#‎resigncameron‬ and the need for smarter action

‪

Many who oppose the government's policies sought to exploit the Panama Papers leak for a change of government. The‎ #resigncameron hashtag was born, protests staged and people spoke of the need for revolution.  On the one hand, the would be revolutionaries recognise the scale of the problem and the flaws in the institutions that stifle radical solutions. They recognise that it is a struggle. Their rhetoric is romantic and intoxicating, but also misleading. A revolution sounds quick and decisive, but the inconvenient truth is that they require serious planning, considered action and sustained vigilance.

Most people, whether sympathetic or not, see the movement for what it is - opportunism motivated by ideological opposition. It appeals to those overcome by sentiment, but it’s unlikely to persuade an electoral majority. Instead of targeting Cameron and other figureheads they should target transparency. A call for transparency has broader appeal because it doesn't directly target one party and comes across as a well-intentioned moderate demand for better governance.  It builds into the broader narrative - the expenses scandal resonated and hasn’t been forgotten.  Whilst some concessions were made, it’s plain to see that they were insufficient to effect the political culture. More needs to be done.

Greater transparency addresses the actual problem.  Our opaque political system allows avoidable cronyism and corruption to flourish. A call for transparency is more reasonable and at the same time radical. Removing Cameron would assuage a symptom rather than address the vulnerabilities of our institutions.  I sympathise with the ambitions of the movement but they shouldn’t let fantasies get in the way of progress. Incremental improvements should be sought, celebrated and built upon.  Whether wrapped in the language of revolution or not, the brain as well as the heart must be seduced ensure lasting change.

Image by Josh MacPhee via JustSeeds

Libyan intervention: Venal leaders exploit good intentions and prop-up bloody regimes

Image Courtesy of B.R.Q

The humanitarian case for intervening in Libya is well-stated – Libyan rebels faced an inevitable massacre. Yet, the humanitarian justification runs counter to recent, and ongoing, international activities of the intervening coalition. The continued support for authoritarian regimes within the region poses an unsettling (if not unfamiliar) juxtaposition with the moralistic rhetoric.

"[W]henever and wherever violence is used against peaceful demonstrators, we must not hesitate to condemn it." David Cameron - UK Prime Minister

Regrettably, the actions commissioned by leaders of coalition nations belie the noble sentiments David Cameron glibly expressed. It is a cynical deceit. Clear and honourable sentiments designed to beguile the electorate and obscure deplorable deeds. The quote itself is from a speech Cameron gave in Kuwait whilst touring the Middle East marketing UK arms to oppressive regimes.

Much of the coalition’s international activities have proven to be supportive of counter-revolutionary authoritarian regimes; Constantly denying the human rights abuses of client states, funding torture, and supporting the overthrow of democratically elected leaders. With the exception of Libya, the response to the uprisings has been to support favoured leaders. Cameron encouraged weapon sales, Obama kept funds flowing, and Sarkozy increased ‘defence’ funding for Tunisia. If the position becomes untenable, the coalition members (reluctantly) distance themselves, and urge the untenable leader to step down whilst continuing to support the regime. The figurehead changes, but the regime and unpopular policies endure.

The approach to Libya is different. Whilst it is true that relations with Gaddafi greatly improved (in some instances, quite markedly) during the 2000s, and that oil companies were the main beneficiaries, improving oil networks and dominating markets, Gaddafi was not subservient enough for the coalition’s liking. Gaddafi had long since created political conditions fit for revolution, which coalition leaders eagerly exploited in order to re-orientate Libyan polity more favourably to coalition interests. Gaddafi was too unreliable, regulations and agreements too uncertain, and resources too valuable. Gaddafi had to go.

Intervention began by arming Libyan rebels through Saudi proxies, and the subsequent agreement to the use of Saudi troops in Bahrain secured Saudi support for intervention in Libya. Despite claiming great concern for human rights and support for democracy the coalition are supporting counter-revolutionary regimes and downplaying the significance of brutal oppression. (Conveniently, for the coalition, as media attention focuses on conflict, coverage of atrocities elsewhere has been inconspicuous). Client states, Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, Tunisia, and Yemen, have bloodily cracked down protests with the continued support of coalition members.

Even if the unpalatable realities of dirty deals could be dismissed as the acceptable consequences of engaging in Realpolitik, the unpredictable long-term consequences will inevitably bare greater significance. The composition of the rebellion demands closer inspection for the reason that should the rebellion succeed (to one extent or another) they shall have considerable impact on the future of Libya and beyond.

The rebels initial advance was characterised by indiscipline, overconfidence and overreaching. Little has changed. Inexperienced, poor communication structures and utilising child soldiers, they are ill-equipped to battle their professional adversaries. Whilst the figureheads appear a palatable enough assembly of human rights lawyers, much of the self-appointed rebel leadership is made-up of men with murky pasts. Pepe Escobar neatly summed up the composition as a ‘mixed bag of former Gaddafi loyalists, dodgy exiles, al-Qaeda-linked jihadis, business opportunists and true youthful revolutionaries.’

Abu Sufian Ibrahim Ahmed Hamuda Bin Qumu, once considered an extremist, detained in Guantánamo Bay, transferred to Libya, is now ‘a notable figure in the Libyan rebels’ fight to oust Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi.’ Abdul Hakim al-Hasadi (or Abdul Hakeen al-Hassadi) ‘fought against the US in Afghanistan, was arrested in Pakistan, imprisoned probably at Bagram, Afghanistan, and then mysteriously released’ now leads the rebel Darnah Brigade. Colonel Khalifa Haftar, ‘former commander of the Libyan army in Chad who was captured and changed sides in 1988, setting up the anti-Gaddafi Libyan National Army reportedly with CIA and Saudi backing.’ ‘For 20 years, Colonel Haftar has lived not far from Langley, Virginia, home of the CIA, which also provides him with a training camp.’

Not only do the rebels lack coherence as a group, the pattern of extremist to detainee then ally is worryingly familiar. (As are the tired deceptions regarding the denial of civilian casualties.)

