united nations org.

[gil]

The so-called United Nations is a sad body.That We don't have the power to disarm the weakest or most powerful nations one earth.330,000 companys on earth make money off selling weapons of Mass.No wonder war is glorified and peace is weakness. The secretary General made it very clear this past U.N. summit in New York. That there was no mentioning of disarmament. Everything from the religious leaders to the war generals desire to be hero's with sacrifice'es of your and my blood.They believe heaven holds a place for them.If humanity gives of themselfs as lambs to the slaughter.

[Anwaar]

Indeed gil. The UN has been a study in hypocrisy since its founding. All united under one council, except for the big five who are above the law, is as ironic as it is laughable. No reform can be suggested as no reform is possible when the suggestion itself can be vetoed by any of the Big Five.

Only because the five “founding” nations have a veto, they have had an international body that they have been ruthlessly using to push their own agendas and bully other nations into doing what the “collective” wants. One fervently wishes for the day when the real collective does finally wake up. For on that day the Big Five will have to, for once, use their veto power to actually protect themselves from the wrath of that real collective. That will also be the day when the John Boltons of this world will shine in their true luster.

In a world beset by so many conflicts, and the only super power having gone berserk to the extent that it is being seen more as a part of the problem than the solution, it is hard to look for silver lining to the dark clouds of gloom. With the chilling nuclear saber rattling by so many actors on the world stage, and the games that these nuclear giants and ethical infants want to play, we may all end up in John James Ingalls democracy of the dead in not too distant a future…with all men equal at last.

General Omar N. Bradley captured the very essence of it all when he said, “The world has achieved brilliance without wisdom, power without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants.”

[james]

“The world has achieved brilliance without wisdom, power without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants.”

Amen brother.

[hagall]

Happened to catch the end of this interview last night discussing the the UN Millenium Project Goals. The section I've highlighted is what I saw, and had some very poignant statements on the UN and the Bush administration. James G.

Australian Broadcasting Corporation

TV PROGRAM TRANSCRIPT

LOCATION: www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2005/s1472419.htm

Broadcast: 30/09/2005
Sachs urges sustained financial intervention

Reporter:

Agreement was reached this week in Washington by world bank and IMF officials to forgive $80 billion of debt owed by the world's poorest countries. This puts the seal on promises made by the G8 leaders in July. More recently, and closer to home, Prime Minister John Howard has committed Australia to doubling its foreign aid allocation to $4 billion by 2010. Other countries are also responding to the UN Millennium goals to make a dramatic dent in global poverty, but according to one of America's most respected economists, the effort falls short of what's needed. Professor Jeffrey Sachs is something of a wunderkind. Early in his career he was the youngest tenured professor in the history of Harvard's Economics Department and he went on to play key roles, albeit controversial ones, in the transformation of the Polish and Russian economies. These days he's a champion of the world's poor and argues that sustained financial intervention is needed to turn troubled economies around. Earlier today I spoke with Professor Sachs from his office at Columbia University in New York, where he heads the Earth Institute.

MAXINE McKEW: Jeffrey Sachs, you say that extreme poverty can be eliminated in our lifetime. That is a big claim. Why do you think it's doable?

PROFESSOR JEFFREY SACHS, DIRECTOR OF EARTH INSTITUTE, COLUMBIA UNIVERISTY: We've done it already. The world has done it in four-fifth of humanity. We're down to the poorest of the poor. Roughly about one out of every five, one out of every six people on the planet, still a lot of people, more than a billion people, stuck in extreme poverty, but development has been successful in other parts of the world. It can be successful as well in the poorest parts of Africa, the poorest parts of Asia, the poorest parts of Latin America, practical steppies can make a difference.

MAXINE McKEW: What of the specific UN Millennium Project goals that of course is to halve world poverty by the year 2015, as we stand today, is that looking remotely achievable?

PROFESSOR JEFFREY SACHS: First, I believe that the millennium development goals are achievable and they are the halfway station 2015 to cut extreme poverty by half, 2025 we could eliminate extreme poverty on the planet. There would be the extreme poor, but not the extreme poor fighting for their lives each day. The millennium goals can be met if the rich and the poor countries work effectively together to do very practical things. For African farmers for example to triple their yield, so that they're getting the same kinds of yields that farmers other parts of the world is get, what it would take is to help them use fertiliser and improved seed. Because those simple steps could make a huge difference. If children in Africa were sleeping under anti-malaria bed nets, we could bring down the number of people dying from that disease, we could save more than one million children every year. The point is that straightforward, proven technologies that exist, but don't reach the poorest of the poor, are what we need to make the difference.

MAXINE McKEW: To achieve this, you are calling on the world's richest countries to double their financial assistance to the world's poorest. How are we doing at the moment? What's the report card look like? Who is being generous and who could afford do a lot more?

PROFESSOR JEFFREY SACHS: The irony is the poor countries are asking so little from us. They're so poor you might think they want to overturn the world system, but no. All they're just saying give us a helping hand and the helping hand has been define as something as less than 1 per cent of our incomes. Precisely in 2002, all of our leaders committed to make concrete efforts towards the target of 0.7 per cent - that is 7-tenths of 1 per cent of GNP of the rich world. But all of Europe now has said, OK, we'll sign on to reach that target by the year 2020 - 2015, excuse me. I'm hoping that Australia, that Canada, that Japan, that the United States will join Europe in saying, "We'll make concrete offers as we promised to. We can reach that target." I'm gratified that Australia recently announced a doubling of its aid by 2010, that's a great step. Now get on to fulfilment of a commitment, that would be a marvellous contribution of Australia, with a lot of aid of course going to Australia's region of the world - to the very poorest countries of South-East Asia, as well as of the Pacific.

MAXINE McKEW: In terms of how best to deal with poverty, the message from the G8 summit leaders meeting in Gleneagles last July - and it's a recurring theme in all of these discussions - is aid to poor countries needs to be tied to an insistence on stronger governance and a reduction in corruption. Do you broadly agree with that?

PROFESSOR JEFFREY SACHS: It's good point but the irony is there are plenty of good governments that are very poor that don't get the help they need. It would be a more credible argument if in fact the well-governed, very poor countries were really out there getting the help they need and able to make the investments. The fact of the matter is, to an extent, this has been used maybe even as an excuse for inaction really rather than a strategy for action. Yes, let's work with governments that will honestly use the aid, let's design our aid programs to be very practical, so you can count what we're giving, where it should go. You can audit it and monitor it by all means, but let's do it, not just complain in a generalised way about bad governance or corruption. Let's make practical programs that scale up for the countries that can demonstrate that they can handle it. I know there are many of such countries.

MAXINE McKEW: You've addressed this problem all over the world. When you look particularly at Africa, particularly Sub-Saharan Africa, why do you think the efforts there have produced below average outcomes?

PROFESSOR JEFFREY SACHS: I think that Africa, in my experience, has three huge, almost unique challenges that I have not seen in other parts of the world. I've worked in more than 100 countries and all the continents. I think Africa faces some intrinsic challenges - the frequency of drought. That is the difficulty of growing food, number one. The burden of disease like any other - unlike any part of the world - malaria, now of course the AIDS pandemic, the need for help to fight disease. And third the lack of basic connectivity of Africa's village by roads, by telecommunications, even by electricity, is so stark that what you have in the end - it's an awful thing and I spent a lot of this past summer visiting villages throughout the continent seeing hungry, disease-burdened people living essentially in isolation. And not getting the kind of practical help that they need to grow more food, to fight the diseases and to connect, to connect with world markets, even their local and regional markets.

MAXINE McKEW: Do those differences help explain the gap between where Africa is at now and, say, what we see in South-East Asia? Why for instance have the Asian tigers been so successful in lifting their populations out of poverty in just a matter of decades?

PROFESSOR JEFFREY SACHS: If I had to point to simply one factor, I don't have to, but if I had to simplify it by pointing to one factor, I would say that Asia had a green revolution in the 1960s and '70s that allowed it to lift dramatically its food production to cut hunger quite sharply and especially also to give income to rural farmers and help those societies that were stuck in famine and extreme poverty in Asia to make a transition to manufacturing, to urban industries, to export-oriented industries. The green revolution was a massive trigger out of the extreme poverty that much of Asia had been in. Africa too could have a green revolution. The yields are a third or a fourth per hectare of what these farmers ought to be getting if they had access to improved seeds, to small-scale water management and to soil nutrients - fertiliser and organic means. If we help them get the same kind of green revolution that a while ago we helped Asia to get, I think Africa could also be on its way. It faces these big challenges, it needs an extra helping hand, but I see a way out and I think we ought to be helping Africa take the way out before more disaster hits.

MAXINE McKEW: Let's consider some of the things on the plus side at the moment as we've seen out of the IMF and the World Bank meetings this week, there's reasonable confidence around consensus on debt relief for the poorest nations. This would forgive something like $55 million US and we have Paul Wolfowitz saying the past to complete debt relief has now been cleared. Do you agree with that?

PROFESSOR JEFFREY SACHS: Well, this has been a struggle. I've been involved in this since 1985. How many words have been spilled over this issue to try to collect debts from the poorest of the poor on the planet. I think we're reaching the end of the story on this. That's good. But, alas, quantitatively, the amount of saving per year may be $2 billion a year, I don't sneer at it by any means, I welcome it, but the amount Africa needs is tense of billions of dollars a year to get the farmers with increased productivity, to fight malaria, AIDS, TB, to build the roads and help the children to be in school. In other words, the debt relief is a modest proportion of a much bigger effort that's needed. We need the debt cancellation finally. We've needed it for years, it's finally coming, but we also need the help. It's not that I want to throw money at problems, I want to throw bed nets onto children's sleeping sites, I want fertilisers on to soils so that African farmers aren't living in famine and being given handouts of food afterwards. I want them to be able to grow food at the biophysical potential that they have but they can't meet because they lack these basic inputs right now.

MAXINE McKEW: Another argument is that the best way for poor countries to reverse their fortunes is to trade their way out of poverty. Certainly many international leaders are now emphasising this. And this all comes back to successful liberalisation around trade agreements.

PROFESSOR JEFFREY SACHS: I am a trade economist and I'm definitely in favour of trade-led growth. I also happen to visit communities that are so impoverished that they have no road, no transport, no link to markets. The transport in the village is a woman carrying things on her head in and out of the village mainly to the waterhole. These are places in such isolation right now it's a little bit premature to believe that trade is going to save them, as opposed to helping to build a base, just a modest base of infrastructure so that then trade can do it. And there are places that could trade more if it weren't for the agricultural barriers that Australia's rightly fighting against. But we have to put it in perspective - this argument that it's trade, not aid, is absolutely wrong. It's a slogan, not a reality. It's trade and aid. And it's aid to the places that really need it. That's not every place but it's to the places that need it to meet the basic needs of investing in health, of investing in education, investing in water and sanitation, in roads and improved agricultural productivity.

MAXINE McKEW: So where do you sense we're at in this debate at the moment? We have certainly had the pop star advocacy of the past few months, it's been on the G8 agenda. Is there now real momentum around this issue?

PROFESSOR JEFFREY SACHS: There's progress, but it's difficult terrain It's an area where you can get lots of nice words but not so many results. You can get promises but not follow-through. So I think we really need to decide all of us is it safe and prudent to have hundreds of millions of people struggling for survival on our planet and millions dying every year. Is that safe from the point of view of national security where we're trying to help make safe and stable countries? Is it good for us in terms of public health? Is it good for us in terms of fighting global criminality, unwanted migration and so forth? I think the answer surely is no. If people could see clearly what I think is right - that there are practical, modest cost steps to actually carrying this out, they would say to our governments, "Let's get on with it. We don't feel safe, secure or proper in our own skins knowing how much suffering could be alleviated." So I think there is progress, there's more understanding, but still turning words into action is the biggest challenge.

