Blog

All Posts (6434)

Sort by

Molokai GMO Protest

Posted by Pono Kealoha on April 30, 2010 at 4:59pm
PhotobucketPRESS RELEASE
Contact: Walter Ritte @ 658-0406
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GMO Protest on Molokai
Saturday May 1, 2010 @ 8am
Lanikeha Community Center, Hoolehua

This Saturday, Molokai residents will protest against GMO crops on their island. At an Ag Fair organized by local farmers to celebrate Molokai agriculture, protesters will say that giant chemical companies like Monsanto and Dow Mycogen are not welcome here.

These large international companies are using Molokai as a huge, unregulated, open-field testing ground to grow chemical-resistant corn plants so they can market their GMO seeds around the world. Molokai families are worried about the health of the workers who handle the chemicals. People who depend on the land and ocean to feed their families are worried about long-term effects on the island’s environment. But most people are afraid to go public with their concerns because they need the jobs. Meanwhile, the government is not regulating these companies to protect our people or our island.

Monsanto leases more than 1,000 acres from Molokai Ranch. And Dow Mycogen uses hundreds more acres - some of it on Hawaiian Home Lands - to grow its GMO crops.

Monsanto and Dow Mycogen didn’t start out as traditional farming companies. They started out as chemical companies, manufacturing things like “agent orange” for the military. When agent orange was sprayed on troops in Vietnam, it caused lifelong damage to our veterans. Both companies got into the GMO business by manufacturing chemical products that killed plants. Most famous is Monsanto’s Roundup. On Molokai, Monsanto is growing “Roundup Ready Corn Seeds” that can survive massive toxic doses of Roundup. Although Roundup is proven to be a toxic substance, Monsanto has no program to monitor whether it is causing harm to their workers or to our environment.

The GMO companies plow up the topsoil and leave most of it bare so it can blow away or erode into the ocean when it rains. Erosion is killing Molokai’s reefs, and the GMO companies aren’t helping. Studies show that Glyphosate, the main chemical in Roundup, can cause cancer, reproductive problems, and even nerve damage. And overuse of Roundup on GMO crops is beginning to create “super weeds” that resist Roundup and can’t be killed by other herbicides.

Meanwhile, GMO genes are crossing with native seeds. And when Monsanto discovers GMO plants growing in a traditional farmer’s field, they sue the farmer for “stealing.” Monsanto has sued hundreds of farmers in the US and Canada, and put some out of business.

Politically, Monsanto has connections all the way to the White House. And in Hawaii, key legislators, including Speaker of the House Calvin Say, get money from the GMO companies. Say he has introduced legislation to exempt GMO companies from government regulation. And the top two candidates for Governor are also working with Monsanto.

Huge GMO companies are not going to protect Molokai. The government is not going to protect Molokai. We are going to have to protect ourselves!


Aloha Kakou,
Attached please find our press release regarding our GMOPROTEST slated for May 1st.

My contact numbers are: Home808-5679415 Cell 808-6580406

Walter Ritte

Read more…

Letter to Sedcretary of State Clinton‏

Posted by Pono Kealoha on April 29, 2010 at 4:00pm
The Honorary Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
U.S. Department of State
2201 C St. NW
Washington, D.C. 20520
　

27 April 2010

Aloha e Madam Secretary:
　
　
I feel impelled to clarify my position of the Hawaii nationals/citizens,
subjects of the still existing Kingdom of Hawai'i maintainig the status
of Jus Sanguinis of our kupuna/ancestors which they held at the time of
the United States of America's complicit invasion of 1893 and
immediately followed by the belligerent occupation which established its
civilian arm of governance under its military protection known as the
Provisional Government which later named itself the Republic of Hawai'i.
　
I am certain that you are knowledgeable of the International Acts of
War, Occupation Laws and the Laws of Neutrality (which the Kingdom of
Hawai'i signed on to and declared since 1854). You are also aware of the
specific treaties ratified by your goverment with the Kingdom of
Hawai'i.
　
The United States of America is a ethnocentric WASP mainstream society
that adopted doctrines manifested in Europe due to the Roman Catholic
Church's Papal Bulls:
- Terra Nullius in 1095 state that the land of no consequence, empty of
human habitation belonging to no one. Christians were given the right of
discovery and could claim land in non-Chriian areas. Inhabitants were
viewed as sub-human, not civilized by their standards, thus had no
nation to recognize as similar to theirs.
- Dum Diversas in 1452 which initiated the slave trade and attrocites
because they were sub-human.
- Romanus Pontifex in 1455 that encouraged enslavement of
non-Christian-non-white in Africa and the Americas.
- Inter Caetera in 1493 which papal law sanctioned and paved the way for
European colonization and Catholic missions in the "New World";

Conjoin the Papal Bulls and Calvanism and you get the creation of the
U.S. Manifest Destiny doctrines practiced till today that cradles the
U.S./European form of capitalism and ethics employed in the U.S. Foreign
Policy. The U.S. Expansionism and Imperialism is woven within this
matrix of beliefs and fosters a paternalism curently exercised by the
United States of America.
　
The 1890 census showed citizens as 84.4% were native Polynesian Hawaiian
and 15.6% were of foreign origin; this made up 50.1% of the total
residents. The rest of the residents were 49.9% foreigners and not
citizens of the Hawaiian Kingdom. This included contract workers and
about 2.5% were U.S. Americans/Europeans of the total population
residing in Hawai'i. Once the belligerent occupation occurred, U.S.
Americans rushed into Hawai'i to change the population dynamics. After
the fact, the United States of America proclaimed a no-interference in
Hawai'i of U.S officials and other nations with the newly set-up
government using the Turpie Resolution of 1894.
　

Page 1 of 2

　
The U.S. has acknowledged its complicity in 1993; there was no lawful
Treaty of Annexation; Congress rejected the treaty due to the Queen's
formal protest, the people's Ku'e petitions of 1898 against annexation.
What Congress couldn't do it lawfully, they did unlawfully through the
Newlands Resolution. The irregular Statehood Act and vote ultimately
becomes null and void. Now again with the Akaka Bill (S1011 and HR2314),
the United States of America exercises its doctrines of the racist
Manifest Destiny to continuously deprive Hawai'i nationals of their
human rights and rights as citizens of the still existing Kingdom of
Hawai'i which is under continuous U.S. belligerent occupation.
　
We will not recognize, participate, or comply with the tribal creation
and pseudo-governance constructed under the seditious Akaka Bill which
cannot reconcile our situation or resolve the U.S. crimes committed
against us. The U.S. American-puppet tribal 'high school" governing
entity cannot negotiate for our Kingdom of Hawai'i. We have been ignored
in the process of this fantasty Akaka Bill and the only hearing in
Honolulu in 2000, majority of us protested against it. Senator Inouye
and other Congresspersons would not take NO for an answer.
　
I'm sure when you research all the documents and journals, you will
uncover the fraud and deceit of which the United States of America
continues to cover-up. As Senator Slade Gorton and his fellow senators
had questioned of the Apology Bill, "...the only logical consequence is
total independence." This concurs with our stance since 1811 - 1893 and
up to 2010.
　
Despite the forced-assimilation, the violations of International laws of
war, occupation, neutrality, human rights, genocide; U.S. military,
EPA, and NRC ignoring the DU use in our territory, toxic and hazardous
dumpimg that affect the lives and well-being of protected people under
occupation, harrassment of hostile occupier settlers; we are still here
and will always remain loyal subjects of the Kingdom of Hawai'i.
　
Our country is a constitutional monarchy which practices democracy,
freedom, justice, and love. We love U.S. Americans as we do those from
all other countries. We look to restore all the treaties we had with
world countries and look to ratify treaties with new nations since the
United States of America criminally dissolved them without our
permission and consent. We look forward to the United States of America
to resolve and reinstate our nation with justice and liberty with
democracy and freedoms we shared as a nation to nation. We love our
country as much as U.S. Americans love theirs.
　
　
Very truly yours,
　
　
　
　
Tane

Pearl City, HI 96782-2581
　
Read more…

Hawaii to host RIMPAC naval maneuvers this summer

Posted by Pono Kealoha on April 29, 2010 at 7:10am
PhotobucketPhotobucket

There is NO better place to showcase USAʻS blatent disregard
for PEACE , INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE AND FREEDOM like the ILLEGALLY OCCUPIED SOVEREIGN "NEUTRAL" NATION of HAWAIʻI that was PEACEFULLY FILLED WITH ALOHA .
humm, USA HOME OF THE GREED AND LAND OF THE SLAVES.

Posted on: Thursday, April 29, 2010

Hawaii to host
RIMPAC naval
maneuvers this
summer

Isle businesses expect boost
from bienennial event

By William Cole
Advertiser Military Writer

A naval exercise that brings to Hawai'i's shores
thousands of service members from the U.S. and
foreign nations, an aircraft carrier, beach
landings — and millions in Waikīkī
tourist dollars — is returning between late June
and early August.

The U.S. Navy hasn't yet released all the details
for the 2010 Rim of the Pacific war games, but
the last time the biennial exercise was held in
2008, there were 10 countries, 35 ships, six
submarines and 150 aircraft involved.

A total of 20,000 sailors, airmen, Marines,
soldiers and Coast Guardsmen participated.

"The reason that we do it is to make sure that
there's stability throughout the Pacific Rim," said
Chief Petty Officer Terry Rhedin, a Navy
pokesperson in San Diego.

RIMPAC, one of the world's largest maritime
exercises, also provides an opportunity for allied
nations to improve interoperability and
communications.

The U.S., Japan, South Korea, Canada, Australia,
Singapore and the Netherlands will be among
participants this year, Rhedin said.

Chile will be an observer and Russia "was given
an invitation (to be an observer )," Rhedin said. "I
don't know if they've accepted."

Ships to be sunk

A U.S. aircraft carrier and amphibious assault
ship — as yet unidentified — will be two of the
biggest ships involved.

The former USS Coronado, an amphibious
transport dock ship that was commissioned in
1970, used as a command ship and was
decommissioned in 2006, will be one of several
warships that will be sunk as part of the training,
Rhedin said.

Rhedin said yesterday she didn't have the
approximate number of foreign and U.S. service
members taking part in RIMPAC, but it is in the
"thousands." The Navy said the exercise
timeframe is from about June 23 to Aug. 2.

In 2004 and 2006, the RIMPAC exercise was
estimated to have brought in more than $20
million in spending in Honolulu, Rhedin said.

Lucy Lau, marketing coordinator for the Hale Koa
Hotel, said the exercise provides an extra
summertime boost in Waikīkī.

