This week’s News on China in 2 minutes.
• 4 new U.S. military bases in the Philippines
• Chinese weather balloon over the U.S.
• “Peace Ark”, the Navy’s hospital ship
• Chinese scientists cloned three “super cows”
This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.
This shocking, methodical documentary uses first-hand testimonies to expose a toxic culture where abusers prey on the vulnerable – while hiding behind a cloak of saintliness
Not the United Nations as well. We live resigned to the knowledge that our political parties, law enforcers, independent standards agencies and sport governing bodies are functionally corrupt and deeply chauvinistic. Now Whistleblowers: Inside the UN (BBC Two) is here to tell us that the nearest thing we have to an expression of global conscience is a source of shame as much as hope.
Anyone who has studied the mechanics of the UN security council knows the United Nations is an instrument of iniquitous power, not a check upon it, but Whistleblowers suggests the parts you could still naively have thought of as pure – the collective effort to fight disease, hunger and climate change – ripple with the familiar stench of powerful people who are concerned, it seems, only with how to preserve and abuse their positions. The documentary combines disparate accounts from former senior UN staff, to accumulate a breadth and depth of evidence that becomes crushing.
We start with Emma Reilly, claiming a boss overruled her when she refused to let China see the names of Uyghur activists who were to attend a human rights council meeting. She feared they would be targeted by state repression. One of those activists says his family was targeted.
OK, perhaps that’s just one blase manager, and in any case the programme-makers have been sent a UN statement contesting Reilly’s claim. But then we hear from James Wasserstrom, who says he found evidence that the tendering process for the construction of a power station in Kosovo was compromised by kickbacks, and John O’Brien, who raised concerns that an environmental programme in Russia had succumbed to local money-laundering scams.
Reilly, Wasserstrom and O’Brien all separately allege that once they spoke out, the UN went after them. O’Brien was suddenly accused of solicitation and viewing nude photographs on his phone at work (O’Brien sees the allegations as vexatious). Wasserstrom was promised whistleblower protection, then had his identity leaked to the very people he had accused. Reilly has footage of Swiss police entering her flat and refusing to leave: she says the UN had sent them, and had told them Reilly was a suicide risk. “Effectively,” she recalls, “the UN tried to have me sectioned.” By the time she’d convinced them it was a false alarm, she had missed an online meeting at which she had planned to raise the disclosure of activists’ identities – it so happened that the cops arrived just as the meeting was beginning.
Still, although the trio’s tears seem real, perhaps all three are lying and the UN’s flat denials are the truth. But we are not even halfway into a 90-minute programme that never feels short of material. Next, the journalist Jeremy Dupin relates how he came to suspect that leaking latrines at a UN base in Haiti caused a catastrophic cholera outbreak that began in 2010 and ended up costing more than 10,000 lives. Attempts to hold anyone accountable were stonewalled.
Somehow, after this allegation the programme manages to be shocking in a new way. Because, of course, we’re not talking here about powerful people. We are largely talking about powerful men and, in its latter stages, Whistleblowers switches its focus to an organisational culture of misogyny and rape. We hear how peacekeeping troops in Haiti and Central African Republic were implicated in numerous horrific sexual assaults against vulnerable locals, and we meet one of the victims – as well as the former assistant secretary-general Tony Banbury, who resigned in dismay at the UN’s indifferent response to a child in CAR being raped: “I needed the organisation to prioritise that girl. They prioritised the perpetrators.”
This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.
China has crossed some imaginary line by seeking to develop mutually advantageous relationships with Pacific Island nations. William Briggs reports.
This post was originally published on Green Left.
The US Senate approved £40bn in aid to Ukraine on Thursday 19th May. The Financial Times say this will be “military, economic and humanitarian assistance for Ukraine.” It is not clear how much of this money will end up in the hands of arms firms. Meanwhile in Somalia, where famine linked to the Ukraine war threatens, a new US troop deployment has been announced. Poorer countries in the Global South are once again suffering from an inequitable global system.
The Squad, the group of left-leaning Congresswomen, including Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, all voted in favour of the $40bn package. As did former presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, all while US citizens undergo their own daily struggles:
Bernie & The Squad voting for another $40 Billion to Ukraine is shameful. We should not be spending $100 million dollars a day on a proxy war when Americans continue being evicted, killed by lack of healthcare, and made to work 2-3 jobs.
— Jordan (@JordanChariton) May 19, 2022
Business Insider even provided a list of which American politicians stand to profit directly from the new package, given their interests in arms firms.
Somalia is currently threatened with famine. As The Canary reported recently the risk is heightened by the war in Ukraine. A lot of the grain bought up by NGOs and used for aid comes from Ukraine and the war has hit agriculture.
As $40bn has been allocated for arms to Ukraine, the US has opted for a militarised approach in Somalia too. 500 troops will be sent to train and advise local forces. Donald Trump cancelled a similar mission in 2020. Joe Biden has now approved a renewal, reportedly to help pin back Al-Shabaab, a group affiliated to Al Qaeda among others.
With a new US favourite, Hassan Sheikh Mohamud, just elected as president in Somalia, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has extended an aid package to the country. As ever with the IMF, this is on condition of reforms, not least in the private sector.
How (or if) the military deployment bears on recent oil exploration in Somalia is not yet clear. But the previous president declared a deal with a US oil firm null and void hours after it was agreed earlier in 2022. The Prime Minister agreed that because the deal was struck during an election period, it was illegal.
The firm itself, Coastline Exploration, was investigated for corruption. Although based in Texas, Coastline was chaired by a Tory peer and former party leader Michael Howard. Prior to the deal’s collapse, Coastline was known as Soma Oil and sought to exploit Somalia’s energy resources, which many consider one of the industry’s last great frontiers.
It remains to be seen if soaring oil prices accelerate new exploration deals for Somali oil. As it stands oil giants, like arms giants, have seen their profits spike massively as a result of the war in Ukraine.
Somalis live in the shadow of oil firms, arms corporations, and the West’s conflicts. Their new president has promised an era of peace. But this is a country where 70% live on less than two dollars a day. Hunger and insurgent violence are a daily reality. And lives can hinge on decisions made by great powers and indifferent corporations. The US deployment mission will come under the command of Africom, an organisation which pursues US interests on the continent. The motivations of the US remain to be seen, but it’s clear that the potential for destabilisation due to foreign interference is a real possibility for Somalia.
Featured image via Wikimedia Commons/Maxemed Qadil, cropped to 770 x 403, CC BY-SA 4.0
By Joe Glenton
This post was originally published on The Canary.
Energy, food, and fertiliser supplies are all under threat from the war in Ukraine. A new Chatham House report details how the conflict has, and will continue to, impact the global economy. It warns that rising prices in some sectors as a result of the war would have severe implications. The report comes as the pressure to transition to fairer and greener economies mounts.
The authors warn of supply disruption and soaring prices:
The conflict in Ukraine has led to immediate and significant logistical disruptions in the energy, food and fertilizer sectors, and to swift and robust responses from Western countries in the form of economic sanctions against Russia. Together, these have prompted rapid worldwide price rises for energy, food and fertilizer products.
Sanctions on Russia also contribute to the crisis, with many European countries deeply reliant on Russian fossil fuels. The authors say that even though sanctions are in place, the nature of the global economy means that they have not been applied to their fullest extent:
Governments have, however, held back on implementing the strongest possible measures – including a full embargo on energy imports – partly due to the challenge of diversifying away from Russian imports and partly in order to maintain leverage in the event of further escalation. In the meantime, Russian gas continues to flow.
They add that even if “Russian production were restricted”:
…the desire and the ability to ramp up production to relieve the tightness in the market would prevent further price rises.
Recent investigations by fact checkers seem to confirm that Ukraine remains a key food producer. It has the most arable land in Europe, and rates 3rd for fertile black soil globally. As The Canary has previously reported, the war could impact food security globally. Many major aid agencies source large amounts of grain in the country.
Various factors are at play. Key ports are blocked or hard to access, while train lines have been sabotaged to prevent the Russian advance.
The report warns that many agricultural activities will not be able to resume for some time. And that even if farmers “can reach their fields, they are short of fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, and fuel for farm machinery”:
Many of Ukraine’s most important growing regions – particularly for barley, maize, sunflower seed and wheat – are located in the east and northeast of the country, where the conflict has been most intense.
The authors estimate 20-30 percent of crops may not be planted or lay unharvested. The threat to food supplies has already hit some countries, with price hikes the result.
As the report explains:
Impacts of the conflict on transportation costs are already becoming evident in the US: as demand for wheat pivots from the Black Sea to the US, the costs of exporting grain from the Gulf of Mexico coast have risen to a near eight-year high.
The war in Ukraine has revealed that global capitalist economies are extremely fragile. Dependence on oil and gas is one key factor, especially at a time when we need to be transitioning to sustainable forms of energy. Supply chains for food, too, are being hit.
This has implications not just for wealthy nations like the US, but also for international aid to famine-hit regions of the global south. If we needed any more evidence that humanity needs to move towards a more sustainable and equitable world, we can find it in the economics of the Ukraine war.
Featured image via Wikimedia Commons/Rodion Kutsaev, cropped to 770 x 403, licenced under CCO 1.0.
By Joe Glenton
This post was originally published on The Canary.
China clings to its zero-COVID approach as cases skyrocket in Shanghai; the Chinese yuan climbs to a five-year high in foreign-currency reserves; China hosts a gathering of countries to discuss ways of aiding Afghanistan; countries call on the United States to return the $7 billion in Afghan assets it stole.
The post News on China | No. 94 first appeared on Dissident Voice.This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.
Global hunger could get even worse because of the war in Ukraine. The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) has published a report on the global impacts of the war. It says the war adds to the existing problem of global food poverty. However, this is more than avoidable given that enough food is already produced globally for everyone.
SIPRI said the problem of hunger due to the Russian invasion is very real. This has resulted in a Ukrainian government ban on food exports:
Amid fears of food shortages and in order to alleviate hunger, the Ukrainian Government has banned exports of locally produced food commodities, including wheat, barley and sunflower oil. As a result, Ukraine will probably become a net consumer of these.
The report said the war was likely to impact planting and agriculture. This would have knock on effects inside and outside the country, which is known as one of the breadbaskets of Europe due to its role in food production:
Further, should the planting season take place despite the conflict, it is likely that production will be destined to cover domestic needs first. The country could even shift to being a net recipient of food aid—meaning dependent on food aid to ensure food security—as the war wages on.
