Honduras: reporter threatened over election story

Setelah berkeliling daerah bencana di Nanggroe Aceh Darussalam (NAD) menggunakan helikopter SH60 Sea Hawk dari kapal induk USS Abraham Lincoln, Menteri Luar Negeri Amerika Serikat (AS) Colin Powell spontan berucap bahwa dirinya belum pernah melihat kerusakan sehebat itu. “Saya pernah ikut perang, juga mengalami sejumlah topan, tornado, dan operasi bantuan lainnya, tetapi saya belum pernah melihat yang seperti ini,” ujar Powell.

Andrew Natsios dari Badan Pembangunan Internasional Amerika Serikat (USAID) yang terbang bersama Powell dan Jeb Bush – Gubernur Florida yang juga adik Presiden AS George Walker Bush – lebih terpukul lagi setelah melihat kondisi di NAD. Dia sudah sering bersinggungan dengan bencana selama 15 tahun ini, tetapi dia tidak menyangka sedikit pun apa yang dia telah lihat di NAD. “Ini seperti sebuah bom nuklir kecil menghantam negeri ini,” ujarnya sebagaimana dikutip kantor berita Agence France Presse (AFP), Rabu (5/1) lalu.

Powell menambahkan, “Saya tidak bisa membayangkan bagaimana suasana mengerikan yang terjadi ketika keluarga dan para korban mendengarkan suara gemuruh air yang datang dan merengkuh seluruh kehidupan mereka.”  Ini karena tsunami pada 26 Desember 2004 itu praktis menghancurkan apa saja, rumah, pabrik, jembatan, mobil, dan pohon-pohon. “Seluruh negeri kini hanya penuh dengan lumpur,” ujar Powell lagi.

Apa yang diungkapkan Powell dan Natsios jelas bukan sekadar lip service. Gambar yang terlihat di televisi ataupun cerita sejumlah teman yang kembali dari lokasi bencana juga mempertegas apa yang diungkapkan tadi. Membayangkan kota Banda Aceh dengn Masjid Baiturrahman ketika berada di sana hampir sebalas tahun lalu dan apa yang terlihat di televisi pascatsunami, jelas (telah) terjadi bencana yang luar biasa.

Beberapa prajurit AS dari kapal induk USS Abraham Lincoln, yang ikut dalam misi kemanusiaan membantu korban gempa dan tsunami di NAD dan Sumatera Utara (Sumut), juga terkejut melihat apa yang telah terjadi di sana. Suatu kawasan yang tadinya kota dengan ribuan penduduknya kini seperti sirna dihapus begitu saja.

“Saya tak bisa berkata apa pun, dan hanya tertegun. Saya tidak tahu harus berbuat apa,” ujar Yeoman Kevin Ferguson (21), prajurit Angkatan Laut AS yang ikut ke Banda Aceh, sebagaimana dikutip AFP.

Ferguson bisa menggambarkan suasana yang begitu porak poranda di Aceh karena dia berasal dari Salem, Oregon, negara bagian di barat tengah AS yang sering kali dilanda dan diporakporandakan tornado. “Tetapi ini jauh lebih buruk,” ujarnya.

“Ini jelas sangat menggelisahkan, traumatis, suatu pengalaman yang mengubah hidup,” ujar Ferguson.

Dirinya berulang kali melihat kerusakan akibat badai dan tornado di kampung halamannya. “Tapi yang satu ini sulit untuk menjelaskannya,” ujarnya menambahkan.

Tak salah benar jika bencana gempa bumi dan tsunami yang melanda NAD dan Sumut itu bagai sebuah hantaman bom nuklir kecil. Dari aspek jatuhnya korban dan kerusakan yang tampak, tak berbeda dengan Hiroshima dan Nagasaki saat dihantam bom atom. Semuanya hancur rata dengan tanah.

Korban tewas di NAD dan Sumut sejauh ini sedikitnya 94.000 orang, dengan sebagian besar kota di pantai utara dan barat Aceh hancur. Korban bom atom AS pada 6 Desember 1945 atas Hiroshima, sekitar 140.000 orang langsung tewas dengan seluruh kota industri itu berantakan. Tiga hari kemudian, 70.000 warga Nagasaki tewas akibat hal yang sama.

“Seluruh awak kapal hanya bisa terdiam tak bisa berbuat apa-apa. Tak ada reaksi. Semua terdiam. Begitu banyak mayat terapung di depan kapal kami,” ujar Derek Scott, salah satu awak USS Abraham Lincoln, ketika mereka berlayar memasuki perairan di lepas pantai kota Banda Aceh.

Jesse Cash, perwira senior USS Abraham Lincoln, mengaku smepat terpukul melihat para korban. Kapten Kendall Card, yang merupakan salah seorang perwira senior di USS Abraham Lincoln, mengaku trauma.

Para prajurit AS ini berharap bisa membantu berbuat apa saja guna meringankan penderitaan korban. “Kami ingin terus membantu jika dibutuhkan,” ujar Card.

Soalnya, apa yang terjadi di Aceh ini trak ubahnya (bak) jatuhnya bom nuklir kecil. Entah siapa yang menjatuhkannya di sana.

Sumber  :

Bom “Nuklir” Kecil di Aceh | Kompas, 08.01.2005

A hearing in Sen. Claire McCaskill’s Contract Oversightsubcommittee on contracting in Afghanistan has highlighted some important statistics that provide a window into the extent to which the Obama administration has picked up the Bush-era war privatization baton and sprinted with it. Overall, contractors now comprise a whopping 69% of the Department of Defense’s total workforce, “the highest ratio of contractors to military personnel in US history.” That’s not in one war zone—that’s the Pentagon in its entirety.

In Afghanistan, the Obama administration blows the Bush administration out of the privatized water. According to a memo[PDF] released by McCaskill’s staff,

“From June 2009 to September 2009, there was a 40% increase in Defense Department contractors in Afghanistan. During the same period, the number of armed private security contractors working for the Defense Department in Afghanistan doubled, increasing from approximately 5,000 to more than 10,000.”

