Haitian President René Préval said Sunday that the death toll from the earthquake could reach 300,000 once all the bodies are recovered from the rubble. We speak to Peter Hallward, professor of Modern European Philosophy at Middlesex University. “Unless prevented by renewed popular mobilisation in both Haiti and beyond, the perverse international emphasis on security will continue to distort the reconstruction effort, and with it the configuration of Haitian politics for some time to come,” wrote Hallward recently. “What is already certain is that if further militarisation proceeds unchecked, the victims of the January earthquake won’t be the only avoidable casualties of 2010.” [includes rush transcript]
Monday, February 22, 2010
America's Genocidal Legacy: Is Haiti Next? - by Stephen Lendman
"a class society from the beginning. America started off as a society of rich and poor, people with enormous grants of land and people with no land. And there were riots, there were bread riots in Boston, and riots and rebellions all over the colonies, of poor against rich, of tenants breaking into jails to release people who were in prison for nonpayment of debt. There was class conflict. We try to" portray a benevolent nation. We weren't then. We're not now.
We waged war against Native Americans, African-Americans, ordinary Americans, the poor, disadvantaged and women. Since inception, we committed "genocide," according to Zinn: "brutally and purposefully....by our rulers in the name of progress, (who then buried ugly truths) in a mass of other facts, as radioactive wastes are buried in containers in the earth."
At home, profit over human lives and welfare took millions of working American lives. Abroad it was far worse, the result of direct or proxy wars, death squads, torture, occupations, alliances with despots, and neglect. Against indigenous and black Americans, it was worst of all. More on that below.
America's Genocidal Legacy
In his many books, scholar/activist Ward Churchill documented genocide in America. In "A Little Matter of Genocide: Holocaust and Denial in the Americas 1492 to the Present," he wrote:
After four centuries of systematic slaughter from 1492 - 1892, "the US Census Bureau concluded that there were fewer than a quarter-million indigenous people surviving," in America, reduced to at most 3% of their original numbers.
Millions were "hacked apart with axes and swords, burned alive and trampled under horses, hunted as game and fed to dogs, shot, beaten, stabbed, scalped for bounty, hanged on meathooks and thrown over the sides of ships at sea, worked to death as slave laborers, intentionally starved and frozen to death during a multitude of forced marches and internments, and, in an unknown number of instances, deliberately infected with epidemic diseases."
Shockingly, "every one of these practices (still continues in new forms). The American holocaust was and remains unparalleled, in terms of its scope, ferocity and continuance over time," thereafter suppressed by denial or silence.
Consider the grimness of the African holocaust, the result of 500 years of colonialization, oppression, exploitation, and slavery, much of it trafficked to America. Black Africans were captured, branded, chained, force-marched to ports, beaten, kept in cages, stripped of their humanity, and often their lives.
Around 100 million or more humans were sold like cattle, many millions perishing during the Middle Passage, a horrifying experience packing human cargo under deplorable conditions in spaces the size of a coffin, in some cases one atop another, in extreme discomfort, with poor ventilation, and so little sanitation that dysentery, smallpox, ophthalmia (causing blindness) and other diseases became epidemics. Conditions below deck were dark, filthy, slimy, full of blood, vomit, and human excrement.
Women were beaten and raped. For some, claustrophobia caused insanity. Others were flogged or clubbed to death. Anyone thought to be diseased was dumped overboard like garbage. Arrivals with three-fourths of departing cargos were considered successful voyages. The Middle Passage claimed as many as half of those trafficked, estimated by some up to 50 million.
Howard Zinn called American slavery "the most cruel form in history: the frenzy for limitless profit that comes from capitalistic agriculture; the reduction of the slave to less than human status by the use of racial hatred, with that relentless clarity based on color, where white was master, black was slave." Is it any different today?
In this environment, blacks were helpless, mistreatment common. Slavery grew with the plantation system. It was "psychological and physical. Slaves were taught discipline....the idea of their own inferiority to 'know their place,' to see blackness as a sign of subordination, to be awed by (their master's) power," to subordinate their will to his.
Zinn described "a complex web of historical threads to ensnare blacks for slavery in America:" poor settlers needing labor, the profit motive, racism, status, and human exploitation to get them - elements today affecting wage slaves and others in agriculture, domestic service, restaurant and hotel work, sweatshop factories, prostitution and sex services, and on US offshore military bases employing forced labor under horrific conditions.
The Conquest and Occupation of the Philippines - the Beginning of "The American Century" (1898 - 1902)
In 1898, President William McKinley created a pretext for war with Spain, forced the Spanish government to cede the Philippines, occupied the country, fought a dirty war, and slaughtered hundreds of thousands of Filipinos. Theodore Roosevelt succeeded him, continued the carnage, and won a Nobel Peace Prize.
Expressing his outrage on October 15, 1900, Mark Twain said:
"....I have seen that we do not intend to free, but to subjugate the people of the Philippines. We have gone there to conquer, not to redeem....And so I am an anti-imperialist. I am opposed to having the eagle put its talons on any other land....We have pacified some thousands of the islanders and buried them; destroyed their fields, burned their villages, turned their widows and orphans out-of-doors, (and) subjugated the remaining ten million by Benevolent Assimilation, which is the pious new name of the musket...."
He proposed a new American flag "with the white stripes painted black and the stars replaced by the skull and cross-bones." He was appalled that General Jacob Smith ordered his troops to:
"Kill and burn....this is no time to take prisoners....the more you kill and burn, the better. Kill all above the age of ten....turn (the country into) a howling wilderness."
Occupied Haiti Being Readied for Plunder, Exploitation, and Genocide
On January 20, the Nation magazine's John Nichols offered a disgraceful imperial defense and misreading of Haiti's plight in his article titled, "Obama's Fine Moment," saying:
"Barack Obama has responded to the devastating earthquake in Haiti with precisely the combination of dignity and determination that Americans....expected when they elected him. (He showed) a spirit that has the potential to reassure not just Haitians but Americans."
After its calamitous January 12 earthquake, the reality is far different. Haiti is now occupied for the duration. Conditions on the ground are horrific. Essential aid is obstructed and limited. The likely death toll tops 300,000 and hundreds of thousands more injured, many seriously. A health emergency exists. Malnutrition is rampant, clean water scarce, sanitation nearly non-existent, and tents are available only for a small fraction of those needing them, forcing hundreds of thousands to live in the open.
Diarrheal illnesses and acute respiratory infections are widespread, and signs of other outbreaks are apparent, including tetanus, measles, TB, malaria, dengue fever, diphtheria, typhoid, and others. Their calamitous potential represents a real and growing danger, threatening hundreds of thousands of lives - unaided Haitians perhaps left on their own to perish.
In his February 19 article headlined, "Poor Sanitation in Haiti's Tent Camps Adds to Risk of Disease," New York Times correspondent Simon Romero ignored the tent shortage, but cited public officials warning about the danger of "major disease outbreaks, including cholera.."
Already "a spike in illnesses like typhoid and shigellosis (a form of dysentery)" is evident. Unmentioned are the many others breaking out, the result of contaminated food, water, and flies that "become vectors by taking fecal waste from one place to another," according to Dr. Robert Redfield, co-founder of the University of Maryland's Institute of Human Virology. He added that rain increases the likelihood of spreading diseases like malaria, dengue fever, and many others.
The latest OCHA report understates the seriousness. Saying food aid has "reached over 3.4 million people," unexplained is it's being obstructed, way inadequate, sporadic, and left out entirely are poor areas like Cite Soleil. Also, the half million Haitians who've left or been forced out of Port-au-Prince are largely on their own. Most Haitians have no clean water, use what they can, and risk contracting widespread waterborne diseases, compounding the spreading airborne ones.
