Showing posts with label dictatorship. Show all posts
Showing posts with label dictatorship. Show all posts

Friday, November 09, 2012

Extending term limits to allow Presidents to stand for more than one or two terms is not unconstitutional nor dictatorship nor undemocratic if it’s done democratically – whether it’s Chavez in Venezuela, Zelaya in Honduras or Kirchner in Argentina

It's ridiculous that amending a constitution by a democratic process is presented as unconstitutional by the right in Latin America and by people and governments in Europe and the US when commenting on Latin America.

They've done this with President Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, who held elections for a Constituent Assembly which then drafted a new constitution and voted to approve it.

They did it with President Zelaya in Honduras, who was overthrown in a military coup after he tried to hold a referendum on whether to elect a constituent assembly to amend the constitution to let Presidents serve a second term if re-elected. Zelaya’s plan did not even allow for him to stand in the upcoming elections, as the referendum results would only be known after them. This was to revise a constitution which was written when military death squads were still massacring people in the 80s - and to allow Presidents to have a second term in office – the existing constitution limiting it to one term. Polls showed 55% of Hondurans supported it.

In a supposed move to “defend the constitution” members of the Honduran congress and military violated it a dozen times over by a military coup against the elected President that also involved jailing people without trial, torturing them and murdering them.

Now President Fernandez Kirchner’s proposals to amend the constitution to allow Presidents to stand for a third term in Argentina are being labelled “unconstitutional” and “dictatorship” too (1).

If it wasn't for the First Amendment to the US constitution there would be no right to freedom of speech in the US. No-one said it or any other amendment to the constitution was “unconstitutional” or a move towards dictatorship.

British and Australian Prime Ministers can be elected for any number of terms - yet no-one called Margaret Thatcher or Tony Blair would-be dictators when they stood for their third terms as heads of government.

In the US the constitution was only amended in 1951 to restrict Presidents to two terms after Franklin D Roosevelt won four elections in a row , because he'd angered the wealthiest and the big banks and firms with the New Deal policies that actually benefited the majority of the population and so reduced bank and big company profits. There’s an obvious parallel with Chavez there.

Some Republican members of congress even proposed scrapping the term limit in the US during Reagan’s second term as President to allow him to run for a third.

(1) = guardian.co.uk 06 Nov 2012 ‘Fernández de Kirchner reforms spark Argentina protests’,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/nov/06/fernandez-de-kirchner-reforms-protest

Sunday, March 13, 2011

Libya : the case for arming the rebels to save lives overall and end Gaddafi's dictatorship


Given the level of propaganda coming from all sides in Libya – and the many uses of it in past “humanitarian interventions”, whether by the US government in Kosovo or Iraq or the Russian government in Chechnya and Georgia, it is impossible to know for certain what is true and what isn’t in reports from Libya (the amount of propaganda has been so huge over such a long period that I’m making a separate post on it). However while we may not be getting to see and hear everything that’s going on there, we do know that seems to be partly because Gaddafi’s forces are preventing foreign journalists and aid agencies including the International Committee of the Red Cross, from entering any areas of cities they hold, which means they probably have something to hide (1) – (3). That makes reports from protesters,  opposition groups and from Egyptian migrant workers that Gaddafi’s forces are targeting and killing civilians more credible; as well as reports from the ICRC that they have targeted paramedics and ambulance teams and that Arab journalists working for the BBC were tortured by Gaddafi’s forces (4) – (12). So instituting a no-fly zone and arming the rebels – as they have requested - may be justified. (Though even Amnesty International has sometimes been taken in by propaganda in the short term until it gets to investigate further)

Egyptian migrant workers who had escaped from Zawiya in western Libya told Human Rights Watch that Gaddafi’s forces were opening fire on anyone who left their house. The International Committee of the Red Cross also says Red Crescent ambulance paramedics and clearly marked ambulances were shot by Gaddafi’s forces as they tried to treat the wounded (13) – (14). These are war crimes like similar actions by US forces in the assault on Fallujah in April 2004, when snipers also targeted both civilians and ambulances (15) – (16).

Gaddafi’s forces preventing any foreign journalists or aid organisations entering areas they hold – and opening fire on them, taking them prisoner or torturing them or killing them if they do enter them - suggests that they want to hide the targeting of civilians,  like Sharon’s government in Israel during it’s targeting of Palestinian civilians in offensives in the West Bank ; US forces in Fallujah ; and US missile strikes on the headquarters of Al Jazeera in both Kabul and Baghdad  (17) – (21). (An alternative or additional motive could be fears that spies for the US government and others might pose as journalists – but remember that there is no free media in Libya. There are only state controlled newspapers and TV stations – with journalists who criticise Gaddafi jailed or killed.)

Gaddafi is also a dictator who we know, over decades, has jailed people without trial, “disappeared” them Pinochet style, tortured them and had them summarily executed without fair trial – as well as sending agents to murder exiled dissidents across Europe and banning independent trade unions and any media free of state control. We also know of at least two massacres committed by his forces before the recent reports. In June 1996 around 1,200 prisoners from the Abu Salim prison in Libya were killed. In July 1996 his forces killed around 50 people after there was a pitch invasion of fans shouting anti-Gaddafi slogans at a football match in Tripoli. These events have all taken place long enough ago that if they had been made up we would know by now, just as the false story about Kuwaiti babies thrown out of their incubators by Iraqi troops in 1990 was initially repeated by the Kuwaiti Red Crescent and Amnesty International in their reports, but corrected within months when Amnesty staff got to talk to doctors at the hospital involved (see my next post on this ) (22) – (27)

I distrust the motives of the US government and it’s allies, but remember that Gaddafi’s regime was happy to not only co-operate with them when it suited it, but to co-operate in “extra-ordinary rendition” with the CIA. Ibn Al Sheikh Al Libi, was said by his Libyan jailers to have “committed suicide” after Human Rights Watch volunteers talked to him. He told them that he was “Curveball”, the source used by the Bush administration on Saddam’s supposedly active WMD programmes – and that the CIA tortured him until he told them what they wanted to hear (28). So cold blooded murder to protect arms and oil deals is a part of the Gaddafi government. (Another Iraqi exile claiming to be Curveball then conveniently turned up and claimed he’d lied without having to be forced to).

