IPS Blog

Syria, the United States, and the El Salvador Option (Part Two)

Recalled U.S. Ambassador to Syria Robert S. Ford.

Recalled U.S. Ambassador to Syria Robert S. Ford.

Cross-posted from the Colorado Progressive Jewish News.

(Read part one.)

So what is the Salvador option?

“The Salvador Option” is a “terrorist mode” of mass killings that was perfected by the US to destabilize regimes that the US saw as threats to its interests. Taught at places like the School of the Americas, it is employed when other forms of political manipulation fail to produce the desired results. The option works through created and sponsored death squads, with the primary goal of committing slaughter of innocent lives. This triggers world outrage, necessitating intervention by the US under the humanitarian intervention framework. As we state in Part One, this was first applied in El Salvador, in the heyday of resistance against the military dictatorship, resulting in an estimated 75,000 deaths.

A. To see how it works, we would like to borrow an analogy from cooking. What are the needed ingredients for this process?

I. Identify a progressive regime that resists US imperialism and hegemony and declare it ‘rogue state’ or ‘access of evil’ etc. Use any expression with a catchy title to engineer the consent of the unsuspected people; it helps if this regime is somewhat authoritarian.

II. Develop a plan and begin the preparations, putting a destabilization expert in charge, normally as ambassador or someone with diplomatic immunity.

1. This person usually begins by contacting the army searching for elements that are prepared to sell their soul and their country for few pieces of silver.

2. If such elements cannot be found from within the ranks of the U.S. diplomatic corps, create such an entity; call it a ‘resistance’ or ‘liberation movement’ made up of preferably those trained at a U.S. army base or training camp somewhere in the world. If that is not possible, the U.S. can usually depend upon a ready-made supply of Salafist and Wahhabi ‘freedom fighters’ willingly provided by allies in Saudi Arabia and Qatar; or better yet, use the People’s Mujahedin of Iran (MEK) terrorist organization that Washington and Tel Aviv have been long training.

3. Once the appropriate arrangement is agreed upon, the process of supplying the freedom fighters with weapons, financial support, technical advisers, and clandestine operators begins. …You know what we mean.

4. To make it easier for this fabricated liberation movement to gain legitimacy, implement a tried and tested program that generates international revolution: the more abominable the crimes committed, the more likely the call to humanitarian intervention will arise.

5. To feign compassion (to make the whole thing kosher), it helps to go to that circus known as the UN to organize a Security Council resolution. Once the appropriate U.N. vote is favorably extracted, bought through either bribery, threats or some combination thereof, it is possible to reap the harvest of all this intrigue and subterfuge by dividing the country or putting a puppet in charge; the sky is the limit! The ultimate goal – a la Libya – is to produce weak or fractured states, the smaller the better – and the easier to manipulate their weak and easily corruptible governments to accept radical global corporate intervention on easy terms. Are you following the point, catching the drift?

B. Now let us see how this hypothesis works in the case of Syria.

In Part One, we stated that the destabilization and regime change in Syria has been part of US plan for the past ten years. Taking advantage of the authoritarian nature of the Assad regime, and emboldened by its ability to overthrow Khadafy in Libya, the Obama Administration turned its attention to Syria. Bringing down – or seriously weakening – Assad weakens Iran’s position in the region, undermines Hezbollah in Lebanon, puts a smile on Binjamin Netanyahu’s face and places Russia and China in a more difficult strategic position.

In Syria’s case, the only missing ingredient was an opportunity to implement the plan. The eruption of the Arab Spring and the eruption of the ensuing social crisis in Syria provided Washington with the opportunity to turn the regional democratic upsurge to its advantage.

There are many indications that the “Free Syrian Army,” currently engaged in armed struggle against the Assad government, is led not by Syrians, but by NATO-backed Libyan militants from the US State Department-listed terrorist organization, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group. Recently, revelations that Syrian militants are in fact being armed, trained, funded, and joined on the battlefield by Libya’s Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), a US State Department-listed foreign terrorist organization (listed as #27) . The Telegraph would report in November 2011 that LIFG leader Abdul Belhaj met with senior leaders of the “Free Syrian Army” on the Turkish-Syrian border. ) Belhaj and his LIFG’s role is not just assisting Syrian militants but in fact leading them in NATO’s armed destabilization of Syria. Belhaj pledged weapons and money (both of which he receives from NATO) as well as sending LIFG fighters to train and fight alongside Syrian militants. VoltaireNet.org would confirm.

