amy: tuesday's testimony came just days after colombia's special jurisdiction for peace revealed that nearly 6000 people were killed or disappeared by paramilitaries over a two-decade period as part of a military-backed campaign against the left-wing patriotic union party. president biden's privately told members of the congressional hispanic caucus he is considering taking executive action to cancel an unspecified amount of federal student debt in the coming months. on tuesday, white house press secretary jen psaki confirmed biden is considering taking executive action. >> we have talked about how we

are looking at and he is looking at other options he has to bring relief to people who have student loans. so that is what he conveyed during the meeting yesterday. amy: president biden has pardoned three people and commutated the sentence of 75 nonviolent drug offenders. one of the pardons went to 86-year-old abraham bolden, sr., who was the first black secret service agent to serve on a presidential detail. bolden was jailed on federal bribery charges in the 1960's, but he has long claimed he was framed after speaking out against racism within the secret service. and harvard university has pledged to spend $100 million fund to redress the school's deep ties to slavery. on tuesday, the school issued a 130-page report that revealed at least 41 prominent people connected to the school owned enslaved people. this includes four former presidents of harvard. the report states -- "enslaved men and women served harvard presidents and professors and fed and cared for harvard students. moreover, throughout this period and well into the 19th century, the university and its donors benefid from extensive

financial ties to slavery." and those are some of the headlines. this is democracy now!, democracynow.org, the war and peace report. i'm amy goodman in new york, joined by democracy now! co-host juan gonzález in new brunswick, new jersey. hi, juan. juan: hi, amy. welcome to all of our listeners and viewers from around the country and around the world. amy: juan, we begin our show with news you have been closely following. today is a big day on capitol hill for the puerto rico self-determination act, with puerto rican elected officials from both the island and the united states gathering in washington, d.c., to press for its passage. the bill is co-sponsored by democratic new york congressmembers nydia velasquez, the first puerto rican woman to serve in the u.s. house, and alexandria ocasio-cortez, whose mother was born in puerto rico. this comes after the supreme court ruled thursday the federal government can continue to deny

benefits to seniors and people with disabilities who live in puerto rico. in an 8-1 ruling, the justices sided with the biden administration, which says puerto ricans are not entitled to claim full supplemental security income benefits, or ssi, unless they move to the mainland. aoc tweeted in response to the ruling -- "2022 imperialist neo-colony vibes: when my cousins can be drafted into war by a government they don't even have a right to vote for and denies them benefits, yet that same government can exploit their land into a tax haven for crypto billionaires and tax evaders. puerto rico is not for sale." the lone dissenter in the court's 8-1 ruling was justice sonia sotomayor, whose parents were born in puerto rico. in her dissenting opinion, she wrote -- "there is no rational basis for congress to treat needy citizens living anywhere in the united states so differently from

others." juan gonzalez, this is a story you have been extensively followed. what is under -- what is important to understand here in the supreme court decision? juan: once again, judge sotomayor, people forget she did her research in college both at princetony and atale and this is the topic she has studied for many years, once again she finds herself as a dissenting voice at the supreme court. to me, the far more significant development in this case, and one that most of the media coverage in the last few days has overlooked, was there was a separate concurring opinion issued by one of the court's most conservative justices, neil gorsuch. his 10 page opinion, and i urge people to read it, is one of the clearest and most eloquent

statements exposing u.s. colonialism that has ever been issued by a supreme court justice -- at least in my lifetime. it could be the signal of beginning of a long overdue change in the court on this issue. but to understand the importance of what gorsuch says in his opinion, we need to understand the bigger picture. we now have had four supreme court decisions in less than six years, all of them having to do with puerto rico's relationship to the united states. back in 2016, we had the sanchez case which was an issue of whether puerto rico had separate sovereignt to be able to try people. the court said no. then we had a few weeks later the franklin case on whether puerto rico could declare its own bankruptcy because it had no bankruptcyrotection under u.s. law. the court said no. in 2020, the case which was a

