The Heart of the Beast

Secret report: biofuel caused food crisis

2008-07-27T21:51:00.000-07:00

Aditya Chakrabortty
The Guardian, Friday July 4 2008

Biofuels have forced global food prices up by 75% - far more than previously estimated - according to a confidential World Bank report obtained by the Guardian.

The damning unpublished assessment is based on the most detailed analysis of the crisis so far, carried out by an internationally-respected economist at global financial body.

The figure emphatically contradicts the US government's claims that plant-derived fuels contribute less than 3% to food-price rises. It will add to pressure on governments in Washington and across Europe, which have turned to plant-derived fuels to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and reduce their dependence on imported oil.

The use of crops to produce Bio-fuels is clearly a factor in soaring global food prices. Although this is the first report (from the World Bank no less) I’ve seen that indicates the significance of the relationship between Bio-fuels and increasing food prices.

Bio-fuels seem to be just another example of Capitalism’s focus on short term profit while ignoring more long term consequences such as sustainability and social costs. The conflict between the use of land resources to grow crops for fuel instead of human consumption was inevitable. Sadly the US and EU support of Bio-fuels for their self interests have impacted food prices and has had a disproportionately negative effect on poor developing nations.

Global South Leaders Agree: More Integration is Key

2008-07-10T15:06:00.000-07:00

BoRev.Net
July 8, 2008

Last week, two developing country organizations, Mercosur and the Non-Aligned Movement met in Latin America. Of course the US press largely ignored the many calls for third world unity coming from the reunions, except to paint Chavez as alone in his dislike of the reactivation of the US Navy's Fourth Fleet or in his condemnation of the EU's new anti-immigrant law. But a cursory glance at the Spanish language press reveals widespread backing of both views. Brazil's Lula, among others, is also concerned as to why the US intends to send a huge naval battalion to a "region at peace" (that is if you don't count Colombian airstrikes backed by the US). Lula believes it's a little more than a coincidence the 4th's reactivation occurred "now that we have discovered oil 300 kilometers from our coasts."

Other highlights from the meetings include:

- The Margarita Declaration, an agreement to create a Non-Aligned Movement information network between African, Asian, and Latin American countries.

- A proposal for OPEC, or some of its members to subsidize oil for the 50 poorest countries.

- A proposal for Venezuela to contribute $1 of every barrel of oil sold over for $100 towards an emergency food fund for Latin America.

- There were many other proposals, but overall, the theme was more 3rd world unity. Or as Cristina de Kirchner said, "integration" is the "new independence."

Pooling resources to benefit the Global South? Man this Chavez is such a d-bag.

Thoughts on Immigration

2008-07-10T13:50:00.000-07:00

Picture taken from ZNET

I could never be angry at someone immigrating in the hopes of providing themselves and their family with better standards of living. Why should I be so privileged simply because I was born here? Rarely do we think about why people immigrate in the first place. Recent waves of immigration like many in the past are primarily driven by inequalities in economic development. In other words conditions in the destination country are better than those of the native country, which of course is something immigrants have absolutely no control over. Capitalism has fueled and in fact thrives on this uneven development of nations. Whether or not you believe there are alternatives to Capitalism, that Capitalism can be reformed or that there is no alternative (TINA) doesn’t change this fact. Global Capitalism has created these conditions and until we acknowledge this there is no way we can adequately address the issue. We need international dialog not inhumane and ultimately ineffective state policies that fail to acknowledge the roots of immigration let alone address the economic conditions that bring about such migration to begin with. If increasing food prices continue to price large segments of the global population out of the market and as global warming brings about predicted climate change, developed nations are likely to see more immigration not less.

Fighting Food Fascism

2008-07-01T21:51:00.000-07:00

By ROGER BURBACH
Counter Punch

Like many third world countries Bolivia is experiencing food shortages and rising food prices attributable to a global food marketing system driven by multinational agribusiness corporations. With sixty percent of the Bolivian population living in poverty and thirty-three percent in extreme poverty, the price of the basic food canasta--including wheat, rice, corn, soy oil and potatoes, as well as meat—has risen twenty-five percent over the past year with prices gyrating wildly in the local markets.

