“The results of philanthropy are always beyond calculation.”

If you’re looking for an in-depth informative read this morning you could do little better than not to bother with the Sundays and read yesterday’s LA Times investigative article on Bill Gates’ essentially sham philanthropy.

It lays out in devastatingly thorough terms the way the Gates’ Foundation charitable giving is funded by billions invested in the very drug companies and energy industries whose effects in Africa his much-publicised charity spends so much on visibly treating.

The reporters give chapter and verse on Gates Foundation investments in companies like BP and Royal Dutch Shell, happily polluting away virtually unrestricted in Nigeria, and drug manufacturer Abbott, whose lobbying of industry-friendly intellectual property rights law has priced many AIDS drugs out of the reach of the very sufferers the Foundation aspires to help.

Dark cloud over good works of Gates Foundation

By Charles Piller, Edmund Sanders and Robyn Dixon, Times Staff Writers

January 7, 2007

Ebocha, Nigeria ? JUSTICE Eta, 14 months old, held out his tiny thumb..

An ink spot certified that he had been immunized against polio and measles, thanks to a vaccination drive supported by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

But polio is not the only threat Justice faces. Almost since birth, he has had respiratory trouble. His neighbors call it “the cough.” People blame fumes and soot spewing from flames that tower 300 feet into the air over a nearby oil plant. It is owned by the Italian petroleum giant Eni, whose investors include the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Justice squirmed in his mother’s arms. His face was beaded with sweat caused either by illness or by heat from the flames that illuminate Ebocha day and night. Ebocha means “city of lights.”

The makeshift clinic at a church where Justice Eta was vaccinated and the flares spewing over Ebocha represent a head-on conflict for the Gates Foundation. In a contradiction between its grants and its endowment holdings, a Times investigation has found, the foundation reaps vast financial gains every year from investments that contravene its good works.

In Ebocha, where Justice lives, Dr. Elekwachi Okey, a local physician, says hundreds of flares at oil plants in the Niger Delta have caused an epidemic of bronchitis in adults, and asthma and blurred vision in children. No definitive studies have documented the health effects, but many of the 250 toxic chemicals in the fumes and soot have long been linked to respiratory disease and cancer.

“We’re all smokers here,” Okey said, “but not with cigarettes.”

The oil plants in the region surrounding Ebocha find it cheaper to burn nearly 1 billion cubic feet of gas each day and contribute to global warming than to sell it. They deny the flaring causes sickness. Under pressure from activists, however, Nigeria’s high court set a deadline to end flaring by May 2007. The gases would be injected back underground, or trucked and piped out for sale. But authorities expect the flares to burn for years beyond the deadline.

The Gates Foundation has poured $218 million into polio and measles immunization and research worldwide, including in the Niger Delta. At the same time that the foundation is funding inoculations to protect health, The Times found, it has invested $423 million in Eni, Royal Dutch Shell, Exxon Mobil Corp., Chevron Corp. and Total of France ? the companies responsible for most of the flares blanketing the delta with pollution, beyond anything permitted in the United States or Europe.

Gates’ charitable vehicles own so much stock in these companies that by socially responsible proxy voting in shareholders meetings the Foundation could have a significant effect on companies’ policies – if they chose to – which would tackle some of the health issues they champion at source. But they don’t choose to, because that would not be good for the markets or for Microsoft.

It’s fashionable these days, (and I’m as guilty as the next blogger) to decry the major papers as festering backwaters of old media, but every now and then there are still twitches of life and good reporting gets a prominent position.

That despite its own troubles balancing the conflicting demands of capital and news reporting, the LA Times is willing to take on Gates and Microsoft, the oil industry giants and the pharmaceuticals to show the public exactly what their respected household names are doing to the world has to be a good thing.

Read more: Media, Politics, Development, Charities, Investment Social Responsibility, Bill Gates, Microsoft

Unfair & Unbalanced

Whilst we’re on the subject of nasty attacks on prominent women, Fox News has referred to US antiwar activist Cindy Sheehan (who let us not forget, lost her son to the Bush Iraq disaster that the Fox channel pushed for so desperately) as “The Infamous Cindy Sheehan” .

Even from the abyssal depths of an umpty-years-old law degree I’d call that actively defamatory.

