Tawakkul Karman: A Tool for Farcical Democratic Initiatives in the Middle East

By Samra Nasser

02.23.2012

The Arab American News

Who is Tawakkul Karman and more importantly, how and why has this religiously-dressed Yemeni woman come to be the darling of Western-oriented democracy movements?  To understand who is actually reaping the rewards of this activist, we should begin by following the money.  Mrs. Karman has a non-governmental organization (NGO) based in Sana’a, Yemen called Women Journalists Without Chains (WJWC).  However, for those of you who may not know, an NGO is not always non-governmental because many NGOs invariably receive all or most of their funding through various departments within the government.

Tawakkul Karman

In Mrs. Karman’s case, her WJWC organization asserts it is a non-governmental organization in Yemen that seeks to advocate for rights and freedoms, especially freedom of expression with the aim of improving media efficiency and providing skills for journalists, and particularly women and youth.  Such work, however, should be considered in the correct context being that its funding sources are through U.S. foreign policy organizations. The organization has been funded by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) since 2008.

NED is a quasi-governmental foundation created by the Reagan Administration in 1983 to channel millions of Federal dollars into anti-Communist ‘private diplomacy.’ It is funded primarily through an annual allocation from the U.S. Congress within the budget of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), a subsidiary of the U.S. State Department.

NED has a vast influence over U.S. foreign policy initiatives, by way of its Board of Directors who simultaneously represent numerous powerful multinational corporations (MNCs) ranging from AT&T to Boeing to Fannie Mae.  →

USAID Grants $3 Million to Solidarity Center’s Bogotá Office – Unionists Want to Know Why

by James Jordan (Alliance for Global Justice)

The Solidarity Center office in Bogotá has received an unusually large two-year grant of $3 million for its operations in the Andean Region. The scope and dimensions of the grant are not fully known, nor the exact programs to which it will be applied. However, given the history of the Bogotá office and the Solidarity Center’s Andean representatives, observers expect the grant to have major implications for the countries of Colombia and Venezuela, where the office’s work is usually concentrated. The Andean region also covers Peru, Ecuador and Bolivia. The Solidarity Center has offices both in Colombia and Peru.

The grant comes from USAID (the United States Agency for International Development). The office receives notice of this funding at the same time that three key developments are underway–in Venezuela, the coming October elections, and in Colombia, the implementation of the new Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with the US, coinciding with a massive popular mobilization to demand a political solution to the armed and social conflict. Little information is available concerning the details of the grant. Because of the documented history of the AFL-CIO intervention in Venezuela through its Solidarity Center, activists must analyze past history and current circumstances in order to be able to discuss intelligently what we may anticipate from these augmented activities.

The Solidarity Center is one of four core institutes of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and a creation of the United States’ largest union center, the AFL-CIO (American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Unions). Along with the Solidarity Center, the four core institutes of the NED are: the International Republican Institute (associated with the Republican Party), the National Democratic Institute (associated with the Democratic Party), and the International Center for Private Enterprise (associated with the Chambers of Commerce).The NED was established by the US government in 1983, during the Reagan administration.

The NED exists for one reason–to manipulate governments, social movements and elections in other countries in order to advance the international policies of the US which, in turn, are designed to accommodate private access to natural resources and increase transnational corporate profits. In an interview with the New York Times in 1991, Allen Weinstein, one of the NED’s founders, said that, “A lot of what we do today was done covertly by the CIA.”

Marc Plattner, an NED Vice President, explains the role of the organization in the context of the Imperial strategy that brings together in one fabric the threads of politics, business and the military: “Liberal democracy clearly favors the economic arrangements that foster globalization ….The international order that sustains globalization is underpinned by American military predominance.”

The Solidarity Center receives over 90% of its funding from the public coffers by means of the Department of State, USAID and the NED. Union contributions are typically around two to three percent. Thus, the Solidarity Center has little to do with union locals and rank and file unionists, although it has the full cooperation of the highest officials of the AFL-CIO. Local unions have no input or say in the establishment of international relations or program development. The Solidarity Center has some good and helpful programs and some that are at least more or less benign. But these good programs can act to hide a more fundamental purpose to infiltrate and influence the labor movements of other countries and to provide a channel of interference in their electoral processes.

