Tuesday, July 07, 2009

The Role of the International Republican Institute (IRI) in the Honduran Coup


The International Republican Institute talks of “coup” in Honduras, months before
By Eva Golinger

The International Republican Institute (IRI), considered the international branch of the U.S. Republican Party, and one of the four “core groups” of the congressionally created and funded National Endowment for Democracy (NED), apparently knew of the coup d’etat in Honduras against President Zelaya well in advance. IRI is well known for its role in the April 2002 coup d’etat against Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez and its funding and strategic advising of the principal organizations involved in the ouster of President Jean Bertrand Aristide of Haiti in 2004. In both cases, IRI funded and/or trained and advised political parties and groups that were implicated in the violent, undemocratic overthrow of democratically elected presidents.

After the 2002 coup d’etat occured in Venezuela, IRI president at the time, George Folsom, sent out a celebratory press release claiming, “The Institute has served as a bridge between the nation’s political parties and all civil society groups to help Venezuelans forge a new democratic future…” Hours later, after the coup failed and the people of Venezuelan rescued their president, who had been kidnapped and imprisoned on a military base, and reinstalled constitutional order, IRI regretted its premature, public applause for the coup. One of its principal funders, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), was furious that IRI had publicly revealed the U.S. government had provided funding and support for the coup leaders. NED President Carl Gershman was so irritated with IRI’s blunder, that he sent out a memo to Folsom, chastising him: “By welcoming [the coup] – indeed, without any apparent reservations – you unnecessarily interjected IRI into the sensitive internal politics o Venezuela”. Gershman would have much prefered that NED and IRI’s role in fomenting and supporting the coup against President Chávez have remained a secret.

IRI, chaired by Senator John McCain, was created in 1983 as part of the National Endowment for Democracy’s mission to “promote democracy around the world”, a mandate from President Ronald Reagan. In reality, one of NED’s founders, Allen Weinstein, put it this way in a 1991 interview with the Washington Post, "A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA." IRI’s own history, according to its website (www.iri.org) also explains that its original work was in Latin America, at a time when the Reagan administration was under heavy scrutiny and pressure from the U.S. Congress for funding paramilitary groups, dictatorships and death squads in Central and South America to install U.S.-friendly regimes and supress leftist movements. “Congress responded to President Reagan’s call in 1983 when it created the National Endowment for Democracy to support aspiring democrats worldwide. Four nonprofit, nonpartisan democracy institutes were formed to carry out this work – IRI, the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI), the Center for International Private Enterprise (CIPE), and the American Center for International Labor Solidarity (ACILS).”“In its infancy, IRI focused on planting the seeds of democracy in Latin America. Since the end of the Cold War, IRI has broadened its reach to support democracy and freedom around the globe. IRI has conducted programs in more than 100 countries.”

In its initial days, IRI, along with the other coup groups of the NED, funded organizations in Nicaragua to foment the destabilization of the Sandinista government. Journalist Jeremy Bigwood explained part of this role in his article, “No Strings Attached?”, "’When the rhetoric of democracy is put aside, NED is a specialized tool for penetrating civil society in other countries down to the grassroots level’ to achieve U.S. foreign policy goals, writes University of California-Santa Barbara professor William Robinson in his book, A Faustian Bargain. Robinson was in Nicaragua during the late ‘80s and watched NED work with the U.S.-backed Nicaraguan opposition to remove the leftist Sandinistas from power during the 1990 elections.”

The evidence of IRI’s role in the 2002 coup d’etat in Venezuela has been well documented and investigated. Proof of such involvement, which is still ongoing in terms of IRI’s work, funding, strategic advising and training of opposition political parties in Venezuela, is available through documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act posted here: , and also available in my book, The Chávez Code: Cracking U.S. Intervention in Venezuela (Olive Branch Press 2006). None of the claims or evidence regarding IRI’s role in fomenting and supporting the April 2002 in Venezuela and its ongoing support of the Venezuelan opposition has ever been disclaimed by the institution, primarily because all evidence cited comes from IRI and NED’s own internal documentation obtained under FOIA.

Hence, when the recent coup d’etat occured in Honduras, against democratically-elected President Manuel Zelaya, there was little doubt of U.S. fingerprints. IRI’s name appeared as a recipient of a $700,000 Latin American Regional Grant in 2008-2009 from NED to promote “good governance” programs in countries including Honduras. An additional grant of $550,000 to work with “think tanks” and “pressure groups” in Honduras to influence political parties was also given by the NED to IRI in 2008-2009, specifically stating, IRI will support initiatives to implement [political] positions into the 2009 campaigns. IRI will place special emphasis on Honduras, which has scheduled presidential and parliamentary elections in November 2009.” That is clear direct intervention in internal politics in Honduras.

The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) also provides approximately $49 million annually to Honduras, a large part of which is directed towards “democracy promotion” programs. The majority of the recipients of this aid in Honduras, which comes in the form of funding, training, resources, strategic advice, communications counseling, political party strengthening and leadership training, are organizations directly linked to the recent coup d’etat, such as the Consejo Nacional Anticorrupción, the Archbishop of Tegucigalpa, the Honduran Private Enterprise Council (COHEP), the Council of University Deans, the Confederation of Honduran Workers (CTH), the National Convergence Forum, the Chamber of Commerce (FEDECAMARA), the Association of Private Media (AMC), the Group Paz y Democracia and the student group Generación X Cambio. These organizations form part of a coalition self-titled “Unión Cívica Democrática de Honduras” (Civil Democratic Union of Honduras) that has publicly backed the coup against President Zelaya.

IRI’s press secretary, Lisa Gates, responded to claims that IRI funded or aided (which also involves non-monetary aid, such as training, advising and providing resources) groups involved in the Honduran coup as “false reports”. However, there are several interesting links between the republican organization and the violent coup d’etat against President Zelaya that do indicate the institute’s involvement, as well as to the above mentioned funding that exceeds $1 million during just this year. In addition to its presence on the ground in Honduras as part of its “good governance” and “political influence” programs, IRI Regional Program Director, Latin America and the Carribean, Alex Sutton, has recently been closely involved with many of the organizations in the region that have backed the Honduran coup. Sutton was a featured speaker at a recent 3-day conference held in Venezuela by the U.S.-funded ultraconservative Venezuelan organization CEDICE (Centro para la Divulgación de Conocimiento Económico). CEDICE’s director, Rocío Guijarra, was one of the principal executors of the 2002 coup d’etat against President Hugo Chávez, and Guijarra personally signed a decree installing a dictatorship in the country, which led to the coup’s overthrow by the people and loyal armed forces of Venezuela. The conference Sutton participated in, held from May 28-29 in Venezuela was attended by leaders of Latin America’s ultra-conservative movement, ranging from Bolivian ex president Jorge Quiroga, who has called for President Evo Morales of Bolivia’s overthrow on several occasions, Peruvian Mario Vargas Llosa and his son Alvaro, both of whom have publicly expressed support for the coup against President Zelaya in Honduras, and numerous leaders of the Venezuelan opposition, the majority of whom are well known for their involvement in the April 2002 coup and subsequent destabilization attempts. The majority of those present at the CEDICE conference in May 2009, have publicly expressed support for the recent coup against President Zelaya.

But a more damning piece of evidence linking IRI to the Honduran coup, is a video clip posted on the institute’s website at http://www.iri.org/multimedia.asp. The clip or podcast, features a slideshow presentation given by Susan Zelaya-Fenner, assistant program officer at IRI, on March 20, 2009, discussing the “good governance” program in Honduras. Curiously, at the beginning of the presentation, Zelaya-Fenner explains what she considers “a couple of interesting facts about Honduras.” These include, “Honduras is a very overlooked country in a small region. Honduras has had more military coups than years of independence, it has been said. However, parodoxically, more recently it has been called a pillar of stability in the region, even being called the U.S.S. Honduras, as it avoided all of the crisis that its neighbors went through during the civil wars in the 1980s.”

Important to note is that what Zelaya-Fenner refers to as “U.S.S. Honduras” and “avoid[ing] all of the crisis that its neighbords went through during the civil wars in the 1980s” was because the U.S. government, CIA and Pentagon utilized Honduras as the launching pad for the attacks on Honduras’ neighbors. U.S. Ambassador at the time, John Negroponte, and Colonel Oliver North, trained, funded and planned the paramilitary missions of the death squads that were used to assassinate, torture, persecute, disappear and neutralize tens of thousands of farmers and “suspected” leftists in Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras.

Zelaya-Fenner continues, “Thus, Honduras has been more recently stable, and it’s always been poor, which means that it’s below the radar, and gets little attention. The current president, Manuel Zelaya and his buddies, the leftists in the Latin American region have caused a lot of political destabilization recently in the country. He is a would-be emulator of Hugo Chavez and Hugo Chavez' social revolution. He has spent the better part of this administration trying to convince the Honduran people, who tend to be very practical and very 'center' that the Venezuelan route is the way to go. Zelaya's leftist leanings further exarcerbate an already troubled state. Corruption is rampant, crime is at all time highs. Drug trafficking and related violence have begun to spill over from Mexico. And there's a very real sense that the country is being purposefully destabilized from within, which is very new in recent Honduran history. Coups are thought to be so three decades ago until now (laughs, audience laughs), again.”

