Published on Wednesday, February 2, 2011 by TruthDig.com
by Amy Goodman
“People holding a sign ‘To: America. From: the Egyptian People. Stop supporting Mubarak. It’s over!” so tweeted my brave colleague, “Democracy Now!” senior producer Sharif Abdel Kouddous, from the streets of Cairo.
More than 2 million people rallied throughout Egypt on Tuesday, most of them crowded into Cairo’s Tahrir Square. Tahrir, which means liberation in Arabic, has become the epicenter of what appears to be a largely spontaneous, leaderless and peaceful revolution in this, the most populous nation in the Middle East. Defying a military curfew, this incredible uprising has been driven by young Egyptians, who compose a majority of the 80 million citizens. Twitter and Facebook, and SMS text messaging on cell phones, have helped this new generation to link up and organize, despite living under a U.S.-supported dictatorship for the past three decades. In response, the Mubarak regime, with the help of U.S. and European corporations, has shut down the Internet and curtailed cellular service, plunging Egypt into digital darkness. Despite the shutdown, as media activist and professor of communications C.W. Anderson told me, “people make revolutions, not technology.”
The demands are chanted through the streets for democracy, for self-determination. Sharif headed to Egypt Friday night, into uncertain terrain. The hated Interior Ministry security forces, the black-shirted police loyal to President Hosni Mubarak, were beating and killing people, arresting journalists, and smashing and confiscating cameras.
On Saturday morning, Sharif went to Tahrir Square. Despite the SMS and Internet blackout, Sharif, a talented journalist and technical whiz, figured out a workaround, and was soon tweeting out of Tahrir: “Amazing scene: three tanks roll by with a crowd of people riding atop each one. Chanting ‘Hosni Mubarak out!’ ”
Egypt has been the second-largest recipient of U.S. foreign aid for decades, after Israel (not counting the funds expended on the wars and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan). Mubarak’s regime has received roughly $2 billion per year since coming to power, overwhelmingly for the military.
Where has the money gone? Mostly to U.S. corporations. I asked William Hartung of the New America Foundation to explain:
“It’s a form of corporate welfare for companies like Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics, because it goes to Egypt, then it comes back for F-16 aircraft, for M-1 tanks, for aircraft engines, for all kinds of missiles, for guns, for tear-gas canisters [from] a company called Combined Systems International, which actually has its name on the side of the canisters that have been found on the streets there.”
Hartung just published a book, “Prophets of War: Lockheed Martin and the Making of the Military-Industrial Complex.” He went on: “Lockheed Martin has been the leader in deals worth $3.8 billion over that period of the last 10 years; General Dynamics, $2.5 billion for tanks; Boeing, $1.7 billion for missiles, for helicopters; Raytheon for all manner of missiles for the armed forces. So, basically, this is a key element in propping up the regime, but a lot of the money is basically recycled. Taxpayers could just as easily be giving it directly to Lockheed Martin or General Dynamics.”
Likewise, Egypt’s Internet and cell phone “kill switch” was enabled only through collaboration with corporations. U.K.-based Vodafone, a global cellular-phone giant (which owns 45 percent of Verizon Wireless in the U.S.) attempted to justify its actions in a press release: “It has been clear to us that there were no legal or practical options open to Vodafone ... but to comply with the demands of the authorities.”
Narus, a U.S. subsidiary of Boeing Corp., sold Egypt equipment to allow “deep packet inspection,” according to Tim Karr of the media policy group Free Press. Karr said the Narus technology “allows the Egyptian telecommunications companies ... to look at texting via cell phones, and to identify the sort of dissident voices that are out there. ... It also gives them the technology to geographically locate them and track them down.”
Mubarak has pledged not to run for re-election come September. But the people of Egypt demand he leave now. How has he lasted 30 years? Maybe that’s best explained by a warning from a U.S. Army general 50 years ago, President Dwight D. Eisenhower. He said, “We must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.”
That deadly complex is not only a danger to democracy at home, but when shoring up despots abroad.
