The Largest Minority

January 14th, 2010 by Manila Ryce

We at the ANSWER Coalition extend our heartfelt solidarity to all of our Haitian sisters and brothers, as well as to all those who have friends and family there, as Haiti copes with the destruction and grief of the massive 7.0 magnitude earthquake that struck yesterday.

All of us are joining in the outpouring of solidarity from people all over the hemisphere and world who are sending humanitarian aid and assistance to the people of Haiti.

At such a moment, it is also important to put this catastrophe into a political and social context. Without this context, it is impossible to understand both the monumental problems facing Haiti and, most importantly, the solutions that can allow Haiti to survive and thrive. Hillary Clinton said today, “It is biblical, the tragedy that continues to daunt Haiti and the Haitian people.” This hypocritical statement that blames Haiti’s suffering exclusively on an “act of God” masks the role of U.S. and French imperialism in the region.

In this email message, we have included some background information about Haiti that helps establish the real context:

Haitian Prime Minister Jean-Max Bellerive stated today that as many as 100,000 Haitians may be dead. International media is reporting bodies being piled along streets surrounded by the rubble from thousands of collapsed buildings. Estimates of the economic damage are in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Haiti’s large shantytown population was particularly hard hit by the tragedy.

As CNN, ABC and every other major corporate media outlet will be quick to point out, Haiti is the poorest country in the entire Western hemisphere. But not a single word is uttered as to why Haiti is poor. Poverty, unlike earthquakes, is no natural disaster.

The answer lies in more than two centuries of U.S. hostility to the island nation, whose hard-won independence from the French was only the beginning of its struggle for liberation.

In 1804, what had begun as a slave uprising more than a decade earlier culminated in freedom from the grips of French colonialism, making Haiti the first Latin American colony to win its independence and the world’s first Black republic. Prior to the victory of the Haitian people, George Washington and then-Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson had supported France out of fear that Haiti would inspire uprisings among the U.S. slave population. The U.S. slave-owning aristocracy was horrified at Haiti’s newly earned freedom.

U.S. interference became an integral part of Haitian history, culminating in a direct military occupation from 1915 to 1934. Through economic and military intervention, Haiti was subjugated as U.S. capital developed a railroad and acquired plantations. In a gesture of colonial arrogance, Franklin D. Roosevelt, who was the assistant secretary of the Navy at the time, drafted a constitution for Haiti which, among other things, allowed foreigners to own land. U.S. officials would later find an accommodation with the dictator François “Papa Doc” Duvalier, and then his son Jean-Claude “Baby Doc” Duvalier, as Haiti suffered under their brutal repressive policies.

In the 1980s and 1990s, U.S. policy toward Haiti sought the reorganization of the Haitian economy to better serve the interests of foreign capital. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) was instrumental in shifting Haitian agriculture away from grain production, paving the way for dependence on food imports. Ruined Haitian farmers flocked to the cities in search of a livelihood, resulting in the swelling of the precarious shantytowns found in Port-au-Prince and other urban centers.

Who has benefited from these policies? U.S. food producers profited from increased exports to Haitian markets. Foreign corporations that had set up shop in Haitian cities benefitted from the super-exploitation of cheap labor flowing from the countryside. But for the people of Haiti, there was only greater misery and destitution.

Washington orchestrated the overthrow of the democratically elected Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide—not once, but twice, in 1991 and 2004. Haiti has been under a U.S.-backed U.N. occupation for nearly six years. Aristide did not earn the animosity of U.S. leaders for his moderate reforms; he earned it when he garnered support among Haiti’s poor, which crystallized into a mass popular movement. Two hundred years on, U.S. officials are still horrified by the prospect of a truly independent Haiti.

The unstable, makeshift dwellings imposed upon Haitians by Washington’s neoliberal policies have now, for many, been turned into graves. Those same policies are to blame for the lack of hospitals, ambulances, fire trucks, rescue equipment, food and medicine. The blow dealt by such a natural disaster to an economy made so fragile from decades of plundering will greatly magnify the suffering of the Haitian people.