OCHA does highlight poor sanitation, only 17,000 tents for 1.2 million or more Haitians without shelter, most living in the open as the rainy season approaches, risking mounting death tolls for deaths from spreading diseases and too little done to treat them.
Yet as of February 25, $680 million in aid has been raised, way over the UN's initial $570 million goal, now upped to nearly $1.5 billion. Where's the money? Why isn't it delivering aid? Why is so little available and conditions on the ground horrific and worsening?
The post-2004 East Asian tsunami is instructive. Around $1.2 billion in aid relief was raised, mostly used for development, not victims. They got nothing, were forced into permanent shantytowns, and are still there. High-end tourism took precedence over rebuilding their homes and restoring their way of life.
That's what Haitians now face - permanent displacement on their own to facilitate plunder, exploitation and perhaps mass deaths because of no aid, too little, and no disease prevention or treatment.
If genocide is planned, that's the model. Henry Kissinger's secret 1974 National Security Study Memorandum 200 (NSSM 200) was an earlier one. Shaped by Rockefeller interests, it was an action plan for global population reduction - culling unwanted, unneeded "useless eaters."
The scheme involved:
-- mandatory birth control;
-- involuntary sterilizations;
-- legalized abortion;
-- indoctrination of children; and
-- other coercive methods, including withholding disaster relief and food aid when most needed.
The plan specifically said America would conceal its role to avoid charges of imperialism, so would induce the UN and NGOs to do its dirty work.
NSSM 200 was never renounced. Only certain portions were amended, so the basic idea remains policy to achieve global population control by reducing unwanted numbers.
Earlier, compliance was a prerequisite for development aid, the idea being to reduce world head counts by 500 million by 2000. Kissinger wanted control of global resources and new US grain markets in countries like India, Brazil, Nigeria, Mexico and Indonesia, culling populations to facilitate it.
USAID directed Brazil's program, and organizations like the International Planned Parenthood Federation and Family Health International were involved. After 14 years of involuntary sterilizations, the Brazilian Health Ministry estimated 44% of women from 14 - 55 were sterile, including 90% of African descent, the result of extermination by subterfuge, perhaps the same scheme planned for Haiti.
Involuntary birth control, sterilization, starvation, or similar schemes is genocide - precisely what Haitians face by starvation, depravation, disease, neglect, and forced toxic vaccinations.
In early February, a vaccination program began, children under seven for rubella and DPT (diphtheria, pertussis and tetanus), older children and adults for diphtheria and tetanus. Besides involuntary sterilization, Dr. Viera Scheibner, the world's foremost vaccine expert, explains the other dangers in her writing.
She says all vaccines contain harmful toxins, undermine human health, weaken the immune system, often causing the diseases they're designed to prevent. A host of auto-immune ones result, including diabetes, multiple sclerosis, ALS, arthritis, fibromyalgia, rashes, chronic fatigue, memory loss, seizures, dizziness, ulcers, non-healing skin lesions, neuropsychiatric problems, anaemia, chronic diarrhea, and others contributing to serious illnesses and early deaths.
Vaccines can also be bioengineered with deadly toxins able to debilitate, cause disease, and spread epidemics. Given America's genocidal history, perhaps the Obama administration plans one for Haiti. It bears watching and quoting the Genocide Convention.
Its definition under Article II includes "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (and)
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."
Genocide is "an odious scourge....a (high) crime under international law....condemned by the civilized world." Historically, its member states commit the worst of them, directly or through proxies, America especially guilty for over two centuries, including the modern era.
America's Genocidal Wars - WW II Terror Bombings
Unlike strategic bombing to destroy an adversary's economic and military might, terror bombings target civilians to break their morale, cause panic, weaken an enemy's will to fight, and inflict mass casualties and punishment.
Geneva and other international laws prohibit it. The Laws of War: Laws and Customs of War on Land (1907 Hague IV Convention's Article 25 states:
"The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns, villages, dwellings, or building which are undefended is prohibited."
Fourth Geneva protects civilians in time of war prohibiting violence of any type against them and requiring treatment for the sick and wounded. The 1945 Nuremberg Principles forbid "crimes against peace, war crimes and crimes against humanity." These include "inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war," including indiscriminate killing and "wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity."
In his book, "The Good War: An Oral History of World War II," Studs Terkel explained its good and bad sides through people who experienced it. The good was that America "was the only country among the combatants that was neither invaded nor bombed. Ours were the only cities not blasted to rubble."
The bad was that it "warped our view of how we look at things today (seeing them) in terms of war" and the notion that they're good or why else fight them. This "twisted memory....encourages (people) to be willing, almost eager, to use military force" as a way to solve problems, never mind that they exacerbate them. Wars are never just, in the nuclear age are "lunatic" acts, and horrific earlier by any standard.
America and Britain's carpet/firebombing of Dresden was barbaric against a defenseless German city and one of Europe's great cultural centers. In less than 14 hours, it was ruined, the result of 700,000 phosphorous bombs on 1.2 million people, killing as many as 100,000. City center temperatures reached 1,600 degrees centigrade. Bodies became molten flesh, mostly civilians and wounded soldiers. Dresden had no military importance. Destroying it was morally indefensible. So was firebombing Tokyo.
The war was effectively over, Japan trying to surrender but Roosevelt spurned overtures. He had other plans, one the firebombing Tokyo before the greater ones under Truman in August. On February 24, 1945, one square mile of the city was destroyed before the major March 6 attack demolishing 16 square miles, killing around 100,000 in the firestorm, injuring many more, and leaving over a million homeless. Five dozen other Japanese cities were also firebombed at a time most of the country's structures were wooden and easily consumed.
Yet early in 1945, Japan sent peace feelers, and two days before the February Yalta Conference, Douglas MacArthur sent Roosevelt a 40-page summary of its terms. They were nearly unconditional. The Japanese would accept an occupation, cease hostilities, surrender its arms, remove all troops from occupied territories, submit to criminal war trials, let its industries be regulated, asking only that their Emperor be retained.
Roosevelt categorically refused. So did Truman months before using atomic weapons against Hiroshima and Nagasaki. By December, their combined death tolls topped 200,000, but they rose in succeeding months and years. Radiation poisoning kills or causes grievous illnesses, disfiguration, and birth defects. Decades later, they're still being felt. It was gratuitous slaughter against a prostrate country on the verge of surrender, lies then used to justify it.
The attacks were the first salvo of the Cold War, showing the Soviets our strength. Howard Zinn added other reasons - "tin, rubber, oil, corporate profit (and) imperial arrogance."
New Genocides for Old
Post-WW II, America had no enemies nor was any country a threat. Yet millions of North Koreans and Southeast Asians were gratuitously slaughtered to complete Washington's conquest of Asia. In both cases, US confrontations began hostilities, unprovoked acts of war to install client regimes.
Korean expert Bruce Cumings explained "the extraordinary destructiveness of the United States air campaigns against North Korea, from the widespread and continuous use of firebombing, to threats to use nuclear and chemical weapons, and the destruction of huge North Korean dams in the final states of war. (The) air war leveled North Korea and killed millions of civilians. (There was no escape, and by) 1952 just about everything in northern and central Korea has been completely leveled. What was left of the population survived in caves."
Of the North's 22 major cities, 18 were half or more obliterated, the large industrial ones 75 - 100% destroyed, and villages reduced to "low, wide mounds of violent ashes." This was "limited war." Achieving no more than an armistice, a stalemate, America was on a roll. Southeast Asia was next.
Gabriel Kolko called it a predictable consequence of America's ambition, strengths, weaknesses, and quest for world dominance - one conquest at a time on the way to full control.
