Central America: So far from God...

...so near to the United States.

How much of the refugee crisis in the Americas is caused by our own actions?

And at least one more, in Venezuela, almost certain soon to come.

"The four countries discussed in this report [see, below], Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras and Nicaragua, share a history as well as contemporary social and economic characteristics. The Spanish colonial period, which lasted from the early sixteenth century until 1821, laid certain institutional foundations whose legacies are still in place. Two legacies stand out: concentration of land in the hands of a small powerful elite and the exploitation of the indigenous labour force. The economies of all four countries are dominated by a handful of extremely rich families while the overwhelming majority is socially marginalized, economically and politically excluded, and suffers the lacerating effects of poverty, racism and discrimination. Moreover, the bloody internal conflicts of the 1970s and 1980s produced large-scale displacement, economic hardship, and debilitating fear. The recent surge of everyday violence rips into the most vulnerable, but society as a whole suffers from the instability resulting from the failure to reign in criminal activity.

"The new gang-related violence can be attributed to several factors including decades of internal wars and impunity, extensive displacement to urban areas, the absence of social and economic programmes to integrate the youth, the migration to the United States, and the over all social exclusion of a large proportion of the population. The continuation of death squad violence and the expansion of the drug trade is a reflection of the absence of the rule of law as well as the continued links between these clandestine organizations and the military and other power elites.

"The harsh response to the variety of gang activities in Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras has proved ineffective. While the problems are real, the government and the press find it more expedient to target the gangs and street children for virtually all the rampant violence in the society. In response, many citizens support draconian anti-gang laws and self-help “social cleansing” practices. In the process, the more powerful clandestine organized crime units tend to be overlooked, in part because of the links, influence and control they exercise at various institutional levels in the governments. Nicaragua, while the poorest country in Central America, has fewer gangs and less violence and its government’s alternative approach to rehabilitate and integrate gang members into society has been much more successful.

"Violence against women is an extremely serious problem. These crimes are seldom solved or punished, creating further fear and vulnerability among women. Crimes against homosexuals are less identified and are also likely under-reported. Politically motivated violence against party workers, human rights defenders, and professionals dedicated to investigating and bringing to justice those responsible for these crimes, especially in Guatemala, has seen an alarming rise. The judicial system and the police have proved largely to be ineffective. The serious instability and danger resulting from violence and the failure of national protection leads to displacement and migration out of the country, especially to the United States. These undocumented migrants live in limbo with the increasing threat of deportation back to the country they fled, often in fear for their lives."

From Central America (Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua): Patterns of Human Rights Violations (pdf) by Beatriz Manz (University of California, Berkeley) commissioned by United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Status Determination and Protection Information Section (DIPS) (Writenet Independent Analysis).

Writenet is a network of researchers and writers on human rights, forced migration, ethnic and political conflict.

See image larger.

(Resource: GreenNet is not-for-profit collective, established in 1985, providing internet services, web design and hosting to supporters of peace, the environment and human rights.)

Sen. Sanders foreign policy experience

The author, a former Asst. Secretary of Defense (under Reagan!), who advised Reagan, Kerry, George HW and Obama, is the guy who was publicly surprised when Sanders cited him as someone he listens to re. foreign policy, as they had only met once during the campaign. Sanders was mocked for this, but the author actually believes Sanders is strong and experienced in the foreign policy realm. -- Andrew J. Lederer

Bernie Sanders Is More Serious on Foreign Policy Than You Think by Lawrence Korb (Politico)

Washington is trying to drive down oil prices by flooding the market with crude but risks collateral damage to its own shale industry

The Long War: "U.S. powerbrokers have put the country at risk of another financial crisis to intensify their economic war on Moscow and to move ahead with their plan to 'pivot to Asia'....Washington has persuaded the Saudis to flood the market with oil to push down prices, decimate Russia’s economy, and reduce Moscow’s resistance to further NATO encirclement and the spreading of US military bases across Central Asia. The US-Saudi scheme has slashed oil prices by nearly a half since they hit their peak in June. The sharp decline in prices has burst the bubble in high-yield debt which has increased the turbulence in the credit markets while pushing global equities into a tailspin. Even so, the roiled markets and spreading contagion have not deterred Washington from pursuing its reckless plan, a plan which uses Riyadh’s stooge-regime to prosecute Washington’s global resource war."