The NED’s first “success” in Latin America was the defeat of Daniel Ortega, the Sandinista candidate for President, in the Nicaraguan elections of 1990. The US government, via the NED and other channels, spent more than $20 per voter and effectively bought the victory for Violeta Chamorra, its favored candidate. The US spent more per Nicaraguan voter in 1990 than both parties did in the US presidential elections in 1988. It is notable that at the time, Nicaragua sustained a population of only 3 million persons.

Haiti provides another example of how the Solidarity Center operates. in 2004, the Solidarity Center’s partner, the International Republican Institute, not only funded, but convened and trained the coup plotters against the elected government of Pres. Bertrand Aristide. During 2004 and 2005, beginning before the coup and extending into the months afterward there was a bloodbath against the supporters of Aristide that included among its victims members of the Confederation of Haitian Workers (CTH). Rather than helping this most targeted union, the Solidarity Center channeled hundreds of thousands of dollars to a small labor organization that before and during the coup did nothing to defend the elected government and, in fact, called for Pres. Aristide to step down. →

Using NGOs to Coerce Nations

by Sandhya Jain

Source: The Pioneer

May 8, 2012

Western nations fund NGOs operating in developing countries to influence policy and subvert institutions. India does not need foreign-funded NGOs.

Why the CIA Funds Nonviolence Training

Dissident Voice

by Stuart Jeanne Bramhall, March 13th, 2012

O]ne important aspect of the debate over “diversity of tactics” (i.e. the decision whether to be exclusively nonviolent) in the Occupy movement relates to mounting evidence of the role CIA and Pentagon-funded foundations and think tanks play in funding and promoting nonviolent resistance training. The two major US foundations promoting nonviolence, both overseas and domestically, are the Albert Einstein Institution (AEI) and the International Center for Nonviolent Conflict (ICNC). Both receive major corporate and/or government funding, mostly via CIA “pass through” foundations. While the ICNC is funded mainly by the private fortune of hedge fund billionaire (junk bond king Michael Milken’s second in command) Peter Ackerman, the AEI has received funding from the Rand Corporation and the Department of Defense, as well as various “pass-through” foundations, such as the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), the International Republican Institute (IRI), the US Institute of Peace and the Ford Foundation (see The Ford Foundation and the CIA),which all have a long history of collaborating with the Pentagon, the State Department and the CIA in destabilizing governments unfriendly to US interests.

This is a strategy Frances Stonor Saunders outlines in her pivotal Cultural Cold War: The CIA and the World of Arts and Letters. According to Sanders, right wing corporate-backed foundations and the CIA have been funding the non-communist left since the late sixties, in the hope of drowning out and marginalizing the voice of more militant leftists. It’s also noteworthy that the governing and advisory board of both AEI and ICNC have been consistently dominated by individuals with either a military/intelligence background or a history of prior involvement with CIA “pass-through” foundations, such as NED and USAID.

Gene Sharp, the Fervent Anticommunist

Much of this debate focuses around America’s godfather of nonviolent resistance, Gene Sharp, the founder and director of the Albert Einstein Institution. Sharp’s handbooks on nonviolent protest were widely disseminated in the Eastern Europe color revolutions, in the Arab spring revolutions and in the Occupy movement in the US (see Nonviolence in the Service of Imperialism). Unfortunately Sharp has become a decoy in this debate, deflecting attention from the larger question of whether the US government is actively financing and promoting the work of the AEI, the ICIC and other high profile organizations that promote nonviolent civil disobedience. The question is extremely important, in my view, because it possibly explains the rigid and dogmatic attitude in the US progressive movement regarding nonviolent civil disobedience. In other words, I think it explains the knee-jerk rejection of more militant tactics, such as smashing windows and other property damage that don’t involve physical violence towards human beings.

Is Military-Intelligence Funding Compatible with Progressive Politics?

The institutional nonviolence clique has cleverly refocused the debate on whether Sharp, who is 83, is a CIA agent and whether he actively participated in US-funded destabilization efforts in Tunisia, Syria, Egypt, Libya, Iran and elsewhere that resulted in so-called “Arab Spring” revolutions. The obvious answer to both questions is no. For me the more important question is why the alternative media and “official” progressive movement embrace Sharp unconditionally as a fellow progressive without a careful look at his past or his ideological beliefs. Sharp has never made any secret of his fervent anticommunist (and antisocialist – he shares the US State Department’s animosity towards Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez) views.