Natural disasters are inevitable, but resource allocation and planning can play a decisive role in mitigating their impact and dealing with the aftermath. Haiti and neighboring Cuba, who are no strangers to violent tropical storms, were both hit hard in 2008 by a series of hurricanes—which, unlike earthquakes, are predictable. While more than 800 lives were lost in Haiti, less than 10 people died in Cuba. Unlike Haiti, Cuba had a coordinated evacuation plan and post-hurricane rescue efforts that were centrally planned by the Cuban government. This was only possible because Cuban society is not organized according to the needs of foreign capital, but rather according to the needs of the Cuban people.

In a televised speech earlier today, President Obama has announced that USAID and the Departments of State and Defense will be working to support the rescue and relief efforts in Haiti in the coming days. Ironically, these are the same government entities responsible for the implementation of the economic and military policies that reduced Haiti to ruins even before the earthquake hit.

On March 20, thousands of people will march in Los Angeles to to oppose the wars and occupations in Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine. Tens of thousands more will march in Washington, D.C. and San Francisco at the same time. We will also demand an end the foreign occupation of Haiti and reparations to Haiti for the vast wealth that has been looted from the country by foreign imperialist countries.

September 25th, 2009 by Manila Ryce

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Stephen Colbert has giant brass balls. Can we all agree that by now the Right has left no doubt to anyone that they are unabashedly racist?

I sympathize with people whose legitimate criticisms of President Obama are derided as racist, just as my criticisms of Israel have been derided as anti-Semitic. Still, it is important to draw a distinction between opposition from the Left and opposition from the Right. The arguments coming from the Right are simply not legitimate. They’re more like temper tantrums from angry and irrational children.

For example, calling Obama a Socialist (as if that’s a bad thing) is more than just hilariously inaccurate. It’s seeded in the deep fear that black people steal from hard-working white Americans. The president has done nothing to indicate he’s anything more than a corporate capitalist, yet the Right immediately links a black man to Socialism because they think both are synonymous with theft. That is the base of their “criticism”, and it really ought to be called out for what it is.

h/t RaceWire

September 11th, 2009 by Manila Ryce

Remember when Obama denounced Iran’s suppression of free speech? We’re doing the same for the G20.

Attorneys Call Denial of Permits to Activist Groups Bogus

PITTSBURGH, PA - September 11 - Today, the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) and the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania (ACLU-PA) filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on behalf of groups seeking to hold peaceful demonstrations in downtown Pittsburgh where the Group of 20 summit (G-20) will take place later this month. The complaint charges the U.S. Secret Service, the Department of Homeland Security, the City of Pittsburgh and the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources with violating the groups’ constitutional rights to free speech.

The plaintiffs include: CODEPINK; Pittsburgh Women For Peace; 3 Rivers Climate Convergence; Thomas Merton Center; Pittsburgh Outdoor Artists; Bail Out The People and G-6 Billion. The complaint was filed after repeated efforts to negotiate with the city regarding the permits.

“The City is unjustified in denying permits to these peaceful protestors,” said CCR Vice President Jules Lobel. “We hope the court will uphold and protect the core American values of free speech and the right to dissent.”

“Despite working in good faith for weeks to resolve G-20 demonstration permits with the City of Pittsburgh and federal officials, demonstration organizers can wait no longer and will now pursue permit remedies in Federal Court,” said ACLU-PA Legal Director Witold “Vic” Walczak.

“This is a struggle for our First Amendment rights,” said Francine Porter, CODEPINK Pittsburgh Coordinator. “Refusing these permits takes away our right to educate the public about the G-20 agenda and how it relates to war, war funding and war’s impact across the globe on mostly women and children.”

“The G-20 is gathering in the midst of a worldwide economic crisis,” said Molly Rush, co-founder of the Thomas Merton Center in Pittsburgh. “Unrestrained profit-making by financial institutions and the deregulation and privatization of public resources have led to disaster for the vast majority of the world’s people. Yet the people lack a voice in the proceedings.”

