The Ruthless Truth blog

by Kourosh Ziabari

Global Research, June 11, 2010

  Although the United Nations Security Council, which some politicians believe is one of the most undemocratic organizations in the world, voted in favor of a fourth round of sanctions against Iran over its uranium enrichment program, the global public opinions are well aware of the fact that 15 countries, 5 of which are entitled to remain in an unquestionable monopoly and dominance, cannot in reality represent the interests of the international community.

The Security Council, which since its establishment has made discriminatory decisions against the world countries, especially the non-aligned nations who typically try to escape from the hegemony of superpowers, is notorious for its habitual exercise of double standards and it’s clear to everyone that its resolutions are more often than not futile, ineffective, biased and unbinding.

Since 1948, the Security Council has adopted 223 resolutions in condemnation of Israel ‘s violations of international law, including the occupation of Palestinian lands, unilateral incursions into the Lebanese and Syrian soils, developing nuclear weapons, deporting the Palestinian citizens from their homes and building illegal settlements in the West Bank . Interestingly, the Israeli regime did not pay attention to any of these resolutions and the UNSC never pursued its demands to hold Tel Aviv accountable for its continued, flagrant defiance of international regulations.

For instance, the UNSC resolution 487 demanded Israel to put its nuclear facilities under the comprehensive safeguards of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Israel never heeded the call and the UNSC never sued Israel for its inattentiveness to the resolution.

As another example, the Security Council adopted six consequent resolutions in the wake of 1982 Lebanon War, calling on Israel to cease its military activities and withdraw its forces from the Lebanese territory, but Israel refused to accept the resolutions until the resolution 517 was adopted in which Tel Aviv was strongly censured for its failure to obey the UNSC resolutions since March 1982.

The criminal state of Israel , since its establishment, attacked all of its neighboring countries on various occasions and incited UNSC resolutions; however, these resolutions never went beyond political statements which were the least spontaneous reactions to Israel ‘s brutality in the Middle East . On March 21, 1968, Israel fought the Battle of Karameh by attacking the Karameh district of Jordan, killing 40 to 84 Jordanians and 100 to 200 Palestinians. The massive attacked was followed by UNSC resolution 248 in which the "flagrant violation of the UN Charter" was strongly condemned by all of the UNSC members, even the United States; however, this verbal condemnation was the sole reaction of the Security Council to Israel’s violence.

In December 1968, Israel Defense Forces raided the Beirut International Airport , destroying 13 civilian airplanes belonging to Lebanon ‘s national flag-carrier Middle East Airlines. The assault was followed by UNSC resolution 262 which condemned Israel once again. The resolution cautioned Israel to retreat from repeating such actions to avoid being punished more severely; however, the further steps never were taken, even when Israel repeated the same criminal actions.

In 1985, Israel staged an air raid on Tunisia to target the Palestinian Liberation Organization headquarters in the country. The resolution condemned Israel and demanded that Tel Aviv refrain from further such attacks. It also noted that Tunisia had the right to repatriations considering the loss of life and material damage caused.

Having killed thousands of civilians since its creation, the criminal record of Israeli regime is clear to the world and every conscious man testifies that this brutal regime deserves the strongest measures to be taken against.

United Nations Security Council never went beyond propagandistic declarations regarding the unlawful and inhuman actions of Tel Aviv, its killing of innocent civilians and violation of international humanitarian law. If it were not the pressure of international community, UNSC even would have not issued these flimsy and ineffective resolutions against Israel .

UNSC never passed any resolution to impose sanctions against Israel even though the transgressions and felonies of Israel are so blatant and conspicuous that nobody can deny the claim that Israel is the most violence and vicious regime in the world, an identical and indistinguishable duplicate of the apartheid regime of South Africa .

The recent resolution of the Security Council against Iran was a clear exercise of double standards by this prejudiced international body and should be answered by the Islamic Republic of Iran categorically. The hypocritical stance of China and Russia regarding Iran ‘s nuclear program and the astounding accompaniment of independent nations such as Gabon , Nigeria , Uganda , Bosnia and Herzegovina and Mexico with the fallacious, deceptive trajectory of the big 5 leave no room for the continued diplomacy and peaceful interaction by Iran .

Iran has so far demonstrated a constructive and productive cooperation with IAEA, G5+1 and European Union, keeping all the doors open for negotiation and reconciliation; however, the time for diplomacy has come to an end. Now that the coalition of superpowers, including China and Russia, have taken a confrontational stance against Iran and want to go through a unilateralistic path, Iran should change its tactic and one of the best solutions it can adopt is to withdraw from IAEA. If Pakistan , India and Israel can enjoy international impunity to develop nuclear weapons simply because they are not IAEA signatories, Iran can have equally the right to progress its peaceful nuclear program by withdrawing from a treaty which had ratified voluntarily.

