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.

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.

Noam Chomsky's latest article (at In These Times) tackles the pretexts of the Bush administration's aggressive foreign policy, the role of NATO, and Obama's foreign policy. In the following passage, Chomsky summarises the controversies surrounding newly discarded plans for anti-missile systems in Europe and the hypocrisy of the U.S. stance on nuclear weapons.

A few weeks ago the Obama administration announced a readjustment of U.S. anti-missile systems in Eastern Europe. That led to a great deal of commentary and debate, which, as in the past, skilfully evaded the central issue.

Those systems are advertised as defense against an Iranian attack. But that cannot be the motive. The chance of Iran launching a missile attack, nuclear or not, is about at the level of an asteroid hitting the Earth — unless, of course, the ruling clerics have a fanatic death wish and want to see Iran instantly incinerated.

The purpose of the U.S. interception systems, if they ever work, is to prevent any retaliation to a U.S. or Israeli attack on Iran — that is, to eliminate any Iranian deterrent. In this regard, antimissile systems are a first-strike weapon, and that is understood on all sides. But that seems to be a fact best left in the shadows. [...]

The present nuclear stand-off with Iran summons the Cold War’s horrors—and hypocrisies.

The outcry over Iran overlooks the Obama administration’s assurance that the Indo-U.S. nuclear agreement is exempt from the just-passed U.N. resolution on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which India greeted by announcing that it can now build nuclear weapons with the same destructive power as those in the arsenals of the world’s major nuclear powers, with yields up to 200 kilotons.

And, over the objections of the United States and Europe, the International Atomic Energy Agency called on Israel to join the NPT and open its nuclear facilities for inspection. Israel announced it would not cooperate.

Read more here.

Obama & the Nobel Peace Prize

Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize takes the biscuit. What on earth for? For saying the right things but not actually doing them(!) Allow me to outline his achievements in office; ditching state-funded abstinence only sex-ed in favour of evidence-based programmes, & securing federal funding for stem cell research. Other than that, there has been sweet talk and inaction. As I wrote earlier:

His actions belie his rhetoric. For all the plentiful ‘tough talk’ there have been few strong actions. He fudges issues and fails to deliver his promises. For those that think that his policy half-measures are better than nothing, please bear in mind that an insufficient stimulus package and half-baked heathcare reform could well prove counter productive. Critics of the plans will be able to say, “we tried them once and they didn’t work. Now you want more money? Why throw good money after bad?” [...]

His presidency has been characterised by morally deplorable foreign policy, compromises that please nobody and competent public relations management in the face of a largely servile media. (When Obama is criticised by the media, it tends to be on insignificant or spurious grounds).

In regards to the change in rhetoric, little else has changed. During his presidential inauguration speech Barack Obama said, “America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and we are ready to lead once more.” This is nonsense. America is a friend to its client states and an enemy to those that get in the way.

Obama has proclaimed his commitment “to governments that reflect the will of the people” and of ‘democracy promotion’. Indeed, Obama called for increased investment in ‘democracy promotion’ in Latin America. As it turns out, those investments were to do the opposite of what he claimed they were to do. Democracy promotion funding has been used to support a military coup d'état in Honduras, which overthrew a democratically elected president with a progressive agenda.

The money for democracy promotion funds the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) andUnited States Agency for International Development (USAID). These agencies heavily funded the various organisations that formed Democratic Civil Union of Honduras.

Its [Democratic Civil Union of Honduras] only objective was to oust President Zelaya from power in order to impede the future possibility of a constitutional convention to reform the constitution, which would allow the people a voice and a role in their political process.

Despite apparent ‘condemnation’ through careful description of the coup as “not legal”, Obama has tacitly supported the coup d'état and the coup government financially and militarily. When Obama talks about ‘difficult’ issues his speech is laden with considerable obfuscation. All too often it is what he deliberately omits that is objectionable. Obama has not acknowledged the coup d'état as a coup d'état for fear of forcing his own hand.

Obama has portrayed himself as being tough on Israel. He told Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, “settlements have to be stopped”. Yet Obama has done nothing about the continued expansion of settlements. America continues to fund the Israeli government. The U.S. has plenty of leverage over the Israel and there is historical precedence in using it. For example, during his presidency, George H. W. Bush (by no means the most progressive president) suspended loan guarantees to Israel because of settlement expansion. Obama chooses to do nothing.

When discussing America's 'new' approach to counterterrorism Obama said, “America's moral example must be the bedrock and the beacon of our global leadership”. Yet extraordinary rendition continues unabated. The “historic consensus” on significantly cutting carbon is a cynical exercise in greenwashing. It is full of loopholes and too long term to really effect Obama’s presidency. The planned departure of US troops from Iraq is a weak line of action that comes up short. It is an unquestionable fudge.

Obama has eased restrictions on Cuba and said that he seeks “an equal partnership”. These changes are, as Fidel Castro rightly considered them, "positive although minimal". The U.S. trade embargo against Cuba is still in place. The U.S. continues to punish Cuba by keeping in place this hangover from the Cold War whilst continuing to support dictators and aggressive regimes that it views favourably. A global superpower continuing to undermine small island is not grounds for an equal partnership.