Like Korea, bombings were horrendous and indiscriminate, dropping eight million tons from 1965 - 1973, threefold WW II's tonnage, amounting to 300 tons for every Vietnamese man, woman and child.
As in Korea, napalm and other incendiary devices were used, plus terror weapons like anti-personnel cluster bombs spewing thousands of metal pellets, indiscriminately hitting everyone in their path.
From 1961 - 1971, dioxin-containing defoliant Agent Orange was used, mainly in the South, Cambodia and Laos. Millions of gallons were sprayed with devastating consequences because dioxin is one of the most toxic known substances, a potent carcinogenic human immune system suppressant. It accumulates in adipose tissue and the liver, alters living cell genetic structures, causes congenital disorders and birth defects, and contributes to diseases like cancer and type two diabetes.
In 1970, Operation Tailwind used sarin nerve gas in Laos, causing many gratuitous deaths. In 1998, former Joint Chiefs Chairman, Admiral Thomas Moorer, confirmed its use on CNN. Then, under Pentagon pressure, the cable channel retracted the report and fired its reporter and producers for refusing to disavow it.
The war also engulfed Cambodia and Laos killing around 600,000, mostly civilians, and destroying dozens of towns, villages and hamlets - again with secret bombings and terror weapons.
Both in Korea and Southeast Asia, three to four million were killed, vast amounts of destruction inflicted, and incalculable levels of human suffering felt to this day. It was genocide by any definition.
So is America's complicity in Palestine, funding Israel's militarism, belligerence and occupation, causing an estimated 300,000 post-1967 deaths and much more, including 3,600 avoidable under aged five ones annually. In an early 2009 report, UNICEF said:
-- "Armed conflict (kills) dozens of children each year....;"
-- since 2000, poverty has dramatically worsened;
-- in the West Bank, militarized control affects access to jobs, schools and health care;
-- in Gaza, conditions are especially horrendous;
-- throughout the Territories, children are threatened by landmines and other unexploded ordnance;
-- "chronic malnutrition affects nearly 10 per cent of children under age five," and in Gaza conditions are "acute;" and
-- daily violence and deprivation take lives and produce anxiety, phobias and/or depression.
By providing Israel with around $3 billion annually in direct aid, undisclosed additional amounts, the latest weapons and technology, and much more, America is complicit in its crimes - what Palestinian scholar Elias Akleh calls a Palestinian Holocaust, he defines as a "genocidal crime against people based on their ethnicity," one that continues daily, especially in Gaza under siege.
The dirty 1970s and 80s Central American wars killed over 300,000 people, tortured hundreds of thousands throughout the Americas, and drove millions into exile. A June 1986 International Tribunal on Genocide in Central America cited the period 1970 - 1986 experiencing sporadic to intense violence:
-- "verging on a near total break-down of the state institutions and open warfare between state governments, competing rebel forces challenging state authorities and indigenous" peoples. "In the course of resurgent violence, acts of genocide and ethnocide (were) committed against indigenous groups. (Allegations) of state sponsored and rebel force sponsored genocide against indigenous peoples (were) repeatedly made throughout the course of the last fifteen years," including massacres, torture, forced military service, land seizures, arbitrary arrests and imprisonments, population relocations, and attacks amounting to genocide under the UN Convention.
"That there is sufficient evidence to warrant the convening of a (genocide) tribunal goes without question."
America was complicit in the 1990s Rwanda massacres, by militarizing Uganda, funding the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) and its Rwandan Patriotic Army (RPA) to displace France and become Central Africa's dominant power, including in eastern Congo. It used its RPA and Ugandan proxies in Congo's civil war for control of its eastern and southern mining resources, killing millions of Congolese (including by disease, malnutrition and related violence) to secure them, including diamonds, gold, copper, tin, timber, coltan and cobalt (from 64 - 80% of world reserves), treasures for the taking, some of them vital for defense purposes.
Operation Desert Storm began on January 17, 1991, a criminal, gratuitous mass slaughter and destruction of essential to life facilities, including:
-- power plants and dams;
-- water purification facilities;
-- sewage treatment and disposal systems;
-- telephone and other communications;
-- hospitals;
-- schools and mosques;
-- around 20,000 homes, apartments and other dwellings;
-- irrigation sites;
-- food processing, storage and distribution facilities;
-- hotels and retail establishments;
-- transportation infrastructure;
-- oil wells, pipelines, refineries and storage tanks;
-- chemical plants, factories and other commercial operations;
-- government buildings and historical sites; and
-- civilian shelters targeting of innocent men, women and children.
Tens of thousands were gratuitously killed, as many as 200,000 according to independent estimates. Twelve years of genocidal sanctions followed, killing as many as 1.7 million, two-thirds of them children under age five.
From 2003 - 2009, 2.5 million or more died from violent or non-violent causes, again mostly young children, to turn Iraq into a free market paradise, its people reduced to serfs, as part of a greater aim for global dominance and control of world resources and markets.
The 1990s Balkan wars followed the same pattern, dividing Yugoslavia into separate states, culminating with the US-NATO 1999 terror bombing of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia - Serbia-Kosovo. For two and a half months, about 3,000 sorties dropped thousands of tons of ordnance plus hundreds of ground-launched cruise missiles. As in the Gulf War, virtually all vital infrastructure was targeted as well as factories, other businesses, commercial and government buildings, schools, hospitals, churches, and historical landmarks. All were destroyed or heavily damaged.
An estimated $100 billion in damage was inflicted. A humanitarian disaster resulted. Environmental contamination was extensive. Large numbers were killed, injured or displaced, and two million lost their livelihoods. As in Korea, Southeast Asia, and Iraq, it was genocide under the Convention. Afghanistan and Iraq were next, the latter explained above.
September 11 was the pretext, then beginning October 7, 2001, Afghanistan was bombed, invaded and occupied like Iraq. Planned months in advance, war continues to control Eurasia, the key for world dominance, and no wonder. It has 75% of the world's population, most of its resources and physical wealth, three-fourths of its known oil and gas, and is the grandest of grand prizes for its ruler.
Marjah is the latest Afghan offensive, a PR stunt to show progress and perhaps save face for utter failure to this point, except for the human toll. From 2001 - 2007, UN Population Division data estimated 3.2 million deaths, including 700,000 children under age five.
Through 2009, around 4.5 million have died from violent or non-violent causes, including deprivation, disease, starvation, and neglect with no end of conflict in sight - an Afghan genocide like in Korea, Southeast Asia, Yugoslavia, Iraq, and now Haiti, occupied to be strip-mined for profit, its people mere sacrificial pawns, unneeded ones to be forfeited on its alter - an old story for perhaps the world's most long-suffering people.
For over 500 years, it's been victimized by severe oppression, slavery, despotism, colonization, reparations, embargoes, starvation, unrepayable debt, as well as natural and perhaps engineered calamities, the latest for plunder and exploitation - Haiti's centuries old curse, perhaps greater than ever going forward.
Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. He lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.
Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to the Lendman News Hour on RepublicBroadcasting.org Monday - Friday at 10AM US Central time for cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on world and national issues. All programs are archived for easy listening.
http://republicbroadcasting.org/Lendman
posted by Steve Lendman @ 3:04 AM
Peter Hallward on “Damming the Flood: Haiti, Aristide, and the Politics of Containment”
Guests:
Peter Hallward, author of Damming the Flood: Haiti, Aristide, and the Politics of Containment and a professor of Modern European Philosophy at Middlesex University.
Kim Ives, journalist with the newspaper Haiti Liberté, speaking from Port-au-Prince
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 begin today with an update on Haiti a month and a half after the magnitude 7.0 earthquake hit the Caribbean island nation. Haitian President René Préval said Sunday the death toll from the earthquake could reach 300,000 once all the bodies are recovered from the rubble.