Did she really say that? Yes, you can hear it yourself on the podcast. Is it merely a coincidence that the coup against President Zelaya occured just three months after this presentation? State Department officials have admitted that they knew the coup was in the works for the past few months. Sub-secretary of State Thomas Shannon was in Honduras the week before the coup, apparently trying to broker some kind of deal with the coup planners to find another “solution” to the “problem”. Nevertheless, they continued funding via NED and USAID to those very same groups and military sectors involved in the coup. It is not a hidden fact that Washington was unhappy with President Zelaya’s alliances in the region, principally with countries such as Venezuela and Nicaragua. It is also public knowledge that President Zelaya was in the process of removing the U.S. military presence from the Soto Cano airbase, using a fund from the Bolivarian Alliance of the Americas (ALBA – Bolivia, Cuba, Ecuador, Dominica, Honduras, Nicaragua, St. Kitts, Antigua & Barbados and Venezuela) to convert the strategically important Pentagon base into a commercial airport.

IRI’s Zelaya-Fenner explains the strategic importance of Honduras in her presentation, "Why does Honduras matter? A lot of people ask this question, even Honduran historians and experts. Some might argue that it doesn't and globally it might be hard to counter. However, the country is strategic to regional stability and this is an election year in Honduras. It's a strategic time to help democrats with a small “d”, at a time when democracy is increasingly coming under attack in the region.”

There is no doubt that the coup against President Zelaya is an effort to undermine regional governments implementing alternative models to capitalism that challenge U.S. concepts of representative democracy as “the best model”. Countries such as Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador, are building successful models based on participatory democracy that ensure economic and social justice, and prioritize collective social prosperity and human needs over market economics. These are the countries, together now with Honduras, that have been victims of NED, USAID, IRI and other agencies’ interventions to subvert their prospering democracies.

Cynthia McKinney arrives back in United States without her laptop computer, video camera, and cell phone

Cynthia McKinney arrives back in United States

Former U.S. Representative and Green Party presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney has arrived in New York from her over one week incarceration in an Israeli prison cell for trying to bring toys, medicine, and other urgently-needed humanitarian supplies to the beleaguered people of Gaza, Israel's own version of the infamous Nazi "Warsaw Ghetto" in World War II.

McKinney arrived in New York without her laptop computer, video camera, and cell phone, which were confiscated by Israel's Shin Bet spy agency and are presumably being examined for their contents, including e-mail and cell phone contacts. This editor spoke to Representative McKinney on her cell phone shortly before her departure for Cyprus to board a boat for Gaza.

Recently, a civil rights delegation headed by the Reverend Joseph Lowery, who gave the benediction at President Obama's inauguration, visited the Israeli Consulate General in Atlanta to demand McKinney's immediate release. The pleas of Lowery, who marched with Dr. Martin Luther King during the civil rights era, went unheeded by the Zionist regime's authorities who continued to hold McKinney in prison immediately after Lowery's request.

NSA trains allied surveillance services in Russia's "Near Abroad"

Cyberspace is not the only place where the National Security Agency (NSA) is extending its electronic surveillance tentacles. WMR has learned from NSA sources that NSA has been training a new generation of signals intelligence operators for the electronic security services of nations that are considered within Russia's sphere of influence, also known as Russia's "near abroad."

Through the Defense Language Institute English Language Center (DLIELC) at Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, Texas. San Antonio is also home to NSA Texas, a Regional Security Operations Center (RSOC), and the Air Force's new Cyber-Command, which works closely with NSA to conduct surveillance of the Internet.

DLIELC, which has been in operation since 1954, has trained foreign signals intelligence and other intelligence gathering specialists English. lMost of those trained are from Kazakhstan, however, others have been trained from Georgia, Ukraine, Moldova, and Uzbekistan. In addition, prospective English-speaking signals intelligence operators from the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia have also been trained by DLIELC for duty back in their home countries.

In some cases, after receiving training at DLIELC, special security troops are trained by tactical infantry U.S. Special Forces at Fort Benning, Georgia.

WMR has learned from NSA sources that two past graduates of the DLIELC were deposed Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and "Al Qaeda" leader Osama bin Laden.

Rigging the Game From the US Intelligence Community:

Guest input --

Rigging the Game

9 simple steps for rolling up whistleblowers in the Intelligence Community using the Patriot Act.

1. First Determine who it is you need to silence.

2. Find something, anything that you can label classified, even formerly unclassified information they may have talked about in any unclassified setting.

3. Now, use the Counterintelligence provisions of the “Patriot Act” to the fullest extent of this new found freedom to violate Americans' civil rights.

4. Meet with that person under the guise of a simple investigation.

5. DO NOT advise said person of their civil rights since they have none under the “Patriot Act”.

6. Collect data from all the different environments the guilty party had access to, like their e-mails and personal computers systems and use that to incriminate said individual.

7. Simply use whatever excuse to deny the guilty party access so they can't defend themselves and send them on their merry way.

8. Done.

9. NEXT!

Personally J. Edgar Hoover is now laughing since the Patriot Act allows his Agency to do something they can actually be good at. Don't think this is possible in America? Then wake up a smell the coffee.

Why is it that 17 Intelligence Agencies that spend 44+ billion dollars a year can't find two guys on this planet?

Maybe they don't want to, since “Terrorism” is the best game in town. The rest of you might want to read the whole Patriot Act and see where your rights went. Just remember “

Members of the Congress and Senate who really want to know more about what's really going on with

our Intelligence Agencies, contact this reporter and he can contact me. I will gladly testify before the House and/or the Senate about everything I have witnessed and reported over the past 10 years with zero results.

Eagles may soar but Weasels don't get sucked through jet engines”.

Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa on Global Capitalism, Why He Won’t Renew the US Base in Manta, Chevron in the Amazon, Obama’s War in Afghanistan


Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa on Global Capitalism, Why He Won’t Renew the US Base in Manta, Chevron in the Amazon, Obama’s War in Afghanistan, and More

Correa3-web

In a national broadcast exclusive, we speak with the President of Ecuador, Rafael Correa. He was in New York attending the United Nations Conference on the World Financial and Economic Crisis and Its Impact on Development. In a wide-ranging interview, we speak with President Correa about global capitalism, his decision not to renew the license for the US military base in Manta, the $12 billion lawsuit against Chevron brought by thousands of Amazon residents for toxic oil pollution, Ecuador’s relationship with Colombia, and his advice to President Obama: “To learn more and come to better understand the region, and that [Obama] not let himself be taken along by the power of certain media outlets that are compromised with certain ideological fundaments, and that the heroes aren’t necessarily heroes, and the villains aren’t necessarily villains.” [includes rush transcript]

Guest:

Rafael Correa, President of Ecuador.

Rush Transcript

This transcript is available free of charge. However, donations help us provide closed captioning for the deaf and hard of hearing on our TV broadcast. Thank you for your generous contribution.
Donate - $25, $50, $100, More...

AMY GOODMAN: We turn now to our national broadcast exclusive, a wide-ranging discussion with Ecuador’s President Rafael Correa, who today is in Nicaragua, a meeting with Zelaya.

Last week, President Correa was in New York attending the United Nations Conference on the World Financial and Economic Crisis and Its Impact on Development. Correa was the only world leader to attend the conference.

He spoke at the General Assembly last Thursday. And President Correa is an economist by training. He outlined the steps by which Latin America could free itself from relying on international financial institutions like the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. The former finance minister of Ecuador was elected president in 2006, then reelected to a second term earlier this year.

I interviewed President Correa on Thursday in the Ecuadorian mission here in New York. It was before the coup in Honduras. I began by asking him to comment on the absence of so many heads of state at the UN conference. According to press reports, Western diplomats said the conference was just a platform to attack capitalism.

    PRESIDENT RAFAEL CORREA: [translated] Well, if this is an attack on capitalism, I think it’s well deserved. Look at the problem it’s got us into. So I don’t understand those who say they’re not here because it might descend into an attack on capitalism. They must have a strong ideological bias, because certainly if they thought maybe there would be an attack on socialism, or had they thought it was going to be an attack on socialism, they would have been delighted to have come.

    AMY GOODMAN: Talk about why you think at this point capitalism should be criticized, what you think needs to happen now.

    PRESIDENT RAFAEL CORREA: [translated] Well, what we’ve undergone in recent decades worldwide has been totally insane, and all of this in function of capitalism. If you look at what was done with the workforce in Latin America, it was treated as a vulgar instrument for capital accumulation. Mechanism of exploitation were imposed, such as outsourcing, labor intermediation and the like. Efforts were made to destroy nation states, or at least to minimize nation states, especially in key areas such as the economy, on grounds that were closer to religion than to science, that everything would be resolved by the marketplace.