The no fly zone permitted by U.N. Resolution 1973 to protect civilians offers insufficient scope for the coalition to fulfil their objective – a servile state. Mission creep is inevitable. Gaddafi’s forces have proved themselves ruthless tacticians; in response to the enforcement of the no fly zone, they adopted light armour guerrilla tactics. The result has been that coalition pilots fly around ineffectively whilst rebels and civilians suffer growing casualties.

The future for Libyans looks bleak; continued conflict, more drones, and a decline in living standards [pdf]. It is not enough to point at egregiousness and call for intervention. The long term and the cost of compromises must be considered. Our venal leaders are exploiting well-intentioned principles, propping-up bloody regimes and allying themselves with sinister bedfellows in expectation of healthy profits for national corporations.

13 months of injustice in Honduras

Tomorrow marks 13 months since the Honduran coup.

A band of self-interested and corrupt political and military elites, with the tacit support of Senators, Congressmen, and the Obama administration, overthrew a legitimate president.  The de-facto government deployed the military, and human rights abuses spiralled.  Those involved in the coup were quickly granted amnesty. A sham 'election' was held and President “Pepe” Lobo was inaugurated.  With politicians, activists, journalists, and protesters silenced through intimidation, detention, assault, and assassination, little dissension has been heard outside Honduras.

For more info: The Coup Is Not Over: Marking a Year of Resistance in Honduras

Uponnothing answers questions about blogging.

Curious about the people behind the blogs and hungry for advice, I asked some of my favourite bloggers about blogging.

Second up, Uponnothing - Angry Mob - Twitter profile.

Pre-interview statement.

Before I start I’ll just point out that Angry Mob is currently dead [Update: back online] because I am transferring it to my own hosting company. The old hosts have been painfully slow in transferring the domain names across so everything is offline for the time being. I hope to have Angry Mob back up some time in January.

Who are you?

I’m nearly 28, work for an FE college as a Learning Advisor and am a qualified English Lecturer. I created Angry Mob back in February I think.

Briefly explain your blog.

My blog is an attempt to analyse some of the stories that the Tabloid media publish that are clearly lies or distortions. I attempt to point out the hatred, racism, homophobia and misogyny of the Tabloid Press and try to identify the consequences of this. I try to keep an eye on the people posting on Tabloid websites, because their ignorance and hatred is a direct reflection of the media diet that they consume (or at least they reinforce their views through their choice of media consumption).

Why did you start?

I used to run a political blog a couple of years ago, but i wasn’t really passionate enough about it to make it any kind of success. The readership didn’t really grow and as a result I turned my back on it and stopped blogging completely. After completing a PGCE in FE I changed jobs and suddenly I had access to the Daily Mail each day. After a few months reading it and being shocked at just what a hate-rag it was I began to notice that some of my colleagues were very influenced by it. They would get angry every morning and start ranting about immigrants, benefits and other issues which they really knew nothing about. I began to realise just how influential the Daily Mail was in forming opinions that had no bearing in reality and I began to look into the stories and Angry Mob began. It was largely for my own sanity.

What keeps you motivated?

Motivation is difficult, when you work full time, drive a 2 hour commute each day (imagine violins playing now) you can start to neglect logging onto the Mail website or digging through the print edition for stories to write about. However, sometimes reading the Mail website or paper really motivates you and makes it easy to write a post because sometimes the lies are so blatant that you don’t have to work hard to point them out.
Motivation is sometimes maintained by monitoring your reader stats, when you fail to update as frequently your readership suffers and you feel like you have to write more. Likewise, arbitrary measurements like Wikio ranking can sometimes motivate you as well. My aim was to get into top 300 on Wikio for the general category and this month I got up to 200. My overall rank with Total Politics was 203, which for such a new blog was pleasing. Such things shouldn’t really motivate me, but I have to admit they do a little bit because they find a competitive edge I didn’t really think I had.

If any, which other bloggers do you admire and why?

I admire many bloggers for what they write, and for how they help other bloggers get a wider readership. Tim Ireland in particular offered a lot of link support and traffic in the beginning and I really admire his work over at Bloggerheads because he is so persistent and thorough, you always get the feeling that he is writing with truth as his only goal – he is never concerned with being a crowd-pleasing writer, merely a recorder of truth in an age when the Mainstream Media and other high-ranking bloggers produce spin and guff. The Enemies of reason is another blog that gave me a lot of traffic and still does. It is always well-written in a humorous style, but thought-provoking at the same time.  He has patiently waded through the tabloids for a long time and deserves every credit for still keeping the blog feeling fresh. TabloidWatch is a blog that started at a similar time to Angry Mob and has also gone from strength to strength because it’s always well researched and goes after a wider selection of Tabloids than Angry Mob. Quite how he manages to update the blog so frequently is beyond me, but he deserves his growing readership and he sends me a lot of traffic.
I also admire Five Chinese Crackers and Mailwatch – although Mailwatch is a collaboration of bloggers and not updated that often.

What are you views on blogger tools (e.g. google analytics, zemanta, etc.) and are there any that you recommend?

I don’t really use Blogger tools as I don’t use Blogger software. My site is run through Joomla 1.5 as when I started the site I wanted it to be a website, as opposed to a blog. To this end content was added not simply added to a frontpage (like a blog) but into different sections throughout the blog which had to be dug through by readers. However, because this was time consuming and I could not add enough content to justify a website, I have changed Angry Mob to become more like a blog, although I still maintain static content sections like The Daily Mail Dictionary and the Richard Littlejohn audit.

Excluding the home page, which have been the 5 most viewed pages on your blog? Do they represent a good place for a newcomer to your blog to start?

My most popular page ranked by views is the Daily Mail Dictionary which is approaching 30,000 visitors. I cannot be more precise because Angry Mob is currently dead. I would definitely recommend the top ranked posts as a good place to start with Angry Mob, but some of my favourite posts – the ones I consider to be written well etc – are often amongst the least read. Likewise, the post I knock up in five minutes and barely proofread sometimes seem to get way more readers. It is hard to predict which posts will get linked to, and which will not.

Who do you write for? Do you have a target reader? 