Sharp makes no secret of the funding he has received from the Defense Department; the Rand Corporation; CIA-linked foundations, such as NED, the IRI and the US Institute of Peace; and George Soros’s Open Society Institute. All this information is readily available from the AEI website. Sharp himself states, “I have been arguing for years that governments and defense departments – as well as other groups – should finance and conduct research into alternatives to violence in politics and especially as a possible basis for a defense policy by prepared nonviolent resistance as a substitute for war.” (See The living library: some theoretical approaches to a strategy for activating human rights and peace, George Garbutt, 2008, Southern Cross University).

Less well known is the role military and intelligence figures have played in helping Sharp set up and run the AEI. I think most progressives would be extremely disturbed by the major role played by the military-intelligence establishment in funding and running the AEI. I think they would find it even more troubling that progressives who refer to any of this on so called “independent” or “alternative” media websites and blogs have their posts removed.

To be continued.

Eight US NGOs Denied Legal Status in Egypt as the US State Department Denies It

Apr 23, 2012 21:47 Moscow Time

© Collage: The Voice of Russia

 

A Cairo court has denied 8 American NGOs, including the Carter Center, official accreditation in Egypt.

The judges are examining evidence that in the period between 2005 and 2011 foreign-led NGOs operating in Egypt received $175mn in foreign funds. Forty three people, including 19 Americans, are facing charges of illegal interference in Egypt’s internal affairs.

In early March, Egypt lifted an entry ban on 17 foreigners in exchange for financial aid.

WKOG admin: Meanwhile, The Egypt Independent reports on April 27, 2012 that the US State Dept denies Egypt made a decision on licenses of 8 NGOs:

US State Dept says Egypt made no decision on licenses of 8 NGOs

 

NGOs Promote Wars for Profit

Well-known NGO’s are profiteers earning big money

opednews.com

by Stephen Lendman 

 

Like better known war profiteers, NGOs also cash in. A Centre for the Study of Interventionism (CSI) report discussed it.

CSI challenges interventionist notions. Exponents believe “military violence” should enforce international law.

“These claims stand in contrast to” non-interventionist principles. UN Charter provisions and other international law enunciate them. CSI challenges current practice. Its new report discussed Libya.

It explains how lies promote war. It asked if “the case for R2P (responsibility to protect was) based on fraud.” It wasn’t on truth and international law. Its rage to fight spurned them.

The UN Charter’s Chapter VI calls for resolving conflicts peacefully. Humanitarian intervention prohibits military force or other hostile acts.

Chapter VII permits justifiable boycotts, embargoes, blockades, and severed diplomatic ties. It prohibits war, except in self-defense until the Security Council acts. It has final say.

Libyan interventionists claimed doing so protected civilian areas from attack. In 2005, the General Assembly World Summit Outcome Document adopted the responsibility to protect (R2P).

Paragraph 138 states each nation must “protect (its) population from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity.”Paragraph 139 grants the UN responsibility “to use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other peaceful means, in accordance with Chapters VI and VIII of the Charter, to help protect populations from” these crimes.

Military force is excluded. UN Charter provisions prohibit it for humanitarian intervention. Justifying it under R2P is illegal. War crimes follow. So does profiteering. War is big business. NGOs like corporate predators cash in.

The web site ngo.org defines them as follows:

“A non-governmental organization (NGO) is any non-profit, voluntary citizens’ group which is organized on a local, national or international level.”

“Task-oriented and driven by people with a common interest, NGOs perform a variety of service and humanitarian policies and encourage political participation through provision of information.”

“Some are organized around specific issues, such as human rights, environment or health. They provide analysis and expertise, serve as early warning mechanisms and help monitor and implement international agreements.”

“Their relationship with offices and agencies of the United Nations system differs depending on their goals, their venue and the mandate of a particular institution.”

Other definitions call them non-political groups, advancing social/humanitarian objectives. In fact, most profiteer largely for themselves. They’re ideologically biased predators, not humanitarians.

Nearly all have entrenched bureaucracies. Their officials are highly paid. Their operating rules are secret. Their financing sources and amounts are undisclosed. They mostly come from domestic or foreign nations whose interests they serve. As agents, they perform PR, intelligence, and population control. Most don’t provide humanitarian services.