MAXINE McKEW: What of the difficulty of the UN continuing to drive this? Particularly given how beleaguered the Secretary-General, Kofi Annan looks now in the wake of the Volker Report. Can the impetus behind the Millennium Project goals be maintained?

PROFESSOR JEFFREY SACHS: One should understand the UN is in part beleaguered because the far right in the United States has pounded on the UN in - I think in a very irresponsible and reckless way for many years now. And there have been those the United States that have basically said, "We don't want any constraints, we don't need to cooperate, we're the sole superpower, we will do it on our own." What a mistake. And what a misjudgement of what power really means in the world. And we're learning the sad consequences of it in Iraq because this is a painful quagmire right now and really a very costly one in blood and in money. And it partly reflects the decision of the United States to go it alone and I think the costs are showing Americans we should work together, we should be strengthening the UN, not pounding on the UN. I hope we've turned a corner in our body politic in the United States on this because we need a strong UN. Kofi Annan is a wonderful, marvellous leader for the world. He's been in a hard position with US - with unilateralist impulses and far-right attacks, but I think he's a very strong leader and is the champion of the millennium development goals and he can provide vital, unique leadership for them.

MAXINE McKEW: I just want to ask you finally, poverty in your own country, in the United States, certainly in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. I think it's fair to say it's been a shock for many to see how grim life still is for many African Americans. And this is 40 years after the great society programs of Lyndon Johnson.

PROFESSOR JEFFREY SACHS: Look, the poor have been off the radar screen in American politics for a long time and they're not just the poor of Africa but the poor of the United States as well. The poverty rate in the United States has gone up every year unfortunately of the Bush Administration. We have approximately 40 million people below the poverty line in the United States. We don't have a healthcare system that is adequate and obviously we don't have an emergency response system that's adequate. It is the politics of neglect in a way when people just aren't seen by the political process. This is part of the inequities of our own society. I think it goes hand in hand with perhaps the very low level of US effort for the world's poor as a share of GNP. We just haven't been paying attention we ought to be paying to the kind of world we're living in, in our own country or internationally. I think Americans are coming to understand we'd better start thinking harder, thinking about climate change, thinking about the risks of hurricanes, thinking about the facts of big divisions between wealth and poor within our countries and thinking about the fact that our military power isn't really going to be able to do all that was said about it. We need to be working closely with all of the rest of the world, including very poor countries to help those countries get out of their mess.

MAXINE McKEW: Jeffrey Sachs, thanks for your time tonight, thank you very much indeed.

PROFESSOR JEFFREY SACHS: Pleasure to be with you. Thanks a lot.

[michelle]

Thanks for the info 'hagall'. I wish the US would stop giving lip service to the many social
issues here and abroad. As for their abuse of power, we all know the saying, "if power
corrupts, then absolute power corrupts absolutely."
It seems to me that to avoid this, one would have to go in the opposite direction and not grab the power, but share it.
Heck if everyone, especially leaders, did that one thing we were taught as small
children, to share, think of all the ills in the world that would be solved!! If people were
only that simple.

[michelle]

John Bolton's handiwork, and of course, those who put him in position:

US blocks U.N. briefing on atrocities in Sudan
By Irwin Arieff
Mon Oct 10, 7:00 PM ET

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - U.S. Ambassador John Bolton blocked a U.N. envoy on Monday from briefing the Security Council on grave human rights violations in Sudan's Darfur region, saying the council had to act against atrocities and not just talk about them.

Bolton, joined by China, Algeria and Russia, prevented Juan Mendez, Secretary-General Kofi Annan's special adviser for the prevention of genocide, from briefing the council on his recent visit to Darfur, despite pleas from Annan and 11 other council members that Mendez be heard.

"I strongly regret and deplore that Mr. Mendez ... was not authorized to brief the council today as Mr. Kofi Annan had asked," French Ambassador Jean-Marc de la Sabliere told reporters outside the council chambers.

READ ENTIRE ARTICLE:
tinyurl.com/dz7ow

[michelle]

haggal said:

Happened to catch the end of this interview last night discussing the the UN Millenium Project Goals.

Agreement was reached this week in Washington by world bank and IMF officials to forgive $80 billion of debt owed by the world's poorest countries. This puts the seal on promises made by the G8 leaders in July. More recently, and closer to home, Prime Minister John Howard has committed Australia to doubling its foreign aid allocation to $4 billion by 2010. Other countries are also responding to the UN Millennium goals to make a dramatic dent in global poverty, but according to one of America's most respected economists, the effort falls short of what's needed. Professor Jeffrey Sachs is something of a wunderkind. Early in his career he was the youngest tenured professor in the history of Harvard's Economics Department and he went on to play key roles, albeit controversial ones, in the transformation of the Polish and Russian economies. These days he's a champion of the world's poor and argues that sustained financial intervention is needed to turn troubled economies around. Earlier today I spoke with Professor Sachs from his office at Columbia University in New York, where he heads the Earth Institute.

The urgent need for economic transformation: subordinating the interests of finance capital to human rights.

by Ann Pettifor

"In developing countries, billions in reserves have been bled out of central banks, billions in asset values have been destroyed, and millions of workers have fallen into poverty and chronic insecurity. Global capital markets have acted as gigantic engines of inequality, transferring wealth from the weak to the strong, from debtors to creditors, wage earners and taxpayers to the holders of paper claims, from productive to financial activity."
Kari Polanyi Levitt in "The Contemporary Significance of The Great Transformation" 1999.

We live in a global economy once again dominated, as in the 1920’s, by international finance capital. According to one estimate, before 1970, 90% of all international transactions were accounted for by trade, and only 10% by capital flows. Today, despite a vast increase in global trade, that ratio has been reversed, with 90% of transactions accounted for by financial flows not directly related to trade in goods and services. Most of these flows take the form of highly volatile stocks and bonds, investment and short-term loans.

Jubilee + - an initiative of the New Economics Foundation, has been launched to support those campaigns worldwide, challenging the dominance of finance capital in our global economy. Our initiative is particularly relevant at this moment in history, as once again the reckless, and unregulated greed of creditors threatens to destroy wealth, our environment and the life chances of millions of people around the world. The debt crises in Argentina, Turkey, Indonesia and the Ukraine; the stock market crashes in the US, Japan and Europe, are not just crises for the homeowners, workers, pensioners, businessmen and investors of those nations. These, in the words of the Economist, are crises "for the prevailing orthodoxy".

Changes to the global economy – the shift from the dominance of industrial capital to finance capital - did not come about naturally or spontaneously. The 30-year changes, as Eric Helleiner has shown, are the result of deliberate policy-making – driven first, by the City of London and Mrs Thatcher's government; and later by Wall St. and US governments. Both actively promoted exchange rate and price stabilisation policies whose ultimate purpose is to protect the value of creditor assets. Today, in one of the most skilful spin-doctoring achievements of the last century, these policies are dressed up by the IMF and World Bank as "poverty reduction strategies".

In the 1920’s, similar deflationary economic policies were applied to justify the dismissal of public servants, to suppress wages and maintain unemployment, and gaurantee the value of creditor assets. The result was disastrous for the global economy.

As this issue goes to press, the global economy is once again threatened by finance capital. In order to placate foreign investors and creditors, Argentina has pegged its currency, the Peso to the US dollar – thereby maintaining the value of creditor assets, while impoverishing Argentinians. The overvaluation of the Peso, means that goods effectively cost the same in Buenos Aires as in London, even though most Argentinians earn a great deal less than most Londoners.

According to the International Herald Tribune "a tide of homelessness is sweeping Buenos Aires. Massive unemployment from a 33-month recession and large-scale downsizing during a decade of US-backed free-market reforms have wreaked havoc on the lives of residents, especially as the once large middle class tumbles down the ladder of prosperity. The city today" writes Anthony Faiola, "recalls New York during the Great Depression". (4th April, 2001).

Social tensions are rising, and workers have called general strikes to protest the impact of the debts on the economy; in particular the deflationary austerity conditions set by foreign creditors. Nobody knows how long the Argentinian government can continue to maintain the artificial value of the Peso, and thereby, the asset values of creditors. As Argentinia's debt accounts for a quarter of all tradeable emerging-market debt, her default will have wide repercussions. The default will happen when a) the G7's "precautionary fund" of $90 billion backed by taxpayers, runs out; and/or b) when it is no longer possible for politicians, even the most authoritarian, to ignore the suffering of their people. (Ceacescu honoured foreign creditors and the IMF over the interests of his own people; eventually they took matters into their own hands, and shot him).

Debt acts is the key mechanism for the transfer of wealth from weak to strong; from debtor nations to international creditors; from taxpayers and wage earners to the holders of paper claims; from productive to financial activity. Without the leverage of debt, the IMF would be unable to impose polices to ensure such transfers.

In the west, concern about the domination of finance capital over poor countries has been growing, amplified by the international Jubilee 2000 movement. The campaign was grounded in Judaic and Christian ethics on human rights, opposition to usury, and the need for periodic correction to imbalances – the Sabbath and Jubilee principles. What Ched Myers called the "vision of Sabbath economics (which) contends that a theology of abundant grace, and a communal ethic of redistribution is the only way out of our slavery to the debt system, with its theology of meritocracy and private ethic of wealth concentration". These principles and ethics have, in turn, resonated with Muslims and other peoples of faith; and with those of no faith at all.

The link between debt bondage and ethics – as an issue of public as well as private morality – is, of course, ancient; laws have throughout history been promulgated against usury. In England a series of post-reformation usury laws set maximum rates of legal interest for money lending which in 1713 finally settled at 5%. The limitation on interest was to remain operative throughout the early industrial period, abandoned only in 1854. A loan which fell foul of the usury law was unlawful and unenforceable by the lender. Adam Smith did not consider that free market notions justified the lifting of this "prudent fetter on cupidity".

Usury is one way of disciplining capital. Creditors have always sought to limit such controls. Most recently, the largest credit card issuer in the US, MBNA, donated $26 million to the Bush campaign, to strengthen the rights of creditors against bankrupts. Within weeks of his election, Bush had pushed through reforms which are tougher on bankrupts, allowing credit card companies to seize their homes. .

Since 1979, when Mrs Thatcher first announced the lifting of capital controls, western politicians have bent to the whims of finance capital, subordinating and suppressing the interests of their own people, and of industrial capital. .

What way forward?

It may be too late; but if we are to avoid a return to the deflationary era of the 1920's and 30's, then ways must be found of disciplining international finance capital. This can be done most effectively by the introduction of a) capital controls; b) the concept of limited liability applied to sovereign states; c) an international insolvency law, that would introduce a framework of justice into relationships between international creditors and sovereign debtors; and d) a Tobin Tax. However the most urgently needed discipline is the massive cancellation of the unpayable debts of the poorest countries. Jubilee 2000 insisted that "unpayable" debts should not be decided by creditors – but by independent boards of arbitration overseen by, and held accountable to, the citizens of debtor nations.

Jubilee + at the New Economics Foundation, has been established as the kernel of a future global campaign - to alter the balance of power between international creditors and sovereign debtors; to restore balance to a global economy dangerously de-stabilised by the demands of finance capital; and to democratise international financial institutons.

There will be ferocious resistance to this challenge to international finance, in particular from the Anglo American alliance. However international financial institutions face even greater challenges from the anarchy caused by the reckless liberalization of capital flows. The lessons of the 1920’s have not been learnt. Finance capital may once again have to be rescued from its own irresponsible pressure for de-regulation – before whole societies, the environment and wealth are once again threatened, and perhaps destroyed - by irresponsible central bankers, creditors, speculators and investors.
tinyurl.com/76o99

Usury
from the Latin usuria, "demanding in return for a loan a greater amount than was borrowed") was defined originally as charging a fee for the use of money. This usually meant interest on loans, although charging a fee for changing money (as at a bureau de change) is included in the original meaning. After moderate-interest loans became an accepted part of the business world in the early modern age, the word has come to refer to the charging of unreasonable or relatively high rates of interest.

