#meles zenawi | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

zvaigzdelasas · 2 years ago

Text

On December 4, General John Abizaid, the commander of US forces from the Middle East through Afghanistan, arrived in Addis Ababa to meet the Ethiopian prime minister, Meles Zenawi. Officially, the trip was a courtesy call to an ally. Three weeks later, however, Ethiopian forces crossed into Somalia in a war on its Islamist rulers, and this week the US launched air strikes against suspected al-Qaida operatives believed to be hiding among the fleeing Islamist fighters.

"The meeting was just the final handshake," said a former intelligence officer familiar with the region.

Washington and Addis Ababa may deny it, but the air strikes this week exposed close intelligence and military cooperation between Ethiopia and America, fuelled by mutual concern about the rise of [the ICU] in the chaos of Somalia.

Yesterday, the Washington Post reported that US military personnel entered southern Somalia this week to verify who was killed in Monday's air strike. It was the first known instance of US boots on the ground in Somalia since the Black Hawk Down catastrophe, when 18 US soldiers were killed by Somali militiamen, the paper claimed.

But Pentagon officials and intelligence analysts say a small number of US special forces were on the ground before Ethiopia's intervention in an operation planned since last summer, soon after the Islamic Courts Union took control of Mogadishu. Press reports have said US special forces also accompanied the Ethiopian troops crossing into Somalia.

The main cause of delay was the weather. Mark Schroeder, Africa analyst at the intelligence consulting firm Stratfor, said the critical turning point was the end of the rain season. "While Ethiopia could move small numbers of troops and trucks as a limited intervention into Somalia, they needed to wait until the ground dried up."

Once they did move in, the troops were accompanied by US special forces, analysts say. For America, the relationship with Ethiopia provides an extra pair of eyes in a region that it fears could become an arena for al-Qaida.

"The Ethiopians are the primary suppliers of intelligence," said one analyst. However, he said, it was almost inconceivable that the US would not have sent its special forces into Somalia ahead of the Ethiopian intervention. "You are going to want to have your own people on the ground."

In return, the US is believed to have provided the Ethiopians with arms, fuel and other logistical support for a much larger intervention than it has previously mounted in Somalia.

It has also made available satellite information and intelligence from friendly Somali clans, a former intelligence officer said. America's renewed interest in the Horn of Africa dates to November 2002 when the US military established its joint taskforce in Djibouti, now the base for 1,800 troops, including special operations forces.

By then, the west had good reason to fear that Africa had become an arena for al-Qaida, and that the failed state of Somalia could become a haven for the organisation's operatives. [...]

In fact, says another analyst, the US was closely considering a strike on suspected al-Qaida cells in Somalia as early as 2002. That idea was abandoned.

But America's concerns came to a head last year with the rise of the Islamic Courts Union. At first, Washington's response was relatively modest. It mounted a small CIA operation, run from Nairobi, to stand up Somalia's hated warlords against the [ICU], a former intelligence official familiar with the region says. [...]

By last June, when the [ICU] seized Mogadishu, the Pentagon appeared to have won that bureaucratic struggle. By then, the CIA operation was widely acknowledged as a disaster. Talks on peace and power-sharing between the Somali president Abdullahi Yusuf's government and Islamic courts were foundering. A Somalia analyst in Nairobi said the [ICU] took most of the blame - unfairly, in his view, as the government had no intention of ever sharing power. "My guess is that a decision to wage war was taken sometime in October by Ethiopia and America. [...]" As the build-up to war continued, with Ethiopia sending more troops into Somalia and the [ICU] moving closer to the government base in Baidoa, experts say the cooperation between Addis and Washington increased sharply.

Help from the sea was also required. Landlocked Ethiopia has no naval capacity, but the US could easily move warships from the Gulf to the Somali coast - as happened once the conflict began.

By mid-December Jendayi Frazer, the state department's top official for Africa, was echoing the message from Addis Ababa about the dangers of the Islamic Courts Union. "The top layer of the courts are extremist to the core," she said. "They are terrorists and they are in control."

Days later, the Ethiopian forces were on the move. But many believe that America's support for Ethiopia's military intervention could come back to haunt the US, and predict a flare-up of Somali nationalist feeling. Already, clan fighting is threatening to jeopardise attempts to restore stability. This week there have been at least three attacks on government forces.

There is also concern that the precipitate flight of the ICU does not necessarily signal its definitive defeat. Last night, the Ethiopian-backed Somali government forces said they had captured the last remaining stronghold at Ras Kamboni, just two miles from the Kenyan border. It may not be the last confrontation between government forces and the [ICU].

2007

13 notes · View notes

eslemans-blog · 3 years ago

Text

The Biden Africa Team’s Ethiopia Regime ‘Change’ Folly Undermines US National Security

—-Ethiopians must counter this plot by closing ranks—–

Aklog Birara (Dr)

“The media is the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent.”

Malcom X, African American Civic Leader

“There is no greater tyranny than that which is perpetrated under the shield of the law and in the name of justice.”

Montesquieu. French Political Philosopher

The setting in a nutshell (አያ ጅቦ ጅቦ ሳታማኻኝ ብላኝ)

Western media (BBC, CNN, the New York Times etc.), Western human rights organizations (Amnesty international, Human Rights Watch and others), UN specialized agencies (UNICEF, WFP, WHO etc.) as well as the Governments of the United States and members of the European Union have literally operated in concert “to make the innocent guilty and the guilty innocent,” ever since the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF) that the West brought to power committed treason and genocide on November 4, 2020. Their depictions of the causes and the devastating effects of the war in Ethiopia continues unabetted to this day. For example, I was aghast to hear the Chief of Human Rights Watch in East Africa recently singling out the Government of Ethiopia for the humanitarian disaster in Tigray caused by the TPLF. She deliberately left out the real culprits, namely the TPLF and its allies. She commended the Biden Administration for its planned punitive measures against Ethiopian, Eritrean and Amhara entities and officials.

Eight months after President Joe Biden took office that incidentally converged with the Tigray People’s Liberation Front’s treasonous act on Ethiopia’s Northern Command on November 4, relations between the United States of America and Ethiopia have gone from bad to worse. President Biden sent a congratulatory message to the Ethiopian people welcoming Ethiopia’s New Year 2014. On September 17, the President devalued the message when he issued an Executive Order to punish culprits for the atrocities in Tigray. He empowered Congresswoman Karen Bass, an African America and one of the most influential members in Congress, who met with Ethiopian officials and conveyed his message.

Some argue that the Biden Administration has not yet imposed sanctions on Ethiopia. I say to them “Where there is smoke; there is fire.” ያልጠረጠረ ተመነጠረ! Those of us who believe in Ethiopia’s just cause cannot afford to be callous.

Is not the statement by Human Rights Watch and or the Executive Order by President Joe Biden unjust and blatantly biased? Do these not reflect the existence of a concert of Western actors that are determined to go after those who are determined to defend Ethiopia’s sovereign rights and the honor and dignity of the Ethiopian people?