Let's not forget the reckless killing of civilians in Afghanistan, the failure to reform the financial sector and the constant watering down of his stance on healthcare reform.

The actions of the Obama administration expose Obama for the largely unprincipled and wilfully deceptive man he is.

I’m fed up with talk of "his efforts to bring peace to the world," "attempts by Obama to go further than we expected" about how he's "stuck his neck out" over nuclear disarmament and more. Shame on you Sunny for peddling such deception.

Obama & Waxman-Markey - Corrupted By Corporate Interests

Over in the U.S. Paul Krugman is trying hard to sell the “fairly strong cap-and-trade climate bill," the Waxman-Markey bill (otherwise known as ‘American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009’). The bill has already passed the House and is due for floor action in the Senate where it will face renewed opposition.

Krugman asserts that, due to denial of climate change failing to gain sufficient purchase to block the bill, its main opposition will be based on the bill’s potential cost. In response to this, Krugman argues that whilst saving the planet will not come free - it will not cost all that much either. He quite rightly argues that the early stages of conservation to a lower carbon economy will not be particularly demanding.

First, the evidence suggests that we’re wasting a lot of energy right now. That is, we’re burning large amounts of coal, oil and gas in ways that don’t actually enhance our standard of living — a phenomenon known in the research literature as the “energy-efficiency gap.” The existence of this gap suggests that policies promoting energy conservation could, up to a point, actually make consumers richer.

Krugman then puts the longer-term costs in perspective.

[I]n 2020 the bill would cost the average family only $160 a year, or 0.2 percent of income. That’s roughly the cost of a postage stamp a day. [...] By 2050, when the emissions limit would be much tighter, the burden would rise to 1.2 percent of income. But the budget office also predicts that real G.D.P. will be about two-and-a-half times larger in 2050 than it is today, so that G.D.P. per person will rise by about 80 percent. The cost of climate protection would barely make a dent in that growth. And all of this, of course, ignores the benefits of limiting global warming.

Although Krugman successfully defends the bill from arguments based on expense, he misses a far more important point. Whilst Obama has edged away from his predecessor’s ‘head in the sand’ approach to climate change, the Waxman-Markey bill is a considerable distance from the ideal. There are too many loopholes and too many concessions. Obama's talk of taking a "bold and necessary step" to "confront America's energy challenge and reclaim America's future" is hollow.

In terms of the bill’s substance, George Monbiot notes that:

The cut proposed by 2020 is just 17%, which means that most of the reduction will take place towards the end of the period. What this means is much greater cumulative emissions, which is the only measure that counts. Worse still, it is riddled with so many loopholes and concessions that the bill's measures might not offset the emissions from the paper it's printed on. You can judge the effectiveness of a US bill by its length: the shorter it is, the more potent it will be. This one is some 1,200 pages long, which is what happens when lobbyists have been at work.

The bill also ignores the greenhouse impact of biofuels, thereby encouraging its usage.

In almost all cases, biofuels made from grain or oil crops create more greenhouse emissions than petroleum. This is partly because they lead to an expansion in total crop production, which means that forests must be cut down, unploughed pastures must be tilled and wetlands must be drained to accommodate it. The carbon stored in both the vegetation and the soil is released and oxidised.

The impact of biofuels has been devastating on the worlds poor.

In 2008, the expansion of biofuel production was directly responsible for the decline in global food stocks, which caused grain prices to rise, catalysing famines in many parts of the world. Cereal stockpiles declined by 53m tonnes; the production of biofuels, mostly by the US, consumed almost 100m tonnes, according to a piece in the Economist on 6th December 2007. As the UN's special rapporteur, Jean Ziegler says, turning food for people into food for cars is, "a crime against humanity".

What about the costs involved, has Obama been as clear and coherent as Krugman? No.

Instead of straight talk, however, Mr Obama has mostly been offering happy talk.

When the House of Representatives narrowly passed a climate-change bill on June 26th, he rejoiced that it would create millions of new green jobs and reduce America’s “dangerous dependence on foreign oil”. Almost as an afterthought, he mentioned that it might do something for the planet. As usual, he gave the impression that planet-cooling will require no sacrifice from voters.

This is drivel. The shift to a lower-carbon economy will destroy jobs as well as create them, and hit growth. Greens wish Mr Obama would use his immense popularity and rhetorical skills to persuade Americans that such costs are outweighed by the benefits of helping to avert planetary catastrophe. But rather than shaping public opinion, he is running scared of it. And so, even more, is Congress.

All too often, commentators are eager to lionise Obama for simply being better than Bush. (In fairness to Krugman, perhaps he is suppressing whatever discontent he may feel towards the bill for the misguided view that it is for the greater good). The Waxman-Markey bill is highly flawed. Those with a genuine concern for the environment and the world’s poor ought to be suspicious of this highly compromised bill, which has been corrupted by corporate interests.

A few links to things that have happened in my absence.

The U.S. offer unconvincing assurances regarding its continued use of rendition.

Birth deformities in Fallujah continue - the cause remains unknown.

Obama's actions belie his rhetoric once more as he extends the Cuban trade embargo.

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. 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.

The Other Taxpayers' Alliance continue their efforts to expose the Taxpayers' Alliance as a murky millionaires' club.

I found myself agreeing with pretty much everything David Mitchell writes about David Cameron and MPs expenses.