Historical meaning
Usury (in the original sense of any interest) is scripturally and doctrinally forbidden in many religions. Judaism forbids a Jew to lend at interest to another Jew. It is forbidden in Islam. In 1745, the Catholic teaching on usury was expressed by Pope Benedict XIV in his VIX Pervenit, which strictly forbids the practice as such, although he adds that "entirely just and legitimate reasons arise to demand something over and above the amount due on the contract" - such reasons could include the risk of loss, the time value of money in the modern economy, etc.

While Jewish law forbids the charging of interest to another Jew, Jews are not forbidden to charge interest on transactions to non-Jews. Throughout history, the interest attached to loans by Jews to non-Jews is widely considered to have been a central issue in causing a perception of usury, and contributing to a climate of anti-Semitism, although at times the reverse occurred, wherein antisemitic sentiment begot laws forcing Jews into the occupation of money-lender, inciting further hatred against Jews among debtors. Allegations of usury have been one factor leading to forceful confiscations of property and discrimination against Jews in business practice.

In the modern world Islamic teachings against usury probably have the widest influence, and specialized codes of banking have developed to cater for Muslim investors wishing to obey Qur'anic law; see: Islamic banking.

Usury was denounced by countless spiritual leaders and philosophers of ancient times, including Plato, Aristotle, Cato, Cicero, Seneca, Plutarch, Aquinas, Muhammad, and Moses.
MORE AT: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usury

Also see:

February 10, 2006 - 12:52 PM
Jubilee Debt Campaign
Demanding An End To The Scandal Of
Poor Countries Paying Money To The Rich World.
We Are Calling For 100% Cancellation Of Unpayable
And Unfair Poor Country Debts
www.jubileedebtcampaign.org.uk

[michelle]

Save Darfur rally needs more support
By Trudy Rubin
On Sunday, the Save Darfur coalition will hold a mass rally in Washington to focus public outrage on the genocide in Darfur.

Over the past three years, Sudanese militias, aided by the government, have caused the deaths of up to 400,000 African Muslims in the Darfur region in western Sudan. They sent another 2.5 million fleeing to refugee camps. The rally's organizers, a broad umbrella of religious and human-rights groups, hope a huge turnout will galvanize the White House to work harder to stop the slaughter.

After all, President Bush pledged in February to push for a United Nations (not U.S.) peacekeeping force, helped with logistics by NATO. This would replace an inadequate force that has been unable to protect civilians in Darfur.

Although the Sunday rally will be large, it appears the numbers won't be sufficient to make a truly powerful statement - unless more demonstrators travel to Washington at the last minute. (For rally details, see www.savedarfur.org. or
www.genocideintervention.net ).

One has to ask: Why is there so little public passion about the massive Darfur killing? Have people become convinced they can do nothing about genocide in far-off countries?

If so, they are wrong.

After the Rwandan slaughter of 800,000 in 1994, there seemed to be strong public sentiment against permitting another such slaughter. President Bush reportedly wrote in the margins of a study on Rwanda: "Not on my watch."

The movie Hotel Rwanda, a true story about a hotel manager in Kigali who saved 1,200 guests from death by machete, gave Americans a graphic portrait of the Rwandan tragedy. Don Cheadle was nominated for an Academy Award for his role as the hotelier, Paul Rusesabagina, who proved that one man can make a difference.

So it was depressing to hear the real Rusesabagina speak at the Free Library of Philadelphia about his January 2005 trip to Darfur. "What we didn't learn in Rwanda, we didn't learn in Darfur," he said bluntly. He recalled that, while flying back from Darfur, he watched a TV broadcast of the 60th anniversary celebrations of the liberation of Auschwitz. "How many times shall we keep lying 'never again'?" he asked.

Yet Rusesabagina, who lived through hell while the U.N. and the world did nothing, is going to the Darfur rally. Despite his well-earned cynicism about the international community and the U.N., he feels he must take a stand against genocide.

Significantly, his recent autobiography is titled An Ordinary Man. Perhaps this "ordinary man" realizes that a strong public showing at the Save Darfur demo will encourage the Bush administration to push harder at the Security Council for a U.N. protection force in Darfur.

Maybe Rusesabagina also knows that there is still something that can be done - even three years on - to prevent more killing. The key is to shame recalcitrant members of the U.N. Security Council into approving a robust force for Darfur that can prevent more rapes and murders of children. The force could be made up of troops from Muslim countries, but it will need NATO logistical support.

There are three main obstacles to setting up such a force.

First, the African Union is resisting a handover to the U.N. because it doesn't want its own observer force to be labeled a failure. U.S. officials could propose the inclusion of African troops - while reminding the A.U. that without expanding their numbers, they will assuredly fail.

Second, Sudan is also resisting, backed up by Arab countries, who charge that U.S. efforts to save Darfur civilians are really an imperialist plot to seize Mideast oil.

Osama bin Laden just echoed this argument in his latest tape. Our Arab allies should be asked if they endorse OBL in justifying Darfurian deaths by such nonsense. Whatever America's mistakes in Iraq, they provide no justification for permitting a genocide of Muslims in Darfur.

Finally, Russia and China have threatened to veto a resolution calling for a U.N. force. China does a brisk business selling arms to and buying oil from Sudan. But there was an encouraging signal yesterday that Moscow and Beijing aren't impervious to pressure.

Both countries abstained on a Security Council resolution that sanctioned four Sudanese men heavily implicated in the killing. This was first time that anyone was punished for the Darfur madness. Kudos to John Bolton, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, for pushing the resolution through.

Getting Russia, China, and Arab states to back U.N. peacekeepers will be much tougher. Perhaps the blunt Bolton can organize a photo display of dead Darfurian children in Security Council chambers to shame its members into compliance.

A strong turnout at Sunday's demonstration would strengthen Bolton's hand and give the White House more incentive to press the Darfur issue. Paul Rusesabagina will be there. He knows the value of a stand by an ordinary man.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contact columnist Trudy Rubin at 215-854-5823 or [e-mail]. Read her recent work at go.philly.com/trudyrubin.

Source: www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/editorial/14428131.htm

[michelle]

U.N. Action in Gaza, North Korea Stalled by Veto Threats
Thalif Deen

UNITED NATIONS, Jul 12 (IPS) - The 15-member Security Council, the only U.N. body wielding power to impose mandatory sanctions on the organisation's 192 member states, is unable to help contain two ongoing crises primarily because of threatened vetoes by China and the United States.

The two draft resolutions currently before the Security Council -- one to punish North Korea for last week's missile tests and the other to condemn Israel for its military incursion into Gaza last month -- are virtually in limbo.

The deadlock has been aggravated further by Wednesday's invasion of southern Lebanon by Israeli military forces in retaliation for the kidnapping of two soldiers by Hezbollah, an Islamic militant group influential in Lebanese politics.

The United States, which seeks to penalise the North Koreans for defying Washington, is frustrated because China has publicly announced its decision to veto any resolution that imposes sanctions on Pyongyang.

"What goes around, comes around," says an Asian diplomat, who points out that the United States has exercised its veto over 35 times to protect Israel from Security Council condemnation.

"North Korea is perceived as China's Israel," he said. "So the U.S. is getting a bitter dose of its own medicine."

A draft resolution, which the United States threatens to veto, calls upon Israel, "the occupying power", to halt its military operations and its disproportionate use of force that endanger the Palestinian civilian population in the occupied territories.

The resolution also asks Israel to cease the practice of extrajudicial executions which contradict international law, and to withdraw its forces to their original positions outside the Gaza Strip. The crisis was triggered by the capture of an Israeli soldier by Palestinian militants in Gaza on Jun. 25.

Asked whether the United States will veto the resolution, U.S. Ambassador John Bolton told reporters Wednesday: "Like any prudent ambassador in New York, I have requested for instructions from Washington."

"When I receive those instructions, I will implement them. But it certainly remains our position that there is no need for this resolution," he added.

Not surprisingly, the Chinese have expressed similar sentiments on a proposed resolution to impose sanctions on North Korea. "China is opposed to the draft resolution because it is an overreaction," Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jian Yi told reporters in Beijing.

"We think the response should not be an overreaction that would further intensify the problem. We think all measures should be conducive to resolution of the situation through dialogue," she added.

Mouin Rabbani, contributing editor to the Washington-based Middle East Report, says he is not familiar with North Korea's infringements (if any) of international law nor with China's motives for shielding it from censure or worse.

"I would however note that Washington's itchy trigger-finger when it comes to wielding the veto on behalf of Israel has served to regularise and normalise what was intended as an exceptional measure," Rabbani told IPS.

"It therefore stands to reason that China, and for that matter Russia, will resort to the veto on behalf of their own interests and allies more readily than would otherwise have been the case," he added.

An additional factor in this respect is quite clearly China's increasing assertiveness on the international stage, he said.

"But it also seems apparent that they are keen to send a message to Washington, namely that they are capable of wielding the veto in unexceptional circumstances too," Rabbani argued.

Nadia Hijab, senior fellow at the Washington-based Institute for Palestine Studies, told IPS that the main point of comparison between Israel's attacks on Gaza and North Korea's nuclear programme is that "negotiations on how to implement international conventions are the only way out of the crisis."

"The ostensible cause of the Gaza crisis -- the capture of an Israeli soldier by Palestinian militants -- is just a symptom of the problem which has its root cause in Israel's 39-year occupation and annexation of Palestinian territories, and the unresolved refugee problem," she pointed out.

In the case of North Korea -- as well as Iran and other states aspiring to nuclear weapons -- the most effective approach would be the application of the non-proliferation treaty, and fulfillment by the United States and European powers of their pledge to gradually do away with their nuclear weapons, making sure more recent nuclear powers such as Israel, India, and Pakistan do so too.

Otherwise, she said, the Council will remain "seized" on these matters for decades to come.

Rabbani said that for all the rhetoric about the United Nations being "a bastion of anti-Israel decision-making", the reality is quite alarming, namely that -- in stark contrast to other states perpetrating systematic discrimination and widespread violence on an ethnic or religious basis -- Israel enjoys total impunity when it comes to observing the U.N. charter or indeed any other component of international law.

"The primary reason for this is the insurance policy provided by the U.S. 'nyet' in the U.N. Security Council," he added.

The reality of the matter, which is easily demonstrated and verified by an examination of Security Council voting rolls, is that since 1945 no country has been shielded from scrutiny, censure, or consequences like Israel.

"It is without peer when it comes to benefiting from the Security Council veto, and this is primarily thanks to the United States wielding of this veto (occasionally but with increasing frequency joined by Britain)."

The situation has in fact consistently deteriorated over the years, so that today even rhetorical condemnation of Israel by the Security Council has become a thing of the past and largely unthinkable, Rabbani added.

"Given that power within the U.N. system has increasingly gravitated towards the United States and the Security Council since the end of the Cold War, it is hardly surprising that Washington has become increasingly effective in shielding Israel from the consequences of its actions when it comes to the United Nations," he added.