The complaint alleges violations of the Constitution based on the following actions by the defendants: 1) refusal to issue permits to demonstrators for the use of Point State Park during the week of the G-20; 2) failure to issue permits for First-Amendment-protected activities in Pittsburgh’s downtown; 3) refusal to issue a permit for a march by the Thomas Merton Center within a reasonable distance from the Convention Center on one day during the summit; and 4) refusal to allow demonstrators permission to stay overnight in several Pittsburgh parks.

To read the full complaint, click here.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, membership organization dedicated to defending and expanding individual rights and personal freedoms throughout the entire state of Pennsylvania. Visit www.aclupa.org.

###

The Center for Constitutional Rights is dedicated to advancing and protecting the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Founded in 1966 by attorneys who represented civil rights movements in the South, CCR is a non-profit legal and educational organization committed to the creative use of law as a positive force for social change.

source

August 27th, 2009 by Manila Ryce

We know that single payer works, and is the only option that ever has. Way back in 1948 the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which declares that health care is a human right. Profit can not play any role in deciding who is afforded that right. So why are hardly any Democratic representatives or their constituents pushing for a single payer system?

Any American liberal that accepts anything less than a single payer system is not a true liberal, period. Poor people are dying because liberals of privilege continue to capitulate to big money. The real problem with America is not its crazy Right, but its cowardly Left which never achieves anything truly progressive for the masses. They are complicit in the continued violation of the human right to health in the United States.

July 11th, 2009 by Manila Ryce

Anyone still believing in the virtues of capitalism must have a blind eye towards the environmental devastation and human rights violations occurring in the Third World. With the unchecked power of business, health and prosperity are no longer inalienable rights, but commodities only the bourgeoisie can afford.

In 1993, a class action lawsuit was filed against Chevron in New York on behalf of roughly 30,000 indigenous Amazon residents for polluting their environment. The oil giant succeeded in having US courts send the case to be heard in Ecuador, where it has been re-filed.

In the event that Chevron should lose the case, it has filled a claim with the American Arbitration Association to have Petroecuador, a state-owned Ecuadorian oil company, take on any clean up costs and legal fees. The Ecuadorian Government has been successful in temporarily suspending those arbitration proceedings with New York’s Supreme Court.

June 26th, 2009 by Manila Ryce

President Rafael Correa of Ecuador is unlike career politicians in the United States. He actually sees his job as not an end in itself but as a means to accomplish social justice. Correa is also an economist who was educated in the US and has displayed his Chavez-sized balls by rejecting his nation’s national debt as illegitimate and pledging to fight creditors in international courts. Democrats, take note. This is what an actual liberal looks and sounds like.

The president of Ecuador has criticised capitalism for its role in the global financial crisis, in a speech to delegates attending a United Nations conference on the state of the world economy.

Raphael Correa also suggested on Thursday that the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, two bodies within the group of so-called Bretton Woods institutions, be dismantled.

“Patching up the Bretton Woods system, which we do not control, makes no sense for [developing] countries,” Correa said on the second day of the summit at the UN General Assembly in New York.

Making changes to the IMF and World Bank “would be an insufficient stop-gap solution,” he said.

“We are faced with a crisis unlike those [previously] provoked by capitalism.”

If the Bretton Woods bodies, which were set up in the aftermath of World War II, cannot be abolished they should at least hold less power over the world’s poor countries, Correa said.

Decisions on how to manage the global economy should instead be transferred to the United Nations, he said.

The three-day UN Conference on the World Financial and Economic Crisis is being attended by 140 developing nations, with most of them calling for changes to be made to the global economic system.

Scores of countries attending the conference have argued that the global downturn is due to reckless economic liberalisation and de-regulation of financial systems by Western nations.

But not a single representative of a developed country is attending the summit, highlighting the divide between richer and poorer nations on how the global financial system should be managed.

“We are now dealing with the consequences of excluding the majority from the decision-making process, but it is the majority that has to pay the worst consequences and the worst price for the errors made by - I’m sorry to say it - a greedy minority,” Miguel D’Escoto, the president of the UN General Assembly, told Al Jazeera.

read full article

June 9th, 2009 by Guest

A CNN headline, reporting Obama’s plans for his June 4 Cairo address, reads “Obama looks to reach the soul of the Muslim world.” Perhaps that captures his intent, but more significant is the content hidden in the rhetorical stance, or more accurately, omitted.