Whether coincidental or not the TPLF instigated treason that occurred just one day after President Biden was elected. The TPLF strategic document now made public in its entirety by Ethiopian activists reveals a deliberate and well-planned attack to dismantle the Ethiopian Government and State. The TPLF did not initiate its assault on the Ethiopian state and Government in isolation. It had internal and external partners and proactive supporters. In my assessment, these external actors are part of the problem. I no longer trust what they say. I watch what they do.

Who is the target?

The BBC, CNN, the New York Times, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch as well as UN specialized agencies were lethal in their unverified depictions of “war crimes, crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing, executions on innocent civilians, rapes” and other atrocities in Tigray. These relentless and deliberate depictions targeted the following three entities:

The Ethiopian National Defense Forces led by Prime Minister Dr. Abiy Ahmed

The Eritrean Military led by President Isaias Afewerki, an Ethiopian ally

The Amhara Special Forces, Fano and militia defending the Amhara region

The concert of actors identified earlier never gave credence to counter arguments and authentic evidence from the Ethiopian side. Montesquieu is right when he said, “There is no greater tyranny than that which is perpetrated under the shield of the law and in the name of justice” The tyranny of ideas and the application of punitive measures go hand in hand with the leverage the donor community can apply to impose its will on the beggar nation, in this case Ethiopia. As the saying goes, “Beggars cannot be choosers.” The mistaken assumption in setting US policy in this case is that it underestimates the resolve and resiliency of the Ethiopian people. When faced with external adversaries, ordinary Ethiopians are like a “sleeping lion.” When challenged, disturbed, and provoked by a clueless wild animal; they rise and fight back to the bitter end. Most Ethiopians are doing exactly that.

A second fallacy that is grounded in the conventional wisdom of Ethiopia’s self-serving political and social elites, the country’s timid and fragmented intellectuals as well as the West is this. When I was in elementary school in Ethiopia, the mistaken and repetitive word uttered incessantly was that Ethiopia’s myriad of problems will be over once Emperor Haile Selassie is deposed or is replaced. The Emperor was deposed but the country’s problems remained intact. When I was in college abroad, the same mantra occurred. The stubborn conventional wisdom associated all of Ethiopia’s institutional and structural problems with Mengistu Haile Mariam, an individual. He proved to be an Ethiopian nationalist who warned his countrymen and women that the TPLF was a treasonous cancer poised to destroy Ethiopia. Mengistu’s other weaknesses, including his brutality against his political opponents notwithstanding, his assessment of the marriage between internal and external forces against Ethiopia is unassailable. Mengistu fled to Zimbabwe. Ethiopia’s institutional and structural problems mushroomed this time led by ethnic nationalists with the TPLF at the top.

Fast forward to the era led by the Ethiopian Peoples’ Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF) and dominated by the TPLF from 1991-2018, the same phenomenon persisted. Conventional wisdom repeated the same cultural ethos that the passing of Meles Zenawi will end the era of newly minted “ethnic princes” that fragmented Ethiopia into antagonistic ethnic and linguistic enclaves. Meles passed but the system remained unaffected and unchallenged. It had in fact produced new beneficiaries of the system. It is this menace that never accepts the will of the Ethiopian people that the West is supporting today.

I find it troubling that President Biden who is accused by his predecessor as having stolen the election is unable to accept the verdict of tens of millions of Ethiopians who voted freely and independently last June.

The ensuing reform process in Ethiopia that the West had welcomed initially more than three years ago, brought into power the new Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed. He inherited a state and Government that was literally bankrupt and conflict prone. Who bankrupted it? It is the TPLF and its cohort. Sadly, the honeymoon did not last long. Ethiopia entered a new and dangerous phase caused by the TPLF and not by Abiy. The TPLF was deposed from power through popular resistance. Is this not how democracy is supposed to work?

What did the TPLF do?

It is worth repeating that the TPLF committed treason and genocide in Mai Kadra. When the Federal Government of Ethiopia declared a “unilateral ceasefire” in June, the TPLF refused to reciprocate. Instead, the TPLF expanded its insurgency to the Afar and Amhara regions.

Below is a sample that attests to the barbaric nature of the TPLF that the Biden Team ignores:

Destroyed more than 3,000 health facilities in the Amhara region alone.

Burned down or caused irreparable damage to thousands of elementary and secondary schools as well as colleges. The intent is to ensure that Amhara children and youth (the next generation) remains permanently disabled, disempowered, and impoverished.

Burnt Churches and Mosques and plundered precious religious treasures; and desecrated iconic places of worship including Lalibela.

Committed a dozen Mai Kadra like atrocities in the Afar and Amhara regions.

Captured hundreds of relief vehicles, including those owned by UN specialized agencies and blamed it on the innocent, namely the Ethiopian National Defense, the Eritrean military, and the Amhara Special Forces.

Destroyed numerous physical infrastructures financed by the Ethiopian poor, etc., etc.

Appalled by TPLF’s mercilessness and cruelty, the USAID Administrator in Ethiopia accused the TPLF leadership of confiscating and utilizing food supplies and other essentials intended for Tigrean and other victims. More galling, the TPLF destroyed what it cannot haul back to Tigray.

Deployed child soldiers and used them as human shields.

Raped Amhara spouses in front of their husbands. This abominable act is intended to inflict permanent psychological pain to the Amhara population.

Worsened the humanitarian crisis in Tigray; and opened a Pandora’s box of imminent famine that may be far worse than other human made famines in Ethiopian history.

Unintended consequences

This takes me to the irony and the folly in the Biden Africa policy that I challenge in this commentary. The scheme that removing Abiy from power would resolve Ethiopia’s intractable institutional and structural problems is a fallacy. It will not. On the contrary, his forcible removal from office against the wishes of most of the Ethiopian people will in fact aggravate the situation even further. The additional unintended consequence I project is that such a misguided policy by the Biden Africa Team will push Ethiopia far away from the United States of America. I also estimate that those Ethiopians at home and abroad who do not always agree with Abiy’s leadership will move to his camp in droves.

What do I suggest?

In the light of the above, I urge the Biden Africa Team not to associate a single person regardless of his or her role in Ethiopian society with Ethiopia’s problems. I have shown why this conventional wisdom is patently false, misleading, and dangerous as a policy and decision-making tool.

Ethiopia’s fate can only be determined by the Ethiopian people, and not by any external power regardless of its military and financial means. To do otherwise is tantamount to ignorance and a lack of understanding of the Ethiopian mindset. Ethiopia’s poverty and income level are not mirror images of the national resolve of the Ethiopian people. Therefore the “sleeping lion” analogy is appropriate. Ethiopia has gone through similar hurdles before. I do not underestimate the myriad of problems Ethiopia is facing currently and is likely to face in the future. Ethiopia is an investment capital deficit country. Estimated at $30 billion,

Ethiopia’s foreign debt level is unsustainable. Instead of imposing punitive measures, it is advisable for the Biden Administration to anchor its Ethiopia policy on the following:

a. Refrain from advancing its program of regime change. Ethiopians resent such gross interference in their domestic affairs. The Biden Administration’s unparallel pronouncement of putting the TPLF at par with the Government of Ethiopia is a black mark in US-Ethiopian relations. I do not believe that President Biden wants to be remembered by generations of Ethiopians as the man who squandered a golden opportunity to do the right thing concerning Ethiopia!