Source: www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=33950

[michelle]

U.S. Vetoes of UN Resolutions Critical of Israel(1972-2006) www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/UN/usvetoes.html

[michelle]

US Embassy in Haiti Acknowledges Excessive Force by UN
Part 1 of 2

Accusations that the UN committed a second massacre in Cite Soleil on December 22, 2006 and more...M

Haiti Information Project
January 23, 2007

In the early morning hours of July 6, 2005 more than 350 UN troops stormed the seaside shantytown of Cite Soleil in a military operation with the stated purpose of halting violence in Haiti. When the shooting stopped seven hours later, more than 26 people, the majority of them unarmed civilians lie dead with scores more wounded. Officially, the UN responded that they only opened fire after being fired upon and discounted non-combatant casualities. Further, the UN claimed that only six people, who they described as "bandits," had been killed during the military operation.

According to documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) by the Haiti Information Project (HIP), the U.S. Embassy and various intelligence agencies attached to the Pentagon's Southern Command, were aware of the excessive use of force by UN forces in Haiti on July 6, 2005. Despite being heavily censored by U.S. officials under Executive Order 12598 in the "interest of national defense or foreign relations," what emerges is clear evidence of the disproportionate use of force by UN troops in Cite Soleil. An "After Action Report" submitted to the US Embassy by the UN states that the UN attack on the crumbling civilian neighborhood was intense, prolonged, and carried out with heavy artillery and weaponry that UN officials knew could cause extensive collateral damage and the death of innocent victims.

These disturbing revelations are made all the more important in light of accusations that the UN committed a second massacre in Cite Soleil on December 22, 2006. In that raid, video and photographic documentation as well as eyewitness testimony obtained by HIP, paints a picture all too similar to the events of July 6, 2005. According to the After action report,"...the firefight lasted over seven hours during which time [UN] forces expended over 22,000 rounds of ammunition... [An official] with MINUSTAH acknowledged that, given the flimsy construction of homes in Cite Soleil and the large quantity of ammunition expended, it is likely that rounds penetrated many buildings, striking unintended targets." According to the documents obtained by HIP, UN and US officials knew of, and ignored victim's claims of the MINUSTAH massacre. A U.S. Embassy cable to the Secretary of State and US Southern Command on July 19, 2005 and titled "Human Rights Groups Dispute Civilian Causalities", states, "Human rights organizations continue to dispute the number of civilian causalities from the MINUSTAH operation in Cite Soleil on July 6. Some local human rights groups estimate the number of deaths attributed to MINUSTAH soldiers [to be] between... 50 to 70 people... Pro-Aristide affiliated human rights organizations are calling it a massacre by the UN. MINUSTAH have allowed charges of a massacre to fester, but they released a statement on July 25 stating that their forces did not intentionally target civilians." While the cable may reflect the official version put forward by the UN of unintended targets, testimony from the survivors and photographic evidence from July 6, 2005, of what are clearly headshots targeting civilians, contradicts this. Although many were likely killed behind thin walls, the video evidence of the disproportionate number of victims felled by single shots to the head from high-powered rifles lends creedence to the testimony of survivors following the deadly raid. In the same document, a personal commentary apparently added by former US Ambassador James B. Foley states, "It remains unclear how aggressive MINUSTAH was, though 22,000 rounds is a large amount of ammunition to have killed only six people."

These FOIA documents are the first clear acknowledgement of the excessive use of force by UN troops in the military operation of July 6, 2005. Unfortunately, it will probably take as long to learn the truth about the UN military operation of December 22, 2006 where residents claim the UN has committed a second massacre in Cite Soleil.

Continued......

[michelle]

....continued
US Embassy in Haiti Acknowledges Excessive Force by UN
Part 2 of 2

Haiti: Revelations of UN's role in massacres
Flashpoints Radio transcript — January 23 2007

Dennis Bernstein: We now present a very significant story in our continuing series of significant stories in our continuing coverage of Haiti. Since the US led overthrow of the Aristide government, the United Nations has been in Haiti as a killing force. An enforcer of US policies in Haiti if you will. since the exile of Aristide

Flashpoints has been reporting on the UN violence that has cost hundreds if not thousands of lives in Haiti of very poor Haitians. As we go to air the killing fields of Haiti are continuing. Flashpoints correspondents on the ground are reporting that the UN is involved in still further killings on the ground. This is on the heels of an investigation of an alleged UN massacre in Cite Soleil on December 22, 2006.

Meanwhile, Flashpoints Special Correspondent Kevin Pina along with the Haiti Information Project have obtained documents that support claims of an earlier UN massacre on July 6, 2005. On that date, human right organizations claim the UN forces killed as many as seventy people during a prolonged and intensive raid on Cite Soleil, one of the poorest neighborhoods in the world.

Joining us to talk about the FOIA documents and the alleged December massacre is Flashpoints Special Correspondent Kevin Pina. In one moment we're gonna be going to Miami Florida for a special report on the latest killings on the street in Haiti. And we'll be hearing through Miami from our reporters on the ground in Haiti. Kevin Pina, welcome back to Flashpoints.

Kevin Pina: Thanks Dennis. It's great to back here. Great to see Robert in the chair here again and great to have you back brother.

Dennis Bernstein: Well, good to be back and it's important we get right on to this story. We have a lot to get in here. First of all, you've been investigating a massacre, an alleged massacre, claimed by activists to have occurred in December 2006. Tell us about that massacre.

Kevin Pina: Well, what we received is video documentary evidence...I don't how alleged it is when you see a twenty four year-old woman bleeding on camera just shot in the abdomen by UN forces. Six months pregnant. Lost her child. Making it very clear on camera that she was felled by a single shot from a United Nations Armored Personnel Vehicle. She said there was not any sign of anyone firing towards the UN when it happened as the UN had claimed. They said that they had gone in there to attack a base of kidnappers and claimed that most of the causalities were the result of gunfire that they received from gang members that they then returned fire to. This woman states very clearly that there was no gunfire happening in the area. The UN was not under attack when they opened fire from an Armored Personnel Vehicle shooting her in the stomach, killing her six month old baby. luckily she is a survivor and she'll be able to more information on the ground.

We also have testimony of Jonel Bonhomme who is a sixteen year-old. We have him lying in a pool of his blood just after being shot by UN forces on December 22. Before he died...before this sixteen year-old died...he described in detail how the United Nations opened fire on unarmed civilians in his neighborhood within Cite Soleil. Now, of course, the United nations also denied..because we heard many reports come out from people in the neighborhood...that the United Nations was firing from helicopters. Which, of course, is undirected fire because you can't really aim at targets from that high in the air.

Dennis Bernstein: This a poor densely populated, heavily populated neighborhood. You can't miss you'd have to hit two people with one bullet.

Kevin Pina: Well. We have a twenty eight year-old man on camera...again...bleeding to death in his home and the very last thing he said on camera...before he dies is "I was shot by the helicopter."

So obviously the United Nations, again, is not being forthcoming with the truth. Again, obviously, the spin is occurring in order to cover this up. All I can say is I literally wept when i saw this footage. It was hard to contain my emotion when, again, you see victim after victim bleeding to death in their homes stating that they were clearly shot down by indiscriminate gunfire from United Nations forces.

Dennis Bernstein: Now, of course, thats what makes the next part of this story quite significant. The fact that you have now obtained, through the Haiti Information Project documents that show, seem to indicate, that a July 6, 2005 attack by the United Nations was in fact a massacre. You have received documents through your application. These documents show, among other things, that UN officials were aware that the weaponry they were using was going to cause so-called "collateral damage" and casualties well beyond the people who they were firing at. not even to get into what the actual, ostensible claim was. You also have in these documents an indication that the US Ambassador was aware and doubting the statements of the United Nations that they only..only killed five or six people when the activist say as many as seventy. Talk a little bit about these documents.

Kevin Pina: Let's just talk really quickly about the similarity of UN military operations between July 6, 2005 and what occurred this last December 22, 2006 in the same neighborhood, Cite Soleil. The United Nations came in with hundreds of forces, heavily armed...we're talking about M-50s mounted to Armored Personnel Vehicles. We have reports of as well of M-60s being used and lots of automatic gunfire as well as a Gatling Gun type machine that fires armor piercing bullets. These are these are these little round...very hard metallic...hard tipped bullets which we understand are irradiated actually. So that they will pierce armor

The similarity is that anyone, who would undertake a military operation in such close quarters, i think would have to assume that there would be a certain amount of "collateral damage" and civilian casualties. Just like July 6, 2005, on December 22 the United Nations when they cam in shooting did not bring in a single ambulance or medical unit with them. People, again, are reported to have been shot and then bled to death in the streets or crawled back to their homes to bleed to death in the arms of their family. That's the similarity.

Dennis Bernstein: Now we've got in one those documents..we've got I believe it's the US Ambassador suggesting that with firing 22,000 rounds of ammunition in a short period of time is going to lead to the death of a lot of people.

Kevin Pina: That's right. Former US Ambassador James. B. Foley, in this document says, "It remains unclear how aggressive MINUSTAH was, though 22,000 rounds is a large amount of ammunition to have killed only six people."

Dennis Bernstein: This is a US official...

Kevin Pina: He's the former US Ambassador stating this. Because remember after the UN committed that massacre, they claimed that they had only killed six bandits in that raid.

Dennis Bernstein: Six bandits.

Kevin Pina: It wasn't until we had released the video documentary that they finally came to admit that something larger had occurred in that neighborhood. They denied that they had [intentionally] targeted civilians. But again, the video documentation we have from that date shows head shot after head shot. These are head shots being taken at individuals, individual civilians, by high-powered telescopic rifles. That is not indiscriminate gunfire, that is targeting of unarmed civilians in Cite Soleil.

Dennis Bernstein: And these documents, these FOIA documents that you got under the [Freedom of Information Act], of the alleged July 6, 2005 massacre, these documents show that the United States and the United Nations had information...knew that there were many human rights activists saying something else happened and they continued to deny the massacre. They continued to minimize the amount of people killed and wounded and the kind of weaponry used.

Kevin Pina: Well, it's interesting because there were early reports that came before this where it was really clear, it was clearly said, by whoever was the author of this in the US Embassy, that the MINUSTAH forces...UN forces...were not acting forcefully enough against bandits in Haiti. And what they said was that the Canadian Embassy, the French Embassy and the United States in Geneva, and the United States in the United Nations in New York, needed to put more pressure on the UN to more aggressively pursue military operations in places like Cite Soleil.

Dennis Bernstein: Okay let's talk...let's stay with the July 6, 2005 massacre which you report on in your documentary that you've actually just finished...

Kevin Pina: Sorry, the evidence is in there.

Dennis Bernstein: But remind people what you were able to document in terms of what really happened on that day July 6, 2005 when as many as 70 people were killed according to activists.

Kevin Pina: I'm sure people remember... and I just want to emphasize again...22,000 bullets being fired within a period of seven hours. Again, the former US Ambassador acknowledging that is a large amount of ammunition to have killed just six people.

We have video testimony again of Fredi Romelus sitting over the corpses of his wife and his two sons stating clearly that they were shot at close range by MINUSTAH, United Nations forces. That he had gotten separated from them. We have video documentation of a four year-old having taken a head shot within the home. we have video documentation of his wife Sonia Romelus who was holding her small one year-old son Stanley. The bullet passing through the one year-old killing he and his mother immediately. Testimony after testimony after testimony of survivors again, stating clearly that the United Nations targeted them within their own community.

Dennis Bernstein: And it is important to talk about this weaponry in terms of the violence it does in a neighborhood like this because they don't need to hit people...specifically target people. These bullets go astray, these buildings...Cite Soleil is.....

Kevin Pina: Cinderblocks...

Dennis Bernstein: It's cardboard...

Kevin Pina: Cinderblocks, cardboard and tin roofs.

Dennis Bernstein: You drop this advanced weaponry... you shot these missiles...you shot from a helicopter you're gonna bring down whole parts of neighborhoods.