    I could speak at much greater length on this, but the results are plain to see: greater inequality in Latin America. We haven’t resolved the unemployment problem. Indeed, unemployment is higher than in previous decades. We haven’t resolved the problem of poverty. We’ve lost a great deal of sovereignty by implementing policies that didn’t answer to our international reality.

    And finally, we’re facing a crisis that we have not provoked, yet we are the main victims, the greatest crisis since the 1930s of last century, where there was a crisis in global capitalism. But it’s not been generated by factors external to the system, but by factors that are of the very essence of the system: exacerbated individualism, deregulation, competition and so on. This clearly shows us that something has to change.

    AMY GOODMAN: Ecuador is joining ALBA, the Bolivarian alliance, seen as an alternative to the whole push to expand NAFTA to Latin America. Why? Talk about what you’re doing now.

    PRESIDENT RAFAEL CORREA: [in English] Why not? [translated] Why not? We are friendly countries, sister countries. We coincide on many points of view. So why not take that step towards integration, and which, among other things, is moving forward much more quickly than other integration schemes that have made the mistake of wanting to include everyone so we are moving at the pace of those who don’t want integration? Those of us who have acceded to ALBA voluntarily want to see the integration of Latin American peoples. And it’s gone forward much more quickly than other integration arrangements. In any event, my answer is “why not?” Why not join ALBA?

    Now I’ll tell you why. Just one piece of information to illustrate. At this time in the ALBA, we have 30 percent of all the votes in the Organization of American States. So we now have very specific weight in order to propose other points of view. For example, the Organization of American States—that’s just mentioned in the Organization of American States. But we could say something similar about the United Nations. That alone would justify our entering ALBA, but there are many additional factors.

    AMY GOODMAN: You are not talking about a free trade agreement with the United States, but you are with the European Union. Why?

    PRESIDENT RAFAEL CORREA: [translated] No, we’re not talking about a free trade agreement with the European Union; we’re talking about fair trade for development. And that’s how the agreement was originally posed. First, a block-to-block agreement between the European Union and the Andean community, with three pillars: a political dialogue, cooperation and trade. And this last one, trade, is understood as trade for development.

    Unfortunately, all of that has been deteriorating. Among the reasons, because two of the Andean community countries already have a free trade agreement with the United States, and I’m referring to Colombia and Peru. And they have very little to lose in the negotiations with the European Union. So, the first thing that collapsed was the block-to-block negotiation.

    And it’s clear that the emphasis was focused on the trade aspect. And I should also recognize that from the European Union, they tried to approach it as a free trade agreement, which has always been rejected by Ecuador. We’re interested in all three dimensions of the agreement: political dialogue, cooperation and trade. And within trade, we’re talking about fair trade, not the idea of free trade, which we see as simplistic, liberalizing everything. And we’re engaged in tough negotiations with the European Union on this.

    Now, in the event that we’re not satisfied with the agreements that result, then we simply won’t sign. But I reiterate, we’re not negotiating a free trade agreement with the European Union.

    AMY GOODMAN: The US contract with Ecuador over one of the largest US military bases in Latin America, Manta, expires later this year. You will not renew it. Why?

    PRESIDENT RAFAEL CORREA: [translated] Why renew it? Now, if you’d like, I would renew it with one condition: that they allow me to set up an Ecuadorian military base here in New York. If there’s no problem with foreign bases, then let’s reach an agreement on that. I think that everybody listening is going to find that impossible. And for us Ecuadorians, it also seems impossible, based on our outlook informed by sovereignty, at least with the current government, to have a foreign military base on our soil.

    AMY GOODMAN: You also recently threw out a US diplomat, Armando Astorga, calling him insolent and foolish and saying he treated Ecuador like a colony.

    PRESIDENT RAFAEL CORREA: [translated] Yes. I don’t know if you’re aware that, among other things, because of the dismantling of the state that Ecuador has suffered in recent years, but money for certain police units to operate, including certain intelligence units, police and military, was provided by the US embassy. Well, this itself is sufficiently serious. But it wasn’t even unconditional or spontaneous assistance. Rather, they would choose the directors of those police units. They had them take lie-detector tests at the US embassy. So those units answered more to the US embassy than to the Ecuadorian state.

    And we, in the exercise of our sovereignty, wanted to change the director of one of those units. Mr. Astorga, in a totally arrogant manner, sent a letter saying that we need to return or give back everything that the United States has given us—computers, automobiles and so on. Well, they should take it all back then. But Mr. Astorga would also have to leave the country, because we are no one’s colony.

    AMY GOODMAN: Mr. President, do you think President Obama represents something different to Latin America and specifically to Ecuador?

    PRESIDENT RAFAEL CORREA: [translated] Yes, I’m convinced that that is the case. Indeed, we’ve already begun very fruitful bilateral dialogues at a very high level, which never happened with the Bush administration. And not just that, there’s a question of building trust, and I think that President Obama offers trust. Personally, I think he is a transparent individual with the right intentions. So I think things are going to change in terms of foreign policy, US foreign policy, especially with respect to Latin America.

    AMY GOODMAN: Let me ask you about President Chavez and his comments recently supporting the Iranian president Ahmadinejad. What are your views toward what’s happening right now in the disputed Iranian elections?

    PRESIDENT RAFAEL CORREA: [translated] We’ve spoken with our chargé d’affaires in Tehran, and he tells me that it’s an exaggerated reaction, because President Ahmadinejad won by too large a margin. We’re talking about at least six million votes. All the surveys show that he was the winner. So this reaction on the part of the opposition can’t be explained. Now, I don’t want to meddle in internal Iranian affairs, but a response of this sort vis-à-vis such a broad victory is somewhat suspect.

    In any event, it’s my understanding that the Council of Guard has ordered that the vote be recounted and so on. I would hope that things could be worked out peacefully and that a determination is reached as to who won that electoral contest. But I reiterate, the reports that we are getting from Tehran is that President Ahmadinejad’s victory is too broad, and therefore there’s no way to imagine that he could have lost or that he would have won by fraud.

    AMY GOODMAN: And the killings of a number of the protesters, do you condemn that?

    PRESIDENT RAFAEL CORREA: [translated] Well, one would have to see in what situation those deaths took place. We’re talking about a country of 80 million, in which there have been serious street protests. I am not familiar with the specific conditions in which the lamentable deaths have taken place. Everybody should lament their deaths and be in solidarity with the victims and their families. But obviously, if there’s protest and violence in a country of 80 million, it’s likely that such things can come to pass without that necessarily meaning repression, violations of human rights and so forth. But all the investigations should be undertaken to determine.

    AMY GOODMAN: Let me ask you, Mr. President, about another violent crackdown, and it was in Peru against those in the Amazon who were protesting the opening up of the area to mining interests, that has ultimately led to the resignation of the prime minister. Do you condemn President Garcia for what happened in Peru?

    PRESIDENT RAFAEL CORREA: [translated] Well, I insist we are not going to meddle in the internal matters of any country. That will have to be worked out within Peru’s institutional framework determining the responsibilities that lie in this matter.

    AMY GOODMAN: Now, you know exploitation by large corporations in your own country. Tens of thousands of indigenous people have brought suit against Chevron, now ChevronTexaco. An expert appointed by the Ecuadorian judge has said that Chevron should pay $27 billion. Where do you stand on this?

    PRESIDENT RAFAEL CORREA: [translated] This is private litigation brought by social organizations in the Amazon region against this transnational corporation, Texaco Chevron. And there, the Ecuadorian government has nothing to do, in judicially speaking. Obviously, we have borne witness to the harm caused in the Amazon, and we’re in solidarity with those social organizations. But I reiterate, as the executive branch, we are not a party, and we cannot meddle in judicial matters.

    AMY GOODMAN: You have gone to the area, though, and shown support. What is the harm done?

    PRESIDENT RAFAEL CORREA: [translated] It’s terrible. The oil companies continue doing whatever they please. But at that time, it was really the law of the jungle. There was no processing of waste, of contaminated water. Everything was dumped in the rivers. There were pits created that were totally non-technical. If you go into the Ecuadorian Amazon and you stick your hand in the ground, what you get is oil sludge. They dumped the oil wherever with total impunity, because there was no oversight by the state. And these countries really did abuse the country. These countries have done in our country something they never would have dared to have done even by far in the United States. And it is time that they answer to the justice system.

    AMY GOODMAN: Have you heard about Shell settling with the Saro-Wiwa family, the Nigerian activist who was killed in Nigeria fourteen years ago? He was protesting Shell’s exploitation of the Niger Delta. And they just settled for something like $15 million to be paid to the family and the Ogoni people. Do you see that as a positive example?

    PRESIDENT RAFAEL CORREA: [translated] Well, of course. I’m not familiar with the case, but, of course, for these countries need to be held accountable for and answer for everything they’ve done, because I am indignant as a Latin American about the dual reality of certain transnationals. It’s not that they couldn’t have done it otherwise. The technology existed, the measures were available, to prevent environmental harm and so forth. But they didn’t want to do so, probably because we’re poor countries, so they consider that we’re inferior. But what they did in our country, they never would have dared to have done that in the United States.