They all claim non-profit status, yet operate unethically. They collude with governments or business interests. Their profiteer handsomely, own unrelated businesses, and exploit people they claim to serve.

In many countries, they’re the preferred choice for Western aid and emergency relief. They provide cover for imperial intervention. They cash in handsomely from wars, floods, famines, earthquakes, and other disasters. “Non-profiteering” is big business.

Universal Periodic Review (UPR)

In 2006, General Assembly Resolution 60-251 established the Human Rights Council (HRC) and authorized UPR. Three adopted “mechanisms” were decisive for Libya:

(1) Paragraph 1 established HRC.

(2) Paragraph 8 opened HRC membership to all UN Member States based on their contribution to promoting and protecting human rights. The General Assembly, by a two-thirds vote, may suspend member rights based on gross, systematic violations.

(3) Paragraph 10 authorized regular HRC annual sessions, including special ones when needed on request from one member supported by one-third of the Council.

UPR periodically examines the human rights record of all Member States. In 2009, the Non-Aligned Movement stated:

HRC “should not be used as a tool to interfere in the internal affairs of States or to question their political, economic, and social systems, their sovereign rights, and their national, religious and cultural particularities.”

In October 2005, the General Assembly adopted the responsibility to protect (R2P) principle. On February 26 and March 17, 2011, the Security Council adopted two Libya resolutions.

Even though Tripoli wasn’t an International Criminal Court (ICC) member, the first gave the body jurisdiction over ongoing events. The second authorized “all necessary measures” to “protect civilians,” as well as no-fly zone cover. Doing so was an act of war. It followed almost immediately.

“The Libyan case is a very good example of (lawlessly) interfer(ing) in the internal affairs of a sovereign state.”

Armed insurgents were supported and legitimized. Libya had no say. Claims made before HRC about massacres and other atrocities were falsified. Nonetheless, UN resolutions followed. So did war, mass slaughter and vast destruction.

“NGOs and others invoke (R2P). But what responsibility do these bodies, and the states which use military force, have for the consequences of their acts?”

In May 2010, the NGOs Freedom House and UN Watch campaigned against electing Libya but lost. Both organizations serve Western and Israeli interests. Former American Jewish Committee (AJC) honorary president, Morris Abram, founded UN Watch. AJC is a pro-Israeli front group

UN Watch wanted Libya expelled from HRC. On March 1, 2011, the General Assembly supported its campaign based on lies. HRC’s January 4, 2011 UPR was ignored.

It praised Gaddafi’s Jamahiriya governance. It said it protected “not only political rights, but also economic, educational, social and cultural rights.” It also lauded his treatment of religious minorities, and “human rights training” given his security forces.

On February 21, 2011, the Libyan League for Human Rights got 70 other NGOs to petition Obama, E.U. High Representative Catherine Ashton, and U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.

They demanded international action against Libya. They cited R2P. Of the 71 petitioners, only 25 were human right groups. Others included UN Watch, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), B’nai B’rith, and other anti-democratic organizations.

They demanded an emergency HRC Special Session “to address situations of gross and systematic violations of human rights.” They called for the General Assembly to suspend Libya’s Council membership.

On February 25, 2011, a Special Session was held. Libyan League for Human Rights (LLHR) head Sliman Bouchuiguir called for international community action against Gaddafi. LLHR is a member of the French-based International Federal of Human Rights (FIDH). It’s closely tied to NED.

Its claims later proved to be false. No documentation existed. The puppet National Transitional Council (NTC) provided them. They said Gaddafi slaughtered thousands, and mercenaries comprised 80% of his military.

Nonetheless, based on falsified NGO claims, Libya was expelled from HRC. At the same time, other nations supported its Jamahiriya government. Brazil cited its economic and social progress.

It acknowledged its promotion of rights for disabled persons, free health care, and high primary education enrollment. It also noted its cooperation with international organizations in areas of migrant rights, judicial reform, and curbing corruption.

Malta and Tunisia also expressed support. They acknowledged Jamahiriya Green Charter freedoms and achievements.