Since there is already a rebellion against a dictatorship with a history of executing people without trial, disappearing them and massacring them, we should support the rebels.

We don’t know what kind of government they will institute or whether they might kill civilian supporters of Gaddafi if they win. The rebels include the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, some of whose members helped collect intelligence for Al Qa’ida for the 1998 US embassy bombings in Africa – and who attempted, with MI6 support, to assassinate Gaddafi in 1996. Hundreds have been released from jail by Gaddafi’s regime after they renounced violence – including 110 after the first day of protests, so it seems unlikely he thought they were likely to join any armed insurgency against him (29) – (30). While many of those opposed to Gaddafi are Islamic fundamentalists, most will probably not be nearly as extreme as the LIFG though and no-one knows whether the Islamic fundamentalists are a majority or not. In February 2006 there were serious riots over rumours of the publication of a Mohammed cartoon in a Danish newspaper and 11 people were killed, suggesting Islamic fundamentalism is fairly influential in Libyan society (31).

We do know for a certainty though that Gaddafi has had civilians killed though and that given his past record that he is far more likely to have anyone who has opposed him jailed or killed than forgiven – and that includes protesters, not just those who took up arms against him. The Libyan people should also get whatever system of government they want, not one imposed on them by a dictatorship, whether that system ends up being a democracy most of us would approve of or not.

We also know the fate of those who have criticised or opposed Gaddafi in the past – usually long jail sentences or summary execution or their “disappearance”. Already in Zawiyah after Gaddafi’s forces’ victory an ITV journalist reported that ‘Troops are going house to house, according to one resident, rounding up dozens of suspects. We talked to one man who said: "People are being arrested for no reason, people who stayed in their homes for the whole seven days of the fighting. You cannot imagine what is happening here."’ (32)

Similarly, while some rebels say they think they will have no problem getting arms promised to them by the governments of Qatar and others – and the US is thought to have already requested that the Saudi government airlift arms to the rebels in Libya, this would be a very risky operation while Gaddafi’s air force still controls the skies. The Obama administration most likely wants to avoid being criticised later for arming rebels against Gaddafi if it later finds itself fighting or under attack from Islamic fundamentalist groups it has armed. However the risk of using the Saudis as a proxy is that they are likely to arm some of the most hardline Islamic fundamentalist groups, just as CIA co-operation with Pakistan’s military intelligence in the 80s to arm the Mujahedin saw arms go almost entirely to the most fundamentalist groups – and later to ISI support for the Taliban’s rise to power. If western governments armed some rebel groups themselves they could maybe ensure both that Gaddafi was overthrown and that the most extreme groups among the rebels didn't form the new government (not that their record here is very good - just look at it in Haiti, Nicaragua or El Salvador) (33) – (36).

Arming the rebels involves serious risks - including the possibility of a long and bloody civil war as in Congo or Somalia, the possibility that they might committ atrocities themselves if they win (though the fact that the rebels allow doctors in hospitals in areas they control to treat the wounded of both sides is hopeful here) ; and the fact that some factions like the LIFG have been allied to Al Qa'ida in the past and could try to sieze power (37). The alternative is almost certainly many thousands executed and thousands more disappeared by Gaddafi's military and secret police though.

There are many examples of past claims used to justify going to war which turned out to be propaganda, to make us uncertain of what is true and what isn’t in Libya ; and of hypocrisies by many of the governments calling for intervention and potential problems (covered in my next post), but if we wait until we have complete and definite information, by that time Gaddafi’s forces may well have wiped out the rebels and “disappeared” anyone who supported them or is suspected of supporting them. Most decisions must be taken without the full and certain facts. (That doesn’t mean we have to adopt what American journalist Ron Suskind called Cheney’s “one per cent doctrine” that we treat a 1% chance of something happening as a 100% chance – that would be treating a 99% chance that something is not happening as a 100% chance that it is (38))

CORRECTIONS AND UPDATES 14th March :

I've not found any report saying the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group are involved in the current fighting. There are claims from Gaddafi's government that various "Islamic Emirates" groups are involved like the Islamic Emirate of Barqa  (39)

Al Qa'ida in the Islamic Maghrib has said it supports the rebels (though whether it's provided any support beyond words is not known) (40)

There are also some reports that Gaddafi has offered rebel fighters who surrender and hand over their weapons an amnesty (41)


(1) = Channel 4 News 08 Mar 2011 ‘Libya Unrest : Zawiyah’, http://www.channel4.com/news/libya-intense-fighting-as-gaddafis-forces-use-air-strikes (3rd video on page – journalists refused access to areas where fighting between rebels and Gaddafi’s forces continues)

(2) = Channel 4 News 09 Mar 2011 ‘Gaddafi ramps up military action against rebels’, http://www.channel4.com/news/last-rebel-held-city-in-west-set-to-fall-to-gaddafi-troops ; See from 4 minutes 31 seconds to 4 minutes 45 seconds on journalists being turned away from Zawiya by Gaddafi’s forces ; See from 5 minutes 0 seconds to 5 minutes 30 seconds on reports of Gaddafi’s snipers shooting anyone who moves

(3) = ICRC 10 Mar 2011 ‘Libya: urgent to apply the rules of war’,http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/news-release/2011/libya-news-2011-03-10.htm ;The ICRC president expressed disappointment over the organization still not having access even to those areas where the clashes have been heaviest. "It's unacceptable that, 24 days after the fighting started, a major part of the country remains effectively cut off from humanitarian aid," he said. "Our greatest challenge right now is to reach the areas hardest hit by the fighting in order to help treat the war-wounded and follow up on people who have gone missing, as we've been doing in the east of the country since we arrived on 27 February."