My basic target audience are people who are fed up with the mainstream press. People who like to find out more about stories and how the mainstream media often completely distort them. Google sends a lot of visitors to the site who may not be this kind of reader, but might walk away with a slightly different view – although I doubt people really change their opinions based on something they’ve read online, but we can all dream.

Do you set yourself any format guidelines (e.g. length, tone, style)?

I have no format guidelines. Sometimes I avoid swearing, sometimes I swear a lot. It depends on my mood, some posts are serious, others are more vitriolic.

Is there any advice that you would like to offer to other bloggers?

My main advice to bloggers is to blog about what they know and what interests them, makes everything easier to do. Use Twitter to gain readers and you’ll be surprised how much traffic you get from having a presence on it. If you do not feel that you can update regularly enough then try and join a blog or set up a shared blogging site. You’ll get much bigger and readers will return more for a regularly updated blog.
To this extent I am aiming to build a new blog on media matters that maintains a good deal of static content to counter some of the Media's favourite myths. I hope to have a team of contributers and welcome anyone else who would like to join in. I intend for the site to be serious in tone, no swearing etc so that it could be used as an educational resource.

Anything else to add?

Contact me if anyone wants to get involved in the new project. I also run a hosting company specialising in cheap blog hosting (http://blueglobewebhosting.co.uk/) so consider us an alternative to free but limited blogging accounts.

Hopefully Angry Mob will return in the new year.

See here for interview Phil BC - A Very Public Sociologist.

It is hard to be straightforward when issues are complex.

Hello world, I thought it was about time I blew the cobwebs from my keyboard and blogged again. Here goes…

Craig Murray wrote a piece on the detainment of British yachtsmen.

Here is my own summary of events:

The detainment and subsequent release of five British yachtsmen took place in the context growing international tension surrounding Iran’s nuclear programme. IAEA recently issued a resolution of which Miliband said it 'sends the strongest possible signal to Iran that its actions and intentions remain a matter of grave international concern'.

Although the incident is reminiscent of a prolonged stand-off between the UK and Iran in March 2007, after Iran’s Revolutionary Guard detained a 15-strong Royal Navy crew, international law applies differently to civilian and naval vessels.

Whereas naval vessels access to territorial seas is not guaranteed, the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea guarantees the right of civilian passage. This factor is likely to have prevented the incident escalating as it did in 2007, when international water boarders were disputed.

Despite having international law on his side, David Miliband opted for a low-key diplomatic approach*.

Craig Murray subsequently constructed a diatribe against 'the media,' for their simplistic response to the incident, which failed to take into account international law and how this affected proceedings, and ‘The Left, for their partisan response.

The Iranians had absolutely no right to arrest these yachtsmen, whether they were in Iranian territorial waters or not […] Amazingly, if you do a Google news search on the term "innocent passage", you get not one result. In all the acres of media coverage there has not been a single mention of what in fact is the law applicable to this situation […] I will never understand why so many on the political left will excuse any bad behaviour by anybody so long as their general stance is anti-US foreign policy and anti-Zionist.

Firstly, well done Craig for exposing the complexities of the incident and highlighting the media's clear shortcomings. Secondly, although in parts he was a tad polemical, Craig was quite right to attack the Left for its partisan response.

It is often difficult to marry the competing demands of blogging - Dillow's assessment is as good as any I have read.

[T]he many things that make a good blog are to some extent incompatible; originality versus consistency; passion versus intellectual rigour; number of posts versus quality of individual posts; brevity versus weight of evidence; wit versus gravitas, and so on.

For me, blogging about politics, and often, international affairs, it can become quite difficult to make a point without including a series of caveats to address the complexities.

Compare and contrast:

• The US attitude to Iran is hypocritical**.

• The US attitude (and that of the international community, which really means ‘Washington and whoever happens to agree with it’***) to Iran is hypocritical (what with their own bounty of nuclear weapons, support for Israel - who have nuclear weapons themselves, and denial of its existence.  Not that I am defending Iran against all the criticism levelled against it. Some of the things Ahmadinejad has said are unacceptable, but so too is misquoting, exaggerating and making things up to strengthen your argument.  Clearly the Iranian regime is bad, look at Human Rights Watch reports - but to in fairness, Human Rights Watch are far from perfect themselves. Undeniably, aspects of the Iranian regime are horrific. Although, to fully understand the situation - we should briefly look at the Ayatollah, etc...)

It is hard to be straightforward when the situation is complex.

Anyway, I hope to be back blogging (on things other than blogging) soon.  Make sure you check out Alienated Left.

* Miliband did the right thing
** For a much better assessment see Alienated Left.
*** See Noam Chomsky Political Discourse Dictionary

Honduras 09: "An election that met international standards of fairness and transparency"

"This shows that given the opportunity to express themselves, the Honduran people have viewed the election as an important part of the solution to the political crisis in their country."

Ian Kelly, Department Spokesman for U.S. Department of State November 29, 2009

"We see this election as a very important step forward for Honduras, and I would like to commend the Honduran people for an election that met international standards of fairness and transparency despite some incidents that were reported here and there."

Arturo Valenzuela, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs. November 30, 2009*

"[The Honduran people] clearly signaled their desire to move forward with new leadership through their robust participation in Sunday’s elections."

Arturo Valenzuela, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs December 3, 2009

Honduras: An election validated by blood and repression - The Real News Network

* During the briefing on the Honduran election Valenzuela recognised the coup as a 'coup' rather than using weasel words, such as 'not legal'.  This is not significant.

Valenzuela was asked, "Will the United States recognize the new government if the Honduran congress fails to vote to reinstate Zelaya on December 2nd?"

To which he responded, "I would prefer not to deal with hypotheticals on this." Which of course meant 'No'.

Valenzuela was asked, "Is there any chance that the U.S. will not recognize the results of this election?"

To which he responded, "I don’t want to get into hypotheticals." Which also meant 'No'.

Valenzuela was also asked, "So is it not a legitimate concern that by recognizing the election, you could be encouraging further coups?"

To which he responded, "No"

Honduras Election and Aftermath

3772744335_a9a4e95e72_b, originally uploaded by HablaHonduras.