PRESIDENT RENÉ PRÉVAL: [translated] You have seen the images. You know the figures. More than 200,000 bodies were collected on the streets. Counting those still found under the rubble, the death toll could rise to 300,000. More than 250,000 destroyed or damaged homes, more than 1.5 million people are suddenly homeless.
AMY GOODMAN: Speaking in a regional summit of Latin American and Caribbean leaders in Mexico, Préval urged them to send aid to his devastated country. The Inter-American Development Bank estimates rebuilding Haiti could cost as much as $14 billion. Préval warned of the approaching rainy season and made a plea for emergency shelter materials to assist the one-and-a-half million homeless Haitians.
On Saturday, Claudy Trevange was one of hundreds of Haitians waiting in line for waterproof shelter materials to be distributed by the International Organization for Migration, a United Nations agency.
CLAUDY TREVANVE: [translated] We sleep in the street with our children. We have no money. Our children catch colds. They sneeze.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, for more on Haiti, we’re joined here in New York by Canadian political philosopher Peter Hallward. He’s the author of Damming the Flood: Haiti, Aristide, and the Politics of Containment, and he’s professor of modern European philosophy at Middlesex University.
We welcome you to Democracy Now!
PETER HALLWARD: Thank you very much, Amy.
AMY GOODMAN: Peter, as you watch what has taken place, your book is extremely extensive about the history of Haiti. Can you put what has happened after the earthquake in this historical context?
PETER HALLWARD: Unfortunately, very easily, because the history of Haiti really, for the last—particularly the last twenty-five, thirty years—but, in a way, the history of the country really since independence, for the last two centuries—has been about maintaining the control of a small group of very wealthy, privileged people in partnership with their international backers. And the problem that they’ve faced has been how to maintain a situation, structured in terms of gross inequalities, particularly in terms of wealth, political power, this kind of thing, in the face of something like a democratic challenge, where if the poor majority, if the majority of Haitian people, who live on pennies a day, if they were able to form a political movement that could press for radical political and social changes, you know, how would you stop that? How would you contain the threats of that kind of mobilization?
And the main strategy has been to deflect political questions away from the political field itself and put them onto more like military terrain, where you can structure these questions in terms of security issues, crime, problems that basically not a political government but an army can solve. And that’s been the main driving thrust, I think, of the political situation in Haiti for the last—certainly for the last—since really since 1990, when Aristide was elected for the first time.
So what I think has happened with the earthquake is another phase in this general tendency towards turning Haiti into a kind of—a sort of police protectorate, really, where the key locus for political power is in the army or something like the army. In this case, the American army, the United Nations army, eventually perhaps a new version of the Haitian army, something like that.
AMY GOODMAN: Where is the Haitian government in all of this?
PETER HALLWARD: Well, the Haitian government basically is the—does what it’s told, largely. So, I think it’s going too far to call it a protectorate, because there is still a thriving grassroots democratic tradition there. And when—with the last election in Haiti in 2006, there was a real mobilization of people to get René Préval, the current president, elected, very largely, I think, on the basis of the fact that he’s remembered as Aristide’s first prime minister. He was elected when Aristide stood down after his first election in 1996. And so, he’s someone who’s perceived—you know, if he’s widely called the “marassa d’Aristide,” the twin brother of Aristide, he’s seen as someone who is in that trajectory, the Lavalas movement, basically. And so, when he was—when he stood for office, late in the day, as it happens, in 2006, there was a real mobilization of people to get him elected and essentially to try and undo the coup that overthrew Aristide in 2004.
So there is a real popular—there is still a genuine grassroots democratic force in Haiti. The problem is that there’s a real disconnect between that grassroots mobilization and what the government itself can do. The government is very, very constrained. Their funding is dependent almost entirely on international support. There’s a lot of pressure around issues like keeping minimum wages low, adhering to neoliberal reforms, as they’re called, which essentially open the country up to international investment and have locked the country into a kind of systematic cycle of disempowerment and impoverishment.
And Préval has basically gone along with that. If you look at the things that he’s done in the last year, he vetoed a move to increase the minimum wage to $5 a day, so it’s locked down at $3 a day, roughly. He continued to push through a really disastrous privatization policy that’s, as we speak, is in the process of breaking up the phone company and selling that off. There’s pressure to sell off the last remaining public resources that Haiti has, the ports and other things. And he blocked the most popular political party in the country, Fanmi Lavalas, from participating in elections last spring and that were—another set of elections, more important elections, that were due to happen this month, which will be postponed now, of course. So he’s someone who has really cut himself off, in fact, really from the beginning, from anything like a mass-based popular mobilization. And as a result, I think he doesn’t have a great deal of support among at least ordinary people in Haiti now.
AMY GOODMAN: Of course, I mean, the palace was seriously devastated.
PETER HALLWARD: Yes.
AMY GOODMAN: And then, just driving along the roads in Port-au-Prince, one ministry after another just in rubble.
PETER HALLWARD: Yes. So, that, of course, that doesn’t help him. You know, that doesn’t help, of course. But—
AMY GOODMAN: And many of the government officials killed.
PETER HALLWARD: Yes. And so, these—of course, that would cause very, very significant problems, no matter what the situation was.
But I think the more—in the longer term, at least, the more important fact is that the government was already very weak, largely because of international pressure, the pressure to cut public spending; to lay off public servants; to funnel all international investment, or at least the vast majority of it, into—not into state-based enterprises or state-based investment, things like a national health service or a national education system, that kind of thing, but instead into fragmented NGO-type projects that, in many ways, compete and sometimes replace what should be a public service, I think. So there’s been, systematically, a whole set of policies that have weakened the government, deprived it of any real capacity, for example, to collect anything like the tax revenue that it should, deprived it of a capacity to invest in the public services, even basic infrastructure like water, rubbish removal, that kind of thing.
These things have never happened, and they haven’t happened since the international community has been essentially ruling Haiti, more or less directly since 2004. You had this huge UN force there, you know, with a budget of $600-plus million a year, and they spent almost all of that money on military measures to maintain social control, political control, to pacify a population, basically, after a coup that overthrew one of the most popular governments in the world, a government that had been elected with 70, 75 percent of the vote, that was happy to organize a new set of elections with its opposition, and the international community and the small clique of unelectable political manipulators in Haiti refused to go along with this. And the result is a military solution to a political problem, having this huge UN force whose only real contribution has been to maintain a version of order in the streets of Port-au-Prince.
AMY GOODMAN: We’re talking to Peter Hallward. He is the author of Damming the Flood: Haiti, Aristide, and the Politics of Containment. We’ll come back to this conversation in a minute.
[break]
AMY GOODMAN: We are talking to Peter Hallward. He is the author of Damming the Flood: Haiti, Aristide, and the Politics of Containment.
When we were traveling through Port-au-Prince and on to Carrefour, Gressier, to Léogâne, after the earthquake, the word was coming down that the UN and US were not going to move out into what was really the epicenter of the quake until security was guaranteed, which we found shocking, because people were just covered in cement ash, scratching at the rubble, digging, trying to find their grandparents and their children and their neighbors. What about this issue of security?
PETER HALLWARD: It’s unbelievable. I mean, and your report that you filed from the hospital, you know, what was it now, ten, fifteen, more like two weeks ago, it was an incredible situation. Basically, anything that couldn’t be cordoned off behind a security perimeter was left to—was simply abandoned. People were simply left to die. So Carrefour, you know, very close to the epicenter, very poor neighborhood, as you know, packed with people, was basically just left to its own devices for—I don’t think any aid of virtually any description arrived for ten days after the earthquake. So, you know, very cynical, you know.