Saudi Arabia, which has closely coordinated with U.S. Middle East policy aims for decades, is also very much involved. It has also been confirmed that Saudi Arabia is shipping arms to foreign fighters and Syrian rebels operating out of Jordan. The Australian reports, quoting an Arab diplomat, that “Saudi military equipment is on its way to Jordan to arm the Free Syrian Army.” It must be noted that Saudi Arabia in turn, receives its weapons and a significant amount of military funding from the United States.

C. The Role of U.S. Ambassador Robert S. Ford

In January, 2011, just as the Arab Spring was expanding region-wide from its Tunisian birthplace, one Robert Stephen Ford was appointed the new US Ambassador to Syria. Ford is no ordinary diplomat. He was U.S. representative in January 2004 to the Shiite city of Najaf in Iraq. Najaf was the stronghold of the Mahdi army. A few months later he was appointed “Number Two Man” (Minister Counsellor for Political Affairs), at the US embassy in Baghdad at the outset of John Negroponte’s tenure as US Ambassador to Iraq (June 2004- April 2005). Ford subsequently served under Negroponte’s successor Zalmay Khalilzad prior to his appointment as Ambassador to Algeria in 2006, another highly sensitive political appointment.

Ambassador Robert S. Ford’s activities in Iraq laid the groundwork for the launching of the insurgency in Syria in March 2011, which commenced in the Southern border city of Daraa. Much of what we know about Ford’s activities has been well documented by the Canadian research center, Global Research, Ca.

Ford arrived in Damascus at the height of the protest movement in Egypt. He was no stranger to some of the more covert and nefarious aspects of U.S. foreign policy. Ford had been part of John Negroponte’s team at the US Embassy in Baghdad (2004-2005) where he helped engineer “the Salvador Option” for Iraq. The latter consisted in supporting Iraqi death squads and paramilitary forces modeled on the experience of Central America.

Robert S. Ford’s mandate as “Number Two” (Minister Counsellor for Political Affairs) under the helm of Ambassador John Negroponte was to coordinate out of the US embassy, the covert support to death squads and paramilitary groups in Iraq with a view to fomenting sectarian violence and weakening the resistance movement.

Ford gave a touching statement of his goals in Syria in a communique from the U.S. embassy there:

As the United States’ Ambassador to Syria—a position that the Secretary of State and President are keeping me in —I will work with colleagues in Washington to support a peaceful transition for the Syrian people. We and our international partners hope to see a transition that reaches out and includes all of Syria’s communities and that gives all Syrians hope for a better future. My year in Syria tells me such a transition is possible, but not when one side constantly initiates attacks against people taking shelter in their homes.

“Peaceful transition for the Syrian people”? He was pursuing a much darker agenda.

Prof. Michel Chossudovsky of Global Research describes Ford’s role more honestly:

“Since his arrival in Damascus in late January 2011 until he was recalled by Washington in October 2011, Ambassador Robert S. Ford played a central role in laying the groundwork within Syria as well as establishing contacts with opposition groups. The US embassy was subsequently closed down in February. Ford also played a role in the recruitment of Mujahideen mercenaries from neighboring Arab countries and their integration into Syrian “opposition forces”. Since his departure from Damascus, Ford continues to oversee the Syria project out of the US State Department.

All indications are that Ford engaged in more cynical activities than just muted congenial diplomatic relations. In Syria he was a key player, implementing two major building blocks of the Salvador option needed for the destabilization of Syria, as he did in Iraq:

1. He used the cover of the diplomatic immunity to travel around Syria in order to connect together the groups trained by the US intelligence community. He has been pictured with US military advisers visiting hotspot sites all over Syria.

2. On a more sinister level, as in Iraq, he used his diplomatic status in Syria to distribute sophisticated communication equipment, equipment whose communications could not be decoded by the Syrian authorities (or those in other countries where the system was used). The US embassy in Damascus was the system’s communication system.

Using this new secretly coded technology, he began to openly incite the Syrian elements sympathetic to the US interest to topple the régime. Imagine what would have happened to the Syrian ambassador in Washington, had he engaged in similar activities with the Occupy movements here.

Another key figure in Syria’s ‘Salvador Option’ is David Petraeus. We’ll deal with his role in Part Three of this series.

Ibrahim Kazerooni is finishing a joint Ph.D. program at the Iliff School of Theology and the University of Denver’s Korbel School of International Studies in Denver. More of his work can be found at the Imam Ibrahim Kazerooni Blog. Rob Prince is a Lecturer of International Studies at the University of Denver’s Korbel School of International Studies and publisher of the Colorado Progressive Jewish News.