At present, there are 104,000 Department of Defense contractors in Afghanistan. According to a report this week from the Congressional Research Service, as a result of the coming surge of 30,000 troops in Afghanistan, there may be up to 56,000 additional contractors deployed. But here is another group of contractors that often goes unmentioned: 3,600 State Department contractors and 14,000 USAID contractors. That means that the current total US force in Afghanistan is approximately 189,000 personnel (68,000 US troops and 121,000 contractors). And remember, that’s right now. And that, according to McCaskill, is a conservative estimate. A year from now, we will likely see more than 220,000 US-funded personnel on the ground in Afghanistan.

The US has spent more than $23 billion on contracts in Afghanistan since 2002. By next year, the number of contractors will have doubled since 2008 when taxpayers funded over $8 billion in Afghanistan-related contracts.

Despite the massive number of contracts and contractors in Afghanistan, oversight is utterly lacking. “The increase in Afghanistan contracts has not seen a corresponding increase in contract management and oversight,” according to McCaskill’s briefing paper. “In May 2009, DCMA [Defense Contract Management Agency] Director Charlie Williams told the Commission on Wartime Contracting that as many as 362 positions for Contracting Officer’s Representatives (CORs) in Afghanistan were currently vacant.”

A former USAID official, Michael Walsh, the former director of USAID’s Office of Acquisition and Assistance and Chief Acquisition Officer, told the Commission that many USAID staff are “administering huge awards with limited knowledge of or experience with the rules and regulations.” According to one USAID official, the agency is “sending too much money, too fast with too few people looking over how it is spent.” As a result, the agency does not “know … where the money is going.”

The Obama administration is continuing the Bush-era policy of hiring contractors to oversee contractors. According to the McCaskill memo:

In Afghanistan, USAID is relying on contractors to provide oversight of its large reconstruction and development projects. According to information provided to the Subcommittee, International Relief and Development (IRD) was awarded a five-year contract in 2006 to oversee the $1.4 billion infrastructure contract awarded to a joint venture of the Louis Berger Group and Black and Veatch Special Projects. USAID has also awarded a contract Checci and Company to provide support for contracts in Afghanistan.

The private security industry and the US government have pointed to the Synchronized Predeployment and Operational Tracker(SPOT) as evidence of greater government oversight of contractor activities. But McCaskill’s subcommittee found that system utterly lacking, stating: “The Subcommittee obtained current SPOT data showing that there are currently 1,123 State Department contractors and no USAID contractors working in Afghanistan.” Remember, there are officially 14,000 USAID contractors and the official monitoring and tracking system found none of these people and less than half of the State Department contractors.

As for waste and abuse, the subcommittee says that the Defense Contract Audit Agency identified more than $950 million in questioned and unsupported costs submitted by Defense Department contracts for work in Afghanistan. That’s 16% of the total contract dollars reviewed.

Ref: Counterpunch

Jeremy Scahill, an independent journalist who reports frequently for the national radio and TV program Democracy Now, has spent extensive time reporting from Iraq and Yugoslavia. He is currently a Puffin Writing Fellow at The Nation Institute. Scahill is the author of Blackwater: The Rise of the World’s Most Powerful Mercenary Army.His new website is RebelReports.com

Overall, contractors now comprise a whopping 69% of the Department of Defense’s total workforce, “the highest ratio of contractors to military personnel in US history.” That’s not in one war zone—that’s the Pentagon in its entirety.

From June 2009 to September 2009, there was a 40% increase in Defense Department contractors in Afghanistan.

That means that the current total US force in Afghanistan is approximately 189,000 personnel (68,000 US troops and 121,000 contractors). And remember, that’s right now. A year from now, we will likely see more than 220,000 US-funded personnel on the ground in Afghanistan.

The US has spent more than $23 billion on contracts in Afghanistan since 2002, at tax payer expense. By next year, the number of contractors will have doubled since 2008.

Despite the massive number of contracts and contractors in Afghanistan, oversight is utterly lacking. “The increase in Afghanistan contracts has not seen a corresponding increase in contract management and oversight,” according to McCaskill’s briefing paper. “In May 2009, … as many as 362 positions for Contracting Officer’s Representatives (CORs) in Afghanistan were currently vacant.” The Obama administration is continuing the Bush-era policy of hiring contractors to oversee contractors.

A former USAID official, Michael Walsh, the former director of USAID’s Office of Acquisition and Assistance and Chief Acquisition Officer, told the Commission that many USAID staff are “administering huge awards with limited knowledge of or experience with the rules and regulations.” According to one USAID official, the agency is “sending too much money, too fast with too few people looking over how it is spent.” As a result, the agency does not “know … where the money is going.”

Excerpt from full story by Jeremy Scahill

Recognizing the threat to animal and human health, the federal government has launched a multimillion-dollar initiative in the hopes of preventing the next global pandemic.

The U.S. Agency for International Development announced Oct. 22 the start of its Emerging Pandemic Threats program, a five-pronged approach to preparing the world for emerging infectious diseases. It builds on the agency’s long-standing programs in disease surveillance, training, and outbreak response.

“While no one can predict with certainty where the next pandemic disease will emerge, being ready for early detection and rapid response will minimize its potential impact on our social and economic well-being,” said Murray Trostle, deputy director of USAID’s Avian and Pandemic Influenza Preparedness and Response Unit.

Read more … (AVMA)

Increasing our troop levels in Afghanistan is the worst option I can think of for that region. Yes, there has been an uptick in violence in that region, but there are better things we can do than add more troops to the mix. If we want to win the hearts and minds of the Afghan people we need to do something for them besides hoping they believe this strategy is combating the Taliban. President Obama hopes that by adding more troops we can contain the violence and the Afghan security forces and police might take over the fight.

Most of the Afghan population has no access to education, clean drinking water, or health care. There are gross human rights violations taking place against women and childrenmacross that war torn country. The general populace is poor, scared, and beaten by decades of war. There are measure we can take to turn those things around, but adding more troops is not one of them.