(4) = Human Rights Watch 26 Feb 2011 ‘Libya: Security Forces Fire on Protesters in Western City’,http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2011/02/26/libya-security-forces-fire-protesters-western-city (includes eye-witness accounts by Egyptian migrant workers)

(5) = Amnesty International 04 Mar 2011 ‘Libyan paramedics targeted by pro-Gaddafi forces’,http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/libyan-paramedics-targeted-pro-gaddafi-forces-2011-03-04

(6) = Channel 4 News 09 Mar 2011 ‘Gaddafi ramps up military action against rebels’, http://www.channel4.com/news/last-rebel-held-city-in-west-set-to-fall-to-gaddafi-troops ; See from 4 minutes 31 seconds to 4 minutes 45 seconds on journalists being turned away from Zawiya by Gaddafi’s forces ; See from 5 minutes 0 seconds to 5 minutes 30 seconds on reports of Gaddafi’s snipers shooting anyone who moves

(7) = Sydney Morning Herald 07 Mar 2011 ‘How the West can end Gaddafi's slaughter’, by Geoffrey Robertson,http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/how-the-west-can-end-gaddafis-slaughter-20110306-1bjgs.html

(8) = Amnesty International 20 Feb 2011 ‘Libyan leader must end spiralling killings’,http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/libyan-leader-must-end-spiralling-killings-2011-02-20

(9) = Al Jazeera 22 Feb 2011 ‘Fresh violence rages in Libya’, http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/02/201122261251456133.html

(10) = Reuters 22 Feb 2011 ‘Gaddafi defiant in face of mounting revolt’,http://www.polity.org.za/article/gaddafi-defiant-in-face-of-mounting-revolt-2011-02-22

(11) = AP 17 Feb 2011 ‘20 reported killed in Libya 'day of rage'’, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41638452/ns/world_news-mideast/n_africa/

(12) = Guardian.co.uk 08 Mar 2011 ‘Assault on Zawiyah - live updates’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/08/arab-and-middle-east-protests-libya#block-1 ; Sky News, whose correspondent Alex Crawford and her crew were trapped in Zawiyah over the weekend, said it witnessed Gaddafi forces firing on unarmed civilians and ambulances. These accounts were corroborated from Tripoli by the Guardian's Peter Beaumont, who reports: "Residents described a hail of bullets with women and children being killed and families trapped within their homes by the ferocity of the fighting."

(13) = Human Rights Watch 26 Feb 2011 ‘Libya: Security Forces Fire on Protesters in Western City’,http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2011/02/26/libya-security-forces-fire-protesters-western-city (includes eye-witness accounts by Egyptian migrant workers)

(14) = Amnesty International 04 Mar 2011 ‘Libyan paramedics targeted by pro-Gaddafi forces’,http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/libyan-paramedics-targeted-pro-gaddafi-forces-2011-03-04

(15) = Guardian 17 Apr 2004 ‘'Getting aid past US snipers is impossible'’,http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/apr/17/iraq

(16) = BBC News 23 Apr 2004 ‘Picture emerges of Falluja siege’,http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3653223.stm

(17) = guardian.co.uk 09 Mar 2011 ‘BBC staff 'arrested and tortured in Libya by Gaddafi forces'’,http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/09/bbc-staff-arrest-torture-libya

(18) = guardian.co.uk 10 Mar 2011 ‘Guardian journalist Ghaith Abdul-Ahad in custody, Libya officials confirm’,http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/10/guardian-journalist-ahad-custody-libya

(19) = Al Jazeera 12 Mar 2011 ‘Al Jazeera staffer killed in Libya’,http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/03/2011312192359523376.html

(20) = Amnesty International 2002 ‘Israel and the Occupied Territories - Shielded from scrutiny: IDF violations in Jenin and Nablus’, http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE15/143/2002/en/dom-MDE151432002en.html ; (for more on this see this post )

(21) = Guardian Media 23 Nov 2005 2p.m update ‘Bush claim revives al-Jazeera bombing fears’,http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2005/nov/23/pressandpublishing.iraq , ‘The Baghdad bombing of 2003 was the second attack by American forces on the offices of al-Jazeera. In 2001 the station's Kabul office was hit by two "smart" bombs in an attack that almost wrecked the nearby BBC bureau. Al-Jazeera said it had given the location of its offices in both Kabul and Baghdad to the authorities in Washington, but it had still been attacked.’

(22) = Geoff Simons (2003) ‘Libya and the West’ Center for Libyan Studies, Oxford, UK, 2003, Chapter 6 , especially pages 103 -115 (also cites summary executions of Libyans stopped at road blocks etc)

(23) = Ronald Bruce St. John (2008 ) ‘Libya – From Colony to Independence’ , Oneworld books, Oxford, UK, 2008, pages 165-171, 256-257 of paperback edition; on football match shootings see page 223

(24) = Geoff Simons (1996) ‘Libya – The Struggle for Survival’ 2nd edition, paperback edition, MacMillan, London, 1996

(25) = Human Rights Watch World Report 2011 – Libya,http://www.hrw.org/en/world-report-2011/libya ; There are still dozens of unresolved disappearance cases in Libya, including those of Libyan opposition members Jaballa Hamed Matar and Izzat al-Megaryef, whom Egyptian security arrested in 1990 in Cairo. Their families later learned that Egypt had handed them over to Libyan security officials, who detained them in Abu Salim prison. Prominent Lebanese Shia cleric Imam Musa al-Sadr disappeared in Libya 32 years ago; his fate remains unknown.

(26) = Amnesty International 2010 World Report – Libya,http://report2010.amnesty.org/sites/default/files/AIR2010_AZ_EN.pdf#page=156; Hundreds of cases of enforced disappearances and other human rights violations committed in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s remain unresolved, and the Internal Security Agency, implicated in those violations, continued to operate with impunity.

(27) = Human Rights Watch 28 Jun 2006 ‘Libya: June 1996 Killings at Abu Salim Prison’,http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2006/06/28/libya-june-1996-killings-abu-salim-prison

(28) = HRW 11 May 2009 ‘Libya/US: Investigate Death of Former CIA Prisoner’, http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/05/11/libyaus-investigate-death-former-cia-prisoner

(29) = Mark Curtis (2010) ‘Secret Affairs – Britain’s collusion with Radical Islam’,Serpent’s tail books, London, 2010, chapter 13, pages 225-231 of paperback edition

(30) = Al Jazeera 16 Feb 2011 ‘Libyan police stations torched’, http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/02/20112167051422444.html ; ‘Meanwhile, a local human rights activist told Reuters news agency that the authorities have decided to release 110 prisoners jailed for membership of banned organisation, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group.The prisoners to be freed on Wednesday, are the last members of the group still being held and will be set free from Tripoli's Abu Salim jail, Mohamed Ternish, chairman of the Libya Human Rights Association said.Hundreds of alleged members of the group have been freed from jail after it renounced violence last year.’