Iran’s Parchin Clean-up a “Tease”

On July 2 at Truthout, Gareth Porter wrote:

For many months, the most dramatic media storyline on Iran’s nuclear program has been an explosives containment cylinder that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) says was installed at Iran’s Parchin military base a decade ago to test nuclear weapons. The coverage of the initial IAEA account of the cylinder in its report last November has been followed by a steady drip of reports about Iran refusing to allow the agency’s inspectors to visit the site at Parchin and satellite photos showing what are said to be Iranian efforts to “sanitize” the site.

But

… the images in question suggest something quite different from the “clean up” of the site reported in global news media.

As opposed to a sanitization or clean-up, the activities, Porter writes, may constitute a lure to induce the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to visit the site. Tehran may be thinking that

… the agency would be more open to compromise on its demand to … to continue investigating allegations of Iranian covert nuclear weapons work indefinitely, regardless of the information provided by Iran in response to its questions.

Former IAEA inspector Robert Kelley explained

… why that makes no sense. “The Uranium signatures are very persistent in the environment,” he wrote in an article for the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute in May. “If Iran is using hoses to wash contamination across a parking lot into a ditch, there will be enhanced [not fewer, as one would think if Tehran was hiding activities — RW] opportunities for uranium collection if teams are allowed access.”

Meanwhile, David Albright of the Institute for Science and International Security

… was back again in June with a new satellite image taken May 25 showing that soil had been moved from two areas north and south of the building said to have held the explosive chamber. … But it also showed that the same soil was dumped only a few hundred feet farther north of the building, making environmental sampling quite simple.

Assuming that Tehran doesn’t know that leaving the soil beside the building or that, by washing “contamination across a parking lot into a ditch, there will be enhanced opportunities for uranium collection if teams are allowed access” strikes this observer as part of a pattern of underestimating the intelligence of Tehran. As Kelley wrote in a comment at Arms Control Wonk on June 19, “I think [Iran is] teasing the international community with these activities.” (In the same comment thread, Albright defends his findings.)

The pattern on the part of the United States of underestimating and condescending towards Tehran — and other states that aspire to develop nuclear-weapons programs — can best be observed in two examples. The first is the New START treaty, which is long on confidence building but short on weapons reduction. The second is the $700 billion the United States expects to spend on nuclear weapons over the next ten years. While those realities may not drive it to develop nuclear weapons, they’re not exactly lost on Tehran.

The Lineup: Week of July 9-15, 2012

In this week’s OtherWords editorial package, Daphne Wysham says that Washington’s recent storm and heat wave underscored the need for wiser energy choices, and Martha Burk weighs in on what the Supreme Court’s health care ruling means for women. On our blog, Tom Israel offers a creative quiz for Obamacare foes. Get all this and more in your inbox by subscribing to our weekly newsletter. If you haven’t signed up yet, please do.

  1. A Perfect and Hot Storm / Daphne Wysham
    It’s time to save ourselves from a climate nightmare of our own making.
  2. Year of the Gaffe / Peter Hart
    We’ve got four more months of this to come.
  3. Drinking MOX-Laced Lemonade / Ryan Alexander
    The government is spending $15 billion to create a nuclear fuel derived from plutonium that we have to bribe companies to take.
  4. Why Women Love John Roberts / Martha Burk
    The Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the health care mandate may not stop the war on women, but it surely feels good to win such a decisive battle.
  5. Pennsylvania’s High-Profile Pedophile Scandals / Donald Kaul
    The Penn State and Philadelphia archdiocese cases are parallel examples of two grand, exalted institutions fleeing their moral responsibilities.
  6. Sabotaging Montana’s Campaign Finance Legacy / Jim Hightower
    The Supreme Court has trumped a century-old state law that made the state a model for campaign finance in America.
  7. Our Troops as Cannon Fodder / William A. Collins
    Wars of conquest are most popular if they can be made to appear tidy, safe, just, and relatively cost-free.
  8. Mitt’s Gift of Gaffe / Khalil Bendib
Mitt Romney's Gift of Gaffe, an OtherWords cartoon by Khalil Bendib

Mitt Romney’s Gift of Gaffe, an OtherWords cartoon by Khalil Bendib

Why Couldn’t the Left Prevail in Mexico?

Enrique Pena Nieto, winner of the recent Mexican presidential election.

Enrique Pena Nieto, winner of the recent Mexican presidential election.

Cross-posted from the Dissent Magazine blog Arguing the World.