This Richard Littlejohn cock-up is exquisitely ridiculous. Whist this Daily Mail attempt to whip up a false moral outrage is tedious.

Update

*Pink link added retrospectively.

U.S. healthcare & Obama's concessions

The current U.S. system is expensive and inefficient.

[T]he incredible cost of US health care is breath-taking, whether you're a reformer or anti-reformist. The US spent some $2.2 trillion (£1.34 trillion) on healthcare in 2007. It is a mind-boggling number which amounts to over 16% of US GDP. That is nearly twice the average spent by other rich nations with advanced health systems - yet you have to wonder if this is value for money when, by most measures, the US is a less healthy nation than other rich countries, on everything from infant mortality to longevity.

The U.S. healthcare system needs reforming. Cue Barrack Obama, one time advocate of single payer healthcare system.

As Paul Krugman writes, the single payer healthcare system would be the best option for reform.

True “socialized medicine” would undoubtedly cost less, and a straightforward extension of Medicare-type coverage to all Americans would probably be cheaper than a Swiss-style system.

The evidence makes interesting reading.*

Despite his previous endorsement of single payer healthcare, Obama repositioned himself in opposition to single-payer healthcare during the presidential candidacy campaign. His new proposition was for a public option to compete with private insurers.

Since the presidential election, Obama has constantly made concessions. In March 2009, Obama talked about the importance of being pragmatic

Each of us must accept that none of us will get everything that we want, and that no proposal for reform will be perfect. If that's the measure, we will never get anything done.

This was an exceptional piece of positioning; he presented himself as being open-minded and pragmatic whilst simultaneously ruling out a single payer solution. Since then, Obama has gone even further to placate those in opposition to significant healthcare reform, Obama recently said:

[T]he public option, whether we have it or we don't have it, is not the entirety of health care reform. This is just one sliver of it, one aspect of it. And by the way, it's both the right and the left that have become so fixated on this that they forget everything else.

Obama's change of discourse suggests that the competing public option proposal is now off the table. In a generous light, the initial change of stance could be viewed as born of the ugly reality of electoral politics rather than unprincipled toadying. If Obama makes this latest concession, which he seems willing to make, there can be no such generosity. In three moves Obama's stance on healthcare has changed from seemingly principled, to apparent pragmatism, to sell-out.

In the light of Obama making concession after concession, will the considerably watered down healthcare reform package pass?

At this point, all that stands in the way of universal health care in America are the greed of the medical-industrial complex, the lies of the right-wing propaganda machine, and the gullibility of voters who believe those lies.

Oh dear ... The lessons of Clinton healthcare plan of 1993 teaches us that this is a formidable opposition.

During the Clinton administration, support for completely rebuilding the health care system peaked in the spring of 1993 [55%] and declined subsequently. By June 1994, just 37% said the health care system needed to be completely rebuilt.

This does not mean that the opposition to healthcare reform is insurmountable. Healthcare reform has popular support. As Chomsky notes in Failed States, the majority of Americans recognise that their healthcare system needs reforming.

"An NBC-Wall Street Journal poll found that ‘over 2/3 of all Americans thought the government should guarantee everyone the best and most advanced health care that technology can supply'; a Washington Post-ABC News poll found that 80 percent regard universal health care as ‘more important than holding down taxes'; polls reported in Business Week found that ‘67 percent of Americans think it is a good idea to guarantee health care for all U.S. citizens, as Canada and Britain do, with just 27 percent dissenting'."

Regardless of the fact the U.S. polity is contradicting the will of the majority, the question is whether a reform so far removed from perfect is worth 'getting done' at all?

On the one hand, the reform itself is to be welcomed for improving America's healthcare system by potentially providing universal healthcare. The proposed healthcare reforms will make U.S healthcare more like the Swiss healthcare system, which primarily provides universal coverage through regulation and subsidy.

On the other hand, whilst the Swiss system provides good care, it is expensive. The only reason that the Swiss-style system is an improvement is that the status-quo is so inefficient and iniquitous. Obama has thrown away the opportunity to implement a progressive government-run healthcare system that would benefit more Americans significantly more so than this fudge. (Even his seemingly discarded proposal of 'competitive public option' system would be preferable).

With his endless concessions, Obama may have bought the votes of the odd 'blue dog', but by and large, the latest proposal continues to face the same opposition that a proposal for a single payer healthcare system would have faced. America needs Obama to be the strong and principled leader he portrays himself to be. America needs a president that ignores manufactured opposition, listens to the right-minded, and defends the interests of the people he serves. What America has is flaccid corporatist**.

*UK citizens might be interested to note that the NHS is comparatively cheap and efficient. In contrast to the current U.S system, it provides better care on almost every measure and costs around 40% as much per person. Although, when considering healthcare provision, it is important to bear in mind more than the degree of privatisation and amount of expenditure. Policy priorities significantly influence results. For instance, Cuba's universal healthcare includes preventive health care provision. Japan's citizens have healthy lifestyles. In both of these considerations the U.S. lags behind, which makes U.S. healthcare very inefficient in terms of expenditure versus life expectancy. A point well made by Chris Dillow at Stumbling and Mumbling. The American system is also hugely wasteful in term of 'over-treating' the elderly. (Of course, the argument could always be made that such factors are economically determined, but I digress).