(31) = Ronald Bruce St. John (2008 ) ‘Libya – From Colony to Independence’ , Oneworld books, Oxford, UK, 2008, page 257 of paperback edition

 (32) = Guardian.co.uk 10 Mar 2011 ‘Zawiya town centre devastated and almost deserted’,http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/10/zawiya-town-itv-regime-battle ; They are sweeping through Zawiya, rounding up young men they suspect might have been involved in the rebellion…Troops are going house to house, according to one resident, rounding up dozens of suspects. We talked to one man who said: "People are being arrested for no reason, people who stayed in their homes for the whole seven days of the fighting. You cannot imagine what is happening here."… We left the square to go to the hospital where doctors had told me on Sunday they believed Gaddafi was guilty of war crimes, including killing doctors. I hoped to talk to them. At the gate where we had been stopped by soldiers I saw one of the doctors. He made a sign with his hand warning me not to acknowledge him. He was clearly scared. He knows he treated rebels. He also treated government soldiers.

(33) = guardian.co.uk 09 Mar 2011 ‘Libya's war intensifies but Nato shows no sign of intervening’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/09/libya-gaddafi-ras-lanuf-zawiya

(34) = The Independent 07 Mar 2011 ‘America's secret plan to arm Libya's rebels’,http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/americas-secret-plan-to-arm-libyas-rebels-2234227.html

(35) = Coll, Steve (2004) , 'Ghost Wars : The secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan and Bin Laden' , Penguin , London, 2004,  Prologue, page 12 of paperback edition

(36) = Ahmed Rashid (2001) ‘Taliban’, Tauris books, London ,2001 – especially p132 of paperback edition

(37) = Sky News 08 Mar 2011 ‘Special Report: Rebel-Held Town Under Siege’,
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Libya-Sky-News-Witnesses-Zawiyah-Rebels-Battle-Gaddafi-Soldiers-In-Bloody-Fight-For-Control-Of-City/Article/201103215948211?lpos=World_News_Top_Stories_Header_1&lid=ARTICLE_15948211_Libya%3A_Sky_News_Witnesses_Zawiyah_Rebels_Battle_Gaddafi_Soldiers_In_Bloody_Fight_For_Control_Of_City (see videos)

(38) = Ron Suskind (2006) ‘The One Percent doctrine’, Simon & Schuster, London, 2007

(39) = AFP/ Sydney Morning Herald 21 Feb 2011 ‘Libyan Islamists seize arms, take hostages’,http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/libyan-islamists-seize-arms-take-hostages-20110221-1b19c.html

(40) = CNN 24 Feb 2011 ‘Al Qaeda's North African wing says it backs Libya uprising’,http://articles.cnn.com/2011-02-24/world/libya.qaeda.statement_1_libyan-islamic-fighting-group-islamic-maghreb-al-qaeda?_s=PM:WORLD

(41) = guardian.co.uk 02 Mar 2011 ‘Muammar Gaddafi offers rebels an amnesty’,http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/02/muammar-gaddafi-offers-rebels-amnesty

Saturday, February 05, 2011

Why Arab dictatorships are not preventing war on Israel – they stopped fighting it because it’s military has always been stronger than all of theirs

One of the arguments given as an excuse for US support for dictatorships is that these dictatorships have supposedly prevented war with Israel and that Israel could be “threatened” by a possible Muslim Brotherhood government in Egypt. This argument makes no sense because the same dictatorships went to war with Israel repeatedly in 1948, 1967 and 1973 – and only stopped after that because they realised that even all of them combined had no hope of defeating Israel’s much stronger military (see e.g Israeli historian Avi Shlaim’s ‘The Iron Wall’) and do not want to risk a nuclear counter-attack (Israel having had nuclear weapons for decades) or the US military joining any war on the Israeli side if an Israeli defeat looked possible.

Mubarak’s predecessor Sadat only decided to make peace with Israel after the Arab states were decisively defeated for the third time in their third war with Israel in 1973. (In those negotiations full recognition of Israel was not made a precondition for talks the way it has been with Hamas, as Israeli professor Yossi Alpher has pointed out.  Sadat was subsequently assassinated after Islamic clerics placed a fatwa on him and replaced by Mubarak (1).

Since then the gap in military strength between Israel and it’s Arab neighbours has only grown greater, due partly to US military aid from 1967 on and partly to Israel strengthening it’s economic base and so it’s military research and production programmes by using US aid and the profits from tourism and from annexed agricultural land and water supplies in the West Bank. Egypt under Mubarak has had significant military aid and arms sales from the US, but not nearly as much as Israel.

SIPRI statistics show Israel’s military spending  in 2009 was over $14 billion, compared to under $4 billion for Egypt – and Egypt has the strongest military of any Arab country. Israel’s annual military spending has consistently exceeded that of all it’s Arab neighbours – Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Egypt – combined (CSIS 2009 page 32 = (2)).

It also has more operational high quality combat aircraft than it’s four neighbours combined (CSIS 2009 page 24, Fig 15 = (3)) Israeli air superiority was decisive in the 1967 and 1973 wars.

 The spending gap doesn’t show how great the gap in military strength is either because the Israeli military has far more advanced military technology, both that provided by the US and the tech it’s developed itself.

So there is no reason to believe that elected governments in Arab states would be any more suicidal than their unelected predecessors – and so they would no more likely to let themselves in for certain defeat, humiliation and large numbers of deaths by going to war on Israel.

They would certainly be unlikely to continue the dictatorships’ alliances with Israel, but that is a long way from them being a “threat” to it. Even governments which are hostile to one another – like the US and Venezuela, continue large scale trade in oil – and even Iran has been keen to continue trading with the US. US firms have likewise continued to trade with Iran through subsidiaries to avoid US sanctions (including subsidiaries of Cheney’s Halliburton even as he was calling for war on Iraq and Iran).