challenge to the legitimacy of the appointments of the oversight board that congre had established over puerto rico. puerto rico was arguing -- the litigants were arguing this was a federally imposed combat legal appointments board. the united states was arguing, no, this was puerto rico officers appointed by the united states. the court sided against puerto rico. now we have the case where a man who had been receivingssi benefits for years under this country and paying taxes in thi country, moves to puerto rico and then years later the government finds out he was still collecting ssi and says he is not eligible for those benefits and he had to pay back 28,000 dollars. that was the basis of the latest case. all of these cases take for granted the power of congress to do whatever it wants when it comes to puerto rico and

governed by the territorial clause of the constitution as the court interpred more than 0 years ago in a series of cases known as the iular cases. this is the heart of the questi here. there were cases like door versus united states, gonzalez versus williams. all in the early decades of the 20th century. let's be clear. the insular cases happen for a century the legal underpinnings of an american colonialism. they provide legal justification for the united states to hold other nationalities and territory under its control. gorsuch, one of the most conservative justices, what does he say about thi? he calls to overthrow the insular cases. let me quote you some of what he said. he starts out in his opinion saying, "a century ago in the insular ces, this court held

federal government could roll puerto rico and other territories largely without regard to the constitution. it is passed time tocknowledge the gravity of this error and admit what we know to be te, the insular cases have no foundation in the constitution d rest insad on racial stereotypes. they deserve no place in our law." justices don't talk this clearly very often. he goes on to say, "in the downs case, the two main justices, brown and white, their opinions about about rested on a view about the nation's right to acquire and explode "unknown island, people with uncivilized race for commercial strategic reasons, a right that could not be practically exercise if the result would be to -- constitutional protection on this absolutely unfit to receive them."

it was justice white who developed this idea of incorporated a unincporated territory. some territories were never meant to be part of the united states, and this included puerto rico and the philippines and some of the other islands that were acquired back in the spanish-american war. gorsuch goes on to say, "there is fundamental as they are shameful. nothing in the constitution speaks of incorporated and unincorporated territory. nothing in it extends to the latter, only supposedly constitutional guarantees." goes on to say the insular cases are product of a period of ugly racial stereotypes and that the is of social darwinists but have no home in our constitution or its original understanding. gorsuch as an originalist looks at the constitution is as all of this jtification for colonialism did not exist in the

original constitution, it was made up afterwards and needs to be overthrown. he goes on to say, "under this court's cases, we esther blew the right to, jury, inc. puerto rico the same time constitutional rights apparently applies on the prime ira a company inhabited petrolin in the pacific ocean, because it represents our nation's only remaining corporative territory. it is impossible in a bruising state of affairs." he says the only reason he quoted in the majority -- voted in the majority in this case is known ask him to overthrow the insular cases. not even the litigants on the others. end hes his opinion saying, "the time is come to recognize the insular cases rest on what foundation and i hope the day comes soon when the court

squarely overrules them. we shall follow justice harlan ansettle this question right from our fellow americans of puerto rico deserve no less." justice sotomayor and her opinion, her dissent, also backs gorsuch. we now have to justices were clearly said the insular cases, the foundation of american colonialism need to be overthrown. i think that is a major, major step in the court and hopefully, some of the other originalists --one of the problems with puerto rico, many of the liberal justices, breyer, ginsburg, kagan, have been terrible on this issue. they have not really dared to challenge the insular cases. so it may news assess a tape -- necessitate originals conservative justices and more progressive justices to begin to finally end the legal basis for

american colonialism. i think this is a step forward in justice gorsuch's opinion needs to be studied more carefully. amy: how does that relate to what is happening today on capitol hill? the lobbying -- juan: big issue is there are more and more elected officials and porter can communities both on the island and the united states that are calling for the passage of this self-determination act. there will be a rally at 5:00 p.m. this evening in lafayette square. intense lobbying going on to try to get the bill introduced by nydia velasquez to pass the house and the senate because bob menendez in the senate is also cosponsoring it. to basically allow prto rico to convene a constitutional convention to decide its relationship, what it should -- what should be its relationship to prto rico