Reduced production and an export ban have global implications. SIPRI said that the World Food Programme (WFP) bought half of its grain from Ukraine prior to the Russian invasion. These factors could worsen food poverty and hunger globally:
The bans on exports and the increased needs in Ukraine have serious implications for humanitarian food supplies. Before the war, the global humanitarian system relied on the country as one of the main suppliers of food. WFP used to buy half its wheat from Ukraine for food assistance, including in-kind distributions.
Food supply is key to famine-hit countries, SIPRI said:
Indeed, these distributions remain the organization’s core delivery mechanism for food assistance. Food supplies, therefore, play a key role in ensuring food security and averting famine in hunger hotspots.
The international research body also warned of a spike in food prices in recent years and added that aid agencies had reported their buying power had been “weakened” as monthly costs soared:
In 2020, agencies reported weakened purchasing power due to higher food prices, as part of the economic fallout from the Covid-19 pandemic. WFP, for example, reported higher monthly costs of $42 million in 2020. The conflict in Ukraine is now putting further pressure on global food prices. Today, WFP estimates it costs $71 million more every month to pursue its work globally.
It said there was a risk that less popular causes in the Global South could be hit hard by the new focus on Ukraine. Needless to say, all of the places affected by an underfunding of aid and humanitarian are outside Europe:
The situation is particularly concerning in 13 underfunded humanitarian operations, including in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Honduras, Lebanon, Madagascar, Myanmar and Syria. Prior to the Ukraine crisis, underfunding had already resulted in food rations being cut in South Sudan and Yemen.
And while it is understandable that Ukraine was a key focus for humanitarian aid, SIPRI warned that other countries must not be forgotten:
Russia’s invasion has sparked a devastating humanitarian crisis in Ukraine, which will have implications for other crises across the globe. This in turn will impact global hunger. More civilians are likely to go to bed on an empty stomach, both in Ukraine and beyond.
It said nobody should be in this situation in a world where there was enough food for everyone. And they’re right. This new danger is an indictment not just of this particular war, but of an entire global capitalist system which prices millions of people out of meeting their basic human needs.
Featured image via The U.S. National Archives – AMN Charles Parshley cropped to 770 x 403
By Joe Glenton
This post was originally published on The Canary.
Funds will go only to those provinces where girls are in school if Taliban renege on promise, diplomats say
The west is planning to incentivise the Taliban to abide by their promise to allow girls to be educated by providing funding for teachers’ salaries only in provinces in which the pledge is met.
The Taliban claimed this week the group would allow girls of secondary school age to be educated from March, the start of the next school term. Sceptical diplomats said they would need more than verbal assurances, with physical and budgetary evidence of preparations being required.
Continue reading…This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.
The asylum seekers on the Poland-Belarus border are not aggressors: they are desperate pawns in a disgusting political struggle
One thought is a constant in my head: “I have kids at home, I cannot go to jail, I cannot go to jail.” The politics are beyond my reach or that of the victims on the Poland-Belarus border. It involves outgoing German chancellor, Angela Merkel, getting through to Alexander Lukashenko, president of Belarus. It’s ironic that this border has more than 50 media crews gathered, yet Poland is the only place in the EU where journalists cannot freely report.
Meanwhile, the harsh north European winter is closing in and my fingers are freezing in the dark snowy nights.
Continue reading…This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.
There has been much speculation about why Israel was allowed in 1967 to intentionally bomb the USS Liberty and slaughter 34 American soldiers on that ship which the U.S. Government has covered-up. And there also is much speculation about why, as reported to Congress by the Congressional Research Service on 7 August 2019, “Israel is the largest cumulative recipient of U.S. foreign assistance since World War II. To date, the United States has provided Israel $142.3 billion (current, or noninflation-adjusted, dollars) in bilateral assistance and missile defense funding. Almost all U.S. bilateral aid to Israel is in the form of military assistance.” (That “noninflation-adjusted” figure might be closer to a trillion dollars in today’s money. For example, a billion dollars in 1971 is worth $6.83 billion today. This means that in 1971, $146.4 billion was worth the same as a trillion dollars is worth in today’s money. So: in today’s money, what U.S. taxpayers have donated to Israel in order for it to pay for U.S. missiles, etc., was almost a trillion dollars, and that’s been a gift to U.S. armaments-firms — to the people who own those firms — for them to sell (and U.S. taxpayers to pay for) to Israel. Nowadays, Americans donate $3.8 billion annually to Israel. $3.3 billion of that is for U.S.-made weapons. Why? It’s to subsidize America’s billionaires. And look at how phenomenally profitable such subsidies have helped to make their investments! In other words: merely by misrepresenting “foreign aid” as if it were something that it overwhelmingly is not (and closer to being the very opposite of “charitable”), the U.S. aristocracy become further-enriched by (and they purchase — with taxpayer-money — the alliance, the backing, from) other nations’ aristocracies (such as Israel’s). Some gang-of-thieves!
75% of Americans approve of Israel. Only 30% approve of the “Palestinian Authority” that represents the people whom the Israelis conquered. Obviously, America’s ‘news’-media are strongly favorable toward Israel, and portray Israel’s victims in as-negative-a-light as is possible to do — and they portray opposition to Israel as being necessarily ‘anti-Semitic’. Certainly in the Palestinian case, it’s not that — it is against evil (by Israel).
Americans aren’t outraged that their Government donates to Israel’s constant war against Palestinians (to crush them), but instead blame the Palestinians for Israel’s decades-long ethnic-cleansing of Palestinians — it’s ethnic-cleansing to retain Israel’s ‘democracy’ of Jewish rule against Muslims. Americans are imperialists; but, in this particular instance, they are for imperialism by Jews (especially the wealthiest of them) in that land, against Muslims (especially the poorest of them) there, instead of being by Americans against Cubans, or by Americans against Venezuelans, or by Americans against Ukrainians (the normal type of attempted or achieved takeover by America’s billionaires — which group the U.S. Government represents).
The main people among the American public who oppose “foreign aid” are misinformed conservatives, who think it’s stupid idealism; and the main supporters of “foreign aid” among the American public are misinformed liberals, who think it’s a policy to benefit the people in poor countries; but, overall, 49% of Americans say that “U.S. Is Spending Too Much On Foreign Aid,” and only 13% say that the U.S. is spending “too little” on it. Only very few Americans know that foreign aid is mainly to buy U.S. weapons. It is a subsidy to firms such as Lockheed Martin. It is a secret (“off-the-balance-sheet”) addition to America’s ‘defense’-budget. (Even on-budget — or Pentagon — U.S. ‘defense’-spending constitutes 37% of the entire world’s military expenditures.) And that is defense only for the aristocracy of the given recipient-nation, in order to keep them in power so that the U.S. aristocracy can control foreign Governments by getting the misinformed American public to pay for those foreign regimes, which are more like the opposite of charity — it is U.S. imperialism. And those foreign regimes are U.S. vassal-nations. So: though the total American public are buying this ‘aid’, it’s actually for the investors in firms such as General Dynamics. And the owners of those firms are also in control over all of America’s major ‘news’-media, which promote those weapons-sales by pretending that foreign aid is mainly charitable (though perhaps ‘misguided’, not intentionally evil — which it is).
In the case of Israel, the origin of the arrangement goes all the way back to the late 1800s, when the very concept of today’s Israel was merely a dream for some biblically inspired and highly ethnocentric Jews (Zionists).
Here’s how that happened:
In 1871, the well-connected young prospector, Cecil Rhodes (son of an Anglican clergyman), got his start. “In October 1871, 18-year-old Rhodes and his 26-year-old brother Herbert left the colony for the diamond fields of Kimberley in Northern Cape Province. Financed by N M Rothschild & Sons, Rhodes succeeded over the next 17 years in buying up all the smaller diamond mining operations in the Kimberley area.” And then, starting in 1877, Rhodes drew up his will, to create a “secret” organization, for the UK empire to take over (“take back”), by means of subversion, first the U.S. Government, and then (with that force behind it) take control over the entire rest of the world, so that secretly the U.S. would become the chief enforcer, globally, for, actually, England’s aristocracy.
Part of this plan was for an “Israel” to come into existence and serve as the English aristocracy’s enforcer over the entire Middle East.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt, as U.S. President just prior to Israel’s formation, opposed the creation of any “Jewish state.” He was as opposed to that as he was to any theocracy, and especially because this one wouldn’t be able to be brought about or function except by means of an ethnic-cleansing in order to make Jews the majority there (if a democracy was intended there) or else the controlling minority (if an outright and clear-cut dictatorship there was the intention there). But, as I shall document fully in my book to be published in 2022, AMERICA’S EVIL EMPIRE, President Truman, who succeeded him on 12 April 1945, soon came entirely under the influence and control of — and surrounded himself by other supporters of — Churchill and other Rhodesists, and this included support for the new state of Israel, though Albert Einstein and many other leading progressive U.S. Jews opposed it, and especially opposed Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir, who ended up becoming leaders of Israel. Truman and Churchill were Rhodesists, and Judaism was not actually much involved in their advocacy for Israel and against the “natives” or Palestinians; imperialism was involved, and this Israel was to be a part of this Rhodesist empire.
In fact, Truman was the very first world-leader to recognize the Jewish state, on 14 May 1948 — little more than a month after the extermination-phase of the ethnic-cleansing there had already begun. And it kept on coming. David Ben-Gurion privately described to his son on 5 October 1937 the plan for the ethnic-cleansing, but it couldn’t be carried-out until it had the U.S. Government’s support. Truman was key, and he was assisting there — as throughout his international policies — the Rhodesist agenda. This was to be a British operation, fronted by the U.S. Government. They knew what they were doing — that the U.S. Government was fronting for Britain’s Government. And, actually, the forced evacuations of Arabs, and emptying-out of entire Arab towns, was planned to start in, and did start in, December 1947; so, Truman and his British masters had to have known what they were endorsing. And Israel was fronting for them. All subsequent U.S. Presidents were also Rhodesists, except Kennedy, who had been but was abandoning them shortly before he mysteriously became assassinated.
So, here’s additional background for how that is playing-out today:
As everybody knows, Britain had controlled Iran (to extract its oil) before 1953, until Mohammad Mossadegh came to power there by popular acclaim, despite the British attempts to prevent that. And then America’s CIA operated a 1953 coup to remove the progressive Mossadegh and replace him by the Shah, who subsequently became famous for his prisons and their tortures (so that, this time, it would be U.S. oil firms that would be doing the extractions instead — this was acceptable to the Brits because they received a cut; and, furthermore, UK depended now upon America’s military might, so, this was part of their “Special Relationship”). But, then, in 1979, Iranians overthrew their dictatorial Shah, and installed their own Shiite Islamic, socialistic, but largely theocratic (and therefore at least partially dictatorial) Government. It was/is populist, instead of like the U.S.-&-UK-backed Arab Governments, which were (and are) monarchical and totally aristocratic (hereditary) dictatorships. The U.S. regime has, ever since, tried to reconquer Iran. (The monarchical Arab Governments also fear Iran because Iran is — after overthrowing the Shah — populist, anti-monarchical. Therefore, the Arab regimes rely largely upon the U.S. regime in order for them to be able to stay in power.)