As Mohamed ElBaradei has said “a durable peace can only be between democracies and not between dictators.” (4).

The military aid given to Egypt supposedly “secures peace” and that given to Israel similarly supposedly ensures it is safe against threats.

The reality is that military aid to Egypt is primarily about propping up a dictatorship that largely does as the US government tells it, combined with a US government subsidy to their own arms companies – as most of the military aid is spent on buying US arms.

Military aid and arms sales to Israel are similarly a subsidy to US arms firms – and also due to the strength of the Israel lobby in the US.

They most certainly don’t encourage peace though, as the main cause of most wars is not that Israel is weak and threatened, but that it’s military is stronger than those of the rest of the Middle East combined, encouraging it’s governments to launch full scale wars on the Palestinian Authority and Lebanon and to refuse to make any concessions whatsoever in negotiations with the Palestinians.

Photo at top of blog - Israeli Air force F15s from Machine Wrench blog

(1) = Forward 20 Oct 2006 ‘Preconditions for a Problematic Partner’,http://www.forward.com/articles/5948/

(2) = Cordesman, Anthony H. , Burke, Arleigh A. & Nerguiziam Aram  29 Jun 2010 ‘The Arab Israeli Military Balance’, Center for Strategic Studies and International Studies (CSIS) 2010,http://csis.org/files/publication/100629_Arab-IsraeliMilBal.pdf , page 32

(3) = As (2) above, page 24, Figure 15

(4) = Independent 01 Feb 2011 ‘Mohamed ElBaradei: The man who would be President’,http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/mohamed-elbaradei-the-man-who-would-be-president-2200155.html

Thursday, January 20, 2011

US, British and French governments try to minimise democratisation in Tunisia

The reactions of democratically elected governments across the world, from the US to France, to the revolution in Tunisia, show they are playing their usual public relations game of pretending to back democracy in other countries while actually backing dictatorships and trying to minimise any democratisation in them.

The British government has called for the “full inclusion of all legal parties in the formation of an interim Government.” The word “legal” here may seem unexceptional. However “legal” in this case means legal under the existing laws of the dictatorship of Ben Ali and his one party state, with opposition limited to parties approved by them, which excludes much of the democratic opposition (1).

Similarly US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has called for “free and fair elections in the near future”.and EU governments are keen to offer “speedy” help to organise elections (2) – (3)

However, as demonstrators in Tunisia and exiled opposition party leaders in France have pointed out, elections coming quickly will benefit Ben Ali’s RCD party and those parties they have allowed to be legal, but exclude others.

Under the existing Tunisian constitution, written by the former dictator, President Ben Ali, rapid elections would also prevent anyone who is not already a member of the Tunisian parliament (and so approved by the former dictator) from standing for election as President – something outlined in one of the leaked US embassy cables (4).

That’s why many of the opposition are demanding that the interim government exclude former members of Ben Ali’s government;  that a new constitution be drawn up before any elections for a new parliament or President ; and that even elections for members of an assembly to draft a new constitution should be delayed until the exiled and banned opposition parties can organise for the election of that assembly.

Tunisian demonstrators have chanted “We want a new parliament, a new constitution, a new republic! People rise up against the Ben Ali loyalists!” and “Bread and water and no RCD!” (6)

So the calls for the inclusion of “all legal political parties” and rapid elections are both attempts to limit the amount of democratisation in Tunisia and to try to ensure that while the dictator has had to go, much of his regime will stay and continue to run Tunisia’s economy at the beck and call of the IMF for the benefit of EU and US and other companies, not for the benefit of the Tunisian people, as some Tunisian academics and writers have pointed out (7) – (8).

Those policies, which have helped cause hunger and poverty for many Tunisians, are as much a cause of the revolution as the dictatorship that enforced them was

Watch out for governments' rhetoric about the need to restore stability. Stability is their long standing euphemism for ensuring other countries are governed in the interests not of their own people but in the interests of the elites in the countries "concerned" about their stability. Stability is often a euphemism for a client dictatorship too.

The French government was President Ben Ali’s closest ally, but is not alone in backing dictators who will sell out their own people for the benefit of foreign companies in return for a share of the profits.

The British, French and American governments are among the many who continue to support dictators like the Saud family monarchy in Saudi Arabia (monarchy here sounding much nicer than torturing dictatorship that executes people without a trial, but amounting to much the same) and the Mubarak dynasty of supposed Republicans, but definite dictators, in Egypt.

While mouthing platitudes about the desirability of greater democracy and reform, they continue to reward these dictatorships with arms for oil deals and – in the case of Egypt – a large amount of military aid.

Saudi Arabia is even less democratic than Iran, with no elected officials with any real powers whatsoever, at any level of government – and – as in Iran - with many people executed each year after being tortured into making confessions.

So it’s hardly surprising to see that the governments of the most powerful democracies are trying to restrict rather than aid democratisation in Tunisia.

There are serious risks with any plan to exclude Ben Ali’s RCD party from the interim government – it could produce violence or a counter-coup which could prevent any real democratisation at all– but there are risks just as big with allowing too many of them who were too close to Ben Ali to stay in government and possibly prevent a total re-writing of the 1988 constitution and the legalisation of banned opposition parties.

Update 23rd January 2011 - The Guardian is also reporting that "The new Tunisian government is still holding between 500 and 1,000 prisoners accused of often vaguely worded terrorism offences, despite a promise to release all political detainees." (9)

(1) = Hansard, House of Commons, 17 Jan 2011, column 549, 3.15 p.m,http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm110117/debtext/110117-0001.htm#1101176000003

(2) = DipNote US department of state official blog 15 Jan 2011 ‘Secretary Clinton’s Statement on Recent Events in Tunisia’, http://blogs.state.gov/index.php/site/entry/recent_events_tunisia

(3) = See (1) above

(4) = Guardian.co.uk 17 Jan 2011 ‘US embassy cables: Finding a successor to Ben Ali in Tunisia’,http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/49401

(5) = AFP 19 Jan 2011 ‘Tunisian leader vows 'total break' with old regime’,http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110119/wl_mideast_afp/tunisiapoliticsunrest