The rest of the story:
The Oil Coup: US-Saudi Subterfuge Send Stocks and Credit Reeling by Mike Whitney (CounterPunch)
Stakes are high as US plays the oil card against Iran and Russia by Larry Elliott (Guardian)

Swamp in the Desert

As the course of events in the Middle East twists and turns, it's going to be fun to listen to the White House and the State Department try to explain how the Assad regime in Syria, less than a year ago so pestilent we were prepared to bomb it out of existence; Iran, charter member of the Axis of Evil, Assad's primary backer and, until just the other day, "the world's most active state sponsor of terrorism;" Hezbollah, Iran's Lebanese sidekick; and expansionist Russia, in the gunsights of US sanctions over its bullying of Ukraine, became our new best friends, and why our "ally," the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, is on the opposite side of nearly every fight we pick.

Unintended Consequence, type 3: Perverse result

The State Department needs to be careful in its reaction to the Crimean situation. We don't want to box ourselves into having to oppose the secession of Texas on principle.

Afghanistan: Enough, already.

"Simply put, we believe the human and financial costs of the war are unacceptable and unsustainable. It is bankrupting us. The United States should devise an exit plan to extricate ourselves from Afghanistan, not a plan to stay there four more years and 'then we'll see.' This doesn't mean that we abandon the Afghan people - rather, we should abandon this war strategy. It is a failure that has not brought stability to Afghanistan and has not enhanced our own security. As the retired career Army officer Andrew J. Bacevich has written, to die for a mystique is the wrong policy.

"It is easier for politicians to 'go along' rather than make waves. But we were elected to do the right thing, not what is politically expedient. The discussion of Afghanistan shouldn't be about politics, which we acknowledge are difficult, but what is right for our country. And the right thing is to end this war." -- Rep. James P. McGovern(D-MA) and Rep. Walter B. Jones(R-NC).

The rest of the story: The solution in Afghanistan: Get out. (Washington Post 2011-02-18).

U.S. to Mubarak: Drop Dead (or Not)

When the White House backed off ushering Hosni Mubarak into retirement, they condemned a lot of Egyptians to die. But that's okay. At least now there can be a gradual, orderly, peaceful transition to democracy.

Just kidding.

The rest of the story:
✓ An historian explains how the U.S. became closely tied to the Mideast dictatorship: How did the U.S. get in bed with Mubarak? by Justin Elliott (Salon)
✓ US, in shift, bluntly urges Mubarak to reform now (Egypt Indendent)
✓ Kerry to Mubarak: Step down by Jennifer Epstein (Politico)
✓ Israel shocked by Obama's "betrayal" of Mubarak by Douglas Hamilton (Reuters)
✓ New Egypt Plan: Let’s Send Mubarak On Permanent Medical Leave Or Something by AllahPundit (Hot Air)

Decline of The Empire: Wikileaks hounded?

Here's a statement on the vilification of Wikileaks from Reporters Without Borders that one might have liked to have seen -- might once upon a time reasonably have expected to see -- on the editorial page of the New York Times or in a statement from the news networks:

Reporters Without Borders condemns the blocking, cyber-attacks and political pressure being directed at cablegate.wikileaks.org, the website dedicated to the US diplomatic cables. The organization is also concerned by some of the extreme comments made by American authorities concerning WikiLeaks and its founder Julian Assange.

Earlier this week, after the publishing several hundred of the 250.000 cables it says it has in its possession, WikiLeaks had to move its site from its servers in Sweden to servers in the United States controlled by online retailer Amazon. Amazon quickly came under pressure to stop hosting WikiLeaks from the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and its chairman, Sen. Joe Lieberman, in particular.

After being ousted from Amazon, WikiLeaks found a refuge for part of its content with the French Internet company OVH. But French digital economy minister Eric Besson today said the French government was looking at ways to ban hosting of the site. WikiLeaks was also recently dropped by its domain name provider EveryDNS. Meanwhile, several countries well known for for their disregard of freedom of expression and information, including Thailand and China, have blocked access to cablegate.wikileaks.org.

This is the first time we have seen an attempt at the international community level to censor a website dedicated to the principle of transparency. We are shocked to find countries such as France and the United States suddenly bringing their policies on freedom of expression into line with those of China. We point out that in France and the United States, it is up to the courts, not politicians, to decide whether or not a website should be closed.