For instance, Afghanistan has many natural resources that can be tapped to replace their opium trade and provide jobs and money to their people which would elevate their standard of living and make them productive players in the world community. 80% of their GDP comes from agriculture, the vast majority of that is opium, but changing that would be a game changer for the Taliban too because it is one of their revenue streams. There is an abundance of coal, zinc, natural gas, petroleum, salt, lead, talc, sulfur, copper and more. Technology is available that can help them cultivate those resources and turn them into capital that can help their people toss off the yokes of the Taliban, as well as, allow them to trade with their world partners.

Instead of spending a trillion dollars on guns and ammo why not invest in things that can produce a return for the people of Afghanistan and us? The natural resource sector is just one viable place to invest. The people of Afghanistan are in desperate need of teachers and educational facilities. We can bring in teachers and help educate their women and children so they can compete with other nations and become productive citizens in their own country. Education is also the backbone toward alleviation of human rights violations and paves a path for new leadership. Rebuilding their war torn villages and cities is another good way to help them get back on their feet and teaches them the trades. Providing them with clean drinking water [sustainable and abundant supplies via increased education, training, and technology] and medical supplies so they can combat illnesses and disease is another way we can help.

Once the people of Afghanistan are educated and productive they will have incentive to stand united against the Taliban and to protect their land from those who wish to opress and kill them. I believe this is the very best gift we can give them. Do your part to help stop the war and provide humanitarian effort to the people of Afghanistan. Push our leaders for a better solution than a troop surge. Give my ideas a chance to bear fruit.

Below is a detailed statement by the President of Development Alternatives, Inc. regarding the company’s mission in Cuba on behalf of the USAID..  Following that is an excellent comment pointing to some very necessary questions that should be asked about this whole affair.

 

 

As for, where did the equipment come from?  One should safely assume that if not from the US Interests Section, it came from one of the embassies of the US’ lackeys — maybe Canada.

 

 

CUBAN TRIANGLE
MONDAY, DECEMBER 14, 2009
USAID contractor’s statement on American detained in Cubahttp://cubantriangle.blogspot.com/2009/12/usaid-contractors-statement-on-american.htmlThis statement was cited in news reports over the weekend:

Statement from Dr. Jim Boomgard, President and CEO of Development Alternatives, Inc. (DAI)The New York Times and other media outlets have reported the detention of a U.S. citizen in Cuba linked to DAI.DAI is a professional economic development organization that has for 40 years been working to bring development benefits to millions of disadvantaged people in more than 100 countries worldwide ( www.dai.com ).Our prime concern is for the safety, well-being, and quick return to the United States of the detained individual. We have been working closely with the State Department to ensure that the detainee’s safety and well-being is given top priority. Given the delicacy of this situation, we ask for media discretion. All inquires should be directed to the State Department.In 2008, DAI competed for and was awarded a contract, the Cuba Democracy and Contingency Planning Program, to help the U.S. Government implement activities in support of the rule of law and human rights, political competition, and consensus building, and to strengthen civil society in support of just and democratic governance in Cuba
(www.usaid.gov/locations/latin_america_caribbean
/country/cuba/).

The new program was also designed to help the U.S. Government address challenges raised about some aspects of its program in the past (November 2006 GAO report on US Democracy Assistance for Cuba — www.gao.gov/new.items/d07147.pdf ). DAI was engaged on the basis of its positive track record in development, and its capacity to provide sound management and administration of key aspects of U.S. Government programs such as this one, which involves support for the peaceful activities of a broad range of nonviolent organizations through competitively awarded grants and subcontracts.

The detained individual was an employee of a program subcontractor, which was implementing a competitively issued subcontract to assist Cuban civil society organizations.

[December 12, 2009]

COMMENT ON USAID CONTRACTOR DETAINED IN CUBA

Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:07 pm (PST)

(Terrific comment by blogger “leftside” on the US agent
caught by the Cubans in the act of distributing material
aid to subversive elements in Cuba. Just imagine how this
guy got the laptops and cell phones he was distributing in
Cuba? He certainly did not bring them in and go through
Cuban customs with them. Where did he get them? And how
were they provided to him on the ground inside of Cuba?
There must be a thousand other questions one might think
to ask about this escapade. It boggles the imagination.)
===========================================================CUBAN TRIANGLEhttp://cubantriangle.blogspot.com/2009/12/usaid-contractors-statement-on-american.leftside said…
First off, I am sure the State Dept and DAI owe gratitude to this blog for printing their press release verbatim, without comment. Cheers.

Second, we don’t know much else about this case excpet what US authorities and DAI have told us.

But we do know that the individual arrived in Cuba on false pretenses (tourist visa). He obviously failed to register as an agent of a foreign power, which in the US carries a maximum sentance of 10 years, which can be added to significantly if the intent was shown to be against US interests.

We know the distribution of communications equipment was involved (including satellite phones). We know this was part of a US Government conceived and promoted program of subversion in Cuba (something tells me the equipment were not going to CDRs or social organizations there – they were going to our political allies who want to dissolve the Revolution).

With this information we know that the Obama Adminstration has not ended its funding of direct subversion in Cuba. In fact, it appears the work has “progressed” in a way that responds to the criticisims of ineffectiveness contained in the CAO report. And we now know the real reason Obama allowed the entry of communications equipment into Cuba – so he coulod hire people to bring them directly to the Cuban opposition – so they will be better coordinated and be able to be in quicker communication with their masters in DC, Miami (and a few interlocuters in Havana, who tell us who is trustworthy or not).

And the comparision to the Cuban Five case has to be made. The Five were certainly unregistered Foriegn Agents, but they were on a mission that has been fully investigated and found to pose to risk to US security or US interests. These were men defending Cuba from groups that have shown a propensity for violent action. The DAI employee was working to undermine Cuba at the service of a nation that maintains a policy of regime change. This case was an extension of this illegal, internationally condemnded policy.

And I am sure there is more to know. The fact that Havana has not commented does lead one to beleive they are still investigating and/or trying to handle this behind closed doors with the US. But Cuba can not and will not tolerate the US funding and organizing a political opposition.

Anyone claiming to be a true patriotic opposition member or group should denounce this (and the larger US policy) from the rafters and make clear they want no part of US assistance (aws mnany have said before). Why the US does not listen and thinks we know better shows our own hubris and misguidedness.