Global Research Articles by Kourosh Ziabari

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=19668

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

by Michel Chossudovsky

Global Research, June 11, 2010

"A sitting duck is a defenceless victim, an easy target, vulnerable to attack"

The UN Security Council voted on June 9 the imposition of a fourth round of sweeping sanctions against The Islamic Republic of Iran, which include an expanded arms embargo as well "tougher financial controls".

In a bitter irony, this resolution was passed within days of the United Nations Security Council’s outright refusal to adopt a motion condemning Israel for its attack on the Gaza Freedom Flotilla in international waters.

It also followed the holding of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) conference in Washington under UN auspices, which called for the establishment, in its final resolution, of  a nuclear free Middle East as well as the dismantling of Israel’s nuclear weapons arsenal. Israel is considered to be the World’s sixth nuclear power, with, according to Jane Defense, between 100 and 300 nuclear warheads. ( Analysts: Israel viewed as world’s 6th nuclear power, Israel News, Ynetnews, April 10, 2010). Iran in contrast has no known nuclear weapons capabilities.

UNSC Resolution 1929 is based on a fundamental falsehood. It upholds the notion that Iran is an upcoming nuclear power and a threat to global security. It also provides a green light to the US-NATO-Israel military alliance to threaten Iran with a pre-emptive punitive nuclear attack, using the UN Security Council as  rubber stamp.  

The Security Council exercises double standards in the application of sanctions: Whereas Iran is the target of punitive threats, Israel’s extensive nuclear arsenal, is either ignored or tacitly accepted by "the international community". For Washington, Israel’s nukes are an instrument of peace in the Middle East.

Moreover, whereas all fingers are pointed at Iran which does not possess nuclear weapons, five so-called "non-nuclear" European states including Belgium, Holland, Germany, Italy and Turkey not only possess strategic nuclear weapons under national command, these warheads are deployed and targeted at Iran. 

Resolution 1929 (June 9, 2010): 

“7. Decides that Iran shall not acquire an interest in any commercial activity in another State involving uranium mining, production or use of nuclear materials and technology  as listed in INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 1, in particular uranium-enrichment and reprocessing activities, all heavy-water activities or technology-related to ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons, and further decides that all States shall prohibit such investment in territories under their jurisdiction by Iran, its nationals, and entities incorporated in Iran or subject to its jurisdiction, or by persons or entities acting on their behalf or at their direction, or by entities owned or controlled by them;

“8. Decides that all States shall prevent the direct or indirect supply, sale or transfer to Iran, from or through their territories or by their nationals or individuals subject to their jurisdiction, or using their flag vessels or aircraft, and whether or not originating in their territories, of any battle tanks, armoured combat vehicles, large calibre artillery systems, combat aircraft, attack helicopters, warships, missiles or missile systems …. , decides further that all States shall prevent the provision to Iran by their nationals or from or through their territories of technical training, financial resources or services, advice, other services or assistance related to the supply, sale, transfer, provision, manufacture, maintenance or use of such arms and related materiel, and, in this context, calls upon all States to exercise vigilance and restraint over the supply, sale, transfer, provision, manufacture and use of all other arms and related materiel;" (Security Council Imposes Additional Sanctions on Iran, Voting 12 in Favour to 2 Against, with 1 Abstention, Includes complete text of UNSC Resolution 1929, UN News, June 9, 2010, emphasis added, )

The Arms Embargo. Implications for Russia and China

Both the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China have caved in to US pressures and voted in favor of a resolution, which is not only detrimental to Iran’s security, but which seriously weakens and undermines their strategic role as potential competing World powers on the Eurasian geopolitical chessboard.

The resolution strikes at the very heart of the structure of military alliances. It prevents Russia and China to sell both strategic and conventional weapons and military technology to their de facto ally: Iran. In fact, that was one of major objectives of Resolution 1929, which Washington is intent upon enforcing.

At the same time, by barring Iran from purchasing conventional military equipment, the resolution prevents Iran from defending itself from a US-NATO-Israel attack. 

The resolution, were it to be fully enforced, would not only invalidate ongoing bilateral military cooperation agreements with Iran, it  would create a wedge in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO).

It would also significantly weaken trade and investment relations between Iran and its Russian and Chinese partners. The financial and banking provisions in the resolution also point to Washington’s resolve to not only isolate Iran but also to destabilize its financial system.

Washington is intent upon enforcing this resolution. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has appointed  Robert Einhorn, Special Advisor for Nonproliferation and Arms Control, as U.S. coordinator for the implementation of the sanctions regime directed against both Iran and North Korea:.