In the past dozen years, left parties in a whole lot of Latin America countries—from Argentina to El Salvador—have won elections and taken power. But, so far, Mexico has not joined the list. The country’s most recent presidential elections, held last Sunday, did not change that.

Initial election results show Enrique Peña Nieto of the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) prevailing with approximately 38 percent of the vote. (For non-Mexico watchers: the PRI was the party that governed Mexico for some seven decades before one-party rule was shattered in 2000, and it was subsequently thought to be headed for the trash heap of history.)

Progressive Andrés Manuel López Obrador, known as AMLO, of the Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD) trailed behind Peña Nieto with around 32 percent. Right-wing Josefina Vázquez Mota of the incumbent National Action Party (PAN) garnered only around 29 percent of the vote.

Mark Weisbrot of the Center for Economic and Policy Research had a nice op-ed in the New York Times arguing that the results reflected nearly a dozen failed years of neoliberal economic policies, enacted by two PAN presidents. Weisbrot wrote:

If ever there were an election preordained as a result of economic performance, it would be Mexico’s election on Sunday.

…Commentators, focused on the six-year-old drug war, have largely neglected to note the depth of Mexico’s economic problems. Let’s start with the basics: Since 2000, when the PAN was first elected, income per person in Mexico has grown by just 0.9 percent annually. This is terrible for a developing country, and less than half the rate of growth of the Latin American region during this period—which was itself not stellar. If we just look at per capita growth since the last election, in 2006, Mexico finishes dead last of all the countries in Latin America.

Between 1980 and 2000, when the Institutional Revolutionary Party, or PRI, lost control of Mexico for the first time in more than 70 years, the country saw a precipitous drop in economic growth. Before the 1980s, Mexico was growing at a rate that would have lifted the country to European living standards, had it continued.

It is not fashionable among observers, in the United States or Mexico, to mention that Mexico’s economy has performed abysmally for more than 30 years. Starting with the recession and Latin American debt crisis in the early 1980s, the PRI shifted toward what economists call “neoliberalism”: abandoning state-led industrial and development policies, tightening monetary and fiscal policies and liberalizing foreign investment and trade. The North American Free Trade Agreement, which took effect in 1994, was only the most visible example of this transformation.

Of course, not all of these policies were mistaken, but the overall result was an unqualified failure. The same thing happened across Latin America from 1980 to 2000, where gross domestic product, per capita, grew by 6 percent, as compared with 92 percent over the prior two decades.

The failure of neoliberalism provides a compelling reason for why the PAN lost big. But it doesn’t account for why the Left was unable to capitalize on the situation, trailing instead behind the PRI.

There are a few things that can be said about this. First, the PRI was never as dead as some imagined. While many voters and officials fled the party after its hold on presidential power was cracked in 2000, the party was still strong in many Mexican states and remained a major presence in the country’s legislature.

As for AMLO’s failure, Weisbrot points to two factors weighing against left candidates:

Part of the answer may be found in Mexico’s electoral institutions, and especially the ownership of the news media. In 1988, the PRI candidate, Carlos Salinas, was declared the winner over a leftist candidate, Cuauhtémoc Cárdenas, only because of widespread electoral fraud. The 2006 election was too close to call: the PAN candidate, Felipe Calderón, who is now finishing his six-year term as president, was declared the winner by a razor-thin margin, and only after a partial recount, the results of which were never released to the public.

More important, the media, which are essentially owned by a monopoly, were found to have played a significant role in the 2006 elections, more than enough to prevent the most left-wing candidate, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, who ran again this year, from winning. With 95 percent of TV broadcasts controlled by just two media outlets with a strong and documented bias against Mr. Obrador’s party, the Party of the Democratic Revolution, a true left-of-center candidate has little chance.

The first point, fraud, is one that AMLO [López Obrador] himself has emphasized—steadfastly maintaining that the 2006 election was stolen from him. Now, there’s no question that Cárdenas was robbed in 1988. (He was leading in the count until a notorious power outage occurred. When the computers came back up, Cárdenas was suddenly behind, never to recover.) However, I covered the 2006 elections from Mexico City, and, while generally sympathetic to the PRD, I never found López Obrador’s charges of fraud to be credible. There was nothing like a repeat of the blatant chicanery of 1988. AMLO’s official complaint was an everything-but-the-kitchen sink attempt to show voting irregularities, yet its charges were still not enough to convincingly demonstrate ballot stealing or other such improprieties on a scale that would have swung the election.