Iran, because of its populism, is strongly supportive of the Palestinians. Therefore, it is ideologically at war against Israel — not because of its Judaism, but because of its ethnic-cleansing of fellow-Muslims. Israel — not Judaism — is what Iran is opposed to. Iran, because of Iran’s past long history of being exploited by, first, British, and then American, imperialism, is passionately anti-Rhodesist. Consequently, the U.S. and UK regimes want to destroy Iran — and Israel is their chosen Rhodesist entity that fronts this U.S./UK/Israel operation.
And, therefore, we now have the present situation:
On December 2nd, Israel’s Jewish Chronicle (or “JC”) headlined “EXCLUSIVE: Mossad recruited top Iranian scientists to blow up key nuclear facility: 90 per cent of the plant’s centrifuges were destroyed” in that 2 July 2020 explosion. The same day they also headlined “Israel to hit ‘head of octopus’ in covert attacks on Tehran.” Already on November 29th they had headlined “UK and Israel foreign ministers vow to work ‘night and day’ to stop Iran developing nukes: Liz Truss and Yair Lapid sign agreement to take UK-Israel relations into a ‘bold new era’.” These are Rhodesist operations, just as America’s operations to destroy Iran have been and are. There is no change under Biden. He, too, is Rhodesist, as his predecessors have been.
On December 3rd, the New York Times bannered “Iran Nuclear Talks Head for Collapse Unless Tehran Shifts, Europeans Say: In Vienna talks, the new hard-line Iranian government has staked out positions that are incompatible with the 2015 deal, European negotiators say.” It lied to imply that “the new hard-line Iranian government” was any different in its negotiating position than its predecessor’s, which was: Iran was demanding that the U.S. Government, which had broken the Agreement by cancelling its commitments under it, must first rejoin that Agreement, before Iran would make any concessions that would be in addition to that Agreement; and any such additional concessions by Iran (such as Trump and then Biden were demanding) would then be made ONLY in trade for additional concessions becoming simultaneously made by the U.S. Government. The EU (which essentially had been part of that existing Agreement the U.S. had abandoned) is a Rhodesist vassal entity, and Biden is just as much of a Rhodesist as was Trump before him, and even more than Obama was before Trump. America’s billionaires get the U.S. Presidents that they’ve bought (which is all of them post-1944), but it’s all actually part of the restored UK empire, in accord with Cecil Rhodes’s plan. That is the U.S. Deep State, and the UK Deep State, and the Israeli Deep State. And the Deep State in all of the vassal-nations.
The post How Israel’s Actions Against Iran Are Rooted in Cecil Rhodes’s 1877 Plan first appeared on Dissident Voice.This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.
Meeting in Dakar, Senegal, China announces that it will donate 600 million doses of vaccines for African countries and produce 400 million doses in partnership with African countries. China will send 500 specialists for ten agriculture and poverty alleviation projects on the continent, among other commitments.
Macao tightens regulations on casino operators. The ex-Portuguese colony overtook Las Vegas in 2006 as world’s largest gambling hub while Xi’s 2014 anti-corruption campaign targeted money laundering and capital outflows; tycoon Alvin Chau is among 11 people recently arrested for illegal gambling practices.
The post News on China | No. 78 first appeared on Dissident Voice.This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.
Anti-arms trade campaigners had strong words for the British government over Yemen. Campaign Against the Arms Trade (CAAT) blasted UK arms sales and cuts to aid as the UN announced deaths would hit 377,000 by the end of 2021.
But the report also says that recovery is possible within a generation if the war is stopped now. As it stands, many of the deaths are a result of disease and hunger. While others are from air raids and combat. The war has raged since 2014 and, during this time, UK ally Saudi Arabia has constantly bombed its poorer neighbour.
In a press release, CAAT’s parliamentary officer Katie Fallon said:
This horrifying report is a reminder that while the war in Yemen may have fallen off the news agenda, its devastating impact on the people of Yemen is as bad as ever.
Fallon also directly criticised US President Joe Biden and the UK arms trade:
Promises by President Biden to end support for the Saudi coalition’s role in the war have not been fulfilled, despite a welcome halt to a few arms sales. Meanwhile, the UK government continues to supply arms to Saudi Arabia without restraint.
Fallon called for a halt to sales of military equipment to the Saudi regime:
The UK, the US and other leading powers must immediately halt the arms sales that are prolonging and exacerbating the war, press hard for an end to the Saudi blockade that is one of the main contributors to the humanitarian catastrophe, and engage in sustained and meaningful diplomatic efforts to bring the war to an end.
Finally, Fallon said the UK’s cuts to humanitarian aid had compounded Yemen’s problems:
The UK must also reverse its cruel cuts to humanitarian aid to Yemen, which have only
increased the war’s appalling toll.
As well as providing material support, the UK has had troops embedded with Saudi forces throughout the conflict. In July 2021 it emerged that up to 30 military personnel were training Saudi troops inside Yemen. In 2019 it was reported that 11 UK military personnel were embedded in Saudi headquarters. CAAT has estimated that the UK has licensed £20bn in arms sales to the Saudis since 2015.
Featured image – Wikimedia Commons/Fahd Sadi.
By Joe Glenton
This post was originally published on The Canary.
After the pandemic shut down schools across the country, the federal government provided about $190 billion in aid to help them reopen and respond to the effects of the pandemic. In the year and a half since millions of children were sent home, the Education Department has done only limited tracking of how the money has been spent. That has left officials in Washington largely in the dark about how effective the aid has been in helping students, especially those whose schools and communities were among the hardest hit by the pandemic.
“We’ve been in the pandemic now for nearly a year and a half,” said Anne Hyslop, the director of policy development at the education advocacy group Alliance for Excellent Education. “There is a responsibility to the public to make sure the funds are spent responsibly, but also make sure that the funding that is spent is accountable to supporting students and educators.”
Provisional annual reports submitted to the federal government by state education agencies underscored the dearth of clear, detailed data. Agencies classified how the funds were spent using six very broad categories, including technology and sanitization. According to a ProPublica analysis of more than 16,000 of the reports covering March 2020 to September 2020, just over half of the $3 billion in aid was categorized as “other,” providing no insight into how the funds were allocated.
In the absence of a centralized and detailed federal tracking system, the monitoring of relief funds flowing to the nation’s more than 13,000 school districts has largely been left to states. Some districts have been found to be spending their federal funds on projects seemingly at odds with the spirit of the aid program, such as track and field facilities and bleachers.
While such spending is not prohibited by the federal government, the stated goals of the relief program were to open schools safely to maximize in-person learning and, more broadly, to address the impact of the pandemic.
The Biden administration wants to collect more data. But its efforts have come more than a year after the previous administration began disbursing the relief funds, and some school districts have bristled at the belated push for more detailed data collection.
Hyslop said that while this may place an added burden on districts, the information is essential. “We need this data to make sure the needs are met, to make sure high-needs schools are not being shortchanged. … We have to make sure this is actually supporting students.”
The majority of the school aid was allocated from March 2020 to March 2021 and funneled through state education departments into K-12 school districts, which have until 2024 to budget the last of the funds.
Under the terms laid out by the federal government, states are responsible for developing tracking systems to ensure districts are spending the money on countering the effects of the pandemic.
The federal government has long given states considerable latitude in setting standards and curriculum. Christine Pitts, a fellow at the Center on Reinventing Public Education, said responsibility for tracking COVID-19 relief funds has similarly been delegated to the states, creating a patchwork of oversight practices. “There’s 50 states, and oftentimes in education that means there’s 50 different ways of doing the business,” said Pitts.
The federal government has started to request limited information from states on how districts have spent their funds. The department also requires spending plans from states, and those plans must be approved before the last round of funds is released.
These limited reporting requirements reflect the early, urgent days of the pandemic, when officials wanted to get money to school districts as quickly as possible.
In June 2020, as the first federal relief dollars were beginning to flow to districts, the office of inspector general of the Education Department warned in a report that the department must improve its oversight, monitoring and data collection to reduce potential fraud and waste. The OIG noted that after the 2007-2008 financial crisis, the Education Department was responsible for allocating $98 billion through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which led to numerous investigations into abuse and waste.
When the OIG raised concerns last year to then-Deputy Education Secretary Mick Zais, Zais said the pandemic aid legislation itself had created “enormous pressure” to distribute funds quickly, according to an OIG report.
A spokesperson for the OIG, Catherine Grant, said that while distributing pandemic aid presented its own challenges, oversight and monitoring were “longstanding” issues for the department.
Luke Jackson, a spokesperson for the Education Department, said in an emailed statement that the department was working with states and districts to collect preliminary data to “to ensure federal funds are being spent to best serve the needs of students, educators, and school communities.”
The law places few restrictions on how districts can spend the federal aid, as long as the investments are loosely connected to the effects of the pandemic. This wide latitude has enabled districts to fund projects that some education experts have deemed questionable.
In Iowa, the Creston Community School District allocated about $231,000 of its pandemic relief funds to upgrade its outdoor stadium, including an expansion of its bleachers. According to district documents, the construction is intended to provide increased space for social distancing and to make the bleachers wheelchair accessible.
Creston’s superintendent, Deron Stender, did not respond to ProPublica’s requests for comment.
Last month in Pulaski County, Kentucky, the school board approved the reconstruction of its track and field facilities, allocating about $1 million in federal pandemic funding for the track replacement.
“We want to have facilities that are great for our students,” the district superintendent, Patrick Richardson, told a local paper after the project was approved. Richardson did not respond to ProPublica’s requests for comment.
“There is certainly a lot of flexibility on how the money can be used,” said Hyslop of the Alliance for Excellent Education, but said athletic investments are “not in the spirit of the law.”
The statement from Jackson, the Education Department spokesman, did not address a question from ProPublica about using relief funds for athletic projects.
In other cases, the spending priorities of school districts have drawn complaints from some parents. In Virginia, Fairfax County Public Schools spent more than $45 million of its early pandemic funding on ventilation systems and personal protective equipment. But some parents said that more federal aid should have been directed to services for students with special needs, who represent about 14.4% of the 178,000 students enrolled in the district.
Debra Tisler, a former special education teacher, said that her 15-year-old son, who has dyslexia, saw the 20 hours a month of specialized instruction that he received before the pandemic cut in half over the course of more than a year of virtual learning.