** The link is to an excellent (but very long) article by Paul Street about Obama. As it is on Znet, you may have to register to view it.

Update

I might try to re-write this and offer it as a new post in the future, because, in attempting to pre-emptively defend my argument, it has become diffuse. The latest article by Paul Krugman reiterates some of the arguments contained above in a clearer manner.

[T]here’s a point at which realism shades over into weakness, and progressives increasingly feel that the administration is on the wrong side of that line. It seems as if there is nothing Republicans can do that will draw an administration rebuke: Senator Charles E. Grassley feeds the death panel smear, warning that reform will “pull the plug on grandma,” and two days later the White House declares that it’s still committed to working with him.

It’s hard to avoid the sense that Mr. Obama has wasted months trying to appease people who can’t be appeased, and who take every concession as a sign that he can be rolled. [...]

[T]he supposed alternative, nonprofit co-ops, is a sham. That’s not just my opinion; it’s what the market says: stocks of health insurance companies soared on news that the Gang of Six senators trying to negotiate a bipartisan approach to health reform were dropping the public plan. Clearly, investors believe that co-ops would offer little real competition to private insurers.

Also, and importantly, the public option offered a way to reconcile differing views among Democrats. Until the idea of the public option came along, a significant faction within the party rejected anything short of true single-payer, Medicare-for-all reform, viewing anything less as perpetuating the flaws of our current system. The public option, which would force insurance companies to prove their usefulness or fade away, settled some of those qualms. [...]

So progressives are now in revolt. Mr. Obama took their trust for granted, and in the process lost it. And now he needs to win it back.

Basically, Obama should take a leaf out of Barney Frank’s book.

Barack Obama 182 days in office

In the course of electioneering, Barack Obama massively exaggerated his intentions. He played on hope, built expectations, and was destined to disappoint. As a president he presents himself as mindful that his predecessors have left him a considerable agenda. He is faced with formidable opposition to almost everything that he sets out to do, he needs to act tough and make enemies for the sake of the principles he claims to uphold. He needs to carry his public goodwill to shore up his reforms, push through a second stimulus package if needed, ensure that healthcare reform is anything like the plans he speaks of, leave Iraq and stand-up to Israel.

His actions belie his rhetoric. For all the plentiful ‘tough talk’ there have been few strong actions. He fudges issues and fails to deliver his promises. For those that think that his policy half-measures are better than nothing, please bear in mind that an insufficient stimulus package and half-baked heathcare reform could well prove counter productive. Critics of the plans will be able to say, “we tried them once and they didn’t work. Now you want more money? Why throw good money after bad?”

The highlights of his presidency have been the reversal of Bush’s restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, his easing of restrictions on Cuba, and the change of rhetoric on many issues. With the exception of providing government funding for stem cell research, his achievements are easily exaggerated. His presidency has been characterised by morally deplorable foreign policy, compromises that please nobody and competent public relations management in the face of a largely servile media. (When Obama is criticised by the media, it tends to be on insignificant or spurious grounds).

In regards to the change in rhetoric, little else has changed. During his presidential inauguration speech Barack Obama said, “America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and we are ready to lead once more.” This is nonsense. America is a friend to its client states and an enemy to those that get in the way.

Obama has proclaimed his commitment “to governments that reflect the will of the people” and of ‘democracy promotion’. Indeed, Obama called for increased investment in ‘democracy promotion’ in Latin America. As it turns out, those investments were to do the opposite of what he claimed they were to do. Democracy promotion funding has been used to support a military coup d'état in Honduras, which overthrew a democratically elected president with a progressive agenda.

The money for democracy promotion funds the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and United States Agency for International Development (USAID). These agencies heavily funded the various organisations that formed Democratic Civil Union of Honduras.

Its [Democratic Civil Union of Honduras] only objective was to oust President Zelaya from power in order to impede the future possibility of a constitutional convention to reform the constitution, which would allow the people a voice and a role in their political process.

Despite apparent ‘condemnation’ through careful description of the coup as “not legal”, Obama has tacitly supported the coup d'état and the coup government financially and militarily. When Obama talks about ‘difficult’ issues his speech is laden with considerable obfuscation. All too often it is what he deliberately omits the objectionable truths. Obama has not acknowledged the coup d'état as a coup d'état for fear of forcing his own hand.

Obama has portrayed himself as being tough on Israel. He told Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, “settlements have to be stopped”. Yet Obama has done nothing about the continued expansion of settlements. America continues to fund the Israeli government. The U.S. has plenty of leverage over the Israel and there is historical precedence in using it. For example, during his presidency George H. W. Bush (by no means the most progressive president) suspended loan guarantees to Israel because of settlement expansion. Obama chooses to do nothing.

When discussing America's 'new' approach to counterterrorism Obama said, “America's moral example must be the bedrock and the beacon of our global leadership”. Yet extraordinary rendition continues unabated. The “historic consensus” on significantly cutting carbon is a cynical exercise in greenwashing. It is full of loopholes and too long term to really effect Obama’s presidency. The planned departure of US troops from Iraq is a weak line of action that comes up short. It is an unquestionable fudge.