Compare and contrast:

Ian Kelly Department Spokesman for U.S. Department of State

We commend the Honduran people for peacefully exercising their democratic right to select their leaders in an electoral process that began over a year ago, well before the June 28 coup d'etat. Turnout appears to have exceeded that of the last presidential election. This shows that given the opportunity to express themselves, the Honduran people have viewed the election as an important part of the solution to the political crisis in their country.

We look forward to continuing to work with all Hondurans and encourage others in the Americas to follow the lead of the Honduran people in helping advance national reconciliation and the implementation of the Tegucigalpa-San Jose Accord. Significant work remains to be done to restore democratic and constitutional order in Honduras, but today the Honduran people took a necessary and important step forward.

Lisa Sullivan, Human Rights Observer for School of Americas Watch - Electoral observer as part of the Quixote Center Accompaniment Delegation

In the days prior to the elections we scattered to different cities, towns and villages, meeting with fishermen, farmers, maquila workers, labor leaders, teachers and lawyers, as well as those who were jailed for carrying spray paint, hospitalized for being shot in the head by the military, and detained for reporting on the repression. [...]

As elections were in full swing in the morning, our delegate and nurse practitioner, Silvia Metzler visited Angel Salgado and Maria Elena Hernandez who were languishing in the intensive care unit of the Hospital Escuela in Tegucigalpa . Both had been shot in the head at one of the many military checkpoints, no questions asked. Doctors give Angel a zero possibility of survival and he leaves behind a 6 year old son. Maria Elena has a better chance of recovery, but it will be a long road. She was selling snacks on the side of the road to support her teenage children when caught by military bullet.

Quixote Honduran Elections Delegation's blog (+ images)

A peaceful march of over 500 people was just culminating at the Central Park of San Pedro Sula when a large armoured tank with high pressure water cannons mounted on the top pulled up at the rear of the march - along with a large truck full of military troops. The 500 peaceful, unarmed protesters turned around to face the tank and troops - and in unison, they sat down in the middle of the street. The truck retreated 2 blocks.  The soldiers got off the truck, and began to put on gas masks.  Everything went silent - and suddenly the crowd was attacked with water cannons and gas.  People are fleeing. There are wounded and detained.

The official US position shares little in common with reality. Unfortunately, the situation is much more like the picture Eva Golinger paints.

The true divides in Latin America - between justice and injustice, democracy and dictatorship, human rights and corporate rights, people's power and imperial domination - have never been more visible than today.  [...] The handshakes, smiles, gifts and promises of "no intervention" and "a new era" made by President Obama himself to leaders of Latin American nations last Spring at the Summit of the Americas meeting in Trinidad have unraveled and turned into cynical gestures of hypocrisy.  [...]

Washington stands alone, with its right-wing puppet states in Colombia, Panamá, Perú, Costa Rica and Israel, as the only nations to have publicly indicated recognition of the electoral process in Honduras and the future regime. A high-level State Department official cynically declared to the Washington Post, "What are we going to do, sit for four years and just condemn the coup?" Well, Washington has sat for 50 years and refused to recognize the Cuban government. But that's because the Cuban government is not convenient for Washington. The Honduran dictatorship is.

A few links about nothing in particular

Sorry about the lack of blog posts of late, but isn’t Alienated Left coming along?  Go have a good look around.  I hope to be back blogging soon.  In the meantime, I have a a few links that I'd like to share.

The Billion-Pound-O-Gram helps but billion pound figures into perspective.

Northern Heckler takes the Conservative's inheritance tax policy and a misleading article to task. The Mirror also had an interesting angle on inheritance tax (it might not be the best writing, but the point is valid). Via Phil BC via northbriton45.

Tabloid Watch notes what that few have reported.

How Belle de Jour's secret ally Googlewhacked the press Via bloggerheads via McGuireDavid

Michael Moore had this to say about healthcare reform (I might blog on this in the future, he's quite right in my opinion).

Bensix looks at The Government’s Uneasy Relationship With Evidence

A look at Italian Law.

I'm linking to several Angry Mob pages for no other reason than search engine optimisation. Angry Mob is on the first page of google for various searches, and this is my contribution to keeping the site where it belongs:
Amanda Platell: Racist and Clueless, James Slack: Please Kill Yourself, Liz Jones is Considerably Richer than You, Daily Mail and Rape, Jan Moir: I'm thinking she's a piece of shit, and, Paul Dacre Must Die.

Via Jamie Sport - "There's literally no way our awesome cross-platform twitter news ad campaign will go wrong. Yeah!"

And that's about it link-wise for now (well, I wouldn't want you getting link-fatigue).

China, Rare Earth Metals & The Emergence of a New Global Power.

When the Afghan war began, and the Russian involvement in the "Stans", it became common to talk about Central Asia being the "New Great Game" for the warring superpowers. But the real new Great Game is being played in the swamps of the Niger Delta, on the borders of Colombia-Venezuela, in the metal mines of the DRC [Democratic Republic of the Congo] and now in the rare earth mines of the world.

If you think this sounds like part of a conspiracy theory, think again. These are the words of Newsnight’s economics editor, Paul Mason.  "97% of the specialist metals that are crucial to green technology are currently mined in China".  They are used in rechargeable batteries that are used to store power from renewable energy sources and for use in electric cars, etc.  They are also used in certain missile guidance systems (so, it's swings and roundabouts, I guess).

For a better explanation of why rare earth metals are important watch Paul Mason's Newsnight report, his blog provides an account of the U.S. and Japanese role.

Quilliam Foundation & Craig Murray

Craig Murray is facing legal difficulties regarding some posts on his blog.  As a gesture of solidarity, I'm linking to disruptive.org for mirrors of the offending blog posts and Smog's blog for screenshots.

Tegucigalpa-San Jose Accord - Dead?

I have written before about the hollow accord, which Washington heralded as ‘a breakthrough’ and ‘an historic agreement.’ Hillary Clinton spoke of working towards a ‘full return of democracy and a better future for the Honduran people.’ As recently as Friday, Washington continued to refer to the Tegucigalpa-San Jose accord as ‘an historic victory for democracy’. I have also criticised those who were too easily seduced by intoxicating rhetoric (the more perceptive of whom quickly changed their tune).  A background to this post can be found here.