In this case of the current elections, AMLO trails Peña Nieto by a much wider margin than in 2006. So, while the PRI is still perfectly capable of using dirty tricks, it is very unlikely that fraud would account for a large portion of the three-million-vote difference.

The charge of media bias against the left is more compelling. Indeed, this issue sparked the mass student movement (the #YoSoy132 movement) that galvanized Mexican politics in the last months of the election. The movement emerged on May 11, when student protesters rattled the PRI’s Peña Nieto—then the dominant frontrunner—at what was supposed to be a friendly and carefully staged event at a private university called Iberoamericana.

#YoSoy132 organizer Valeria Hamel explains:

Thousands of students protested against him and then uploaded their videos on YouTube. Meanwhile, the media said that the people involved in the protest were “acarreados y porros” (recruited and paid participants to protest) and that his visit had actually been a success. In response, the students involved made a video in which 131 students showed their university credential identifying themselves as protestors and denied what the media claimed….After this, we [students at other universities] knew that we couldn’t stay silent and allow Mexico to continue through the road of destruction. We had to organize ourselves and unite with other students in order to fight towards democratizing the media and fighting its dual monopoly.

The movement went viral, throughout May and June it helped chip away at Peña Nieto’s double-digit lead in the polls, and it contributed to a late surge by AMLO. Had the PRI candidate gone down in a last-minute upset, #YoSoy132 would have been a huge international story, drawing a raft of comparisons to the most successful of the Arab Spring revolutions. Alas, the Mexico City–based insurgency was not enough.

While bias on the part of the country’s two media giants can serve as one explanation for the Mexican Left’s defeat, it can also become an excuse. Certainly, negative reception of progressives in dominant corporate media outlets is not a condition unique to Mexico, and yet left-of-center parties in many other parts of the Americas have overcome this disadvantage. Other factors weighed against the PRD: since the 2006 elections, AMLO—forever insisting that fraud had deprived him of his rightful presidency—had become a more and more polarizing figure. The party itself was divided, and this bade ill for its general election prospects. To use an analogy from U.S. politics: yes, John Kerry was swift-boated, but that does not account for all of his weaknesses as a candidate.

Despite disappointment at the top of the ticket, all was not lost. Over at NACLA, Fred Rosen notes:

Despite AMLO’s (apparent) loss, the election left the PRD with several things to celebrate. The party won a resounding victory in the race for governor of Mexico City (PRD candidate Miguel Angel Mancera received some 63% of the vote); it won governorships in the states of Morelos and Tabasco; and it made significant gains in the congressional races, keeping the PRI from winning an absolute majority in either the Senate or the Chamber of Deputies, and positioning itself to become the country’s principal opposition party.

Being in the opposition, of course, is a familiar position for left parties. But it’s helpful to remember that Mexico is a rare case in Latin America right now, and that progressives in far more foreboding circumstances have experienced reversals of fortune in the course of a single presidential term. The hope that this could happen for the United States’s southern neighbors is not entirely fanciful. Here’s looking to 2018.

Mark Engler is a senior analyst with Foreign Policy In Focus and author of How to Rule the World: The Coming Battle Over the Global Economy (Nation Books, 2008). He can be reached via the website Democracy Uprising. You can follow Mark at his Facebook page.

Fed Up With Obamacare?

People all across America are angry about Obamacare. But the future of our health care is now up to politicians – not judges. It’s not enough to talk about what we don’t like. It’s time to talk about what we do want. Here’s a quiz. Fill it out and send it to your representatives in Congress. Let them know the kind of health care system you want them to fight for.