Kevin Pina: That's right and that's exactly what they did July 6, 2005. That's exactly what they seemed to have done ... and again we are sifting through this evidence. We want to be clear about it. We're taking down all of the testimony that appears in this video documentation so that we can slowly release it. Slowly release it clearly so that people can listen to that testimony...read that testimony themselves...and make up their own minds about exactly what role the United Nations is saying in Haiti today.

Dennis Bernstein: And I know you've put up an article on the haitiaction.net website. The article that's just the basic bare bones where people can see the documents...see the quotes from the documents that you managed to obtain under the FOIA.

My name is Dennis Bernstein, you're listening to Flashpoints on Pacifica Radio. We're talking about about an exclusive story based on FOIA documents that show that the United Nations participated in a massacre on July 6, 2005 in Cite Soleil. In the studio with me is the esteemed Robert Knight.

Robert Knight: In the December and the summer attacks you refer to there having been intimidation from Western powers, international forces in Washington, for the United Nations forces to make an effective show of some kind or another. Then you have this tremendous escalation where there is about a bullet being fired every second on average over that seven hour period [inaudible]. With the targeting of the impoverished community in that way...were there is no clear way to distinguish among people with this kind of assault. Within human rights circles...have people begun raising the term "collective punishment" which would be a violation of the Geneva Conventions?

Kevin Pina: Absolutely. That term has been raised several time before but mostly in reference to the pattern that has been established. Which is, July 6, 2005 the United Nations claimed that they were going after armed bandits. Those armed bandits were actually people who were leading armed resistance to the United Nations. Because remember that the Haitian police had slaughtered many people in those neighborhoods prior to that. After Aristide was ousted Feb. 29. 2004. Paramilitary death squads had gone into those neighborhoods in Cite Soleil and slaughtered people. And there were people there who decided enough was enough and they decided to defend themselves against those onslaughts. And was exactly this group of people who resisted and the United Nations went after July 6, 2005. Now December 22, 2006...what is clear...is that [days] prior to that there was a massive demonstration of more than 10,000 people demanding the return of president Aristide in Cite Soleil. So it's really clear to us that this was as a direct response, again, to that movement within that community.

Dennis Bernstein: Alright, Kevin Pina, joining us now is one of our radio colleagues Andre Joseph. He is the host of Variety and Vibrations on 1320 AM WALQY in Miami, a major Haitian community there. Andre Joseph has extensive connections. He has a team on the ground reporting from Haiti. And we're now getting reports today of further killings by the United Nations. Andre Joseph, are you with us?

Andre Joseph: I'm here Dennis. How you doing sir?

Dennis Bernstein: I'm doing good. it's good to have you with us on the show today. Why don't you see if you can update us. We're getting reports of at least one dead, maybe as many as ten. We just don't know. What information are you getting from your team on the ground?

Andre Joseph: Well, first I'd like to congratulate and say thank you to Kevin Pina. Somebody who has really put his life in danger for Haiti. He has been shot at. He's been jailed. He's been beaten and manhandled and he continues fighting for us. Without Kevin we would not have evidence of atrocities in Haiti. I was on a show just a few hours ago about 5:30 Miami time, with Haiti for the news, and my reporters were under fire. He said he was running for my life and he [reported from Delmas 18] as well in Cite Soleil, nearly a mile away. There were people for their lives from bullets flying from Cite Soleil. [Bullets were flying] all the way to Delmas 18 from Cite Soleil. There were kids cutting their hair playing marbles... and then those kids were picking up bullets that were coming from Cite Soleil. [My reporter played a statement] from the MINUSTAH, who said we are in the neighborhood because bandits have entered and we are trying to force them out. Could you [force] people out...bandits while they are shooting at everybody. And people are dying...at the time we confirmed nine or ten dead people. The atrocity is that bullets are flying miles away into other parts of the capital...MINUSTAH is shooting at everybody right now. It's still happening right now in Cite Soleil. Usually when they go there they for eight hours...ten hours shooting at people. So I wish that neighbors...reporters from the foreign community would go over there and verify what we are saying because my reporters saying right now...and you can hear the echo of big big firearms being. People are running from all over the place trying to stay inside their houses because they are being shot at anyway. Two helicopters in the sky, machine guns are killing those people right now!

Dennis Bernstein: Do we have any indication of exactly who the dead are...reports of names . People who are actually...have gone down under the UN fire?

Andre Joseph: Right now it's tough to find out the names because they are shooting and nobody dares approach the area because you'll be shot at. You'll be targeted too. They are shooting from helicopters and there's no way you can get to those dead bodies. And also sometimes they have a tactic after they shoot so many people they come and get the bodies. And whatever is left is a [small fraction of those actually killed]. If they kill 200 they may [only leave] 10 bodies on the ground. They've done it before. But fortunately we have cameras all over the place taping these atrocities.

Dennis Bernstein: Now I imagine those reporters working with you, on the ground, are in fact risking their lives to hold up those cameras...to hold up that recording equipment. How is it that they are out there. What kind of equipment and protection they have...what do you know about the reporting situation?

Andre Joseph: They have no protection at all. Some of them live in the neighborhoods. We have invested in cameras, given them motorcycles so that they can be on site to film the atrocities. They have no protection because like you say and Kevin says these are shanty-towns. Made out of tin roofs and one bullet can go through ten houses and kill twenty people. One bullet alone. Some of these bullets are as big as Heineken bottles. They are big bullets so they are very tough. So these people have no protection, they are risking their lives. Some of them have lost family members in the massacres.

Dennis Bernstein: You are listening to Flashpoints on Pacifica Radio, my name is Dennis Bernstein and this is your daily investigative news magazine on Pacifica Radio. We're speaking about ongoing killing by the United Nations forces on the ground in Haiti, in Cite Soleil. If you've ever been to Haiti, and you've ever been to this city you'll understand what we're talking about when we say poverty...when we say poor. When we say cardboard houses. When we say an infrastructure that could crumble in the face of a...relatively mild windstorm...and we're talking about a series of killings. We're talking about two massacres we are now documenting on..in this program...and an ongoing situation of killing.

Kevin Pina: And in some in some circumstances it is intentionally being covered up. I know for a fact that Telesur had a camera crew on the ground on Dec. 22. They went after the firing, they took extensive interviews. They videotaped the bodies of the victims and not one image of that has that has made it to Telesur so far. There were other reporters who were there who took images...who were from Reuters and other international news agencies may as well have been sitting on this material. They know what we are saying is the truth. They have not released it. It is unconscionable and I question their journalistic credibility at this point.

Dennis Bernstein: And we already have information that the Associated Press, Reuters tend to listen to the right wing..they are not gonna go out and get their heads shot off...

Kevin Pina: There are so-called human rights organizers, one who's from the Bay Area right now that are doing their best to cover this up. Because these are people who have...are using Preval's election as a cover for their unqualified support for United Nations operations on the ground...these are people who are not willing to make the psychological break with the United Nations that was our father's with what they are actually committing on the ground in Haiti today.

Dennis Bernstein: Andre Joseph, let me ask you. Let me step back and ask you this political. philosophical question. It is hard to imagine why the United States government, one of the most powerful militaries in the world...and a lot of money is still in there..,they've gotten rid of the president...Aristide for the second or third time...why do you suppose they're in there. The UN doing the US bidding...why is it so important for the US to shut down this poverty-stricken people that has stood...perhaps more than any people in modern history fro democracy...for self-rule and died in such numbers...why are they still killing them?

Andre Joseph:I have no idea my friend it's kind of tough to put your finger on it. Without Haiti there would not have been the United States of America because we helped them get their independence in Savannah Georgia by going and dying for them so that they could beat the English and win their independence. So they owe us a big gratitude by they are not showing it. I don't know what they are looking for as far as any oil over there in Cite Soleil. If they are trying to steal it....I have no idea. But the chief of police one time recently said that if the people of Cite Soleil don't want to be shot at they have to move out of there. So I don't know exactly what they are looking for. But it seems like Haiti being the first republic...Black republic of the world...it was said by Teddy Roosevelt if you actually want the black man to be staying where they are you have to start with Haiti because that's probably the example of liberty for the black people. You have to actually start with Haiti by causing them to fight among themselves all the time. So we can say this policy has been followed to cause us to be divided. To go in there...the US, France and Canada the billions of dollars they spent to do the coup and set up all those people to die...could have been used to develop the country. I have no idea why they are doing such evil things in a poor nation to even impoverish themselves. They could have used that money to help us out of the rut we are in. With the coup, instead of helping us, with a little bit of money, they spent ten times more money to destroy us. The ambassador in Haiti has one job... to cause problems. When there were demonstrations against Aristide, the US ambassador was at the head of all the demonstrations with the opposition against Aristide. An ambassador is not supposed to be doing that. He's supposed to bring peace to a country yet they are the ones causing all the problems. They are the ones who are actually pushing the [opposition]. I don't know exactly what they want if it's gold or oil in Cite Soleil I have no idea. It's hard to pinpoint.

Dennis Bernstein: Andre Joseph we want to thank you for the good reporting and we hope the people you are working with on the ground in Haiti manage to stay bas safe as possible. Please let them know that the people listening to Pacifica Radio care about this information and want to know what's going on. They are not interested in being lied to by the Associated Press.

Kevin Pina I want to tell people to check the haitiaction.net website for the new story based on the FOIA documents...we've got ten seconds....

Kevin Pina: The gold in Cite Soleil is the gold of national liberation and the oil of Cite Soleil is popular resistance.}

Source: www.haitiaction.net/News/HIP/1_29_7.html

Much more info on this:
UN terror kills Haiti's children at night Feb 2
Accusations of UN cover up in Haiti Feb 2
UN's "collective punishment" of the poor in Haiti Jan 30
www.haitiaction.net/index.html

[michelle]

UN Peacekeeping Paramilitarism
Part 1 of 2

By Stephen Lendman
ZNet
February 15, 2007

The world community calls them "Blue Helmets" or "peacekeepers," and the UN defines their mission as "a way to help countries torn by conflict create conditions for sustainable peace" by implementing and monitoring post-conflict peace processes former combatants have agreed to under provisions of the UN Charter. The Charter empowers the Security Council to take collective action to maintain international peace and security that includes authorizing peacekeeping operations provided a host country agrees to have them under Rules of Engagement developed and approved by all parties. At that point, the UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations enlists member nations to provide force contingents to be deployed once the Security Council gives final approval. Once in place, Blue Helmets are supposed to help in various ways including monitoring the withdrawal of combatants, building confidence, enforcing power-sharing agreements, providing electoral support, aiding reconstruction, upholding the rule of law, maintaining order, and helping efforts toward economic and social development. Above all, "peacekeeping" missions are supposed to be benevolent interventions. They're sent to conflict areas to restore order, maintain peace and security and provide for the needs of people during a transitional period until a local government takes over on its own. Far too often, however, things don't turn out that way, and Blue Helmets end up either creating more conflict than its resolution or being counterproductive or ineffective. In the first instance, peacekeepers become paramilitary enforcers for an outside authority. In the second, they do more harm than good because they've done nothing to ameliorate conditions or improve the situation on the ground and end up more a hindrance than a help. This article focuses mostly on the former using Haiti as the primary case study example after reviewing peacekeeping operations briefly in six other countries. In each case, the examples chosen show people on the ground as helpless victims of imperial exploitation (usually US-directed) with UN Blue Helmets used by outside powers for social control and domination, not keeping the peace.

First, a brief account of other failed "peacekeeping" missions is reviewed after an overview of the UN, its founding purpose and how the US dominates and undermines the world body for its own interests.