Infamous:

  • Having an exceedingly bad reputation; notorious.
  • Causing or deserving infamy; heinous: an infamous deed.
  • Law.
    • Punishable by severe measures, such as death, long imprisonment, or loss of civil rights.
    • Convicted of a crime, such as treason or felony, that carries such a punishment.

infamous adjective

Known widely and unfavorably: common, notorious. See knowledge/ignorance. So objectionable as to elicit despisal or deserve condemnation: abhorrent, abominable, antipathetic, contemptible, despicable, despisable, detestable, disgusting, filthy, foul, loathsome, lousy, low, mean2, nasty, nefarious, obnoxious, odious, repugnant, rotten, shabby, vile, wretched. See good/bad.

I think we can be reasonably sure that word was not chosen by accident. How long before it becmes a regular appendage to Sheehan’s name on rightwing media outlets?

Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News is also available in the UK, where libel laws are notoriously easier to negotiate than in the US.

Is there an ambitious young legal team somewhere who’d like, given Sheehan’s permission, to take Fox to court for libel and a peace-loving billionaire who’d like to fund them? It could make the lawyers’ career, a la the McLibel trial, and the philanthropist would have the eternal gratitude of the world’s population for giving media megalomaniac Murdoch a big poke in the eye with a sharp stick.

Read more: US media, Fox News, UK courts, Defamation, Cindy Sheehan

And You Thought Condi Was Bad Enough…

Yahoo News is reporting that John “Death Squad’ Negroponte is to become No 2 at the US State department, directly deputising for Condoleeza Rice.

I simply cannot wait for the confirmation hearings, with a newly sworn-in Democratic majority in Congress. Finally they’ll have an opportunity – with subpoena power – to take the lid off Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney & Negroponte’s Iraq death squad initiative, if they only choose to take it.

Do you think they’ll bring up Negroponte’s time in Honduras this time?

During the Reagan administration, and while Negroponte was ambassador to the country, “Contra” militias were trained in Honduras. The Contras had hitherto made relatively small attacks across the border into Nicaragua until in 1982 thousands of marines arrived with up to 200 military advisers — airstrips were built, arms supplied and radar stations erected, all courtesy of the US taxpayer.

The Contras were trained in some of the most gruesome guerrilla war techniques. Some were trained by military officers from Argentina’s dirty war who knew nothing about the jungle but plenty about torture and execution. Others were trained in Florida and California while many others, like Honduras’ military dictator, General Gustavo Alvarez Martinez, were educated in torture techniques, execution and combat at the School of the Americas in Fort Benning, Georgia. While it was purported by Reagan that the Contras were fighting the evil scourge of communism, referring to them as “freedom fighters,” the Contras raped, tortured and terrorised the civilian population throughout the subsequent decade, leaving the destroying the civilian infrastructure, leaving tens of thousands dead and many more displaced.

Negroponte’s role in Honduras was crucial as it meant maintaining US dominance in the region. Jeane Kirkpatrick, Negroponte’s predecessor at the UN once declared that “Central America is the most important place in the world for the United States today.” Maintaining political control of the region meant controlling its vast and rich natural resources. The Sandinistas were beginning to take matters into their own hands and started to redistribute wealth and land in Nicaragua, thus threatening US dominance in the region. Panic in the Reagan administration reached feverish and sometimes surreal levels, with the president declaring that the Sandinistas were on the verge of invading the United States. The real cause for alarm among Reaganite neo-conservatives (including the virulent anti-communist Negroponte) was that the Sandinista revolution would spread throughout El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala. It had nothing to do with communism, just as the invasion of Iraq has nothing to do with preventing terrorism. More, it was that the economic system the US had maintained in Central America since 1945 was falling apart — it was simply untenable for the impoverished masses who barely had enough to eat. Washington’s solution, like its present incarnation in the Middle East, was one of force and overwhelming military power in order to maintain US hegemony. Just as Negroponte acted as the strong arm of US imperialism in Central America in the 1980s he will protect US business and political interests in the Middle East, now the “most important place in the world for the United States today.”

So what about his sterling work in Iraq? Will the confirmation hearings consider that? Let’s hope so:

El Salvador-style ‘death squads’ to be deployed by US against Iraq militants

From Roland Watson in Washington

John Negroponte was in Honduras when American money was used to train Contras to fight Nicaragua’s Sandinista regime. (AL-RAYA/AP)

THE Pentagon is considering forming hit squads of Kurdish and Shia fighters to target leaders of the Iraqi insurgency in a strategic shift borrowed from the American struggle against left-wing guerrillas in Central America 20 years ago.