One of the more confusing aspects of the Tegucigalpa-San Jose accord was the optimistic response of Zelaya given that it was so riddled with loopholes.  A likely explanation for Zelaya’s surprising optimism was that it was part of a longer-term strategy.   Should the coup leaders fail to soften their stance during negations, Zelaya would be able to walk away.  Only his reinstatement would bring broad international recognition to the forthcoming national elections, meaning that he has considerable leverage.  Unfortunately, the coup regime continues to receive recognition and substantial aid from the U.S.  As long as Micheletti & co. have this on their side, they still have the power to largely ignore Zelaya and his supporters’ demands, which is exactly what they have done.  Zelaya has been left with only his final hand to play; he declared the Tegucigalpa-San Jose accord ‘dead’.  Having made a tactical decision to sign the accord, he as been left with little option but to urge his supporters to boycott the elections in the hope that the lack of electoral legitimacy will pressure the next government. Regrettably, the U.S. is pledging to steadfastly recognise the elections regardless of legitimacy, which is undermining Zelaya’s final hand.  Whilst Zelaya declares the accord ‘dead’, the U.S. are declaring ‘continued support’ for the accord, regardless of Zelaya.

The reason why the U.S. wishes to talk-up the accord is painfully clear, as Ian Kelly, department spokesperson for the U.S. Department of Sate, said during a farcical press conference, the accord ‘gives us a way to support the elections.’ ‘It is the best way forward’.  The accord legitimises the forthcoming elections and offers no reversal on Zelaya’s position as a legal outcast.  Zelaya’s tactical decision has backfired because the U.S is continuing to support the dictatorial regime that assumed power by force.  Meanwhile Zelaya remains trapped inside the Brazilian embassy, threatened with arrest if he steps foot on Honduras soil.

Whilst Zelaya deserves great sympathy, the accord - even if it returned Zelaya - was always unlikely to give the Honduran people what they deserve.  The resistance to the coup is about more than just Zelaya. The people of Honduras want real change, real human rights, and justice for the oppression suffered during the coup regime. An historic victory for democracy?  Nothing could be further from the truth.

EU lifts sanctions on Uzbek government.

The sanctions were initially enacted in response to the Andijan massacre of 2005 (an incident in which troops shot at unarmed protesters - the number killed is disputed, but believed to be in the hundreds).  Since then, sanctions have been slowly eroded.

Germany, clearly incentivised by advancing its own economic interests, has led the fight for lifting sanctions.  EU nations can once again sell weapons to a corrupt regime lead by the brutal dictator Islam Karimov.

The claim that the Uzbek situation has progressed is specious:

There have been no improvements in human rights in Uzbekistan. There remains no freedom of speech, assembly, movement or religion. Thousands of political prisoners slave in the gulags, children are forced into the fields by soldiers to pick the cotton. Thousands still suffer hideous torture every year.

The value of the removal of sanctions is largely symbolic.  Uzbekistan has been obtaining weapons from non-EU sources. Although Russia is reported to be their main suppliers, the U.S. has played a major role in supporting the Karimov regime.  Because of its usefulness as a launch pad for offences in the Middle East, the U.S. has pumped money in to the hands of the Karimov government in order to buy favour with the regime.

Obama has been more than willing to ‘cut deals’ with Karimov. Obama recently agreed to triple the fee for its U.S. airbase in Uzbekistan. The most recent official U.S. rhetoric on Uzbekistan-U.S. Relations spoke of ‘partnership,’ ‘historic agreement,’ ‘a very positive development,’ and ‘our friends in the Uzbek government.’  There was even an attempt to sell Uzbekistan to U.S. corporations, ‘we will explore ways that we can expose more American companies to the opportunities here.’

Unsurprisingly, when it comes to questions regarding human rights, there was considerable obfuscation:

With respect to the human rights question, the United States and Uzbekistan intend to initiate a bilateral annual consultation in which we will discuss the full range of priorities on our bilateral agenda. I conveyed an invitation from the United States government to the government of Uzbekistan to send a high-level delegation at the time of their choosing to the United States to begin those consultations. As I said in my statement, I am confident that we will be able to make progress on the full range of priorities on our bilateral agenda.

As for why so many nations are willing to get into bed with one of the world's most egregious regimes, I will leave you with Craig Murray’s a concise appraisal

The politicians do it because the media and public do not seem to care, so they think they can get away with it. So far, they are right.

Micheletti and Zelaya reach 'breakthrough'

The details are vague, there is still much to be agreed upon, and the agreement is rife with dubious pre-conditions, yet many who opposed the Micheletti coup are hyperbolic in their response to the latest development. (For background information, see below)

Mark Weisbrot declared that this was "a victory for democracy in the Western Hemisphere." He continued;

This shows that international pressure really matters. Despite the fact that the U.S. blocked stronger action by the Organization of American States, it ultimately had to go along with the rest of the hemisphere […] This shows that Latin America is not going back to the days when U.S.-trained and funded military forces could overturn the will of the electorate.

With so many uncertainties and discouraging preconditions, such blind optimism is, at best misguided, at worst counter-productive.

First of all, whilst the agreement ‘calls for’ a truth and reconciliation commission, this is far from a guarantee of justice. The ‘agreement’ makes no effort condemn the coup or those involved in its implantation. Quite the opposite is true. The details of the agreement that are known legitimise the coup orchestrators. A power-sharing government has been agreed to - this means that those responsible for the coup shall be rewarded with the power and prestige of occupying positions of authority within the Honduran polity. This is a clear indication that, unless there are some significant developments, the truth and reconciliation commission will allow the crimes and human rights abuses of the de facto government to go unpunished. Secondly, the ‘agreement’ itself has to receive support from congress and the supreme court. Such a condition is ludicrous. They are the very bodies that were complicit in the conspiracy against Zelaya in the first place! Seeking their approval further legitimises the coup.