"U.S. President Barack Obama hailed the resolution, saying it will put in place the toughest sanctions ever faced by the Iranian government and send an "unmistakable message" to Tehran about the international community’s commitment to stopping the spread of nuclear weapons."(Clinton appoints coordinator for sanctions against Iran, DPRK, Xinhua, June 10, 2010

"We expect every country to aggressively implement Resolution 1929" said State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley.  Were China and Russia to decide not to abide by the resolution’s provisions, particularly those relating to weapons sales to Iran (art. 8), Washington would use this as an opportunity to engage in an increasingly confrontational diplomacy in relation to Beijing and Moscow.

The resolution is also intended to establish a US led hegemony in the production and export of advanced weapons systems. It is is heavy blow, almost a  "death sentence", for China and Russia’s lucrative international weapons trade, which competes with the US, UK, France, Germany and Israel. In the post-Soviet era, the arms trade has become a central component of Russia’s fragile economy. The potential repercussions on Russia’s balance of payments are far-reaching.

Disabling Iran’s Missile Defence System

UN Security Council resolutions are an integral part of US foreign policy. They are on the drawing board of Washington’s think tanks, including the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and the Heritage Foundation. In this regard, it is worth noting that the substance of article 8 of UNSC Resolution 1929 (June 9, 2010  was contained in a January 2010 report of the Heritage Foundation, which calls for "blocking arms sales to Iran" including Russia’s S-300 missiles:

"Washington and its allies should make every effort to deprive Iran of foreign arms transfers, particularly the impending sale of Russian S-300 surface to air missiles, which could provoke Israel to strike sooner rather than later. Stronger multinational efforts also need to be made to prevent Iran from trans­ferring arms to Hezbollah and Palestinian terror­ist groups, which pose a threat not only to Israel, but to stability in Lebanon, Egypt, and Jordan. On November 3, Israeli naval forces intercepted the Francop, an Antigua-flagged cargo ship that was transporting about 500 tons of weapons from Iran to Hezbollah, via Syria.[22] The U.S. should press other allies to join in giving greater assistance to Israeli efforts to intercept Iranian arms flows, particularly to Hezbollah and Hamas." (James Phillips,  An Israeli Preventive Attack on Iran’s Nuclear Sites: Implications for the U.S,  The Heritage Foundation, Washington, DC, January 2010)

Did Moscow assess the implications of the proposed arms embargo?

Immediately following the adoption of the UNSC resolution on June 9th, several Russian press reports indicated that the sale of Russian S-300 missiles to Iran would be frozen, despite assurances by foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov that the UNSC resolution would not affect the air-defence deal..(Russia says in talks with Iran on new nuclear plants, Haaretz, June 10, 2010) These contradictory statements suggest that there are significant divisions within the Russian leadership, without which  Russia would have duly exercised its veto power in the UN Security Council.

Russia’s S-300 Surface to Air Missile

Without Russian military aid, Iran is a "sitting duck". Its air defence system depends on continued Russian military cooperation. Moreover, without Iran, Russia would be constrained to selling military equipment to countries in the US-NATO orbit. (See Russia to offset loss of Iran arms sales with Iraqi, Afghan deals, Russia, RIA Novosti, June 11, 2010)

Pre-emptive nuclear attack on Iran

The World is at dangerous crossroads.  The real threat to global security emanates from the US-NATO-Israel alliance. The UN Security Council directly serves the interests of the Western military alliance. The Security Council resolution grants a de facto "green light" to wage a pre-emptive war against Iran, which has been on the Pentagon’s drawing board since 2004.

"An operational plan to wage aerial attacks on Iran has been in "a state of readiness" since June 2005. Essential military hardware to wage this operation has been deployed. (For further details see Michel Chossudovsky, Nuclear War against Iran, Jan 2006). In 2005, Vice President Dick Cheney ordered USSTRATCOM to draft a "contingency plan", which would  "include a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons." (Philip Giraldi, Attack on Iran: Pre-emptive Nuclear War , The American Conservative, 2 August 2005).