DECEMBER 14, 2009 12:39 PM

To address the adverse health and environmental outcomes associated with the use of traditional open fire cook stoves, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) convened a Technical Consultation on December 13, 2009 to bring experts from civil society, academia, business, and government to discuss the potential and opportunities for moving forward with improved, cleaner, and healthier cook stoves in India.

Opening the Technical Consultation, U.S. Ambassador Timothy J. Roemer said, “India and the U.S. are working together on initiatives spanning the full range of human endeavor including a Green Partnership to develop clean technologies, which will provide us all with an environmentally-sustainable, healthier future while creating job opportunities for the citizens of both our countries.” Urging everyone present at the consultation to work together to find a way forward for the health of the communities and the planet, Ambassador Roemer said, “today’s conference brings us one step closer to developing safe and affordable cook stoves that honor the cooking traditions so important to families throughout India while protecting the health and safety of these families and our environment.”

Facts about chulha use in India

•  Nearly three-fourths of Indian households use open fires or chulhas (with or without chimneys) and depend on solid fuel (wood, charcoal, coal, dung cakes, etc.) for cooking.
•  Two-thirds of Indian households (including 3 out of 10 urban households and 8 out of 10 rural households) use open fires or chulhas without a chimney. This is not just a rural issue. – 44 percent of households use open fires or chulhas without a chimney inside the house, exposing women and children to high levels of toxic smoke from solid fuels.

Impact of indoor air pollution (IAP) on maternal and child health

• Open fires or chulhas without a chimney, used inside poorly ventilated houses are a major contributor to indoor air pollution (IAP).
• The majority of those exposed to IAP are women, who are normally responsible for food preparation, and their infants and young children, who are usually with their mothers in the cooking area.
• In India every year exposure to smoke from solid fuels may be responsible for nearly 400,000 deaths to children under 5 years of age and 34,000 deaths to women due to chronic respiratory disease.
• Substantial evidence has been generated associating IAP with health hazards such as childhood acute lower respiratory infections, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), lung cancer, perinatal mortality, low birth weight, and cataracts.
• It has been estimated that IAP contributes to 3- 5 percent of the national burden of disease in India.

Impact of open fires/chulhas on the environment

• Chulhas are a source of black carbon, which is being recognized as a significant contributor to global warming. Black carbon has been implicated in accelerating the melting of the Himalayan glaciers.
• Wood is the most commonly used solid fuel. The use of firewood results in significant pressure on local forests and woodlands, contributing to deforestation, soil erosion, and desertification.
• Globally, approximately one-third of net black carbon and carbon monoxide emissions come from household fuels.

Source – Medical News Today

The End of Section 1207? Boosting State/USAID Contingency Capabilities

by Dr. Gordon Adams

Civilian contingency operations capabilities at State and USAID will get a major boost this year, thanks to Congress’ action on funding for State and foreign operations included in the FY 2010 Omnibus Appropriations bill (HR3288).

Most significant, the bill provides the civilian agencies with a contingency account to support projects in the area of stabilization and reconstruction (S&R) operations.  It consolidates the President’s budget requests for civilian reconstruction and stabilization spending into a new contingency account – the Complex Crises Fund (CCF) – which it locates at USAID.  This account represents a first step in strengthening State/USIAD funding flexibility for contingency operations, part of a growing effort by the executive branch and the Congress to rebalance the civilian and military missions and portfolios.

Until this bill, State has been unable to convince Congress to provide it with contingency funding for S&R operations.  Instead, State has relied on funds transferred from DOD under Section 1207 of DOD’s authorizing legislation.  Section 1207 allows DOD to transfer a specific amount of DOD funding to State for S&R projects, nearly all of which have been outside of Iraq and Afghanistan. Congress argued that 1207 was needed until State’s Office of the Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization (S/CRS) could be “stood up and adequately resourced.”

Today, Congress views 1207 and transfers from DOD as inappropriate, so has begun to provide such funding directly to State, along with a contingency account to administer them.  This account consolidates the Administration’s requests for a Rapid Response Fund and a Stabilization Bridge Fund, and locates them at USAID. While not as large as the current Section 1207 authority ($100 m. in FY 2010), the bill provided $50 million in non-earmarked contingency funding to address “unforeseen complex crises overseas.”  

The bill also begins to deal with question of which agency should have responsibility for such operation – State or USAID – but it leaves much of the resolution of this troubled relationship to the agencies.  Both State and USAID have responsibilities and capabilities for the civilian aspects of US S&R efforts.

S/CRS was created in 2004 to recruit and train a civilian force for S&R operations (now called the Civilian Stabilization Initiative), to develop a framework and operational concept for such operations, to deploy such a force, and to coordinate such operations on an interagency basis.  It has begun the first task, with additional funding from the Congress in 2008, has made significant progress on the second, has done only a few small deployments, and has lacked the clout to coordinate operations, either inside State or through the interagency.

Most of S/CRS’ effort has focused on creating the active-duty Civilian Response Corps (CRC), but questions remain as to the appropriate size of the CRC (given that another large-scale, post-conflict reconstruction effort, such as Iraq, is highly unlikely) and the appropriate institutional home for such an operational capability.  USAID has, for some years, had an Office of Transition Initiatives, with significant involvement in governance transition projects overseas. Its participation in the Civilian Response Corps has been growing, as well.

The new bill straddles this issue.  Congress provides increased funding for training and recruiting the civilian force and its administrative costs, but makes those funds available both to S/CRS ($120 million) and, for the first time, to USAID ($30 million).

Congress has made it clear it will support such a capability, but has also made it clear that it believes USAID may be the more appropriate location for project development and implementation.  The State Department’s QDDR will need to grapple with this complex institutional relationship, determining which agency is more appropriate to recruit, train, and deploy the growing civilian S&R capability and to develop and implement the short-term civilian capacity projects that will be needed in states experiencing governance and security crises, pre- or post-conflict.