"It helps us a lot. In RIMPAC years our hotel is a
little more bustling" and food and beverage sales
increase, she said.

The Hale Koa is one of five U.S. armed forces
recreation centers around the world and is
operated by the Army, Lau said.

Lau said some families fly in to be with relatives
taking part in the exercise. Service members
have some free time at the beginning and end of
RIMPAC, she said.

"Normally, that break is good for everyone in
Waikīkī because all of those sailors
are going to come in from all different
countries," Lau said. "So Waikīkī
bustles at that time."

Four ships were sunk in the 2008 war games off
Kaua'i including the destroyers Fletcher, David R.
Ray and Cushing; and the cruiser Horne.

Heavyweight Mk-48 torpedoes and Harpoon
missiles were among the armaments used in the
"sinkex" drills.

This year's exercise is the 22nd in a series of
RIMPAC exercises conducted since 1971.

The USS John C. Stennis, left, and the USS Abraham Lin-coln pull <br / alongside each other during the 2000 RIMPAC." border="0"">

The USS John C. Stennis, left, and the USS Abraham Lin-coln pull alongside each other during the 2000RIMPAC.

Advertiser library photo

Crew members of the USS Abraham Lincoln watch an F-18 Hornet glide <br / into the air carrier's " trap,="" hook="" down,="" ready="" to="" catch="" the="" arresting="" cable.="" border="0"'>

Crew members of the USS Abraham Lincoln watch an F-18 Hornet glide into the air carrier's "trap,"arresting hook down, ready to catch the arresting cable.

Advertiser library photo


PhotobucketPhotobucket
Read more…

HAS SOMEONE STOLEN YOUR FAMILY'S CAR?

Posted by Free Hawai`i on April 29, 2010 at 7:05am
Your family car is like the sovereignty of the Hawaiian Kingdom.

Your car would make anyone wealthy who could occupy it.

The theft is clearly unlawful, even against the their own laws and constitution.

So after generations of denying and obfuscating the issue, the thieves finally admit they stole your car.

They concede that it's really not their car (Apology Bill, US law 103-150,) that they really don't have any title to it, but they declare how much they love the car, and how the grandchildren of the victims can't operate the car anymore anyway.

They also say since they have had the stolen car for so long, they now have a claim to it.

They have even repainted the car (Statehood) and done some maintenance.

And now they want to compromise.

They offer the grandchildren (you) the hubcaps, and when the you refuse, they try and offer you the wheels (Hawaiian Homelands.)

Then they offer to let you drive the car on Sundays (Akaka Bill.)

Whoever gets title to the car is vastly wealthy.

That's why they've tried to brainwash you, telling you there is no title to the car anymore.

Yet valid title does still exist and international law as well as Hawai`i and US laws say the car still belongs to you, your family and no one else.
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
Read more…

Submitted via the US State Department representatives attending the UPR “Listening Session” in Albuquerque New Mexico March 16th 2010

Posted by Pono Kealoha on April 28, 2010 at 9:20pm
Page 1 of 4

Date: April 18, 2010


The Honorable Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
U.S. Department of State
2201 C Street NW
Washington, DC 20520

Submitted via the US State Department representatives attending the UPR “Listening Session” in
Albuquerque New Mexico March 16th 2010


Aloha Madam Secretary,

There are a lot of important things going on in Hawaii affecting the Native Hawaiian People
which are being done without their full knowledge and consent. The Akaka Bill as one example has been
the most high profile issue and legislation to date. A handful of very powerful politicians and leaders of
several major Hawaiian organizations have, through this legislation, taken upon themselves to decide
what form of government is best for the Hawaiian People. This is far from the definition of self-
determination under international law as per Article 1, paragraph 2 of the UN Charter, Article 1 of the
International Covenant on Civil and Political rights which the US ratified in 1992 and Article 1 of the .
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The Akaka bill legislation should never
have gotten this far without extensive education, input and finally, consent and agreement by the
Hawaiian People as a whole.

In 1945, the United States, under the United Nations Decolonization process as spelled out in
Article 73 of the Charter, accepted as a sacred trust obligation to promote a full measure of self
government for the Hawaiian people. They were to ensure the Hawaiian people their political, economic,
social, and educational advancement, just treatment, and protection against abuses. The United States,
was supposed to take the Hawaiian people by the hand and guide them towards choosing a form of
government. Of course, the outcome of that cover-up was Hawaii becoming the 50th State of the Union.
The promise to ensure the Hawaiian People their self-determination through a just, fair, fully
participatory and transparent political process was never fulfilled. It is obvious that the Akaka bill is
just another attempt to usurp and cover up a fair political process for the Native Hawaiian people based
on self-determination as stipulated under International law.

Nation of Hawai`i
41-1300 Waikupanaha Street • Waimanalo, Oahu • Hawaii 96795
808.551.5056 • puuhonua@hawaii.rr.com • www.bumpykanahele.com

Page 2 of 4


Many Hawaiian organizations, families and individuals in Hawaii and throughout the World, have
expressed deep concern and reported various instances of intimidation, coercion and threat of losing state
and federal grants and entitlements, for not supporting certain government programs and legislation,
which is totally unjust treatment and political abuse.
In a nutshell, the Akaka bill cuts off our genealogical ties to our ancestors, strips us of our
sovereignty over our National lands, and changes our National identity, based on our distinct history,
language, culture and religion, this is totally unacceptable. If this is to happen to us, then let the
Hawaiian People make a well informed and educated decision about our destiny and political status
before creating any type of legislation which will, again, decide for us.
Over 7 years, we have seen the United States government support the Peoples of Afghanistan
and Iraq, implement their own democratic process through their respective Constitutional Conventions,
providing financial aid to help with their processes. It is imperative, that the United States government
through their State Department support a Hawaiian Constitutional Convention and provide the financial
aid necessary to fulfill the long over due political process for the Native Hawaiian people. In doing so,
the U.S. government would finally provide a political sanctuary to protect, guarantee and ensure the
Native Hawaiian people, the required period of time, without pressure or coercion, in which they can
engage freely, without fear of threat, or intimidation, in the processes of educating themselves about their
options of self government, in the assertion of their right to self-determination.

The Native Hawaiian people will need all the time necessary to publicly debate and discuss
amongst themselves the various options for self-governance available to them, while having meaningful
access to the mainstream news media in Hawaii and abroad.

It must be guaranteed before the process begins that the will and consent of the native Hawaiian
people is determinative and will be honored and respected whatever the results might be, including
restoration and independence. The latter being based on peaceful, friendly and amicable Treaty relations
that was once established and affirmed in 1826, 1849, 1875 and 1884 with the United States. All of these
Treaties with the U.S. were violated. (see attachment A: U.S. Public law 103-150 & St. Thomas Law
Review by International Law Professor Francis A. Boyle)

We have taken note with appreciation that in 2006 the United Nations Human Rights Committee
in paragraph 37 of their “Concluding Observations” addressing the United States report and its
compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) stated:

Finally, the Committee regrets that it has not received sufficient information on the consequences on the
situation of Indigenous Native Hawaiians of Public Law 103-150 apologizing to the Native Hawaiians
Peoples for the illegal overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii, which resulted in the suppression of the
inherent sovereignty of the Hawaiian people. (articles 1, 26 and 27 in conjunction with Article 2,
paragraph 3 of the Covenant).

The State party should review its policy towards indigenous peoples as regards the extinguishment of
aboriginal rights on the basis of the plenary power of Congress regarding Indian affairs and grant
them the same degree of judicial protection that is available to the non-indigenous population.
Page 3 of 4



It should take further steps in order to secure the rights of all indigenous peoples under articles 1
and 27 of the Covenant to give them greater influence in decision-making affecting their natural
environment and their means of subsistence as well as their own culture.

We are asking the U.S. government fulfill its sacred trust obligation and its commitment for the self-
determination of all Peoples as stated in Article I of the ICCPR, affirmed by the Human Rights
Committee as above, by supporting a Hawaiian Constitutional Convention. This is a very small price to
pay for the International Treaties and conventions that were violated in the 1893 Overthrow of the
Hawaiian Kingdom and once again, in 1945 under the United Nations Decolonization process.

There is no specific date set at the moment, but the native Hawaiian people will Assemble at the Iolani
Palace and call for a free, fair and impartial political process under the rules and procedures of a
Constitutional Convention at the determined time.

Let this, NOTICE OF A HAWAIIAN CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION IN 2010, be a renewed
effort in restoring the International Relations once enjoyed by the Hawaiian people and the United States
of America.

BILL OF PARTICULARS AGAINST THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

The Kanaka Hawai’ Maoli (Native Hawaiian) People

1. The United States of America, has perpetrated innumerable Crimes Against Peace, Crimes Against
Humanity and War Crimes against the Native Hawaiian People as recognized by the Nuremberg Charter,
Judgment, and Principles. This fundamental principle of international law was expressly incorporated
into United States Army Field Manual 27-10(1956), The Law of Land Warfare, Paragraph 498, Crimes
Under International Law as follows: “Any person, whether a member of the armed forces or a civilian,
who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefore and liable
to punishment”.

2. The United States of America, has perpetrated the International Crime of Genocide against the Native
Hawaiian People as recognized by the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime
of Genocide. Also, under U.S. Public Law 100-606, the Genocide Act.

3. The United States of America, has perpetrated the International Crime of Apartheid against the Native
Hawaiian People as recognized by the 1973 International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment
of the Crime of Apartheid.

4. The United States of America, has perpetrated a gross and consistent pattern of violations of the most
fundamental human rights of the Native Hawaiian People as recognized by the 1948 Universal
Declaration of Human Rights.

5. The United States of America, has perpetrated numerous and repeated violations of the 1965
International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination against the Native
Hawaiian People.
Page 4 of 4



6. The United States of America, has systematically violated 4 treaties; Treaty of Peace, Friendship and
Commerce, on Dec. 23, 1826, Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation, on Dec. 20, 1849,
Reciprocity Treaties on Jan. 30, 1875 and Dec. 6, 1884, it concluded with the Native Hawaiian People in
wanton disregard of the basic principle of public international law and practice dictating pacta sunt
servanda.

7. The United States of America, has denied and violated the international legal right of Native Hawaiian
People to self-determination as recognized by the 1945 United Nations Charter, the 1966 International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the 1966 International Covenant on Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights, fundamental principles of customary international law, and jus cogens.