President Joe Biden’s zeal for human dignity and human worth is an admirable quality that I too share. His admonition of the debilitating impacts of state thieves and corruption on society that he highlighted during his address of the UN General Assembly on September 21, 2021, is shared by hundreds of millions of poor people across the globe. In the case of Ethiopia, US aid monies and monies from the donor community were literally squandered and more than $30 billion siphoned off by the TPLF. In turn, this has diminished the productive capacity of the poorest of the poor, including Tigrean Ethiopians.

Accordingly, the Biden Administration does not want to be remembered as the one that supported state thieves and diminished human dignity in Ethiopia. This is the reason why I urge President Biden to walk his talk.

b. Refrain from weaponizing humanitarian aid in support of US policy. There is very little evidence to support that the Ethiopian people will trade their freedom, sovereign rights, territorial integrity, honor, and dignity for humanitarian aid.

c. The Biden Ethiopia foreign policy team will serve America’s long term strategic interests in Ethiopia and the rest of the Horn of Africa if it facilitates debt relief measures for Ethiopia, instead of applying financial punitive measures against Ethiopia. Ethiopia’s massive youth that is fighting the TPLF and OLF/Shane will remember both. Siding with them at a time of greatest need will advance America’s interests in all of Africa. Doing the exact opposite will strengthen America’s adversaries including China, Iran, Russia, and others.

d. I agree with those including American civic, academic, media, policy and decisionmakers that Ethiopia’s path forward is not the prolongation of war, but rather the pursuit of constructive dialogue for national peace, reconciliation, and national consensus among all Ethiopian stakeholders. However, the Biden Ethiopia policy team has not yet showed the moral and ethical courage to demand that the TPLF core leadership and its allies declare and commit to peace instead of the pursuit of insurrection. Failure to single out the TPLF for the war and destruction is tantamount to emboldening it.

e. In his Executive order of September 17, 2021, President Joe Biden whom I supported during the Presidential Election last year “authorized broad sanctions against those involved in perpetrating the ongoing conflict in Ethiopia as reports of atrocities continue to emerge from the Tigray region.”

I understand that the punitive measures are dire warnings rather than as a done deal. CNN reported that “The administration did not immediately impose sanctions under the new order; but it is prepared to take aggressive action” unless the parties, including the Ethiopian government, the Eritrean government, the Tigray People’s Liberation Front, and the Amhara Regional Government “take meaningful steps to enter into talks for a negotiated ceasefire and allow for unhindered humanitarian access.”

Forgotten in President Biden’s directive is the fact that the Government of Ethiopia had declared a “unilateral ceasefire” without reciprocity from the TPLF. Why did the President fail or ignore to demand that the TPLF abandon its aggressive and brutal people’s war program and agree to negotiate for peace?

Is it not hypocritical to declare that the United States is committed to Ethiopia’s territorial integrity and sovereignty on the one hand; and to place the TPLF that vows to dismantle Ethiopia and crush the Amhara population at par with the Government of Ethiopia and the Amhara regional government?

The core question I shall pose to the Biden Administration is this. Is it prudent, fair, or just to put the Governments of Ethiopia and Eritrea at par with the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF) that committed treason and genocide, expanded its insurgency to the Afar and Amhara regions; and that declared its alliances with Ethiopia’s arch enemies as well as with the OLF/Shane and Al-Shabab? Is there any parallel that the Biden Administration can cite to defend such an indefensible foreign policy? Can the Biden Ethiopia Team afford to make a policy blunder in Africa’s second most populous country in the aftermath of the Afghanistan fiasco?

By all accounts, the Biden Administration’s Ethiopia policy is flawed. The American people deserve to know that their Federal Government leaders are undermining America’s long-term relations with Ethiopia, a country that has been a steadfast friend of the USA for more than 100 years.

The generous American people must also know that their monies that are intended to support victims of war and other ailments are being weaponized by both the TPLF and by the Biden Administration. This weaponization of aid to achieve strategic objectives is a disservice to the American people. Weaponization corrodes and erodes America’s core values of justice, humanity, and fair play. It also curtails the advancement of democracy and a competitive market economy in Ethiopia. Finally, the American public ought to know that the pursuit of regime change by the Biden Administration perpetuates the universal international perception that the United States Government is narrow minded and arrogant in its treatment of poor and capital starved nations regardless of location. It goes without saying that only the Ethiopian people possess the right to change their leaders if they so choose. Ethiopia is not “a Banana Republic.”

US Administration policy failures in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and other countries teach me that repeating the same misguided policies in the Horn and the rest of Africa is counterproductive.

In an increasingly multipolar world that is changing the balance of power, Montesquieu’s eternal guide “There is no greater tyranny than that which is perpetrated under the shield of the law and in the name of justice” is appropriate to here. The Biden Ethiopia Team is doing exactly this under the pretext of defending the rule of law and advancing the cause of justice.

Ordinary Ethiopians ask righty “Whose rule of law, whose justice and for whom?”

September 21, 2021

Watch the following video to understand the depth of agony in the Amhara region.

#MISGUIDEDUSAPOLICY #black lives matter #capitalism #foreign policy

1 note · View note

africanglobe · 5 years ago

Photo

AFRICANGLOBE – Ethiopia has a proud history and is a very proud nation. It has successfully safeguarded its independence and sovereignty for thousands of years with the blood and bones of its forefathers and foremothers in spite of numerous challenges and ups and downs. It has never bowed to any external invader and no foreign force has ever conquered and occupied its land. It has repeatedly and successfully repelled all foreign aggressions and the battles of Adwa, Gundet , Gura, ets. are testimonial to its proud history. As our late Prime Minister Meles Zenawi recently stated, “nobody who has tried to invade Ethiopia has lived to tell the story”.

https://www.africanglobe.net/featured/ethiopias-renaissance-dam-mine/

#ancient Nile valley #egypt #ethiopia #Nile Dam

9 notes · View notes

chakoka · 4 years ago

Text

El Enigma Etíope

Enigma Etíope

En la actual coyuntura de la pandemia global COVID19, tenemos un personaje enigmático al frente de la Organización Mundial de la Salud (OMS) al etíope Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, que no es médico sino Doctor en Filosofía. La organización más influyente del mundo con responsabilidad en temas de salud global y epidemias es la Organización Mundial de la Salud de las Naciones Unidas, OMS [WHO en inglés], con sede en Ginebra. Lo que pocos saben son los mecanismos reales de su control político, los aberrantes conflictos de intereses con las empresas farmacéuticas-lo que antes no sucedía pues existía un panel de científicos de la salud-, la corrupción y la falta de transparencia que impregnan a la agencia que se supone que es la guía imparcial que nos llevará a superar la actual pandemia de COVID-19. Se ha escrito que es de filiación maoísta, y por eso pensamos que hay una afinidad con AMLO y con Hugo Lopez Gatell-un maoísta convencido que participó al lado de Andrés Manuel Lopez Obrador y Claudia Sheinbaum en la huelga de 1999 que por 9 meses cerraron la UNAM, pretendiendo convertirla en Universidad Popular. Hoy Lopez Gatell totalmente vapuleado por la realidad de la epidemia del virus en México. Cada vez que puede, por órdenes de AMLO o MALO, quiere imponer criterios políticos donde su especialidad como epidemiólogo graduado en la controvertida universidad John Hopkins que es la culpable según los medios de haber creado al monstruo COVID19.