In January 2021, the federal education department opened up an investigation into Fairfax schools because of “disturbing reports involving the district’s provision of educational services to children with disabilities during the COVID-19 pandemic.” Asked on Tuesday about the status of the Fairfax investigation, the Education Department’s press office did not have that information readily available.
“They have the ability to do it and they are choosing not to. It’s heartbreaking,” said Tisler, who has had a contentious relationship with the district. In August, her son went back to school in person.
In the first two waves of pandemic aid from the county, state and federal governments, Fairfax schools received at least $157.5 million, of which it spent $9.6 million on direct services for students with disabilities to help them catch up, according to budget documents. Helen Lloyd, a spokesperson for Fairfax County Public Schools, said that much of the initial coronavirus relief funds paid for “systemwide technology, school safety mitigation measures and equipment and PPE costs.” She said it is not possible to calculate the proportion of the funding that paid only for services for students with disabilities.
Lloyd did not specifically address Tisler’s concerns, citing privacy protections, but the spokesperson said that the district’s spending plan was based on extensive community input and that learning loss was found to be a priority. She added that from the third wave of pandemic aid, which passed this year, the district has allocated $46.2 million, which is being used to extend the contracts of special education teachers by 30 minutes a day, and $500,000 to counter learning loss of students with disabilities.
In Texas, the McAllen Independent School District decided to spend $4 million of its education pandemic relief funds to construct a 5-acre outdoor learning environment connected to a local nature and birding center owned by the city. Tory Guerra, whose children attend McAllen’s schools, expressed concerns that the project, which will not be completed until December 2024, is not prioritizing the urgent learning needs of children who have been directly impacted by the pandemic.
“There are so many other programs that we could invest in that we could use immediately and see benefits immediately rather than years down the road,” Guerra said. She believes that the federal aid should directly address the pressing emotional and academic wellbeing of students, many of whom have struggled to keep up in the classroom. “Half the kids won’t even get to reap the benefit because the nature center isn’t even built.”
Mark May, a spokesperson for the McAllen independent district, said the cost of the project is a small fraction of the district’s $139.5 million in aid. He said the outdoor space will provide students with resources and experiences that will bolster children’s scientific knowledge.
Some states and districts have developed their own public reporting platforms. In Georgia, the education department built a dashboard that shows how much money each district has received and the programs they have spent it on. But other states have not offered as much visibility into districts’ spending. Indiana, for example, has so far made little information public, but it is currently developing an online portal.
In the provisional federal reports that categorize how aid money is spent, some of the largest districts in the nation marked all of their aid as going to the “other” category, including Los Angeles Unified, which spent $49.5 million, and New York City’s schools, which spent $111.5 million.
Instead of spending the aid on summer school or technology, New York City’s district, the largest in the country, used its federal funds to plug a gap in its budget, which had been cut by the state. Katie O’Hanlon, a spokesperson for the district, told ProPublica that the district used the funds to cover the wages and operations of custodial workers. O’Hanlon said the district had followed state reporting requirements. J.P. O’Hare, a spokesperson for the New York State Education Department, said the state is using the “other” category until the federal government provides more direction on reporting requirements.
Shannon Haber, a spokesperson for Los Angeles Unified, said the district’s reporting was submitted based on the state’s requirements. Many districts categorized their spending as “other” initially, but as the school year progressed, the spending categories diversified, said Scott Roark, a spokesperson for the California Department of Education.
Even if the information is publicly available on a local level, the lack of standardization from state to state makes it impossible to get a national picture of how the funds are being directed.
Some experts said it may be too soon to get a larger view of how the aid was spent. “There’s going to be a natural lag between a district receiving the money, spending the money and reporting up to the state,” said Paige Kowalski, executive vice president for the education advocacy group Data Quality Campaign.
But other experts say that without real-time insight into district spending, schools will not be able to shift priorities if they find certain programs are working better than others.
“There can be an opportunity to do mid-course corrections, if we find something working well or not well,” said Dan Goldhaber, director of the Center for Education Data & Research at the University of Washington. “We will be in a bad place if we don’t have much evidence that $200 billion didn’t move the needle.”
This past July, the federal Education Department announced plans to increase its data collection from districts in 2022, but dozens of districts and state education agencies said that more oversight could leave them overburdened.
“It will take another block of time,” said Brenda Turner, the business manager of Haskell Consolidated Independent School District in central Texas, adding that her district already filed detailed plans to the state’s education department explaining how Haskell planned to spend its aid. “They need to figure out how to pull it out of their own system to report to the federal government instead of putting it on us.”
This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.
Government pocketed half of donations in 2020 as central bank forced UN agencies to use lower exchange rate
The Syrian government is siphoning off millions of dollars of foreign aid by forcing UN agencies to use a lower exchange rate, according to new research.
The Central Bank of Syria, which is sanctioned by the UK, US and EU, in effect made $60m (£44m) in 2020 by pocketing $0.51 of every aid dollar sent to Syria, making UN contracts one of the biggest money-making avenues for President Bashar al-Assad and his government, researchers from the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), the Operations & Policy Center thinktank and the Center for Operational Analysis and Research found.
Continue reading…This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.
By Don Wiseman, RNZ Pacific deputy news editor
Experts are warning that development gains across the Pacific region over the past 10 years could be undone due to the challenges of the covid-19 pandemic.
The aid organisation World Vision wants a once in a life time multinational effort to rebuild Pacific livelihoods that have been shattered by the pandemic.
In the Pacific Aftershocks report, World Vision reveals the results of a survey of households across the region.
It said while much of the Pacific had not had local cases of covid-19 there had been a tragic human cost due to the economic fallout.
World Vision New Zealand’s TJ Grant said the economic devastation could take a greater toll than the virus itself.
Grant said that while many Pacific nations managed to keep infections and transmissions at bay, vulnerable people were now facing the huge cost of closed borders and isolation.
“Almost two-thirds of households have either lost jobs or lost income and have had to resort to other alternative sources of income.
‘One in five houses skip meals’
“Related to that one in five houses is having to skip meals or having cheaper meals because they can’t afford to have a healthy diet. One of the compounding factors here is that through the covid pandemic food prices have risen significantly in many Pacific countries,” Grant said.
One of the nations worst hit by the economic downturn caused by the pandemic is Vanuatu.
World Vision’s country director in Vanuatu, Kendra Gates Derousseau, said Vanuatu had managed to keep covid out yet its food prices had soared by 30.6 percent.
She said this put healthy food out of reach for countless urban ni-Vanuatu.
“Vanuatu is quite dependent on imports, particularly for urban households that work and cannot spend their time doing agricultural gardening and featuring fresh food. And also the price of transport has gone up significantly because the importation of petrol has slowed down,” she said.
World Vision wants Australia and New Zealand to lead a once in a generation step up to help these developing nations overcome the devastating impacts of covid.
It is looking for a comprehensive international programme of support for economic recovery and to address key economic, health and child welfare issues.
Stunted growth exacerbated
Grant said stunted growth, as a result of poor nutrition, was a perennial Pacific problem, and occurrence like the virus and its aftershocks exacerbated it.
Derousseau said New Zealand and Australia and other donor nations could not abandon the Pacific when they were most needed.
“The covid-19 pandemic is a global phenomenon as well as climate change and we know that the Pacific Island nations are extraordinarily affected — even more so than other regions of the world, and so a regional crisis like this requires a regional response.”
Roland Rajah is a development economist with Australian think tank, the Lowy Institute. He has written that the Pacific will be economically put back 10 years by the pandemic.
Rajah told RNZ Pacific it was definitely among the worst affected by the lockdowns.
“Already other parts of the world, South East Asia, even sub-Saharan Africa, Latin American, the Caribbean, they are all on the rebound already,” he said.
“Their prospects for recovery are much stronger than for the Pacific. And there are a variety of reasons for that, but it’s fair to say that it’s amongst the worst affected anywhere in the world.”
He said the Pacific nations typically can’t follow the path of the developed nations and provide stimulis packages because they don’t have the funds.
But he suggests properly targetted infrastructure investment — that that is aimed at also addressing climate change — assisted by the metropolitan powers, may go some way to providing employment and incomes boosts.
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.
This post was originally published on Radio Free.
The most vulnerable people will bear the cost of sanctions, as services and the economy collapse
Watching Afghanistan’s unfolding trauma, I’ve thought a lot about Mumtaz Ahmed, a young teacher I met a few years ago. Her family fled Kabul during Taliban rule in the late 1990s.
Raised as a refugee in Pakistan, Ahmed had defied the odds and made it to university. Now, she was back in Afghanistan teaching maths in a rural girls’ school. “I came back because I believe in education and I love my country,” she told me. “These girls have a right to learn – without education, Afghanistan has no future.”
Continue reading…This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.
While recent events have destroyed the credibility of militarists who pushed for the invasion and 20-year-long occupation of Afghanistan, the moral bankruptcy of their supporters in the aid industry has also been stunningly revealed.
A quick Taliban victory over the foreign trained “Afghan army” at least (momentarily) embarrassed Canadian militarists. But what about their camp followers in the NGO universe?
Over the past two decades Ottawa has plowed over $3.6 billion in “aid” into Afghanistan. During this period the central Asian country has been the top recipient of official assistance, receiving about twice the next biggest destination, another victim of Canadian foreign policy, Haiti.
While Afghanistan is undoubtedly deserving of aid, 10 countries have a lower GDP per capita and 20 countries have a lower life expectancy. So why the focus on Afghanistan? Because it was the place where policymakers thought aid was most likely to have positive results? Of course not. The aid was delivered to support the Canadian, US, and NATO military occupation.
Canadian personnel repeatedly linked development work in Afghanistan to the counterinsurgency effort. “It’s a useful counterinsurgency tool,” is how Lieutenant-Colonel Tom Doucette, commander of Canada’s provincial reconstruction team, described the Canadian International Development Agency’s work in Afghanistan. Development assistance, for instance, was sometimes given to communities in exchange for information on combatants. After a roadside bomb hit his convoy in September 2009, Canadian General Jonathan Vance spent 50 minutes berating village elders for not preventing the attack. “If we keep blowing up on the roads,” he told them, “I’m going to stop doing development.”
The CF worked closely with NGOs in Afghanistan. A 2007 parliamentary report explained that some NGOs “work intimately with military support already in the field.” Another government report noted that the “Civil-Military Cooperation (CIMIC) platoon made up of Army Reserve soldiers organizes meetings with local decision-makers and international NGOs to determine whether they need help with security.”