Under the Obama administration, the threats have become increasingly pervasive and far more explicit than under the NeoCons. In October 2009, The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) organized an Event at Washington’s Wohlstetter Conference Center on "Should Israel Attack Iran?":  

"Iran’s nuclear weapons development continues apace, threatening the security of its neighbors and the international community. According to a recent survey by the Pew Research Center, more than 60 percent of the American public believes preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons warrants military action. Israel’s deputy foreign minister, Daniel Ayalon, emphasized on September 21 that Israel has “not taken any option off the table” when it comes to countering the Iranian threat. The same day, Israel’s top general, chief of staff Lieutenant General Gabi Ashkenazi, made it clear that he would not rule out a military strike on Iran’s nuclear installations, repeating that "Israel has the right to defend itself and all options are on the table." As the debate intensifies over how to respond most effectively to Iran’s provocations, it is timely to explore the strategic and legal parameters of a potential Israeli strike against the Islamic Republic and provide some thorough analysis about implications for the United States. (American Enterprise Institute, Should Israel Attack Iran?, October 2009, emphasis added)

From a military standpoint, Israel could not undertake a unilateral attack on Iran without the active coordination of the Pentagon:.

"As President Obama extends “an open hand”, seeking direct talks with Tehran in his attempt to halt its nuclear programme, Mrs Clinton appeared [June 2009] ready to unnerve the Iranian leadership with talk of a pre-emptive strike “the way that we did attack Iraq”. She said that she was trying to put herself in the shoes of the Iranian leadership, but added that Tehran “might have some other enemies that would do that [deliver a pre-emptive strike] to them”. It was a clear reference to Israel, where Binyamin Netanyahu, the Prime Minister, has talked about the possibility of military action to halt Iran’s nuclear programme — something he views as a threat to the Jewish state. ( Don’t discount Israel pre-emptive strike, Hillary Clinton warns Iran, Times Online, June 8, 2009, emphasis added)

In April 2010 the message was crystal clear:  Washington "would use atomic weapons only in ‘extreme circumstances’ and would not attack non-nuclear states, but singled out "outliers" Iran and North Korea as exceptions." ( Iran to Take US to UN Over Obama’s Threat to Use Nuclear Weapons against Iran, AlJazeera, April 11, 2010). Defence Secretary Robert Gates explained in a television interview "that Washington was making exceptions of Tehran and Pyongyang because they had defied repeated UN Security Council ultimatums over their nuclear programmes." (Ibid).

UN "Green Light" for a World War Three Scenario?

Is this latest Security Council resolution "the green light" which Washington has been seeking?

The substance of the Security Council resolution is also directed at Iran allies: China and Russia. 

Ironically, while China and Russia failed to exercise their veto power, they are nonetheless the object of veiled US threats. China is surrounded by US military facilities. US missiles in Poland and the Caucasus are pointed towards Russian cities. More recently, the Obama administration has called for the extension of the sanctions regime directed against Russia’s ally, Belarus.

Washington has also announced that "The Pentagon is preparing to embark on a mini-building boom in Central Asia, which would include the construction of strategic US facilities military "in all five Central Asian states, including Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan." (See  Defense Dollars Building Boom: Pentagon Looks to Construct New Military Bases in Central Asia, Eurasianet, June 6, 2010). These various military cooperation agreements with former Soviet republics are not only intent upon weakening the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and the CSTO, they are part of the US-NATO strategic encirclement of Russia and China.

What this latest resolution suggests is that Washington and its NATO allies not only control the UN Security Council, they ultimately also call the shots on foreign policy in Moscow and Beijing.

This Security Council resolution should dispel the myth of competing super powers. Both China and Russia are an appendage of the New World Orde

As far as international diplomacy is concerned, both China and Russia are "Paper Tigers", with no teeth. "’Paper Tiger’ [纸老虎 (zhǐ lǎohǔ)], meaning something that seems as threatening as a tiger, but is really harmless."

Both China and Russia are the victims of  their own failed decisions within the United Nations Security Council.

An attack on Iran would immediately lead to military escalation. Syria and Lebanon would also be targeted. The entire Middle East Central Asian region would flare up, a situation which could potentially evolve towards a World War III scenario.

In a very real sense, the US-NATO-Israel military adventure threatens the future of humanity.

Michel Chossudovsky is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Michel Chossudovsky

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=19670

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Iran rejects NATO chief’s claims