As in most other countries affected by the food crisis, the overall rise in food prices is attributable to the workings of the free market—when the price of one or several commodities goes up, the consumers turn to other food stuffs, thereby driving up these prices as well. In an effort to halt the effects of this unregulated market, the government has enacted price controls and even prohibited the export of beef, most of which is produced on haciendas. But these measures have been largely ineffective: A black market flourishes as agrarian commercial interests openly flaunt the central government’s price controls, even directly exporting commodities like beef and cooking oil at higher prices to the neighboring countries of Chile and Peru.

This is taking place as Bolivia’s first Indian president, Evo Morales, is facing a sustained challenge by a right wing movement for autonomy that is integrally linked to the very agribusiness corporations that are profiting from the upsurge in food prices. Based in the eastern province of Santa Cruz, a powerful agrarian bourgeoisie is determined to upend the government’s agrarian reform program and to halt Morales’ efforts to more equitably distribute the wealth that flows from Bolivia’s oil and gas fields. Its ultimate goal is to topple Morales and the Movement Towards Socialism (MAS) that backs him

The Coup

2008-07-01T20:47:00.001-07:00

The Coup - We Are The Ones

The Coup - Ride The Fence

Haiti's food riots

2008-06-17T23:07:00.000-07:00

REPORTS AND ANALYSIS
ISR Issue 59, May–June 2008

MARK SCHULLER reports from Haiti

IN EARLY April, Haiti was gripped by a nationwide mobilization to protest high food prices, which reached a crescendo when people burned tires and blocked national highways and city streets in Port-au-Prince as thousands took to the streets. Clashes with police and UN troops resulted in an official count of five dead. A handful of individuals also looted stores.

Mainstream media coverage tells an all too familiar story of Haiti. The UN troops broke up a demonstration with rubber bullets, and the U.S. State Department responded by issuing a warning against its citizens entering the country. And almost as quickly as it appeared on the news, Haiti disappeared, leaving the residual image of being a hopeless, violent, and dangerous place.

As awful as the loss of life, property damage, and the resulting climate of fear are, it is at the very least explainable. To understand the situation we need to look at three levels of analysis, not simply turn our attention to the most visible, the individual “rioters.” In addition to the people, there are also the Haitian government and international community.

Afghanistan: Mirage of the Good War

2008-06-17T17:53:00.000-07:00

TARIQ ALI
New Left Review 50, March-April 2008

Rarely has there been such an enthusiastic display of international unity as that which greeted the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001. Support for the war was universal in the chanceries of the West, even before its aims and parameters had been declared. NATO governments rushed to assert themselves ‘all for one’. Blair jetted round the world, proselytizing the ‘doctrine of the international community’ and the opportunities for peace-keeping and nation-building in the Hindu Kush. Putin welcomed the extension of American bases along Russia’s southern borders. Every mainstream Western party endorsed the war; every media network—with BBC World and CNN in the lead—became its megaphone. For the German Greens, as for Laura Bush and Cherie Blair, it was a war for the liberation of the women of Afghanistan. For the White House, a fight for civilization. For Iran, the impending defeat of the Wahhabi enemy.

Three years later, as the chaos in Iraq deepened, Afghanistan became the ‘good war’ by comparison. It had been legitimized by the un—even if the resolution was not passed until after the bombs had finished falling—and backed by NATO. If tactical differences had sharpened over Iraq, they could be resolved in Afghanistan. First Zapatero, then Prodi, then Rudd, compensated for pulling troops out of Iraq by dispatching them to Kabul. France and Germany could extol their peace-keeping or civilizing roles there. As suicide bombings increased in Baghdad, Afghanistan was now—for American Democrats keen to prove their ‘security’ credentials—the ‘real front’ of the war on terror, supported by every US presidential candidate in the run-up to the 2008 elections, with SeNator Obama pressuring the White House to violate Pakistani sovereignty whenever necessary. With varying degrees of firmness, the occupation of Afghanistan was also supported by China, Iran and Russia; though in the case of the latter, there was always a strong element of Schadenfreude. Soviet veterans of the Afghan war were amazed to see their mistakes now being repeated by the United States in a war even more inhumane than its predecessor.

Barack Obama, Latin America and the "White Man’s Burden"

2008-06-14T11:55:00.000-07:00

The term the "White Man’s Burden" was coined in the title of a poem by Rudyard Kipling celebrating the superiority of western culture, and the responsibility, thus the "burden" of western nations to "civilize" non-white peoples presumed to be culturally and racially inferior. The poem was published in 1899 under the subtitle of "The United States and the Philippine Islands" and served to place a humanitarian face on the US violent exploitation of the Philippines.