Meier adopts Hanoi's typical mode of transportation

Earlier this fall, UNC Assistant Professor of Global Health Policy Ben Meier traveled to Hanoi, Vietnam for the International Conference on Realising the Rights to Health and Development for All.  Nearly 300 international delegates from government, NGOs, intergovernmental organizations and academia took part in the conference.

IGHID was instrumental in recruiting Meier to the faculty at UNC, and we are thrilled that he was able to represent UNC, one of only four U.S. universities to attend.

Conference organizers say that despite steady increases in global health funding since the 1990s, problems are outpacing solutions by a large margin, and the conference examined threats to global health in the context of human rights.

We all know that conferences can be hit or miss when it comes to generating ideas and producing tangible outcomes, but Meier returned from this conference energized and optimistic.  “Best conference ever,” he told me, for actually discussing real issues.  Meier attributes part of the meeting’s success to the broad representation at the meeting.  Thanks to USAID providing funding for travel, a number of developing countries who normally don’t participate in these kinds of meetings were able to send representatives.  Attendance at the meeting was further aided by the fact that it was held in Vietnam, which has minimal visa restrictions.

Conference attendees attended sessions from sunrise to sunset, and the conversations continued over dinner.  By the end of the meeting, agendas were set for future realization of the right to health within in the context of economic development.

Meier presented a paper titled “Human Rights for Global Health Governance: The World Health Organization, the Human Right to Health, and the Failure to Achieve Health for All.”

Sunday, December 13, 2009

Action against Cuba

In fact, this little known company received a three-year $43 million dollar contract for work in Pakistan last year, according to Business Week. With offices in DC, Jordan, Mexico, Palestine, Pakistan and Europe, this quiet, “do-it-all” corporation has had projects in many of the world’s hotspots: Afghanistan, Albania, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Haiti, Iraq, Palestine, Pakistan, and Zimbabwe. Its major fund sources are USAID, The Millennium Corporation (a well funded US government international “aid” corporation set up in 2004 and dedicated to promoting “good governance and economic freedom”), the Department of Defense and the Department of Labor.

While The New York Times understates dramatically both the funding and government dependence of DAI, it does reveal an interesting aspect of the story. The detainment occurred on December 5 with no public disclosure by the Cuban government. The fact that US officials felt compelled to announce the detainment, confessing the detainee’s activities and his employment, suggests that there will likely be more exposed in the days to come.

The detainment comes at a particularly sensitive time for the Obama administration. They have made a cause célèbre of a young Cuban blogger, Yoani Sanchez, who has become a darling of the US media with her accounts critical of life in Cuba. Obama has personally submitted answers to her inquiries on her blog, drawing extraordinary attention to her efforts (One would hope that this would give pause to the thousands of liberal US bloggers who cannot get the courtesy of a response from the President for their postings). Given that the detainee was admittedly distributing cell phones, laptops, and “other communications equipment”, this likely signals a calculated US campaign to utilize the internet – tweets, blogs, etc. – to destabilize Cuba, a tactic already exposed in the US intervention in the Iranian post-election demonstrations. Such a campaign would surely cast a shadow on the credibility of the Sanchez blog.

The shift of anti-Cuba covert activity to DAI and the Millennium Corporation is possibly a result of the stunning corruption of past USAID funding to de-stabilize Cuba. The same New York Times article notes that of the $74 million in USAID contracts designated for anti-Cuba activities in the prior decade, the Government Accounting Office reported in 2006 that nearly all went directly into the pockets of Miami-based gusanos. No doubt a good bit of these public funds went to finance anti-Cuba political candidates.

This violation of Cuba’s internal affairs by the US government comes on the heels of a curious public letter signed by 60 African-American notable figures calling ostensibly for the release of an Afro-Cuban prisoner and his case’s elevation to the status of “political prisoner”. No details or documentation of the case, the individual, or the circumstances are offered in the letter, other than a web link to an open letter by a Brazilian professor who repeats the charges, again with little detail. Stranger still, the letter makes the wholesale charge that Afro-Cubans are “the most oppressed citizens” in Cuba. It also speaks of the “brutal harassment” of Afro-Cubans. None of these claims are illustrated or substantiated.

Professor Nascimento – the Brazilian author of the open letter – writes, in a similar vein, of “those most marginalized in Cuba”. Once more, no evidence, anecdotal or otherwise, is given for this charge.

Cuba, like any ethnically diverse country, is not immune to racism. The Cubans would be the first to admit that vestiges of the virulent pre-revolutionary racism could not be rooted out in only a few generations. Yet this once popular charge has largely receded since Cuba’s unprecedented sacrifices for the liberation of the former Portuguese colonies, Namibia and South Africa. A figure of the stature of Nelson Mandela, who singled out Cuba’s embracing of tens of thousands of Africans who resided in the country for education and refuge during these struggles, attested to the unique role of Cuba in fighting racism and forging a society antithetical to its ugly manifestations. The Cuban medical missions to Africa, as well as other continents offer a gesture of international solidarity unknown in our time. One certainly does not hear these allegations from African leaders.

There is something oddly skewed about intellectuals of a country that will not allow its citizens to travel to Cuba to explore matters for themselves attacking the internal affairs of Cuba without mentioning that perverse fact in their public statement. While US government contractors are assigned to go to Cuba to meddle in Cuba’s affairs, prominent African-Americans, with- undoubtedly – honest concerns, are forbidden by law to verify those concerns.

These developments mark a continuation, if not escalation, of the provocative, hostile Cold War waged against Cuba since its revolution.

Zoltan Zigedy
zoltanzigedy@gmail.com

 Published: Sunday, December 13, 2009
Bylined to: Eva Golinger

CIA agent captured; was also funding opposition groups in Venezuela

Eva Golinger: An article published in the December 12 edition of the New York Times revealed the detention of a US government contract employee in Havana this past December 5. The employee, whose name has not yet been disclosed, works for Development Alternatives, Inc. (DAI), one of the largest US government contractors providing services to the State Department, the Pentagon and the US Agency for International Development (USAID). The employee was detained while distributing cellular telephones, computers and other communications equipment to Cuban dissident and counterrevolutionary groups that work to promote US agenda on the Caribbean island.