Obama has eased restrictions on Cuba and said that he seeks “an equal partnership”. These changes are, as Fidel Castro rightly considered them, "positive although minimal". The U.S. trade embargo against Cuba is still in place. The U.S. continues to punish Cuba by keeping in place this hangover from the Cold War whilst continuing to support dictators and aggressive regimes that it views favourably. A global superpower continuing to undermine small island is not grounds for an equal partnership.

The actions of the Obama administration expose Obama for the largely unprincipled and wilfully deceptive man he is. In the light of the military coup d'état in Honduras Hugo Chavez addressed Obama via Venezuelan state television. He said, "don't deceive the world with a discourse that contradicts your actions". Fat chance

Update

I should have included the reckless killing of civilians in Afghanistan and the failure to reform the financial sector too.

Wake up call - the Honduras coup d'état reading list

James D Cockroft calls the Honduras coup "The Moment of Truth for the Obama Administration"

The military coup currently underway in Honduras is a hard coup accompanied by various vain attempts to make it appear soft and "constitutionalist." Behind the coup are diverse social, economic, and political forces, of which the most important is the administration of President Barack Obama. No important change can happen in Honduras without Washington's approval. The Honduran oligarchy and transnational corporations (banana growers, pharmaceutical manufacturers) are defending their interests, as they always have, with a military coup.

James Hodge and Linda Cooper report on the U.S. Continuing to Train Honduran Soldiers.

A day after an SOA-trained army general ousted Honduran President Manuel Zelaya at gunpoint, President Barack Obama stated that "the coup was not legal" and that Zelaya remained "the democratically elected president." The Foreign Operations Appropriations Act requires that U.S. military aid and training be suspended when a country undergoes a military coup, and the Obama administration has indicated those steps have been taken. However, Lee Rials, public affairs officer for the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation, the successor of SOA, confirmed Monday that Honduran officers are still being trained at the school.

"Yes, they're in class now." Rials said [...]

Whatever legal argument the coup leaders had against Zelaya, it fell apart when they flew him into exile rather than prosecuting him, the attorney [Herrera Hernández] said. The legal system has broken down, he added, for if this can happen to the president, who can't it happen to?

Eva Golinger looks at the "reasons" for the coup and the growing U.S. military presence in Latin America.

They claim that President Zelaya was violating the constitution by proposing a non-binding national survey on the possibility of future constitutional reform. Most strange in this claim is that a non-binding survey, which means it doesn't legally matter what the outcome is, to consult the people's will regarding their constitution, is somehow a violent crime that justifies kidnapping, forced exile, and 3 weeks of imposed national curfew, suspension of constitutional rights and repression of the people. [...]

Meanwhile, the outrage is growing in Latin America over Obama's request (happily accepted by Colombian president Alvaro Uribe) to occupy 5 new military bases in Colombia. This agreement, which was consolidated in the Oval Office this past June 30, 2009, as Obama simultaneously and cynically declared the Honduran coup "illegal", will turn Colombia into a dangerous launching pad for US military operations in the region, never seen before in history. $46 million of US taxpayer monies was already approved by Congress - as requested by Obama - for pumping up the capacity of just one of the Colombian bases that US forces will occupy. The base in Palanquero - central Colombia - is set not just for counter-drug operations, which is the usual justification for US military presence in the region, but also for "hemispheric security operations". Hmmm, security operations? Against whom? Maybe neighbouring Venezuela and Ecuador, two nations that are in revolution and maintain anti-imperialist doctrines.

The people of the US and the world should express outrage and disgust at this violent, intimidating and threatening massive US presence in Latin America, authorized by "agent of change" Barack Obama.

During his presidential inauguration speech Barack Obama said, "America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity". If only it were.

Military Coup in Honduras & the role of the U.S.

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. In the days following, the role of the U.S. has become clearer - this coup was U.S. supported.

School of Americas Watch reported at the time:

The Honduran state television was taken off the air. The electricity supply to the capital Tegucigalpa, as well telephone and cellphone lines were cut. [… T]he people of Honduras are going into the streets, in spite of the fact that the streets are militarized. From Costa Rica, President Zelaya has called for a non-violent response from the people of Honduras, and for international solidarity for the Honduran democracy.

Richard Gott explains that:

Manuel Zelaya, president since 2006, is an improbable revolutionary. A wealthy landowner with timber and cattle interests, he was the candidate of the Liberal party, one of the two traditional parties of the Honduras oligarchy that have controlled the country's political system for most of the past century, with a sizeable input from the armed forces. Foreign journalists of a certain generation have a vivid memory of Honduras in the 1980s when the country was a military base, organised and funded by the United States, for the operations of the "contras", the paramilitary forces that invented a civil war against the Sandinista government in neighbouring Nicaragua. … [ F]ew of those who voted at the elections in November 2005 imagined that Zelaya would embark on a programme of radical change. He won with only a slim majority over his rivals.

The official tenuous justification for the military coup d'état is that Zelaya was to hold a referendum to extend presidential terms beyond a single four-year term. This, it is argued, would be unconstitutional. Yet 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 d'état 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. miltary base, as happened in Ecuador.