While not as blatantly racist, today this mindset of superiority and obligation of the United States to intervene in the affairs of other nations in order to save a "lesser" people from themselves continues to remain part of the US government’s justification to pursue its interests in the name of humanitarian concerns.

The history of US intervention in Latin America demonstrates the emptiness of this supposedly humanitarian agenda. While the US rhetoric publicly championed the ideals of democracy and human rights, such ideals mean absolutely nothing when they stand in the path of US interests. Whether this means overthrowing democratically elected regimes as in the case of Chile, Guatemala and Haiti or the sponsorship of death squads and brutal regimes through out Latin America, the history makes clear where the US government’s priorities really lie.

Barack Obama may possibly be the very first US president of color. He has promised a departure from the US foreign policy on Latin America embraced by the Bush administration and the similarly militant policies supported by John McCain, but in reality is the very same policy with the familiar patronizing concern. In his speech to the Cuban American National Foundation, Obama made very clear his Americentric view of the world and his belief that US interests can be advanced in the region by preventing "lesser" people from behaving "foolishly".

According to Obama, in light of the Bush administration’s policies it is "no wonder, ... that demagogues like Hugo Chavez have stepped into this vacuum."

Obama would have us believe that it was the US government’s failure to act that resulted in people democratically electing leaders such as Hugo Chavez. Similarly Chavez’s unchecked influence is responsible for the powerful social movements in Bolivia which have lead to the election of Evo Morales and the rise of MAS. These social movements in Bolivia and other parts of Latin America have little to do with Chavez but instead are a reaction to unresponsive governments and bankrupt economic policies pushed on Latin America by the US and other developed nations through the IMF and World Bank.

Obama continued his tirade against Chavez and demonized him for his "anti-American rhetoric, authoritarian government, and checkbook diplomacy", the first two being the standard blanket criticisms the US likes to hurl at those that oppose it’s interests and the last can only be aimed at Chavez’s commitment to policy to reduce poverty and increase regional cooperation.

When it comes to the embargo on Cuba, which only serves to punish the Cuban population and for years has been condemned by the UN as a violation of international law, Obama states the embargo is "strong, smart and principled diplomacy" and that such hostility will inevitably "bring about real change in Cuba." This despite the fact that the embargo has not toppled the Cuban government as the US had hoped and can only serve to make progressive change in Cuba more difficult.

Obama means to remedy the Bush administration policies which have proved "incapable of advancing our interests in the region" while insisting that "the United States must be a relentless advocate for democracy." Predictably the two have often proved incompatible and when push comes to shove it is the US interests that have prevailed at the expense of the democratic freedoms and human rights of those we profess to care about.

When it comes to foreign policy in Latin America Obama offers nothing more than "The White Man’s Burden" mentality. It is this same mentality historically held among the US politically elite and that many Latin American nations have fallen victim to.

Other articles of Interest
Obama Is a Truly Democratic Expansionist - by John Pilger
Losing Latin America: What Will the Obama Doctrine Be Like? - by Greg Grandin
Obama and the US-Latin America Time Bomb - The Narco News Bulletin
Obama on Latin American Trade: Muddled and Confused - Council of on Hemispheric Affairs
Text of Barack Obama's Policy Speech to the Cuban American National Foundation

Land Reform and the Food Crisis

2008-06-12T00:09:00.000-07:00

Sections of this are partially adopted from a paper I wrote on Bolivia a few months back.

While the food subsidies held by the US and EU, whose institutions, the IMF and World Bank preach the virtues of the "free" markets to developing nations and use of crops for Bio-fuels are important contributors the Food Crisis. The need for land reform in developing countries is an important and necessary reform to fight hunger in these nations. Land ownership in developing nations is typically very concentrated among a small minority of the population, much of which is often sits idle.

Land re-distribution addresses economic capabilities and sustainability in a number of ways the most obvious being decreasing poverty by providing the poor with assets. The use of land can further improve conditions of the poor by providing opportunities to grow crops for sustenance or to be sold on the market. However economic policies that promote agriculture, particularly policies which targets small scale production are important determinants to the success of such land reforms. (Boyce, Rosset, and Stanton 2005) For example farmers may need access to credit or assistance to purchase necessary tools and equipment to cultivate crops. Government policy such as trade negotiations with other nations may help to provide small farmers with foreign markets to sell their crops.