Global Research, April 11, 2010

Press TV

The Iranian embassy in Copenhagen has responded to the NATO chief’s recent claims about Tehran’s nuclear program, calling them "misleading false assumptions". 
"The former Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen’s Wednesday article, which raised some issues about Iran, was full of misinterpretations, ill-intent, and false accusations about Tehran’s peaceful nuclear and missile activities," the embassy said in a statement. 
"He, like others who seek any opportunity to spread their warmongering views, has one again resorted to preconceptions, lies and deception," it added. 
The embassy also said that the NATO chief was making such accusations against Iran, because of his close relationship with former US and British leaders, George W. Bush and Tony Blair, "the architects of the wars on Iraq and Afghanistan." 
In his article, which was published on April 1, the secretary-general of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization accused Iran of concealing its nuclear facilities. 
He also claimed that Iran has rejected "all offers of co-operation from the US, European Union, and others," while announcing "plans to enrich its uranium to levels that appear incompatible with civilian use." 
In its statement, the embassy responded to the points raised by Rasmussen, arguing that "constantly, and especially during the past seven years," the Iranian nuclear program had been under the supervision of UN nuclear watchdog inspectors. 
"As these inspectors have not reported any concealed facilities, then how has Rasmussen allowed himself to make such allegations with such conviction?" 
The embassy also pointed out what Rasmussen meant by "plans to enrich its uranium to levels that appear incompatible with civilian use" had to be Iran’s recent announcement that it was reprocessing nuclear material to a level of 20 percent. 
Iran has started 20 percent enrichment to provide fuel for the Tehran Reactor which produces radioisotopes for medical purposes. Nuclear weapon proliferation would require reprocessing to a level of over 80 percent. 
According to the embassy, Rasmussen has "deliberately" omitted that fact in his article to "sway public opinion." 
"In his point of view, is medical usage not a peaceful purpose? All these activities are being carried out under the watchful eyes of the International Atomic Energy Agency and its cameras," the statement said. 
The embassy also noted offers made to Tehran had so far been nothing but demands for full "surrender" of Iran’s legitimate nuclear rights in return for permission to purchase "specified" goods and services from "specified" US and European companies.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=18611

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

by Kim Ives

Global Research, April 5, 2010

haiti-liberte.com/

When this article appears on the morning of March 31, the much ballyhooed “International Donors Conference Towards a New Future for Haiti” will be getting underway at UN Headquarters in Manhattan.

While demonstrators in the street outside protest the continuing US and UN military occupation of Haiti, now over six years old, and the Haitian people’s exclusion from deliberations on the country’s reconstruction, dignitaries inside like UN Special Envoy to Haiti Bill Clinton, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, and Haitian President René Préval will unveil a plan with lots of pomp and ceremony but which boils down to just one thing: Washington’s take-over of the “new” Haiti.

Hyperbole? Unfortunately, no. The lead editorial in Sunday’s New York Times, which generally articulates the thinking of the US power elite, lays it out clearly: “The plan envisions a multidonor trust fund *managed by the World Bank* that pools money for big projects and avoids wasteful redundancy. The Haitian Development Authority would *approve* the projects; outside auditors would *oversee* the spending.” (Our emphasis added.)

Translation: the World Bank, not Haiti, will run the show, a council of foreigners (with a sprinkling of token Haitians) will rubberstamp directives, and other foreign overseers will supervise the Haitians carrying out the directives.

Although lots of international “friends of Haiti” will be involved in this circus, Washington is the ringleader, using handmaidens like Canada and the Dominican Republic. The meetings to prepare the ground for Mar. 31 were held in Montreal on Jan.25 and Santo Domingo on Mar. 15-17.

Préval has generally implemented Washington’s austerity and privatization dictates, making him a US darling and the Haitian people’s bogeyman. However, after the quake, he and his prime-minister made some imprudent complaints about being sidelined while the US and NGOs ham-fistedly directed relief and reconstruction efforts. Washington put him back in his place by calling him corrupt, a charge Préval called “arrogant.” Despite such outbursts, Préval appears to be behaving again but still promoting the fiction that he’s deciding things.

“Haiti is an independent government, an independent country and the government must say what must be done,” he told Al Jazeera in a Mar. 29 interview when asked who was in charge in Haiti. “But the government doesn’t have the financial means to do it. So we will have to speak to the donors so that they make available the funds for the government to do what it desires to do.” As for the foreign experts which will dominate in the Haitian Development Authority, he explains that “a lot of our professionals are dead” and “we are leaning on the NGOs to help us to do what we need to do right now.”

The centerpieces of the US, UN, and World Bank plan for Haiti are sweatshops and tourism. Of course there is lip-service paid to the concerns raised by Haitians about revitalizing agriculture and making the country self-sufficient in food again after 25 years of neo-liberal deconstruction. “Decentralization” is another key theme, but, done a certain way, this can also weaken and circumvent Haiti’s central government, which Washington has sought to do since the Haitian people elected President Jean-Bertrand Aristide in 1990.

“Raising money for Haiti is all well and good. But which Haiti is getting the money?” asked Vijay Prashad, Director of International Studies at Trinity College in Hartford, CT. “Is the Haiti of structural adjustment, the raft on the Caribbean, fated to being reduced to a factory and a port for Royal Caribbean’s cruise ships? All the efforts thus far seem to suggest that this is the Haiti that is being promised.”