(6) = AFP 17 Jan 2011 ‘Tunisia appoints national unity govt amid turmoil’, http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110117/wl_africa_afp/tunisiapoliticsurest

(7) = Guardian 18 Jan 2011 ‘Tunisians must dismantle the monster Ben Ali built’ by Soumaya Ghannoushi, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jan/18/tunisia-ben-ali-dictator-coalition

(8) = Guardian.co.uk 19 Jan 2011 ‘Tunisia needs real freedom’, by Intissar Kherigi, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jan/19/tunisia-democratic-unity-government

(9) = guardian.co.uk 11 jan 2011 'Hundreds of political prisoners in Tunisia yet to be released', http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/21/political-prisoners-tunisia-released

Saturday, February 13, 2010

Haitians need the countries aiding them now to stop starving them through unfair trade and coups in future

A 15-year-old girl shot dead by Haitian police after the earthquake for stealing paintings ; Photograph: Carlos Garcia Rawlins/Reuters


The earthquake in Haiti called the world’s attention to a country whose people have been suffering for centuries – but much of their current suffering started before the earthquake and is caused not by a lack of outside intervention but by too much of it, with the wrong motives. Of course Haitians need all the emergency aid they can get, but the causes of their suffering – including the lack of earthquake proof buildings like those found in California – have a lot to do with the French and US governments and firms profiting from reducing most of them to poverty and starvation – and not just in the past.


Haitians – dying as slaves of France and America then and now

In the 18th century they were slaves whose lives were treated as worthless by owners whose fear of rebellion led to incredible cruelty. Their rebellion was crushed first by the French. Haiti then had to pay an ‘indemnity’ for the costs to the French of crushing the rebels and reduce taxes on French imports and exports. By the early 20th century American forces arrived and occupied the country, taking control of its finances and getting a puppet leader to grant the US the ‘right’ to ‘develop’ Haiti’s ‘natural resources’.

The US has became the dominant foreign power in Haiti, though the French government still believes that Haiti is in it’s ‘sphere of influence’. ‘Papa Doc’ Francois Duvalier went from saving thousands of lives as a doctor to having thousands killed as a US-backed dictator. Under Carter’s Presidency in the US the ‘Baby Doc’ Jean Charles Duvalier dictatorship in Haiti briefly felt the need to restrain itself from murdering too many of its critics and opponents in case it lost some foreign aid, but on the night of Reagan’s election Duvalier’s ‘tonton macoutes’ (hired thugs with machetes and guns) poured into the streets of the Haitian capital Port Au Prince shouting ‘The Cowboys are in power – human rights are over’. Once Reagan took office in January 1980 the killing began again in earnest (1).

While there is a great deal of controversy over the past Presidency of Jean Bertrand Aristide, a former Catholic priest in Port Au Prince, there is no doubt about one thing – US policy under both Republican and Democratic Presidents and congresses has been to demand ‘free trade’ in Haiti – privatisation, cuts in public services and access to Haiti for US based firms. In 1980 Haiti produced enough food to feed it’s own population. Pressure from the US and European governments through the IMF got import tariffs on rice imports to Haiti slashed. While demanding Haiti end all subsidies and protection for Haitian farmers the US government increased subsidies to American farmers.

So while in the past Haiti produced 80% of the rice eaten there, now it imports 80%. Under IMF conditions on loans run up under US backed dictatorships in the past Haiti also began exporting cash crops to the US while having to import Us-subsidised American rice, putting its own farmers out of business. The wages paid in Haitian factories, mostly by American based multinationals, had fallen to 20% of their 1981 levels by 2000, partly due to the US trained military targeting trade unionists and governments banning trade unions (see the Oxfam website and Professor Peter Hallward’s book ‘Damming the Flood’ on this) (2), (3).

This has had everything to do with benefitting investors from the US, France and their allies and little or nothing to do with helping the majority of Haitians, who, reduced to an income of under 50 pence a day, couldn’t afford food and were buying ‘mud cakes’ made of mud mixed with salt to fill their own and their children’s stomachs as they starved by July 2008 (4). This was before the hugely exaggerated ‘credit crisis’ or the earthquake.

Aristide came to prominence as a critic of the Duvalier dictatorships – and continued to criticise the military government of General Namphy which replaced the younger Duvalier. On September 11th 1988 tontons macoute burst into his church at San Jean Bosco during a sermon in which he as usual denounced the dictatorship for its repression, its corruption and for doing nothing for the poor majority. The attackers shot and hacked the congregation and set fire to the church, killing dozens. This echoed the US-backed military and death squads in El Salvador and their assassination of Bishop Oscar Romero in March 1980 and the murder of many of his supporters before and after his death. Aristide, unlike Romero, survived the attempt on his life – and several attempts before and after it. Both Aristide and Romero were outspoken on behalf of the poor. The Haitian military, like the Salvadoran, was (and is) US-trained.


Aristide – Liberator or corrupted by power?

However Aristide refused to call for reconciliation with his enemies. Instead he told his supporters that they were weak alone, but strong together, that together they were Lavalas (the flood). He is accused by his critics of encouraging violence against his political enemies with public speeches that included lines like "do not forget to give them what they deserve" and "a machete is a useful tool in many situations". However Aristide feared his enemies were preparing to kill him and his supporters. Pre-empting this may have been morally wrong or unwise or paranoid, but he had every reason to feel paranoid. If Aristide is not a saint it’s hard to know how any of us would have reacted when people close to us had been killed and we feared for both our own lives and those of our families and allies. Haitian politics is very different to American or European politics in which the losers know losing doesn’t mean possible death for them, their families and those who supported them. His defenders also say he only approved of violence in self-defence against the tonton macoutes and the army – and that his movement is primarily non-violent as it could never hope to beat the automatic weapons of his enemies.

The US government was critical of the Namphy regime over the San Jean Bosco massacre and cut aid to it as a result. In 1990 Aristide was elected President and began to carry out major reforms to benefit the poorest, including increasing the minimum wage

The French government was greatly displeased by Aristide's government taking it to court, demanding that it repay the $21 billion he estimated France owed Haiti between the 'indemnity' (which was only paid off by Haiti in 1947) and its use of Haitians as slave labour.