Although small scale farming is generally less productive in terms of output per labor unit than larger scale farming, the circumstances in which reforms often take place is one where land is scare and labor abundant. In a number of ways small scale farming can be more productive in that small farmers tend to cultivate a larger percentage of their land, grow more crops per year given on a given amount of land, grow higher value crops and produce greater yields per acre. (Boyce, Rosset, and Stanton 2005) Additionally since often times the land being targeted by these policies is idle, redistribution increases agricultural output by placing ownership with people that often have greater incentive to cultivate and make use of the land.

Small scale farming may also be more environmental friendlier than larger scale production because of the labor intensive methods used depend less on chemical herbicides, pesticides and fertilizers, which may result in harmful toxins and degrade the quality of the soil compared to the use more organic methods whose use over time has proved to be successful and sustainable. Small scale farmers may also possess greater knowledge about the local environment such as weather, crop varieties, soil, insects and plant disease. Use of local crop varieties may encourage biodiversity since such seed varieties may be better adapted to various local conditions such as seasonal flooding or growing on hill side terrains. Small farmers may also have a greater incentive in sustainable farming out of concern of their economic livelihood as farmers and their ability to pass the land on to future generations.

References
Boyce, James K. Rosset, Peter. and Stanton, Elizabeth A. 2005. Land Reform and Sustainable Development. University of Massachusetts. Working Paper Series.

Additional articles of interest
Market Madness: How Speculators are Manipulating & Profiting from the Global Food Crisis
Manufacturing a Food Crisis
Historical Failure of the Capitalist Model Food Crisis - Part 1
Capitalism, Agribusiness and the Food Sovereignty Alternative Food Crisis - Part 2

BBC uncovers lost Iraq billions

2008-06-10T19:50:00.000-07:00

By Jane Corbin
BBC News
Tuesday, 10 June 2008

A BBC investigation estimates that around $23bn (£11.75bn) may have been lost, stolen or just not properly accounted for in Iraq.

For the first time, the extent to which some private contractors have profited from the conflict and rebuilding has been researched by the BBC's Panorama using US and Iraqi government sources.

A US gagging order is preventing discussion of the allegations.

The order applies to 70 court cases against some of the top US companies.

War profiteering

While George Bush remains in the White House, it is unlikely the gagging orders will be lifted.

To date, no major US contractor faces trial for fraud or mismanagement in Iraq.

The president's Democrat opponents are keeping up the pressure over war profiteering in Iraq.

Henry Waxman who chairs the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform said: "The money that's gone into waste, fraud and abuse under these contracts is just so outrageous, its egregious.

"It may well turn out to be the largest war profiteering in history."

In the run-up to the invasion one of the most senior officials in charge of procurement in the Pentagon objected to a contract potentially worth seven billion that was given to Halliburton, a Texan company, which used to be run by Dick Cheney before he became vice-president.

Unusually only Halliburton got to bid - and won.

Interview with Ilan Pappé and Noam Chomsky

2008-06-07T18:17:00.001-07:00

By FRANK BARAT
On the Future of Israel and Palestine
Counterpunch

Barat: Thanks for accepting this interview. Firstly I would like to ask if you are working on something at the moment that you would like to let us know about?

Ilan Pappé: I am completing several books. The first is a concise history of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, the other is on the Palestinian minority in Israel and one on the Arab Jews. I am completing an edited volume comparing the South Africa situation to that of Palestine

Noam Chomsky: The usual range of articles, talks, etc. No time for major projects right now.

Barat: A British M.P recently said that he had felt a change in the last 5 years regarding Israel. British M.Ps nowadays sign E.D.M (Early Day Motions) condemning Israel in bigger number than ever before and he told us that it was now easier to express criticism towards Israel even when talking on U.S campuses.

Also, in the last few weeks, John Dugard, independent investigator on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for the U.N Human Right Council said that "Palestinian terror 'inevitable' result of occupation", the European parliament adopted a resolution saying that "policy of isolation of the Gaza strip has failed at both the political and humanitarian level" and the U.N and the E.U have condemned Israel use of excessive and disproportionate force in the Gaza strip.