El Evento 201 reunió en Nueva York el 18 de octubre de 2019 una asamblea de delegados organizada por la Fundación Bill y Melinda Gates, el Foro Económico Mundial y el Centro Johns Hopkins para la Seguridad de la Salud. La reunión anticipó la crisis de COVID-19 por solo unas pocas semanas.

Retrospectivamente, es casi como si el Evento 201 anunciara muchas de las controversias a punto de surgir con el estallido de la verdadera epidemia en Wuhan, China. El evento 201 realizó funciones similares a las de los simulacros que con frecuencia imitan los escenarios de ingeniería que animan los eventos terroristas de bandera falsa, pero especialmente los del 11 de septiembre donde se culpó a Sadam Hussein de ser el autor intelectual de los atentados y sin embargo, en la realidad fue Osama Bin Laden, financiado por la CIA para la Guerra de Afganistán contra la URSS y por los intereses sauditas y de Israel para contener al Imperio Rojo de Moscú. Por ello es que hay que estar atento a la Historia reciente a la Ultra Historia que nos hemos dedicado a tratar de entender al llamado ESTADO PROFUNDO (Deep State) y apenas estamos incursionando en el ESTADO MALEFICO (Dark State). Así que hay que echar una hojeada rápida a Etiopia. Que según la Biblia ahí se dio el nacimiento del primer humano (australpithecus afarensis).

De critica dura y picaresca contra las tonterías de MALO de quitarle el 75% del presupuesto al INAH (Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia) que es el encargado de escarbar y sacar las ruinas mayas, aztecas y demás culturas precolombinas (Deep State), el INAH le quitó la categoría de Homo Sapiens al MALO y lo re catalogó como LUCY- es decir el espécimen etíope que es el conjunto de fragmentos óseos pertenecientes al esqueleto de un homínido de la especie Australopithecus afarensis, de 3,2 a 3,5 millones de años de antigüedad, descubierto por el estadounidense Donald Johanson el 24 de noviembre de 1974 a 159 km de Adís Abeba, Etiopía.

De ese país también provino la también enigmática Reina de Saba, mencionada tanto en el Corán como en la Biblia como una mujer de enorme presencia en lo bello y en lo intelectual que conquistó al Rey Salomón, el llamado Rey Sabio de Israel. La reina le llevó oro, café, mirra, incienso y el bálsamo de Gilead (hoy se venden pócimas del bálsamo en la plataforma Mercado Libre). El Reino de Saba llegó a ser tan poderoso que los persas, babilonios, judíos y egipcios quisieron adueñarse del mismo, pero por su geoestratégica posición en el cuerno de África y las montañas y selvas, no pudieron. Luego vendrían las legiones romanas que quisieron llegar navegando el Rio Nilo, pero al no conocerlo se toparon con infinidad de pantanos donde se unen los majestuosos ríos del Nilo y su principal afluente el río Azul, que fueron diezmados por los mosquitos, los lagartos, las fieras, los monos, los pigmeos y los caníbales. Fracasaron rotundamente, pero quedó plasmada la dialéctica milenaria entre Roma y Etiopía.

Luego en eras más recientes Italia con Benito Mussolini se quiso cobrar la afrenta milenaria y los invadió en 1932 y de nuevo fracasó frente a un país débil pero poderoso geopolíticamente, contando con la ayuda de los británicos y franceses derrotaron al fascio.

Ya en el siglo XXI China lanzó un ambicioso proyecto de hacer de Etiopía, la “pequeña China de África” y la fue llenando de proyectos modernizadores, así este país entró a la órbita del Dragón. De los cuadros etíopes viene al actual Director de la OMS, quien nació 03/03/1965 en Asmara, Etiopia (hoy esa parte corresponde a Eritrea, un territorio arrebatado a esa nación), quien tiene Licenciatura en Ciencias Biológicas (BSc), en su ciudad natal, Universidad de Asmara, en 1986. Maestría en Ciencias (MSc), Inmunología de las Enfermedades Infecciosas en la Universidad de Londres en 1992 y Doctorado en Filosofía (Ph. D.), Salud de la Comunidad en la University of Nottingham, 2000.

Ha trabajado en el Ministerio de Salud, Etiopía (2005-2012), cuya función fue lograr inversiones y reformas cruciales en materia de salud que ayudaron a extender el acceso a la atención sanitaria a decenas de millones de etíopes, lo que permitió alcanzar metas sanitarias ambiciosas y poner a Etiopía en condiciones de sustentar este éxito y avanzar a partir de él. Logros principales: Mejoramiento de la infraestructura sanitaria: Creación de 3500 centros de salud y 16 000 puestos de salud a fin de mejorar el acceso a la atención sanitaria básica en todo el país. Esto fue fundamental para reducir la mortalidad en la niñez en dos tercios, las infecciones por VIH en un 90%, la mortalidad por paludismo en un 75% y la mortalidad por tuberculosis en un 64%. Fortalecimiento del personal sanitario: Supervisando la capacitación y el despliegue de 38 000 agentes de extensión sanitaria, lo que permitió crear un sistema basado y dirigido por la propia comunidad cuyo elemento central eran las mujeres. Este modelo se ha reproducido en más de una docena de países de todo el continente africano. Los esfuerzos redundaron en una multiplicación por siete del número de profesionales de la salud, que pasaron de 16 500 a 115 000; y en un aumento de la capacidad de formación que pasó de tres escuelas de medicina que formaban 120 médicos por año a 33 escuelas y 3000 médicos formados por año. Allanamiento del camino a la sostenibilidad: Otros logros importantes fueron hacer frente al problema de los servicios farmacéuticos inadecuados y el desabastecimiento de medicamentos esenciales, transformar los sistemas de información débiles y la recogida insuficiente de datos sanitarios, incrementar la apropiación por el país de los programas de salud, y alentar una armonización más eficaz en relación con los donantes. [Se convirtió en Ministro de Salud de 2005 a 2012 bajo el Primer Ministro Meles Zenawi. Allí conoció al expresidente Bill Clinton y comenzó una estrecha colaboración con Clinton y la Fundación Clinton y su Iniciativa Clinton VIH / SIDA (CHAI). Luego Tedros pasó al Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores, Etiopía (Noviembre de 2012 – 2016), donde utilizo sus habilidades diplomáticas y de negociación para defender prioridades clave de salud y desarrollo. Logros principales: Defensa de un desarrollo dirigido por los propios países africanos: En 2013, en calidad de Presidente del Consejo Ejecutivo de la Unión Africana (UA), encabezó la redacción de la Agenda 2063, un marco estratégico mundial encaminado a acelerar el desarrollo económico, político y social mediante la cooperación y la solidaridad regionales.  Creación de consenso en el ámbito mundial: En calidad de Presidente de la comisión principal de la Conferencia Internacional sobre Financiación del Desarrollo de 2015, ayudó con éxito a que 193 Estados Miembros de las Naciones Unidas acordaran la Agenda de Acción de Addis Abeba, un hito histórico que permitió forjar una alianza mundial para alcanzar y financiar los Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenibles (ODS), en particular los relativos a la salud. Impulso a las respuestas ante emergencias de salud pública: Desempeñé un papel decisivo en la respuesta de la UA a la epidemia de Ébola y la promoción de las directrices de la OMS. Tedros, como Ministro de Asuntos Exteriores de Etiopía hasta 2016, se reunió con Bill Gates cuando era Ministro de Salud de Etiopía y se convirtió en Presidente de la Junta del Fondo Mundial contra el VIH / SIDA, la tuberculosis y la malaria vinculado a Gates.