Last year, the US Congress approved $40 million to “promote transition to democracy” in Cuba. DAI was awarded the main contract, “The Cuba Democracy and Contingency Planning Program,” with oversight by State and USAID. The use of a chain of entities and agencies is a mechanism employed by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to channel and filter funding and strategic political support to groups and individuals that support US agenda abroad. The pretext of “promoting democracy” is a modern form of CIA subversion tactics, seeking to infiltrate and penetrate civil society groups and provide funding to encourage “regime change” in strategically important nations, such as Venezuela, with governments unwilling to subcomb to US dominance.

DAI IN VENEZUELA

DAI was contracted in June 2002 by USAID to manage a multimillion dollar contract in Venezuela, just two months after the failed coup d’etat against President Hugo Chavez. Prior to this date, USAID had no operations in Venezuela, not even an office in the Embassy. DAI was charged with opening the Office for Transition Initiatives (OTI), a specialized branch of USAID that manages large quantities of liquid funds destined for organizations and political parties favorable to Washington in countries of strategic interest that are undergoing political crises.

The first contract between USAID and DAI for its Venezuela operations authorized $10 million for a two year period. DAI opened its doors in the Wall Street of Caracas, El Rosal, in August 2002, and began to immediately fund the same groups that just months earlier had executed — unsuccessfully — the coup against President Chavez.

The USAID/DAI funds in Venezuela were distributed to organizations such as Fedecamaras and the Confederacion de Trabajadores Venezolanos (CTV), two of the principal entities that had led the coup in April 2002 and that later headed another attempt to oust Chavez by imposing an economic sabotage and oil industry strike that crippled the nation’s economy. One contract between DAI and these organizations, dated December 2002, awarded more than $10,000 to help design radio and television propaganda against President Chavez. During that time period, Venezuela experienced one of the most vicious media wars in history. Private television and radio stations, together with print media, devoted non-stop programming to opposition propaganda for 64 days, 24 hours a day.

In February 2003, DAI began to fund a recently created group named Sumate, led by Maria Corina Machado, one of the signatories of the “Carmona Decree,” the famous dictatorial decree that dissolved all of Venezuela’s democratic institutions during the brief April 2002 coup d’etat. Sumate soon became the principal opposition organization directing campaigns against President Chavez, including the August 2004 recall referendum. The three main agencies from Washington operating in Venezuela at that time, USAID, DAI and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), invested more than $9 million in the opposition campaign to oust Chavez via recall referendum, without success. Chavez won with a 60-40 landslide victory.

USAID, which still maintains its presence through the OTI and DAI in Venezuela, had originally announced that it would not remain in the country for more than a two year period. Then chief of the OTI in Venezuela, Ronald Ulrich, publically affirmed this notion in March 2003, “This program will be finished in two years, as has happened with similiar initiatives in other countries, the office will close in the time period stated… Time is always of the essence.”

Technically, the OTI are USAID’s rapid response teams, equipped with large amounts of liquid funds and a specialized personnel capable of “resolving a crisis” in a way favorable to US interests. In the document establishing the OTI’s operations in Venezuela, the intentions of those behind its creation were clear, “In recent months, his popularity has waned and political tensions have risen dramatically as President Chavez has implemented several controversial reforms…The current situation augers strongly for rapid US government engagement…”

To date, the OTI still remains in Venezuela, with DAI as its principal contractor. But now, four other entities share USAID’s multimillion dollar pie in Caracas: International Republican Institute (IRI), National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI), Freedom House, and the PanAmerican Development Foundation (PADF). Of the 64 groups funded from 2002-2004 with approximately $5 million annually, today the OTI funds more than 533 organizations, political parties, programs and projects, mainly in opposition sectors, with an annual budget surpassing $7 million. Its presence has not only remained, but has grown. Obviously this is due to one very simple reason: the original objetive has still not been obtained; the overthrow or removal of President Hugo Chavez.

DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES INC. IS A CIA FRONT ORGANIZATION

This organization dedicated to destabilizing governments unfavorable to US interests has now made its appearance in Cuba, with millions of dollars destined to destroy the Cuban revolution. Ex CIA officer Phillip Agee affirmed that DAI, USAID and NED “are instruments of the US Embassy and behind these three organizations is the CIA.” The contract between USAID and DAI in Venezuela confirms this fact, “The field representative will maintain close collaboration with other embassy offices in identifying opportunities, selecting partners and ensuring the program remains consistent with US foreign policy.” There is no doubt that “selecting partners” is another term for “recruiting agents” and “consistent with US foreign policy” means “promoting Washington’s interests,” despite issues of sovereignty.

• Clearly, all DAI activities are directly coordinated by the US Embassy, a fact which negates the “private” nature of the organization.

The detention of a DAI employee is a very important step to impede destabilization and subversion inside Cuba. This episode also confirms that there has been no change of policy with the Obama Administration towards Cuba — the same tactics of espionage, infiltration and subversion are still being actively employed against one of Washington’s oldest adversaries.

VENEZUELA SHOULD ALSO EXPELL DAI

Now that Cuba has exposed the intelligence operations that DAI was engaging in (recruiting agents, infiltrating political groups and distributing resources destined to promote destabilization and regime change are all intelligence activities and illegal), the Venezuelan government should respond firmly by expelling this grave threat from the country. DAI has now been operating in Venezuela for over seven and a half years, feeding the conflict with more than $50 million dollars and promoting destabilization, counterrevolution, media warfare and sabotage.

In an ironic twist, currently in the United States five Cuban citizens are imprisoned on charges of alleged espionage, yet their actions in US territory were not directed towards harming US interests. But the DAI employee detained in Cuba – working for a CIA front company — was engaged in activities intended to directly harm and destabilize the Cuban government. The distribution of materials to be used for political purposes by a foreign government with the intent of promoting regime change in a nation not favorable to US interests is clearly a violation of sovereignty and an act of espionage.

Development Alternatives, Inc. is one of the largest US government contractors in the world. Currently, DAI has a $50 million contract in Afghanistan. In Latin America, DAI is presently operating in Bolivia, Brasil, Colombia, Cuba, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haití, Honduras, México, Nicaragua, Peru, Republica Dominicana and Venezuela.