In contrast to the pre-coup circumstances, Micheletti & co. have gained influence through the barrel of a gun, and done so with impunity. Zelaya has lost four months of his presidency and found himself politically weakened. The Honduran people have seen dozens killed, had their human rights severely weakened, been attacked for peaceful protest, and seen their own voices ignored. The people wanted a president to bring social justice. They are left with a man so constrained that it is unlikely that he will be anything other than a popular figurehead for a puppet regime.

Although the situation could be worse, the fight is far from over.

Background
On Sunday, June 28, approximately 200 members of the Honduran military surrounded the presidential palace and forced the democratically elected president, Manuel Zelaya, into custody and then flew him to Costa Rica.

The official justification for the military coup was that Zelaya was to hold a referendum to extend presidential terms beyond a single four-year term, which, it was argued, would be unconstitutional. This continues to be reported as the justification for the coup.

What has tended to be far less widely reported is that constitutional amendments are not uncommon, between the year of its approval, 1982, and 2005, the only years that it was not amended were 1983 and 1992. The constitution itself was approved during a period of heavy U.S. interference.

The genuine motivation for the coup is that Zelaya allied Honduras with the Bolivarian Alliance for the People of Our America (ALBA) - an alternative to Free Trade Area of the Americas. The U.S. feared that Honduras could turn into a 'pacifist state', at the cost of a U.S. military base, as happened in Ecuador.

The subsequent period has been characterised by protests, military suppression, former cabinet misters going into hiding, and the poor fearing sanctions and greater economic hardship.

On July 6th the Honduran military blocked Zelaya’s planned return to Honduras and fired tear gas and live ammunition on protesters, who had initially intended to welcome the Zelaya’s return.

Despite ‘tough talk’ from Barack Obama, some rightly questioned whether the Obama administration is as opposed to the coup against Zelaya as it should be.

Despite apparent ‘condemnation’ through careful description of the coup as “not legal”, Obama still has not acknowledged the coup d'état as a coup d'état for fear of forcing his own hand. (Acknowledging the coup as such would require stopping all forms of non-humanitarian aid by law). Obama tacitly supported the coup d'état and the coup government financially and militarily.

'The use of culture to promote imperial agenda did not end after the Cold War'

Eva Golinger discusses the State Department sponsoring the Summit of the Alliance of Youth Movement (Translated from Spanish).

The potential use of these [new] technologies to promote psychological operations and propaganda is unlimited. Its strength is the speed of dissemination of messages and global coverage. [...]

The student movement "white hands" in Venezuela, financed and trained by U.S. agencies, anti-communist protests in Moldova, the demonstrations against the Iranian government and the latest virtual protests against President Chavez are examples of this new strategy. New technologies-Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and others, are the main weapons, and traditional media such as CNN and its affiliates, helping to exaggerate the real impact of these movements promoting matrices false and distorted view of its importance and legitimacy.

The Alliance Youth Movement is another chapter in the destabilization plans against sovereign countries that reject imperialist imperial domination. The double standard of Washington reaffirms this fact. While the Department of State encourages, supports and sponsors the training of young people from other countries in the use of new technologies to destabilize their governments, the United States criminalizes using Twitter and Facebook to convene protests against Washington's policies. This was shown three weeks ago when two American citizens were arrested for using Twitter to inform the protesters against the G20 summit in Pittsburgh on the repressive actions of the police.

For information on the US citizens arrested for using Twitter see Democracy Now!

See here for my earlier post about the over-reaction to Twitter as a revolutionary tool of democracy.

When Moore met Chávez

In an interview with Jimmy Kimmel, Michael Moore discussed meeting Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez (see video).

Moore's anecdote was a bizarre fiction. Just harmless fun? Well, his 'embellished' account left Eva Golinger feeling less than amused.

Anyone who has ever traveled [sic] or been close to President Chávez knows very well that it is absolutely impossible to just “go knock on his door”. Presidential security lines the hallways, elevators and all entrance points. Take it from someone who knows first hand. Moore’s story is complete and utter fiction. Also the man Moore identified in the interview as Chávez’s “bodyguard” is actually Foreign Minister Nicolás Maduro, but hey, all latinos look alike!

The tale continues. Moore says he entered the room and a “bottle and a half of tequila later”, he was writing Chávez’s speeches! Of course, Michael, all of us Latin Americans drink tequila! Man, he couldn’t even get his alcohol right in his fairy tale! Tequila is Mexican, Michael. Venezuela makes rum. Get it straight. And anyway, President Chávez does not drink at all and is well known for his anti-alcohol position. But in Moore’s story, latinos are all a bunch of partiers! No work, just party, drinks and fun at 2am! [...]

No tequila, no parties, no scandals, just a normal meeting between a head of state and an invited guest. In fact, the real meeting lasted three hours, without tequila. [...]

Moore’s declarations against President Chávez are offensive and insulting and a clear sign of his hipocresy [sic] and lack of ethic.

Read more here

Update

Moore's response has been to accuse Golinger of lacking a sense of humour, and to admit that Chávez does not drink. This, in tern, lead to Golinger making a passionate defence of Chávez.

All I'm saying is, if you have 5 minutes on national television in the US to talk about Venezuela or President Chávez, and you care or believe in the incredible changes and movements taking place in Venezuela and throughout Latin America, and you're talking about one of the world's most demonized and threatened leaders, at least say something - one thing - redeeming. One positive thing. One. But to use the gift of 5 minutes before millions of viewers who know little or nothing - or care little or nothing - about Venezuela and Chávez to make jokes and ridicule an already overly-ridiculed leader, it just doesn't do it for me.

We have had a coup d'etat in Venezuela, funded and designed by the Department of State and the CIA, numerous economic sabotages causing billions of dollars in damages to the economy, we have an ongoing, severe media war, paramilitary infiltration causing death and violence throughout the country - coming from neighboring Colombia where the US not only has invested almost $10 billion during the past 10 years in Plan Colombia, but also just entered into an agreement with the Colombian government to utilize 6 more Colombian military bases for US operations in the region and to allow US military and security forces FULL ACCESS to all Colombian military and police installations...There have been several, documented assassination attempts against Chávez during the past few years, and just last year, the US Government tried to place Venezuela on the list of "state sponsors of terrorism", but it didn't happen because they couldn't figure out - yet - how to still get the oil if we are truly classified as enemies.