[En mayo de 2017 fue acusado de encubrir un brote de cólera en Etiopía, NYT. En enero de 2019, Tedros fue acusado de usar dinero para el Ébola en pagar los vuelos a su novia, lo cual sirvió para pedir su destitución. Nota de The Guardian de Londres]. Con esa amplia experiencia y contactos de alto nivel, tuvo un fracaso en la OMS con el H1N1 que resultó un fiasco y escándalo en 2009. El Parlamento de los Países Bajos descubrió que el profesor Albert Osterhaus de la Universidad Erasmus de Rotterdam, fue la persona en el centro de la gripe porcina mundial H1N1 Influenza A 2009 como el asesor clave de la OMS sobre la gripe, quien estaba interesadamente posicionado para beneficiarse personalmente de los miles de millones de euros en vacunas presuntamente destinados a la gripe H1N1 y que estaba recibiendo dinero directa o indirectamente de los Big Pharma (Mafia Farmacéutica), como GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis y otros fabricantes importantes de vacunas [Cinco expertos de la OMS fueron vinculados criminalmente con productores de vacunas el 13 agosto 2010]. La declaración de la OMS de la pandemia de gripe porcina fue falsa. 2009-10 vio la gripe más leve en el mundo desde que la medicina comenzó a registrarla. Los gigantes farmacéuticos se llevaron miles de millones en el proceso de vacunación. Esta manifiesta corrupción significó la destitución de la científica china Dra. Margaret Chan [(Fue la directora general de la Organización Mundial de la Salud entre 2007 y 2017. Es doctora en medicina por la University of Western Ontario (Canadá) y actualmente radica en Hong Kong] y ascendió como Director General con apoyo total de China. El actual Grupo de Expertos en Asesoramiento Científico de la OMS (¡SAGE, [¿Sabios!?]) está plagado de miembros que reciben fondos «financieramente significativos» de los principales fabricantes de vacunas del Big Pharma o de la Fundación Bill y Melinda Gates (BGMF) o Wellcome Trust. Además de Merck & Co. (MSD), Gavi, la Alianza de Vacunas (un grupo de vacunas financiado por Gates), el Comité Asesor Científico de Salud Global de BMGF, Pfizer, Novovax, GSK, Novartis, Gilead y otros líderes en la comercialización de vacunas farmacéuticas. Esto en cuanto a la objetividad científica independiente en la OMS la cual esta puesta en evidencia por el presidente de Estados Unidos, Donald Trump. El hecho de que muchos de los miembros de SAGE de la OMS tengan vínculos financieros con la Fundación Gates es muy revelador, aunque no sorprendente. Hoy, la OMS está financiada principalmente no por los gobiernos miembros de la ONU, sino por lo que se llama una «asociación público-privada» en la que dominan las compañías privadas de vacunas y el grupo de entidades patrocinadas por Bill Gates. En el último informe financiero disponible de la OMS, para el 31 de diciembre de 2017, un poco más de la mitad del presupuesto del Fondo General de la OMS de $ 2.000 millones provenían de donantes privados o agencias externas como el Banco Mundial o la UE. Muchos de los mayores donantes privados o no gubernamentales de la OMS son la Fundación Bill y Melinda Gates junto con la Alianza de Vacunas GAVI, financiada por Gates, el Fondo Global para la Lucha contra el SIDA, la Tuberculosis y la Malaria (GFATM). Esos tres aportaron más de $ 474 millones a la OMS. Solo la Fundación Bill y Melinda Gates dio la enorme cantidad de $ 324,654,317 a la OMS. En comparación, el mayor donante estatal de la OMS, el Gobierno de los Estados Unidos, dio $ 401 millones a la OMS. Entre otros donantes privados en abril de 2018 encontramos a los principales fabricantes de vacunas y medicamentos del mundo, incluyendo Gilead Science (actualmente presiona para que su medicamento sea el tratamiento electivo para el COVID-19, su nombre viene precisamente del bálsamo de Gilead que la reina de Saba llevó al Rey Salomón, la sucursal de esa empresa se localiza en México en la confluencia de las grandes avenidas Insurgentes Sur y Rio Mixcoac- y está bajo sospecha de estar controlada por Ronald Rumsfeld, Secretario de la Defensa de Estados Unidos con George Bush Junior), GlaxoSmithKline, Hoffmann-LaRoche, Sanofi Pasteur, Merck Sharp y Dohme, Chibret y Bayer AG. Los fabricantes de medicamentos donaron decenas de millones de dólares a la OMS en 2017. Bajo Tedros, la notoria corrupción y los conflictos de intereses en la OMS han continuado, incluso aumentado. Según un informe reciente de la auditora Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), en 2018 y 2019 ya bajo el mandato de Tedros, el «Programa de Emergencias Sanitarias de la OMS», la sección responsable de la respuesta global al COVID-19, fue citado con la calificación de riesgo más alta, lo que señala que la «falta de financiación adecuada del programa y operaciones de emergencia [riesgo] proporcionar inadecuados resultados a nivel de país «. El informe de ABC del 16 de febrero de 2020 descubrió además que también ha habido un «aumento en las denuncias de corrupción interna en toda la organización, con la detección de múltiples redes destinadas a estafar grandes sumas de dinero del organismo internacional». No muy tranquilizador. En 2014, mucho antes de ser nombrado jefe de la Organización Mundial de la Salud, el propio Dr. Tedros describió los regalos que Etiopía recibió de China: «China se ha convertido en el mayor inversor extranjero y el mayor socio comercial de Etiopía. Etiopía es ahora uno de los principales mercados en África para productos, equipos, tecnología e inversión chinos. Desde 2006, China, a través de diversos mecanismos, ha brindado una gran cantidad de apoyo financiero para la construcción de varios megaproyectos de Etiopía. Estos incluyen el primer Express Toll Way y la primera planta de energía eólica operativa, el ferrocarril de vía ligera de Addis Abeba y otros desarrollos ferroviarios modernos, así como el Hospital Tirunesh-Beijing y el Instituto Confucio. Son ilustraciones vívidas de nuestra relación fructífera e integral». Es común que los gobiernos de izquierdas estén entregando sus naciones a China para obtener ganancias financieras a corto plazo. En julio de 2018 Tedros se reunió con altas autoridades chinas en Pekín para discutir y financiar una serie de iniciativas conjuntas con la OMS, como su proyecto «Health Silk Road», (La Ruta de la Seda de la Salud). Como dijo un poderoso senador de Estados Unidos «Está claro que el Director de la OMS no está buscando los mejores intereses del mundo frente a una pandemia mundial, sino que está actuando como un títere para el partido comunista de China, sirviendo su agenda en detrimento de los Estados Unidos.» Un tweet famoso del Dr T que debería quedar en la historia, fue la del 14 de enero de 2020 donde aseguraba que «las investigaciones preliminares de las autoridades chinas no han hallado evidencia clara de transmisión humano-humano del nuevo coronavirus identificado en Wuhan, China». La actual crisis entre Australia y China se debe a las revelaciones de que altos niveles del PCCh están felices de haber derrotado al “tigre de papel” de Norteamérica, le han dado una vapuleada increíble en Nueva York y con sus 120,000 muertos que lleva Trump, han puesto de rodillas al Tío Sam frente al Dragón Chino y el Peje paseando y paseando, con su grilla ya muy trillada de “somos diferentes”, si pero peor que los anteriores, +30,000 muertos nos llaman a recapacitar de como deshacernos del demente que llegó a Palacio Nacional