  1. I want a health care system based on the private sector and the free market, not some government-run system with government doctors.
    Agree/Disagree
  2. I want a health care system where I get to choose my own doctors, I don’t want the government telling me which doctors I have to use.
    Agree/Disagree
  3. I want a health care system where most people get coverage through their employers, like they do now.
    Agree/Disagree
  4. I think small businesses should get tax breaks to make it easier for them to offer health insurance to their own employees, to strengthen our employer based health insurance system.
    Agree/Disagree
  5. I want a guarantee that my health insurance plan can’t drop me, or jack up my rates, just because I get sick.
    Agree/Disagree
  6. Drug costs are too high for retirees; they can’t afford it. Something has to be done to reduce prescription drug costs for people on Medicare.
    Agree/Disagree
  7. When I pay my premiums, I want to know that I’m paying for health care and not for bureaucrats. Insurance plans should have to spend at least 85% of my premiums on actual medical care.
    Agree/Disagree
  8. My kids shouldn’t be kicked off my insurance plan when they turn 18. Kids should be able to stay on their parents’ insurance until they are older, like 26.
    Agree/Disagree
  9. When I’m choosing health insurance plans, it’s hard to tell which is the best deal. I’d be better off if there were a few standard plan options so I could shop around and compare “apples-to-apples.”
    Agree/Disagree
  10. I don’t want anybody rationing my health care. There better not be any “annual caps” or “lifetime caps” on my benefits. When I get sick, I want the health care I need.
    Agree/Disagree
  11. My insurance premiums shouldn’t go up because hospitals have to provide free care to moochers who get sick and haven’t taken responsibility for making sure they can pay for their own health care.
    Agree/Disagree
  12. Just because I have a pre-existing condition, I shouldn’t be denied health insurance.
    Agree/Disagree
  13. The politicians have made a mess of our health care system. We need an American health care system that protects our freedoms to choose our insurance plans and our doctors. Tell your politicians to stand up for what is right for America.
    Agree/Disagree

[Note: If you answered “agree'” to all the above questions, you’re in luck. Congress has already approved a bill that would do just what you want. It’s called the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, also known as “Obamacare.”]


Tom Israel is the executive director of the teachers’ union in Montgomery County, Maryland.

Caught Red Handed: Rwanda, Violence in Eastern Congo, and the UN Report

The atmosphere was tense during the DRC Briefing at IPS on June 29, 2012. The audience of 45 squeezed into the conference room to hear the updates on Rwanda’s most recent breach of Congolese sovereignty, and the Q & A session threatened to reach a fever pitch.

The panel, comprised of three Congolese and one Rwandan, represented integral members of panelist and moderatorCongo’s extended civil society family. Each panelist expressed concerns about the future of Eastern DRC, yet convictions about the recent M23 uprising diverged dramatically. Some were convinced the conflict was spurred on by remaining post genocide ethnic tensions between Hutus and Tutsis. Others blamed the Congolese government for its lack of political will to handle conflict. Yet others maintained that the external influence of international actors was muddling the picture and exacerbating the poor image of African nationhood. And, of course, the “corruption card,” omnipresent in conversations of the “dark continent’s” troubles, was placed on the table early on.

Anyone who has heard of the DRC knows it’s a country with some issues but despite the devastating numbers (200,000 displaced), popular media has largely ignored the gravity of the latest mutinies in the Kivu provinces. Perhaps the “resource curse” seems too cliché to make headlines anymore…Or, perhaps the ugly effects of Western involvement are too unpleasant for America’s tender ears.

The US government certainly seems to believe the latter is the case. Portions of a recent leaked UN Report provide implicating evidence that Rwandan leaders have been aiding and abetting mutinous rebel leaders. Furthermore, the US has turned a blind eye to its ally’s behavior, suspiciously delaying the release of the report.

However, the root motivation for Rwanda’s and the State Department’s covert support of violence was largely overlooked by the panel. What the conversation lacked was a focus on the vast amount of valuable minerals in the region and potential succession of the Kivu Provinces. It has been said that Rwanda wishes to see the Eastern DRC break off and form a South Sudan-esque situation. A vulnerable and independent Eastern DRC would make an easily manipulated nation state for the resource hungry Rwanda.

audienceMore troubling was the lack of solutions with real teeth. Increased diplomacy between the Rwandan’s and Congolese has a warm fuzzy feel to it but in a situation driven by layers of greed, it sounds hollow and unlikely. Security sector reform was also mentioned as a potential answer to the problematic mutiny. However, if the Congolese government lacks political will and all of its members are defecting to the M23 in the Kivus, it’s likely that Kabila’s government simply doesn’t have the capacity to undertake such reforms.

The situation is likely to remain sticky if the international community continues to play the role of concerned onlooker.

The Wall Street Journal reported the State Department’s tepid response:

“‘We are deeply concerned about the report’s findings that Rwanda is implicated in the provision of support to Congolese rebel groups,’ said U.S. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland. The U.S. has ‘asked Rwanda to halt and prevent the provision of such support from its territory.'”

Pentagon, it is time to put your money where your mouth is. Politely asking to cease and desist is3 of the panelists a little too polite with the amount of lives at stake.

One of our panelists, Kambale Musavuli, summed up the situation tidily in a July 3rd Al Jazeera interview:

“We are funding half of the [Rwandan] military. They are being trained by AFRICOM and we are still not holding them accountable… Military aid [to the Rwandan Government] is causing conflict in the Congo, and we are partly responsible in the United States.”