that would be a step forward, getting congress to say, ok, we're not going to continue to dictate our relationship with puerto rico is. understand, the imposition of the control board in 2016 ended any claim the world for the last 60 years, 70 years that puerto rico had self-government. puerto rico is now ruled by u.s. appointed control board effectively. so it is back to the classic colonial stage, so the issue of how is that going to end? what is going to happen when the control board is lifted? what will be the relationship to puerto rico in the united states , so these to be resolved. this act is definitely a step in the right direction. amy: thank you for drawing attention to all of these developments. one gonzalez, award-winning journalist and investigative

reporter and journalism professor at rutgers university. when we come back, we will continue to look at the supreme court. it is hearing to stay the case that could have enormous impact on asylum-seekers seeking refuge in the united states. stay with us. ♪♪ [music break]

amy: "i miss you" by sherlee skai and her band. they performed at a rally outside of the u.s. supreme court tuesday morning before justices heard oral argument about a case involving the trump-era remain in mexico policy. skai said it is "about the things we have to leave when we have to leave home." this is democracy now! i'm amy goodman with juan gonzalez. we look now at another u.s. supreme court case, one that could have an enormous impact in -- on asylum-seekers who come to the united states in search of refuge. on tuesday, supreme court justices heard oral arguments in a biden administration appeal to a lower court ruling that reinstated the contested,

trump-era remain in mexico policy, formally known as the so-called migrant protection protocols. or mpp. between january 2019 to january 2021, some 70,000 non-mexican asylum seekers were forced to wait in mexico, often in extremely dangerous conditions, while their cases were resolved in u.s. courts -- a process that can take months or even years. president biden suspended the policy shortly after taking office, but a federal court in texas last year ordered the administration to restart the program after legal challenges from texas and missouri. during tuesday's supreme court , texas solicitor general judd stone tried to argue that the biden administration must re-implement remain in mexico, saying the u.s. government is required to jail every asylum seeker at the southern border or return them to mexico since it does not have the capacity to detain everyone. >> mpp, as implemented, reduce the number of violations, did

not fully satisfied the executive mandate but so far as it went, complied to return rather than to attain the aliens and rolled in mpp. amy: when questioned, stone admitted that even former president trump failed to fully detain everyone at the u.s.-mexico border, even with remain in mexico in place. meanwhile, the biden administration's lawyer, solicitor general elizabeth prelogar, argued remain in mexico was halted because its humanitarian and foreign policy costs outweighed any public benefit of sending tens of thousands of people to mexico to await their asylum hearings. justice brett kavanaugh question her on what the administration meant by public benefit. >> there is no real explanation of how the public has benefited by more people coming into the united states who are not lawfully admitted into the united states rather than trying for some of those people to remain in mexico. amy: during the oral arguments, texas solicitor general judd

stone claimed the remain in mexico policy would not require the u.s. to negotiate with mexico to accept asylum seekers. justice elena kagan interrupted him. >> what you mean you mean to does not require negotiation with a foreign power? what are we supposed to do, drive truckloads of people in new mexico and leave them without negotiating with mexico? amy: the united states does need the mexican government's consent to send asylum seekers there. ahead of the hearing yesterday morning, dozens of immigrant justice activists, lawyers and supporters held a rally outside the u.s. supreme court. several survivors of the remain in mexico program shared their experiences. this is ray rodríguez. >> i was forced to remain a year , 10 months to be exact. it was not easy. matamoros is a dangerous region. during my time there, i witnessed a lot of suffering. people were kidnapped and suffered from violence from cartels.