Could we interpret that as a general shift in attitude towards Israel?

Ilan Pappé: The two examples indicate a significant shift in public opinion and in the civil society. However, the problem remained what it had been in the last sixty years: these impulses and energies are not translated, and are not likely to be translated in the near future, into actual policies on the ground. And thus the only way of enhancing this transition from support from below to actual policies is by developing the idea of sanctions and boycott. This can give a clear orientation and direction to the many individuals and ngos that have shown for years solidarity with the Palestine cause.

Noam Chomsky: There has been a very clear shift in recent years. On US campuses and with general audiences as well. It was not long ago that police protection was a standard feature of talks at all critical of Israeli policies, meetings were broken up, audiences very hostile and abusive. By now it is sharply different, with scattered exceptions. Apologists for Israeli violence now tend often to be defensive and desperate, rather than arrogant and overbearing. But the critique of Israeli actions is thin, because the basic facts are systematically suppressed. That is particularly true of the decisive US role in barring diplomatic options, undermining democracy, and supporting Israel's systematic program of undermining the possibility for an eventual political settlement. But portrayal of the US as an "honest broker," somehow unable to pursue its benign objectives, is characteristic, not only in this domain.

Noam Chomsky interviewed by Gabriel Mathew Schivone

2008-06-07T18:01:00.001-07:00

United States of Insecurity
Monthly Review
May 2008

Gabriel Matthew Schivone: In a recent interview, Abdel Bari Atwan, author and editor of the London-based Arabic daily newspaper Al-Quds Al Arabi, said that President Bush is not ending terrorism nor is he weakening it, as he claims in one of his strongest assertions with regard to his so-called “War on Terror.” Rather al-Qaeda now has powerfully developed into more of an ideology than an organization. As Atwan describes it, al-Qaeda is expanding like Kentucky Fried Chicken, opening franchises all over the world. “That’s the problem,” he says. “The Americans are no safer. Their country is a fortress now, the United States of Security.” Is this accurate?

Noam Chomsky: Except for the last sentence, it’s accurate. There’s good reason to think that the United States is very vulnerable to terrorist attacks. That’s not my opinion, that’s the opinion of U.S. intelligence, of specialists of nuclear terror like Harvard professor Graham Allison, and former defense secretary Robert McNamara and others, who have warned that the probability of even a nuclear attack in the United States is not trivial. So, it’s not a fortress.

One of the things that Bush hasn’t been doing is improving security. So, for example, if you look at the government commission after 9/11, one of its recommendations—which is a natural one—is to improve security of the U.S.–Canadian border. I mean, if you look at that border, it’s very porous. You or I could walk across it somewhere with a suitcase holding components of a nuclear bomb. The Bush administration did not follow that recommendation. What it did instead was fortify the Mexican border, which was not regarded as a serious source of potential terrorism. They in fact slowed the rate of growth of border guards on the Canadian border.

But quite apart from that, the major part of Atwan’s comment is quite correct. Bush administration programs have not been designed to reduce terror. In fact, they’ve been designed in a way—as was anticipated by intelligence analysts and others—to increase terror.

The World Food Crisis Sources and Solutions

2008-06-07T17:45:00.001-07:00

by Fred Magdoff
Monthly Review
May 2008

An acute food crisis has struck the world in 2008. This is on top of a longer-term crisis of agriculture and food that has already left billions hungry and malnourished. In order to understand the full, dire implications of what is happening today it is necessary to look at the interaction between these short-term and long-term crises. Both crises arise primarily from the for-profit production of food, fiber, and now biofuels, and the rift between food and people that this inevitably generates.

'Routine' Hunger before the Current Crisis

Of the more than 6 billion people living in the world today, the United Nations estimates that close to 1 billion suffer from chronic hunger. But this number, which is only a crude estimate, leaves out those suffering from vitamin and nutrient deficiencies and other forms of malnutrition. The total number of food insecure people who are malnourished or lacking critical nutrients is probably closer to 3 billion—about half of humanity. The severity of this situation is made clear by the United Nations estimate of over a year ago that approximately 18,000 children die daily as a direct or indirect consequence of malnutrition (Associated Press, February 18, 2007).