© 2011 Amy Goodman
Showing posts with label Democracy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Democracy. Show all posts
Thursday, February 03, 2011
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Haiti's Democracy in the Balance
'Baby Doc' Duvalier's return does not change the basic issue for Haiti: only an election re-run can thwart foreign interference
The return to Haiti – and now, possible arrest – of the infamous former dictator, Jean-Claude "Baby Doc" Duvalier, after 25 years in exile in the south of France, has made the headlines this week. But behind the scenes, the US state department and the French foreign ministry have been ratcheting up the pressure on the impoverished, earthquake-wrecked and cholera-stricken country of Haiti. The pressure is not to prosecute the dictator for his atrocities, as human rights groups such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have recommended. The pressure is to force the government of Haiti to accept the decision of the United States and France as to who should be allowed to compete in the second round of Haiti's presidential election.
It is worth looking at the details of this international subversion of the democratic process in Haiti – just to see just how outrageous it is. The first thing to notice is how unusual it is for any electoral authority to change the results of an election without a recount of the vote. Imagine that happening in Florida in 2000, or Mexico in 2006, or in any close, disputed election with irregularities. It just wouldn't happen. There could be a recount and a new result; the original result could stand; or the election could be redone. But the electoral authorities don't just change the result without a recount.
Now, add into the mix that the electoral body seeking to change the result of the election is the Organisation of American States (OAS). More accurately, it is Washington, which controls the bureaucracy of the OAS in these situations (unless there is a lot of pushback from South America, as happened after the Honduran coup in 2009).
In fact, six of the seven members of the OAS "expert verification mission" are from the United States, Canada and France. France! Not a member of the OAS but the former slave-holding colonial power that was still forcing Haiti to pay for its loss of property (that is, the slaves who liberated themselves) until the 1940s. Apparently, the OAS couldn't find any experts in all of Latin America (though they found one from Jamaica) to review Haiti's election.
This is not a matter of political correctness; rather, it indicates how much Washington wanted to control the result of this OAS mission. These are the three governments that led the effort to topple Haiti's democratically elected president, Jean-Bertrand Aristide, in 2004. WikiLeaks cables released this week show that the United States also pressured Brazil to help keep Aristide out of Haiti after the coup. Since Aristide was, and remains to this day, the most popular politician in the country, the WikiLeaks cables show that Washington and its allies also worked to keep him from having any influence on the country from his forced exile in South Africa.
As it turns out, the OAS "experts" did a very poor job on their election analysis. They threw out 234 tally sheets, thus changing the election result. According to the OAS, the government candidate, Jude Celestin, was pushed into third place and, therefore, out of the runoff election. This leaves two rightwing candidates – former first lady Mirlande Manigat, and popular musician Michel Martelly – to compete in the runoff. The OAS has Martelly taking second place by just 3,200 votes, or 0.3% of the vote.
The first problem with the OAS mission's report is that there were more than 1,300 ballot sheets, representing about 156,000 votes, that went missing or were quarantined. This is about six times as many ballot sheets as the ones that the mission eliminated. Since these areas were more pro-Celestin than the rest of the country, he would very likely have come in second if the missing tally sheets had been included. The mission did not address this problem in its report.
The second problem is that the mission examined only 919 of the 11,181 tally sheets to find the 234 that they threw out. This would not be so strange if they had used statistical inference, as is commonly done in polling, to say something about the other 92% of ballot sheets, which they did not examine. However, this is not included in the leaked report.
Lacking the force of logic, the US and French governments are turning to the logic of force to get the result that they want. Journalism professor and author Amy Wilentz wrote this weekend in the LA Times:
"According to many sources, including the president himself, the international community has threatened Preval with immediate exile if he does not bow to their interpretation of election results."
These are not empty threats. Preval's predecessor, Aristide, was whisked out of the country on a US plane in 2004. And now the US ambassador to Haiti is making it clear, in mafia-godfather-style, that this is an offer he cannot refuse:
"US ambassador to Haiti Kenneth Merten said in an interview that the US government supports the OAS report and its conclusions. 'The international community is entirely unified on this point. There is nothing to negotiate in the report,' Merten said."