1 note · View note

alexsmitposts · 5 years ago

Photo

Who is WHO’s Tedros Adhanom? On the surface it appeared that the Director-General of the UN World Health Organization has acted swiftly and seriously about the spreading coronavirus health emergency spreading across China. He has gone to meet with Chinese leaders to discuss the situation and on January 30, after his talks in Beijing and meetings with the WHO advisory body, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus declared the coronavirus a “Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC).” What the WHO has really done and especially the remarks of the Director-General, give cause for concern that he is motivated by something other than world health. There are still many open questions surrounding the outbreak of what is being called 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019 nCov) that was first noted sometime in December in Wuhan city in central China. By about January 20 severe cases of respiratory disease were spreading at such a rate that Beijing took drastic measures including canceling major social events of the Chinese New Year celebrations and imposing a cordon sanitaire around Wuhan, a city of 11 million on January 23 in a desperate bid to contain whatever was spreading. The quarantine however was imposed after some 5 million residents had reportedly already left to visit relatives outside in the largest holiday in China. On January 28 Tedros was in Beijing meeting with President Xi Jinping to discuss the situation. By the time of Tedros’ January 30 declaration that the coronavirus situation in China warranted proclaiming a “Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC),” a full week had passed since the Wuhan lockdown was declared. Such a public health lockdown had never in modern times been attempted. Indeed, on the day Wuhan was sealed off by the authorities, Gauden Galea, WHO China representative, told Reuters, “The lockdown of 11 million people is unprecedented in public health history, so it is certainly not a recommendation the WHO has made.” By the time WHO head Tedros arrived however, the Director-General had nothing but praise for the extraordinary measures being taken by Beijing to contain and deal with the situation. Back in WHO Geneva headquarters Tedros announced that China is “setting a new standard” for outbreak response, he said. “It’s actually doing more than China is required to do,” he added. But then he made the inexplicable statement that other countries were not warranted to ban air travel to China as precaution. He declared,” It’s not a time for judgment… This is a time for solidarity, not stigma,” refusing to recommend any international restrictions on travel or trade with China. What that should mean is not at all clear, only that he clearly was trying to dampen world response at a critical time. As the leading international health authority, the UN WHO carries considerable influence over national responses to any such health danger. This makes Tedros’ condemnation of airline travel bans more noteworthy. It raises the question whether the WHO head has an undisclosed agenda. Who is WHO’s Tedros? Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus was voted WHO Director-General in 2017 replacing the controversial Dr Margaret Chan of Hong Kong. He is the first African to head the health agency and the first one not a medical doctor. According to Wikipedia, he got a BA degree in biology at the University of Asmara in Eritrea. He then served in a junior position, at the Ministry of Health under the Marxist dictatorship of Mengistu. After the fall of Mengistu in 1991 Tedros went to the UK and took a Doctorate of Philosophy (PhD) in Community Health from the University of Nottingham in 2000, with a doctoral dissertation on “The effects of dams on malaria transmission in Tigray Region, northern Ethiopia.” He then went on to become Minister of Health from 2005 to 2012 under Prime Minister Meles Zenawi. There he met former President Bill Clinton and began a close collaboration with Clinton and the Clinton Foundation and its Clinton HIV/AIDS Initiative (CHAI). He also developed a close relation with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. As health minister, Tedros would also chair the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria that was co-founded by the Gates Foundation. The Global Fund has been riddled with fraud and corruption scandals. Today the largest donors to the WHO are the Gates Foundation and its associated GAVI Alliance for vaccination. With backers like Gates and Clinton it was no surprise that Tedros went on, after a stint as Ethiopian Foreign Minister, to win the post of WHO Director-General, this despite being the first non-physician to hold the position. During Tedros’ three year campaign to win the WHO post he was charged with having covered up three major epidemics of cholera while health minister in Ethiopia, mislabeling the cases as “acute watery diarrhea” (AWD)—a symptom of cholera—in an attempt to play down the significance of the epidemics, charges he denied. “Don’t stigmatize…” As reports of the spread of confirmed and suspected cases of the novel coronavirus in other countries grew in the past several weeks, numerous airlines took the precaution to temporarily cancel their flights to and from China. Tedros, while officially declaring the Wuhan novel coronavirus as a “Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC),” (in 2009 the WHO called it a Level 6 Global Pandemic), sharply and repeatedly criticized other countries for allowing air travel to China to be cut. On February 7 the China Peoples’ Daily reported Tedros stating, his disapproval of imposing travel bans on China, stressing that “such restrictions can have the effect of increasing fear and stigma, with little public health benefit.” Important in containing any epidemic is taking action very early in the detection of the disease. Ethiopian Airlines There is one country where the national air carrier has not cut flights to China to this date—Tedros’ own Ethiopia. Ethiopian Airlines continues to fly daily into Ethiopia from major Chinese cities. At the Addis Ababa airport the passengers are only given a minimal temperature test, something for a disease with a 14 day incubation period is hardly sufficient to limit the spread of the pathogen to Africa. While 59 other air carriers from 44 different countries have all grounded their flights to China, Ethiopian Airlines insists that it will follow directives from the World Health Organization and continue its daily China flights. The entry point for air travel between China and Africa is Ethiopia. The Chinese have built a new airport in Addis Ababa and it is the “gateway” for travel between many African countries like Zambia and China. Ethiopia’s Bole International airport sees on average 1500 passengers per day arriving from China. There are an estimated one million Chinese working in Africa from Zambia to Nigeria, and Tedros’ Ethiopia is their place to enter. The problem is that Ethiopia is an extremely poor country and it, like most of Africa is ill-prepared to handle any outbreak of coronavirus. Despite the fact that Ethiopian citizens have protested at the continuing China air travel risk, the government continues to use WHO and Tedros’ statements to keep business flowing. In an alarm signal, the first reported case of coronavirus in Botswana was of an African student who came from China on an Ethiopian Airlines plane. With the daily traffic through Ethiopia’s Bole International Airport of some 1,500 China passengers the health system of the country is ill-prepared to take adequate precautions. It is one of the poorest countries in Africa after decades of civil war. The largest investor by far is China which sees Ethiopia as a centerpiece of its African investment strategy for the Belt and Road. Is it because he does not want to jeopardize that economic relation that WHO head Tedros does not pressure his own state airline to take short-term precautions by declaring a moratorium on its China flights? At the time he was elected to WHO Tedros was a member of the politburo of the minority Tigray People’s Liberation Front, which had ruled Ethiopia since 1991 with an iron fist. Is he today more concerned with the financial health of Ethiopian Airways and the future of China investments in his country for his party allies than with the precautionary principles of public health in a growing international crisis that shows little sign of being under control? Indeed, now in the past days Tedros has shown signs of growing alarm, noting that the WHO has seen “concerning incidents” of onward spreading among people with no history of travel to China, noting it “could be the spark that becomes a bigger fire.” We must watch closely to see if that translates into a changed WHO policy towards not only the China flights of Ethiopian Airlines.