And this happened at every level. It happened in terms of where the rescue teams went. They went to a few places like the Montana Hotel, the Caribe supermarkets, the UN headquarters, where you had a secure perimeter, where mainly wealthy people were among the victims, and where you could work, you know, in a secure environment. And pretty much everywhere else was simply abandoned. And it happened with the hospitals. It happened with the distribution of aid. I mean, and, you know, also it happened in terms of what the international response was initially. Rather than send the help that was needed, they instead secured the airport. They sent thousands of troops, who basically did virtually nothing.
You have a situation where what is urgently required is to enlist Haitian people to distribute, you know, essential supplies—water, food and so on. Instead, you have thousands of Marines, hanging—you know, patrolling the city, with armed to the teeth, you know, for no purpose. It’s incredible. And it’s grounded in, unfortunately, in one of the fundamental structural tendencies of Haitian political life, particularly in last twenty-five years or so, when you’ve had a political mobilization of people that can only be solved, from the elite’s perspective, with military means.
And this goes right back to the history of Haiti, as, you know, it was established as a colony designed to extract a maximum amount of wealth from slave labor. And it was extremely successful at that. It was more profitable than the whole of the United States combined at the time of American independence.
AMY GOODMAN: Explain that.
PETER HALLWARD: So, it was generating, you know, more than half—it was, by far, the largest supplier of coffee, sugar, you know, the big commodities at the time, also hardwoods, various other things. And it generated more revenue for France in the 1780s than all of the North American colonies combined. So it was really an extraordinarily lucrative, very concentrated wealth generator in the eighteenth century.
And it worked because you had a very brutal system of exploitation. Five—about five—almost half-a-million slaves, a very small number of white plantation owners, a few people in the middle. And this system worked to extract just vast amounts of profits. It was really exceptionally brutal by—even by colonial standards. It meant—the death rate was so high that by the time the Haitian slaves rose up against the system in 1791, most of the slaves that participated in that rebellion were born in Africa. You know, they never managed to create a system like they did in the southern United States, where the slave economy was self-replicating, where you could basically grow your own slaves locally. And this meant that the original security problem in Haiti, the plantation system, where you maintain order by, you know, simply massive, brutal levels of violence, had to be redesigned after the revolution, because the revolution was successful and the people who won that revolution were determined to avoid a return to the plantation system.
So in Haiti, really unlike most other places in the world, certainly among like most of Latin America, the tendency towards the concentration of big farms and the expropriation of small holdings and of peasant farms didn’t really happen in Haiti, which meant that small farmers were able to hold onto their farms, resisted tendencies that pushed them—that would have pushed them in other places into slums in the cities, where they would have been exploited, basically, in factories and so on. That happened much later in Haiti, and it only happened to a relatively limited extent.
So you then have to look at, well, how did that—and basically, in the twentieth century, there have been a couple of key episodes that allowed that process to accelerate a little bit and generated new security problems.
AMY GOODMAN: I’m going to interrupt, because we’ve reached Kim Ives in Haiti. Kim Ives is a journalist with the newspaper Haiti Liberté. He’s joining us on the line from Port-au-Prince.
Welcome back to Democracy Now!, Kim. You’re returning now for the second time after the earthquake. What have you found?
KIM IVES: Well, things have changed a lot since we were here, Amy. There is the massive—the massive destruction that we saw, but it has begun to be cleaned up. It’s a real testament to the resilience of people.
The vultures are arriving, however. They are mostly in the form of security forces who are driving around with the mainstream media, with [inaudible] construction companies from the US, which are looking to set up.
I’m getting tremendous feedback. I’m not sure if there’s anything that can be done to resolve it, Amy.
AMY GOODMAN: We’re trying to fix it, to turn off the feedback back to Kim. But Kim, just keep talking. We’ll try to do this as long as we can. It’s been almost impossible to reach you this morning. We can hear you pretty well.
KIM IVES: I know. That’s the—OK, very good. I’ll do my best. That’s the problem here, is a lot of the infrastructure is not in place. The phones are still spotty and difficult.
But I should just say, Amy, that the horrors continue, as yesterday out at Saint Gerard in the Carrefour-Feuilles area, there was a tremendous hole in the ground where they buried 240 people. It’s not covered. The stench coming from it is tremendous. A young boy at Saint Gerard explained how the school had fallen down on his classmates, killing forty of them. And the University of Saint Gerard across the street had fallen, killing 200 students. It’s a horror.
And at the same time, the people are returning to commerce. Restaurants are opening, and airlines have started to fly again. Electricity is back on. People are trying to survive, Amy, through scavenging, mostly. You see the National Council of Equipment is distributing lots of sites, mostly schools, is what they’re starting with. You see people all over trying to get the rebar, aluminum. Copper wire is particularly prized; that sells for a dollar a pound. The aluminum sells for about seven cents a pound. So you can see—yet when we were out two days ago watching the TeleCo building being raised, the TeleCo security people came out, began to chase away the scavengers with guns, whipping them, beating them. It was a very tense scene. Nobody was shot.
AMY GOODMAN: Kim, we’re having—Kim, we’re having trouble understanding you. Kim, if you could go as close as you can to the microphone on your computer. We haven’t been able to reach you by cell phone or any other way, and we’re trying this by audio Skype, but you’re coming in and out. Maybe if you go as close as you can to the computer microphone. Kim?
KIM IVES: OK, well, I’ve got the mike right to my face now. Can you hear me OK now?
AMY GOODMAN: Yes, a little better.
KIM IVES: I think it’s the [inaudible].
AMY GOODMAN: No, that was—
KIM IVES: I think it’s the internet, which has—again, is very—which is very [inaudible]. In any case, the other element you should be aware of is the response of the population, the hostility of the population [inaudible] NGOs which have come here. You see graffiti everywhere [inaudible] their presence in the country [inaudible]—
AMY GOODMAN: Kim, we’re going to have to try this tomorrow, because it’s just not audible enough. We sometimes hear you, and we sometimes don’t. But what we do hear is very interesting. We’re going to try to get complete sentences out tomorrow. Kim Ives is a journalist with the newspaper Haiti Liberté, joining us online from Port-au-Prince. Very difficult still to get through.
We’re also joined by Peter Hallward. His book is called Damming the Flood: Haiti, Aristide, and the Politics of Containment. He talked about the vultures. He talked about contractors that are now coming in, this whole issue of who develops Haiti, and going back to what you were saying about how—the riches that Haiti brought to France. And interestingly, that’s what increasingly depleted Haiti right through World War II. The Haitians, after declaring a republic in 1804, ultimately they agreed to pay reparations—
PETER HALLWARD: That’s right.
AMY GOODMAN: —to Haiti—to France.
PETER HALLWARD: Well, “agreed” is one way of putting it. The French sent their entire Atlantic fleet and put it outside Port-au-Prince, guns ready, and said, basically, “Pay up or face the consequences.” And what were—what did Haiti—what choice does he have?
And in the war of independence, one of the most extraordinary national liberation struggles ever fought, lasted for thirteen years, and it ends in the end of 1803, kills a third of the population, destroys the entire country. All the cities are destroyed, the plantations wrecked. And the country is then locked in this quarantine, not able to trade. It’s not able to generate any revenue that would allow it to rebuild. The little resources that it does have, it spends on building fortifications to block the French from returning. And twenty years of this, and the Haitian government is prepared finally to sign an agreement to pay a huge amount of money, I mean, three—more than three times, around three times the amount of money that France charged the United States when it sold Louisiana in 1803, as reparations for themselves, basically.