The French weighed in on Friday, AFP reports:
"France warned Haiti's government on Friday to respect a report by OAS poll monitors that is thought to call for President Rene Preval's preferred successor to drop out of the election race …"
So far, Haiti's Provisional Electoral Council (CEP) hasn't caved. But the pressure and threats are very intense. Some of it appears to come from hard-right Republicans, whose influence on foreign policy in the western hemisphere has remained strong under the Obama administration and has increased with their takeover of the House of Representatives. Rightwing activists such as Roger Noriega, who was involved in the 2004 Haitian coup as President Bush's assistant secretary of state for western hemisphere affairs, are among those fighting to control the runoff election in Haiti.
It is quite possible that the hard right was responsible for the leaking of the draft OAS mission report. On Monday, OAS secretary general Jose Miguel Insulza – embarrassed and angered by the leak, and probably also by Washington and France's gross disregard for Haiti's sovereignty and democratic rights– sought to downplay the mission's report:
"The report, Insulza said, is based on "calculations" and not results. "It's not in our power to give results," he told the Miami Herald. "We are not publishing any kind of results."
Of course, the obvious solution would be to re-run the election, since nearly three-quarters of registered voters didn't vote in the first round, reflecting the fact that the country's largest political party – not coincidentally, the party of Aristide – was arbitrarily excluded. But Washington and its allies don't want to take any chances that they could end up with a free and fair election in Haiti, which hasn't led to their preferred outcome in the very few times that it has been allowed.
© 2011 Guardian News and Media
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Pacific Islands Political Studies Conference
Pacific Islands Political Studies Conference
Monday, 23 November 2009, 1:00 pm
Press Release: University of Auckland
University Of Auckland Hosts Pacific Islands Political Studies Conference
Pacific scholars, policy makers and analysts from around the world will convene at The University of Auckland for the 11th Pacific Islands Political Studies Association (PIPSA) conference.
The theme for this year’s conference is Pacific Democracy: What’s Happening? The conference provides a forum to openly and critically discuss and re-examine the problems and issues that continue to shape the dynamics, culture and institutions of political governance and democratic rule in the Pacific.
Delegates from around the Pacific including Hawaii, Australia, Fiji, Tonga, Samoa, Papua New Guinea, United States, Niue, Japan, Vanuatu, New Zealand and Solomon Islands will gather for the two-day conference, which will address a wide range of issues including human rights, political violence, military coups, constitutional change, traditional leadership, development and women’s participation. Sir Paul Reeves, former Governor General of New Zealand, distinguished statesman and eminent political mediator in the Pacific region, will open the conference. His speech will focus on problems of democratisation in the Pacific.
The keynote speaker on day two is Labour Party leader Phil Goff, former Minister for Foreign Affairs, who will present “Pasifika New Zealanders in the new political scene.” There will also be presentations by prominent Pacific academics on topics relating to constitutional changes, political violence, human rights, development, corruption, peace-building and conflict resolution, alternative political systems and parliamentary democracy.
“These are difficult times for the Pacific politically, socially and economically, and it is important to engage in wider discussion and analysis of issues in an open and critical way-- as well as to look for long term solutions. Unstable countries can lead to an unstable region; thus, both national and regional solutions must be sought with seriousness,” says Dr Steven Ratuva, political sociologist at the University’s Centre for Pacific Studies, chief conference organiser and president of PIPSA. PIPSA was established in Hawaii in 1987 as a forum for Pacific scholars, policy makers and analysts to engage in discussion, research and publications about political issues in the Pacific islands. The PIPSA general conference takes place once every two years in different locations around the Pacific, including Port Vila, Suva, Noumea, Queensland, Rarotonga, Honolulu, Christchurch and Guam. The conference has been made possible through the support of The University of Auckland’s Faculty of Arts, Centre for Pacific Studies and Equity Office; and the State, Society and Governance in Melanesia Project at the Australian National University.
Monday, 23 November 2009, 1:00 pm
Press Release: University of Auckland
University Of Auckland Hosts Pacific Islands Political Studies Conference
Pacific scholars, policy makers and analysts from around the world will convene at The University of Auckland for the 11th Pacific Islands Political Studies Association (PIPSA) conference.
The theme for this year’s conference is Pacific Democracy: What’s Happening? The conference provides a forum to openly and critically discuss and re-examine the problems and issues that continue to shape the dynamics, culture and institutions of political governance and democratic rule in the Pacific.