AMY GOODMAN: We’ll return to my conversation with the Ecuadorian president Rafael Correa after break.

[break]

AMY GOODMAN: We return to our national broadcast exclusive, my conversation with the Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa.

    AMY GOODMAN: Now, indigenous people, campesinos, recently protested your policies around the issue of large-scale mining and opening up the region. You called them extremists and nobodies.

    PRESIDENT RAFAEL CORREA: [translated] I didn’t call them “nobody.” I said they didn’t represent anyone. And the last elections gave [inaudible] right. The person who headed up the effort against mining won only four percent, and we won, by overwhelmingly so, in all the mining regions. And the areas with the greatest protests are in the province of Azuay. That’s where we have good, strong support. So, clearly the population trusts us. But three or four people are enough to make a lot of noise, to appear in the media, and so on. But, quite sincerely, they don’t have the popular backing or the representation.

    In any event, there are many contradictions on these kinds of positions. First, it’s not that we’re inaugurating mining in Ecuador. Mining goes back to the Preclassic Inca period in Ecuador. To the contrary, finally, we’re regulating mining in Ecuador—because it was a matter of total anarchy—with a very tough law that protects the state, that protects the environment, that protects society.

    Second, one of the main criticisms of the groups that oppose mining, or, as you put it, large-scale mining, is the environmental impact of mining. But this is where the contradiction comes up. Small-scale mining causes much more pollution than large-scale mining. So if that’s the reason why they oppose large-scale mining, there is a big contradiction there. And if you begin to analyze, some of these leaders—not all of them, but some—have their own interests in small-scale mining.

    So I would say, in general—indeed, we’ve carried out surveys—there’s more than 70 percent support for the new mining law, but as I say, three or four fundamentalists who take over a highway are enough to appear in the newspaper and for them to say that there’s opposition to such mining in Ecuador.

    AMY GOODMAN: President Correa, in the Wall Street Journal, there was just a piece talking about documents that the Colombian government uncovered on a laptop when Colombia raided Ecuador and killed a FARC leader, linking you to the FARC. What is your response?

    PRESIDENT RAFAEL CORREA: [translated] If they show that I have some connection to the FARC, then I’ll step down. It’s a big lie, and we have presented a denunciation through the Foreign Ministry. And if they don’t rectify that, we will take the appropriate legal actions. We are tired of such infamies, which are not based on facts. They’re based on interests that seek to treat certain governments which are their allies as superheroes and other governments as villains.

    So, we think that a daily newspaper should report the news, not play at geopolitics. In any event, the editorial—I think it was an editorial—is based on information that long ago was shown to be unreliable: supposed computers with supposed messages in which supposedly there is talk of a former member of the national government, not the president of the republic, negotiating with the FARC. Indeed, those computers also talk about—supposedly talk about the Workers’ Party of Lula da Silva having ties with FARC, but they don’t say that. So, as I say, it’s really just a geopolitical game that they’re pursuing.

    And the woman who wrote the article recently admitted to RCN that she published that article resenting President Obama, because he called me to offer his support upon my reelection. And this is an extremely right-wing journalist who’s angry because he didn’t call Alvaro Uribe. Instead, he called Rafael Correa. That reflects the level of professionalism of the person who wrote that.

    AMY GOODMAN: How do you think peace can be achieved in Colombia, and do you think the US can play a role in that? I mean, the US has poured a tremendous amount of money into the war on terror there, into the war on drugs, so-called, so-called. What do think could achieve peace in Colombia?

    PRESIDENT RAFAEL CORREA: [translated] Einstein said if somebody time and again does something, or tries to do something, with the same negative results, and continues to insist on doing so, then he’s a fool. This strategy carried out, applied by the United States in Colombia has been a total failure. Drugs have not been eradicated. It could be that the FARC have been weakened. But quite sincerely, I don’t think there’s any military solution to the conflict with the FARC, but rather a political solution. And what they have accomplished in pursuing a military solution is extending the conflict to neighboring countries and destabilizing the region.

    Ecuador has about 700 kilometers of border with Colombia, and a lot of it is impenetrable jungle. Colombia’s strategy has been to attack the FARC from north to south. They have two military units in the south, but far from the border. We have thirteen. So, it seems to be a strategy to try to draw us into the conflict.

    So I hope that the United States and the Obama administration understand this, that as [inaudible] into drawing us in neighboring countries into this conflict, which is not our own, which pains us greatly, but it’s not ours, and that they carefully analyze the matter, whether the anti-drug strategy, despite the billions spent, has yielded no results and whether this conflict with the FARC has any military solution.

    AMY GOODMAN: Last two questions. One is, do you support President Obama expanding the war into Afghanistan and Pakistan?

    PRESIDENT RAFAEL CORREA: Can you say again, please?

    AMY GOODMAN: Do you support President Obama expanding the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan?

    PRESIDENT RAFAEL CORREA: [translated] Well, I’m a pacifist by nature. I would hope that the Afghanistan problem could be solved as quickly as possible. I also think the strategy there, as in Iraq, was totally mistaken, that the United States has a big problem on its hands that’s going to be very complex to resolve. But I’m practically convinced that it’s not going to be resolved by more war.

    AMY GOODMAN: And finally, your overall advice to the new President of the United States, President Obama, in how he approaches Latin American and, just overall, how he approaches the world?

    PRESIDENT RAFAEL CORREA: [translated] Well, I’m not accustomed to giving advice to those who haven’t asked for it. I would just want to wish President Obama the best of luck, and that he should bear in mind that just as he is a good person, there are many of us presidents in Latin America who are also good people.

    AMY GOODMAN: And is there one single message you could give to President Obama to improve relations with Latin America, what he could do?

    PRESIDENT RAFAEL CORREA: [translated] To learn more and come to better understand the region, and that he not let himself be taken along by the power of certain media outlets that are compromised with certain ideological fundaments, and that the heroes aren’t necessarily heroes, and the villains aren’t necessarily villains, that he should get to know the region better and get to understand the region a little better.

    AMY GOODMAN: President Correa, thank you very much.

    PRESIDENT RAFAEL CORREA: Thank you.

AMY GOODMAN: Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa. He’s in Nicaragua today meeting with other Latin American leaders as well as the ousted Honduran President Manuel Zelaya over the coup in Honduras. Meanwhile in Washington, DC, President Obama is meeting with Colombian President Alvaro Uribe.

Monday, July 06, 2009

Obama officials supported Honduras coup

WMR has learned from well-informed sources in Tegucigalpa, the capital of Honduras, that the June 28 coup d'etat against President Manuel Zelaya had the support of key officials of the Obama administration supported by right-wing political interests in the United States, multinational companies with interests in Honduras, and right-wing governments in other countries, including Colombia and Israel.

WMR has also learned that the top hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church in Honduras, including Cardinal Óscar Andrés Rodríguez, actively encouraged and supported the military coup plotters. In addition, the leadership of a number of Protestant fundamentalist churches in Honduras, many with links to right-wing parent bodies in the United States, also support the coup leaders.

However, WMR has been informed that a number of Catholic priests and nuns, as well as Protestant lay members, are supporting ousted President Zelaya, especially in the western part of Honduras.

Although Honduran junta propaganda, aided and abetted by corporate-controlled media in the United States and other countries, is claiming that the ouster of Zelaya was "constitutional" because it was sanctioned by the country's Supreme Court and Congress, WMR has been informed by a top former official in Honduras that the Honduran Constitution, cited by newly-installed junta leader Roberto Micheletti in legitimizing the coup, has been suspended. A curfew has also been opposed by the junta.

Our Honduran sources report that some 200 opponents of the junta have been detained and that some were badly wounded in attacks by police and military units.

Nevertheless, WMR is informed that a popular mobilization against the junta is taking place across Honduras and that throngs of supporters of Zelaya are expected to turn out on July 5 at the Tegucigalpa international airport to welcome him back from forced exile. Zelaya is flying back to Honduras from Washington, DC.

As far as "demonstrators" reported by the corporate media as turning out to support the junta, WMR has been told they are armed by the government and have no problem using their guns on those who support Zelaya.

WMR has been informed that key coup leaders were supported by elements of the Obama administration, including U.S. ambassador to Honduras Hugo Llorens, a Cuban-American career diplomat with close links to the right-wing elements of the Cuban community in southern Florida.

Supporting the coup were multinational banana and mining companies that feared Zelaya's support for improving the working conditions of workers in both industries. One of the junta's first moves was to cancel plans by the Zelaya administration to change the mining laws in Honduras to give Hondurans greater control over mining operations and restrict open pit gold mining. Mining companies active in Honduras and supported the coup include those based in Canada.

Peter Kent, Minister of State for Foreign Affairs for the Americas in the mining interests-beholden Tory government of Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, has been less than enthusiastic about Zelaya's return to Honduras. Kent, who represents a heavily-Jewish Toronto constituency, is a major backer of the Canadian Jewish Political Affairs Committee (CJPAC) (Canada's version of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee or AIPAC). Many of Canada's mining companies in Honduras, especially those involved in gold mining, are linked to Israeli investors.