And not to mention the complete absence of any information in US media about the achievements of the Bolivarian revolution and President Chávez's policies during the past ten years, which have resulted in free health care coverage for all 27 million Venezuelans; the eradication of illiteracy and the guarantee of all levels of education, from basic to graduate level, for free to all Venezuelans; the recuperation of national sovereignty and national industries, such as oil, in order to redistribute the wealth and attempt to reduce and eliminate poverty - to date extreme poverty has been reduced more than 30% in the past decade, under Chávez. Worker-run factories, cooperatives, community councils, indigenous people's land and language rights, women's institutes and banks, community banks, free distribution of books and reading materials, inclusion of national artists and culture in all aspects of government and social policies, and the list is endless, practically, of incredible advances and achievements on a social and economic level in Venezuela during the past 10 years. Millions of people previously invisible are now visible. Participation in every aspect of Venezuelan society - political, economic, social and cultural - is at almost a 100%. People feel that what they do, matters. These changes are absolutely extraordinary, and untold.

So, excuse my apparent "lack of humor", but Michael Moore could have at least taken one minute to say one thing good about Venezuela and Chávez, instead of doing what all those who want to diminish and devalue what is happening here always do - ridicule and make fun of Chávez, and manipulate and distort the facts.

Read more here

Proposition 13 & the effects of regressive policy in California

The financial crisis has hit California particularly hard. Poverty continues to spiral as unemployment reaches a post-war high of 12.2%. The political response has been to implement drastic cuts.

In July, the state legislature haggled for weeks over how to close a $26 billion budget gap. Instead of increasing taxes of corporations or the wealthy, the budget deal that emerged to be signed by Republican Governor Arnold Schwartzenegger ordered deep spending cuts, laying off tens of thousands of state workers.

Reduced funding for education, coupled with big tuition increases, sparked a student and faculty strike at California’s public universities. Programs for ex-prison inmates and parolees have been slashed. And the social safety net of healthcare and services for the poor, children and elderly - the least powerful and least vocal members of society - has been systematically shredded. [...]

A legal challenge has temporarily halted some of the cuts to elderly care. But Governor Schwartzenegger is trying to overturn the court ruling and re-institute the cuts. [...]

So, why has California been hit so disproportionately hard, and what are the causes of this drastic response? Whilst Schwartzenegger's regressive political attitude can take some of the blame, Proposition 13 plays the lead role.

Proposition 13 was an initiative that was enacted by the voters of California. The key components of the proposition were to cap property tax (even if the value rises) and put into law that a two-thirds majority is required to raise taxes and pass a budget. The bill gained popular support and the Californian constitution was duly amended.

Ever since its was written into law, Proposition 13 has played a duel role in exacerbating California's instability and inequality as well as preventing progressive reform.

It is so iniquitous because the maximum rise in property tax is considerably lower than the actual increases in property prices. Neighbours living in identical homes are liable to pay substantially different property tax depending upon when they purchased the property. This means that the tax liability is heavily tied to the date of purchase rather than the value of the property or financial circumstances of the owner. (A relatively well-known example of this is billionaire Warren Buffet, who pays less than 0.06% tax on a $4,000,000 Laguna Beach home purchased in the 1970s. Meanwhile, a working family in a modest, newly purchased home is liable to pay several times this amount).

By capping property tax, Proposition 13 effectively places the state’s budget in a straitjacket. As Krugman argues, "limits on property taxation have forced California to rely more heavily than other states on income taxes, which fall steeply during recessions," which is why California has been so heavily affected by the financial crisis. And, by putting into law that a two-thirds majority is required to raise taxes and pass a budget, Proposition 13 prevents progressive reform and encourages drastic regressive policy responses in times of economic hardship. With Proposition 13 in place, the response to people needing a safety-net in times of need will always be to take it away from them.

The EU boost for dairy farmers that isn't

A recent news item, and its reporting, caught my eye. BBC News Reported that;

EU boosts aid for dairy farmers

Dairy farmers in the European Union are to receive 280m euros (£255m) in aid, says the EU's farm commissioner.

The decision follows weeks of protests by thousands of farmers over the low price of milk, including the spraying of milk onto fields.

This is an important news story. Sadly, the BBC failed to offer substantial discussion of the context or implications of agricultural subsidies.

Here are a few things that they failed to adequately address:

1) Agricultural subsidies harm developing nations

Subsidies have a double impact on poor farmers in poor countries: farmers are undercut and swamped by the flood of cheap subsidised imports. Local exporters get rock bottom prices when they try to sell their crops onto depressed world markets

2) The largest payouts go to multinationals, not farmers.

While most people still believe that Europe's agricultural subsidies have been used to protect farmers, particularly small farmers, it is now emerging that among the main beneficiaries are large multinationals.

The CAP [Common Agricultural Policy] accounted for nearly half of the total EU budget in 2004, costing taxpayers €43.6bn. While the largest part of the CAP budget was indeed made up of direct aid to farmers (€30bn), most of that went to the largest farmers, and nearly €14bn went on other CAP schemes such as export refunds to large companies, storage payments and BSE payments to large-scale renderers and abattoirs. The UK received €4bn in agricultural payments in 2004. [...]

The largest UK recipients of money include companies such as Tate & Lyle, Nestle, Cadbury, Kraft and a host of manufacturers of bulk animal fats, sugars and refined starches. Further FoI [Freedom of Information] requests reveal a similar pattern of the largest individual payments going to multinationals in other European countries. [...]

The largest recipient of payments in the UK for 2003-4 was Tate & Lyle and its subsidiaries, which took more than £227m over two years from the CAP. Meadow Foods, a leading manufacturer of bulk fats and proteins for ice cream, spreads, sports drinks, processed meats and confectionery, received nearly £26m in the year 2003-4. Other large dairy manufacturers supplying the processed food industry dominate the list of top recipients of money paid by the Rural Payments Agency (RPA) which administers CAP payments in this country.