1 note · View note

saxafimedianetwork · 5 years ago

Text

The Future of Ethiopia: Developmental State or Political Marketplace?

(more…)

View On WordPress

0 notes

arabfanon · 6 years ago

Link

Over more than a decade, the rise of the left in Latin American governance has led to remarkable advances in poverty alleviation, regional integration, and a reassertion of sovereignty and independence. The United States has been antagonistic toward the new left governments, and has concurrently pursued a bellicose foreign policy, in many cases blithely dismissive of international law.

2390

Jose M. Vivanco at Senate hearing in 2004. Photo by Jeremy Bigwood.So why has Human Rights Watch (HRW)—despite proclaiming itself “one of the world’s leading independent organizations” on human rights—so consistently paralleled U.S. positions and policies? This affinity for the U.S. government agenda is not limited to Latin America. In the summer of 2013, for example, when the prospect of a unilateral U.S. missile strike on Syria—a clear violation of the UN Charter—loomed large, HRW’s executive director Kenneth Roth speculated as to whether a simply “symbolic” bombing would be sufficient. “If Obama decides to strike Syria, will he settle for symbolism or do something that will help protect civilians?” he asked on Twitter. Executive director of MIT’s Center for International Studies John Tirman swiftly denounced the tweet as “possibly the most ignorant and irresponsible statement ever by a major human-rights advocate.”

HRW’s accommodation to U.S. policy has also extended to renditions—the illegal practice of kidnapping and transporting suspects around the planet to be interrogated and often tortured in allied countries. In early 2009, when it was reported that the newly elected Obama administration was leaving this program intact, HRW’s then Washington advocacy director Tom Malinowski argued that “under limited circumstances, there is a legitimate place” for renditions, and encouraged patience: “they want to design a system that doesn’t result in people being sent to foreign dungeons to be tortured,” he said, “but designing that system is going to take some time.”2

Similar consideration was not extended to de-facto U.S. enemy Venezuela, when, in 2012, HRW’s Americas director José Miguel Vivanco and global advocacy director Peggy Hicks wrote a letter to President Hugo Chávez arguing that his country was unfit to serve on the UN’s Human Rights Council. Councilmembers must uphold the highest standards in the promotion and protection of human rights, they maintained, but unfortunately, “Venezuela currently falls far short of acceptable standards.”3 Given HRW’s silence regarding U.S. membership in the same council, one wonders precisely what HRW’s acceptable standards are.

One underlying factor for HRW’s general conformity with U.S. policy was clarified on July 8, 2013, when Roth took to Twitter to congratulate his colleague Malinowski on his nomination to be Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor (DRL). Malinowski was poised to further human rights as a senior-level foreign-policy official for an administration that convenes weekly “Terror Tuesday” meetings. In these meetings, Obama and his staffers deliberate the meting out of extrajudicial drone assassinations around the planet, reportedly working from a secret “kill list” that has included several U.S. citizens and a 17-year-old girl.4

Malinowski’s entry into government was actually a re-entry. Prior to HRW, he had served as a speechwriter for Secretary of State Madeline Albright and for the White House’s National Security Council. He was also once a special assistant to President Bill Clinton—all of which he proudly listed in his HRW biography. During his Senate confirmation hearing on September 24, Malinowski promised to “deepen the bipartisan consensus for America’s defense of liberty around the world,” and assured the Foreign Relations Committee that no matter where the U.S. debate on Syria led, “the mere fact that we are having it marks our nation as exceptional.”5

That very day, Obama stood before the UN General Assembly and declared, “some may disagree, but I believe that America is exceptional.” Assuming that by “exceptional” Obama meant exceptionally benevolent, one of those who disagreed was Brazilian president Dilma Rousseff, who had opened the proceedings at the same podium by excoriating Obama’s “global network of electronic espionage,” which she considered a “disrespect to national sovereignty” and a “grave violation of human rights and of civil liberties.” Rousseff contrasted Washington’s rogue behavior with her characterization of Brazil as a country that has “lived in peace with our neighbors for more than 140 years.” Brazil and its neighbors, she argued, were “democratic, pacific and respectful of international law.”6 Rousseff’s speech crystallized Latin America’s broad opposition to U.S. exceptionalism, and therefore shed light on the left’s mutually antagonistic relationship with HRW.

Malinowski’s background is but one example of a larger scenario. HRW’s institutional culture is shaped by its leadership’s intimate links to various arms of the U.S. government. In her HRW biography, the vice chair of HRW’s board of directors, Susan Manilow, describes herself as “a longtime friend to Bill Clinton,” and helped manage his campaign finances. (HRW once signed a letter to Clinton advocating the prosecution of Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic for war crimes; HRW made no case for holding Clinton accountable for NATO’s civilian-killing bombings despite concluding that they constituted “violations of international humanitarian law.”)7 Bruce Rabb, also on Human Rights Watch’s Board of Directors, advertises in his biography that he “served as staff assistant to President Richard Nixon” from 1969-70—the period in which that administration secretly and illegally carpet bombed Cambodia and Laos.8

The advisory committee for HRW’s Americas Division has even boasted the presence of a former Central Intelligence Agency official, Miguel Díaz. According to his State Department biography, Díaz served as a CIA analyst and also provided “oversight of U.S. intelligence activities in Latin America” for the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.9 As of 2012, Díaz focused, as he once did for the CIA, on Central America for the State Department’s DRL—the same bureau now to be supervised by Malinowski.