Contrary to Obama administration statements that the United States was not involved in any way with the coup, WMR has been told by those close to the ousted Zelaya administration that the U.S. military in Honduras, which is headquartered at the Soto Cano air base, also known as the Palmerola base, 60 miles from Tegucigalpa, oversees a virtual U.S. military occupation of the country. The virtual occupation enabled the Honduran military, many of whose top officers were trained at the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (formerly the School of the Americas) in Fort Benning, Georgia, to successfully carry out the coup against Zelaya.

There was also a flurry of joint Honduran-U.S. military activity prior to and shortly after the coup. The coup leader, General Romeo Orlando Vasquez Velasquez, had been invited to the U.S. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) change of command ceremony at its Miami headquarters in the days prior to the coup, but abruptly changed his plans, sending a signal to top Pentagon commanders that a move was afoot to oust Zelaya and his government. Vasquez and Honduran Air Force commander General Luis Javier Prince Suazo, also a coup leader, both attended the School of the Americas in Fort Benning.

Instead of traveling to Miami for the SOUTHCOM ceremony, Vasquez sent a subordinate, Brigadier General José Gerardo Fuentes, to represent him. In Miami, Fuentes, met with Defense Secretary Robert Gates; Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Marine Corps General James Cartright; outgoing SOUTHCOM commander Admiral James Stavridis, who is taking up the post as NATO Commander; and Stavridis's successor as SOUTHCOM chief, Air Force Gen. Douglas ''Skeet'' Fraser. WMR was informed by knowledgeable Honduran sources that the top Pentagon and SOUTHCOM leadership was aware of and supported the plans for the coup against Zelaya.

In fact, it is being reported by some Latin American media sources that Zelaya was taken to the U.S. Soto Cano/Palmerola air base after he was arrested at his home by Honduran troops. Once at the American base, Zelaya was guarded by Honduran and American troops before being put on a plane to Costa Rica and forced exile. Soto Cano base commander, U.S. Army Colonel Richard Juergens, closed off access to the base and restricted U.S. personnel from leaving the base following the coup and the detention of Zelaya at what has been termed by one former U.S. Army intelligence source who served at the base as a "U.S. aircraft carrier" in Central America.

In 2002, Chavez was arrested and taken to La Orchila island off the Venezuelan coast where he saw a U.S. registered aircraft on the runway that was to have flown him into forced exile. However, the U.S.-backed coup against Chavez failed when loyal Venezuelan military forces turned the tables on the coup leaders. In 2004, Haitian President Aristide was overthrown and flown into forced exile to Africa by a U.S. aircraft.

Zelaya announced plans, before his ouster, to move Tegucigalpa's commercial international airport from Toncontin, considered to be a dangerous airport, to Palmerola. The decision did not sit well with the Honduran military or SOUTHCOM and the Pentagon.

Current Obama administration plans are to use the models for the abortive coup and planned exile of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez in 2002 and the successful coups and exiling of Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide in 2004 and Zelaya in Honduras as ways to rid Latin America of other progressive presidents, including Evo Morales in Bolivia, Rafael Correa in Ecuador, Fernando Lugo in Paraguay, Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua, as well as Chavez in Venezuela. The plans coincide with Israel's plans to stop Iran's growing influence in Latin America.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has refused to cut off financial assistance to the Honduran junta. The Pentagon insists it has severed military cooperation with Honduras, but the junta's military leaders are considered by the Honduran popular masses to be mere subservients of the Pentagon and that their country has, for a number of years, been under de facto U.S. "military occupation."

Wall Street interests also want to curtail the growing power of the Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas (ALBA), a competitor to the Free Trade Area of the Americas dominated by the United States. ALBA was started as a Venezuelan-Cuban initiative and Zelaya is an active participant, along with other progressive Latin American governments.

Just a few days before Stavridis turned over command of SOUTHCOM to Fraser, the Miami-based command dispatched a KC-135 Stratotanker, two F-16 Fighting Falcons, an F-16, and a team of Air Force support personnel to Armando Escalon Air Base near San Pedro Sula, a stronghold of Zelaya support, to participate in an "airshow" to raise money for a local hospital.

In addition to U.S. military support, WMR has learned that Israeli intelligence and security advisers worked closely with the coup leaders prior to, during, and after the coup against Zelaya.

Honduran army had orders to assassinate Manuel Zelaya, Cristina Kirchner, Rafael Correa, Fernando Lugo, and Miguel d"Escoto

WMR has learned from its sources in Honduras that Honduran army troops were under orders to assassinate the exiled legitimate President of Honduras Manuel Zelaya and Miguel d"Escoto, the President of the UN General Assembly, if their plane managed to land at Tegucigalpa airport. However, Honduran troops loyal to the junta that has taken over the country with the support of U.S. Southern Command (USOUTHCOM) personnel on permanent duty at the U.S. Embassy in Tegucigalpa and the Soto Cano airbase, which is Washington's largest military base in Central America, blocked the airport runway with trucks preventing the landing of the airplane carrying Zelaya and d"Escoto.

Zelaya's and d"Escoto's plane was diverted to Nicaragua but the Obama administration, which WMR has previously reported supported the military coup against Zelaya via the Pentagon, USSOUTHCOM, and U.S. ambassador to Honduras Hugo Llorens, ordered Zelaya to return to Washington to enter into "negotiations" with the Organization of American States (OAS). Llorens is a career diplomat but is also a Cuban-American activist who has been linked to right-wing Cuban exile groups in Florida and the CIA.

WMR has also been informed by our Honduran sources that the Honduran military, with the knowledge of U.S. military and Israeli security advisers, planned to assassinate three Latin American presidents traveling with Zelaya and d:Escoto to Tegucigalpa in a show of support for Zelaya. The three Latin American presidents targeted for assassination at Tegucigalpa airport by the Honduran fascist junta and its American and Israeli advisers were Argentina's Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, Ecuador's President Rafael Correa, and Paraguay's Fernando Lugo. The plane carrying the three presidents was diverted to El Salvador after the threat was received from the Honduran junta.

Pope Benedict XVI was also personally supportive of the Roman Catholic top hierarchy in Honduras supporting the coup and the military junta, according to our sources in Honduras. Paraguay's President Lugo, a former renegade Catholic "liberation theology" bishop, was a favored assassination "target of opportunity" for the Pope and his Honduran top prelates had his plane touched down in Tegucigalpa. An overwhelming majority of Honduras's priests and nuns have rejected the support of the Pope and Honduran Cardinal Oscar Andres Rodriguez for the junta and are supporting the popular uprising against the junta. Many Zelaya supporters, awaiting the arrival of Zelaya, were shot and killed by Honduran troops at Tegucigalpa airport.


NSA Security running amok to plug leaks about 9/11

WMR has learned that the National Security "Q" Group, responsible for security, has grown to an immense security and counter-intelligence force, with an estimated one thousand government employees, contractors, and paid informants. NSA's Security force is reportedly primarily tasked with plugging any leaks of classified or other information that points to U.S. government involvement with the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. NSA Security has doggedly pursued a number of NSA employees, some in "sting" operations, others in frequent polygraphs and repeated security interviews where threats are made by thuggish NSA security agents with and without the presence of FBI agents, and others in constant surveillance operations at their homes, churches, and other locations away from the Fort Meade, Maryland headquarters of the agency.

The most egregious NSA Security operation against an NSA employee was the 2004 arrest of NSA analyst Ken Ford, Jr. Ford became a target of opportunity for NSA Security and the FBI after Vice President Dick Cheney noted his name on an NSA signals intelligence report on Saddam Hussein's government that stated that there was no proof from interceptions of Iraqi communications that Saddam Hussein possessed "weapons of mass destruction." Cheney and other neocons in the Bush White House arranged for a "sting" operation to be mounted as retribution against Ford. Ford was charged with taking classified papers home from NSA headquarters, something that is quite impossible considering the stringent security in place at one of the most-secured complexes in the world.

Ford was convicted by a tainted jury and sentenced to seven years in federal prison. Ford, who is African-American, originally had an African-American federal trial judge. However, the judge was replaced by a pro-Iraq war Jewish U.S. judge, Peter Messitte, who set out to ensure a guilty conviction of Ford in cahoots with Jewish U.S. Attorney for Maryland Rod Rosenstein, and Jewish Assistant U.S. Attorney for Southern Maryland David Salem, both Bush appointees. Nothing was done by the judge or prosecutors to dismiss from the jury a contractor whose company had major contracts with NSA. The trio of Messitte, Rosenstein, and Salem have also "rocket-docketed" a number of cases, resulting in slam dunk convictions, against Arab- and Iranian-Americans in the southern district of Maryland.

NSA's Security chief is Kemp Ensor III. Ensor has built up what amounts to a massive law enforcement and intelligence agency in Maryland that operates as a virtual independent operation that answers to no one. Maryland's congressional delegation has shown little interest in oversight over the security operation.