The UN - Its Founding Purpose and Mission

The UN was established in 1945 after WW II when 50 original member countries signed its Charter in San Francisco. Today 192 nations are member states. Its founding Charter states its purpose and mandate is: "to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war....reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights....(support) equal rights of men and women....of nations large and small....establish conditions under which justice....can be maintained....promote social progress....practice tolerance and live in peace (and promote) economic and social advancement of all peoples." From its founding date till now, the world body failed on all counts even though some of its agencies (like UNICEF, WFP, UNHCR and UNESCO) have a history of providing important services in areas of health, education, food assistance, aiding refugees, social development and more. Nonetheless, the UN is hamstrung by a serious obstacle. Its dominant member is the US that undermines the world body's authority and effectiveness for its own imperial interests. It does it through its Security Council veto power, by withholding dues, disengaging from UN activities or just muscling or bribing member states to get its way. It gets away with it by being the world's leading economic, political and military superpower beholden to no interests but its own. It takes full advantage, and for over half a century used the UN as its foreign policy instrument or rendered it ineffective by inaction or obstruction. If allowed to be a voice for all member states, the UN could be a powerful one for global democratic governance and promotion of social equity and equal justice. Instead one dominant nation's veto power trumped the will of all others causing a shameful history of UN failure and ineffectiveness. As long as a single nation's monkey wrench can jam its works, the UN will never fulfill its founding purpose. It's apparent in its Charter-mandated peacekeeping role. If the UN functioned as a neutral international body pursuing its founding mission, it would always act to establish and maintain peace in every conflict area. It doesn't because its dominant member won't let it. So it failed to act when Indonesia invaded East Timor in 1975 slaughtering hundreds of thousands in a secretly US-authorized aggression including the arming and supporting of Indonesian military TNI forces. It stood by again after the East Timorese voted by referendum for independence in 1999 after which TNI forces attacked and slaughtered thousands more.

The UN did nothing during South Africa's border wars and invasion of Namibia in the 1960s and 70s and allowed a 36 year civil war to go on in Guatemala following the CIA fomented coup in 1954 ousting the country's democratically elected leader Jacobo Arbenz Guzman. It ignored a succession of oppressive military and civilian governments still ruling the country. It allowed them to compile the hemisphere's worst human rights record even after the UN brokered a Peace Accord formally ending the civil conflict mainly against the country's indigenous Mayan majority slaughtering 200,000 of them. It still ignores the government's shameless human rights abuses in a country Amnesty International calls a "land of injustice." But it happens to be one the US considers a close ally, and that's all that counts as Washington has the final say on most everything at the UN.

These are a few of the many examples of UN failures to address injustice throughout the world on every continent. It belies discredited former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan's standing up for the Security Council claiming it has primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security. It can't even prevent human rights abuses because it's mostly a talking shop, and the world body overall is a wholly owned subsidiary of the nation where its headquartered. It uses it to pursue its imperial agenda knowing no nation will dare try stopping it most often. And when the threat arises, Washington ignores it to do what it pleases like attacking Iraq without required Security Council approval and threatening now to extend the conflict to Iran on blatantly false cooked up charges that smell as bad as the WMD ones about its occupied neighbor.

UN Peacekeeping Operations

UN peacekeeping operations began in 1948 with its first one ever UNTSO mission to monitor the Arab-Israeli first of two brief failed truces in Israel's "War of Independence" beginning in June, 1948. The operation is still ongoing, peace was never achieved, the UN plays no active role, and UNTSO wastes money and takes up space observing and reporting what it wishes selectively while Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) have total control of everything on the ground. UNTSO ineffectiveness shows in the way the IDF continues repressing and assaulting defenseless Palestinians while the UN gets out of their way functioning as little more than worthless window dressing. In 2006 it had a meager staff of 371 military and civilian observers and a budget of $30 million, all of which could have been better spent elsewhere on a real mission for a real purpose if there are any. That inauspicious start was symbolic of what lay ahead in 61 total peacekeeping missions undertaken to date ignoring all the other conflicts it should have intervened in but didn't. Currently 16 missions are ongoing as of year end 2006 plus two other small special political and/or peacebuilding ones with 113 countries contributing 99,817 military troops, observers, police and civilians budgeted for the 12 months through June, 2007 at $4.75 billion under names like UNIFIL in Lebanon created in 1978 for the same purpose it's still there for and now enlarged following Israel's withdrawal from the country last summer after its horrific invasion and assault weeks earlier.

UNIFIL Blue Helmets in Lebanon

Israel attacked and invaded Lebanon last July 12 following Hezbollah's cross-border incursion that was used as a pretext to ignite pre-planned aggression against the country and its people. The result was mass killing, crippling destruction, and a huge refugee problem all without Israel achieving its planned aim - to destroy Hezbollah resistance in South Lebanon. It proved too much for the world's fifth most powerful military equipped with state-of-the-art weaponry courtesy of the most powerful Washington-based one. UNIFIL was established to restore and maintain peace in South Lebanon one week after Israel's invasion of the country in March, 1978. It's been there since including throughout the period from 1982 when Israel again invaded and remained until withdrawing its forces in May, 2000. Despite its mandate, UNIFIL never established peace and security and did little more than take up space allowing the IDF free reign to control everything on the ground along with its proxy Christian South Lebanon Army acting as paramilitary enforcer thugs of a largely Shia Muslim population. "Proxy" describes UNIFIL's current role in Lebanon that has little to do with keeping peace and everything to do with being NATO's Israel enforcer. In that role, it can engage Hezbollah in confrontation if it chooses and do Israel's fighting and dying for it. It also represents a continuation of nearly three decades of "peacekeeping" failure in South Lebanon. The current one won't work any better than all efforts preceding it because UNIFIL is beholden to Israel, the US and NATO and will follow their mandate having nothing to do with peace and stability and everything to do with imperial control and dominance. The people of South Lebanon know all about UNIFIL's "benefits," but you won't hear them say thank you.

UNAMIR in Rwanda

UNAMIR was set up to help implement the Arusha Accords in 1993 to ease tensions, secure the capital, and monitor a ceasefire and security agreement prior to the outbreak of ethnic slaughter that began after CIA surface-to-air missiles shot down the aircraft carrying Rwandan President Juvenal Habyarimana and Burundi President Cyprien Ntaryamira in April, 1994. That "unfortunate" plane accident made way for US-trained Rwandan Patriotic Army (RPA) Major-General Paul Kagame to take power so Washington could use the country as a base to pursue its greater prize in resource-rich Congo (DRC). It didn't matter that hundreds of thousands died and millions in Congo where war subsided, but instability remains because warring sides and Western interests still contest for control of the country's immense resources. Canadian General Romeo Dallaire led a UN 400 troop contingent in Rwanda, got no additional force help, mostly stood aside as thousands were slaughtered, and was only authorized to act in self-defense meaning his orders were do nothing. He left the country in August, 1994 followed by the departure of his replacements when UNAMIR's mandate ended in 1996 long after the damage was done. The result - a dismal mission failure in UN peacekeeping with hundreds of thousands dead because Blue Helmets were told to ignore it.

UNIMIK in Kosovo

UNMIK was created in 1999 for war-torn Kosovo as an interim civilian administration to remain in place until the Serbian province's fate is decided. Its stated mission includes maintaining the rule of law, protecting human rights, coordinating humanitarian and disaster relief, supporting reconstruction efforts, and assuring refugees and displaced persons can return to their homes. As always, stated goals are noble, but results shameful - another mission failure staying longer will just exacerbate, not ameliorate. The mission language hides the grim history of the 1990s Balkan wars. They destroyed a nation making its new pieces easy pickings for US and Western imperial exploitation and control. It had nothing to do with removing a "bad guy" Serbian leader and everything to do with installing new leadership more responsive to Western interests - meaning unconditional surrender to imperial authority. The US-led 1999 NATO assault was called an humanitarian intervention. It's real aim was to finish breaking one nation into six more easily handled ones plus deciding the fate of Serbia's Kosovo province to be dealt with later. In Kosovo, Washington and NATO collaborated with Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) paramilitary thugs ignoring their connection to organized crime. They got free reign to commit terrorist attacks including ethnic cleansing of Serbs and other minorities in the province. The US-led war caused massive population displacement, not the other way around as news reports claimed. Nor did the war bring Kosovo peace and stability. Far from it. The province is part of Serbia, and Serbs want to keep it that way. But it looks like they won't as Albanians in the majority have other ideas with assurance their US ally will help them. After the war, the former Serbian province got semi-autonomy as a UN protectorate with its final status nearly decided by the world body intending to make Kosovo semi-independent because the US wants it that way. It doesn't matter what Serbs want for territory they're about to lose. The scheme was unveiled on January 26 to the six-member contact group of major powers including the US, UK, France, Germany, Italy and Russia all of whom approve except Russia that remains skeptical enough to try to scuttle the plan. It supports Serbia that rejects the deal but has little power to stop it unless Russia vetoes it in the Security Council with final say on the matter. That verdict isn't in yet, but some things are clear. Whatever Kosovo's nominal disposition, Serbs will be losers and US and Western imperial control will continue by virtue of a proxy repressive UNIMIK/NATO Blue Helmet contingent remaining in place for an indefinite time likely to be lengthy. It's how imperial management works. People lose out so hegemons can win, and when it involves the US the price paid is big and painful.

MONUC in the Democratic Republic of Congo

MONUC began its operations in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) in 1999 and is the largest peacekeeping force now in place but one hardly adequate (if it mattered) for a country the size of Western Europe. MONUC was authorized to monitor a ceasefire agreement between waring sides as well as be involved in the usual kinds of things peacekeeping entails. After years of unresolved conflict, few places anywhere need peace and stability more than DRC in the wake of the country's long-running war taking 4 million or more lives causing immeasurable human misery and harm. All along, the UN was inept, counterproductive and out of the loop. It was more part of the problem than its solution. It knew all about legal and illegal arms trading fueling conflict but didn't stop it because its controlling members did the selling like they always do in war zones everywhere. In addition, Blue Helmets weren't where most needed and didn't help when able because direct orders said not to. Kofi Annan was part of the problem as he was as UN head of peacekeeping in 1994 allowing Rwandans to be slaughtered when his efforts at least might have ameliorated conditions. Instead, he kept his mouth shut and head down, refusing to act as he later did as Secretary-General serving imperial interests he was beholden to. That meant ignoring desperate people in Congo and all other warring regions. The DRC is a major one even though things are mostly quieted down - for now. The country's cursed by being the likely most resource-rich piece of real estate in the world (except for not having large oil reserves). That makes it a key target for imperial exploitation and control with Congo's people suffering just by being there. Sending Blue Helmets to keep peace is just a fig leaf hiding the dark side of the conflict and who stands to gain with US interests always topping the list and acting as guarantor nothing interferes with what Washington has in mind. So all parties ignore the situation on the ground, and Blue Helmets just make it worse. The evidence shows UN forces engaged in sex trafficking, using children as prostitutes. They abused young girls and got away with it because MONUC officials took no preventive action in spite of pious claims decrying it. What's common in Congo happens everywhere with so-called "peacekeepers" acting as thuggish enforcers for imperial powers. Their mission is "keeping the rabble in line" with free reign to do it harshly as long as it's kept under wraps. What happens in Congo goes on in Kosovo, Liberia, Sudan (discussed below) and Haiti also discussed in detail shortly. It's an ugly story of crackdown, repression or indifference hidden under the cover of "peacekeeping."