Meanwhile, two Republican senators, John Ensign and Scott Brown, and an independent Lieberman, have introduced a bill that would make it illegal to publish the names of U.S. military and intelligence agency informants. This could facilitate future prosecutions against WikiLeaks and its founder. But a criminal investigation is already under way and many U.S. politicians are calling vociferously for Assange’s arrest.

Reporters Without Borders can only condemn this determination to hound Assange and reiterates its conviction that WikiLeaks has a right under the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment to publish these documents and is even playing a useful role by making them available to journalists and the greater public.

We stress that any restriction on the freedom to disseminate this body of documents will affect the entire press, which has given detailed coverage to the information made available by WikiLeaks, with five leading international newspapers actively cooperating in preparing it for publication.

Reporters Without Borders would also like to stress that it has always defended online freedom and the principle of “Net neutrality,” according to which Internet Service Providers and hosting companies should play no role in choosing the content that is placed online.

For other aspects of the Wikileaks story:
Full coverage of The US embassy cables on the guardian.co.uk site;
BBC News' Wikileaks revelations;
WikiLeaked: Inside the State Department's Secret Cables at Foreign Policy's blog;
Wiki Leaks on Democracy Now!;
One Analyst, So Many Documents: How could Bradley Manning alone have leaked so much classified material? by Marc Ambinder;
US embassy cables: The job of the media is not to protect the powerful from embarrassment by Simon Jenkins;
The Shameful Attacks on Julian Assange by David Samuels;
Wikileaks Evolves by Raffi Khatchadourian;
WikiLeaks reveals more than just government secrets, The moral standards of WikiLeaks critics and other Salon posts by Glenn Greenwald;
WikiLeaks vs. The Empire by Tom Hayden;
Hillary Clinton Gets Wiki-Served by Robert Scheer;
The (Not So) Secret (Anymore) US War in Pakistan by Jeremy Scahill;
Greg Mitchell's Blogging the Wikileaks;
WL Central: An unofficial WikiLeaks information resource.


Visit MacLeod Cartoons.

Gaza: Hotlinks & Commentary

From today's Media Fix on Greg Mitchell's blog at The Nation: NYT today assesses, gasp, some new sentiment in D.C. that, surprise, maybe Israel is hurting us these days...; IDF admits it doctored audio of boat capture to make passengers seems like anti-Semites. Max Blumenthal: Glenn Kessler of Wash Post must correct story...; Foreign Policy: Must-read account of effects of blockade in Gaza....; As usual, more tough analysis and critical opinion on Israel at Israeli paper Haaretz than in American media....; Horrid: AP interviews Portland, Maine, filmmaker who was on flotilla ship -- first-hand account of attack, then to prison and beatings there.

Militarism: The foreign policy consensus is no more

We are at a point when our failure to deal with internal problems -- sclerotic democratic institutions, kleptocratic rule in Washington, the decrepit infrastructure, a failing education system, massive loss of meaningful jobs, the mortgage crisis, the failure to provide affordable, universal health care -- may offer an opportunity to rethink the assumptions underpinning liberal militarism.



Collateral damage: Deadly Afghan Bus Shooting Spotlights Civilian Harm by Nathan Hodge (Danger Room 2010-04-12)
US Ignorance of Afghan Society Led to Botched Raids by Gareth Porter (InterPress Service 2010-04-12)

Talks: The Unipolar Moment and the Culture of Imperialism

Noam Chomsky delivers the 5th Annual Edward Said Memorial Lecture Columbia University School for International Affairs for the Heyman Center for the Humanities. After paying homage to Edward Said's stress on imperialism as central to our culture, Chomsky builds his case with telling rationalizations and denials by American leaders from the extermination of Native Americans through United States terrorism in Latin and South America -- in Chile, Brazil, El Salvador, Panama, Nicaragua -- and the Middle East.

Change Watch: "Obama Will Respect International Law More Than Bush Did." Not.

Writing in Foreign Policy, University of Chicago law professor Eric A. Posner observes that governments respect international law only when it suits their national interests.