The aid was also a public relations exercise. At politically sensitive moments in the war Canadian officials sought to showcase newly built schools or dams to divert attention from more unsavory sides of military conflict. Alarmed about a growing casualty list and other negative news, in fall 2006, the Prime Minister’s Office directed the military to “push” reconstruction stories on journalists embedded with the military. Through an access to information request the Globe and Mail obtained an email from Major Norbert Cyr saying, “the major concern [at Privy Council Office] is whether we are pushing development issues with embeds.” In an interview with Jane’s Defence Weekly’s Canadian correspondent, a journalist described what this meant on the ground. “We’ve been invited on countless village medical outreach visits, ribbon-cutting ceremonies, and similar events.” The hope was that reporters embedded at the Canadian base in Kandahar would file more stories about development projects and fewer negative subjects.
At a broader level aid was used to reinforce the foreign occupation. The aim was to support the Afghan forces allied with the US-led occupation. Canada’s military withdrawal from Afghanistan led to a drop in aid, and now that US forces have withdrawn, Canadian aid will likely dry up.
Historically, military intervention elicits aid. Call it the ‘intervention-equals-aid’ principle or ‘wherever Canadian or US troops kill, Ottawa provides aid’ principle.
Ottawa delivered $7.25 million to South Korea during the early 1950s Korean War. Tens of millions of dollars in Canadian aid supported US policy in South Vietnam in the 1960s and during the 1990-91 Iraq war Canada provided $75 million in assistance to people in countries affected by the Gulf crisis. Amidst the NATO bombing in 1999-2000 the former Yugoslavia was the top recipient of Canadian assistance. After the 2003 US invasion of Iraq Canada announced a $300 million aid package to that country.
As mentioned above, Haiti has been the second largest recipient of Canadian aid over the past two decades. While an elected, pro-poor government was in place between 2001 and 2004 Canadian aid to Haiti was reduced to a trickle. But after the US, French and Canadian invasion ousted thousands of elected officials in 2004, hundreds of millions of dollars flowed into Haiti. Throughout the 15-year UN occupation, Canadian aid continued to flow.
In the years after invasions by foreign troops, Afghanistan, Iraq and Haiti were the top recipients of Canadian “aid”. The thread that connected those three countries was the presence of Canadian or US troops.
Should it even be called aid when it comes along with foreign soldiers? A better description would be the “break it and you pay for it” principle.
Where is the discussion of all this in the NGO world? Canada’s international assistance policy gets a free ride — of course, we’re a force for good — in the mainstream media. But does anyone really believe it’s good for “aid” to be tied to military occupation?
Will those who uncritically promote increased Canadian “aid” discuss its ties to the disaster in Afghanistan? Are any of the NGOs that followed foreign troops to Afghanistan speaking out about their error?
• Yves Engler’s Stand on Guard For Whom? A People’s History of the Canadian Military is now available.
The post Afghanistan: a military and an “aid” failure first appeared on Dissident Voice.This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.
With “friends” like Canada, Haiti is in deep trouble.
Justin Trudeau’s statement that this country was “standing ready” to assist after a massive earthquake rocked the western part of Haiti Saturday is not reassuring. Over the past two decades Canada has done too much to undermine Haitian sovereignty, democracy and living standards to be considered trustworthy amidst this tragedy.
Canada is a country with immense resources to help with a 7.2 magnitude earthquake and it’s not too far geographically from Haiti. Undoubtedly, the Caribbean nation requires international solidarity to assist with an earthquake that’s killed over 700, injured thousands and left many more homeless. But Canada should definitely not deploy troops to the impoverished Caribbean nation and we must be suspicious of NGOs seeking to fundraise off of the tragedy.
Adding to the need for caution are statements from Washington. The head of USAID, Samantha Power, tweeted that she talked to the head of US Southern Command about how the US Department of Defense could assist Haiti.
In a worse humanitarian situation, a decade ago, Ottawa dispatched soldiers to dominate that country. Immediately after a horrific quake hit Port-au-Prince in 2010 decision makers in Ottawa were more concerned with controlling Haiti than assisting victims. To police Haiti’s traumatized and suffering population, 2,050 Canadian troops were deployed alongside 12,000 US soldiers (8,000 UN soldiers were already there). Though Ottawa rapidly deployed 2,050 troops they ignored calls to dispatch this country’s Heavy Urban Search and Rescue (HUSAR) Teams, which are trained to “locate trapped persons in collapsed structures.”
According to internal government documents the Canadian Press examined a year after the disaster, officials in Ottawa feared a post-earthquake power vacuum could lead to a “popular uprising.” One briefing note marked “secret” explained: “Political fragility has increased, the risks of a popular uprising, and has fed the rumour that ex-president Jean-Bertrand Aristide, currently in exile in South Africa, wants to organize a return to power.” Six years earlier the US, France and Canada ousted the elected president.
Canada and the US’ indifference/contempt towards Haitian sovereignty was also on display in the reconstruction effort. Thirteen days after the quake Canada organized a high profile Ministerial Preparatory Conference on Haiti for major international donors. Two months later Canada co-chaired the New York International Donors’ Conference Towards a New Future for Haiti. At these conferences Haitian officials played a tertiary role in the discussions. Subsequently, the US, France and Canada demanded the Haitian parliament pass an 18-month long state of emergency law that effectively gave up government control over the reconstruction. They held up money to ensure international control of the Interim Commission for the Reconstruction of Haiti, authorized to spend billions of dollars in reconstruction money.
Most of the money that was distributed went to foreign aid workers who received relatively extravagant salaries/living costs or to expensive contracts gobbled up by Western/Haitian elite owned companies. According to an Associated Press assessment of the aid the US delivered in the two months after the quake, one cent on the dollar went to the Haitian government (thirty-three cents went to the US military). Canadian aid patterns were similar. Author of The Big Truck That Went By: How the World Came to Save Haiti and Left Behind a Disaster Jonathan Katz writes, “Canada disbursed $657 million from the quake to September 2012 ‘for Haiti,’ but only about 2% went to the Haitian government.”
Other investigations found equally startling numbers. Having raised $500 million for Haiti and publicly boasted about its housing efforts, the US Red Cross built only six permanent homes in the country.
Not viewing the René Preval government as fully compliant, the US, France and Canada pushed for elections months after the earthquake. (Six weeks before the quake, according to a cable released by Wikileaks, Canadian and EU officials complained that Préval “emasculated” the country’s right-wing. In response, they proposed to “purchase radio airtime for opposition politicians to plug their candidacies” or they may “cease to be much of a meaningful force in the next government.”) With rubble throughout Port au Prince and hundreds of thousands living in camps, Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon demanded Préval hold elections by the end of the year. In May 2010 Cannon said, “the international community wants to see a commitment, a solid, serious commitment to have an election by the end of this year.” (With far fewer logistical hurdles, it took two years to hold elections after the 2004 US/France/Canada coup.)
As a result of various obstacles tied to the earthquake and a devastating cholera outbreak introduced to the country by negligent UN troops in October 2010, hundreds of thousands were unable to vote during the first round of the November 28, 2010, election. After the first round of the presidential election the US and Canada forced Préval party’s candidate out of the runoff in favor of third place candidate, Michel Martelly. A supporter of the 1991 and 2004 coups against Aristide, Martelly was a teenaged member of the Duvalier dictatorship’s Ton Ton Macoutes death squad. As president he stole millions of dollars as part of the massive Petrocaribe corruption scandal and imposed as his successor the repressive and corrupt Jovenel Moïse who was recently assassinated. The assassination of president Moïse reflects the disintegration of Haitian politics after a decade of foreign intervention that has strengthened the most regressive and murderous elements of Haitian society.
After the 2010 earthquake there was an outpouring of empathy and solidarity from ordinary Canadians. But officials in Ottawa saw the disaster as a political crisis to manage and an opportunity to expand their economic and political influence over Haiti.
Let’s not allow that to happen again. Unfortunately, when the prime minister says Canada is “standing ready” it sounds more like a threat than an offer of real assistance.
The post Earthquake Devastates Haiti first appeared on Dissident Voice.
This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Yves Engler.
This post was originally published on Radio Free.
A friend sent me a link to a Foreign Policy news story about the Turkey/Syria border crossing at Bab al Hawa. He asked, “Is this accurate?” What could be wrong with humanitarian aid?
There have been many such stories, both short and long. The essence of them all in western media is that Bab al Hawa must be kept open for humanitarian reasons. Many of the articles castigate Russia or any other country such as China which might vote to block a renewal of United Nations authorization of the border crossing.
There are important facts which western media stories typically leave out or distort. Here are some reasons why the Bab al Hawa border crossing should NOT be renewed.
* The aid is supporting Syria’s version of Al Qaeda, Hayat Tahrir al Sham (HTS). They control the region on the Syrian side of the crossing. They are the foreigners and hard-core extremists who invaded Idlib from Turkey in 2015 plus those who left Aleppo and other cities when the militants were defeated by the Syrian army. Even if the United Nations inspects all the trucks going into Idlib province in northern Syria, the truck deliveries are ultimately controlled by HTS (formerly called Jabhat al Nusra).
* The aid is effectively supporting the partition of Syria. Idlib province, and the militants which govern there, seek to separate permanently from Syria. They are attempting to Turkify the region through sectarian education, promoting the Turkish language and even using Turkish currency.
* The aid violates the United Nations Charter which says all member countries shall refrain from threatening the territorial integrity of another member state. Turkey and the USA are the major violators, since they have military troops illegally occupying Syrian lands. But it is a shame for the United Nations to be complicit through the authorization of aid to the breakaway Al Qaeda dominated region.
* The aid to northwest Syria is prolonging the conflict instead of helping end it. It is evident that after failing to militarily overthrow the Syrian government, western powers are now using other means to attack Damascus. They continue to interfere in Syria’s domestic affairs. Led by the USA, they have economically attacked Syria while pouring support into the breakaway northwest region.
* Western aid to the Al Qaeda dominated region distracts from the pain, damage, and destruction which US and European sanctions have wreaked on most Syrians. The Caesar sanctions, imposed by the USA amid the Covid19 pandemic, have had a horrendous impact. By outlawing the Syrian Central Bank and making it nearly impossible to trade with Syria, US sanctions have undermined the Syrian currency. Many goods have increased in price by 4 and 5 and even 10 times. Like a modern-day gangster, the US has been openly stealing the oil and wheat from eastern Syria. The US has attacked the electrical grid by prohibiting parts, engineering, or construction to repair or rebuild power plants. “Caesar” sanctions prohibit support for anything government related including schools and hospitals.
According to a December 2020 United Nations General Assembly resolution, Unilateral Coercive Measures such as the “Caesar” law are illegal and a violation of the UN Charter, international law, and international human rights law. Yet because of US global economic dominance, it is still in force and the US claims the right to prohibit any country, company, or individual from supporting or trading with Syria. This is what makes US claims to humanitarian concern so ironic and cynical.