8. The United States of America, has violated the seminal United Nations Declaration on the Granting of
Independence to Colonial Countries and Territories of 1960 with respect to Native Hawaiian People and
Territories. Pursuant thereto, the Defendant has an absolute international legal obligation to decolonize
Native Hawaiian Territory immediately and to transfer all powers it currently exercises there to the
Native Hawaiian People.

9. The United States of America, has illegally refused to accord full-scope protections as Prisoners-of-
War to captured Native Hawaiian independence fighters in violation of the Third Geneva Convention of
1949 and Additional Protocol I thereto of 1977. The Defendant's treatment of captured Native Hawaiian
independence fighters as "common criminals" and "terrorists" constitutes a "grave breach" of the Geneva
Accords and thus a serious war crime.

10. The United States of America, has deliberately and systematically permitted, aided and abetted,
solicited and conspired to commit the dumping, transportation, and location of nuclear, toxic, medical
and otherwise hazardous waste materials on Native Hawaiian National Lands and has thus created a clear
and present danger to the lives, health, safety, and physical and mental well-being of the Native Hawaiian
People in gross violation of article 3 and article 2(c) of the 1948 Genocide Convention, inter alia:
"Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in
whole or in part; ..."


Respectfully Submitted,


Dennis Puuhonua B. K. Kanahele
Head Representative, Nation of Hawaii

“God Bless, Hawai’i and God Bless the United States of America”

cc;
President of the United States, Barrack Obama
Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights
Read more…

Billions Missing From U.S. Indian Trust Fund . FOR THOSE WHO THINK THE KAKA BILL IS THE ANSWER "THINK AGAIN"!

Posted by Pono Kealoha on April 28, 2010 at 10:45am

Billions Missing From U.S. Indian Trust Fund

by Joel Dyer

John Echohawk
JohnEchohawk, director of Native American Rights Fund

The U.S. has lost not millions, but billions of dollars belonging to native Americans

UPDATES IN THE MONITOR

The Stolen Billions (2000)

Bush and the Missing Billions (2001)

Bush and the Missing Billions, Part II(2001)

Interior Secretary Held in Contempt (2002)

In his testimony before Congress, John Echohawk, director of Native American Rights Fund,called it "yet another serious and continuing breach in a long historyof dishonorable treatment of Indian tribes and individual Indians by theUnited States government."

Arizona Senator John McCain, the chairman of the Senate Committee onIndian Affairs, bluntly called it "theft from Indian people."

These men were describing the single largest and longest-lasting financialscandal inhistory involving the federal government of the United States.

With no other recourse left at their disposal, NARF, along with otherattorneys, filed a class action lawsuit in federal district court onJune 10 on behalf of more than 300,000 American Indians. The suitcharges Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt, Assistant InteriorSecretary of the Interior for Indian Affairs Ada Deer and Secretary ofthe Treasury Robert Rubin with illegal conduct in regard to themanagement of Indian money held in trust accounts and managed by theBureau of Indian Affairs.

If the lawsuit's claims are correct, and there's an overwhelming body of evidence that suggests they are, then the federal government haslost, misappropriated or, in some cases, stolen billions of dollars fromsome of its poorest citizens.

"The BIA has spent more than 100 years mismanaging, diverting and losing money that belongs toIndians."

The trust accounts in question -- which hold approximately $450 million at any given time -- aren't filled with government handouts.They contain money that belongs to individual Indians who have earned itfrom a variety of sources such as oil and gas production, grazingleases, coal production and timber sales on their allotted lands.

Revenues from such sources are held in more than 387,000 IndividualIndian Money (IIM) accounts managed -- or according to detractors,"mismanaged" -- by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). "The BIA hasspent more than 100 years mismanaging, diverting and losing money thatbelongs to Indians," Echohawk says. "They have no idea how much has beencollected from the companies that use our land and are unable toprovide even a basic, regular statement to Indian account holders."

Echohawk is quick to point out that the lawsuit was the very last resort. Native Americans have long been hopeful that agovernmental remedy to the BIA's mismanagement could be found. Finallyin 1994, after years of pressure by both Indians and legislators,Congress enacted the Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act andappointed Paul Homan as the special trustee charged with straighteningout the century-old mess.

Once again there was hope. But the legislative solution proved to be just another in a long line of toothless piles of paper generated bygovernment bureaucrats. Although Homan was ready and willing to repairthe system, Congress failed to provide funds to make the changes areality. With no other path before them, the Indians took their fight tothe courts.

In many instances it provides the only life-line for Indian families who often make up the mostimpoverished sector of our society

Echohawk'sclaim that the BIA is completelyout of touch with the amount of revenues it collects or should becollecting has been confirmed by countless congressional oversighthearings covering decades.

As an example, during one such hearing -- a 1987 AppropriationsSubcommittee hearing on uncollected royalties -- then director of theMinerals Management Service William Bettenberg told the committee he wasaware that hundreds of millions of dollars that belonged to Indians wasgoing uncollected from oil royalties each year. This is in spite of thefact that MMS, a branch of the Department of the Interior, had beenmade aware of the annual lost revenue six years earlier. Bettenberg'srevelation is typical of BIA behavior.

Adding still more credence to Echohawk's claims of government incompetence pertaining to the IIM accounts is the recent exampleprovided by the long overdue audit of the tribal trust funds.These tribal funds, which are also managed by the BIA, are a collectionof approximately 2,000 tribal accounts owned by some 200 tribes. Theseaccounts hold about $2.3 billion at any given time and are primarilyused to finance essential tribal government services.

Several years ago, after a decade of extensive pressure from the House Committee on Government Operations, the BIA agreed to contractwith Arthur Anderson & Co. to audit and reconcile both the tribalaccounts and a random sampling of some 17,000 IIM accounts. The samplingof the IIM accounts was to be a precursor to a complete reconciliationof all IIM trust accounts -- the first in history.

What happened next is truly astounding. After years of work and millions of dollars in fees, Arthur Anderson was only able to reconcilethe 2,000 tribal accounts -- not the 17,000 IIMs -- and only then forthe relatively short period of some 20 years from 1973 to 1992.

For this 20-year period alone, the auditor noted that at least $2.4 billion inthe tribal trust accounts was unaccounted for and billions of dollarsmore were virtually untraceable because of the questionable nature ofthe government's records.

As for the IIMs, Arthur Anderson told the feds that its trust fund system for individuals was so screwed up that it wouldn't even try toreconcile the accounts and estimated that it would cost $108 million to$281 million just to attempt the monumental task. The accounting firmclaimed that the government had destroyed, never created or otherwisedid not maintain the records necessary to conduct a reconciliation. Evenif the full IIM audit were performed, the firm said the costlyinformation would be of little or no value when it came to providing IIMaccount holders with any real assurance that their balances arecorrect.

While the missing billions from the tribal accounts aren't part of the NARF lawsuit, thereconciliation process for these accounts does illustrate how badly theBIA's accounting system, or lack thereof, actually works. In June ofthis year, Special Trustee Homan told the Senate Committee on IndianAffairs that the IIM account system was "as bad or worse" than thetribal accounts. For now, NARF lawyers are concentrating on themismanagement of money in the IIM accounts because in many instances itprovides the only life-line for Indian families who often make up themost impoverished sector of our society. Echohawk told Congress thatmost of the IIM account holders are so poor that they need their moneyjust for basic subsistence.

BIA's fiscally irresponsible behavior may prove more sinister than mere incompetence

So how did the BIA's financial house get into such disarray and why has it been allowed tostay thatway? The truth is it has never been in order, and the reasons behindthe seemingly never-ending tolerance of the BIA's fiscally irresponsiblebehavior may prove more sinister than mere incompetence. Critics of thebureau point out that the United States has a long history of trying toseparate Native Americans from their lands and way of life.

170 years of <br / problems" align="right" border="2" height="75" width="100"">You canchoose almost any year since the BIA's predecessor, the IndianDepartment, was created in 1824 and findgovernmentsreports describing poor management, no accounting system, missingmoney, no attempt to fulfill the fiduciary duty to the Indians aspromised and required by law.

Congress has verbally demanded accountability and drastic change in the BIA's behavior for more than 100 years. Yet as of 1996little if anything has actually changed. A 1992 report titled "MisplacedTrust: The Bureau of Indian Affairs' Mismanagement of the Indian TrustFund" was prepared by the Committee on Government Operations. The66-page report contained a scathing review of the BIA and hundreds ofexamples of the bureau's blundering over the years.

Among other things, the report surmised that "one hundred sixty three years later, Schoolcraft's assessment of the BIA's financial managementstill rings true. BIA's administration of the Indian trust fundcontinues to make the accounts look as though they had been handled witha pitchfork.

"Undoubtedly there is a screw loose in the public machinery at the Bureau. Indeed, while mismanagement of the Indian trust fund has beenreported for more than a century, there is no evidence that either theBureau or the Department of the Interior hasundertaken any sustained or comprehensive effort to resolve glaringdeficiencies."

Unfortunately, most of what was contained in the Misplaced Trust report was old news. Essentially the exact same findingswere embodied in the GAO's 1928, 1952 and 1955 audits of the Indiantrust fund. In fact, just since 1982, more than 30 audits have beenperformed on the BIA's records. Every single one of the 30 reportsgenerated have noted serious accounting and financial managementproblems and weak internal controls throughout the BIA.

In a tone not often heard these days in Washington, Senator McCain cut to the chase during a June 11, 1996 oversight hearing when he statedthat "Trustees receive and disburse funds all the time for otherAmericans, and if they blow it they pay. In this case it's the NativeAmericans who are rightfully owed the money and the federal governmentwho will be forced to compensate for their loss."

Taxpayers who will have to cough up the money lost by the BIA

McCain makes a good point. But intypical politician style he forgets to tell us that when he says it's"the federal government" that will be forced to pay for the mishandlingof the Indian trusts, what he's really saying is it will be taxpayerswho will have to cough up the money lost by the BIA.

Every day that the BIA procrastinates on fulfilling its trustresponsibilities, the price tag to repair the damage goes up. The 1992Misplaced Trust report clarifies the vulnerability of taxpayers.

The report states that "Continuing mismanagement and incompetence in thesupervision and control of Indian trust funds present a clear danger tothe American taxpayer, who must bear the financial burden ofcompensating trust fund account holders for BIA's breach of fiduciaryduties."

Other sections of the report contain testimony that reads like the visionfrom a crystal ball. Speakers from six and 10 years ago offer warningafter warning about the potential for costly litigation at thetaxpayer's expense. The NARF lawsuit stands as harsh evidence that thewarnings fell on deaf ears at the bureau.