In fact, WMR has learned that many NSA employees, aware of the political and other misuse of their agency by the Bush-Cheney administration, avidly backed Barack Obama for President hoping that the past era when NSA complied with te Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution would be restored. However, many NSA employees are bitterly disappointed that Obama has done nothing to curtail not only the widespread surveillance of the communications of law-abiding Americans but the constant "Stasi-like" harassment and surveillance conducted by Ensor's team of agents and confidential informants. WMR has also learned that NSA Security has been authorized to work directly with Washington area local police department intelligence divisions to carry out its surveillance of not only NSA employees and contractors, but journalists who report on the activities of NSA. Two police departments mentioned in this respect are the Alexandria, Virginia and Anne Arundel County Sheriff departments.

One senior-level NSA official recently found himself sitting in front of NSA Security questioners asking why he gave his NSA business cards to some students at a university. It turns out the official was trying to recruit students for NSA employment. When the official asked why there was a problem in his handing out his business cards, the answer by NSA Security was that some of them, all American citizens, had "Russian last names."

Even former NSA employees and contractors are being subjected to continual NSA Security surveillance and harassment at their work places and other locations, according to WMR's sources. Some have lost their jobs as a result of pressure from NSA Security.

WMR has in the past reported on NSA surveillance of journalists. On December 28, 2005, we reported: "WMR has learned that the National Security Agency (NSA), on the orders of the Bush administration, eavesdropped on the private conversations and e-mail of its own employees, employees of other U.S. intelligence agencies -- including the CIA and DIA -- and their contacts in the media, Congress, and oversight agencies and offices. The journalist surveillance program, code named 'Firstfruits,' was part of a Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) program that was maintained at least until October 2004and was authorized by then-DCI Porter Goss. Firstfruits was authorized as part of a DCI 'Countering Denial and Deception' program responsible to an entity known as the Foreign Denial and Deception Committee (FDDC). Since the intelligence community's reorganization, the DCI has been replaced by the Director of National Intelligence headed by John Negroponte and his deputy, former NSA director Gen. Michael Hayden."

Since the revelation of the NSA journalist monitoring database, which later added communications intercepts of journalist phone calls, emails, and faxes to its database, NSA Security has, according to information received by WMR, conducted physical surveillance of journalists it deems to be threats to the operations of the agency. The top targeted journalists, who make up a virtual "rogues' gallery" at NSA Security, complete with photographs and other personal information, are: former Baltimore Sun and current Wall Street Journal reporter Siobhan Gorman, Washington Times reporter Bill Gertz, former Baltimore Sun and current New York Times reporter Scott Shane, Baltimore Sun reporter Phil McGowan, author James Bamford, New York Times reporters James Risen and Eric Lichtblau, and this editor, Wayne Madsen.

In addition to the aforementioned, Firstfruits also contained the names of former Washington Post reporter Vernon Loeb, New Yorker journalist Seymour Hersh, and UPI's John C. K. Daly.

Ironically, NSA Security allegedly has its own connections in the news media. A Washington Timessource revealed that the paper's writer of the "Inside the Beltway" column, John McCaslin, has a relative inside NSA Security -- Robert McCaslin, the chief of NSA Security counter-intelligence and the chief "sting" agent against Ford. Robert is, according to the Times source is the brother of the paper's columnist.

NSA Security is also able to utilize the agency's most sophisticated electronic surveillance systems to monitor the activities of journalists. The cell phones of journalists are routinely used as listening devices, even when turned off. And what was considered a sure-fire method of avoiding having a cell phone used as a transmitter, removing the batteries in what has become known as "batteries out" conversations, is no longer safe. Even when the batteries are removed, the global positioning system (GPS) chip in cell phones continues to have enough residual power that two to three pings from satellites can give away a person's location and what other uniquely-identifiable cell phone are at the same location.

The bottom line is that a number of NSA personnel who were on duty in the months leading up to 9/11, the day of the attacks, and subsequent weeks and months are aware of undeniable facts that point to a massive cover-up by the Bush-Cheney administration of the circumstances surrounding 9/11, including what actually befell United Airlines flight 93 and who was issuing direct military orders from the White House.

The Obama administration, rather than lessen the pressure on the NSA personnel, has turned up the heat and is resorting to even more draconian methods to ensure silence. The word from inside NSA is that a state of fear exists and the mission of the agency, to conduct surveillance of foreign communications to provide threat indications and warnings to U.S. troops and policy makers and protect sensitive U.S. government communications from unauthorized eavesdropping is suffering as a result.

Is it really Much ado about nothing? by William Blum


What is there about the Iranian election of June 12 that has led to it being one of the leading stories in media around the world every day since? Elections whose results are seriously challenged have taken place in most countries at one time or another in recent decades. Countless Americans believe that the presidential elections of 2000 and 2004 were stolen by the Republicans, and not just inside the voting machines and in the counting process, but prior to the actual voting as well with numerous Republican Party dirty tricks designed to keep poor and black voters off voting lists or away from polling stations. The fact that large numbers of Americans did not take to the streets day after day in protest, as in Iran, is not something we can be proud of. Perhaps if the CIA, the Agency for International Development (AID), several US government-run radio stations, and various other organizations supported by the National Endowment for Democracy (which was created to serve as a front for the CIA, literally) had been active in the United States, as they have been for years in Iran, major street protests would have taken place in the United States.

The classic "outside agitators" can not only foment dissent through propaganda, adding to already existing dissent, but they can serve to mobilize the public to strongly demonstrate against the government. In 1953, when the CIA overthrew Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh, they paid people to agitate in front of Mossadegh's residence and elsewhere and engage in acts of violence; some pretended to be supporters of Mossadegh while engaging in anti-religious actions. And it worked, remarkably well.1 Since the end of World War II, the United States has seriously intervened in some 30 elections around the world, adding a new twist this time, twittering. The State Department asked Twitter to postpone a scheduled maintenance shutdown of its service to keep information flowing from inside Iran, helping to mobilize protesters.2 The New York Times reported: "An article published by the Web site True/Slant highlighted some of the biggest errors on Twitter that were quickly repeated and amplified by bloggers: that three million protested in Tehran last weekend (more like a few hundred thousand); that the opposition candidate Mir Hussein Mousavi was under house arrest (he was being watched); that the president of the election monitoring committee declared the election invalid last Saturday (not so)." 3

In recent years, the United States has been patrolling the waters surrounding Iran with warships, halting Iranian ships to check for arms shipments to Hamas or for other illegal reasons, financing and "educating" Iranian dissidents, using Iranian groups to carry out terrorist attacks inside Iran, kidnaping Iranian diplomats in Iraq, kidnaping Iranian military personnel in Iran and taking them to Iraq, continually spying and recruiting within Iran, manipulating Iran's currency and international financial transactions, and imposing various economic and political sanctions against the country.4

"I've made it clear that the United States respects the sovereignty of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and is not at all interfering in Iran's affairs," said US President Barack Obama with a straight face on June 23. "Some in the Iranian government [have been] accusing the United States and others outside of Iran of instigating protests over the elections. These accusations are patently false and absurd."5

"Never believe anything until it's officially denied," British writer Claud Cockburn famously said.

In his world-prominent speech to the Middle East on June 4, Obama mentioned that "In the middle of the Cold War, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically elected Iranian government." So we have the president of the United States admitting to a previous overthrow of the Iranian government while the United States is in the very midst of trying to overthrow the current Iranian government. This will serve as the best example of hypocrisy that's come along in quite a while.

So why the big international fuss over the Iranian election and street protests? There's only one answer. The obvious one. The announced winner, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is a Washington ODE, an Officially Designated Enemy, for not sufficiently respecting the Empire and its Israeli partner-in-crime; indeed, Ahmadinejad is one of the most outspoken critics of US foreign policy in the world.

So ingrained is this ODE response built into Washington's world view that it appears to matter not at all that Mousavi, Ahmadinejad's main opponent in the election and very much supported by the protesters, while prime minister 1981-89, bore large responsibility for the attacks on the US embassy and military barracks in Beirut in 1983, which took the lives of more than 200 Americans, and the 1988 truck bombing of a US Navy installation in Naples, Italy, that killed five persons. Remarkably, a search of US newspaper and broadcast sources shows no mention of this during the current protests.6 However, the Washington Post saw fit to run a story on June 27 that declared: "the authoritarian governments of China, Cuba and Burma have been selectively censoring the news this month of Iranian crowds braving government militias on the streets of Tehran to demand democratic reforms."

Can it be that no one in the Obama administration knows of Mousavi's background? And do none of them know about the violent government repression on June 5 in Peru of the peaceful protests organized in response to the US-Peru Free Trade Agreement? A massacre that took the lives of between 20 and 25 indigenous people in the Amazon and wounded another 100.7 The Obama administration was silent on the Peruvian massacre because the Peruvian president, Alan Garcia, is not an ODE.