Ultimately, a push for greater corporate responsibility is needed in the mining regions and must take a increased policy priority. In the mean time, the US government must suspend all aid to Rwanda until the Rwandan army discontinues its supply of ammunition, recruits, and weapons to M23. It’s time to stand with the people of the Congo. Let’s talk about an sanctions, not pathetically stand by because we can’t let our corporations suffer from lack of access to minerals. The US has a law that requires the revocation of aid from countries who contribute to violence in the Congo. It’s called Public Law 109-456. Let’s see that it gets enforced.

We Experienced and We Learned: My Journey through Rio+20

Growing up I often heard my parents say the phrase ‘tajrobay shod’ whenever they did something wrong or had an unexpected outcome. In English the phrase means “we experienced and we learned.” It always left me with a feel-good, positive attitude about my mistakes.

Like many, I traveled to the Rio+20 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development with high hopes. But midway through the conference, the feeling of dismay and disappointment kicked in. I was ready to be a part of Bjorn Lomborg crew. It was then that I remembered my childhood lesson of ‘tajrobay shod.’ I decided that there was no point in harping about the negative outcomes that most of us predicted anyways. So, why bother getting mad, walking out, banging our heads against the wall — instead I pondered how could I make Rio+20 a positive experience.

In search of lessons from Rio+20, I’ve touched upon three themes that in my opinion would have made Rio+20 effective. I’ve experienced the frustrations of Rio+20, and here is what I’ve learned.

Putting a Human Face to Our Challenges

This point was brought up during one of my discussions with Alfredo Younis, of the Zambuling Institute for Human Transformation, at a side event by Peace Child called “Lets get Mad.” The need for identifying important actors that are at the root of the problems that we are trying to solve is key in raising awareness for a particular issue.

Putting a human face to something simply means identifying the actors that are directly involved in the action and holding them accountable for their actions. By putting a human face to the abstract concept of the green economy, one can frame an issue in a way which is more relatable to an individual. As Alfredo Younis put it, we should not demand a green economy, but we should ask for green economists.

Talking About Our Values and Priorities

There needs to be recognition that the problems and challenges that we are facing are a manifestation of broader value systems. We need to move beyond our campaigns for green energy, food security, deforestation, and so forth to focus on the greater transformation that we need to set the pace for the future we want. Our campaigns for all of these issues are important, however, the majority group and hopefully the citizens of the world do recognize their co-dependence on each other and the need for dialogue about our priorities, actions, and way of life.

Working in silos on our campaigns needs to end. We need greater recognition for a change in our mindset and actions. We cannot keep on patching holes in the fabric of our society — we need to transform the whole fabric. We cannot talk about sustainable development without talking about our consumerist and materialist habits. Similarly, we cannot talk about eradication of poverty without talking about unequal distribution of resources. And we surely cannot talk about sustainable growth without questioning growth itself.

Lets Do Something About It

So Rio+20 wasn’t a success. What can I do? I want everyone to ask themselves this question. Inaction thrives on lack of responsibility and anger — we need to turn our anger into positive lessons and take it upon ourselves to do something that will bring social change in whatever way we can. Inspired by Rio+20 (I know this sounds ironic), I decided to grow a venture I started earlier this year called “Ruminize” (www.ruminize.com), which is going to serve as a story-sharing platform to inspire people and help them form a community of changemakers for local solutions that can go global.

Israeli Border Police Conduct Surveillance on Israeli Protesters and Journalists

Long story short: the Israeli Border Police’s Lebanese listeners have come to Tel Aviv to keep tabs on J14 (July 14 movement) marchers.

Or to paraphrase a paraphrase of Leon Trotsky, “you may not be interested in the Occupation, but the Occupation is interested you.”

As our domestic and international readers know, it is common for metropolitan police forces to videotape and photograph demonstrators, as well as journalists at the protests (and then, following standard post-9/11 counterterrorism procedures, match up faces or license plates with police records and other publicly available information in “data centers“). Anyone who had encountered an “Occupy” protest march since last September has surely seen police officers videotaping the march, and knows that the aforementioned data centers can and have been keeping tabs on Occupiers. Surveillance towers, aircraft and vans are deployed as well, most recently in Chicago, Illinois to surveil anti-NATO demonstrators.

And, it almost goes without saying, the Israeli security services do the same beyond the Green Line and on Israel’s borders day in and day out, monitoring the movements of demonstrators, militants, infiltrators, undocumented immigrants, even shepherds. “The Raccoon,” more widely known as the Israeli-built STALKER system, is merely one of their many tools. War is a mother to innovation, after all.