It’s reparations for lost—for the lost colonial and slave property to France. And yes, the money—the simple interest payments on this French debt by the end of the nineteenth century was consuming the bulk of the Haitian budget, about 80 percent of the Haitian budget. And these payments went on, as you said, until 1947.
So, that alone—I mean, when we talk about Haitian debt, the crucial debt is the debt that is owed to Haiti. And this is a point Aristide always made. He made it in his early speeches in the 1980s. He made it in his speeches as president in the early ’90s. And then he said it again, very emphatically, in the run-up to the bicentenary of Haitian independence in 2004, that France should pay this money back and that the United States should pay some of the money that it owes Haiti. After it took over the bank, when it occupied the country in 1915, it expropriated land from tens of thousands of peasants. It ravaged the economy for twenty years. It did the same again in different ways more recently, by contributing to these two disastrous coups, in 1991 and again in 2004.
So the debt that France and the United States and Canada also owes Haiti is immense. It would be billions and billions of dollars, not as charity, but simply debt. And Aristide had the temerity to demand this as head of state. It was a policy not by a kind of fringy NGO that can make, you know, idealistic speeches and demands, but of a well-documented, serious demand by a head of state to another sovereign power that was very, very uncomfortable. France was clearly rattled by this. Chirac said, you know, “The Haitian president should consider the implications of what he’s saying more carefully.” And it’s very clear, I think, that this demand was one of the key factors that led to the French involvement in the coup in 2004.
AMY GOODMAN: And the coup in 2004, the United States and France pushing Aristide and Mildred Aristide, the First Lady of Haiti, out of Haiti on a US military jet—
PETER HALLWARD: That’s right.
AMY GOODMAN: —to the Central African Republic.
PETER HALLWARD: That’s right, in the middle of the night. So here’s a scenario where the government is elected with 70 to 75 percent of the vote, has a massive majority in Parliament, seventy-two out of eighty-three seats in Parliament, has all but one seat in the Senate. Aristide has disbanded the army at this point, which had been traditionally the mechanism of control, which had overthrown his government back in 1991. So you have a situation here for the first time where you have a popular movement that’s still relatively strong, despite all the violence that it had survived in the mid- and early ’90s. It has a popular president. It has clear leadership. It has a clear program. It has a massive majority in Parliament. There’s no extra-political military mechanism waiting to overthrow it. And it’s at that point that this massive international campaign starts to destabilize the government, to misrepresent it, to starve it of funds, to push it into the corner that eventually, as you say, leads to this coup d’état at the end of February 2004.
AMY GOODMAN: What would it mean now if Aristide were to return? He has said he wants to return from South Africa. The reports are he almost—it’s almost as if he was in Bangi. While it’s a friendly government, that the pressure is on for him to stay there.
PETER HALLWARD: Well, clearly. He’s been—he said this—he’s been saying this for five years or six years virtually now, that he’s ready to come back. And it’s—the first thing it would do, it would establish some continuity. So we’ve heard any number of calls for “let’s make a new start,” you know, a new Haiti, etc. This is not very helpful, I think. It’s not what people want. What people want is some continuity with its remarkable political mobilization that has had the courage to face off and, in fact, overcome military pressure.
You know, this is a popular movement that began in an uprising against the Duvalier dictatorship, that was strong enough to overthrow the Duvalier dictatorship and, in particular, to uproot, as they put it, the Macoutes, the paramilitaries that had controlled that country for decades, powerful enough to overcome that then in 1986, ’87, powerful enough then to overcome the army directly when it tried to run the country. And the crucial thing for many people in Haiti is to maintain a kind of continuity with that tradition and to remobilize it, to reengage those—you know, that legacy of hope and perseverance and courage.
Aristide represents that, fundamentally. He’s the spokesperson for that movement, for that moment in Haitian history. So, for him to return, I think, would be, first of all, a kind of an acknowledgement that this has indeed been the fundamental fact of Haitian political life in the last thirty years and that this is what has to be the priority, is to empower and enable Haitian people with their own leadership and their own priorities to set the agenda and to force the international community to do what it is told, rather than the opposite. So, Aristide’s return would be to return the most forceful, the most inspiring, the most powerful voice in Haitian politics where it belongs, back where he belongs, not to run the country, not to be the savior who comes with all the solutions, but to be the someone who can be a spokesperson for popular empowerment. That’s what I think it would represent.
AMY GOODMAN: And what do you think it would take for him to return?
PETER HALLWARD: A little bit of political will. A little bit of—I mean, one phone call is what it would take. The thing is, what would it force—what would it require to force that? And what that would require, unfortunately, is a massive amount of effort from people like you and me and the people in the countries, particularly the United States, Canada—
AMY GOODMAN: Is it more important what’s on the ground in Haiti?
PETER HALLWARD: Yeah, it is, but—of course, it is. The crucial thing is the—I think, to facilitate something like a genuine collective mobilization. But Aristide has his place in that. He’s one of many people who could contribute to that. But he is the most important person, I think, the one who has the highest profile, the person who is—who was able, has been able to do this time and time again, to find the right words to say what has to be said. This is what people appreciate about him, and to do it in ways that are not deferential. You know, one of the things that people appreciate him is that he stood up to pressure and that he stood up for people’s right to confront military pressure, for example, and to defend themselves. So he’s been a very articulate spokesman for that, for justice and for empowerment. So he’s important because of that, not because of he’s an individual, he would come and have all the solutions [inaudible]. I’m sure he’d be the first to say that’s not the case.
But that the empowerment of Haitian people, as a whole, and in meaningful ways, not in the kind of trivial ways that everyone will say, it has to be driven by the Haitian people. What does that actually mean concretely? And I think, concretely, in terms of organization, in terms of having something like a program for national change, it’s been Fanmi Lavalas, the mobilization around Fanmi Lavalas, that has been the most important development in Haitian politics since the mid-‘90s. So, to maintain a kind of continuity with that, to allow it to go forward, to allow the organization to reestablish itself, to reorganize itself—it suffered a great deal, you know, under the pressure of the last six years, in particular—would be a very important way forward. It’s simply allowing the Haitian people to use the resources that they’ve got, rather than maintaining them in a sort of state of passive, deferential docility.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, we’re going to leave it there. Peter Hallward, I want to thank you very much for being with us. Damming the Flood is the name of his book, Haiti, Aristide, and the Politics of Containment.
Related stories
- Report from Haiti: Desperate Call for Aid with Rescue Equipment, Medicine, Food & Water in Short Supply
- Naomi Klein Issues Haiti Disaster Capitalism Alert: Stop Them Before They Shock Again
- “The Sound of Screaming Is Constant”–Haiti Devastated by Massive Earthquake, Desperate Search for Survivors Continues
- ICE Officials Accused of Covering Up Immigrant Deaths in Detention
- Haiti Devastated by Largest Earthquake in 200 Years, Thousands Feared Dead
Is Israel a small penis or a limp penis?
by Paul Woodward on February 22, 2010
Having thought a lot about Israel, I’ll confess I’ve never pictured it as a penis – of any particular size.
But on second thoughts, that’s not actually true. The wars on Lebanon and Gaza did evoke a sense that the Jewish state regards war as a type of Viagra, so I guess if war is Viagra that does indeed make Israel a penis — one that has difficulty maintaining an erection.
With that in mind the new Size Doesn’t Matter campaign aimed at promoting Israel (h/ts to Richard Silverstein and Dimi Reider) could be seen as an effort to convince young North American Jews that Israel is not suffering from erectile dysfunction. A trip to Israel — well that’s like giving or receiving a blow job, though the metaphor gets a little confusing at this point.
What the hell am I talking about?
Watch this video sponsored by the Canadian Council for Israel and Jewish Advocacy:
I have little doubt that when the makers of this video debated its merits, someone said that it would be sure to go viral.