In articles, radio shows, conferences, demonstrations and graffiti, the Haitian people have made their opposition to this plan known but “Haitian civil society has been completely bypassed in decision-making regarding the post-earthquake reconstruction process,” wrote Bev Bell of the economic justice group Other Worlds earlier this month. “The Haiti government’s Post-Disaster Needs Assessment, launched February 18, granted one week, March 14-20, for ‘consultation with civil society and the private sector,’ according to the terms of reference. However, the government [had] to approve the draft plan on March 15. Furthermore, the government has failed to invoke even the token discussions, not consulting civil society in any way except informally with some businesspeople and several non-governmental organizations who do not speak for citizens.”

Therefore the “new” Haiti being drawn up at the conference will look very much like the old. “Expect more of the same when the Haitian elites and their lobbyists get their reconstruction plans approved,” wrote Olofson hotelier and musician Richard Morse in the Huffington Post. “Bill Clinton isn’t bringing hope to Haiti. Bill Clinton isn’t bringing change to Haiti. Bill Clinton, along with USAID, the World Bank, the Inter-American Development Bank and the United Nations are bringing more of the same to Haiti: more for the few and less for the many.”

There are more than strings attached to Clinton’s plan for Haiti. There are chains. Haiti would be yoked to an already sinking U.S. economy by dependency on assembling imported U.S. clothing and electronics for pennies an hour, or scrambling against neighbors to attract U.S. tourists.

But it doesn’t have to be this way. Two South American alliances have offered Haiti substantial aid based on solidarity and common interests, not chains of debt and dependency.

ALBA, the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America, is an alliance of eight Latin American and Caribbean nations comprising Venezuela, Cuba, Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Dominica, St. Vincent and Grenadines, and Antigua and Barbuda. On Jan. 25, when the U.S.-led coalition held its Montreal meeting to just plan another meeting, ALBA held an extraordinary session which came with concrete, immediate aid of food, fuel, electricity, medicine and a $120 million Humanitarian Fund. ALBA expressed “concern over the excessive presence of foreign military forces in Haiti, with no justifying reasons and without precision about their authority, purposes, responsibilities, and length of stay, which threatens to further complicate the conditions on the ground and the realization of international cooperation.” The ALBA nations also recognized that “efforts to rebuild Haiti must have the people and government of that country as the principal protagonists.”

There is also the Union of South American Nations or UNASUR, which includes all the nations of the South American continent except French Guiana. In February, it offered Haiti $300 million in cash and money it would borrow on Haiti’s behalf.

One might respond that no South-South cooperation can come up with the $34.4 billion some estimate Haiti needs to rebuild over the next 10 years. But how are such staggering figures arrived at? These estimates assume the costs to be charged by Halliburton, Dyncorp, or one of the Haitian elite’s construction companies. But we have seen tens of thousands of ordinary Haitians digging themselves out and rebuilding their homes, motivated not by profit but by compassion, solidarity and common interest. This giant army could be harnessed and supported with solidarity from Cuba, Venezuela and ALBA, which are already helping with giant contributions of doctors and fuel.

Progressive Haitian and Dominican groups meeting in Santo Domingo on Mar. 17 concluded that a definitive “break” with the current international system is necessary for Haiti to recover. “We must break with economic dependency,” they wrote in a declaration. “We need to build an economic model that encourages national production by focusing on agriculture, livestock, and agro-industry aimed at meeting our own food needs (cereals, tubers, milk, fruit, fish, meats, etc.).”

An anecdote captures the flavor and the essence of the UN Donors Conference. On March 30, the night before the big day, there was an invitation-only special event for about 200 US and UN officials, bankers, CEOs and NGO bigwigs at the United Nations Library. The sponsors of the event: the UN, the Haitian Government, the Inter-American Development Bank, and…. Coca-Cola. The name of the event was “Haiti Hope Project.” If you like the ring of that name, don’t get any thoughts about borrowing it. Coca-Cola is seeking trademark protection for the slogan, which it plans to put on “ready to eat food bars made primarily of oats.”

Kim Ives is the editor of Haiti Liberte. This article is from Haïti Liberté , published in Port au Prince and Brooklyn.