He was soon overthrown in a military coup in 1991 in which the US-trained military massacred hundreds of people (and thousands over the next three years), but restored to office by an American invasion of Haiti in 1994 under President Clinton, towards the end of his first term. However there were plenty of conditions placed by the Clinton administration on his restoration apart from reconciliation with his enemies. They included adopting IMF imposed ‘economic reforms’ – the usual privatisations, cuts in public services and welfare payments and access to Haiti for foreign firms, along with a cut in the minimum wage - and Aristide not standing in the next Presidential election, meaning he would actually have been in office for less than two of the five years of his term.

On being restored to office (but barely to power) Aristide began policies to benefit the poor majority again and filled his government with community organisers and charity workers, angering both the traditional Haitian elite and US firms, who benefited from low wages ; as well as career politicians who had expected lucrative ministerial posts in his government.

Aristide also dismantled the US-trained Haitian military, given the long history of most of it in backing dictators and overthrowing elected governments (not least his own in 1991). The Clinton and Bush administrations now moved to backing right-wing paramilitary groups, the FRAPH and FADH, as a means of maintaining their influence by force in Haiti. Many politicians denied a place in Aristide's government were funded with US aid to set up 'civil society' groups to try to discredit Aristide

Aristide and his OPL (party of the Lavalas or ‘flood’) subsequently split, with Aristide forming the ‘Fanmi Lavals’ (family of the flood) while many politicians denied a place in Aristide's government formed a separate OPL (with the L now standing for ‘Lutte’ or ‘struggle’ rather than Lavalas).

Aristide was forced stand down in the next election by the Clinton administration and US congress making US aid conditional on this action. His ally Rene Preval took over for a term, before Aristide was re-elected with a big majority as President in the 2000 Haitian Presidential elections, which, despite much US and French government propaganda, were declared largely free and fair by international observers.

The version of events given from here on continues to vary according to the views of the writer , with some casting Aristide as the hero, resisting American backed villains; others (like Michael Diebert in his book ‘Notes on the Last Testament’) casting him as the villain – a paranoid, ruthless or power crazed man who had lost his way and become corrupt.

What is certain is that in 2004 the Bush administration and the French government backed another military coup against Aristide and he was flown into exile in the Central African Republic, whose French backed dictatorship banned him from criticising the US or French governments or their role in the coup in the media (5), (6).

I’ll leave it up to others to read for themselves and decide which version they believe and whether Aristide was corrupted by power or fear or simply had his character assassinated by the US and French governments when they realised he wasn’t meeting their demands (though my own view is that a great deal of character assassination and propaganda against Aristide is involved). The important point to make is that no US government has ever criticised a government much for being undemocratic or ruthless or dictatorial unless that government was either hostile to the US or else restricting profits for American investors and firms by running it’s country for the benefit of the majority of the population, rather than for foreign investors in alliance with a small indigenous elite collaborating with them. The Saudi monarchy has never yet held a free election or many fair trials. President Uribe of Colombia and his government have had plenty of dissidents and trade unionists murdered using right-wing paramilitaries that work hand in glove with the US funded military. President Mubarak of Egypt has banned the main opposition party, rigs elections and has opposition activists –whether Muslim, conservative or liberal – attacked by thugs. Yet they will never get the criticism that Chavez in Venezuela (repeatedly democratically elected) , Castro (an unelected dictator but with a broadly socialist economic policy until recently) or Aristide do. So if the US government is hostile to Aristide it’s more likely that that’s because he tried to run Haiti for the benefit of the majority of Haitians.

That may be why the US government had international aid coming from the Inter-American Development Bank and various other sources to Haiti blocked as long as Aristide was in power ( as pointed out by Professor Paul Farmer, who also runs a medical charity in Haiti and works for it there) (7).

The other point is that as a result Haitians have quietly starved to death in huge numbers so American and French investors can profit.


Invading Haiti to keep out the damn immigrants and control Haiti’s trade policy– 1994 and 2009

On the few occasions when the US government sends aid it also has mixed motives. In 1994 as today a key aim was to prevent refugees reaching Florida and upsetting the next election.

The Irish Independent newspaper reported in January that “As well as providing emergency supplies and medical aid, the USS Carl Vinson, along with a ring of other navy and coast guard vessels, will act as a deterrent to Haitians who might be driven to make the 681-mile sea crossing to Miami..."The goal is to interdict them at sea and repatriate them," said the US Coast Guard Commander Christopher O'Neil.’(8)

Haitian orphans are welcome. Haitian refugees and immigrants are sent home to suffer (other than CIA and US military intelligence ‘assets’ responsible for many political killings, many of whom retire to Florida).

Another aim has always been to use Haiti as a source of cheap labour for American multinationals – and more importantly to prevent Aristide’s example being followed by other countries.


Shooting the poor

So after the earthquake when Haitian police handed looters over to mobs to be burned alive there was little comment from the Obama administration or President Sarkozy; nor when Haitian policem shot a 15 year old girl dead for stealing paintings to try to get money to buy food - and that was no isolated incident (8) - (10).


How impoverishing Haitians caused earthquake deaths due to shoddy buildings

Another fact that’s given less prominence than it deserves is that according to seismologists the earthquake that hit Haiti wasn’t especially big in historical terms and only killed so many people because so many of Haiti’s buildings are not designed to resist earthquakes despite the capital of the country lying on a fault line. A larger earthquake – 7.0 on the Richter scale – in Los Angeles in 1994 killed less than 70 people because the buildings there were designed to withstand earthquakes. All the money taken in interest payments in debt, all the money never paid due to low minimum wages and reduced benefits, ensured that even among Haitians who realised the risk couldn’t afford to build earthquake resistant houses and buildings (11), (12).


They don’t owe us, We Owe them

Naomi Klein, the author of 'The Shock Doctrine' quotes Haitian economist Camille Chalmers.

'Debt cancellation is a good start, he told al-Jazeera English, but: "It's time to go much further. We have to talk about reparations and restitution for the devastating consequences of debt." In this telling, the whole idea that Haiti is a debtor needs to be abandoned. Haiti, he argues, is a creditor – and it is we, in the west, who are deeply in arrears.'