your vulnerable to extortion and blackmail not only fm the cartels, but also from the police. seeking asylum as a human right. no human should be forced to remain in danger in mexico while waing for the asylum claims. mpp must end now. amy: well, for more, we're joined in washington, d.c., by aaron reichlin-melnick, senior policy counsel at the american immigration council. at yesterday's rally outside the supreme court and tweeting the supreme court oral arguments yesterday. can you lay out what is at the center of the supreme court hearing and when can we expect a ruling? >> yesterday supreme court hearing was largely about whether or not the biden administration has the authority to end the remain in mexico program at all. this is very different than in the daca case two years ago where the trumpet administration unsuccessfully tried to end the program. everyone agreed the trumpet

administration could end the program if it went through the right protocols for doing so, but here texas has gone further. they got a court order say not only did the biden administration go about it in the wrong way in ending the program, they cannot end it and legally would have to keep in place permanently for the rest of u.s. history until congress either gives enough funding to the agency to do something it has never been able to do -- which is detain every person crossing the border -- more if congress got rid of the entire statutory authority for the program in the first place. this is a pretty outrageous idea that a new president coming into offi is not allowed to dismantle his predecessors program that he disagrees with. that is largely what was at stake yesterday. importantly, the case that was heard yesterday was not about whether main in mexico was legal or even whether or not the program was a good idea. it is solely about whether or

not and new president has the authority to ever end his predecessor's program. if the supreme court says yes, what that means is the case is likely going to go back to a lower court for months more legal wrangling. we can expect a decision in jude because this case is being argued late in the term and will probably be one of the last cases we get out of the supreme or before they go on recess this summer. juan: i know it is hard to tell from justices questioning their standing, but what was your sense of how the justices were aligning on this case? >> we found -- i think justices were torn. for the questioning priscilla's are general prelogar, there was a lot to determine about what it means for the government to admit it cannot do it congress asked it to do. since 1903, congress has told the government their required to detain certain individuals.

but for that last entry, there has not been enough money that congress has given for that to be possible, so the government has for over a century released some individuals because there isn't enough to tension capacity. several of the conservative justices seemed very concerned, suggesting they were worried about what it would mean to endorse a program that deadly to potentially fewer people bei locked in detention centers. on the other hand, conservative justices are also very concerned about what it would mean to basically say to every single presidential administration since 1996 has been violating a law without anybody noticing come as texas was essentially arguing. even justice thomas, one othe most conrvative members, suggested texas partially idea it was illegal to end the mpp ogram w ridiculous. justice roberts question texas

saying, how does it make any sense what you're asking us to do is having a single judge in texas simply order the government to stop violating the law only slightly less rather than ordering them to not violate the law at all? which suggested he does not think texas is rig, that ending mpp is illegal. amy: i want to go to the testimony from gloria, an lgbtq+ asylum seeker from honduras placed in the remain in mexico program. they have been forced to wait in the border city of matamoros for 2.5 years. >> i slept by the river under some tents. i saw marco's, murders, people of that sort. they would go and find women to rape them, children. i saw people dying. when you don't pay a so-called

rent, what happens is they pour acid on you. so if i'm escaping a country where i will be killed and and they send me to another country where i will also be killed for any reasons, they are not helping us. amy: we felt it was critical to play this because so often in these cases, stripped of the humidity, to hear the voices of the people who were affected by the policy. as we wrap up, can you describe how mpp works? yeah people waiting in mexico an facing violence, etc., and then when there is u.s. court hearing, they must come over the border again? >> that is right. under the first version of mpp, there were some people who are forced to wait years just to get a court hearing. we know when people are in northern mexico, they are at extreme risk of violence. there are some people who literally had to run a gauntlet of knappers just to get to the

order for a court hearing. we know there are many people, potentially hundreds, who ordered ordered for missing a court hearing because they were in the hands of kidnappers and being ransomed at the time of the court hearing. importantly, the supreme court did not get into the humanity of this program and it was discouraging to hear multiple justices suggesting they thought the program was good because it was reducing the number of people allowed to seek asylum inside the united states. but we know remain a mexico program was a sham. less than 1% of people put into the program who were forced to have their cases heard at the border ever won their case, compared to 15% to 20% of people inside the united states. only 7% of people only managed to get a lawyer because it is basically impossible to get a lawyer when you're stuck in a refugee camp in northern mexico, constantly being harassed by the