Guarding our pocketbooks gives everyone a reason to get involved with the struggle to correct the injustices being perpetrated by the BIA.But at some point we must confront the reality that there is somethingmore at work here than bureaucratic ineptitude.

"If this happened in Social Security, I tell you there would be a war"

When obvious and admitted abuses of a small minority of people by a government areallowed to continue unchecked for over a century -- with little or nooutcry from the citizenry -- it mostlikely means that the majority of the citizens condone the government'sbehavior.

What other explanation can there be for the BIA's belligerent lack of concern for its fiscal responsibilities to NativeAmericans? It isn't that the task of properly handling the revenue isjust too daunting. Other departments of the government deal with largerand more complicated accounting systems with comparable ease everyday.

A similar observation was made by then-Representative from Texas Albert G. Bustamante during oversight hearings in 1990.

"We have 300,000 accounts. We have about 350 tribes in the United States. It isreally sad that these people have been misrepresented by the BIA ...They have no real representation in Congress.

"I have a tribe that I represent in my district, but throughout the years, most of these people have been abused by many, and you in the BIAought to be the ones that really look after them.

"If this happenedin Social Security, I tell you there would be a war. If we can manageSocial Security, we ought to be able to manage this."

NARF's Echohawk speculates that the reason for the government's seeminglyeternal incompetence is darker than accidental mismanagement. "I thinkit comes down to race. Our people have historically suffered abuse afterabuse. We have continuous problems with unemployment, health care andeducation. It just goes on and on. We don't have any political power tochange it, so the government just continues to ignore us."


My Pledge of Allegiance
I pledge allegiance to Creator and to the path Creator has put me on. Ipledge allegiance to my family, to my ancestors who walked before meand to my future generations who will walk after me. I pledge to walkthe way of the warrior, to protect those who need protection, toguide those who need guidance, and to help those who need myhelp. I pledge to be a man of honor and integrity and to do my part inmaking this world a better place to live. Aho.
Bear Warrior
Read more…

Why soldiers get a kick out of killing

Posted by Pono Kealoha on April 28, 2010 at 10:22am
Photobucket


April 23, 2010

Why soldiers get a kick out of killing

By John Horgan

Click here to find out more!

soldiers-killing.jpgDo some soldiers enjoy killing? If so, why? This questionis thrust upon us by the recently released video ofU.S. Apache helicopterpilots shooting a Reuters cameraman and his driver in Baghdad in 2007.Mistakingthe camera of the Reuters reporter for a weapon, the pilotsmachine-gunned thereporter and driver and other nearby people.

The most chillingaspect ofthe video, which was made public by Wikileaks, is the chatter between two pilots,whose names have not been released. As Elizabeth Bumiller of TheNew York Times put it, the soldiers "revel in their kill.""Look atthose dead bastards," one pilot says. "Nice," the other replies.

Theexchange reminds me of a Timesstory from March 2003, during the U.S. invasion of Baghdad. Thereporterquotes Sgt. Eric Schrumpf, a Marine sharpshooter, saying, "We had agreat day.We killed a lot of people." Noting that his troop killed an Iraqi womanstandingnear a militant, Schrumpf adds, "I'm sorry, but the chick was in theway."

Does the apparent satisfaction—call it the Schrumpf effect—that some soldiers take in killing stem primarily from nature ornurture?Nature, claims RichardWrangham, an anthropologist at Harvard University and an authorityonchimpanzees. Wrangham asserts that natural selection embedded in bothmalehumans and chimpanzees—our closest genetic relatives—an innatepropensity for"intergroup coalitionary killing" [pdf],in which members of one group attack members of a rival group. Malehumans"enjoy the opportunity" to kill others, Wrangham says, especially ifthey runlittle risk of being killed themselves.

Several years ago, geneticistsat VictoriaUniversity in New Zealand linked violent male aggression to avariant of agene that encodes for the enzyme monoamine oxidase A, which regulatesthefunction of neurotransmitters such as dopamine and serotonin. Accordingto theresearchers, the so-called "warrior gene" is carried by 56 percent ofMaori men,who are renowned for being "fearless warriors," and only 34 percent ofCaucasianmales.

But studies of World War II veterans suggest that very fewmen areinnately bellicose. The psychiatrists Roy Swank and Walter Marchandfound that98 percent of soldiers who endured 60 days of continuous combat sufferedpsychiatric symptoms, either temporary or permanent. The two out of 100soldierswho seemed unscathed by prolonged combat displayed "aggressivepsychopathicpersonalities," the psychiatrists reported. In other words, combat didn't drive these men crazybecause theywere crazy to begin with.

Surveys of WWII infantrymen carried outby U.S.Army Brig. Gen. S.L.A. Marshall found that only 15 to 20 percent hadfired theirweapons in combat, even when ordered to do so. Marshall concluded thatmostsoldiers avoid firing at the enemy because they fear killing as well asbeingkilled. "The average and healthy individual," Marshall contended in hispostwarbook MenAgainst Fire, "has such an inner and usually unrealizedresistancetowards killing a fellow man that he will not of his own volition takelife ifit is possible to turn away from that responsibility…At the vital point hebecomes a conscientious objector."

Critics have challengedMarshall'sclaims, but the U.S. military took them so seriously that it revampeditstraining to boost firing rates in subsequent wars, according to DaveGrossman, aformer U.S. Army Lieutenant Colonel and professor of psychology at WestPoint.In his 1995 book OnKilling, Grossman argues that Marshall's results have beencorroboratedby reports from World War I, the American Civil War, the Napoleonic warsandother conflicts. "The singular lack of enthusiasm for killing one'sfellow manhas existed throughout military history," Grossman asserts.

Thereluctance of ordinary men to kill can be overcome by intensifiedtraining,direct commands from officers, long-range weapons and propaganda thatglorifiesthe soldier's cause and dehumanizes the enemy. "With the properconditioning andthe proper circumstances, it appears that almost anyone can and willkill,"Grossman writes. Many soldiers who kill enemies in battle are initiallyexhilarated, Grossman says, but later they often feel profound revulsionandremorse, which may transmute into post-traumatic stress disorder andotherailments. Indeed, Grossman believes that the troubles experienced bymany combatveterans are evidence of a "powerful, innate human resistance towardkillingone's own species."

In other words, the Schrumpf effect isusually aproduct less of nature than of nurture—although "nurture" is an odd termfortraining that turns ordinary young men into enthusiastic killers.

ABOUTTHE AUTHOR

Horgan_Bio_photo_sized.jpgJohn Horgan, a former Scientific American staffwriter, directs the Centerfor ScienceWritings at Stevens Institute of Technology. (Photo courtesy of SkyeHorgan.)

Image: iStockphoto/ninjamonkeystudio

PhotobucketPhotobucketPhotobucket
Read more…

FREE HAWAI`I TV - "UNITED NATIONS EXPECTATIONS"

Posted by Free Hawai`i on April 28, 2010 at 8:20am
FREE HAWAI`I TVTHE FREE HAWAI`I BROADCASTING NETWORK"UNITED NATIONS EXPECTATIONS"Hawaiians At The United Nations To End The Illegal US Occupation?They’re Expressing Their Views At The Permanent Forum On Indigenous Issues.Will Their Words Of Free Hawai`i Be Heard?Watch This Report & Find Out If There’s UN Support. Then Send This Video To One Other Person Today.
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
Read more…

How Obama's Birth Certificate Will Adversely Affect Hawaiians

Posted by Ululani on April 28, 2010 at 7:30am
A bill has passed courtesy of legislators in Hawai'i which seeks to restrict access to information to Tea Party members:

http://hosted2.ap.org/HIHON/117a0477c44849128ee910aa1d0181d9/Article_2010-04-27-US-Obama-Birth-Certificate/id-496e472269d947e6bcf54ac3d94b18c4

They do not tell you who voted and what they voted for. Shady. I am fortunate that I can compare and contrast the Sunshine State with the so-called Aloha State. What Aloha? No more Aloha for Hawaiians hello LOL

Well ALL Government in the Sunshine Laws in the states are based ON Florida's Government in the Sunshine Law which is Chapter 286 created in 1967. Florida is FAR from perfect but Florida is the FIRST to have a Government in the Sunshine Law and Florida is known for it's VERY liberal access to keep government in the sunshine where the truth is.

Well in Hawai'i where some shady people do very shady things... legislators recently passed SB 2937.

It is called SB 2937 and Governor Lingle is either going to sign it into law... or veto it. Many people whom I know WANT SB 2937 to be passed. *I* want it to be VETOED.

Have they read what it says?

OR are they basing it on what the MEDIA claims and that is to restrict access to Obama's birth certificate which it does NOT say:

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2010/bills/SB2937_SD1_.pdf

Read the first page VERY closely:

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF HAWAII:

SECTION 1. Chapter 92F, Hawaii Revised Statutes, is
amended by adding a new section to part IV to be appropriately
designated and to read as follows:


"592F-A Abuse of process. (a) An agency may request that
the office of information practices declare that a person is a
vexatious requester.

(b) The office of information practices may declare that a
person is a vexatious requester if it determines that the person
has established a pattern of conduct that amounts to an abuse of
a process set forth under this chapter.

When the person has been working in concert with another person to make requests,
including making identical requests, both persons' requests may
be considered as part of the person's pattern of conduct.

The office of information practices shall consider whether a
person's pattern of conduct includes the following factors,
provided that no one factor alone shall be sufficient to find an
abuse of a process set forth under this chapter:

You can read this bill in its entirety by scrolling in the far right:







The question is... HOW will it affect Hawaiians and it will.

We have Hawaiians/oiwi who do their research. For example some of my former classmates who shall remain nameless because I no like make them shame with my mana'o :-) but some of them spend COUNTLESS HOURS researching and/or requesting MORE information.

We have people like Amelia Ku'ulei Gora who may not always be accurate but she does point out some KEY truths. She and MANY Hawaiians do their research and dig for information.


WITH THIS BILLS THESE HAWAIIANS WILL BE CALLED "VEXACIOUS REQUESTERS" TOO.


THESE people... and many other Hawaiians will be affected so before some people BOAST about this it is not all that it seems.

It is worse!

If Governor Lingle does NOT veto it they will call Hawaiians/oiwi who research nuisances or as they say "vexatious requesters" too.

So I hope that Governor Lingle vetoes SB 2937 because it will wreak MORE HAVOC on the DAILY lives of Hawaiians ESPECIALLY those who do research and yes I have written to her and asked her to PLEASE VETO IT.