Zelaya, always dark-suited, cuts a strange figure alongside such fiery radicals as Evo Morales of Bolivia and Rafael Correa of Ecuador, not to mention Raúl Castro. Yet in his small country of 7 million people, he has sought to introduce a range of social programmes, including a minimum wage, and to mobilise the poor majority. His success has been sufficient to summon up a violent challenge from the traditional elite before it is too late.

The subsequent period has been characterised by protests, military suppression, the interim president Roberto Micheletti forming a new cabinet, 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. Estimates regarding injuries and deaths vary slightly.

This event was also captured by photojournalist James Rodriguez.

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

While the Obama administration have said that the coup is illegal and that Zelaya remains the only legitimate President of Honduras there has also been some vagueness. Unlike the ALBA governments the US has not recalled its ambassador from Honduras or refused to recognise the new government. US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, when asked at a press conference if the US commitment to a return to democratic and constitutional practices in Honduras meant the restoration of Zelaya to office, gave no clear answer. It’s possible that the Obama administration’s attitude to Zelaya is ambiguous, or alternatively that it’s attempting to avoid handing ammunition to right wingers (including some Democrats) in the US congress who consider Chavez and Zelaya to be ‘dictators’ and enemies of the US or who want to revive the Free Trade Area of the Americas. It may even be, as Hugo Chavez has suggested, that Obama opposed the coup but other elements in the US government, military and intelligence agencies backed it

However Honduras’ military remains heavily US armed, funded and trained (there are even 300 US troops permanently based in the country) and it seems likely that if the Obama administration really wanted to restore democracy in Honduras it would only need to suspend all military aid and arms sales until Zelaya was restored to power. Many of the officers involved in the coup were trained at the notorious US School of the Americas in the 1980s and 1990s, including the main leader of the coup, General Romeo Vásquez Velasquez. Latin American History professor Greg Grandin says that “The Honduran military is effectively a subsidiary of the United States government. Honduras, as a whole, if any Latin American country is fully owned by the United States, it’s Honduras....Its economy is wholly based on trade, foreign aid and remittances. So if the US is opposed to this coup going forward, it won’t go forward. Zelaya will return.”

Since Duncan McFarlane’s post (quoted above), more evidence has come to light of U.S. interference. Eva Golinger reports that

Things are getting worse each day inside Honduras. Over the weekend, two well-known social leaders were assassinated by the coup forces. Roger Bados leader of the Bloque Popular & the National Resistance Front against the coup d'etat, was killed in the northern city of San Pedro Sula. Approximately at 8pm on Saturday evening, Bados was assassinated, killed immediately by three gun shots. Bados was also a member of the leftist party, Democratic Unity (Unificación Democrática) and was president of a union representing workers in a cement factory. His death was denounced as part of the ambience and repressive actions taken by the coup government to silence all dissent.

Ramon Garcia, another social leader in Honduras, was also killed on Saturday evening by military forces who boarded a bus he was riding in Santa Barbara and forced him off, subsequently shooting him and wounding his sister. […]

Meanwhile, the coup government has hired top-notch Democrat lobbyists in Washington to make their case before Congress and the White House and convince the US people to recognize them as a legitimate government. The New York Times has confirmed that Clinton lobbyist Lanny Davis, former Special Counsel for President Bill Clinton from 1996-1998, and close advisor to Hillary's campaign for president last year, has been hired by the Latin American Business Council - an ultraconservative group of Latin American businesses - to represent the coup leaders in the U.S.

In a more recent report several key facts have been established

• The Department of State had prior knowledge of the coup.
• The Department of State and the US Congress funded and advised the actors and organizations in Honduras that participated in the coup.
• The Pentagon trained, schooled, commanded, funded, and armed the Honduran armed forces that perpetrated the coup and that continue to repress the people of Honduras by force.
• The US military presence in Honduras, which occupies the Soto Cano (Palmerola) military base, authorized the coup d'etat through its tacit complicity and refusal to withdraw its support of the Honduran military involved in the coup.
• The US Ambassador in Tegucigalpa, Hugo Llorens, coordinated the removal from power of President Manuel Zelaya, together with Assistant Secretary of State Thomas Shannon and John Negroponte, who presently works as an advisor to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
• The Department of State has refused to legally classify the events in Honduras as a "coup d'etat," nor has it suspended or frozen its economic aid or commerce to Honduras, and has taken no measures to effectively pressure the de facto regime.
• Washington manipulated the Organization of American States (OAS) in order to buy time, therefore allowing the coup regime to consolidate and weaken the possibility of President Zelaya's immediate return to power, as part of a strategy still in place that simply seeks to legitimate the de facto regime and wear down the Honduran people that still resist the coup.
• The strategy of "negotiating" with the coup regime was imposed by the Obama administration as a way of discrediting President Zelaya - blaming him for provoking the coup - and legitimizing the coup leaders.

When an act of courteousness leads to being branded ‘the lecher of the free world’.

The Daily Mail printed a picture in which “Barack Obama was caught out yesterday in a leer worthy of his Italian counterpart Mr Berlusconi” (see bottom story on this page). Only he was not. Barack Obama was in fact being courteous as the first 63 second of the below video demonstrates.

For another example of The Daily Mail’s penchant for making things up see Eric The Fish: King of the Sea’s look at The Mail’s apology for making up that somebody that they do not like is a supporter of Al Qaeda and radical cleric Abu Qatada.