Other HRW associates have similarly questionable backgrounds: Myles Frechette, currently an advisory committee member for the Americas Division, served as Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Latin America and the Caribbean from 1990-93, and then became U.S. Ambassador to Colombia from 1994-97. Frechette subsequently worked as the executive director of a “nonprofit” group called the North American-Peruvian Business Council, and championed the interests of his funders in front of Congress. His organization received financing from companies such as Newmont Mining, Barrick Gold, Caterpillar, Continental Airlines, J.P. Morgan, ExxonMobil, Patton Boggs, and Texaco.10

Michael Shifter, who also currently serves on HRW’s Americas advisory committee, directed the Latin America and Caribbean program for the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), a quasi-governmental entity whose former acting president Allen Weinstein told The Washington Post in 1991 that “a lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA.”11 Shifter, as current president of a policy center called the Inter-American Dialogue, oversees $4 million a year in programming, financed in part through donations from the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the embassies of Canada, Germany, Guatemala, Mexico and Spain, and corporations such as Chevron, ExxonMobil, J.P. Morgan, Microsoft, Coca-Cola, Boeing, and Western Union.

To be sure, not all of the organization’s leadership has been so involved in dubious political activities. Many HRW board members are simply investment bankers, like board co-chairs Joel Motley of Public Capital Advisors, LLC, and Hassan Elmasry, of Independent Franchise Partners, LLP. HRW Vice Chair John Studzinski is a senior managing director at The Blackstone Group, a private equity firm founded by Peter G. Peterson, the billionaire who has passionately sought to eviscerate Social Security and Medicare. And although Julien J. Studley, the Vice Chair of the Americas advisory committee, once served in the U.S. Army’s psychological warfare unit, he is now just another wealthy real-estate tycoon in New York.

That HRW’s advocacy reflects its institutional makeup is unremarkable. Indeed, an examination of its positions on Latin America demonstrates the group’s predictable, general conformity with U.S. interests. Consider, for example, HRW’s reaction to the death of Hugo Chávez. Within hours of his passing on March 5, 2013, HRW published an overview—“Venezuela: Chávez’s Authoritarian Legacy”—to enormous online response. In accordance with its headline’s misleading terminology, HRW never once mentioned Chávez’s democratic bona fides: Since 1998, he had triumphed in 14 of 15 elections or referenda, all of which were deemed free and fair by international monitors. Chávez’s most recent reelection boasted an 81% participation rate; former president Jimmy Carter described the voting process as “the best in the world.”12 The article neglected to cite a single positive aspect of Chávez’s tenure, under which poverty was slashed by half and infant mortality by a third.

In contrast, HRW’s August 21, 2012 statement regarding the death of Ethiopian leader Meles Zenawi was decidedly more muted: “Ethiopia: Transition Should Support Human Rights Reform,” read the headline. Leslie Lefkow, HRW’s deputy Africa director, urged the country’s new leadership to “reassure Ethiopians by building on Meles’s positive legacy while reversing his government’s most pernicious policies.” Regarding a leader whose two-decade rule had none of Chávez’s democratic legitimacy (HRW itself documented Ethiopia’s repressive and unfair elections in both 2005 and 2010), the organization argued only that “Meles leaves a mixed legacy on human rights.”13 Whereas HRW omitted all mention of Chávez-era social improvements, it wrote, “Under [Meles’s] leadership the country has experienced significant, albeit uneven, economic development and progress.”

The explanation for this discrepancy is obvious: as a New York Times obituary reported, Meles was “one of the United States government’s closest African allies.” Although “widely considered one of Africa’s most repressive governments,” wrote the Times, Ethiopia “continues to receive more than $800 million in American aid each year. American officials have said that the Ethiopian military and security services are among the Central Intelligence Agency’s favorite partners.”14

HRW has taken its double standard to cartoonish heights throughout Latin America. At a 2009 NED Democracy Award Roundtable, José Miguel Vivanco described Cuba, not the United States, as “one of our countries in the hemisphere that is perhaps the one that has today the worst human-rights record in the region.” As evidence, he listed Cuba’s “long- and short-term detentions with no due process, physical abuse [and] surveillance”—as though these were not commonplace U.S. practices, even (ironically) at Guantánamo Bay.15 Vivanco was also quoted in late 2013, claiming at an Inter-American Dialogue event that the “gravest setbacks to freedom of association and expression in Latin America have taken place in Ecuador”—not in Colombia, the world’s most dangerous country for trade union leaders, or in Honduras, the region’s deadliest country for journalists (both, incidentally, U.S. allies).16

Latin America scholars are sounding the alarm: New York University history professor Greg Grandin recently described HRW as “Washington’s adjunct” in The Nation magazine.17 And when Vivanco publicly stated that “we did [our 2008] report because we wanted to show the world that Venezuela is not a model for anyone,” over 100 academics wrote to the HRW’s directors, lamenting the “great loss to civil society when we can no longer trust a source such as Human Rights Watch to conduct an impartial investigation and draw conclusions based on verifiable facts.”18

HRW’s deep ties to U.S. corporate and state sectors should disqualify the institution from any public pretense of independence. Such a claim is indeed untenable given the U.S.-headquartered organization’s status as a revolving door for high-level governmental bureaucrats. Stripping itself of the “independent” label would allow HRW’s findings and advocacy to be more accurately evaluated, and its biases more clearly recognized.

In Latin America, there is a widespread awareness of Washington’s ability to deflect any outside attempts to constrain its prerogative to use violence and violate international law. The past three decades alone have seen U.S. military invasions of Grenada and Panama, a campaign of international terrorism against Nicaragua, and support for coup governments in countries such as Venezuela, Haiti, Honduras, and Guatemala. If HRW is to retain credibility in the region, it must begin to extricate itself from elite spheres of U.S. decision-making and abandon its institutional internalization of U.S. exceptionalism. Implementing a clear prohibition to retaining staff and advisers who have crafted or executed U.S. foreign policy would be an important first step. At the very least, HRW can institute lengthy “cooling-off” periods—say, five years in duration—before and after its associates move between the organization and the government.

After all, HRW’s Malinowski will be directly subordinate to Secretary of State John Kerry, who conveyed the U.S. attitude toward Latin America in a way that only an administrator of a superpower could. In an April 17, 2013 House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing, a member of Congress asked Kerry whether the United States should prioritize “the entire region as opposed to just focusing on one country, since they seem to be trying to work together closer than ever before.” Kerry reassured him of the administration’s global vision. “Look,” he said. “The Western Hemisphere is our backyard. It is critical to us.”19

#to read #article #human rights watch #amnesty international #ngos

4 notes · View notes