In the past I contacted her asking her to help me rescue an oiwi baby born with ice in his system. I am hoping that she responses favorably to me again asking her to VETO SB 2937 and yes I mentioned that it will adversely affect those Hawaiians who do research.

Despite what the media claims... be careful what you wish for.

Latahs!

Read more…

The Worldwide Network of US Military Bases

Posted by Pono Kealoha on April 28, 2010 at 6:11am
Photobucket
category-imperialism category-prous-thinktanks category-reflectiontag-bases tag-colonalsm tag-colonialism tag-foreign-military-basestag-imperalism tag-iraq-military-bases tag-militarism tag-networktag-power tag-resistance-movements tag-us tag-us-military-bases tag-usa" id="post-817">

Review Article: The Worldwide Network of USMilitary Bases

Posted on October 3, 2007 by Antievil

The Worldwide control of humanity’s economic, social and political activities is underthe helm of US corporate and military power. Underlying this processare various schemes of direct and indirect military intervention. TheseUS sponsored strategies ultmately consist in a process of globalsubordination.

Where is the Threat?

The 2000 Global Report published in 1980 had outlined “the State of the World” by focussing on so-called “level of threats” which mightnegatively influence or undermine US interests.

Twenty years later, US strategists, in an attempt to justify their military interventions in different parts of the World, haveconceptualised the greatest fraud in US history, namely “the Global Waron Terrorism” (GWOT). The latter, using a fabricated pretextconstitutes a global war against all those who oppose US hegemony. Amodern form of slavery, instrumented through militarization and the“free market” has unfolded.

Major elements of the conquest and world domination strategy by the US refer to:

1) the control of the world economy and its financial markets,

2) the taking over of all natural resources (primary resources and nonrenewable sources of energy). The latter constitute thecornerstone of US power through the activities of its multinationalcorporations.

Geopolitical Outreach: Network of Military Bases

The US has established its control over 191 governments which are members of the United Nations. The conquest, occupation and/or otherwisesupervision of these various regions of the World is supported by anintegrated network of military bases and installations which covers theentire Planet (Continents, Oceans and Outer Space). All this pertains tothe workings of an extensive Empire, the exact dimensions of which arenot always easy to ascertain.

Known and documented from information in the public domaine including Annual Reports of the US Congress, we have a fairly good understandingof the strucuture of US military expenditure, the network of US militarybases and the shape of this US military-strategic configuration indifferent regions of the World.

The objective of this article is to build a summary profile of the World network of military bases, which are under the jurisdiction and/orcontrol of the US. The spatial distribution of these military baseswill be examined together with an analysis of the multibillion dollarannual cost of their activities.

In a second section of this article, Worldwide popular resistance movements directed against US military bases and their various projectswill be outlined. In a further article we plan to analyze the militarynetworks of other major nuclear superpowers including the UnitedKingdom, France and Russia.

II. More than 1000 US Bases and/or Military Installations

The main sources of information on these military installations (e.g. C. Johnson, the NATO Watch Committee, the International Network for theAbolition of Foreign Military Bases) reveal that the US operates and/orcontrols between 700 and 800 military bases Worldwide.

In this regard, Hugh d’Andrade and Bob Wing’s 2002 Map 1 entitled “U.S. Military Troops and Bases around the World, The Cost of ‘PermanentWar’”, confirms the presence of US military personnel in 156 countries.

The US Military has bases in 63 countries. Brand new military bases have been built since September 11, 2001 in seven countries.

In total, there are 255,065 US military personnel deployed Worldwide.

These facilities include a total of 845,441 different buildings and equipments. The underlying land surface is of the order of 30 millionacres. According to Gelman, who examined 2005 official Pentagon data,the US is thought to own a total of 737 bases in foreign lands. Addingto the bases inside U.S. territory, the total land area occupied by USmilitary bases domestically within the US and internationally is of theorder of 2,202,735 hectares, which makes the Pentagon one of the largestlandowners worldwide (Gelman, J., 2007).

Map 1. U.S. Military Troops and Bases around the World. The Cost of «Permanent War» and Some Comparative Data
Military Troops and Bases around the World

Map 2. The American Military Bases Around the World (2001-2003)

The American Military Bases Around the World

Map 3 US Military Bases

The Map of the World Network “No Bases” (Map 3) reveals the following:
Based on a selective examination of military bases in North America,Latin America, Western Europe, the Middle East, Central Asia, Indonesia,the Philippines and Japan, several of these military bases are beingused for intelligence purposes. New selected sites are Spy Bases andSatellite-related Spy Bases.

The Surface of the Earth is Structured as a Wide Battlefield

These military bases and installations of various kinds are distributed according to a Command structure divided up into fivespatial units and four unified Combatant Commands (Map 4). Each unit isunder the Command of a General.

The Earth surface is being conceived as a wide battlefield which can be patrolled or steadfastly supervised from the Bases.

Click here to see Map 3

NATO Military Bases

The Atlantic Alliance (NATO) has its own Network of military bases, thirty in total. The latter are primarily located in Western Europe:

Whiteman, U.S.A., Fairford,
Lakenheath and Mildenhall in United Kingdom,
Eindhoven in Netherlands,
Brüggen, Geilenkirchen, Landsberg, Ramstein, Spangdahlem, Rhein-Main inGermany,
Istres and Avord in France.
Morón de la Frontera and Rota in Spain,
Brescia, Vicenza, Piacenza, Aviano, Istrana, Trapani, Ancora, Pratica diMare, Amendola, Sigonella, Gioia dell Colle, Grazzanise and Brindisi inItaly,
Tirana in Albania,
Incirlik in Turkey,
Eskan Village in Soudi Arabia and
Alial Salem in Koweit


III. The Global Deployment of US Military Personnel

There are 6000 military bases and/ or military warehouses located in the U.S. (See Wikipedia, February 2007).

Total Military Personnel is of the order of 1,4 million of which 1,168,195 are in the U.S and US overseas territories.

Taking figures from the same source, there are 325,000 US military personnel in foreign countries:

- 800 in Africa,
- 97,000 in Asia (excluding the Middle East and Central Asia),
- 40,258 in South Korea,
- 40,045 in Japan,
- 491 at the Diego Garcia Base in the Indian Ocean,
- 100 in the Philippines, 196 in Singapore,
- 113 in Thailand,
- 200 in Australia,
and 16,601 Afloat.

In Europe, there are 116,000 US military personnel including 75,603 who are stationed in Germany.

In Central Asia about 1,000 are stationed at the Ganci (Manas) Air Base in Kyrgyzstan and 38 are located at Kritsanisi, in Georgia, with amission to train Georgian soldiers.

In the Middle East (excludng the Iraq war theater) there are 6,000 US military personnel, 3,432 of whom are in Qatar and 1,496 in Bahrain.

In the Western Hemisphere, excluding the U.S. and US territories, there are 700 military personnel in Guantanamo, 413 in Honduras and 147in Canada.

Map 3 provides information regarding military personnel on duty, based on a regional categorization (broad regions of the world). Thetotal number of military personnel at home in the U.S. and/or in USTerritories is 1,139,034. There are 1,825 in Europe 114, 660, 682 inSubsaharian Africa, 4, 274 in the Middle East and Southern Asia, 143 inthe Ex-USSR, and 89,846 in the Pacific.

IV. The Operational Cost of the Worldwide Military Network

US defense spending (excluding the costs of the Iraq war) have increased from 404 in 2001 to 626 billion dollars in 2007 according todata from the Washington based Center for Arms Control andNon-Proliferation. US defense spending is expected to reach 640 billiondollars in 2008.

Center for Arms control

These 2006 expenses correspond to 3.7% of the US GDP and $935.64 per capita

Figure 1. U.S. Military Expenditures since 1998
Military Expenditures since 1998

Source : Global Issues

According to Fig 1, the 396 billion dollars military budget proposed in 2003 has in fact reached 417.4 billion dollars, a 73% increasecompared to 2000 (289 billion dollars). This outlay for 2003 was morethan half of the total of the US discretionary budget.

Since 2003, these military expenditures have to be added to those of the Iraq war and occupation The latter reached in March 2007, accordingto the NationalPriorities Project
, a cumulative total of 413 billion dollars.

US defence budget will equal ROW combined “within 12 months

Estimates of the Defense Department budget needs, made public in 2006 in the DoD Green Bookfor FY 2007 are of the order of 440 billion dollars.

Military and other staff required numbered 1,332,300. But those figures do not include the money required for the “Global World onTerrorism” (GWOT). In other words, these figures largely pertain to theregular Defense budget.

A Goldstein of the Washington Post, within the framework of an article on the aspects of the National 2007 budget titled «2007 BudgetFavors Defense», wrote about this topic:

“Overall, the budget for the 2007 fiscal year would further reshape the government in the way the administration has been striving to duringthe past half-decade: building up military capacity and defensesagainst terrorist threats on U.S. soil, while restraining expendituresfor many domestic areas, from education programs to train service”

2007 Budget Favors Defense

V. US Military Bases to Protect Strategic Energy Resources

In the wake of 9/11, Washington initiated its “Global War on Terrorism” (GWOT), first in Afghanistan and then in Iraq. Othercountries, which were not faithfully obeying Washington’s directivesincluding Iran, North Korea, Syria and Venezuela have been earmarked forpossible US military intervention.

Washington keeps a close eye on countries opposed to US corporate control over their resources. Washington also targets countries wherethere are popular resistance movements directed against US interests,particularly in South America. In this context, President Bush made aquick tour to Brazil, Uruguay, Colombia, Guatemala and Mexico «topromote democracy and trade» but also with a view to ultimately curbingand restraining popular dissent to the US interests in the region. .

VOA

The same braod approach is being applied in Central Asia. According to Iraklis Tsavdaridis, Secretary of the World Peace Council (WPC):

“The establishment of U.S. military bases should not of course be seen simply in terms of direct military ends. They are always used topromote the economic and political objectives of U.S. capitalism. Forexample, U.S. corporations and the U.S. government have been eager forsome time to build a secure corridor for US.-controlled oil and naturalgas pipelines from the Caspian Sea in Central Asia through Afghanistanand Pakistan to the Arabian Sea. This region -has more than 6 percent ofthe world’s proven oil reserves and almost 40 percent of its gasreserves. The war in Afghanistan and the creation of U.S. military Basesin Central Asia are viewed as a key opportunity to make such pipelines areality.”