80% Carbon cut - a landmark pledge?

The Independent leads on "US agrees landmark pledge to slash emissions" today, is this as inspiring as it appears?

Looking at the US climate-change bill, George Monbiot thinks not.

The cut proposed by [2050 is 80%, yet by] 2020 is just 17%, which means that most of the reduction will take place towards the end of the period. What this means is much greater cumulative emissions, which is the only measure that counts. Worse still, it is riddled with so many loopholes and concessions that the bill's measures might not offset the emissions from the paper it's printed on. You can judge the effectiveness of a US bill by its length: the shorter it is, the more potent it will be. This one is some 1,200 pages long, which is what happens when lobbyists have been at work.

The Economist describe the US climate change bill as 'A squeaker, with more to come'.

Instead of straight talk, however, Mr Obama has mostly been offering happy talk. When the House of Representatives narrowly passed a climate-change bill on June 26th, he rejoiced that it would create millions of new green jobs and reduce America’s “dangerous dependence on foreign oil”. Almost as an afterthought, he mentioned that it might do something for the planet. As usual, he gave the impression that planet-cooling will require no sacrifice from voters.

This is drivel. The shift to a lower-carbon economy will destroy jobs as well as create them, and hit growth. Greens wish Mr Obama would use his immense popularity and rhetorical skills to persuade Americans that such costs are outweighed by the benefits of helping to avert planetary catastrophe. But rather than shaping public opinion, he is running scared of it. And so, even more, is Congress.

So, the bill is a fudge, and the pledge (if it is even upheld) will be too. Sadly, as Monbiot points out, "This bill is the best we're going to get for now because the corruption of public life in the United States has not been addressed."

Media Matters - five years old today

Media Matters for America, a non-profit organisation dedicated to scrutinising the media, is five years old today. It is fair to suggest that they have made a few enemies along the way …

For an example of the kind of thing they do, here is a compilation of Fox news’ coverage of the first 100 days of Obama’s presidency.

For more, see their website & youtube profile.

Obama’s Cairo speech

What he did say was largely inoffensive, what he failed to say …

Fisk writes

About the Venue

[P]lease note that Obama has chosen Egypt for his latest address to the Muslims, a country run by an ageing potentate – Hosni Mubarak is 80 – who uses his secret police like a private army to imprison human rights workers, opposition politicians, anyone in fact who challenges the great man's rule.

And that: …

The Egyptian Organisation of Human Rights, a separate group, discovered that 10 of the 29 died after torture. In one case, rights groups acquired a videotape of a prisoner being anally raped with a stick by a police officer. Other videos show one of Mubarak's political opponents – a woman – being sexually molested by a plain-clothes police officer in a Cairo street.

As for the speech itself: …

when Obama said that some governments, "once in power, are ruthless in suppressing the rights of others", there was a roar of applause from the supposedly obedient audience. […] As the Palestinian intellectual Marwan Bishara pointed out yesterday, it is easy to be "dazzled" by presidents. This was a dazzling performance. But if one searched the text, there were things missing.

There was no mention – during or after his kindly excoriation of Iran – of Israel's estimated 264 nuclear warheads. He admonished the Palestinians for their violence – for "shooting rockets at sleeping children or blowing up old women in a bus". But there was no mention of Israel's violence in Gaza, just of the "continuing humanitarian crisis in Gaza". Nor was there a mention of Israel's bombing of civilians in Lebanon, of its repeated invasions of Lebanon (17,500 dead in the 1982 invasion alone). Obama told Muslims not to live in the past, but cut the Israelis out of this. […]

For a man who is sending thousands more US troops into Afghanistan – a certain disaster-to-come in the eyes of Arabs and Westerners – there was something brazen about all this. When he talked about the debt that all Westerners owed to Islam – the "light of learning" in Andalusia, algebra, the magnetic compass, religious tolerance, it was like a cat being gently stroked before a visit to the vet. And the vet, of course, lectured the Muslims on the dangers of extremism, on "cycles of suspicion and discord" – even if America and Islam shared "common principles" which turned out to be "justice, progress and the dignity of all human beings".

There was one merciful omission: a speech of nearly 6,000 words did not include the lethal word "terror". "Terror" or "terrorism" have become punctuation marks for every Israeli government and became part of the obscene grammar of the Bush era.

An intelligent guy, then, Obama. Not exactly Gettysburg. Not exactly Churchill, but not bad. One could only remember Churchill's observations: "Words are easy and many, while great deeds are difficult and rare."

Chomsky notes that:

Obama's June 4 Cairo address to the Muslim world kept pretty much to his well-honed "blank slate" style -- saying very little of substance, but in a personable manner that allows listeners to write on the slate what they want to hear. CNN captured its spirit in headlining a report "Obama looks to reach the soul of the Muslim world."

Whereas John Pilger - Smile on the face of the tiger [Please read in full]

President Barack Obama made his “historic” speech in Cairo, “reaching out to the Muslim world”, reported the BBC. “Just as it devastates Palestinian families, the continuing humanitarian crisis in Gaza,” said Obama, “does not serve Israel’s security.” That was all. The killing of 1,300 people in what is now a concentration camp merited 17 words, cast as concern for the “security” of the killers. This was understandable. During the January massacre, Seymour Hersh reported that “the Obama team let it be known that it would not object to the planned resupply of ‘smart bombs’ and other hi-tech ordnance that was already flowing to Israel” for use in Gaza.