UNMIS in Sudan

UNMIS was established in 2005 to implement the January, 2005 Comprehensive Peace Treaty between the Sudanese government and Sudan People's Liberation Movement/Army. It ended the protracted North-South 22 year civil war killing and uprooting millions in one of the continent's most costly wars, but not freeing the nation from conflict still ongoing in Darfur. UNMIS has authority to administer there once hostilities subside, waring sides allow them entry and agree to cooperate, and Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir decides if he's willing to risk a regional occupying force hostile to his interests. Currently a 7,000 force African Union Mission in Sudan (AMIS) operates in Darfur that's pathetically slim for an area the size of France in a country the size of Western Europe. The Sudanese government is justifiably reluctant for Blue Helmets to come knowing how they behave elsewhere. It also knows what fuels the conflict and what interests the US and West in the area. Like most everywhere, it's about valuable resources, and in Darfur it's mainly oil as it is in Somalia where Washington is involved in another proxy war with US supportive air and ground involvement this time using an Ethiopian force to be supplemented or replaced by other regional country contingent "peacekeepers." The Darfur conflict is falsely portrayed in Western media reports as atrocities committed by Arab Jan jawid militias supported by the Khartoum government against black African people. The truth is all parties involved are indigenous Arabic-speaking black Sunni Muslims involved in intertribal fighting over increasingly scare water and grazing rights in an area hard hit by draught and famine. If Blue Helmets come in, they'll make things worse because they'll be sent for imperial control further harming the people enduring more than they can already handle.

continued....

[michelle]

....continued:
UN Peacekeeping Paramilitarism
Part 2 of 2

MINUSTAH in Haiti - Our Main Focus

Since European settlers first arrived in Haiti 500 years ago, this nation experienced an almost unparalleled legacy of colonial violence and exploitation. Even when the country gained freedom from France on January 1, 1804, it lay in ruins. Its plantations and sugar works were burned and large parts of its cities were rubble from many years of conflict. It cost the nation half its population of former slaves on top of its indigenous population nearly exterminated by Spanish Conquistadors beginning with the arrival of Columbus. Things got no better when Spain kept the Eastern two-thirds of the island in what's now the Dominican Republic leaving the Western third for French colonization beginning in the early 1600s. France brought over black African slaves controlling it till after the 1789 French Revolution that inspired Haitians to wage theirs for the same freedoms French people got briefly. Led by Toussaint L'Overture, they prevailed establishing the first free independent black republic anywhere on their New Years liberation day in 1804. It was short-lived as France regained control holding it till America took over later solidifying its regional lock when Woodrow Wilson sent in Marines in 1915 to protect US investments, doing it in typical US fashion - at the barrel of a gun. Nineteen years of brutal exploitation followed with massacres like the kinds seen in Haiti today. The worst of them was in 1929 when US Marines slaughtered 264 protesting peasants in Les Cayes. There were also smaller incursions, forced labor, and aerial bombing years before the Nazis' infamous attack on Spain's Republican government at Guernica supporting opposition fascist dictator, Francisco Franco. Except for a decade of relief under Jean-Bertand Aristide and Rene Preval, nothing improved for Haitians after US occupiers left in 1934. Aristide and Preval brought hope in spite of great Western constraint imposed on them. It didn't last courtesy of US Marines again ending a brief grace period of relief and deliverance for people having precious little of it for 500 years.

In its wake, MINUSTAH was established by UN Security Council vote on April 30, 2004 two months after the US-led coup ousted President Aristide now in forced exile in South Africa. From inception, it's mission was flawed as it had no right being there in the first place. Blue Helmets, in principle, are deployed for peace and stability even though they seldom bring it. In this case, peacekeepers have may been illegally sent for the first time ever supporting and enforcing a coup d'etat against a democratically elected president instead of staying out of it or coming to back his right to office. The US runs everything in Haiti, and MINUSTAH became its repressive arm against Haitian people wanting their President back and their freedoms under him restored. The result is no surprise. MINUSTAH's mission is disastrous, disgraceful and in violation of the rule of law including UN's own Charter as explained below. Before it began, the UN lied claiming Aristide was less than democratically reelected in 2000 with under 10% of Haitians participating. UN officials further implied his Fanmi Lavalas party manipulated results allowing him to win. The truth was otherwise showing Aristide won with a 92% majority and a turnout of around 62% of eligible voters or a figure exceeding that in most US elections. The International Foundation for Election Systems (IFES) suggested turnout was even higher, but mainstream reporting never lets facts conflict with official US government versions of truth that hide it when it isn't the kind it wants. The line on Haiti came from the US State Department's affiliated Agency for International Development (USAID) claiming the opposition boycotted the election and Aristide won by default with a low voter turnout. This got reported as anti-Aristide black propaganda contradicting mass-Haitian support for a beloved leader twice elected the country's President. Haitians demand his return but won't get it as long as the US remains in charge. Washington will ignite a firestorm if he tries coming setting off the kind of ugliness leading to what happened in February, 2004 that repeated similar events in September, 1991 after Aristide's first election. The result for Haitians is nightmarish courtesy of the Bush administration with complicit Security Council support in the form of Blue Helmet "peacekeepers" enforcing their kind of peace. They're on the ground along with mobilized death squads, otherwise known as the hated Haitian National Police (PNH), acting as a main duel proxy force serving their masters in Washington. They've done it by destroying all democratic freedoms in a country subjugated for 500 years under outside authority or one imposed on them from within. In 1990, Haitians hoped it ended when they elected Jean-Bertrand Aristide President with 67% of the vote. He took office in February, 1991, but his tenure was short-lived. It ended in September by the first of two US-instigated coups removing him from office for a more compliant military ruler beholden to Washington and its capital interests.

Aristide returned to Haiti in 1994 regaining nominal power through a deal Clinton officials arranged. It included a largely US-led UN peacekeeping force remaining until 1999 to assure political and economic continuity by IMF-imposed neoliberal structural adjustment policy diktats of privatizations, debt serving and cuts in vitally needed social services. Under these conditions and with little financial support when he tried going around them, Aristide governed like a social democrat compiling an impressive record given the constraints on him. Under Haitian law, he was unable to succeed himself in 1996, but his ally Rene Preval ran for President and won with an 88% majority. Aristide then ran again in 2000 winning big as explained above. From then until 2004, Aristide instituted a host of important programs in areas of health, education, justice and human rights. He did it by maneuvering around the kinds of harsh dictates imposed on him out of Washington. It led to his second ouster reinstituting a US-directed reign of terror with MINUSTAH Blue Helmet proxies in the lead implementing harsh repression still ongoing and unaddressed by a world community mindful of conditions but turning a blind eye or playing a supportive role. Blue Helmets do this everywhere, but it gets no worse than in Haiti. It's the poorest country in the hemisphere, conditions continue getting worse, people are suffering, and MINUSTAH is there to keep it that way, not bring peace, security, stability or freedom to people desperately needing it.

It's all about the rules of imperial management Washington forces on all nations but especially ones with strategically important resources, markets or in the case of Haiti cheap labor. Haiti has lots of it, and it's some of the cheapest in the world. It's an offshore US manufacturer's paradise where many garment and other workers earn as little as 12 cents an hour or near-slave wages. It's far below the poverty level even in Haiti, and after transportation and other expenses an average Haitian worker earns around $6 a week for those able to get any work in a country plagued by high unemployment running as high as 50% and at times much higher. During his tenure, President Aristide alleviated this and much more in spite of great constraints on him. He did it with scant outside help in spite of overwhelming pressures from Washington not to do anything affecting capital interests. With him gone and reelected President Rene Preval hamstrung under foreign occupation masquerading as "peacekeepers," Haitians have lost everything. Conditions have never been worse, and it goes on daily in Haiti's bloodstained streets patrolled by MINUSTAH, PNH and militarized gangs of enforcers with license to kill and brutalize freely. The Western media ignore it in a country the US controls as a de facto colony using violence for social control just like in Iraq with its own and proxy Iraqi forces.

Guatemalan UN Special Envoy Edmond Mulet calls it needing to "liberate" neighborhoods from "thugs, criminals, gangs (and) drug dealers." He characterizes indiscriminate killing of unarmed civilians as "collateral damage" with UN forces coming "under attack (from gangs in Cite Soleil)." What he won't address is MINUSTAH'S role as enforcer to make Haiti safe for predatory capitalism with harsh repression the method of choice to do it. It's aim is to destroy all vestiges of democratic Lavalas and Jean-Bertrand Aristide's influence, but it resulted in mass-people resistance on the streets protesting their plight and demanding restitution of their rights as free people. Their answer is armed attacks and regular assaults. It goes on daily with punishing effects against helpless people. They're led by Blue Helmet thugs attacking Haitians in impoverished areas like Cite Soleil, Bel Air, Solino and elsewhere indiscriminately killing men, women and children. They work with PNH enforcers incarcerating or murdering Aristide supporters and advocates for freedom and justice, forcing many others underground or to flee the country even after Aristide's Fanmi Lavalas party was effectively destroyed.

Before Preval's reelection last February, MINUSTAH helped reinstitute Haiti's brutal and hated former military that Aristide disbanded and put Haiti again at the mercy of predatory international lending agencies. It also worked with the so-called Interim Government of Haiti (IGH) under US-installed puppet prime minister Gerard Latortue ending Aristide's social programs and returning the country to capital interests with lots of infused cash ending up in the pockets of the interim government Transparency International (TI) called the most corrupt in the world, but not enough to bother its US boss looking the other way and ignoring it. The IGH even locked up dissenters and emptied prisons of real criminals for service in the PNH. It also reconstituted Haiti's military and allowed private paramilitary gangs to operate as brutish enforcers of their own defenseless people. It's gone on since the 2004 coup in splendid fashion through bloody street crackdowns including massacres against people protesting their plight in a country returned to serfdom under repressive overlords. Haiti is short on law, order, justice and freedom and long on paramilitary thuggishness keeping things that way including the private paramilitary ones like the Little Machete Army that was implicated in the July 6, 2006 Grand Ravine massacre of more than 20 people along with burning scores of houses in an act of pure savagery. It was after the August 21, 2005 slaughter in a Grand Ravine soccer field in front of 5000 fans when as many as 50 people were shot or hacked to death with machetes by PNH thugs and red-shirted killers.

A recent horrific incident happened in the early morning hours of December 22, 2006 in Cite Soleil when UN Blue Helmets assaulted the community killing more than 30 people with some reports claiming much higher numbers. It happened in random mass shooting striking people everywhere including in their homes with bullets easily penetrating paper-thin walls. The UN claimed it was after a young man named Belony, supposedly the head of a kidnapping gang, but the story is pure "baloney" like all other MINUSTAH ones. It's UN's way to justify repression and killings saying it's targeting bandits that are really ordinary Haitians protesting their misery or who happen to be in the line of fire that's deliberately indiscriminate as an added form of terror. Disturbingly, President Rene Preval apparently approved the December 22 operation and now has blood on his hands to answer for. He likely knew it's purpose was to punish an impoverished community that put 10,000 people on the streets a few days earlier demonstrating for the return of Jean-Bertrand Aristide and condemning a US-directed militarized occupation of their country. Video footage and eye witnesses captured and verified the retaliatory response on the streets with unarmed civilians shot by random gunfire including from helicopter gunships. At first the UN denied it but finally admitted what video footage and digital photos showed conclusively. They also showed wounded and dying with no medical help on the scene and people left to bleed to death on the streets or in their homes.

This assault was like an earlier one against Cite Soleil on July 6, 2005 when UN forces attacked the city with hundreds of heavily armed troops using M-50s and 60s mounted on armored personnel vehicles. It also used high-powered telescopic rifles for accuracy in singling out targeted dissenters for assassination and a type of gattling gun firing armor-piercing bullets believed to be depleted uranium tipped to slice through metal like butter. This time about 70 people were shot indiscriminately from thousands of rounds of ammunition fired. Again those hit were left to bleed to death unattended on the streets or in their homes.