Stop USA

The US. are at War in Afghanistan and Iraq. They pursue these military operations until they reach their objective which they call“VICTORY”. According to Wikipedia,American troops fighting in these countries number 190,000. The“Enduring Freedom” Operation in Iraq alone has almost 200,000 militarypersonnel, including 26,000 from other countries participating to the USsponsored “Mission”. About 20,000 more could join other contingents inthe next few months. In Afghanistan, a total of 25,000 soldiersparticipate to the operation (Map 6 and Map 7).

Map 6. Petroleum and International Theatre of War in the Middle East and Central Asia
Petroleum and International Theatre of War in the Middle East and <br / Central Asia"">

Map 7. American Bases Located in Central Asia
American Bases Located in Central Asia


VI. Military Bases Used for the Control of Strategic Renewable Resources

US Military Bases in foreign countries, are mainly located in Western Europe: 26 of them are in Germany, 8, in Great Britain, and 8 in Italy.There are nine military installations in Japan (Wikepedia).

In the last few years, in the context of the GWOT, the US haa built 14 new bases in and around the Persian Gulf.

It is also involved in construction and/or or reinforcement of 20 bases (106 structured units as a whole) in Iraq, with costs of theorder of 1.1 billion dollars in that country alone (Varea, 2007) and theuse of about ten bases in Central Asia.

The US has also undertaken continued negotiations with several countries to install, buy, enlarge or rent an addional number ofmilitary bases. The latter pertain inter alia to installations inMorocco, Algeria, Mali, Ghana, Brazil and Australia (See Nicholson, B.,2007), Poland, Czech Republic (Traynor, I., 2007), Ouzbekistan,Tadjikistan, Kirghizstan, Italy (Jucca, L., 2007) and France.

Washington has signed an agreement to build a military base in Djibouti (Manfredi, E., 2007). All these initiatives are a part of anoverall plan to install a series of military bases geographicallylocated in a West-East corridor extending from Colombia in SouthAmerica, to North Africa, the Near East, Central Asia and as far as thePhilippines (Johnson, C., 2004). The US bases in South American arerelated to the control and access to the extensive natural biological ,mineral and water resources resources of the Amazon Basin. (DelgadoJara, D., 2006 and Maps 9 and 10).

VII. Resistance Movements

The network of US military bases is strategic, located in prcximity of traditional strategic resources including nonrenewable sources ofenergy. This military presence has brought about political oppositionand resistance from progressive movements and antiwar activists.

Demonstrations directed against US military presence has developed in Spain, Ecuador, Italy, Paraguay, Uzbekistan, Bulgaria and in many othercountries. Moreover, other long-termer resistance movements directedagainst US military presence have continued in South Korea, Puerto Rico,Guam, the Philippines, Cuba, Europe, Japan and other locations.

The Worldwide resistance to US foreign military bases has grown during the last few years. We are dealing with an International Networkfor the Abolition of US Military Bases.

Such networks’ objective is to broadly pursue disarmament, demilitarization processes Worldwide as well as dismantle US militarybases in foreign countries.

The NO BASES Network organizes educational campaigns to sensitize public opinion. It also works torehabilitate abandoned military sites, as in the case of Western Europe.

These campaigns, until 2004, had a local and national impact.

The network is now in a position to reach people Worldwide. The network itself underscores that “much can be gained from greater anddeeper linkages among local and national campaigns and movements acrossthe globe. Local groups around the world can learn and benefit fromsharing information, experiences, and strategies with each other”

“The realisation that one is not alone in the struggle against foreign bases is profoundly empowering and motivating. Globallycoordinated actions and campaigns can highlight the reach and scale ofthe resistance to foreign military presence around the world. With thetrend of rising miniaturization and resort to the use of force aroundthe world, there is now an urgent and compelling need to establish andstrengthen an international network of campaigners, organisations, andmovements working with a special and strategic focus on foreign militarypresence and ultimately, working towards a lasting and just system ofpeace»

No bases!

The Afghanistan and Iraq wars have, in this regard, created a favourable momentum, which has contributed to the reinforcement of themovement to close down US military bases in foreign countries:

“At the time of an International anti-war meeting held in Jakarta in May 2003, a few weeks after the start of the Iraq invasion, a globalanti-military Bases campaign has been proposed as an action to priorizeamong global anti-war, justice and solidarity movements»(http://www.no-bases.org/index.php?mod=network&bloque=1&idioma=en).

Since then, the campaign has acquired greater recognition. E-mail lists have been compiled nousbases@lists.riseup.net andnousbases-info@lists.riseup.net that permit the diffusion ofthe movement members experiences and information and discussionexchanges. That list now groups 300 people and organizations from 48countries. A Web site permits also to adequately inform all Networkmembers. Many rubrics provide highly valuable information on ongoingactivities around the World.

In addition, the Network is more and more active and participates in different activities. At the World Social Forums it organized variousconferences and colloquia. It was present at the European Social Forumheld in Paris in 2003 and in London in 2004 as well as at the theAmerica’s Social Forum in Ecuador in 2004, and at the MediterraneanSocial Forum in Spain in 2005.

One of the major gatherings, which was held in Mumbai, India, in 2004, was within the framework of the World Social Forum. More than 125participants from 34 countries defined the foundations of a coordinatedglobal campaign.

Action priorities were identified, such as the determination of a global day of action aiming at underscoring major issues stemming fromthe existence of US military bases. The Network also held fourdiscussion sessions at the Porto Alegre Social Forum in 2005. One ofthose pertained to the financing of the Network’s activities.

It is important to recall that the Network belongs to the Global Peace Movement. Justice and Peace organizations have become moresensitized on what was at stake regarding US military bases.

The Quito and Manta International Conference, Ecuador, March 2007

A Network World Conference for the Abolition of Foreign Military Bases was held at Quito and at Manta, Ecuador, from March 5 to 9 2007

The objective of the Conference was to underscore the political, social, environmental and economic impacts of US military bases, to makeknown the principles of the various Anti-Bases movements and toformally build the Network, its strategies, structure and Action Plans.The main objectives of the Conference were the following:

- Analyze the role of Foreign Military Bases and otherfeatures of military presence associated to the global dominancestrategy and their impacts upon population and environment;

- Share experiences and reinforce the built solidarity resulting from the resistance battles against Foreign military Basesaround the World;

- Reach a consensus on objectives mechanisms, on action plans, on coordination, on communication and on decision making of aGlobal Network for the abolition of all Foreign military Bases and ofall other expressions of military presence; and

- Establish global action plans to fight and reinforce the resistance of local people and ensure that these actions are beingcoordinated at the international level.

Conclusion

This article has focussed on the Worldwide development of US military power. The US tends to view the Earth surface as a vast territory toconquer, occupy and exploit. The fact that the US Military splits theWorld up into geographic command units vividly illustrates thisunderlying geopolitical reality. Humanity is being controlled andenslaved by this Network of US military bases. .

The ongoing re-deployment of US troops and military bases has to be analyzed in a thorough manner if we wish to understand the nature of USinterventionism in different regions of the World. This militarisationprocess is charactersied by armed aggression and warfare, as well asinterventions called “cooperation agreements”. The latter reaffirmedAmerica’s economic design design in the areas of trade and investmentpractices. Economic development is ensured through the miniaturizationor the control of governments and organizations. Vast resources arethereby expended and wasted in order to allow such control to beeffective, particuarly in regions which have a strategic potential interms of wealth and resources and which are being used to consolidatethe Empire’s structures and functions.

The setting up of the International Network for the Abolition of Foreign Military Bases turns out to be an extraordinary means to opposethe miniaturization process of the Planet. Such Network is indispensableand its growth depends on a commitment of all the People of the World.It will be extremely difficult to mobilize them, but the ties built upby the Network among its constituant resistence movements are a positiveelement, which is ultmately conducive to more cohesive and coordinatedbattle at the World level.

The Final Declaration of the Second International Conference against Foreign Military Bases which was held in Havana in November 2005 and wasendorsed by delegates from 22 countries identifies most of the majorissues, which confront mankind. This Declaration constitutes a majorpeace initative. It establishes international solidarity in the processof disarmament. .

(http://www.csotan.org/textes/texte.php?type=divers&art_id=267 ).

Ref: GlobalResearch, byJules Dufour

Jules Dufour is President of the United Nations Association of Canada (UNA-C) – Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean branch and Research Associateat the Center for Research on Globalization (CRG). He is EmeritusProfessor of Geography at the University of Quebec, Chicoutimi.

In 2007, Professor Jules Dufour became Chevalier de l’Ordre national du Québec, a distinction conferred by the Quebec government,for his contributions to World peace and human rights, his numerousscholarly writings and the work he accomplished in the context ofnational and international commissions on issues pertaining to regionaldevelopment, human rights and the protection of the environment.

Translated from the French, first published on Global Research’s French language website: www.mondialisation.ca

References

COMITÉ DE SURVEILLANCE OTAN. 2005. Las bases militares : un aspecto de la estrategia global de la OTAN. Intervencion del ComitéSurveillance Otan en la Conferencia Internacional realizada en La Habana7-11.11.2005. 9 pages.

DELGADO JARA, Diego. 2006. Bases de Manta, Plan Colombia y dominio de la Amazonia. Militarizacion de la Hegemonia de EE. UU. EnAmérica latina. 17 pages.

EQUIPO DE COMUNICACIÓN CONFERENCIA NO BASES. 2007. La gente del mundo no quiere bases militares extranjeras.

GELMAN, J. 2007. Terratenientes. Rebelion. 26 de Febrero de 2007, http://www.rebelion.org/noticia.php?id-47353

Ghana to host US Military Base? February 26, 2006.

JOHNSON, C., America’s Empire of Bases. January 2004.

JOHNSON, C. America’s Empire of Bases. Janvier 2004 .

JOHNSON, C. 2005. The Sorrows of Empire. Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic. Henry Holt, April 2005, Paperback. 389 pages.

JOHNSON, C., 2007.. 737 U.S. Military Bases = Global Empire. February 19, 2007

JUCCA, L., 2007. Italians protest over U.S. base expansion. Sat Feb 17, 2007.

MANFREDI, E. 2007. Djibouti : Hôtel Corne d’Afrique, grande base américaine. Le GRAND SOIR.info. Édition du 23 mars 2007.

NEW INTERNATIONALIST. 2004. The Bases of Resistance, December 2004, Issue 374.

NICHOLSON, B. 2007. Secret New Us Spy base to Get Green Light. February 15, 2 007.

TRAYNOR, I. 2007. US EXPANDS, Builds New Military Bases in Europe. The Guardian, anuary 22, 2007.