Under the so-called “El Salvador option”, Iraqi and American forces would be sent to kill or kidnap insurgency leaders, even in Syria, where some are thought to shelter.

The plans are reported in this week’s Newsweek magazine as part of Pentagon efforts to get US forces in Iraq on to the front foot against an enemy that is apparently getting the better of them.

Iyad Allawi, the interim Iraqi Prime Minister, was said to be one of the most vigorous supporters of the plan.

The Pentagon declined to comment, but one insider told Newsweek: “What everyone agrees is that we can’t just go on as we are. We have to find a way to take the offensive against the insurgents. Right now, we are playing defence. And we are losing.”

Hit squads would be controversial and would probably be kept secret.

The experience of the so-called “death squads” in Central America remains raw for many even now and helped to sully the image of the United States in the region.

Then, the Reagan Administration funded and trained teams of nationalist forces to neutralise Salvadorean rebel leaders and sympathisers. Supporters credit the policy with calming the insurgency, although it left a bitter legacy and stirred anti-American sentiment.

John Negroponte, the US Ambassador in Baghdad, had a front-row seat at the time as Ambassador to Honduras from 1981-85.

Death squads were a brutal feature of Latin American politics of the time. In Argentina in the 1970s and Guatemala in the 1980s, soldiers wore uniform by day but used unmarked cars by night to kidnap and kill those hostile to the regime or their suspected sympathisers.

[….]

The thrust of the Pentagon proposal in Iraq, according to Newsweek, is to follow that model and direct US special forces teams to advise, support and train Kurdish Peshmerga fighters and Shia militiamen to target leaders of the Sunni insurgency.

It is unclear whether the main aim of the missions would be to assassinate the rebels or kidnap them and take them away for interrogation. Any mission in Syria would probably be undertaken by US Special Forces.

Nor is it clear who would take responsibility for such a programme — the Pentagon or the Central Intelligence Agency. Such covert operations have traditionally been run by the CIA at arm’s length from the administration in power, giving US officials the ability to deny knowledge of it.

Will they ask Negroponte about the Wolf Brigade, I wonder?

The very existence of the Wolf Brigade underscores the criminality of the US occupation and the utter fraud of the Bush administration claims to be bringing “liberation” and “democracy” to Iraq. Many of the commandos would have been involved in murder and torture on behalf of Saddam Hussein’s regime. The American military deliberately recruited them in order to make use of their experience in mass repression and has directly modeled their operations on those of right-wing death squads in Central America.

The main US advisor to the Wolf Brigade from the time of its formation until April 2005 was James Steele. Steele’s own biography, promoting him for the US lecture circuit, states that “he commanded the US military group in El Salvador during the height of the guerilla war” and “was credited with training and equipping what was acknowledged to be the best counter-terrorist force in the region”. In a 12-year campaign of murder and repression, the Salvadoran units, trained and advised by people like Steele, killed over 70,000 people.

Media outlets like the WaPo can gloss the death squads over as

…how Iraqi Interior Ministry commando and police units have been infiltrated by two Shiite militias, which have been conducting ethnic cleansing and rounding up Sunnis suspected of supporting the insurgency.

But the ‘Salvador Option’ was deliberate US policy in Iraq, just as in Central America: that the psychopaths recruited, licensed and trained by Negroponte and his aides have now gone totally feral and out of US control in no way negates that original responsibility.

Of the memories of death and mutilation I witnessed in El Salvador, the sight of six Jesuit priests, their cook and her 16-year-old daughter with their brains blown across the neatly cropped lawn of their house, is the one that still haunts the most. They were among the country’s leading intellectuals, and I knew them well.

~

Hassan an-Ni’ami, an outspoken anti-occupation cleric, was seized by police commandos in Baghdad in late May. His hideously tortured body was dumped at a morgue 12 hours later, with police handcuffs still attached to his wrist. His chest had been burned, possibly with cigarettes. He had been whipped. His nose and one arm were broken. Horrifically, his kneecaps had been drilled through with what appeared to have been an electric drill. Finally, he had been shot multiple times in the chest and head.

Another man, Tahar Mohammed Suleiman al-Mashhadani, was detained by commandos in west Baghdad. His body was found 20 days later, “tortured almost beyond recognition” according to his family. A man calling himself “Abu Ali” told Beaumont he was detained by commandos in mid-May. He said he was beaten on his feet, hung by his arms from the ceiling and threatened with being sodomised with a bottle if he did not confess to being a “terrorist”.