On March 14, 2012, when it was too late to matter, HRC adopted its report praising Gaddafi’s Jamahiriya government. UN Watch protested. It demanded it be rescinded. It said “Libya’s long-suffering victims deserve no less.” It ignored generous benefits NATO destroyed.

Amnesty International (AI) also called HRC’s decision “abhorrent.” Its head, Suzanne Nossel, served as Obama’s Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for International Organizations. She’s also a former Human Rights Watch (HRW) CEO.

Like AI, HRW’s record is notoriously tainted. Both supported NATO’s Libya’s campaign. It turned peace and stability into charnel house disaster. These organizations and others like them often back oppressors, not victims.

Media Complicity with Political and NGO Lies

On February 21, 2011, the government controlled French International News Network (France 24) broadcast a Libya special. It falsely claimed Gaddafi’s planes bombed civilian areas. At a later French parliament session, Sarkozy’s Tripoli ambassador refuted the account.

At the same time, falsified claims about “African mercenaries” comprising 80% of Gaddafi’s military were made. AI’s Genevieve Garrigos supported what she later said was based solely on unsubstantiated rumors.

Ashur Shamis is a National Front for the Salvation of Libya (NFSL) founding member. He was wanted by Interpol and Libyan police for years. He also was an NED Libyan Human and Political Development Forum director. He actively participated in regime change conferences.

Aly Abuzaakouk is another NFSL member with close NED ties. Like Shamis, he’s a wanted man. Among other anti-Gaddafi guests, Al Jazeera featured him during NATO’s campaign. Broadcasting falsified managed news, it shamelessly serves imperial interests.

In 2011, London-based Chatham House, a pro-corporate think tank, discussed NATO plans for attacking Libya.

A Final Comment

Libya was targeted based on falsified, undocumented NGO claims, as well as similar ones by NED and other pro-Western organizations.

“The lack of investigation, and the non-existence of any process to question (NGO assertions) inside the Council (became) one of the main causes for the events which cost the lives of thousands of Libyans” killed during NATO’s campaign.”Non-interventionism….is a way to guarantee Peace, Democracy and Freedom.”

“The Libyan case shows the reality behind” R2P.  The doctrine destroyed peace. Thousands died. Vast destruction was caused. Libyan sovereignty was lost.

NATO committed war crimes. HRC betrayed its mandate. So did the Security Council, General Assembly and ICC. R2P is “an instrument of domination.” International bodies are imperial tools.

Stronger states crush weaker ones. International law’s a non-starter. “Russia’s recent position on Syria is a step in the right direction.” It bought “breathing space” to slow another march to war. Stopping it’s another matter.

The same NGOs behind Libya’s war want another on Syria. Their earlier pattern’s repeated. It features undocumented allegations, spurning dialogue, and enlisting UN support.

“How can such interference and lack of rigor bring peace to international relations? How can these ideas claim to” support humanitarianism? How can UN bodies go along? How can they contemptuously dismiss their inviolable mandate to support peace?

These and other questions deserve answers. Complicit Member States and NGOs provide none. One war leads to another. Syria’s turn is next. Like Gaddafi, Saddam, and other Washington targets, vilifying Assad’s based on lies.

How long before bombs away repeats? How many more deaths will follow? How much more can be tolerated? When will most Member States say no more? When will peacemakers triumph? Humanity wants to know. Time’s running out for answers.

 

NGO crackdown: Egypt Denies Licenses to 8 U.S.-based Non-profits

By Anne Sewell

Egypt has denied licenses to eight US-based non-profit groups, saying they violated the country’s sovereignty. Many states are concerned that foreign government-backed NGOs are really agents for their sponsors, rather than independent action groups.

FLASHBACK: Venezuela: Human Rights Watch Versus Democracy

by Francisco Domínguez / September 27, 2008

21st Century Socialism

The US-based NGO Human Rights Watch has issued a new report on Venezuela. The report blatantly distorts the truth in order to promote the regime-change agenda of the United States administration.

On Sept 18th 2008, Human Rights Watch (HRW) released a report entitled ‘Venezuela: Rights Suffer Under Chavez’. The report has been characterised by the Venezuelan government as biased and inaccurate.