* The western aid to Syrians through Bab al Hawa is discriminatory and serves to divide the country. Before the conflict Idlib province had a total population of 1.5 million persons and the number is LESS today. Much of the population left when the province was over-run by extremists. Some fled into Turkey; others fled to Latakia province to the west. Some opposition militants and their supporters chose to go to Idlib rather than reconcile with the government. For example, when East Aleppo was taken back by government soldiers, there were about thousands of militants and their families transferred – but not hundreds of thousands as was incorrectly predicted in the wave of propaganda before East Aleppo was recaptured. So, in contrast with some estimates, there are one million or fewer persons in Idlib.
The civilians in northwest Syria are being effectively bribed to live there through cash payments and vastly greater relief. One thousand trucks per month are taking aid into northwest Syria. As noted in an OCHA document, people are “incentivized by access to services and livelihoods.” This is understandable but the divisive effect is also clear.
In contrast, there are between 14 and 17 million Syrians living elsewhere in Syria. They are receiving little if any of the aid. Instead, they are bearing the brunt of vicious US unilateral coercive measures.
* Aid to civilians in Syria should be distributed fairly and proportionally. This can be done with monitoring or supervision by a respected international agency such as the Red Crescent/Red Cross. In keeping with the UN Charter, western countries should respect the political independence of the Syrian government and stop their continuing interference and efforts at “regime change”.
Weaponizing “Humanitarian Aid”
There are many western NGOs crying out about Bab al Hawa. For example, the International Rescue Committee has raised many millions of dollars which should have gone to help all Syrians but has not. Their literature should be carefully considered however because – according to their 2019 tax returns – western governments are their main funders at $440M in 2019. The CEO, David Miliband, is well compensated at over $1 million per year. We can be sure they keep on message with the US State Department.
Humanitarian aid is big business and has been politically weaponized. While there are many well-meaning people working hard, there are political agendas at work.
If Russia and other nations in the UN Security Council veto the extension of the Bab al Hawa crossing, there are good reasons why.
The post What is Wrong with the “Humanitarian Crossing” into Syria? first appeared on Dissident Voice.This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.
Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama describes FRIEND as a “proxy for the opposition”. Video: Fiji Village
By Dhanjay Deo in Suva
Opposition National Federation Party (NFP) leader Professor Biman Prasad says this week’s attack by Economy Minister Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum on the non-government organisation, Foundation for Rural Integrated Enterprises Development (FRIEND) is “shameful and disgraceful”.
Prasad said this in Parliament yesterday after Sayed-Khaiyum had claimed that FRIEND was making a “lot of political mileage” for its work and was the only organisation that the opposition kept talking about.
Dr Prasad said FRIEND was doing a lot of good work for the people.
Sayed-Khaiyum had said in Parliament that there were several other faith-based organisations and NGOs that were doing their work quietly and did not seek public attention. They also did not get in touch with politicians.
He said there were many members of NGOs and civil society organisations that had given food ration packs to members of the public who needed it as they had not been working in areas like Nadi and Lautoka.
Fiji Village tried to get comments from FRIEND director Sashi Kiran, who later said she was “flabbergasted” by the attack.
Fiji Labour Party leader Mahendra Chaudhry also described Sayed-Khaiyum’s attack on FRIEND, well known for its charitable works, as not only unwarranted but “disgusting and shameful”.
Chaudhry said FRIEND was not a political organisation and its work in promoting the welfare of the rural communities and assisting the needy was much appreciated and admired by the people.
He said thousands of people were grateful for the help they had received from FRIEND when the government failed to reach them.
Chaudhry said instead of being critical, Sayed-Khaiyum should have acknowledged and thanked FRIEND for their good work.
Dhanjay Deo is a reporter for Fiji Village.
This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.
A roundup of the coverage on struggles for human rights and freedoms, from Myanmar to Peru
Continue reading…This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.
Asia Pacific Report newsdesk
The local West Papua action group in Dunedin has met Taieri MP Ingrid Leary and raised human rights and militarisation issues that members believe the New Zealand government should be pursuing with Indonesia.
Leary has a strong track record on Pacific human rights issues having worked in Fiji as a television journalist and educator and as a NZ regional director of the British Council with a mandate for Pacific cultural projects.
She is also sits on the parliamentary select committees for Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, and Finance and Expenditure.
READ MORE: Military exports to Indonesia strain NZ’s human rights record
Leary met local coordinator Barbara Frame, retired Methodist pastor Ken Russell, and two doctoral candidates on West Papua research projects at Otago University’s National Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies (NCPCS), Ashley McMillan and Jeremy Simons, at her South Dunedin electorate office on Friday.
She also met Dr David Robie, publisher and editor of Asia Pacific Report that covers West Papuan issues, and Del Abcede of the Auckland-based Asia-Pacific Human Rights Coalition (APHRC).
New Zealand’s defence relationship with Indonesia was critiqued in an article for RNZ National at the weekend by Maire Leadbeater, author of See No Evil: New Zealand’s Betrayal of the People of West Papua.
‘Human rights illusion’
“The recent exposure of New Zealand’s military exports to Saudi Arabia and other countries with terrible human rights records is very important,” Leadbeater wrote.
“The illusion of New Zealand as a human rights upholder has been shattered, and we have work ahead to ensure that we can restore not only our reputation but the reality on which it is based.”
She cited Official Information Act documentation which demonstrated that since 2008 New Zealand had exported military aircraft parts to the Indonesian Air Force.
“In most years, including 2020, these parts are listed as ‘P3 Orion, C130 Hercules & CASA Military Aircraft:Engines, Propellers & Components including Casa Hubs and Actuators’, she wrote.
The documentation also showed that New Zealand exported other ‘strategic goods’ to Indonesia, including so-called small arms including rifles and pistols.
“New Zealand’s human rights advocacy for West Papua is decidedly low-key, despite claims by some academics that Indonesia is responsible for the alleged crime of genocide against the indigenous people,” Leadbeater wrote.
“Pursuing lucrative arms exports, and training of human rights violators, undermines any message our government sends. As more is known about this complicity the challenge to the government’s Indonesia-first setting must grow.”
Massive militarisation
Asia Pacific Report last month published an article by Suara Papua’s Arnold Belau which revealed that the Indonesian state had sent 21,369 troops to the “land of Papua” in the past three years.
Jakarta sends 21,000 troops to Papua over last three years, says KNPB
This figure demonstrating massive militarisation of Papua did not include Kopassus (special forces), reinforcements and a number of other regional units or the Polri (Indonesian police).
Victor Yeimo, international spokesperson for the West Papua National Committee (KNPB), was cited as saying that Papua was now a “military operation zone”.
“This meant [that] Papua had truly become a protectorate where life and death was controlled by military force,” Belau wrote.
This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.
Asia Pacific Report newsdesk
The local West Papua action group in Dunedin has met Taieri MP Ingrid Leary and raised human rights and militarisation issues that members believe the New Zealand government should be pursuing with Indonesia.
Leary has a strong track record on Pacific human rights issues having worked in Fiji as a television journalist and educator and as a NZ regional director of the British Council with a mandate for Pacific cultural projects.
She is also sits on the parliamentary select committees for Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, and Finance and Expenditure.
READ MORE: Military exports to Indonesia strain NZ’s human rights record
Leary met local coordinator Barbara Frame, retired Methodist pastor Ken Russell, and two doctoral candidates on West Papua research projects at Otago University’s National Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies (NCPCS), Ashley McMillan and Jeremy Simons, at her South Dunedin electorate office on Friday.
She also met Dr David Robie, publisher and editor of Asia Pacific Report that covers West Papuan issues, and Del Abcede of the Auckland-based Asia-Pacific Human Rights Coalition (APHRC).
New Zealand’s defence relationship with Indonesia was critiqued in an article for RNZ National at the weekend by Maire Leadbeater, author of See No Evil: New Zealand’s Betrayal of the People of West Papua.
‘Human rights illusion’
“The recent exposure of New Zealand’s military exports to Saudi Arabia and other countries with terrible human rights records is very important,” Leadbeater wrote.
“The illusion of New Zealand as a human rights upholder has been shattered, and we have work ahead to ensure that we can restore not only our reputation but the reality on which it is based.”
She cited Official Information Act documentation which demonstrated that since 2008 New Zealand had exported military aircraft parts to the Indonesian Air Force.
“In most years, including 2020, these parts are listed as ‘P3 Orion, C130 Hercules & CASA Military Aircraft:Engines, Propellers & Components including Casa Hubs and Actuators’, she wrote.
The documentation also showed that New Zealand exported other ‘strategic goods’ to Indonesia, including so-called small arms including rifles and pistols.
“New Zealand’s human rights advocacy for West Papua is decidedly low-key, despite claims by some academics that Indonesia is responsible for the alleged crime of genocide against the indigenous people,” Leadbeater wrote.
“Pursuing lucrative arms exports, and training of human rights violators, undermines any message our government sends. As more is known about this complicity the challenge to the government’s Indonesia-first setting must grow.”
Massive militarisation
Asia Pacific Report last month published an article by Suara Papua’s Arnold Belau which revealed that the Indonesian state had sent 21,369 troops to the “land of Papua” in the past three years.
Jakarta sends 21,000 troops to Papua over last three years, says KNPB
This figure demonstrating massive militarisation of Papua did not include Kopassus (special forces), reinforcements and a number of other regional units or the Polri (Indonesian police).
Victor Yeimo, international spokesperson for the West Papua National Committee (KNPB), was cited as saying that Papua was now a “military operation zone”.
“This meant [that] Papua had truly become a protectorate where life and death was controlled by military force,” Belau wrote.
This post was originally published on Radio Free.
By Jason Brown in Auckland
Worldwide anti-corruption rankings – or first world whitewash?
Long-standing questions about the fairness of corruption ratings and rankings from Transparency International surveys now have answers.
From the Pacific, at least.
For example, why was New Zealand dropped from TI’s Global Corruption Barometer (GCB)?
“I do know about this because we tried to get NZ included,” says Transparency International New Zealand chair Julie Haggie.
“Unfortunately it is a funding issue.”
This lack of funding means supposedly more corrupt “developing” countries are scrutinised more closely than allegedly cleaner “developed” countries, fuelling criticisms of bias against developing and poor countries.
GCB surveys the public
Unlike Transparency International’s much better-known Corruption Perceptions Index, the GCB surveys members of the public about actual experiences of corruption, not just “perceptions” from “experts” and “business leaders”.
So how did the gap between the two surveys come about?