Indeed, I along with many others are now making that happen. But even though “going viral” is supposed to be an online marketing success, it’s worth remembering where the metaphor comes from. In this case, did the promoters of Israel really want an image of their beloved state to spread like a contagious disease?
And one small footnote — the “size doesn’t matter” claim turns out to be a little disingenuous: the map of Israel in the video includes Gaza and the West Bank as part of Greater Israel. Apparently size really does matter.
Sunday, February 21, 2010
AFGHAN LEADERS CALL SURGE, “IMBECILIC AND TRAGIC”
AMERICA RECRUITING 10,000 TERRORISTS A DAY IN AFGHANISTAN
By Gordon Duff STAFF WRITER/Senior Editor
“We have millions of young men coming of age, America doesn’t realize this. Each one will become a fighter with one purpose in life, to free their country and drive out foreign invaders. Each child you see will be a trained soldier with a Kalashnikov. We will fight for a century if we have to. Ask Britain, ask Russia, they know. Why did America have to come here, join with criminal elements, brutal drug lords, mass murderers, people whose only history is brutality toward their own, why was America so stupid as to think we would respect them when they and their stooges rain bombs down on our children?”
Last year a number of contractors were thrown out of Afghanistan over the infamous “butT-crack” video showing nude imbeciles involved in an unsanitary ceremony. Little did we know that these must have been the people who planned the American “Surge” meant to stabilize Afghanistan, supplied the intelligence for General McChrystal, may actually have written his report. Top leaders of the Afghan people weighed in on our operation in Helmand province with American Marines and British troops. They call it “imbecilic” and “tragic,” faulting nearly every aspect as uninformed, misinformed or simply wrong.
Tribal “Jirgas” (councils) of the real government of Afghanistan, the actual rulers of that fractured state are behind one thing now, getting America out of Afghanistan and getting rid of Karzai, who they see is, not only an American puppet but one of the most useless human beings ever born. Why mince words. Actually, I am, their real words are much worse than anything that could be printed, their rage, their words and their tears.
A MASSIVE BLUNDER
Word has been pouring out of Afghanistan. Every move America makes is hitting blogs around the world through a network of Afghani ex-patriots who are in continual communication. The word is out: Our “invasion” that combined Afghani forces with American and British has not gone after Taliban strongholds at all but rather attacked areas controlled by Karzai opponents who were ready to negotiate a legitimate government.
To the people of Afghanistan, the Karzai government was put in place out of utter idiocy in the first place, a failure of the Bush administration to understand that Afghanistan was not going to be ruled by brutal warlords from the “Northern Alliance” who are the ethnic enemies of the majority of the population of Afghanistan. Placing weakling Mohammed Karzai in as president and supporting him thru a rigged election has only made things worse.
USING “COUNTER-INSURGENCY” TO RECRUIT TERRORSTS
American, Britain and the “Afghani Army” simply aren’t very good at many things, Afghanistan has proven this. We don’t seem to be able to tell a poppy plant from wheat, we can’t find Osama bin Laden, dead or alive, and we don’t know the Taliban from our own “butt-crack.” Reports on operations are clear. We are managing to frighten, brutalize and anger hundreds of thousands of people who have nothing to do with the Taliban, not before anyway.
Now, “they” are rethinking this. This is the message being received around the world.
Tribal leaders are saying:
We have millions of young men coming of age, America doesn’t realize this. Each one will become a fighter with one purpose in life, to free their country and drive out foreign invaders. Each child you see will be a trained soldier with a Kalashnikov. We will fight for a century if we have to. Ask Britain, ask Russia, they know.
Why did America have to come here, join with criminal elements, brutal drug lords, mass murderers, people whose only history is brutality toward their own, why was America so stupid as to think we would respect them when they and their stooges rain bombs down on our children?
THE FAILED SURGE IN IRAQ, THE REAL TRUTH
America calls it “the surge” or the “Sunni awakening.” Either way, it was all a con. General Petraeus paid millions in bribes to war lords, mostly Sunni and put the militia members who were fighting the United States on the payroll. The fighting died down, most American troops withdrew to safe areas and we claimed a victory. What did we really accomplish?
Well, years later, we are still there and Iraq is becoming less stable every day. The “leaders” we paid rebuilt the old Baathist party, now, without Saddam to lead it, it is simply a massive crime organization involved in daily murders, kidnappings and racketeering. We created a country plagued by a Mafia we built, now nobody is asking us to leave anymore, everyone is scared to death.
Thank you General Petraeus. As with General Westmoreland in Vietnam, we “managed the news” and “stayed on message” but our strategy was a sham, it was simply a way to admit failure and lie about it. We are planning the exact same thing in Afghanistan but it simply didn’t need to be that way.
WHAT A COMPETENT AND WELL INFORMED MILITARY LEADER MIGHT HAVE DONE
Sitting in Kabul or Washington, surrounded by drug dealers and thieves, even worse people in Kabul, it is hard to get good information and make good decisions. Everyone you talk to has an agenda, everyone is lying. Who are our advisors? Well, first of all, the entire world knows that Karzai’s family is helping run the largest drug cartel in the world. In fact, the biggest civil project America has done in Afghanistan was to repair a dam producing electricity for Kandahar, a dam that also provides irrigation for most of Afghanistan’s opium crop, one Americans are dying to keep secure today.
“Don’t worry, no poppy plants will be injured in the making of this picture.”
America had the chance to sit down with Pakistan and other regional powers, some that we don’t talk to and come up with an economic solution that could provide lasting stability for the tribal regions which are primarily inside Pakistan. We failed to realize that 25 million Pashtuns live just the other side of the border in Pakistan. With the right help for Pakistan, the right economic programs and leadership, both countries could be helped and lives, perhaps millions, could be saved without pouring billions of useless dollars into the pockets of defense contractors infesting the halls of Congress, some with the arrogance and blatant insensibility of our actual elected leaders.
IMRAN KHAN OF PAKISTAN, THE REGION’S ONLY RESPECTED LEADER
Combine Michael Jordan, Antonio Banderas and John F. Kennedy and you have Imran Khan, or that is how many in Afghanistan and Pakistan see him. Cricket is “the” sport in Pakistan and he is the most famous player in the historyof that game. He is also a political leader, outspoken, charismatic and in a country where most other leaders are Punjabi or Sindhi, Khan is a Pashtun.
Khan is known for his outspoken commentaries warning the west of Islamic extremism and advocating economic development over military solutions that Khan says only fuel terrorism. Khan says:
My Generation grew up at a time when colonial hang up was at its peak. Our older generation had been slaves and had a huge inferiority complex of the British. The school I went to was a similar to all elite schools in Pakistan, despite becoming independent, they were, and still are, producing replicas of public school boys rather than Pakistanis. I read Shakespeare which was fine, but no Alama Iqbal.
The Islamic class was not considered to be serious, and when I left the school I was considered amongst the elite of the country because I could speak English and wore western clothes. Despite periodically shouting Pakistan Zindabad at school functions, I considered my own culture backward and Islam an outdated religion.
Amongst our group if any one talked about religion, prayed or kept a beard he was immediately branded a Mullah. Because of the power of the Western Media, all our heroes were western movie or pop stars.
In University not just Islam but all religions were considered anachronism. Science had replaced religion and if something couldn’t be logically proved it did not exist. All supernatural stuff was confined to the movies…Moreover, the European history had an awful experience with religion, The horrors committed by the Christian clergy in the name of God during the Inquisition had left a powerful impact on the western mind.