cartels, and worried if you turn around the wrong corner at night or even during the day that somebody's going to pick you up, kidnap you, and extort you for ransom -- you and your family for ransom. even the biden administration's renewed remain a mexico program. while it does have slightly better exemptions for certain vulnerable individuals, still puts people in the basic problem they are in northern mexico, away from the lawyers, away from legal assistance command away from any real ability to have their case heard while they e safe most of no person should be forced to go through the most important interview and experience of their life while they're constantly looking over their shoulder and wearing they're going to be picked up at cartel, tortured, and killed. amy: aaron reichlin-melnick, we will continue to cover this. as you said, the decision is expected in june. senior policy counsel at the american immigration council. next up, how to --"how to end

the war in ukraine: a solution beyond sanctions." stay with us. ♪♪ [music break]

amy: "hyperballad" by bjork. this is democracy now!, democracynow.org, the war and peace report. i'm amy goodman with juan gonzalez. as russia's invasion of ukraine enters its third month, we look at how it could end. in a sign of escalating tension, the russian company gazprom has cut off natural gas supplies to poland and bulgaria, saying both countries refused to begin paying in rubles. the president of the european commission accused russia of using gas as a "instrument of blackmail." this comes as germany announced tuesday it will begin exporting dozens of armored antiaircraft vehicles to ukraine in a marked shift and u.s. defense secretary lloyd austin vowed allied nations will also do more to help arm ukraine. meanwhile, u.n. secretary general antonio guterres met tuesday with russian foreign minister sergei lavrov and russian president vladimir putin in moscow, who agreed in

principle to allow the u.n. and the international committee of the red cross to help evacte civilians from a besieged steel plant in mariupol. guterres is eting with ukrainian president zelenskyy in kyiv today. for more, we're joined by alfred mccoy, history professor at the university of wisconsin-madison and author of numerous books, including "to govern the globe: world orders and catastrophic change." his new piece for tomdispatch is headlined "how to end the war in ukraine: a solution beyond sanctions." welcome back to democracy now! why don't you start off by laying out your solution? >> it is very simple. as soon as the russian invasion february, international court of justice, which is the u.n.'s highest body, and the you in court of human rits, gave orders -- damage to ukraine.

do your "of human rights was very expressive statements about stopping the damage to civilian infrastructure. -- the european court of human rights was very expressive statements about stopping the damage to civilian infrastructure. there specific provisions for the protection of property as one of the prime games othe european convention on human rights. there are clear court orders and russia simply ignored them, defied them and that is the underlying problem come the whole rubric, the whole attempt at ending cflict international law enforcement. there has been no way of enforcing judgments on superpowers like russia. there is i think a very simple solution, obvious and simple. russia has pipelines, nasa

pipelines, billions of dollars running through ukraine and underneath the ocean, nord stream one that provides about 40% of the natural gas for europe. this generates about $800 million a day of revenues for the russian state gasonopoly gazprom. with the european court of human rights could do is assess damages, say, ok, you have defied our order. we told you to immiately desist from damaging ukraine's inastructure. just like a court in the united states can garnish wages for a deadbeat dad, the european court of human rights with regard to vladimir putin, the ultimate deadbeat dad, simply order that all european nations importing gas from russia, when thepay

the regular payments to gazprom, deduct say 20% to start from those payments and put them into a reparations fund for the reconstruction of ukraine. in the first month of the war, it is estimated there was $68 million of direct damage to ukraine's civil infrastructure and a total of about $600 billion a day and it is rising very fast. in about a decade or so with these deductions, this garnishment, if you will, these payments to gazprom, could fund the reconstruction of ukraine. now, the question is, what will russia do if they are ordered to deduct 20% of the receipts from gas? my feeling is vladimir putin would probably froth and threatened to cut off the gas.