Congressional Democrats can bring Bush and his entire cabal of armongers and ghouls down if they use the Negroponte hearings correctly: the evidence is all there if only they choose to grow a spine and call for it, if they not only subpoena winesses and evidence but take the bastards all the way to the Supreme Court if they have to.

If they do – and it’s a big if – appointing Negroponte could be turn out to be one of the dumbest things Bush has ever done, and he’s done quite a few.

Read more: US politics, Negroponte, State Department, Iraq, Central America, Death Squads. Confirmation hearings

Don’t Let The Door Hit Your Ass On Your Way Out…

Deborah Howell, Washington Post, you’re next…

From Editor and Publisher:

NYT May Drop Public Editor Position
By E&P Staff
Published: January 03, 2007 10:45 AM ET

NEW YORK The New York Times may do away with its public editor position when the two-year term of Byron Calame — only the second person to hold the independent slot — concludes in May, according to a report in today’s New York Observer.

“Over the next couple of months,” Executive Editor Bill Keller wrote in an e-mail to the Observer’s Michael Calderone, “as Barney’s term enters the home stretch, I’ll be taking soundings from the staff, talking it over with the masthead, and consulting with Arthur” — Publisher Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr.

Keller added that “some of my colleagues believe the greater accessibility afforded by features like ‘Talk to the Newsroom’ has diminished the need for an autonomous ombudsman, or at least has opened the way for a somewhat different definition of the job.”

Calame told the Observer, “I have been critical of the newsroom. I’ve also praised the newsroom, and I think that Bill Keller has been—quite obviously—unhappy with some of the things I’ve written….It seems to me that the high degree of independence that has been given to the public editor at The New York Times makes it a situation that inevitably causes criticism.”

Nuh-uh – it’s being Byron Calame that does that.

Read more: US media, Newspapers, NYT, Ombudsmen, Byron Calame. WaPo, Deborah Howell

Gerald Ford

There’s guaranteed one big lie in any Ford obituary, the lie that he was America’s only unelected president, as if some fellow by the name of George W Bush didn’t steal the elections back in 2000 (and arguably, again in 2004). But then again, most mainstream news media have ever since that Supreme Court robbery been at pains not to point out Bush’s illegitamicy, so it’s hardly surprising.

Amongst the various leftist / liberal blogs I follow (links to your right folks) most focus on Ford’s pardoning of Nixon, understandably. That was a watershed moment, when it became crystal clear you could be a crook and president and get away with it, as long as you’re a Republican. I therefore disagree with Steve Gilliard when he says that:

1975 was a difficult year. The US military was dysfunctional, American society was shattered, there was a real question if the US could have survived the trial of Richard Nixon for his various crimes.

Once he had slunk off, to everyone’s relief, there was no great appetite for punishment among Congress.

But, by pardoning Nixon, he helped save the GOP, by not exposing the criminal nature of that enterprise. It was allowed to reform as a right wing party, catering to small business and backwoods rednecks. The Dems never really pressed the advantage they could have had by exposing Nixon and his crimes.

Such bloodletting ends more like the movie Z than in heroic triumph. Nixon was a crook, he was stained by his actions. A trial may have led to more disorder. Nixon lived in ignominy afterwards, Ford with his golf game.

In a world of two bad choices, maybe Ford made the least bad choice

Why? Because Nixon’s unpunished crimes paved the way for Reagan’s arguably greater crimes, which in turn paved the way for Bush to steal the 2000 election and start an illegal war that killed over 650,000 people so far. Yes, it would’ve been difficult to prosecute an ex-president and it would’ve been hard on the country, but only a naif thinks that’s why Ford did that. He could care less: he pardoned Nixon to save his own party and perhaps himself as well: who knows what would’ve come to light once a prosecutor started digging. (Is it wrong to think Gilliard’s view is very American in its preference of a cheap fix to a real resolution, prefering to let corruption fester as long as appearances are kept?)
Nixon needed to be prosecuted so that others couldn’t follow in his footsteps; instead the corruption went deeper and deeper.

Meanwhile, Richard Estes of American Leftist remembers Ford for another bad, criminal decision, one that would cost the lifes of an estimated 300,000 people: allowing Indonesia to invade East Timor.

In other words, Gerald Ford may look good if you compare him to his predecessor Nixon or to such horrors like Reagan or Bush, but he’s still a villain, responsible for covering up corruption at home and genocide abroad. It only goes to show that even “decent” American presidents have to be moral monsters to do their job.

Read more about:
, ,