During his presidential campaign, Obama expressed support for the International Criminal Court and humanitarian intervention. In office, he has done nothing for the ICC and has stood by while the killing continues in Sudan. He has promised to close the detention facility at Guantánamo Bay; the problem, however, was not that the facility itself violated international law but that the detention methods practiced there (arguably) did so. These very same detention practices have continued in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Meanwhile, Obama has sought to give immunity to Bush-era interrogators -- another possible violation of international law, and certainly in tension with it. Bush's unlawful tariffs on steel are matched by the "buy American" provision in the stimulus bill signed by Obama and the tariffs that he has slapped on Chinese tires. Obama has provided some symbolic support for international law in a few ways, but where it counts -- obtaining Senate ratification of the Law of the Sea treaty (which Bush also supported) and numerous international human rights treaties -- he has expended no political capital. Don't expect this to change.

"[I]nternational law should be looked at as a worthy means," he concludes, "not an end in itself."

It remains, then, for the American people and their democratically elected representatives to decide whether the policies pursued in our name by the military-industrial/foreign policy elite are in our national interests.

Go. Read. Think Again: International Law by Eric A. Posner (Foreign Policy 2009-09-17)

Health Care: The Future Costs of the Afghanistan War

The pro-empire policies of the ruling elite have distorted our national priorities for 60 years. Finally, they have become too much to bear.

We can no longer permit American citizens to suffer and die because they can't get health care. The condition of our collapsing infrastructure courts catastrophe. Our schools and our prisons have become warehouses for people without futures.

Beginning now, federal revenues must be expended on programs and policies that increase national wealth and well-being. Profit can no longer be the sole measure of value. The role of national government must be redirected toward the common weal. But this will only happen if the American people make it happen.

We are engaged in two debates today that our leaders will try to keep separate. But they are not separate: in the short run, they are about how we will allocate scarce resources: in the roughest sense, we can't afford both universal health care and world dominance, and so we will be forced to choose. In the long run, we will decide who we are, a social democracy whose first priority is the well-being of its people or a corporatist oligarchy that uses the trappings of democracy to put the interests of a tiny minority ahead of the good of the country and of its people. As Jeff Ley writes, "The choice is clear: health care or warfare; the Common Good or Common Destruction."

On Wednesday, President Obama addressed a joint session of Congress on health care. Later this year, he will decide whether to deploy additional troops to the war in Afghanistan on top of the 69,000 troops already deployed. The struggle for health care and the struggle to end warfare are inextricably linked. The cost for substantive (though imperfect) health care reform, as envisioned in the House of Representatives approach (with the public option), is projected to average $100 billion per year for the next ten years. The cost to continue the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are projected to cost anywhere from $55 billion to $100 billion a year, with a few modest reductions to the baseline military budget, and the difference is paid.

The rest of the story: Health Care vs. Warfare: The Future Costs of the Afghanistan War by Jeff Leys (truthout 2009-09-12).

Change Watch: Do we support democracy or not?

As I said during the campaign, on the foreign policy side, it would make no difference who won. Obama, Clinton, McCain...we would remain in Iraq, expand the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan, continue to pursue a program of aggressive militarism (vide, Africom, our scheme to bring peace to Africa by militarizing it), and so on. What was the choice of Biden as veep but a wink and a nod to the military, the intelligence community and the foreign policy establishment that Obama was reliable? The Democrats could be counted on to put a more palatable spin on our activities overseas, but in no way to alter the fundamentals. So it was no surprise that we didn't act aggressively last month to restore the democratically elected president of Honduras, Manuel Zelaya, after he was driven into exile by a military coup.

...is the Obama administration simply trying to change the appearance of the USA internationally or are they attempting to shift US policy? The response to the Honduran coup seems to indicate the former. They do not want the appearance of the demonic Bush administration, but they are not prepared to support a Honduran administration which is allied with the likes of Venezuelan President Chavez and Bolivian President Evo Morales. Instead this starts to appear to be a Clintonian solution, i.e., a repetition of President Bill Clinton's approach to the coup people in Haiti in 1994. He-Clinton-was prepared to restore democratically elected President Jean Bertrand Aristide, however he would do so only under certain conditions (one being giving up on his populist economic program and the second being that he was only to serve out the remainder of his term despite the fact that years had been robbed from him). In the Honduran case, a "compromise" might be offered that simply restores President Zelaya but essentially neuters him.

So much for Honduran sovereignty; so much for a different US approach to foreign affairs....

-- The Honduran Coup, the Media and Obama by Bill Fletcher, Jr on Black Commentator

See also, No Justification for Coup by Bertha Oliva (Miami Herald 2009-07-15)