“Funding for the GCB Pacific came out of aid funding from Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (Australia) and Ministry for Foreign Affairs and Trade (New Zealand) under the Pacific reset and Pacific Stepup programmes,” said Haggie.
“Their funding specifically excludes activities in donor giving countries that are not directed out to the Pacific.”
However, New Zealand did feature – once – in the barometer survey.
That 2013 survey found that 3 percent of those responding reported incidents of bribery – some 30 people directly, or around 80,000 people if taken as a representative sample of the wider New Zealand population.
Those experiences are all but ignored across government websites there, with GCB survey results mentioned only once.
Responses from Berlin
So why was New Zealand dropped from the barometer?
Islands Business sent questions to the press section at the global headquarters of the Berlin-based organisation in early February, but got no reply.
Asked for help with getting a response from Berlin, Haggie replied that:
“As I understand it this was not a TI decision.
“They did have a limited pool of funding which may have determined how many small Pacific nations they could include. Australia was not included in this set as well, I think they were previously included in an Asian GCB which NZ was not included in.”
Haggie is correct – Australia has disappeared from the barometer as well.
In 2017, however, Australia reported a bribery rate of 4 percent, or just short of a million people if those surveyed are representative of the general population.
Lacks funding for survey
At the same time Transparency International claims it lacks funding to survey actual corruption in Australia and New Zealand, both countries are instead funding research that focuses attention on corruption – in the Pacific.
“We are undertaking research this year which will look at the connection between money laundering and corruption across the Pacific,” said Haggie.
While this will no doubt be welcomed by island-based anti-corruption campaigners, criticism of the fairness of Transparency International surveys go well beyond Australia and New Zealand.
Global concerns go back years, focused around developed countries ignoring their own backyard.
Similar concerns were already long standing enough for the inventor of the index to withdraw from future surveys over a decade ago.
“In 1995, I invented the Corruption Perceptions Index,” wrote Passau University professor Graf Lambsdorff in a 2009 email to the TI network, “and have orchestrated it ever since, putting TI on the spotlight of international attention.
“In August 2009, I informed Cobus de Swardt, managing director of TI, that I am no longer available for doing the Corruption Perceptions Index.”
Gaps in the Pacific
Back in 2021, Transparency International’s Pacific regional perspective Miriam Mathew agrees there are gaps.
“When New Zealand was last included in the GCB in 2013, it was undertaken as part of a global rather than a regional report, and TI had access to other sources of funding covering corruption measurement tools globally,” Mathew said.
“If future opportunities arise to survey New Zealand (and Australia) for the GCB, we would be very interested to do so, as of course it does leave gaps in our understanding of people’s lived experience of corruption around the world and in the region.“
Ironically, Transparency International itself has referred to concerns about a whitewash by first world countries in other spheres.
Quoting an Oxfam report in May last year, titled “Blacklist or whitewash?”, TI noted the example of the European Union, which leaves its own countries off lists of tax havens.
Jason Brown is founder of Journalism Agenda 2025 and writes about Pacific and world journalism and ethically globalised Fourth Estate issues. This article was originally published in Islands Business news magazine and is republished with permission.
This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.
By Jason Brown in Auckland
Worldwide anti-corruption rankings – or first world whitewash?
Long-standing questions about the fairness of corruption ratings and rankings from Transparency International surveys now have answers.
From the Pacific, at least.
For example, why was New Zealand dropped from TI’s Global Corruption Barometer (GCB)?
“I do know about this because we tried to get NZ included,” says Transparency International New Zealand chair Julie Haggie.
“Unfortunately it is a funding issue.”
This lack of funding means supposedly more corrupt “developing” countries are scrutinised more closely than allegedly cleaner “developed” countries, fuelling criticisms of bias against developing and poor countries.
GCB surveys the public
Unlike Transparency International’s much better-known Corruption Perceptions Index, the GCB surveys members of the public about actual experiences of corruption, not just “perceptions” from “experts” and “business leaders”.
So how did the gap between the two surveys come about?
“Funding for the GCB Pacific came out of aid funding from Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (Australia) and Ministry for Foreign Affairs and Trade (New Zealand) under the Pacific reset and Pacific Stepup programmes,” said Haggie.
“Their funding specifically excludes activities in donor giving countries that are not directed out to the Pacific.”
However, New Zealand did feature – once – in the barometer survey.
That 2013 survey found that 3 percent of those responding reported incidents of bribery – some 30 people directly, or around 80,000 people if taken as a representative sample of the wider New Zealand population.
Those experiences are all but ignored across government websites there, with GCB survey results mentioned only once.
Responses from Berlin
So why was New Zealand dropped from the barometer?
Islands Business sent questions to the press section at the global headquarters of the Berlin-based organisation in early February, but got no reply.
Asked for help with getting a response from Berlin, Haggie replied that:
“As I understand it this was not a TI decision.
“They did have a limited pool of funding which may have determined how many small Pacific nations they could include. Australia was not included in this set as well, I think they were previously included in an Asian GCB which NZ was not included in.”
Haggie is correct – Australia has disappeared from the barometer as well.
In 2017, however, Australia reported a bribery rate of 4 percent, or just short of a million people if those surveyed are representative of the general population.
Lacks funding for survey
At the same time Transparency International claims it lacks funding to survey actual corruption in Australia and New Zealand, both countries are instead funding research that focuses attention on corruption – in the Pacific.
“We are undertaking research this year which will look at the connection between money laundering and corruption across the Pacific,” said Haggie.
While this will no doubt be welcomed by island-based anti-corruption campaigners, criticism of the fairness of Transparency International surveys go well beyond Australia and New Zealand.
Global concerns go back years, focused around developed countries ignoring their own backyard.
Similar concerns were already long standing enough for the inventor of the index to withdraw from future surveys over a decade ago.
“In 1995, I invented the Corruption Perceptions Index,” wrote Passau University professor Graf Lambsdorff in a 2009 email to the TI network, “and have orchestrated it ever since, putting TI on the spotlight of international attention.
“In August 2009, I informed Cobus de Swardt, managing director of TI, that I am no longer available for doing the Corruption Perceptions Index.”
Gaps in the Pacific
Back in 2021, Transparency International’s Pacific regional perspective Miriam Mathew agrees there are gaps.
“When New Zealand was last included in the GCB in 2013, it was undertaken as part of a global rather than a regional report, and TI had access to other sources of funding covering corruption measurement tools globally,” Mathew said.
“If future opportunities arise to survey New Zealand (and Australia) for the GCB, we would be very interested to do so, as of course it does leave gaps in our understanding of people’s lived experience of corruption around the world and in the region.“
Ironically, Transparency International itself has referred to concerns about a whitewash by first world countries in other spheres.
Quoting an Oxfam report in May last year, titled “Blacklist or whitewash?”, TI noted the example of the European Union, which leaves its own countries off lists of tax havens.
Jason Brown is founder of Journalism Agenda 2025 and writes about Pacific and world journalism and ethically globalised Fourth Estate issues. This article was originally published in Islands Business news magazine and is republished with permission.
This post was originally published on Radio Free.
We have to act on the regime’s human rights abuses, but withholding aid is unlikely to help the general population, writes Stijn Kuipers
Michela Wrong’s exposure of human rights abuses under Rwandan president Paul Kagame is a service to the world. Her suggestion that we should therefore withhold aid, however, is not (‘We choose good guys and bad guys’: beneath the myth of ‘model’ Rwanda, 19 March). I wish the west’s development paradigm was as apolitical and “sinister” as she describes it, as that would make it easy to solve. In reality, the development field has become much more politically conscious in recent years. The problem is that this has made the work more complex.
For example, in 2014 the Dutch government halted aid to Uganda in response to a proposed anti-homosexuality law, arguably acting morally. However, Ugandan LGBTQ+ organisations were not very happy with the Dutch response, as they predicted that LGBTQ+ people would have an even harder time in society if aid projects were cancelled and they received the blame.
Continue reading…This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.
A long-brewing crisis in Haiti, created through intervention by the United States, United Nations and allied western imperialist countries, has now come to a head. The Biden administration is openly backing a violent, corrupt and fraudulent leader, Jovenel Moïse, and maintaining the policies of previous presidents, including Donald Trump, in Haiti.
Activists in Haiti have reached out to the Haitian diaspora in the United States and to organizations that support respect for self-determination and human rights for their solidarity. Listen to my interview about the situation there with Haitian filmmaker and political activist Wilkenson Bruna on Clearing the FOG this week (available on Monday).
The crisis in Haiti will not end until sufficient pressure is placed on the United States to change its positions. As people living in the United States, that is our responsibility. We need to understand what is happening in Haiti, the roots of the crisis and how to take action. As the Black Alliance for Peace writes:
With the election of U.S. President Joe Biden, folks believed this so-called ‘champion’ of fair elections and the rule of law—who had expressed a commitment that ‘Black Lives Matter’—would rally to the side of Haitians and end U.S. support for the dictatorship. But that did not happen.
Today, there are protests in Haiti calling for Jovenel Moïse to step down. You can follow the protests using the hashtag #NouPapDomi (“We will not sleep.”). Take a photo of yourself holding a sign of solidarity with the people of Haiti and share it on social media to raise awareness of what is happening.
Gray Panthers, San Francisco
It was one week ago today that Jovenel Moïse’s term as president of Haiti ended, a presidency achieved through manipulation of the election in 2015-16 and marked by a usurpation of power. Moïse has refused to cede that power and in response to protests, has unleashed greater state violence, harassment and arrests including attacks on journalists.
Leading up to February 7, there were massive protests in Haiti calling for Moïse to respect the Haitian Constitution and step down so that a provisional government could be put in place and elections could be organized. These protests were led by a broad coalition of social movements, trade unions, and opposition political parties. The Haitian Supreme Court and Bar Association agree that Moïse’s five year term ends this year while Moïse claims he has one more year. The Biden State Department backed Moïse’s claim.
On February 7, Moïse announced that a coup was being conducted against him and ordered arrests of people who oppose him. Police raided the homes of a Supreme Court judge and the Inspector General and jailed them. The next day, Moïse fired three Supreme Court judges and police took control of the courts. He then illegally appointed three new judges. In protest, judges are launching a nationwide unlimited strike on February 15. International bodies, such as the Canadian Lawyers Without Borders, denounced Moïse’s assault on the judiciary.
Violence against people who oppose the Moïse dictatorship has been increasing and severe during his term. The “Group of 9,” basically a group of state-sanctioned gangs, have massacred people in opposition communities. Recently, both the police and the military, trained in repressive techniques by the United States, have attacked and arrested demonstrators and the media, even using live ammunition. Two journalists were shot covering protests on February 8.