So what makes its deployment these past nights so unnerving for J14? Because it is clear now that in addition to the police, the Border Police are videotaping and photographing Israeli demonstrators, as well as Israeli journalists at the protests. Protests that are taking place inside the Green Line not at all focused on the Occupation. And yet Police Commissioner Yohanan Danino has reportedly told his subordinates to “to document every ‘involvement of the Arab community in the protests’.”

The already blurred line between the West Bank and Israel proper is getting ever more blurred, +972’s Noam Shezaif notes.

Considering Israel’s national service policies, I wonder if it would be fairly easy for the military to identify most people there based on file photos in their service records using face recognition software. Not a pleasant thought to have as a protestor in any country. Though certainly not one that will deter them.

Trading in Democracy: Why Rights Are Still For Real People

One of us had just landed in Vancouver, Canada, for a huge “Shout Out Against Mining Injustice” when we got the news: A tribunal in Washington, D.C. that nobody elected recently issued a verdict that will potentially constrain the democratic rights of millions of people.

The International Center for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), a tribunal located at the World Bank, ruled that Canadian mining company Pacific Rim may continue to sue El Salvador for not letting the company mine gold there. The impoverished Central American country could potentially be forced to pay the foreign company $77 million or more in damages. The anti-democratic ruling has ominous implications for all of us.

We visited El Salvador last year to learn more about this landmark case. A wide vein of gold lies alongside the northern portions of a large river that flows down the country’s middle, providing water for more than half the population. The gold remained relatively untouched until about a decade ago when foreign companies began to apply for mining permits.

Farmers and others told us that they were initially open to gold mining, thinking it would bring jobs to ease the area’s deep poverty. But, as they learned more about the toxic chemicals used to separate gold from the surrounding ore and about the massive amounts of water used in the process, they began to organize a movement that opposed mining. Their simple cry: “We can live without gold, but we can’t live without water.”

By 2007, polls showed close to two-thirds of Salvadorans opposed gold mining. In 2009, Salvadorans elected a president who promised he wouldn’t issue any new mining permits during his five-year term. He has kept this pledge.

But Pacific Rim didn’t sit idly by as democracy worked its way from El Salvador’s northern communities to its national government. The company sought a mining license. When the government rejected its environmental impact assessment, the Canadian company resorted to lobbying Salvadoran officials. And, when its lobbying failed, Pacific Rim lodged a complaint against El Salvador at ICSID in Washington under a U.S-initiated trade agreement and a little-known investment law in El Salvador.

Laws and trade pacts like these grant corporations the right to sue governments over actions—including health, safety, and environmental measures and regulations—that reduce the value of the corporation’s investment.

To the surprise of many observers, the tribunal ruled on June 1 that Pacific Rim can proceed with the lawsuit against El Salvador. Even if the cash-strapped Salvadoran government wins in the end, it will likely have to shell out millions on legal fees to defend an action taken after lengthy democratic deliberations. If it loses in the tribunal’s next ruling, it will cost even more.

Laws and trade agreements that allow corporations to sue governments should worry us all. No international tribunal should have the right to punish countries for laws or measures approved through a democratic process, be it in the United States, El Salvador, or anywhere else. President Barack Obama said this himself in 2008 when he promised, while campaigning, to limit the ability of corporations to use trade agreements to sue over public interest regulations.

Yet the Obama administration is currently negotiating a Trans-Pacific Partnership with several countries. And it’s pushing for provisions that would allow companies to sue governments under this trade pact.

But an expanding coalition of labor, environmental, religious, and other groups opposes giving Big Business this privilege. A similar coalition in Australia, another country negotiating this trade deal, has convinced its government to oppose such corporate “rights.” The Trans-Pacific Partnership may well prove an opportunity for this outrageous assault on democracy to be defeated.

Democracy belongs to the people. Those of us standing up to defend democracy and counter corporate abuse should strongly oppose any new “rights” for corporations being written into new trade pacts as we try to overturn the existing ones.

In Vancouver, we did not sit by idly when we heard the tribunal’s decision. The day after the decision was announced, 200 of us marched to the headquarters of Pacific Rim where Salvadoran anti-mining activist Vidalina Morales vowed that the broad-based National Roundtable on Metallic Mining would continue to fight to keep Pacific Rim out of El Salvador and asked for international solidarity.

For more information:

Page 70 of 245« First...102030...6869707172...8090100...Last »