Delegates from around the Pacific including Hawaii, Australia, Fiji, Tonga, Samoa, Papua New Guinea, United States, Niue, Japan, Vanuatu, New Zealand and Solomon Islands will gather for the two-day conference, which will address a wide range of issues including human rights, political violence, military coups, constitutional change, traditional leadership, development and women’s participation. Sir Paul Reeves, former Governor General of New Zealand, distinguished statesman and eminent political mediator in the Pacific region, will open the conference. His speech will focus on problems of democratisation in the Pacific.
The keynote speaker on day two is Labour Party leader Phil Goff, former Minister for Foreign Affairs, who will present “Pasifika New Zealanders in the new political scene.” There will also be presentations by prominent Pacific academics on topics relating to constitutional changes, political violence, human rights, development, corruption, peace-building and conflict resolution, alternative political systems and parliamentary democracy.
“These are difficult times for the Pacific politically, socially and economically, and it is important to engage in wider discussion and analysis of issues in an open and critical way-- as well as to look for long term solutions. Unstable countries can lead to an unstable region; thus, both national and regional solutions must be sought with seriousness,” says Dr Steven Ratuva, political sociologist at the University’s Centre for Pacific Studies, chief conference organiser and president of PIPSA. PIPSA was established in Hawaii in 1987 as a forum for Pacific scholars, policy makers and analysts to engage in discussion, research and publications about political issues in the Pacific islands. The PIPSA general conference takes place once every two years in different locations around the Pacific, including Port Vila, Suva, Noumea, Queensland, Rarotonga, Honolulu, Christchurch and Guam. The conference has been made possible through the support of The University of Auckland’s Faculty of Arts, Centre for Pacific Studies and Equity Office; and the State, Society and Governance in Melanesia Project at the Australian National University.
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Self-Determination and Realpolitik
Island Stir: Self-Determination and Realpolitik
Friday, 21 August 2009 00:10 by Gerardo Partido
Marianas Variety News Staff
The issue of self-determination has become prominent again after the recent visit to the island by a congressional delegation led by Congressman Nick Rahall of West Virginia.
Congressman Rahall, responding to a question from Sen. Eddie Calvo during a forum, stated that he supports self-determination for Guam and that the federal government would abide with whatever decision island residents make with regard to political status.
Rahall is the chairman of the House committee with direct oversight over Guam. And as Sen. Ben Pangelinan noted in his column last Tuesday, Rahall’s statement was the first declaration of support in recent memory from someone with real power in Congress.
Rahall, however, was probably just being gracious to his hosts. Under the concept of realpolitik, which states that politics are amoral and that things should be looked at realistically, I doubt whether the federal government would give Guam a chance for self-determination, at least not in the immediate future.
As the champion of freedom and democracy in the world, the U.S. may morally and ideologically support self-determination. But under realpolitik, Guam is just too important to U.S. security for the federal government to just allow us to adopt whatever political status we want.
Ever since the U.S. Navy and Air Force were forced out of the Philippines, Guam has become America’s most strategic fortress in this part of the world. Guam truly is the tip of the American spear and this is not just rhetoric.
With China continuing to grow as a superpower and Guam in proximity to the major hotspots in the region, America would never dare risk its control over Guam even at the expense of its ideals.
Under realpolitik, two of the options available to Guam for self-determination (namely independence and free association) may already be counted out.
It is hard to see the U.S. granting Guam independence as it did the Philippines. Look at what happened in the Philippines and how America’s bases were booted out there. America simply can’t take that chance again.
On the other hand, free association and commonwealth may not be desirable to the U.S. either because the military cannot build up its forces here if we have our own independent immigration and labor policy as the CNMI does.
In fact, the impending federalization of the CNMI can be seen as part of the U.S. attempt to increase security and tighten its control.
With the U.S. building up its forces on Guam, it makes no sense, security-wise, for our neighbors in the north to be inundated with Russian and Chinese tourists as well as alien workers. Thus, our tourism leaders can dream all they want but it is highly unlikely that Russia and China will be included in the new visa waiver program.