On February 12, Supreme Court Judge Joseph Mécène Jean Louis publicly announced that he had been chosen by the opposition as a provisional president. He is one of the three Supreme Court judges fired by Moïse. Mécène plans to set up an interim government and call for elections.
In addition to president, there need to be electi0ns for the Parliament and municipal offices. Moïse refused to hold parliamentary elections when they were due in 2019 and dismissed most members of the legislature. He has been ruling by decree, essentially a dictatorship, since early 2020. He also dismissed mayors across the country and appointed replacements for them.
In another attack on democracy, Moïse is working with what is known as the “Core Group,” which includes the United Nations, the Organization of American States, the US, Brazil, France, Spain and the European Union, to rewrite the Haitian Constitution and grant greater powers to the executive office. Haiti has had 23 Constitutions since 1801.
Protesters marched to the UN headquarters in Port-au-Prince. Ted’Actu
The United States has had a hand in Haitian politics for a long time. In this century, it was in 2004 that the United States and its imperialist allies conducted a successful coup against President Jean-Bertrand Aristide and brought in the United Nations as an occupying force. In the short time that it was in power, the Aristide government built schools and health centers and raised the minimum wage. It also disbanded the military and started investigating accusations of state violence. Life was improving for Haitians.
Under the United Nations occupation, conditions have deteriorated. There have been massacres. UN troops have been involved in human trade and sexual exploitation and they brought cholera to the country, which has killed tens of thousands of people.
The Clintons have also played a destructive role in Haiti, both through the Clinton Foundation and Hillary Clinton’s interventions as Secretary of State under President Obama. It was the Clintons who succeeded in thwarting the will of the people in the 2010 presidential election by installing the US-backed candidate, Michel Martelly, in what was considered a “silent coup d’etat“. Millions of US dollars poured in to support Martelly’s campaign in an election that occurred after the massive earthquake of 2010 and in which the most popular party, Fanma Lavalas, of former President Aristide was banned. Only about one-fourth of registered voters participated, which is highly unusual.
In the following years, billions of dollars of aid poured into the country but there was little to show for it. Instead, deals were given to businesses owned by Clinton Foundation donors to build factories that are sweatshops. Jake Johnson outlines what followed the earthquake by the numbers. Less than one percent of the money that was pledged went to the Haitian government or to Haitian institutions or businesses. While 105,000 houses were destroyed, the Red Cross, which raised almost $500 million, only built six houses and USAID, which pledged to build 15,000 houses, only built 900.
Jovenel Moïse, another US-puppet, came to power after Martelly’s term in a fraudulent election in 2015. His presidency was delayed by protests over that election because the people were unwilling to concede another assault on their democracy, but ultimately Moïse prevailed and was seated on February 7, 2017. Protests have continued throughout his term, especially when it was revealed that billions of dollars provided through Venezuela’s PetroCaribe program that were supposed to be used for infrastructure were missing. Now, his term has ended.
Haitian activists and immigrants protest on City Hall Plaza in Boston. 2018. Charles Krupa/AP.
It is no surprise that the Biden administration is carrying on with the US’ bipartisan imperialist project in Haiti but now the situation is dire. Jovenel Moïse has dismantled the democratic institutions of the state and rules unilaterally with the support of the police, military and western allies. Opposition to this is being brutally repressed. We, in the United States, a country largely responsible for the devastation of Haiti, must act in response to the request for our support.
The Haiti Action Committee has an action alert with information about contacting Congress. Click here for that alert. Share the alert with your networks. Haitians are protesting today – follow and share their actions too.
Leaders of peace and Haitian solidarity organizations in the United States are planning actions in support of the self-determination of the Haitian people and in opposition to western imperialism. Demands include ending US support for Jovenel Moïse, ending US interference in Haiti’s elections, and denouncing violence and repression.
President Biden claims to care about racial injustice. He must be pressured to demonstrate that with concrete actions. The United States government must respect the people’s will in our close neighbor, Haiti. Look for more to come on this soon.
This post was originally published on Radio Free.
A long-brewing crisis in Haiti, created through intervention by the United States, United Nations and allied western imperialist countries, has now come to a head. The Biden administration is openly backing a violent, corrupt and fraudulent leader, Jovenel Moïse, and maintaining the policies of previous presidents, including Donald Trump, in Haiti.
Activists in Haiti have reached out to the Haitian diaspora in the United States and to organizations that support respect for self-determination and human rights for their solidarity. Listen to my interview about the situation there with Haitian filmmaker and political activist Wilkenson Bruna on Clearing the FOG this week (available on Monday).
The crisis in Haiti will not end until sufficient pressure is placed on the United States to change its positions. As people living in the United States, that is our responsibility. We need to understand what is happening in Haiti, the roots of the crisis and how to take action. As the Black Alliance for Peace writes:
With the election of U.S. President Joe Biden, folks believed this so-called ‘champion’ of fair elections and the rule of law—who had expressed a commitment that ‘Black Lives Matter’—would rally to the side of Haitians and end U.S. support for the dictatorship. But that did not happen.
Today, there are protests in Haiti calling for Jovenel Moïse to step down. You can follow the protests using the hashtag #NouPapDomi (“We will not sleep.”). Take a photo of yourself holding a sign of solidarity with the people of Haiti and share it on social media to raise awareness of what is happening.
Gray Panthers, San Francisco
It was one week ago today that Jovenel Moïse’s term as president of Haiti ended, a presidency achieved through manipulation of the election in 2015-16 and marked by a usurpation of power. Moïse has refused to cede that power and in response to protests, has unleashed greater state violence, harassment and arrests including attacks on journalists.
Leading up to February 7, there were massive protests in Haiti calling for Moïse to respect the Haitian Constitution and step down so that a provisional government could be put in place and elections could be organized. These protests were led by a broad coalition of social movements, trade unions, and opposition political parties. The Haitian Supreme Court and Bar Association agree that Moïse’s five year term ends this year while Moïse claims he has one more year. The Biden State Department backed Moïse’s claim.
On February 7, Moïse announced that a coup was being conducted against him and ordered arrests of people who oppose him. Police raided the homes of a Supreme Court judge and the Inspector General and jailed them. The next day, Moïse fired three Supreme Court judges and police took control of the courts. He then illegally appointed three new judges. In protest, judges are launching a nationwide unlimited strike on February 15. International bodies, such as the Canadian Lawyers Without Borders, denounced Moïse’s assault on the judiciary.
Violence against people who oppose the Moïse dictatorship has been increasing and severe during his term. The “Group of 9,” basically a group of state-sanctioned gangs, have massacred people in opposition communities. Recently, both the police and the military, trained in repressive techniques by the United States, have attacked and arrested demonstrators and the media, even using live ammunition. Two journalists were shot covering protests on February 8.
On February 12, Supreme Court Judge Joseph Mécène Jean Louis publicly announced that he had been chosen by the opposition as a provisional president. He is one of the three Supreme Court judges fired by Moïse. Mécène plans to set up an interim government and call for elections.
In addition to president, there need to be electi0ns for the Parliament and municipal offices. Moïse refused to hold parliamentary elections when they were due in 2019 and dismissed most members of the legislature. He has been ruling by decree, essentially a dictatorship, since early 2020. He also dismissed mayors across the country and appointed replacements for them.
In another attack on democracy, Moïse is working with what is known as the “Core Group,” which includes the United Nations, the Organization of American States, the US, Brazil, France, Spain and the European Union, to rewrite the Haitian Constitution and grant greater powers to the executive office. Haiti has had 23 Constitutions since 1801.
Protesters marched to the UN headquarters in Port-au-Prince. Ted’Actu
The United States has had a hand in Haitian politics for a long time. In this century, it was in 2004 that the United States and its imperialist allies conducted a successful coup against President Jean-Bertrand Aristide and brought in the United Nations as an occupying force. In the short time that it was in power, the Aristide government built schools and health centers and raised the minimum wage. It also disbanded the military and started investigating accusations of state violence. Life was improving for Haitians.
Under the United Nations occupation, conditions have deteriorated. There have been massacres. UN troops have been involved in human trade and sexual exploitation and they brought cholera to the country, which has killed tens of thousands of people.
The Clintons have also played a destructive role in Haiti, both through the Clinton Foundation and Hillary Clinton’s interventions as Secretary of State under President Obama. It was the Clintons who succeeded in thwarting the will of the people in the 2010 presidential election by installing the US-backed candidate, Michel Martelly, in what was considered a “silent coup d’etat“. Millions of US dollars poured in to support Martelly’s campaign in an election that occurred after the massive earthquake of 2010 and in which the most popular party, Fanma Lavalas, of former President Aristide was banned. Only about one-fourth of registered voters participated, which is highly unusual.
In the following years, billions of dollars of aid poured into the country but there was little to show for it. Instead, deals were given to businesses owned by Clinton Foundation donors to build factories that are sweatshops. Jake Johnson outlines what followed the earthquake by the numbers. Less than one percent of the money that was pledged went to the Haitian government or to Haitian institutions or businesses. While 105,000 houses were destroyed, the Red Cross, which raised almost $500 million, only built six houses and USAID, which pledged to build 15,000 houses, only built 900.
Jovenel Moïse, another US-puppet, came to power after Martelly’s term in a fraudulent election in 2015. His presidency was delayed by protests over that election because the people were unwilling to concede another assault on their democracy, but ultimately Moïse prevailed and was seated on February 7, 2017. Protests have continued throughout his term, especially when it was revealed that billions of dollars provided through Venezuela’s PetroCaribe program that were supposed to be used for infrastructure were missing. Now, his term has ended.
Haitian activists and immigrants protest on City Hall Plaza in Boston. 2018. Charles Krupa/AP.
It is no surprise that the Biden administration is carrying on with the US’ bipartisan imperialist project in Haiti but now the situation is dire. Jovenel Moïse has dismantled the democratic institutions of the state and rules unilaterally with the support of the police, military and western allies. Opposition to this is being brutally repressed. We, in the United States, a country largely responsible for the devastation of Haiti, must act in response to the request for our support.
The Haiti Action Committee has an action alert with information about contacting Congress. Click here for that alert. Share the alert with your networks. Haitians are protesting today – follow and share their actions too.
Leaders of peace and Haitian solidarity organizations in the United States are planning actions in support of the self-determination of the Haitian people and in opposition to western imperialism. Demands include ending US support for Jovenel Moïse, ending US interference in Haiti’s elections, and denouncing violence and repression.
President Biden claims to care about racial injustice. He must be pressured to demonstrate that with concrete actions. The United States government must respect the people’s will in our close neighbor, Haiti. Look for more to come on this soon.
The post Urgent Solidarity with Haiti is Needed first appeared on Dissident Voice.This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.
.jpg){kind=link}