[indiscernible] in funding the war in ukraine, that putin would ultimately be forced to go along. we saw that recently. what you mentioned about russia cutting off gas to poland and bulgaria because they're not paying in rubles. russia tried the same thing with germany. they threatened to cut off germany's gas delivery if germany did not pay in rubles. germany said no and putin called chancellor of germany and capitulated. in other words, when it comes to major shipments of russian gas to europe, russia would ultimately have to pay out because faced with the loss of all revenues versus the laws of 20% of revenues, they would not have much choice.

moreover, this could be done in a way of scale payments. if you begin negotiations -- cease-fire negotiations, that it is 20%. if it is another week, if you delad by a week, it goes up to 25%. add 5% a week. think this would have immediate impact. if you think about it, it is potentially -- first it punishes putin for a foreign policy that essentially -- russia's foreign policy can be summarized as simply flattened and destroy one city after another, aleppo, then mariupol, and a nuer of cities being destroyed almost by the day. punish putin for his foreign-policy of flattening cities without any concern.

second, it would fund their substantial cost of ukraine's reconstruction, which by the time this is overcome is going to be at least $1 trillion. that by anybody's accounting, whether it is the united states with the bill back better act or india, this is in -- enormous. the damage to europe's economy that would come back from an immediate suspension an embargo on gas shipments in order to cut off the gas complely, was sent europe's economy into recession and germany's economy into recession. finally, it would avoid the environmental damage that might occur should germany be forced to fire up its coal-fired electricity plants.

in effect, it is a four-way win. in effect, it is a blindingly simple solution. beyond this conflict -- juan: professor, i would like to ask you, though, theoretically, this sounds great. but it assumes a ceasing of hostilities between the two parties and also assumes united states would want to get involved with the international court of justice. what is the potential blowback to the united states of recognizing the international court justice's authority to make these kinds of decisions in terms of wars the u.s. has been involved with in the past? >> the advantage of this is, one, it is the united states, are very poor mad test problematic role with the

international court of justice. the original case that appeared before the court of human rights was ukraine v russia. in organization such as the city, mariupol, kharkiv, levine --lviv or the ukrainian government, they can file -- they can go to the european court of human rights and make a motion for the imposition and for damages because of russia's to find that the courts order to mediate leasees damage to the -- immediate cease to damage. the european court of human rights and that as the council administers of the council of europe, which is a kind of volunteer organization, something -- nonetheless, the

council ministers basically, the foreign ministers and some of the prime ministers of europe who meet in his collective body, and can't work for them or suggest a and force this upon russia. if europe acted collectively, and europe gets about 40% of its natural gas from russia, that would have such powerful strength and such a powerful potential canonic impact on russia that russia would not have much choice but to comply. in fact, circumvents the real problem you have identified, which is problematic relationship the united states has with the internationalourt of justice. juan: but what if europe stops by russian oil completely? will that affect the russian economies -- given their semi-large countries in the

global south that continue to trade with russia, whether it is china or india or south africa or others, won't this really just redirect where energy flows go in the future? >> you are right about the oil. europe is already discussing cutting off imports of russian oil. oil is wonderful. it is maneuverable. right now much of the oilrom russia comes to europe via oil pipelines. that oil is loaded on tankers and shipped anywhere in the world. the beauty of taking 20% of the natural gas payments is that russia has invested countless millions of dollars in laying down absolutely massive gas pipelines, many of which run through ukraine, right under the baltic sea, and you cannot move

them. these natural gas deliveries not made on oceangoing freighters. they come to the gas pipelines in this pipelines cannot be picked up and moved. russia has laid down this massive multibillion, multitrillion dollar infrastructure between russia and europe to provide 40% of europe's natural gas supplies. russia is stuck. initially everyone thought europe was stuck. putin was calculating that europe is dependent upon me for the natural gas supplies, therefore, they cannot do with their doin shipping arms and opposing sanctions on russia -- imposing sanctions on russia. the balance of per could potentially be reversed for this kind of sanctions come this kind of imposition of reparations so europe can take advantage of that massive gas pipeline