For decades one of the poorest countries in the world has been paying money to foreign debtors and much of it has been debt run up under dictatorships backed or tolerated by the US government, which in terms of international law is ‘odious debt’ which should be written off by the creditors – even more so when they had the power to end those dictatorships and chose not to.

The media coverage of Haiti since the earthquake has helped the campaign to cancel this debt and Prime Minister Gordon Brown of the UK has come out in favour of cancelling it – but unless the campaign continues beyond the media coverage, those successes may be reversed.

Unless things change from now on – unless the US and French and every other government are pressured by the people of their own countries to stop imposing economic policies that cause huge numbers of deaths through poverty on Haitians – and to stop seeking to rule Haiti by arming and funding the Haitian military, whose only war has been on it’s own people (which is why Aristide disbanded it in his first term in office – and why the US later helped to re-establish it). Of course Haiti needs investment – but on it’s people’s terms, not the terms of foreign governments, firms or those collaborators among the tiny wealthy Haitian elite (though some wealthy Haitians have taken the side of the majority).

Otherwise Haitians will keep dying like flies and watching their children die, just as they did before the earthquake, during it and since it; dying quickly - in political killings, in police shootings of desperate teenagers turning to petty theft to try to get enough to eat, in future earthquakes under the rubble of cheap buildings ; or dying slowly and quietly– of illness or of hunger , while eating mud cakes mixed with salt to try to fill their aching, empty stomachs. This is not because developed world governments haven’t done enough – but because they have done far too much to repress and exploit benefits for the profit of firms based in their own countries – and to prevent the “threat” posed by liberation theology like Aristide’s spreading.

Johan Hari points to one success :

‘The IMF announced a $100m loan, stapled on to an earlier loan, which requires Haiti to raise electricity prices, and freeze wages for the public-sector workers who are needed to rebuild the country...For the first time, the IMF was stopped from shafting a poor country – by a rebellion here in the rich world. Hours after the quake, a Facebook group called "No Shock Doctrine For Haiti" had tens of thousands of members, and orchestrated a petition to the IMF of over 150,000 signatures demanding the loan become a no-strings grant. After Naomi Klein's mega-selling exposé, there was a vigilant public who wanted to see that the money they were donating to charity was not going to be cancelled out by the IMF. ... The IMF backed down. It publicly renounced its conditions – and even said it would work to cancel Haiti's entire debt.’ (13)

That’s a real victory, but the pressure needs to be maintained. So far according to the UN donor governments have only delivered 6% of the aid they promised to feed Haitians even through the current emergency created by the earthquake. (14)


Sources :

(1) = Michael Deibert (2005) ‘Notes from the Last Testament’, Seven Stories Press, London & NY , 2005, Chapter 4, pages 80 – 81 of paperback edition (A Reuters correspondent in Haiti from 2001 till 2003, Deibert is highly critical of Aristide, seeing him as having been behind many political killings and having become a dictator)

(2) =Peter Hallward (2007) ‘Damming the Flood – Haiti, Aristide and the politics of containment’, Verso, London and New York, 2007 (Professor Hallward makes a convincing and well-sourced case that many of the claims about Aristide’s ‘dictatorship’ are a well orchestrated propaganda campaign aimed at legitimising US and French government backed military coups in alliance with some of the wealthiest businesspeople in Haiti and elements of the military and police trained in the US)

(3) = Oxfam – Hard Times in Haiti slide show - http://www.oxfam.org.uk/oxfam_in_action/issues/food_crisis/haiti_slideshow.html

(4) = Guardian 29 Jul 2008 ‘Haiti: Mud cakes become staple diet as cost of food soars beyond a family's reach’,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/29/food.internationalaidanddevelopment

(5) = Paul Farmer (2004) ‘Who removed Aristide?’ in London Review of Books Vol. 26, No. 8, 15 Apr 2004, pages 28-31,
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v26/n08/paul-farmer/who-removed-aristide

(6) = Democracy Now 17 Mar 2004 ‘Exclusive: Aristide Talks With Democracy Now! About the Leaders of the Coup and U.S. Funding of the Opposition in Haiti’,
http://www.democracynow.org/2004/3/17/exclusive_aristide_talks_with_democracy_now

(7) = Paul Farmer (2004) ‘What happened in Haiti? Where Past is Present’ in Noam Chomsky, Paul Farmer, Amy Goodman et al (2004) ‘ Getting Haiti Right this Time : The US and the Coup’, Common Courage, Monroe, Maine, US, 2004, Chapter 2 , (Professor Farmer, who also works for a medical charity he works for in Haiti comes to similar conclusions to Hallward’s)

(8) = Independent (Ireland) 20 Jan 2010 ‘US ships set up blockade to prevent a mass exodus -
Fleeing Haitians warned they will be sent back’, http://www.independent.ie/world-news/americas/us-ships-set-up-blockade-to-prevent-a-mass-exodus-2022667.html

(9) = guardian.co.uk 20 Jan 2010 ‘Haiti looting horror: Girl shot dead by police for taking paintings’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/20/haiti-earthquake-teenager-shot-police and guardian.co.uk 17 Jan 2010 ‘Retribution swift and brutal for Haiti's looters’,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/17/retribution-lynching-haiti-looters

(10) = ABC News 18 Jan 2010 ‘Police shoot at looters in struggle for survival’, http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/01/18/2794297.htm

(11) = ‘Haiti’s Killer Quake : Why It Happened’, 02 Feb 2010, 9pm GMT on Channel 4 (UK)
– watch at http://www.channel4.com/programmes/haitis-killer-quake-why-it-happened/4od#3030763 or at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--mWQmIh_cQ

(12) = Newsweek 21 Jan 2010 ‘Why the Palace Fell - Lessons learned from the destruction of Haiti's presidential home’,
http://www.newsweek.com/id/231846

(13) = Independent 05 Feb 2010 ‘Johann Hari: There's real hope from Haiti and it's not what you expect’, http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-theres-real-hope-from-haiti-and-its-not-what-you-expect-1889958.html

(14) = UNoCHA IRIN News 09 Feb 2010 ‘HAITI: Funding gap for nutrition’, http://www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?ReportId=88049