Our detailed analysis of the full list of RPA payments has also unearthed a number of anomalies. They include:

• Gate Gourmet, the airline catering company whose industrial dispute brought British Airways to a halt this summer, received more than £500,000 from the CAP last year for flying tiny, individual helpings of milk and sugar into international airspace, thereby qualifying for an export subsidy.

• Premier Foods, the company at the heart of the Sudan 1 contamination crisis, received over £60,000, believed to be in export subsidies.

• Eton college received £2,652 last year but admitted to us that what it was for was "a bit of a mystery". Although it tried, it was unable to obtain information for us from the RPA to explain the payment.

• Drug companies, including GlaxoSmithKline, Boots, Reckitt, and ACS Dobfar, received substantial payments for using sugar in the manufacture of pharmaceuticals.

3) The European Milk Board do not want subsidies

This brings us back to the BBC's report, which made broad statements such as;

Most of the EU's member states - including France and Germany - had been pressing for aid after the global economic downturn reduced demand.

And

EU Farm Commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel said she was forced to "empty her pockets" to meet the demands of 21 of 27 member states seeking an emergency fund for dairy farmers.

The report closed with remarks

These EU market interventions help support dairy prices.

That's not what the European Milk Board think, their preferred solution is to "limit milk production" and to "set up a monitoring mechanism, in which milk producers, consumers, dairies and politicians take joint responsibility and analyse the market, with the aim of bringing milk production in line with demand." As for the protests,

The motto of the rally is "No subsidies in the milk sector, only flexible production regulation"

In regards to the subsidies themselves, the president of the European Milk Board, Romuald Schaber, said,

It makes no sense when ministers talk about money, which then flows into the milk sector in the form of subsidies with little impact. Flexible production controls represent no extra burden to the taxpayer and can be an effective way of creating milk prices which are fair both to producers and consumers.

I'm sure that by now you get the point, so I won't dwell on the environmental impact, welfare concerns or GM issues associated with milk production. (Or, that the people making the decision, the European Commission, are unelected.) When the best response to falling milk prices would be to reduce production quotas, yet the EU offer money with no details of reform, mainstream news media organisations report the story as though the EU had given farmers what they want.

THE BALANCE OF POWER

The latest article at Media Lens

Journalists who criticise powerful interests can be attacked for their 'bias', for revealing their prejudices. On the other hand, as we will see in the examples below, almost no-one protests, or even notices, the lack of balance in patriotic articles reporting on the experience of British troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, on the credibility of British and American elections, or on claims that the West is spreading democracy across the Third World. Then, notions of patriotism, loyalty, the need to support 'our boys', make 'balance' seem disloyal, disrespectful; an indication, in fact, that a journalist is 'biased.'

The media provide copious coverage of state-sponsored memorials commemorating the 50th, 60th, 65th anniversaries of D-Day, the Battle of Britain, the Battle of Arnhem, the retreat from Dunkirk, the Battle of the Atlantic, the 25th anniversary of the Falklands War, and so on. Even the 200th anniversary of The Battle of Trafalgar was a major news item. Remembrance Sunday, Trooping The Colour, Beating The Retreat, the Fleet Review are all media fixtures. The military is of course happy to supply large numbers of troops and machines for these dramatic flypasts, parades and reviews.

On June 11, 2005, senior BBC news presenter, Huw Edwards, provided the commentary for Britain's Trooping The Colour military parade, describing it as "a great credit to the Irish Guards". Imagine if Edwards had added:

"While one can only be impressed by the discipline and skill on show in these parades, critics have of course warned against the promotion of patriotic militarism. The Russian novelist Tolstoy, for one, observed:

"'The ruling classes have in their hands the army, money, the schools, the churches and the press. In the schools they kindle patriotism in the children by means of histories describing their own people as the best of all peoples and always in the right. Among adults they kindle it by spectacles, jubilees, monuments, and by a lying patriotic press.'" (Tolstoy, Government is Violence - Essays on Anarchism and Pacifism, Phoenix Press, 1990, p.82)

Edwards would not have been applauded for providing this 'balance'. He would have been condemned far and wide as a crusading crackpot, and hauled before senior BBC management.

When the Archbishop of Canterbury recently offered the mildest of criticisms of the invasion of Iraq in a sermon in St Paul's Cathedral, the Sun newspaper responded: 'Archbishop of Canterbury's war rant mars troops tribute.' [...]

The Sun's article was archived under "news/campaigns/our_boys". As Tolstoy would have understood, the Sun is in fact a bitter class enemy of "our boys". It is a rich man's propaganda toy parading as a trusty pal of 'ordinary people'.

Read more at Media lens

A few links.

Paul Street responds to Obama's Nobel Peace Prize (ZNet article)

Al Jazeera reports on the plight of Sri Lankan war refugees kept in "welfare camps" (video).

Landartgenerator.org graphically demonstrates the surface area required to solar power the world & the surface area required to power the world with off shore wind power alone. (For more detail see here)

Strangemaps exposes the inadequacy of using potential GDP to measure of the impact climate change.

The excellent Adam Curtis blogs about the history of the Congo & Kabul

Bensix looks at the Tories and foreign policy

George Monbiot highlights government and military police collusion to prevent justice.

Laurie Penny - inspiring diary piece.

Trafigura

Image courtesy of Beau Bo D'Or

Due to the gagging of the Guardian (which has now been lifted) causing greater interest in the Trafigura story, here is a partial re-post of an old post (with an update), which provides links that explain the story's background.

Trafigura, a company whose corporate social responsibility policy makes the Springfield Nuclear Power Plant look like Oxfam, is responsible for the several deaths and the injury of thousands due the to the dumping of toxic waste in Ivory Coast. The story serves as a measure of news agencies' priorities. Not one of the tabloids mentions the story at all. [Update: Although this has changed, there is now an article on The Daily Mail website by James Slack, there is no mention of the victims or Trafigura's crimes. (For a more detailed look at Slack's work see here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.)] Meanwhile, David Leigh and Rob Evans, expose links to Conservative lords including the leader of the Conservative party in the Lords, Lord Strathclyde. And, that the victims are to receive little compensation.