To understand why the west is so keen on secularism, one should go to places like Cordoba in Spain and see torture apparatus used during Spanish Inquisition. Also the persecution of scientists as heretics by the clergy and convinced the Europeans that all religions are regressive.
However, the biggest factor that drove people like me away from religion was the selective Islam practised by most of its preachers. In other words, there was a huge difference between what they practised and what they preached. Also, rather than explaining the philosophy behind the religion, there was an over emphasis on rituals.
I feel that humans are different; to animals whereas the latter can be drilled, humans need to be intellectually convinced. That is why the Quran constantly appeals to reason. The worst of course, was the exploitation of Islam for political gains by various individuals or groups.
Hence, it was a miracle I did not become an atheist. The only reason why I did not was the powerful religious influence wielded by my mother on me since my childhood. It was not so much out of conviction but love for her that I stayed a Muslim.
Firstly, the inferiority complex that my generation had inherited, gradually went as I developed into a world class athlete. Secondly, I had the unique position of living between two cultures. I began to see the advantages and the disadvantages of both the societies.
In western societies, institutions were strong while they were collapsing in our country. However, there was an area where we were and still are superior, and that is our family life. I used to notice the loneliness of the old-age pensioners at Hove Cricket ground (during my Sussex years). Imagine sending your parents to Old Peoples’ Homes!
Even the children there never had the sort of love and warmth that we grew up with here. They completely miss out on the security blanket that a joint family system provides. However, I began to realise that the biggest loss to the western society and that in trying to free itself from the oppression of the clergy, they had removed both God and religion from their lives.
KHAN’S ROLE
With civil government in Pakistan collapsed under scandal and the Afghani government in Kabul ruling little of the country and mistrusted by the vast majority of its citizens, and NATO, led by the United States fearful of terrorism and Islamic extremism, Khan is the only well known individual with the trust and respect of Islam and the United States yet known for his outspoken independence. Khan has not been a friend to the United States, quite the opposite. He has been one of America’s greatest critics at a time known for America’s greatest failures.
His tough role of standing up to the west and to corrupt forces in his own country and his strong ties to Afghanistan make him the vital key to ending the cycle of terrorism and extremism in the region, a region whose potentials for conflict can be far more threatening than the current war in Afghanistan.
Tensions between India and Pakistan have been increasing daily with each accusing the other sponsoring terrorist group. Terror attacks, shootings, bombings, occur daily in Pakistan and India and are on the increase. The two regional nucear powers, both allies of the United States, are on a continual “war readiness” footing.
FINDING THE RIGHT ENEMY
Currently, no respected leader in Afghanistan will talk to any American, military leader or diplomat under any circumstances. America believes it is negotiating with the Taliban and is moving foward with a “plan” but is operating under a series of misconceptions. No non-Islamic forces will ever be allowed to operate in Afghanistan. They will only cause tribal uprisings, creating terrorism, not ending it. Why leaders like General McChrystal who knows this very well would purposefully ignore this fact is strange indeed.
The border regions between Afghanistan and Pakistan are areas of lawlessness that can provide safe harbor foreign terrorists and have, in limited numbers, how limited, we will never know. The same region is also home to millions of people who can be armed insurgents and radicalized “Jihadists” or live in relative peace, largely depending on factors now controlled by the United States.
LIVING WITH THE MISTAKES OF THE PAST
In the 80s, when the pro-Soviet government in Kabul called for Russian help against tribal opposition, America weighed in, arming Mujahideen insurgents, the exact same people we are fighting today, same people, same leaders, same beliefs, only a generation later. When we had the chance to come into Afghanistan as a friend after the withdrawal of Russian forces and build a new economy there for pennies, we didn’t care. The Soviet Union had collapsed and we lost interest. We are now paying for those mistakes.
Usama bin Laden, Gullbadin Hiktymar and Mullah Omar were our heroes, hundreds of millions of dollars in cash and sophisticated weapons moved their way. Pakistan was used to manage our war with Russia using what we now call “the Taliban,” the same people we are fighting much as we had used our Marines in Vietnam. The “Cold War” had become a game played out across the world, dictators like Saddam and the Shah, only two of dozens along with drug lords, revolutonaries, anyone who would act for America and against the perceived menace of communism.
Now the Viet Cong make our tennis shoes and we rain bombs on the Taliban, our former allies against Russia. And so it goes….
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Seven Yanqui Bases in Colombia
| | |
| Written by Diane Lefer and Hector Aristizábal | |
| U.S. and Colombian officials signed an agreement granting the U.S. military access to seven Colombian bases for ten years. #1: TolemaidaThis base, located in Melgar, Cundinamarca, has been sending students to the School of the Americas for Army Ranger training for more than 50 years. The US military and its contractors already have a long association with the base where they have enjoyed immunity from prosecution for such crimes as the rape and sexual abuse of Colombian girls as young as twelve (documented by video), and the trafficking for profit of arms to illegal paramilitary groups. The new agreement will allow unparalleled access by the US armed forces and will apparently continue diplomatic immunity for US personnel, both military and civilian. #2. Bahía MálagaThis naval base in Valle de Cauca department is located outside Buenaventura which, as the nation's largest Pacific port, is also notorious for its role in exporting cocaine--a clear rationale for the base. The city itself is #3: PalanqueroThe base is situated in the heart of Colombia, near Puerto Salgar on the Magdalena River, the country's principal inland waterway, notorious for the mutilated bodies floating downstream or, unseen, confined to its depths. While the guerrilla movements continue to carry out killings, kidnappings, sabotage, and other atrocities--extensively covered by the mainstream media, the vast majority of murders, disappearances, and other human rights abuses have been rarely covered in the press and clearly tied to the Colombian Army and its paramilitary allies. #4: CartagenaAs the home of the country's largest naval base, and with the omnipresent police and military on the streets, Cartagena--even during the worst periods of violence in Colombia--continued to attract tourists with its beaches and cultural life. Its patrimony of Spanish Colonial architecture won the city designation as a UNESCO World Heritage site. The US has conducted joint training exercises with Colombian sailors here. #5: ApiayThis air base also hosts the Colombian Army and Navy as well as hundreds of US military personnel and contractors who have been there since 2004, supporting the anti-FARC military campaign called Plan Patriota. Given that oil and gas facilities are often a guerrilla target, it's worth noting that Apiay is also home to an oil refinery. A gas pipeline to Bogotá runs from the nearby city of Villavicencio which has been overwhelmed, like Bogotá, with internally displaced people who live in new slums that lack access to clean water. There's no sanitation in poor neighborhoods and the electrical grid is insufficient to meet the needs of the city. #6: LarandiaThis base in Caquetá department is home to Colombian counter-insurgency brigade No. 89, trained at WHINSEC. Most of the several hundred US military advisors, Special Forces, and DynCorp contractors sent to the country by Plan Colombia have been based here. #7: MalamboAir Force officers from Malambo, located on Caribbean coast in Colombia's Atlantic department, have trained at WHINSEC. In the 80's, in addition to its anti-narcotics operations, the base was charged with defense against a presumed Sandinista threat. No wonder South and Central American countries are not reassured by US statements that all operations will be confined to Colombian territory. Conclusion:When funding for the SOA was threatened, the Department of Defense renamed it WHINSEC. The agreement on bases represents one more example of sleight-of-hand: As Congress loses faith in Plan Colombia after investing more than six billion dollars, the DOD taps the military budget to keep the failed policies going with even less Congressional oversight. |




The United States thereby increased its ties to the military known for the worst human rights abuses in the Western Hemisphere and is a troubling indication of what can be expected of the Obama Administration and its promise of change. Does this agreement (signed in the fall of 2009) really change anything? We take a look at the history of each of these bases as well as conditions in the surrounding communities and the nation as a whole.