The HRW report comes in the wake of an intensification of attacks on Venezuela by various branches of the US administration. These include:

• the re-establishment of the Fourth Fleet – previously decommissioned in 1952, the Fourth Fleet is reportedly made up of 25 warships, deployed around South America; and about which, several Latin American countries, Brazil, Argentina and Venezuela, amongst them, have expressed deep concerns;

• John Walters, the US drug Czar, has accused Venezuela of inaction in the war on drugs;

• the US State Department recently discussed the possibility of adding Venezuela to the list of nations that sponsor terrorism;

• the allegation that the Venezuelan government was behind the suitcase stuffed with US$800,000 brought into Argentina by Venezuelan-American citizen, Antonini Wilson, but, which, in reality, was denounced by Chavez and Argentine President Cristina Fernandez, as a dirty operation, about which nothing has been conclusively demonstrated, but which has become the focus of intense media attention. Despite repeated requests by both Argentina and Venezuela, US authorities have refused to extradite Antonini to face questions;

• sanctions by the US Treasury of several Venezuelan officials over unproven allegations that they aided the Revolutionary Armed Forces (FARC) of Colombia.

Most recently, following the expulsion of the US Ambassador from Bolivia over his relations with right wing extremists, Venezuela expelled its US Ambassador in solidarity, and the US responded by expelling the Venezuelan Ambassador from the USA.

On 10th September 2008, a plot to assassinate President Chavez and carry out a military coup was exposed. The plot was led by high level retired and serving military officers.

This is the context, one of of acute tensions between Venezuela and the US, for the publication on 18th September of the Human Rights Watch report on Venezuela. Its key theme, as outlined by José Miguel Vivanco, Americas director at HRW, is as follows:

“Ten years ago, Chávez promoted a new constitution that could have significantly improved human rights in Venezuela. But rather than advancing rights protections, his government has since moved in the opposite direction, sacrificing basic guarantees in pursuit of its own political agenda.”

The 230-page Report makes the charge that “Discrimination on political grounds has been a defining feature of the Chavez presidency.” Although Venezuela under President Chavez is by no means perfect, it bears no relation to the country depicted in HRW’s 2008 Report.

The key allegation, that discrimination on political grounds has been a defining feature of the Chavez presidency, looks absurd when it is understood that the civil service remains largely full of supporters of the old regime, some of whom have allegedly engaged in criminal actions, such as the destruction of key operational facilities of the national oil company PDVSA during the oil lock-out that brought the country’s economy to near collapse.

The lock-out took place almost immediately after the short-lived overthrow of President Chavez in a military coup in April 2002. The coup was backed by the military high command, the main private media, the national employers’ organisation and the old discredited trade union federation CTV.

Following the coup, there was a campaign to oust Chavez through a recall referendum in 2004. When that failed, the opposition boycotted the 2005 parliamentary election in order to try to question the legitimacy of the government. Throughout these tense events, opposition politicians and private media talked openly of violently overthrowing the government and adopted an intensely confrontational attitude.

The recently revealed plot for another coup attempt and plans to assassinate President Chavez, just before regional and local elections in November, are in line with the stance taken by the opposition at crucial moments.

Expanding democracy

Contrary to HRW’s allegations that the Venezuelan government practices ‘political discrimination’ against the opposition, the government’s attitude to the opposition’s persistent efforts to use violent and unconstitutional means to overthrow it, has been one of tolerance and magnanimity. Last year, President Chávez pardoned political opponents who backed the failed 2002 coup against his democratically-elected government. “It’s a matter of turning the page,” Chávez said. “We want there to be a strong ideological and political debate – but in peace.”

In this spirit, the government has often welcomed input from the opposition, for example, inviting the leaders of student protests to address the National Assembly. Not a common occurrence anywhere else in the world.

All political parties in Venezuela operate without any constraints. The majority of these parties are in the opposition; their difficulty is that they do not enjoy the high levels of support of the fewer pro-government political parties.

Opposition parties in Venezuela can and do organise public meetings, rallies, demonstrations, street marches; their spokespersons speak regularly on TV and radio – and they never moderate their language, their criticism, or their opposition to the government. They stand candidates for elections, hold national party events, issue proclamations, statements, hold press conferences, publish books, pamphlets, disseminate anti-government propaganda – in the streets and through the media, without any governmental sanctions whatsoever.

The great majority of private newspapers and television stations in the country support the Opposition and they face no restrictions other than the normal ones that exist in any democratic country, such as those governing libel and defamation. No Venezuelan newspaper has ever been subjected to any censorship by the Chavez administration. There are no political prisoners of any kind in Venezuela.