Chomsky on Israeli settlement expansion

Chomsky wrote the following about the planned expansion of Israeli settlements in Palestine:

Washington's position was presented most strongly in Hillary Clinton's much-quoted statement rejecting "natural growth exceptions" to the policy opposing new settlements. Netianyahu, along with President Peres and in fact virtually the whole Israeli political spectrum, insists on permitting "natural growth" within the areas that Israel intends to annex, complaining that the US is backing down on Bush's authorization of such expansion within his "vision" of a Palestinian state.

Senior Netanyahu cabinet members have gone further. Minister Yisrael Katz announced that "the current Israeli government will not accept in any way the freezing of legal settlement activity in Judea and Samaria.” (Ha'aretz, May 31). The term "legal" in US-Israeli parlance means "illegal, but authorized by the government of Israel.” In this usage, unauthorized outposts are termed "illegal," though apart from the dictates of the powerful, they are no more illegal than the settlements granted to Israel under Bush's "vision."[…]

If Obama were serious about opposing settlement expansion, he could easily proceed with concrete measures, for example, by reducing US aid by the amount devoted to this purpose. That would hardly be a radical or courageous move. The Bush I administration did so (reducing loan guarantees), but after the Oslo accord in 1993, President Clinton left calculations to the government of Israel. Unsurprisingly, there was "no change in the expenditures flowing to the settlements," the Israeli press reported: "[Prime Minister] Rabin will continue not to dry out the settlements," the report concludes. "And the Americans? They will understand" (Hadashot, Oct. 8; Yair Fidel, Hadashot Supplement, Oct. 29, 1993).

Obama administration officials informed the press that the Bush I measures are "not under discussion," and that pressures will be "largely symbolic" (Helene Cooper, NYT, June 1). In short, Obama "understands." […]

[A]ll of these discussions about settlement expansion evade the most crucial issue about settlements: what Israel has already established in the West Bank. The evasion tacitly concedes that the illegal settlement programs already in place are somehow acceptable (putting aside the Golan heights, annexed in violation of Security Council orders) -- though the Bush "vision," apparently accepted by Obama, moves from tacit to explicit. What is in place already suffices to ensure that there can be no viable Palestinian self-determination. Hence there is every indication that even on the unlikely assumption that "natural growth" will be ended, US-Israeli rejectionism will persist, blocking the international consensus as before.

Netanyahu says that West Bank settlements are to expand.

News that manages to be both unsurprising and almost unbelievable. The West Bank settlements, which are considered illegal under international law, are to expand.

"I have no intention to construct new settlements," Binyamin Netanyahu was quoted by officials as telling his cabinet on Sunday.

"... but it makes no sense to ask us not to answer to the needs of natural growth and to stop all construction," he added.

Whereas Obama said to Netanyahu just days earlier …



As for Netanyahu vowing to remove makeshift outposts in the West Bank that the Israeli government itself considers illegal …

100 Days: Barack Obama has taken some steps in the right direction - but let’s not kid ourselves

Unless connected to their predecessor, presidents are able to enjoy the luxury of blaming their predecessor for a while. Obama may have extended this period through some impressive political posturing. The disclosure of the memos authorising detainee abuse was inevitable due to an American Civil Liberties Union lawsuit, releasing the memos early allows Obama to distance himself from their contents.

The closure of Guantánamo Bay is to be welcomed, but it too seems more likely to be politically motivated rather than morally. Its geographical proximity and historical connotations means that it carries considerable symbolic value beyond its terror suspect prison status both in the US and elsewhere. Nowhere will the symbolism resonate more greatly than Cuba, it was, after all, once Cuban land before US ‘intervention’.

New relations with Cuba are, so far, tiny steps in the right direction. The archaic trade embargo, a hangover from the cold war, is still in place. In fact, all that has been undone are additional restrictions brought in by George Bush Junior. Nonetheless, Obama’s move away from Bush’s stance on Cuba, Venezuela, Iran and Europe is to be welcomed. Welcomed but not exaggerated.

His burgeoning presidency has seen some less contestable successes, for example, allowing wider research on stem cells is unquestionably the right move. The planned departure of US troops from Iraq, on the other hand, is an unquestionable fudge.

Obama is all too willing to make concessions when he deems it politically expedient. His pledge to speak “truthfully about the Armenian genocide” was avoided through deliberate obfuscation. His calls for peace in the Middle East feel like empty platitudes. The subtext of past speeches has revealed him to be reluctant to criticise Israel. Given that Israel's coalition government is particularly right-wing and the shift rightwards of Israel’s Labour party, it seems peace can only come at the expense of Palestinians.

Obama has not had it all his own way, Europe rejected sending more troops to Afghanistan and refused an economic stimulus package on Obama’s terms. Nor will he have it all his way in the future: Pakistan is becoming increasingly unstable. North Korea seems as defiant as ever having fired ballistic missiles. Afghanistan’s impending national elections will likely trigger greater disturbance in the region.

His nation awaits a much-vaunted health care reform plan.