A more recent documented incident happened in Cite Soleil on January 23, 2007 with MINUSTAH forces again randomly shooting for hours including from helicopters while people ran for their lives or were gunned down indiscriminately as they did. No accurate count of casualties is known so far, and the number killed may never be known as Blue Helmets often remove bodies to conceal the extent of their handiwork. Another attack followed on January 24 with MINUSTAH acknowledging it killed six people and wounded others in the same targeted community. Haitians won't ever be free of this until peacekeepers leave, Blue Helmet terrorism ends and people can choose their own leaders, free from outside control, or not live under ones imposed on them. For now, that seems light years away, and all reports out of Haiti are grim including a January 23 one by the National Bishops' Justice and Peace Commission (JILAP), a human rights commission of Haiti's Roman Catholic church. It reported at least 539 people died violently in Port-au-Prince alone in the three month period ending December 31, 2006 with the true number likely higher as it only counted dead bodies on the streets. Most of the victims were in impoverished communities like Cite Soleil, Grand Ravine, Martissant and Bolosse, and the main cause of death was from gunshot wounds. JILAP also attributed most of the violence to MINUSTAH and PNH with most deaths just local residents in targeted areas. Other violence was blamed on street gangs like the one led by the Little Machete Army that may have murdered Haitian independent journalist Jean Remy Badiau in Martissant because he "dared practice journalism in a country where the press (today) is never free."

Sadly, Haitians have no freedom because the extent of occupation-led terror is greater than Haiti's ever had in its 200 year history as a sovereign state. It amounts to collective punishment of an impoverished people living under US-imposed police state type daily killings, massacres, rapes, arbitrary arrests, mass incarcerations, beatings and horrific immiseration of millions of people defenseless against it. It also includes human trafficking of women and children for forced prostitution and men and women for forced labor amounting to chattel slavery. Additional thousands of men have been forcibly taken to the Dominican Republic and other regional countries to work for wages so low they're called "sugar slaves."

Still more abuse came out in the September, 2006 Lancet reported study conducted by Wayne State University, School of Social Work researchers Athena Kolbe and Dr. Royce Hutson. They exposed and documented massive human rights violations in Haiti under the puppet Latortue government using random Global Positioning System (GPS) coordinate sampling of 1260 households and 5720 individuals. 90.7% of them were interviewed using a structured questionnaire by trained interviewers to learn about their experiences since Aristide's ouster. The study findings estimated 8,000 people were murdered and about 35,000 women (over half under 18)sexually assaulted in the greater Port-au-Prince area between February, 2004 and December, 2005. 21% of killings were attributed to the PNH, 13% to the demobilized army and another 13% to anti-Aristide paramilitary gangs like the Little Machete Army. Known criminals were the worst sex offenders, but officers from the HNP accounted for 13.8% of assaults and armed anti-Lavalas groups another 10.6%. The report also documented kidnappings, extrajudicial detentions, physical assaults other than rape, death threats, physical threats and threats of sexual violence against helpless people. The report concluded that "crime and systematic abuse of human rights were common in Port-au-Prince" involving criminals but also "political actors and UN (Blue Helmet) soldiers." It also stressed an overwhelming need on the ground for attention to "legal, medical, psychological, and economic consequences of widespread human rights abuses and crime." The study ended in December, 2005, but the same abuses go on daily in Haitian communities around Port-au-Prince and elsewhere in the country. It's a picture of UN failure and its top officials and Secretary-General corrupted and criminally complicit with its authorized missions' worst crimes and abuses going on everywhere. It also shows the world body as a servant of power, defiling its founding mandate and damning the poor and weak to pay for its failure to protect them. Nowhere are things worse than in Haiti, and nowhere are UN representatives more culpable starting at the top where the buck stops with its former Secretary-General Kofi Annan. His tenure ended in December as it began - in disgrace but whose record went unreported because he served power interests well who'll now reward him in his new endeavors.

Haitians hoped things might not be this way last February 7 when they reelected Rene Preval their President in an electoral process orchestrated, controlled and rigged by the US-installed puppet government but not enough to override the will of the people. For the first time in two years, desperate Haitians had reason to celebrate with a leader again in charge who once served their needs as President. But nothing is ever simple in Haiti, and long knives in Washington were out to undermine and destabilize Preval's rule from its outset or simply work around him and ignore it. The result to date is capital rules the country, and Rene Preval has little to show for his first year in office. Haitians continue suffering, and 9,000 repressive Blue Helmets, PNH and other paramilitaries are on the ground keeping it that way. It affects the lives of helpless people in ways beyond brute force and economic depravation. Blue Helmet attacks in Cite Soleil severely damaged the community's public water system as random gunfire hit pipelines and a water tower. It forced area residents to walk long distances with heavy buckets for what's unavailable close by while private speculators truck in drinking water for sale at prices Cite Soleil's half million residents can't afford. It's one more part of marketplace rule leaving most Haitians out of it with no resources to participate. The UN peacekeeping mandate expires on February 15, but Haitians won't see the end of it. The Security Council is about to extend the mission with disagreement over its length that comes up for review every six months. Before leaving office, Kofi Annan recommended a year's extension, but unanimity hasn't yet been reached by Security Council members. When it is, it won't reflect the peoples' will demanding Blue Helmets leave that's loudly heard on the streets and ignored as it always is.

Protests and demonstrations are on the capital's streets all the time, but a major one happened on February 7 as well as in six other Haitian cities and many around the world in solidarity. They dramatically dispelled the UN's false assertions that Lavalas is dead. It lives, it's vibrant, and it puts a lie to UN Envoy Edmond Mulet's claim that "the issue of former President Aristide is not present anymore....in Haiti....and his (Fanmi Lavalas) movement is very much divided, weakened." The date marked the 16th anniversary of Jean-Bertrand Aristide's first inauguration as Haiti's first elected President in 1991 and 21st anniversary of the end of the hated Duvalier father-son dictatorship in 1986. Tens of thousands of Fanmi Lavalas supporters took to the streets peacefully to protest their occupation and violence from it. They called for the release of all political prisoners and demanded return of those in forced exile starting with their former President deposed on February 29, 2004. Protestors joined with them in solidarity in 53 cities around the world on five continents against Blue Helmet massacres in an "International Day in Solidarity with the Haitian People." On the same day, protesters went to Haiti's UN heavily guarded Port-au-Prince military headquarters demanding Aristide's return and confronting soldiers with shouts of "Down with the UN." Hundreds were back the following day repeating their chants and risking the kind of retaliation they've come to expect before.

They got their answer on February 9 when hundreds of UN peacekeepers again raided Cite Soleil before dawn continuing their ritualized crackdown and retaliation against courageous people resistance. It's made Blue Helmets a hated symbol of imperial repression and all the terror from it. For Haitian people, it's just the latest chapter in their 500 year struggle never losing hope one day they'll be free at last. No people deserve it more than do Haitians.

Source:
www.globalpolicy.org/security/peacekpg/general/2007/0215paramilitarism.htm

[michelle]

UN Accused of Undermining Palestinian State
By Thalif Deen
Inter Press Service
June 15, 2007

When Ban Ki-moon was asked about the scathing remarks by his former Middle East envoy denouncing the strongly partisan U.N. role in the ongoing peace talks, the U.N. secretary-general appeared more distressed with the public revelation of a confidential document than with the strong views articulated by his Under-Secretary-General Alvaro de Soto. "It was unfortunate that the document was leaked to the press," Ban told reporters Wednesday.

On the eve of his retirement, and after 25 long years with the world body, the former Peruvian diplomat blasted the United Nations in a 52-page confidential report to the secretary-general, accusing the world body of undermining the goal of a Palestinian state.

"I would like to make it clear that this is his (de Soto's) personal view," the secretary-general said, apparently seeking an escape hatch.

Chris Toensing, editor of the Washington-based Middle East Report, was less sympathetic towards Ban, who has cultivated the fine art of evading answers to politically-sensitive questions fired off by reporters here. "Bravo to Alvaro de Soto for committing his unvarnished views to paper," Toensing said. "And shame on the secretary-general for disavowing the opinions of this distinguished international diplomat, indicating that he, like his predecessor (Kofi Annan), will sacrifice the independence of the United Nations to curry favour with Washington," he told IPS. Nadia Hijab, a senior fellow and co-director at the Washington Office of the Institute for Palestine Studies, was equally critical of Ban and laudatory of de Soto. "De Soto's report should be required reading for anyone working at the United Nations today or thinking of applying," she said. "It sounds the alarm about what happens when the international organisation and its secretary general are forced to become subservient to the policies of world powers instead of being neutral among nations and the defender of international law," Hijab told IPS.

An Arab diplomat told IPS that historically the United Nations was never seen as an even-handed mediator in the Middle East, primarily because of its in-built bias generated under by U.S. pressure. "Judging by the comments of the secretary-general, Ban Ki-moon is no better than his predecessors and will continue to peddle the same line," he added.

In a stinging rebuke to the United Nations, de Soto wrote: "The steps taken by the international community with the presumed purpose of bringing about a Palestinian entity that will live in peace with its neighbour, Israel, have had precisely the opposite effect." Pointing out that the one-state solution for Palestine-Israel is fast gaining ground, de Soto says that "the combination of (Palestinian Authority) institutional decline and Israeli settlement expansion is creating a growing conviction among Palestinians and Israeli Arabs, as well as some Jews on the far left in Israel, that the two-state solution's best days are behind it."

According to the report, which was first published in a London newspaper, both Ban Ki-moon and Kofi Annan provided political cover to the United States and the European Union (EU) in their efforts to marginalise Hamas despite its electoral victories in the occupied territories. Annan was accused of "hampering" de Soto's efforts to maintain regular political contacts with Hamas leaders. The former secretary-general was accused of playing ball with the United States: a charge that has also been made by several non-governmental organisations against the current secretary-general, who is beholden to Washington for his job.

De Soto has little or no faith in the Middle East Quartet -- a group comprising the United States, EU, the U.N. and Russia-- which is said to provide a political "shield" for the United States and the EU to bankrupt the Palestinian government. "Even-handedness has been pummeled into submission," says de Soto, whose official title is U.N. Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process. At the same time, he criticised the Hamas leadership for continuing its advocacy of the destruction of Israel. He describes the Quartet as a political "sideshow" and advises the United Nations to get out of the group. "I would not agree with his point that the Quartet has become a kind of a sideshow," Ban said, responding to de Soto.

Toensing of the Middle East Report said: "De Soto's incendiary memorandum lifts the veil on the extent of George W. Bush administration's skullduggery in undermining both the Palestinian democratic process and burying prospects for peace in the region." He said the memo demonstrates exactly why the intra-Palestinian fighting in Gaza is embedded deeply in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Specifically, the Bush administration and Israel actively pushed Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and other Fatah elements into conflict with Hamas, he said. "Most interesting, aside from de Soto's revelation that a U.S. official applauded an earlier round of Hamas-Fatah combat, is his conviction that Abbas himself always wanted to co-opt, rather than clash with, his Islamist rivals. Now -- thanks in great measure to the White House -- that strategic option is gone," Toensing added.

Hijab of the Institute for Palestine Studies said that as the world gazes in horror and bewilderment at the bloody intra-Palestinian power struggle, De Soto's timely report elucidates the reasons why the Palestinians are at this pass, particularly Washington's insistence on isolating Hamas after its election to government in January 2006. "The U.S.-led international sanctions against the freely elected Palestinian Authority have ruined the economy and pushed the vast majority of Palestinians below the poverty line, and that these were not removed when Hamas and Fatah tried to come together in a unity government." She said the United States also armed and trained elements of Fatah so that they could take on Hamas. "And it was unable or unwilling to hold Israel accountable for its obligations as an occupying power and for the agreements it signed," Hijab noted."This damning report by de Soto should be required reading for all U.S. policy makers because it explains why U.S. policy always boomerangs in the Middle East," she added.

Source: www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/israel-palestine/un/2007/0615sgonrep.htm