Global Research Articles by Kim Ives

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=18510

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Robert Roth
Dissident Voice
Sat, 13 Mar 2010 20:58 EST

“Two months after the devastating earthquake, the situation in Haiti is downright criminal,” says Robert Roth. According to the spokesperson of the activist network Haiti Action Committee, major western players such as the US are more interested in defending their own geopolitical interests in Haiti than truly helping the hardly hit Caribbean country.
Johnny Van Hove: Haiti has disappeared almost completely from the front pages. Since you are in close contact with a number of Haitian grassroots organizations via the Haiti Action Committee, could you describe how the situation down there is at the moment?
Robert Roth: The situation is a catastrophe. At this point about 230,000 people have died and 3,000,000 people are still left homeless. Hundreds of thousands of people have no shelter whatsoever and are literally sleeping outside. Under sheets, not in tents. In many, many areas there is no water, no tents, no healthcare. One to two million people are in internal refugee camps that are now dotting Port-au-Prince. They were set up by international aid agencies, but they are in terrible shape.
The lack of housing is truly astounding. We have been getting numerous requests from the poorest communities in Haiti for funds for tents. With the rainy season coming, there is a very grave danger of the spread of typhoid, measles, and dysentery. It could be one these situations in which the aftermath of a disaster is even worse than the disaster itself. The situation was, and is, truly criminal.
JVH: Considering the hundreds of international aid organizations working in Haiti, how could it have come to this situation?
RR: The total amount of financial support that has gone through aid groups is close to one billion dollars. Haiti is truly flooded with aid organizations and yet very few aid goods have been distributed. Most goods have been sitting at the airport or in big warehouses. People who were pulled out under the rubble by Haitians could not receive medical aid because it was not distributed efficiently.
You have to distinguish among the aid groups, of course. Two groups which have been very consistent in distributing aid goods are Partners in Health and Doctors Without Borders. On the other hand, the Red Cross has been mostly invisible in the poorest communities in Haiti. There have been protests directly at the Red Cross warehouses and offices, demanding that the aid be distributed. The effectiveness of a number of the aid agencies has been astonishingly weak. And when a country has been occupied, when its democratic organizations have been repressed, and when community-based organizations are marginalized, earthquake relief just will not immediately get into the hands of the people.
JVH: What is the role of the UN and the US – which have been major players in Haitian history – in the current catastrophe?
RR: The UN and the US have looked at their role as a security measure. Their concept of aid has been militarized, which means that they have not been diligent in handing out aid to communities. The US military has eleven thousand soldiers down there, the UN nine thousand. Six thousand UN troops have been there since the coup against the democratically elected president Aristide in 2004 and they have been a repressive force, an occupying army in Haiti. In the wake of the earthquake, the US and UN armies have been essentially patrolling Haiti. I am not saying that there has been no help. They have started to distribute food, tents, health supplies. But it has been much more limited than you would expect. There have been many reports from various communities about how armed vehicles just drove by their communities without helping them.
JVH: What were the effects of the “militarization” of the relief aid by the US, amongst other countries – Canada and Japan sent hundreds of troops too, for instance? The American/Haitian activist Marguerite Laurent suggested on her blog that humanitarian aid was blocked in favor of military equipment after the US took over the Haitian airports in the first few days after the earth quake.
RR: The militarization of the relief aid really delayed the distribution of food, water, and particularly medical aid. One of the effects was that in the first few days after the earthquake, five cargo planes of Doctors Without Borders were turned away and rerouted to the Dominican Republic. Partners In Help estimated that about 20,000 people died each day that aid was delayed.
JVH: Is the lack of security in Haiti an explanation for the heavy emphasis on sending in forces? Numerous media reports after the earthquake suggested that insecurity, rapes, and violence erupting during foreign aid handouts were mounting.
RR: The images of insecurity in the media are not accurate at all. There are always security issues in any country. But what is remarkable is the discipline, the non-violence, the resilience, the creativity, and the cooperation that Haitians have exhibited in the face of this catastrophe. Even days and days and days after not receiving aid, the US and UN could not point to any major security issues.
JVH: If Haiti has not been as insecure as hinted at in the media, how can the massive military response of the US be explained?
RR: The primary fear of the US was popular, political unrest. Haiti truly has a very politically conscious population which has never gone down easily. After the coup in 2004, thousands of people were killed and thousands more imprisoned and held without charges. Every member of the Lavalas government – from high level ministers to local officials – were removed from office. Others were forced into exile.
Still, there has never been an end to grass roots organizing. Labor unions protested the price of gas and the privatizing of the phone company. There were major demonstrations demanding Aristide’s return.
Just recently there was a very successful electoral boycott because the Haitian government denied Lavalas the right to participate in the election, even though it is the most popular political party in Haiti.