Review: Haiti, Aristide and the Politics of Containment

2008-06-04T18:45:00.000-07:00

June, 02 2008 By Ben Terrall

Of all the illegal and dishonest misadventures that the Bush administration got away with, the least criticized of all might be the 2004 overthrow of Haiti's democratically- elected government.

Peter Hallward's new book is a welcome corrective to the false impressions and historical amnesia about Haiti afflicting most of the English-speaking world. Jonathan Kozol called it, "A brilliant politically sophisticated and morally infuriating work on a shameful piece of very recent history that the U.S. press has either distorted or ignored. The most important and devastating book I've read on American betrayal of democracy in one of the most tormented nations in the world."

Hallward, a UK-based philosophy professor, was teaching a course in 2003, which involved daily reading of Le Monde and other newspapers when he noted a systematic demon-ization of President Aristide and his Lavalas movement. He subsequently wrote one of the best articles about the 2004 coup ("Option Zero in Haiti," New Left Review 27, May-June 2004) shortly after it happened. Ever since, he seems to have been collecting information for a bill of indictment against the U.S., France, and Canada, the coup's principle backers. In the process he has also put together a damning critique of liberals and self-described radicals who either through intellectual laziness or lack of cross-class solidarity accepted Bush-approved PR on Haiti.

In his research, Hallward used mostly public sources. He appears to have read everything written about Haiti in the past ten years, as well as much earlier work. Interviews with principles—ranging from Aristide to several key coup players, and both pro- and anti-Aristide figures—buttress his scholarship. Hallward puts the country's recent violence in the context of 200 years of "great power" hostility toward Haitian sovereignty, beginning with the 1804 revolution, the only successful slave revolt in world history.

Hallward excels at showing the means by which Haiti's ultra-rich minority worked hand in glove with right-wingers in Washington and Paris to create a case for "regime change." After the first U.S.-backed coup against Aristide in 1991, when public opinion in the U.S. was still largely sympathetic to Lavalas, Hallward notes, "Jesse Helms spoke for much of the US political establishment when on 20 October 1993 he denounced Aristide as a ‘psychopath and grave human rights abuser.'" But "neither Helms nor anyone else could pin a single political killing on the 1991 [Aristide] administration. In the run up to the second coup, incomparably more insistent versions of the same charge would resurface at every turn."

Biofuel Land Demand Puts Peasants at Risk: Report

2008-06-02T11:22:00.000-07:00

Published on Monday, June 2, 2008 by Reuters

ROME - The rise of biofuels is not only adding to the global food price crisis but also poses a risk for peasants, pushed off their land to make way for energy crops, a report prepared for this week’s food summit said.

The use of food such as maize, palm oil and sugar to produce fuel has been blamed in part for record high commodity prices which are driving millions of people into hunger, and will be a key issue discussed by world leaders at the Rome summit.

Condemned as a “crime against humanity” last year by the then U.N. food rapporteur, Jean Ziegler, critics of biofuels say they divert nutrition away from mouths and into fuel tanks and compete for land that should be used to grow food.

Both the United States and the European Union have policies promoting the use of biofuels as alternatives as a way to reduce reliance on crude oil.

The report, published on Monday by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) that hosts the three-day summit from Tuesday, flagged up several social and environmental risks of biofuels, but said they were not the main cause of the food crisis.

“Recent hikes in world food prices have not been caused primarily by biofuels,” it said, listing the main reasons for the price hikes as poor harvests, low stocks and rising demand in Asia for food and fodder.

Co-written by the FAO and the London-based International Institute for Environment and Development and (IIED), the report, “Fuelling exclusion? The biofuels boom and poor people’s access to land”, said the biofuels boom was a major threat to millions of peasants.

Mentioned Report
High-Level Conference on World Food Security: The Challenges of Climate Change and Bioenergy

Iraq Death Toll ‘Above Highest Estimates’

2008-06-02T10:59:00.000-07:00

Published on Monday, June 2, 2008 by Inter Press Service
by Ahmed Ali and Dahr Jamail

BAQUBA - The real number of the dead is far higher than even the highest declared in death tolls, many Iraqis say.

A study by doctors from the Johns Hopkins School of Health in conjunction with Iraqi doctors from al-Mustanceriya University in Baghdad, published in the British medical journal The Lancet in October 2006, estimated the number of excess deaths as a result of the occupation at above 655,000.