The federalization of the CNMI, the final implementing rules of which will be released in just a matter of weeks, is really meant to exert more control over the CNMI and by fait accompli link it closer to Guam, with our island as the dominant partner.
The closer integration of Guam and a satellite CNMI is a natural development given the military buildup. This integration would not only make it more convenient to manage security, it would also give the U.S. more areas for military use.
As for statehood, the third self-determination option, Guam can gain a lot of benefits from total integration with the United States.
But the real question under realpolitik is what’s in it for the United States? They already get their benefits from Guam under the island’s current political status as an unincorporated U.S. territory. Would the U.S. want the additional costs and responsibility that statehood would bring?
Of course, the situation is not totally hopeless. As Sen. Pangelinan pointed out, the stars may indeed be aligned for Guam’s self-determination with Rahall’s declaration of support, a more enlightened U.S. leader in President Obama, and a native son as an assistant secretary of the Department of Interior.
But unless we see truly concrete actions from the federal government in support of self-determination, let us welcome Rahall’s promise of support but not expect too much from it.
Friday, 21 August 2009 00:10 by Gerardo Partido
Marianas Variety News Staff
The issue of self-determination has become prominent again after the recent visit to the island by a congressional delegation led by Congressman Nick Rahall of West Virginia.
Congressman Rahall, responding to a question from Sen. Eddie Calvo during a forum, stated that he supports self-determination for Guam and that the federal government would abide with whatever decision island residents make with regard to political status.
Rahall is the chairman of the House committee with direct oversight over Guam. And as Sen. Ben Pangelinan noted in his column last Tuesday, Rahall’s statement was the first declaration of support in recent memory from someone with real power in Congress.
Rahall, however, was probably just being gracious to his hosts. Under the concept of realpolitik, which states that politics are amoral and that things should be looked at realistically, I doubt whether the federal government would give Guam a chance for self-determination, at least not in the immediate future.
As the champion of freedom and democracy in the world, the U.S. may morally and ideologically support self-determination. But under realpolitik, Guam is just too important to U.S. security for the federal government to just allow us to adopt whatever political status we want.
Ever since the U.S. Navy and Air Force were forced out of the Philippines, Guam has become America’s most strategic fortress in this part of the world. Guam truly is the tip of the American spear and this is not just rhetoric.
With China continuing to grow as a superpower and Guam in proximity to the major hotspots in the region, America would never dare risk its control over Guam even at the expense of its ideals.
Under realpolitik, two of the options available to Guam for self-determination (namely independence and free association) may already be counted out.
It is hard to see the U.S. granting Guam independence as it did the Philippines. Look at what happened in the Philippines and how America’s bases were booted out there. America simply can’t take that chance again.
On the other hand, free association and commonwealth may not be desirable to the U.S. either because the military cannot build up its forces here if we have our own independent immigration and labor policy as the CNMI does.
In fact, the impending federalization of the CNMI can be seen as part of the U.S. attempt to increase security and tighten its control.
With the U.S. building up its forces on Guam, it makes no sense, security-wise, for our neighbors in the north to be inundated with Russian and Chinese tourists as well as alien workers. Thus, our tourism leaders can dream all they want but it is highly unlikely that Russia and China will be included in the new visa waiver program.
The federalization of the CNMI, the final implementing rules of which will be released in just a matter of weeks, is really meant to exert more control over the CNMI and by fait accompli link it closer to Guam, with our island as the dominant partner.
The closer integration of Guam and a satellite CNMI is a natural development given the military buildup. This integration would not only make it more convenient to manage security, it would also give the U.S. more areas for military use.
As for statehood, the third self-determination option, Guam can gain a lot of benefits from total integration with the United States.
But the real question under realpolitik is what’s in it for the United States? They already get their benefits from Guam under the island’s current political status as an unincorporated U.S. territory. Would the U.S. want the additional costs and responsibility that statehood would bring?
Of course, the situation is not totally hopeless. As Sen. Pangelinan pointed out, the stars may indeed be aligned for Guam’s self-determination with Rahall’s declaration of support, a more enlightened U.S. leader in President Obama, and a native son as an assistant secretary of the Department of Interior.