Eva Golinger
evagolinger@hotmail.com

The US contractor works for Development Alternatives Inc. in Bethesda, MD.  The company’s website describes the breadth of its activities, saying, “We help hillside farmers raise their incomes in Haiti, strengthen the credit system for Moroccan entrepreneurs, harmonize natural resource use in the Philippines, mitigate conflict in Liberia, and foster responsive local governments in Serbia.”

DAI activities in these countries only increase my suspicion about what the contractor was doing in Cuba.

THE NEW YORK TIMES
December 12, 2009
Cuba Detains a U.S. Contractor Who Was Distributing Electronics
By MARC LACEY and GINGER THOMPSON

HAVANA — A United States government contract worker, who was distributing cellphones, laptops and other communications equipment in Cuba on behalf of the Obama administration, has been detained by the authorities here, American officials said Friday.

The officials said the contractor, who works for a company based in the Washington suburbs, was detained Dec. 5. They said the United States Interests Section in Havana was awaiting Cuba’s response to a request for consular access to the man, who was not identified.

The detention and the mysterious circumstances surrounding it threaten to reignite tensions between the countries at a time when both had promised to open new channels of engagement. American officials said they were encouraged that the Cubans had not publicized the detention, and they said they were hopeful that he might be quietly released.

Cuba has allowed more citizens than ever to buy cellphones and computers, but even the limited access to digital technology that is available has created problems for the government. Cuban officials have shown particular concern about Yoani Sánchez, a prominent government critic who keeps in touch with thousands of followers with a blog and a Twitter account.

Recently, the Cuban government denied Ms. Sánchez a visa to accept a prestigious journalism award in New York. President Obama has also made a guest appearance on her blog, sending written answers to questions she submitted to him.

American programs to promote democracy in Cuba have also been the focus of intense debate in the United States. A 2006 report by the Government Accountability Office found that nearly all of the $74 million that the United States Agency for International Development spent on contracts to foster democracy in Cuba over the previous decade had been distributed, without competitive bidding or oversight, to Cuban-exile organizations in Miami rather than groups in Cuba itself.

Groups financed by the program, the G.A.O. found, made questionable purchases, including cashmere sweaters and Godiva chocolates.

In 2008, the Bush administration sought to overhaul the program, promising to award contracts to groups beyond those in Florida and to devote most of the budget to buying communications equipment to help expand Cubans’ access to information.

The detention of the unidentified American contractor, some Cuba experts said, demonstrated that President Raúl Castro of Cuba had not abandoned the hard-line tactics used for years by his older brother, Fidel, to stifle dissent.

“Under Cuba’s draconian laws,” said José Miguel Vivanco of Human Rights Watch, “even the act of handing out cellphones to government critics can be considered a crime.”

Still, Mr. Vivanco and others said that the contractor’s covert conduct — which included entering Cuba on a tourist visa without proper documents — also raised questions about whether Mr. Obama would fulfill his promise to break with the confrontational tactics that Washington has employed toward Havana for five decades.

“President Obama’s been different in some areas,” said Phil Peters, a Cuba expert and a vice president of the Lexington Institute, a nonpartisan think tank. “But most of his policy remains the Bush policy, and this is just another example of that.”

The detainee, officials said, was employed by Development Alternatives Inc., which had at least $391,000 in government contracts last year. Based in Bethesda, Md., the company is a kind of do-it-all development company that provides services to the United States government in countries around the world.

Company officials did not respond Friday to requests for comment. On its Web site, the company describes the breadth of its activities, saying, “We help hillside farmers raise their incomes in Haiti, strengthen the credit system for Moroccan entrepreneurs, harmonize natural resource use in the Philippines, mitigate conflict in Liberia, and foster responsive local governments in Serbia.”

It was unclear exactly what the company’s employee was doing at the time he was detained.

Cellphones and computers are available for sale in Cuba, prompting some to question why Cuba decided to crack down on an activity that has long been treated as more of an annoyance than a crime. When it comes to satellite phones, however, the Cubans have taken a far harder line.

Mr. Obama had promised a more open relationship with Cuba, announcing not long after taking office that he would lift restrictions on travel to Cuba for Americans with relatives on the island. He has expanded cultural and academic exchanges between the United States and Cuba. And he began high-level talks on migration, drug trafficking and postal services with the Cuban authorities, discussions that President Bush had halted.

But in recent weeks relations seem to have hit a new stalemate, with Mr. Obama signaling that he was reluctant to create more diplomatic openings until Cuban officials demonstrated a willingness to address the country’s poor human rights record.

Ricardo Alarcón, the speaker of Cuba’s National Assembly, said he had heard nothing about the detention of the American. He termed the policy changes instituted so far by Mr. Obama as “minor” and described the White House as too distracted by other issues to focus attention on Cuba.

“You have two wars,” he said. “You have the economy. You have the debate on health care. It is clear to me that the administration is not prepared at this moment to give a priority to the relationship with Cuba.”

Congress is considering bills that would lift restrictions on travel to Cuba for all Americans. Senator John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts and chairman of the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, added his name last week to a long list of co-sponsors of the measure.

Marc Lacey reported from Havana, and Ginger Thompson from Washington. Kitty Bennett contributed research.M

Republican Senators McCain and Coburn have issued a purported list of 100 wasteful porkbarrel programs getting funding under federal stimulus legislation–one item targeted on the list is a little over $200,000 for exit polling in Africa by the University of California, San Diego. 

Is this just a political cheapshot at UCSD for publishing the results of the Kenyan exit poll from the 2007 general election and accompanying research? 

For this Kenyan exit poll, McCain’s International Republican Institute (“IRI”), for which I was Resident Director of the East Africa Office at the time, received funding from USAID, along with an extra $10,000 from Dr. Clark Gibson, chair of Political Science at UCSD.  The poll showed the challenger Raila Odinga soundly defeating the incumbent Mwai Kibaki.  When the Electoral Commission of Kenya announced that Kibaki had won amid disputes and allegations of fraud, the US Ambassador Michael Ranneberger initially called on Kenyans to accept the results and the Bush State Department initially congratulated Kibaki (later retracting), even though the Ambassador had received the preliminary exit poll results on the evening of the vote.