With regard to the judiciary, contrary to the 2008 HRW report’s contention, under Chavez the independence and probity of the judiciary has been significantly strengthened by dealing with the corruption with which it was previously riddled. HRW’s own 2004 report recognized this:

“When President Chávez became president in 1999, he inherited a judiciary that had been plagued for years by influence-peddling, political interference, and, above all, corruption…In terms of public credibility, the system was bankrupt.”

At the same time, all democratic institutions have been strengthened in Venezuela, exemplified by the internationally verified efficiency and scrupulous fairness of the National Electoral Council, which has had no hesitation in upholding electoral results unfavourable to the government such as the defeat of the 2007 constitutional referendum – a result accepted immediately by President Chavez and his government.

HRW’s assertion that the Venezuelan media balance is shifting in favour of Chavez is misleading. In fact, the opposition media enjoy unrestricted freedom but they are increasingly seen as grossly biased and as having lost the political argument. The reality remains that the private media, which largely supports the opposition, controls the largest share of the airwaves, and there are no major pro-government
national daily newspapers.

HRW’s allegation that the government “has sought to remake the country’s labor movement in ways that violate basic principles of freedom of association,” also bears no relation to reality.

There are six national trade union federations in Venezuela (CTV, CUTV, UNT, CODESA, CGT, and CST), all of which function with total freedom and without the kind of draconian anti-trade union legislation which disfigures the USA and many of its allies.

Industrial relations are evolving positively. Furthermore, the level of trade union membership is rising – before Chávez came to office in 1999, 11% of workers were in unions; the figure now is estimated to be over 20%. Thus, HRW’s allegation that the government violates basic principles of union association is not borne out by the facts.

The charge of the HRW 2008 report that the Chávez government has an “aggressively adversarial approach to local rights advocates and civil society organizations” is equally false. With varying degrees of success, the government has been empowering millions of hitherto excluded people through an array of social organizations, such as – tens of thousands of – communal councils, which aim to democratize local government.

There are also 200,000 cooperatives, women’s organizations, indigenous organizations, Afro-descendants organizations, organizations of gays and lesbians, and so forth. The numbers of these organizations have mushroomed because their rights have, for the first time ever, been either enshrined in the 1999 constitution or are being actively promoted and the government has been keen to assist them.

Additionally, as part of the implementation of the principles of participatory democracy enshrined in the 1999 Constitution, the government has made successful efforts to enfranchise ever larger layers of the traditionally excluded.

In terms of the traditional electoral process, the number of registered voters has increased phenomenonally. When Chávez was first elected President in 1998 the number of registered voters was 11,013,020. This has increased to 16,109,664 (a staggering 60% increase) by the time of the 2007 Constitutional Referendum.

At the same time, Venezuela has held more internationally recognized democratic elections than virtually any other country in the world in the decade Chávez has been in office.

To argue, as does the HRW, that this situation corresponds in any way to stifling civil society is to deny reality.

US-funded opposition

The government, however, has had serious concerns about illegal activity by a relatively small number of NGO-type bodies funded by the USA, which engage in campaigns to subvert the constitutional order. The US funded SUMATE ‘NGO’, for example, centralized the collection of signatures to unseat Chavez in 2004, and its leader, Corina Machado, endorsed the 2002 coup.

The publicly acknowledged funding of such so-called NGOs comes from US government sources including the infamous National Endowment for Democracy, USAID, the International Republican Institute (IRI), the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs, the American Centre for International Labour Solidarity and the Centre for International Private Enterprise. The government of Venezuela charges that these organisations are channels for the covert funding of opposition groups to seek to undermine democratic institutions and the elected government.

This charge is amply confirmed by international experience. One example illustrates this. On hearing of the ousting of Chávez in April 2002, International Republican Institute President, George A. Folsom, issued the following statement:

“Last night, led by every sector of civil society, the Venezuelan people rose up to defend democracy in their country. Venezuelans were provoked into action as a result of systematic repression by the Government of Hugo Chavez. Several hundred thousand people filled the streets of Caracas to demand the resignation of Lt. Col. Chavez.”