But unless we see truly concrete actions from the federal government in support of self-determination, let us welcome Rahall’s promise of support but not expect too much from it.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
The Insular Empire: America in the Marianas
The Insular Empire: America in the Marianas is a documentary film about America at its westernmost limits - the Mariana Islands of the western Pacific Ocean. 6000 miles from the U.S. mainland, the Marianas - which include the U.S. Territory of Guam and the U.S. Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (or CNMI) - have played a crucial role in American history, and national security, over the past century. Yet most Americans know nothing about them, or about the indigenous communities who call them home.
The Insular Empire will change this. The Insular Empire will let a broad American and Pacific audience know that U.S. citizenship for the Chamorro and Carolinian communities of the Marianas is not complete citizenship. That U.S. citizens on Guam may have their citizenship revoked by an Act of Congress. That both "insular areas" lack voting representation in the U.S. Congress, and that the CNMI lacks any representation at all. That despite this, the federal government maintains a remarkable degree of control over the islands' laws and economic resources.
By many standards, the Marianas are colonies. The Chamorro people of Guam, after 100 years under the American flag, have still not achieved self-determination. Today, although they are not allowed to vote for their Commander-in-Chief, young people from the Mariana Islands are fighting, and dying, for the United States military – in numbers far exceeding those of any state in the union.
These are indigenous rights issues. They are civil rights issues. They are human rights issues. But they must be made visible before they can be addressed.
Since 2002, Horse Opera Productions has been working with the indigenous communities of Guam and the CNMI to produce The Insular Empire: America's Pacific Frontier. The film is now in post-production. We will partner with Pacific Islanders in Communications, our major production funder, to obtain a wide public television broadcast. But our vision extends beyond broadcast to include the following outreach goals:
* To inspire the indigenous communities of Guam and the CNMI to think critically about both their history and their relationship with the United States, and to think creatively about their political and cultural future; and
* To influence political decision-makers - particularly US congresspersons - to authentically democratize relations with Guam and the CNMI, so that islanders and mainlanders can become true partners in working towards a just and sustainable future.
Please take the time to browse our site to learn more about The Insular Empire: America’s Pacific Frontier .The Insular Empire is a non-profit project supported by tax-deductible contributions. Give now to support this important work - and help build a more authentic American democracy.
Si Yu'us Maase and Olomwaaay (thank you) for your curiosity and support!
http://www.horseopera.org/ie/ieintro.php
The Insular Empire will change this. The Insular Empire will let a broad American and Pacific audience know that U.S. citizenship for the Chamorro and Carolinian communities of the Marianas is not complete citizenship. That U.S. citizens on Guam may have their citizenship revoked by an Act of Congress. That both "insular areas" lack voting representation in the U.S. Congress, and that the CNMI lacks any representation at all. That despite this, the federal government maintains a remarkable degree of control over the islands' laws and economic resources.
By many standards, the Marianas are colonies. The Chamorro people of Guam, after 100 years under the American flag, have still not achieved self-determination. Today, although they are not allowed to vote for their Commander-in-Chief, young people from the Mariana Islands are fighting, and dying, for the United States military – in numbers far exceeding those of any state in the union.
These are indigenous rights issues. They are civil rights issues. They are human rights issues. But they must be made visible before they can be addressed.
Since 2002, Horse Opera Productions has been working with the indigenous communities of Guam and the CNMI to produce The Insular Empire: America's Pacific Frontier. The film is now in post-production. We will partner with Pacific Islanders in Communications, our major production funder, to obtain a wide public television broadcast. But our vision extends beyond broadcast to include the following outreach goals:
* To inspire the indigenous communities of Guam and the CNMI to think critically about both their history and their relationship with the United States, and to think creatively about their political and cultural future; and
* To influence political decision-makers - particularly US congresspersons - to authentically democratize relations with Guam and the CNMI, so that islanders and mainlanders can become true partners in working towards a just and sustainable future.
Please take the time to browse our site to learn more about The Insular Empire: America’s Pacific Frontier .The Insular Empire is a non-profit project supported by tax-deductible contributions. Give now to support this important work - and help build a more authentic American democracy.
Si Yu'us Maase and Olomwaaay (thank you) for your curiosity and support!
http://www.horseopera.org/ie/ieintro.php
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)