And neither is Mousavi, despite his anti-American terrorist deeds, because he's opposed to Ahmadinejad, who competes with Hugo Chavez to be Washington's Number One ODE. Time magazine calls Mousavi a "moderate", and goes on to add: "It has to be assumed that the Iranian presidential election was rigged," offering as much evidence as the Iranian protestors; i.e., none at all.8 It cannot of course be proven that the Iranian election was totally honest, but the arguments given to support the charge of fraud are not very impressive, such as the much-repeated fact that the results were announced very soon after the polls closed. For decades in various countries election results have been condemned for being withheld for many hours or days. Some kind of dishonesty must be going on behind the scenes during the long delay it was argued. So now we're asked to believe that some kind of dishonesty must be going on because the results were released so quickly. It should be noted that the ballots listed only one electoral contest, with but four candidates.

Phil Wilayto, American peace activist and author of a book on Iran, has observed:

Ahmadinejad, himself born into rural poverty, clearly has the support of the poorer classes, especially in the countryside, where nearly half the population lives. Why? In part because he pays attention to them, makes sure they receive some benefits from the government and treats them and their religious views and traditions with respect. Mousavi, on the other hand, the son of an urban merchant, clearly appeals more to the urban middle classes, especially the college-educated youth. This being so, why would anyone be surprised that Ahmadinejad carried the vote by a clear majority? Are there now more yuppies in Iran than poor people?9

All of which is of course not to say that Iran is not a relatively repressive society on social and religious issues, and it's this underlying reality which likely feeds much of the protest; indeed, many of the protesters may not even have strong views about the election per se, particularly since both Ahmadinejad and Mousavi are members of the establishment, neither is any threat to the Islamic theocracy, and the election can be seen as the kind of power struggle you find in virtually every country. But that is not the issue I'm concerned with here. The issue is Washington's long-standing goal of regime change. If the exact same electoral outcome had taken place in a country that is an ally of the United States, how much of all the accusatory news coverage and speeches would have taken place? In fact, the exact same thing did happen in a country that is an ally of the United States, three years ago when Felipe Calderon appeared to have stolen the presidential election in Mexico and there were daily large protests for more than two months; but the American and international condemnation was virtually non-existent compared to what we see today in regard to Iran.

Iranian leaders undertook a recount of a random ten per cent of ballots and recertified Ahmadinejad as the winner. How honest the recount was I have no idea, but it's more than Americans got in 2000 and 2004.

1 William Blum, Killing Hope, chapter 9

2. Associated Press, June 16, 2009

3. New York Times, June 21, 2009

4. See Seymour Hersh, New Yorker magazine, June 29, 2008; ABC News, May 22, 2007; and Paul Craig Roberts in CounterPunch, June 19-21, 2009 for descriptions of some of these and other anti-Iran covert activities.

5. White House press conference, June 23, 2009

6. The only mention is by Jeff Stein in "CQ Politics" [Congressional Quarterly], online, June 22, 2009, "according to former CIA and military officials"

7. Center for International Policy (Washington, DC) report, June 16, 2009

8. Time magazine, June 29, 2009, p.26

9. AlterNet.org, June 14, 2009; Wilayto is the author of "In Defense of Iran: Notes from a U.S. Peace Delegation's Journey through the Islamic Republic"

By what standard shall we judge Barack Obama? by William Blum


Many of my readers have been upset with me for my criticisms of President Obama's policies. Following my last two reports, more than a dozen have asked to be removed from my mailing list. But if you share my view that the numerous atrocities US foreign policy is responsible for constitute the greatest threat to world peace, prosperity and happiness, then I think you have to want leaders who are unambiguously opposed to America's military adventures, because those interventions are unambiguously harmful. There's nothing good to be said about dropping powerful bombs on crowds of innocent people, invading their land, overthrowing their government, occupying the country, breaking down the doors of the citizens, killing the father, raping the mother, traumatizing the children, torturing those opposed to all this ... Barack Obama has no problem with this, if we judge him by his policies and not his rhetoric.

And neither does Al Franken, who's about to become a Democratic Senator from Minnesota. The former Saturday Night Live comedian would like you to believe that he’s been against the war in Iraq since it began, but he's gone to Iraq four times to entertain the troops. Does that make sense? Why does the military bring entertainers to soldiers? To lift the soldiers' spirits. Why does the military want to lift the soldiers’ spirits? A happier soldier does his job better. And what’s the soldier’s job? All the charming things listed above. Doesn't Franken know what these guys do? He criticized the Bush administration because they “failed to send enough troops to do the job right.”10 What “job” did the man think the troops were sent to do that had not been performed to his standards because of lack of manpower? Did he want them to be more efficient at killing Iraqis who resisted the occupation?

Franken has been lifting soldiers' spirits for a long time. This past March he was honored by the United Service Organization (USO) for his ten years of entertaining troops abroad. That includes Kosovo in 1999, as imperialist an occupation as you'll want to see. He called his USO experience "one of the best things I've ever done."11 Franken has also spoken at West Point, encouraging the next generation of imperialist warriors. Is this a man to challenge the militarization of America at home and abroad? No more so than Obama.

Tom Hayden wrote this about Franken in 2005 when Franken had a regular program on the Air America radio network:

Is anyone else disappointed with Al Franken's daily defense of the continued war in Iraq? Not Bush's version of the war, because that would undermine Air America's laudable purpose of rallying an anti-Bush audience. But, well, Kerry's version of the war, one that can be better managed and won, somehow with better body armor and fewer torture cells. This morning Franken was endorsing Sen. Joe Biden's proposal to send 5,000 NATO troops to close the Syrian-Iraq border, bring in foreign trainers for the Iraqi officer corps, and put Iraqis to work cleaning up the destruction of our invasion. ... Now that Bush has manipulated us into the invasion, Franken thinks we have no choice but to ... stay until we crush the insurgents. It's a humanitarian excuse for open-ended American occupation. And it's shared widely by the professional political and pundit class who think of themselves as the conscience of the American establishment and the leadership of the Democratic Party.12

I know, I know, I'm taking away all your heroes. But such people shouldn't be your heroes. You can learn to see through the liberal, Democratic Party apologists for the empire. Only a week ago, documents released by the Nixon Library in California revealed that five days before US and South Vietnamese troops made their surprise invasion of Cambodia on April 29, 1970 — which elicited widespread, angry protests in the US, resulting in the fatal shootings by the National Guard of students at Kent State University in Ohio — President Richard Nixon got approval for the invasion from the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sen. John Stennis of Mississippi. Stennis told the president: "I will be with you. ... I commend you for what you are doing."13

10 Washington Post, February 16, 2004

11 Star Tribune (Minneapolis), March 26, 2009

12 Huffington Post, sometime in June 2005, but it may no longer be there

13 Washington Post, June 30, 2009

Long live the Cold War by William Blum


President Manuel Zelaya of Honduras was overthrown in a military coup June 28 because he was about to conduct a non-binding survey of the population, asking the question: "Do you agree that, during the general elections of November 2009 there should be a fourth ballot to decide whether to hold a Constituent National Assembly that will approve a new political constitution?" One of the issues that Zelaya hoped a new constitution would deal with is the limiting of the presidency to one four-year term. He also expressed the need for other constitutional changes to make it possible for him to carry out policies to improve the life of the poor; in countries like Honduras, the law is not generally crafted for that end.

At this writing it's not clear how matters will turn out in Honduras, but the following should be noted: the United States, by its own admission, was fully aware for weeks of the Honduran military's plan to overthrow Zelaya. Washington says it tried its best to change the mind of the plotters. It's difficult to believe that this proved impossible. During the Cold War it was said, with much justification, that the United States could discourage a coup in Latin America with "a frown". The Honduran and American military establishments have long been on very fraternal terms. And it must be asked: In what way and to what extent did the United States warn Zelaya of the impending coup? And what protection did it offer him? The response to the coup from the Obama administration can be described with adjectives such as lukewarm, proper but belated, and mixed. It is not unthinkable that the United States gave the military plotters the go-ahead, telling them to keep the traditional "golpe" bloodiness to a minimum. Zelaya was elected to office as the candidate of a conservative party; he then, surprisingly, moved to the left and became a strong critic of a number of Washington policies, and an ally of Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and Evo Morales of Bolivia, both of whom the Bush administration tried to overthrow and assassinate.

Following the coup, National Public Radio (NPR) showed once again why progressives refer to it as National Pentagon Radio. The station's leading news anchor, Robert Siegel, interviewed Johanna Mendelson Forman, of the conservative think tank, Center for Strategic and International Studies:

Siegel: "There hasn't been a coup in Latin America for quite a while."

Forman: "I think the last one was in 1983"

Siegel did not correct her.14

This is ignorance of considerable degree. There was a coup in Venezuela in 2002 that briefly overthrew Hugo Chavez, a coup in Haiti in 2004 that permanently overthrew Jean-Bertrand Aristide, and a coup in Panama in 1989 that permanently overthrew Manuel Noriega. Is it because the US was closely involved in all three coups that they have been thrown down the Orwellian Memory Hole?

  1. NPR, All Things Considered, June 29, 2009

Who Are The Iraqis?



Who are the Iraqis?
By JOE BOB BRIGGS NEW YORK, Nov. 11 (UPI) --
Every decade or so, we should remind ourselves of who the Iraqis are:

1. Twelve-thousand years ago, they invented irrigated farming. They got to be so good at it that, today, they can still produce all the food they need even when "sanctions" are imposed.