Keeping just to Israel-Palestine — there was nothing substantive about anything else — Obama called on Arabs and Israelis not to ‘point fingers’ at each other or to “see this conflict only from one side or the other.” There is, however, a third side, that of the United States, which has played a decisive role in sustaining the current conflict. Obama gave no indication that its role should change or even be considered.

Those familiar with the history will rationally conclude, then, that Obama will continue in the path of unilateral U.S. rejectionism.

Obama once again praised the Arab Peace Initiative, saying only that Arabs should see it as “an important beginning, but not the end of their responsibilities.” How should the Obama administration see it? Obama and his advisers are surely aware that the Initiative reiterates the long-standing international consensus calling for a two-state settlement on the international (pre-June ‘67) border, perhaps with “minor and mutual modifications,” to borrow U.S. government usage before it departed sharply from world opinion in the 1970s, vetoing a Security Council resolution backed by the Arab “confrontation states” (Egypt, Iran, Syria), and tacitly by the PLO, with the same essential content as the Arab Peace Initiative except that the latter goes beyond by calling on Arab states to normalize relations with Israel in the context of this political settlement. Obama has called on the Arab states to proceed with normalization, studiously ignoring, however, the crucial political settlement that is its precondition. The Initiative cannot be a “beginning” if the U.S. continues to refuse to accept its core principles, even to acknowledge them.

In the background is the Obama administration’s goal, enunciated most clearly by Senator John Kerry, chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, to forge an alliance of Israel and the “moderate” Arab states against Iran. The term “moderate” has nothing to do with the character of the state, but rather signals its willingness to conform to U.S. demands.

What is Israel to do in return for Arab steps to normalize relations? The strongest position so far enunciated by the Obama administration is that Israel should conform to Phase I of the 2003 Road Map, which states: “Israel freezes all settlement activity (including natural growth of settlements).” All sides claim to accept the Road Map, overlooking the fact that Israel instantly added 14 reservations that render it inoperable.

Read the rest of this entry »

May 26th, 2009 by Guest

Socialism is better than capitalism. So say 20 percent of Americans, and another 27 percent say they can’t say which is better, according to an April 9 Rasmussen poll.

There’s hope.

When you consider that virtually no newspaper, broadcaster, well-funded think tank, teacher, or anybody’s boss or commander ever said something nice about socialism, it’s remarkable that only 53 percent of us still favor rule by the moneyed class. Perhaps folks are learning how capitalism sacrifices happiness for individual gain.

As Billy Bragg exhorts us in his update of the socialist anthem “The Internationale”: “Stand up, all victims of oppression/for tyrants fear your might/Don’t cling so hard to your possessions/For you have nothing if you have no rights.”

No less a “capitalist tool” than Forbes Magazine let a red cat out of the bag with a report this month that the happiest countries tend to be Scandinavian socialist democracies. High per-capita GDP certainly plays a role in their felicity, but even social democratic New Zealand, with per-capita GDP only 64 percent of the United States’, ranks with the 10 democracies above us in the happiness index. They pay high taxes in these pinkotopias, but folks enjoy entitlements like free college, extensive elder care, and 52-week paid maternity leave.

The 2005 poll measured personal reports of enjoyment, pride in achievement and learning, being respected, among other things. Forbes suggests that such happiness derives from family, social and community networks, and a decent work-life balance, noting that the average workweek in Scandinavia is 37 hours.

Nice dream, but how do we get there? Most of these countries dumped capitalist exploitation long ago and instituted mixed economies with socialist ideals. More contemporary models are the 11 Latin America countries pursuing “Socialism in the 21st Century.” They too reject top-down Leninism for a system based on participatory democracy and solidarity.

In Ecuador, a land I have studied and worked in, a broad coalition of indigenous, environmentalists, trade unions, professional organizations, feminists, gay activists, left parties, and students laid the groundwork for transformation. They just re-elected Rafael Correa, their leftist standard-bearer, as president. They fought racism, oligarchs, oil companies, and corrupt politicians for decades.

Read the rest of this entry »