The US is still not comfortable with the popular movement in Haiti. You can see this in the continued banishment of former President Aristide from Haiti. While the Obama Administration has called on former Presidents Clinton and Bush – who was responsible for the 2004 coup – to help coordinate aid, it opposes the return of a former democratically elected president who wants to return as a private citizen to aid in the reconstruction efforts.
JVH: Surely, there must be other reasons to justify the militarization of the aid relief?
RR: There is clearly a major geopolitical and economic interest in Haiti, most prominently by the US. There is a long history of US intervention in the area, including a direct US occupation from 1915-1934. This occupation created the Haitian military and led eventually to the Duvalier dictatorships. In 1991, the US overthrew Aristide and then again in 2004. So the US is clearly opposed to the social program of Lavalas and to its example in the Caribbean.
Haiti is also strategically located close to both Cuba and Venezuela. Haiti is rich in minerals, such as marble, uranium, iridium, and oil. Big corporations, such as the Royal Caribbean Lines, are creating a tourist center in the north which could have an enormous value for the tourist industry in the Caribbean area. And Haiti is looked at as a source of cheap labor. There is a long history of garment assembly in Haiti. Cherokee, Wal-Mart, Disney, and Major League Baseball all had relationships with Haiti. If the US plan for Haiti is implemented, the numbers of sweatshops in Port-au-Prince will surely increase.
JVH: Naomi Klein suggested that “disaster capitalism” is striking in Haiti. Would you agree?
RR: Absolutely. This is disaster capitalism on steroids. Number one, you have had an earthquake that ravaged the infrastructure of a country which has been made poor over the centuries. Secondly, you have more than 20,000 troops and massive amounts of capital circulating there. Plus, the Haitian government has been a very passive partner in the aftermath of the earthquake. That is a perfect recipe. The reconstruction conferences in Montreal and Miami are indicating that Haiti will be rebuilt along the lines of the organizations attending them: the US, Canada, the World Bank, the Clinton Foundation, the IMF, major business corporations such as the Royal Caribbean Lines, the Soros Foundation. Haiti is like a blank board in their minds. It is going be a feeding frenzy soon.
JVH: The Haitian government was attending the reconstruction meetings too, though. What is its role in the current crisis?
RR: What was remarkable throughout the crisis was the invisibility of the government. There are two reasons for that. First of all, the government really seems to have lost its connection to the Haitian people. President Preval has been major disappointment since he was elected in 2006. He has basically been an arm of the occupation forces of the UN. Secondly, the government of Haiti has been starved for years and years by the international lending organizations, including USAID. Even now, the government does not receive true support. It literally gets only one cent for every dollar spent on Haiti. That really creates a dependency on international aid agencies. When a crisis such as this happens, the government is underfunded and the aid agencies take over. All in all, the invisibility and compliance of the Haitian government is a token for the fact that the US, the UN, and the NGOs have taken control of the country.
JVH: Since the relief agencies are not performing efficiently, who has been providing aid at the grassroots level in Haiti?
RR: What is happening in Haiti is that local communities are helping themselves. The mainstream image of Haitians is that they cannot help themselves, that they are dysfunctional and violent. The truth could not be more different. Haiti is a very well organized country at the grassroots level. There are community committees in every one of the poor neighborhoods, which have been organizing protests in order to get the aid goods distributed. They have also been contacting international organizations they know they can trust and started distributing the aid goods to their local communities.
An organization which has been very important is the Aristide Foundation, which has been setting up aid programs, especially in the refugee camps. They have created mobile schools, they have developed local health clinics, and they are also setting up a big health center at the foundation’s site. Partners in Health has continued to provide important support as well. The Haiti Emergency Relief Fund is funding community projects that are not getting aided by the big relief organizations.
JVH: According to Marguerite Laurent in the current issue of the American magazine, The Progressive, the people that could be saved were saved mostly by Haitians “frantically using their bare hands to dig through the rubble and lift pulverized concrete in the immediate forty-eight hours after the earthquake”. Does that give an accurate image of how the digging and rescuing took place?
RR: Laurent is absolutely right. The chair of the Haiti Emergency Relief Fund, for instance, was in Haiti with his family at the time of the quake, and they saw first hand how Haitians were working day and night to save their families and friends. That was basically the story in Haiti: Haitians saving themselves and bandaging and housing each other. They waited for aid that never came and that is why so many people have died unnecessarily.
JVH: Nevertheless, Haiti cannot rebuild itself without external help. The Haitian diaspora will keep on sending close to a billion dollars to their homeland every year. But what role can international aid agencies play? Who should be supported in order to help Haiti?
RR: You can’t talk about disaster capitalism and then donate to the big NGOs. If you donate to the Red Cross, for instance, some help will go to Haiti. At the same time, you are also donating to a system which is not designed to empower Haitians. So if you are progressive, if you want democracy in Haiti, and if you have some faith in the Haitian people, you should be looking for the groups most closely related to, and working with, the grassroots organizations. Hopefully, people can donate to organizations like the Haiti Emergency Relief Fund that are doing just that.

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/204675-Haiti-Disaster-Capitalism-on-Steroids-An-interview-with-Robert-Roth

Bookmark It

Hide Sites