2. They invented writing.

3. They figured out how to tell time.

4. They founded modern mathematics.

5. In the Code of Hammurabi, they invented the first legal system that protects the weak, the widow and the orphan.

6. Five-thousand years ago, they had philosophers who attempted to list every known thing in the world.

7. They were using Pythagoras' theorem 1,700 years before Pythagoras.

8. They invented artificial building materials, some kind of pre-fab-crete stuff used to construct high-rise towers.

9. Ur, in southeast Iraq, is assumed to be the place we're all descended from.

10. They were the first people to build cities and live in them.

11. For thousands of years, they wrote the greatest poetry, history and "sagas" in the world.

12. Because they were great horse breeders, they invented the cavalry in war.

13. The Iraq Museum in Baghdad contains some of the most outstanding stone, metal and clay sculptures and inscriptions created in the history of the world. Some of them are more than 7,000 years old. If a bomb hits this place, art lovers around the world will go into mourning.
(done deal assholes!)

14. The first school for astronomers was established by Iraqis. This is how the "wise men" got to be so wise. They knew how to follow the star.

15. Beginning around 800 A.D., the Iraqis founded universities that imported teachers from throughout the civilized world to teach medicine, mathematics, philosophy, theology, literature and poetry.

16. For the first 1,200 years of its existence, Baghdad was regarded as one of the most refined, civilized and festive cities in the world.

17. Abraham, the father of Israel, was from Iraq.

18. Abraham, the father of Islam, was from Iraq.

19. Abraham, the father and "model" of Christian faith, was from Iraq.



Youtube : Posted by Namirkh - Who are the Iraqis ? Music - Iraqi national anthem.

Thursday, July 02, 2009

Chalmers Johnson, Baseless Expenditures

Along with postcards of cowboys riding jackalopes and giant berries on flatcars, there's a brand new entry in the American gigantism sweepstakes: an embassy complex to be built in Islamabad, Pakistan, for -- if you assume the normal cost overruns on such projects -- what's likely to be close to a billion dollars. If that doesn't make the U.S. number one in the imperial hubris footrace for all eternity, what will? The question is: with its projected "large military and intelligence contingent," and its "surge" of diplomats, will that embassy also issue the largest visas on the planet?

Here's the strange thing: The embassy story was broken at the end of May by the superb journalists at McClatchy News (in this case, Warren P. Stroebel and Saeed Shah). As part of what Shah, in the Christian Science Monitor, estimates as a staggering "$2-billion-plus price tag on a revamped diplomatic presence for the United States in Afghanistan and Pakistan," they reported that an appropriation of $736 million for embassy construction had quietly made its way through both houses of Congress without a peep from anyone. This news, however, seemed to plunge off a steep cliff into a deep well of silence. Indicative as the Obama administration's decision to build such an imperial monstrosity may be of a longer-term commitment to a wider war in the Af-Pak (as in Afghanistan-Pakistan) theater of operations, it evidently proved of no interest to anyone here.

The story was not widely picked up or played up significantly. Despite the fact that major news operations have been bolstering their staffs in Pakistan, there has been no further reporting on the appropriation, the plans for the embassy, or what it all might mean. As far as I can tell, nowhere in the United States did a mainstream editorial page decry, challenge, or even discuss the development. Charlie Rose didn't gather experts to consider it, nor did the Newshour with Jim Lehrer seem to think it worth exploring. Letters of outrage at the thought of those desperately needed funds heading Islamabad-wards didn't pour into local newspapers (perhaps because few knew it was happening and those who did saw it as just another humdrum story about making the U.S. safer in a dangerous world). I've seen no obvious congressional attempts to oppose the passage of the money. The general attitude is evidently: Been there, done that (in Iraq, as a matter of fact, in the Bush years).

Maybe in a world where near-trillion-dollar bailouts are the norm, a mere three-quarters of a billion for a fortress of an embassy seems like so much chump change, the sort of news that only Democracy Now! would even consider significant. Fortunately, Chalmers Johnson, author of The Blowback Trilogy, and an expert on U.S. military bases abroad, did notice, understood its significance, and has now put it in his gun sights. (Catch my TomDispatch audio interview with Johnson about our Empire of Bases by clicking here). Tom

How to Deal with America's Empire of Bases

A Modest Proposal for Garrisoned Lands
By Chalmers Johnson

The U.S. Empire of Bases -- at $102 billion a year already the world's costliest military enterprise -- just got a good deal more expensive. As a start, on May 27th, we learned that the State Department will build a new "embassy" in Islamabad, Pakistan, which at $736 million will be the second priciest ever constructed, only $4 million less, if cost overruns don't occur, than the Vatican-City-sized one the Bush administration put up in Baghdad. The State Department was also reportedly planning to buy the five-star Pearl Continental Hotel (complete with pool) in Peshawar, near the border with Afghanistan, to use as a consulate and living quarters for its staff there.

Unfortunately for such plans, on June 9th Pakistani militants rammed a truck filled with explosives into the hotel, killing 18 occupants, wounding at least 55, and collapsing one entire wing of the structure. There has been no news since about whether the State Department is still going ahead with the purchase.

Whatever the costs turn out to be, they will not be included in our already bloated military budget, even though none of these structures is designed to be a true embassy -- a place, that is, where local people come for visas and American officials represent the commercial and diplomatic interests of their country. Instead these so-called embassies will actually be walled compounds, akin to medieval fortresses, where American spies, soldiers, intelligence officials, and diplomats try to keep an eye on hostile populations in a region at war. One can predict with certainty that they will house a large contingent of Marines and include roof-top helicopter pads for quick get-aways.

While it may be comforting for State Department employees working in dangerous places to know that they have some physical protection, it must also be obvious to them, as well as the people in the countries where they serve, that they will now be visibly part of an in-your-face American imperial presence. We shouldn't be surprised when militants attacking the U.S. find one of our base-like embassies, however heavily guarded, an easier target than a large military base.

And what is being done about those military bases anyway -- now close to 800 of them dotted across the globe in other people's countries? Even as Congress and the Obama administration wrangle over the cost of bank bailouts, a new health plan, pollution controls, and other much needed domestic expenditures, no one suggests that closing some of these unpopular, expensive imperial enclaves might be a good way to save some money.

Instead, they are evidently about to become even more expensive. On June 23rd, we learned that Kyrgyzstan, the former Central Asian Soviet Republic which, back in February 2009, announced that it was going to kick the U.S. military out of Manas Air Base (used since 2001 as a staging area for the Afghan War), has been persuaded to let us stay. But here's the catch: In return for doing us that favor, the annual rent Washington pays for use of the base will more than triple from $17.4 million to $60 million, with millions more to go into promised improvements in airport facilities and other financial sweeteners. All this because the Obama administration, having committed itself to a widening war in the region, is convinced it needs this base to store and trans-ship supplies to Afghanistan.

I suspect this development will not go unnoticed in other countries where Americans are also unpopular occupiers. For example, the Ecuadorians have told us to leave Manta Air Base by this November. Of course, they have their pride to consider, not to speak of the fact that they don't like American soldiers mucking about in Colombia and Peru. Nonetheless, they could probably use a spot more money.

And what about the Japanese who, for more than 57 years, have been paying big bucks to host American bases on their soil? Recently, they reached a deal with Washington to move some American Marines from bases on Okinawa to the U.S. territory of Guam. In the process, however, they were forced to shell out not only for the cost of the Marines' removal, but also to build new facilities on Guam for their arrival. Is it possible that they will now take a cue from the government of Kyrgyzstan and just tell the Americans to get out and pay for it themselves? Or might they at least stop funding the same American military personnel who regularly rape Japanese women (at the rate of about two per month) and make life miserable for whoever lives near the 38 U.S. bases on Okinawa. This is certainly what the Okinawans have been hoping and praying for ever since we arrived in 1945.

In fact, I have a suggestion for other countries that are getting a bit weary of the American military presence on their soil: cash in now, before it's too late. Either up the ante or tell the Americans to go home. I encourage this behavior because I'm convinced that the U.S. Empire of Bases will soon enough bankrupt our country, and so -- on the analogy of a financial bubble or a pyramid scheme -- if you're an investor, it's better to get your money out while you still can.

This is, of course, something that has occurred to the Chinese and other financiers of the American national debt. Only they're cashing in quietly and slowly in order not to tank the dollar while they're still holding onto such a bundle of them. Make no mistake, though: whether we're being bled rapidly or slowly, we are bleeding; and hanging onto our military empire and all the bases that go with it will ultimately spell the end of the United States as we know it.

Count on this, future generations of Americans traveling abroad decades from now won't find the landscape dotted with near-billion-dollar "embassies."

Chalmers Johnson is the author of The Blowback Trilogy -- Blowback (2000), The Sorrows of Empire (2004), and Nemesis (2006), all published by Metropolitan Books. Check out a TomDispatch audio interview with Johnson about the U.S. Empire of Bases by clicking here.

Copyright 2009 Chalmers Johnson

Printer-Friendly Version