The chairman of the IRI since 1993 has been the current Republican presidential candidate John McCain, who has made no bones about his intense antagonism to progressive governments in Latin America, especially, Chavez. His campaign website even featured an online petition calling for support in his quest to “stop the dictators of Latin America.” The petition called for the removal of Chávez “in the name of democracy and freedom throughout our hemisphere.” Although the petition was taken down, it is an indication of his thinking, as leader of this NGO funder and a possible future president of the USA.

In a similar vein, several months after the failed 2002 coup, the US State Dept established an Office of Transition Initiatives (OTI) in Caracas, with money from USAID and which operates out of the US Embassy with, among other stated objectives: “to provide fast, flexible, short-term assistance targeted at key transition needs.” ‘Transition’ has to be seen in the context of the US administration’s doctrine of its right to seek to externally promote ‘regime change’ in countries which it perceives as pursuing policies against the interests of the sections of the US it represents.

The Chávez government has been expanding democracy and social progress to unprecedented levels. And in truth, there is no serious evidence of any systematic effort or policy aimed at attacking human rights; in fact, all evidence points in the opposite direction. Therefore, it is difficult not to conclude that HRW’s 2008 report, as on previous occasions, does not have the purpose of constructive criticism of shortcomings or possible flaws in the process of social progress and democratization underway in Venezuela – which would be welcome – but that it distorts reality to depict a country on the verge of becoming a nasty dictatorship.

The imbalance in the  HRW report is evident in that, for example, it does not even mention the substantial progress that has been made in improving the human rights of the immense majority of the population by such means as:

• the reduction of poverty (by 34%);

• the eradication of illiteracy;

• the expansion of education from 6 million people participating in education in 1998 to more than 12 million in 2008;

• the access to free health care increased to the great majority of the population, about 20 million people, by 2008;

• the provision of subsidized food benefiting 12-14 million people in 2008;

• the reduction in unemployment to historic low levels of around 7% in
2008;

• the promotion of a far greater role of women in society and the economy; and

• the dramatic increase in social spending that has taken place in Venezuela since the election of Chavez.

The unbalanced and plain misleading character of HRW’s reports on Venezuela has been consistent and has coincided uncannily with the run-up to important electoral contests such as the forthcoming November elections this year. It issued a communiqué on Venezuela with similar unsubstantiated themes in June 2004, just two months before the recall referendum against Chavez. In October 2007, it published a statement expressing similar preoccupations just two months before the constitutional referendum. And HRW published its 2008 report on 18th September, just two months away from regional and local authority elections in Venezuela in November 2008.

All these reports have echoed US anti-Chavez propaganda: ‘a dictatorship is in the making in Venezuela’. Back in June, John McCain said in a speech to the Florida Association of Broadcasters: “Hugo Chavez has used the cloak of electoral legitimacy to establish a one party dictatorship in Venezuela.”

The question presents itself: who stands to gain from Human Rights Watch activity in Venezuela – the population of the country or the Washington administration seeking to undermine an elected government seen as breaking free of its traditional economic and political domination?

Dr Francisco Domínguez is head of the Centre for Brazilian and Latin American Studies at Middlesex University, UK.

 

Syria: Another “Humanitarian War” Based on Lies & Deceit

Mini-Documentary Exposes Imperial Expansion Through “Humanitarian Interventionism”

April 13th, 2012
Tony Cartalucci, Contributing Writer
Activist Post

The Paris-based Centre for the Study of Interventionism (CSI) and Julien Teil, director of “Lies behind the “Humanitarian War” in Libya: There is no evidence!” has recently released a short documentary exposing how a cartel of Western nations and their Arab proxies are purposefully creating chaos inside targeted nations and then using it as a pretext to invade, topple governments, and replace them with preselected client regimes, and in effect threatening the very concept of national sovereignty.

The documentary particularly focuses on Syria and features video of Syrian opposition members sitting at the US State Department-funded National Endowment for Democracy (NED) “round-table” having praise heaped upon them, and in particular Washington-based Syrian “activist” Radwn Ziadeh, for their complicity in betraying their nation and people for the corporate-financier interests that constitute NED’s board of directors. →

The shadowy world of Egypt’s NGOs

by Jenny O’Connor

17 March 2012

NewStatesman

Funded by their governments, are these organisations funnelling money to protest movements?