Just Foreign Policy, an independent organisation “dedicated to reforming U.S. foreign policy” offered an updated total of 1,213,716 at the time of this writing.

On Sep. 14, 2007, Opinion Research Business (ORB), an independent polling agency located in London, produced a figure of 1,220,580 deaths as a result of the invasion.

These estimates are above any official figures from Iraq, but they do consider the reported official figures.

Iraqis believe that the authorities are hiding these figures. “The U.S. military benefits from hiding the real totals,” said a political analyst who declined to give his name because of the atmosphere of fear within Iraq. “And the Iraqi government is a puppet of the Americans, so their figures are ridiculously low as well.”

The New Smear Against Chávez

2008-06-01T15:51:00.000-07:00

June 01, 2008 By Chris Carlson
Source: Socialist Worker

WASHINGTON AND its faithful lackeys in the media have launched a new offensive against Hugo Chávez and the government of Venezuela. The recent "discovery" of a laptop computer that allegedly belonged to the FARC guerrilla group has ignited another media-generated scandal, creating a whole new round of accusations against the Chávez government, but without any evidence to support them.

Those who have followed events in Venezuela in recent years shouldn't be surprised by this. Every few months, a new controversy is ignited by the media regarding Venezuela's socialist president, Hugo Chávez; each time with plenty of distortions, baseless accusations and outright falsehoods.

Late last year, the media "show" centered on a proposed reform to the Venezuelan constitution. The mainstream media repeated endlessly that the constitutional reform would make Chávez "president for life" and would "turn Venezuela into a dictatorship."

In reality, the reform simply proposed the removal of presidential term limits--something that has also been in the works in neighboring Colombia, where it has gotten absolutely zero criticism from the mainstream media. The reason? Colombian President Alvaro Uribe is Washington's closest ally in the region.

Additional Links
Colombia: More Doubts on Interpol’s Laptop Findings
The War Machine: Or How to Manipulate Reality
Interol's Forensic Report on FARC Computers and Hardware Seized by Columbia

The Buying of "Democracy" Agents in Cuba

2008-05-31T13:37:00.000-07:00

Counterpunch
By NELSON P. VALDÉS

"The populace may hiss me, but when I go home and think of my money, I applaud myself. "

Horace (c. 25 BC)

"Unequal exchange, as practiced by the conquerors with the natives purchasing gold with mirrors, marbles and European trinkets, must cease."

Fidel Castro, 1998

In fiscal year 2008-2009 the United States government has budgeted $45,000,000 to finance the opposition against the revolutionary government in Cuba. The money is used to fund rightwing exile organizations, eastern European rightwing politicians involved with Cuba and money oriented "civil society" promoters. Some of the money ends up in Cuba. The details of such counterrevolutionary program is little known by the world. The Cubans within the island who receive the so-called "assistance" claim to be involved in promoting "civil society" and "democracy." They maintain that what they are doing is not subversive. The official line from the United States government is that the money it supplies has a humanitarian intent. The recipients, however, are agents of a foreign power if we follow US law definitions. [1] It is unknown how much money the United States government is really spending to bring an end to the revolutionary government in Havana. [2]

Can the Whole World be Fed?

2008-05-31T13:31:00.000-07:00

Counterpunch
By ELIZABETH SCHULTE

The depth of the global food crisis is best expressed by what poor people are eating to survive.

In Burundi, it is farine noir, a mixture of black flour and moldy cassava. In Somalia, a thin gruel made from mashed thorn-tree branches called jerrin. In Haiti, it is a biscuit made of yellow dirt. Food inflation has sparked protests in Egypt, Haiti, Mexico and elsewhere. Tens of thousands protested earlier this month in Mogadishu, as the price of a corn meal rose twofold in four months.

And while the crisis seemed to come out of nowhere, the reality of hunger is a regular feature of life for millions of people. The United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimates that 854 million people worldwide are undernourished.

Hunger isn't simply the result of unpredictable incidents like the cyclone that struck Myanmar. In most cases, millions teeter on the edge of survival long before the natural disasters hit. According to UN Millennium Project Web site, of the 300 million children who go to bed hungry every day, only "8 percent are victims of famine or other emergency situations. More than 90 percent are suffering long-term malnourishment and micronutrient deficiency."