infrastructure to punish putin for its invasion of ukraine and simultaneously fund the reconstruction of ukraine. amy: i want to bring in what vladimir putin said just a few weeks ago, that russian energy exports should be rerouted to africa and latin america. this is what he said. >> we need to speed up the execution of infrastructure projects such as railways, pipelines, ports, and so on that would allow within the next few years to redirect deliveries of oil and gas from the west of the promising markets in the south and east. it is also important the prospects, together with oil and gas companies, outline the plans for expanding export infrastructure to the countries of africa, latin america, and asia pacific. amy: that is vladimir putin. professor mccoy, if you can talk, what role china template specifically -- template specifically and what you think the west is doing wrong and right?

>> what the united states did wrong at the outset, the biden administration's initial response as it became clear last year that russia was moving toward any invasion of ukraine -- began november as we know there were intelligence reports that russia was amassing troops on the ukrainian border. there were expectations of an invasion. the initial u.s. response was a diplomatic one, to drive a wedge between china and russia, feeling that that would isolate putin diplomatically and make it very difficult for him to invade. united states made i think a serious man, galatian -- miscalculation between xi jinping, the president of china come and putin of russia. at the start of the winter olympics, putin went to beijing.

there was a declaration of a de facto alliance saying there were no limits no secrets, that this was a complete commitment, complete diplomatic commitment. that failed at the outset. in december, washiton had at least half a dozen contacts with china trying to break the alliance, trying to get china to put pressure on russia. throughout the invasion, a matter, damage has been done and ukrainian -- china has remained quite about the war and is been generally supportive of russia so that did not work. the next thing the international community, led by washington tried, was massive sanctions against russia. the biden administration announced a program to collapse

the russian economy by 15% to cut it off from the global supply chain and plunge it into a serious recession. that may yet happen, but it is going to take a long time for the economy as large as russia's to sell -- as self-contained as russia's, g be impacted by the sanctions. over the immediate term, that is working. you played putin's statement about seeking new markets for russia's energy exports -- rail lines, they talked about shipping gas. europe is also talking about cutting off oil shipments. as i said, oil is maneuverable. russ can simply stop shipping oil i pipelines and ship it, but that is not true with gas. russia does not have --

amy: we have less than a minute. >> russia's does not have lpg. it takes about four years to build a terminal to convert gas into liquid for shipment on oceangoing freighters. that would take a minimum of four years and takes many billion dollars for each terminal. the vine of gas russia is exporting to europe is so massive, it has nowhere else to go. basically, putin is bluffing, ok? i think he is trying to block the threat of an embargo or something like i am proposing , this very simple solution of finding russia 20% of all its natural gas exports to europe in order to fund the reconstruction of ukraine, punish putin, and hopefully bring a quicker end to this war. amy: thank you for your analysis, alfred mccoy, professor of history at the university of wisconsin-madison and most recent book "to govern the globe: world orders and

catastrophic change." we will link to your article in tomdispatch "how to end the war in ukraine: a solution beyond sanctions." democracy now! has an immediate opening for a news writer producer. visit democracynow.org/jobs to find out more. [captioning made possible by democracy now!] ÷÷ñ■ñ■ñ■ñ■ñ■ñ■ñ■ñ■ñ■ñ■ñ■ñ■ñ■ñ■ñ■

(sophie fouron) i'm holding on because it's pretty rocky today. the sea's rough. we're getting there. we're almost there. ten islands, ten different identities. every time you take a boat in cape verde, you never know what to expect. there are so many mountains, so many sugarcane fields. it's very beautiful. here, music, i think it's more important than eating. it's part of who they are. they express themselves through music.