TSAVDARIDIS, I., 2005. Military Bases around the world and in Europe – the role of the USA and NATO. Novembre 2005. Stop USA / STOPUnited States of Agression.

VAREA, C., Las bases Militares de EEUU en Iraq. 4 mai 2006. Nodo50.

Web Sites

An Internet Guide to United States Military Bases Around the World :

http://www.libsci.sc.edu/bob/class/clis734/webguides/milbase.htm

APPEL A UN RASSEMBLEMENT INTERNATIONAL en Mars 2007, Équateur, Pour l’abolition de toutes les bases militaires

Bases y Ejercicios Militares de EE.UU. El Comando Sur.

BUILDING A GLOBAL ANTI-MILITARY BASES MOVEMENT

Campana. Un mundo sin bases militares . Asemblea de Organizaciones y Movimientos contra la guerra, la OTAN y elNeoliberalismo (Madrid), Nodo50.

Challenges to the US Empire, http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/challenges/challengesindex.htm.

Washington veut installer une base militaire en Algérie. Le Quotidien d’Oran, 20 juillet 2003.

Empire? http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/index.htm

International Conference against Foreign Military Bases. Final Declaration.

[Fsmed-general] for all that are against foreign military bases:

http://www.grups.pangea.org/pipermail/fsmed-general/Week-of-Mon-20060206/001002.html

FUENTES DE AGUA EN AMÉRICA LATINA :

http://www.visionesalternativas.com/militarizacion/mapas/mapahegem.htm

Abdulhafeth Khrisat, Impérialisme américain et politique militaire, , Université Mu’tah

Interview with Chalmers Johnson, Part 1. An Empire of More Than 725 Military Bases.

Liste des bases militaires américaines dans le monde.

Major Military Bases World-Wide,

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/sites.htm

Military Bases Around The World, http://www.fsmitha.com/com/bases.htm

Military Bases around the world and in Europe – the role of the USA and NATO , Iraklis Tsavdaridis, Secretary of the World Peace Council(WPC) 8th November 2005, From the Greek Committee for InternationalDetente and Peace (EEDYE), Presented on November 8, 2005 at theInternational Conference on Foreign Military Bases in Havana/Cubaorganized by MOVPAZ :

http://stopusa.be/campaigns/texte.php?section=FABN&langue=3&id=24157

Military of the United States : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_armed_forces

MOVIMIENTOS SOCIALES DE RESISTENCIA EN AMÉRICA LATINA

No a la instalacion de una base de la OTAN en Zaragoza :

http://www.ecologistasenaccion.org/article.php3?id_article=6261

OTAN – Le grand jeu des bases militaires en terre européenne :

http://www.mondialisation.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=DIN20060509&articleId=2414

Protestas contra bases militares de EEUU en Espana :

http://spanish.peopledaily.com.cn/spanish/200104/02/sp20010402_46341.html

RIQUEZA DE LA BIODIVERSIDAD EN AMÉRICA LATINA

US Military Troops and Bases Around the World :

http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/intervention/2003/0710imperialmap.htm

U.S. Military Troops and Bases Around the World /united for peace & justice:

http://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?id=884

US Military Expansion and Intervention :

http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/intervention/index.htm

YACIMIENTOS PETROLEROS EN AMÉRICA LATINA :

http://www.visionesalternativas.com/militarizacion/mapas/mapapetrol.htm

Filed under: ANTI-US, in SHOCK DOCTRIN" rel="category tag"">SHOCK DOCTRIN, USA, VIDEO & PICTS" rel="category tag"">VIDEO & PICTS, imperialism" rel="category tag"">imperialism, posts in proUS thinktanks" rel="category tag"">proUS thinktanks, reflection" rel="category tag"">reflection | Tagged: bases, colonalsm, colonialism,ForeignMilitary Bases, imperalism, Iraqmilitary bases, militarism, network, power, ResistanceMovements, us,USMilitary Bases, USA

« AMERICA’S “WAR ON TERRORISM” AMERICA THE STUPID (from the inside)
Read more…

Telling it like it is. This truthful interview should set you free.

Posted by Tane on April 28, 2010 at 12:35am

This puts things in a more correct perspective:

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/4/26/the_united_nations_is_beyond_reformit

April 26, 2010

"The United Nations Is Beyond Reform…It Has to Be Reinvented"–Fmr. UN General Assembly President Miguel d’Escoto


One of the higher-profile participants at the Cochabamba climate conference was the former president of the United Nations General Assembly, Father Miguel d’Escoto. A Roman Catholic priest from Nicaragua, d’Escoto served as foreign minister in Daniel Ortega’s government from 1979 to 1990. He joins us to talk about the failures of the UN, the importance of the Bolivia climate summit, why Latin America doesn’t need the United States, and much more. [includes rush transcript]

Filed under World Peoples’ Summit on Climate Change, climate change

Guest:

Miguel D'Escoto, former president of the United Nations General Assembly and former foreign minister of Nicaragua.

RUSH TRANSCRIPT

This transcript is available free of charge. However, donations help us provide closed captioning for the deaf and hard of hearing on our TV broadcast. Thank you for your generous contribution.

Donate - $25, $50, $100, More...

AMY GOODMAN: We’re back in New York, broadcasting from our Democracy Now! studios after a week in Bolivia, where we brought you on-the-ground coverage of the World Peoples’ Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth. Thousands of indigenous leaders, environmental activists and grassroots organizers met for three days of talks in Cochabamba. Working groups on seventeen topics discussed a variety of issues, and a summary of their conclusions was put into a six-page Agreement of the People.

The agreement calls on developed countries to cut their greenhouse gas emissions by 50 percent by 2020, recommends the creation of an international climate tribunal, and calls for an international referendum on the environment to coincide with the next Earth Day on April 22nd, 2011. The government of Bolivia has pledged to bring the results of the World Peoples’ Conference into the negotiating halls of the United Nations and to highlight the demands at the next UN climate meeting in Mexico in December.

One of the higher-profile participants at the Cochabamba conference was the former president of the United Nations General Assembly, Father Miguel d’Escoto. A Roman Catholic priest from Nicaragua, d’Escoto served as foreign minister in Daniel Ortega’s government from 1979 to 1990. In September of 2008, he was elected to serve as president of the UN General Assembly. A year later, he held a ceremony at the presidential palace in La Paz honoring Bolivian President Evo Morales, naming him World Hero of Mother Earth.

On the last of the summit, I had a chance to sit down with Father Miguel d’Escoto on Earth Day for an extended conversation. I began by asking him for his thoughts on the Bolivia climate summit.

FATHER MIGUEL D’ESCOTO: You know, I think it was a really great inspiration. This was as a response to the farce of Copenhagen by President Evo Morales. When he realized that the developed countries were up to no good and that they couldn’t care less about what is happening to Mother Earth, he said, "This cannot stand this way. We are going to have a summit of the people." And, you know, I think the time has come. Remember that the United Nations does not belong to the few who think that they own it. The United Nations was created in the name of we the people. And I think it’s about time that we the people take over. The United Nations is a dictatorship from which nothing good comes, because they find a million ways to prevent anything from happening.

AMY GOODMAN: That’s amazing that you, as the former president of the United Nations General Assembly, would call the UN a dictatorship.

FATHER MIGUEL D’ESCOTO: It is what I called it always, and I always spoke about the need to democratize the United Nations. And I remember, prior to my becoming president, many representatives of different countries wanted to meet with me. And I can never forget Lord Sawers, the permanent representative from the United Kingdom. He came over to my office, and he says, "Father, I would like to know what is on your agenda, what are some of the main things that you would like to promote." I said, "I would like the democratization to work for the democratization of the UN." "Well," he says, "how much more democratic can it be? After all, one country, one vote." "You have a very little understanding of democracy, Lord Sawers, because a vote that is not taken into account doesn’t mean anything. Democracy means having the possibility to join in the decision-making process."

And even if you want to reform the United Nations, then the Charter tells you how you can proceed to reform it. They say you have to call a general conference and how you have to call it and the approval that you have to have from the Security Council. But at the end, when all is said and done, when you have decided what reforms you want to make, they have a veto power over it. So it’s a farce. It’s a fraud.

AMY GOODMAN: What do you mean they—

FATHER MIGUEL D’ESCOTO: The United Nations is a fraud.

AMY GOODMAN: What do you mean they have veto power over it? Who’s "they"?

FATHER MIGUEL D’ESCOTO: The Security Council.

AMY GOODMAN: And the countries, in particular, on the Security Council?

FATHER MIGUEL D’ESCOTO: Within the Security Council, there are five countries that have veto power. But without a doubt, the most influential country in the United Nations is the United States. And it’s really, really amazing the most warmongering country in the history of mankind is put there in charge to make sure that there is peace. And then they go ahead and launch one of the most atrocious—they call it war, this aggression against Iraq, for the only purpose of obtaining the petroleum of that country. It is hard to say how many people have died, but it’s over 1,300,000 now. If you ask people in the United States—I did many times—I said, "How many people do you think have died in Iraq by now?" And they say, "Well, Father, I’m not sure, but I have an idea that it’s coming close to 4,000." And what is the rest? Cockroaches? They have been—it has been ingrained in their heads that the rest of human beings don’t count, they’re not people. They have been trained to think that if you invent a name for whatever crime you are making, then that’s OK. The crime has been baptized. And so, Madeleine Albright would say, for example, "Oh, that’s collateral damage." So, you say, "Well, I’m sorry, I didn’t realize it was that. So that’s OK. Let’s go to the next one."

No, it’s really something terrible, what is happening in the world. We need a United nations. They are killing it. They are killing it because it’s not united. It’s a subjugated nations. And they’re killing it. It’s easy to see. For example, here in Cochabamba, I think it was yesterday or the day before, this very, very nice lady who has very wonderful ideals and who is very competent, head of CEPAL, the Latin America—the United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America that is in Chile, when she spoke, thousands of people manifested repudiation through different sounds. Terrible. They were manifesting repudiation to the UN. The level of approval of the United Nations by the man in the street is at the lowest level ever, only comparable to the level of approval of the United States.

AMY GOODMAN: Father Miguel d’Escoto. He’s the former president of the UN General Assembly and former foreign minister of Nicaragua. We’ll continue our conversation that we had on Earth Day in Cochabamba in a minute.

[break]

AMY GOODMAN: Today, the Bolivian ambassador to the United Nations, Pablo Salon, is delivering the resolutions of the World Peoples’ Conference on Climate Change to the UN to have them incorporated into the UN climate summit planned in Cancun in December.