Dr. Gibson and his associate James Long designed the poll under a consulting agreement with IRI and Long supervised the field work of IRI’s Kenyan polling firm Strategic.  IRI maintained a six month “exclusive” on rights to publicity on the poll under the consulting agreement and refused to let UCSD or Strategic release or comment on the results.  IRI declined to comment on the poll and then began telling journalists and others in Washington that it was flawed, eventually issuing a statement on February 7, 2008 that it had determined the poll to be ”invalid” after hearings that day of Senator Feingold’s Africa Foreign Relations Subcommittee in which Feingold called on Asst. Secretary of State Jendayi Frazer and the Asst. Administrator for USAID to explain why the poll had not been released as post-election violence and negotiations between the contestants continued.

After the expiration of the six month embargo, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) sponsored the release of the poll by UCSD on July 8.  Gibson and Long presented a detailed rebuttal to the alleged concerns raised by IRI.  The UCSD team also presented at SAIS at Johns Hopkins.  In August, more than a month later, on the day before Gibson and Long were to testify on the results of the poll before the Kreigler Commission in Nairobi, appointed to review the election under the February 28 power-sharing settlement, IRI released the poll, having found that it was valid after all. 

In the meantime, IRI continues exit polling all over on the taxpayer dime–and trumpets the “earned media” it gets for this from publications like the New York Times.  But apparently National Science Foundation funding for polling done by actual social scientists at UCSD outside the auspices of International Republican Institute is pork!

As Gibson and Long pointed out in their presentation of their research to the Working Group on African Political Economy last year, the US spends hundreds of millions on democracy promotion, but we don’t even know what motivates African voters.  Of course, if we don’t really always want to know HOW they vote, I guess maybe we don’t care why either?  And for that matter, maybe we don’t want to learn more about how effective that “democracy promotion” money is?

James Long worked tirelessly under pressure to help execute the Kenyan poll for IRI under difficult circumstances, and even provided substantial free assistance on IRI’s September 2007 pre-election poll (which was quickly released, by the way).  File this under the category of “No Good Deed Goes Unpunished”.

Two Chinese universities will host presentations on environmental legal issues later this month. The presentations are part of the Vermont Law School’s USAID-funded “U.S.-China Partnership for Environmental Law“.

Beijing’s China University of Political Science & Law (CUPL) (中国政法大学) will hold the first round of presentations, which will be on December 22. The next round of presentations will be held at Guangzhou’s Sun Yat-sen University (SYSU) (中山大学) from December 27-29.

The presentations will consist of research conducted by Vermont Law School and CUPL / SYSU students. The topics cover a wide array of issues in environmental law, from garbage and  e-waste to renewable energy and climate change.  The presentations will largely be based upon comparative analysis between the two countries.

These presentations come at a crucial time for environmental law, as United Nation talks on climate change opened earlier this week in Copenhagen, Denmark.  China and the U.S. are seen as the two key players in preventing “catastrophic” climate change.

The presenters are:
1) Patrick Munson (VLS)  & Zheng Ronghui (CUPL)  – Legal Avenues For Dealing With China’s Ecological Footprint
2) Joseph Starnes (VLS) & Song Lina (CUPL) – The Future And Viability Of Nuclear Power In China
3) Brandon Gillin (VLS) & Yu Lijie (CUPL) – Keeping Up With Chinese Consumerism: Offsetting China’s Individually-Generated Garbage With Regulatory And Social Mechanisms
4) Amy Driscoll (VLS) & Wu Shihang (SYSU) – E-Waste in China
5) Michael Rohwer (VLS) & Chen Huizhen (SYSU) – Using Renewable Portfolio Standards To Encourage Foreign Investment In China’s Renewable Energy Marketplace

Further reading:

CUPL Assistant Director Zhu Yong Meets With Delegates From Vermont Law School (Chinese)

In 2007, IRIS hosted a group of  women from Tajikistan for a Community Connections program focused on “Young Women Leaders.” The group was in the U.S. from Sept. 6-25 and stayed with host families in central Iowa.

The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) recently sent this update about one of the women, Khairinisso Elmurodova, who has since created a child rights center in her Tajik home.

A Success Story

Today, Ms. Khairinisso Elmurodova is Director of a child’s rights center which provides support to orphaned, disabled and impoverished children from families of Tajikistan’s Bokhtar District.

Elmurodova created this center based on a facility she saw during her visit to the United States organized by the Community Connections program.

Background

Khairinisso Elmurodova was a trainer at a nonprofit, non-governmental organization promoting women’s rights in Bokhtar City, Tajikistan. In 2007, she became one of ten Tajik women selected to spend three weeks in Iowa through IRIS and a USAID Community Connections program for women leaders.

The trip included a series of meetings and visits to U.S. non-governmental and governmental organizations to familiarize the Tajik participants with women’s activism in the United States.

One of the organizations visited by the group, a resource center for children, impressed Elmurodova very much. “I thought it would be great to have something like that in Tajikistan,” she said.

Making a difference in her homeland

After her return, Elmurodova began working to make her idea a reality. She founded the Shodi Organization, which became the center for children. “I wanted to create a place where children would receive the support they need,” says Elmurodova.

Currently, the center provides various services to children who are in need of medical or psychological care, or support for the development of their recreational and professional skills. The center also works to raise awareness among the general population about the situation of such children.

Moreover, Elmurodova and her center have succeeded to do what few local NGOs achieve: they have obtained land from local authorities to build a new facility for the center, as the old one is too small to accommodate the increasing inflow of the Bokhtar children in need of care. As soon as all the permits are finalized, the construction of a new building will begin, and Elmurodova is already busy fundraising with local and international organizations.

“We need to work with marginalized children so that they feel cared for by the community,” says Elmurodova. “The children enjoy what the community of Bokhtar and various international organizations offer to them. In turn, the children who visit our center feel they can give back to their society by selling their handicrafts.”