On the last day of the Bolivia summit, on Earth Day, I sat with Father Miguel d’Escoto in Cochabamba. We return to the interview with the former foreign minister of Nicaragua and the former president of the UN General Assembly, Father d’Escoto.

AMY GOODMAN: What do you make of the British Environment Secretary calling Morales’s activism "watermelon activism"—green on the outside, red on the inside?

FATHER MIGUEL D’ESCOTO: Yeah, they think that by making a joke that they can—again, we are back into what I was just saying. You give it a name; it sounds funny. This is, by the way, not an original. I have heard that millions of times, in different languages, that very same thing. ¿Cómo se llama "watermelon"? Sandía. Verde por fuera, rojo por dentro. I have been hearing that for thirty years.

So, the British official that you refer to now saying that, with that, he can take care and diminish the prestige, the immense prestige, that Evo Morales is having, not only within his own country, but within our continent and throughout the world. He has become sort of a prophet, really speaking out on the rights of Mother Earth.

The Europeans were giving me—many of them, not all of them, but many of them—a hard time at the United Nations, when one year ago today we were involved in trying to give the earth that designation, and today is the International Day. To them, that sounded something primitive, something like Indian, not sophisticated enough.

AMY GOODMAN: To talk about Mother Earth?

FATHER MIGUEL D’ESCOTO: Yeah, to talk to—to designate the earth with the name Mother Earth. But she’s our mother. You are earth. I am earth. Through you, the earth thinks, invents, cries, laughs, loves, venerates the Creator. They were saying—this morning I heard the foreign minister from Ecuador saying that some legislators in his country were saying that Mother Earth could not be the subject of rights. They were saying that she could not be subject of rights, because she could not demand rights. That’s like saying that you can be hurt in your elbow, smashed, but since your elbow cannot speak out, it doesn’t matter. You speak for your elbow. We are part, integral part of Mother Earth. We are the ones who speak.

AMY GOODMAN: So how do you think this peoples’ summit called by President Evo Morales can influence the UN climate change summit that will be taking place in Cancun in December?

FATHER MIGUEL D’ESCOTO: I don’t want to be cynical and to say that I don’t expect much. I was saying that about Copenhagen. The way that the United Nations is now, it won’t produce too much. There are too many obstacles. The United Nations, I said, when I was leaving my post as president of the General Assembly, at the end I said, I want to share with you the insights that I take with me as I leave. The United Nations is beyond reform. It’s beyond patchwork. It’s the most important organization in the world to help save the human species and Mother Earth, but it has to be reinvented, and not include all kinds of little tricks, a few people to make sure that the imperial clause, and deep within it, so—

AMY GOODMAN: How much power do corporations have on the United Nations, over the United Nations? Or do they at all?

FATHER MIGUEL D’ESCOTO: The question is this way: how much power do corporations, the whole industrial-military complex, have on the United States? And there you have the answer. The United States is not what people think it is. I don’t think it’s what President Obama thought it was. I thought that being president—I think that he meant, really—I liked him. And I thank God for his coming to that high office in the United States, and I prayed that he would be elected. And I know that he was sincere. And in my waiting room, in my office at the United States, I had a great big picture of him, with—it’s like a poster with "hope" written underneath. And I wrote him a letter saying how much—how glad I was to hear him. But it has remained promises, because I think now he realizes that he is only the president in a country where the industrial-military complex decides what has to be done, and you cannot go beyond the parameters of what they decide. It would be dangerous.

AMY GOODMAN: Do you think the US has changed its policy at all towards Latin America right now?

FATHER MIGUEL D’ESCOTO: There’s no change whatsoever.

AMY GOODMAN: From Bush to Obama?

FATHER MIGUEL D’ESCOTO: From Bush to Obama, no change. No, no. It’s—with Obama, no change. There’s a change in rhetoric, but no change, no.

AMY GOODMAN: And so, what characterizes the relationship?

FATHER MIGUEL D’ESCOTO: A desire of domination and control. And now, you know, this putting up of—the plan to put up seven military bases in, what do you call, in Colombia. They have a military base in Honduras. We know—I know, from firsthand experience, what is the purpose of such bases. My country was invaded. Every day there was military incursions from that base, with American camouflage. And—

AMY GOODMAN: Your country being Nicaragua.

FATHER MIGUEL D’ESCOTO: My country being Nicaragua, yes. And so, it’s a very sad thing. One day, we were hoping—really, I was really hoping always that the day will come when the United States would become a democracy. But we need democracy now! Right now, not God knows how many centuries. We don’t have that much time. It’s democracy now. But it’s very difficult because of the grip they have on the mind of the people. This mind control is very, very deep.

AMY GOODMAN: What is your assessment of your president, Nicaraguan President Ortega?

FATHER MIGUEL D’ESCOTO: Yes.

AMY GOODMAN: Right now you have this conflict going on where the opposition lawmakers are challenging Ortega and the courts for extending the term of justices, and they have led a major protest outside opposition legislators meeting.

FATHER MIGUEL D’ESCOTO: Yeah, yeah, it’s very typical. And of course, it’s not only the opposition; it’s the United States with the opposition.

What is happening in Nicaragua? The term of some of the magistrates in the court has ended. You cannot paralyze the country. You have to have the General Assembly. Our Parliament has the obligation to name the new judges. This is their right and their duty. They want to paralyze the country. And so they are not naming them. And the same goes—

AMY GOODMAN: Who is they?

FATHER MIGUEL D’ESCOTO: The legislators. They have a majority. The opposition, that is very much in coordination with the United States embassy in Washington, so they have said, OK, we’re going to bring this country to a halt by not naming members to the Supreme Court and also magistrates to the Supreme Electoral Council. But there’s a part of the Constitution that says that the president is in charge to make sure that the country moves. And he has said, "We are not taking away your right to name them, but if you fail to do your duty, I will have to put out this decree that the ones that were elected are going to continue until you elect the new ones, because we’re not going to close shop." The [inaudible] goes down.

AMY GOODMAN: Do you think President Ortega will try to extend his own term?

FATHER MIGUEL D’ESCOTO: Will try to extend—I don’t know if he will try, but the people would like for him to extend it. And I certainly would like for him to extend his term.

AMY GOODMAN: Because?

FATHER MIGUEL D’ESCOTO: Because this is not a government like in the United States, where it doesn’t really matter, or like in England, where it doesn’t matter whether you have Thatcher or Tony Blair, one being Conservative, the other Labor—six of one and half a dozen of the other. We, in many countries in Latin America, are in revolution—that is to say, in transformation. And we need this kind of guidance. And the people want it.

AMY GOODMAN: There’s a piece on the Washington Post website that calls the Ortega government a leftist "thugocracy." What’s your response to that?

FATHER MIGUEL D’ESCOTO: Well, yeah, that’s, again, the United States. Our Lord used to say, "By their fruits, you shall know them." So, see what is happening in Nicaragua, and then judge. But they will always be calling names.

And they started a campaign, for example, that I was against Jewish people and that I should be killed. It’s in the internet. And I’m not against Jewish people. In fact, I have great love for Jewish people. And as a Christian, I’m a follower of Jesus, who was a Jew. But being a Jew is one thing, and being a Zionist outreach of the empire is something else.

AMY GOODMAN: Your view on the Israel-Palestine conflict, what you think needs to happen?

FATHER MIGUEL D’ESCOTO: My view?

AMY GOODMAN: What is your view of the Israel-Palestine conflict, what you think needs to happen? And why do you think it’s not happening?

FATHER MIGUEL D’ESCOTO: I think what needs to happen, the biggest single tragic fault in the United Nations is that after sixty-four years, Israel has not been given a statehood. And—

AMY GOODMAN: Israel?

FATHER MIGUEL D’ESCOTO: I meant to say Palestine. Palestine has not been given statehood. And when the split of Palestine for a Jewish state and an Arab state, when that was decided upon—not really decided upon, when that decision was imposed, with all kinds of arm-twisting and the threats and the intimidations that the United States calls "negotiations"—you have to change your lexicon. When they say "democracy," it usually means somebody who is very obedient to whatever they say. Then they give you the good housekeeping of approval, and they put "democracy." If they don’t like you, then they say you are radical, and then they escalate the term to show—so it’s very difficult.

The United States claims that it has the right to rule the world, because it did so much to save the world from—in the Second World War. I don’t know how many Americans died in that war, but I imagine it’s infinitely, infinitely less than the 20 million people of the Soviet Union who died, more than 20 million. But regardless of that, the war was a great economic boom for the United States. The New Deal did not pull the United States out of its economic crisis; it was the war. And war has been, on many occasions, a business. They are very much into the business of death.

And that’s why, one time, when you talked to me over the phone many years ago, and President Reagan had died, and I never will forget that you said to me, "What do you think?" Well, you know, President Reagan is a human being. He’s got his wife, and he’s got his people who love him. And I feel sorry when people die, no matter who they are. And I pray to God that he receives them, in spite of the fact, I said, that he was the butcher of my people, a pathological killer. But in the United States, they are accustomed not to recognize their killers.

You must have heard the name of Curtis LeMay, one of the sickest minds. Curtis LeMay, in a conversation with McNamara—

AMY GOODMAN: This was the General.

FATHER MIGUEL D’ESCOTO: Si, it was Robert McNamara, said, "You know, if we lose this war, we will be accused of crimes, of war crimes." But you don’t have to lose it to commit war crimes. They committed war crimes.

They talk about Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Curtis LeMay, the most decorated ever military officer of the United States, the one who served the longest period of time as general, seventeen years, he was in charge of their operation. But they never mentioned the Holocaust that went before it. And sometimes when they mention it, they say the Tokyo firebombing. Sixty cities of Japan were subjected to bombing with incendiary cylinders. Some counts put it in the millions, the number of people who were turned into charcoal, the number of people who were incinerated. And—¿Como se llama? Se llama Enola Gay, the plane, the B-62, the airplane that was used to throw the atom bomb, is put in display as a magnificent thing for people to go and take their picture next to it. It’s sick. It’s a sick society.

I love the United States, and I have great pain when I see that that is happening. And, you know, and this is happening with a very sophisticated system of control of the mind of the Americans. They are good people. And you talk to very good people and tell them about these things, they get angry. They think it didn’t happen. They think that you are inventing. Like the United States invents all kinds of things, they think that you’re inventing them, too.

AMY GOODMAN: Father Miguel d’Escoto, former president of the UN General Assembly. We’ll return to the conclusion of my interview with him in a minute.

[break]

AMY GOODMAN: We return to the conclusion of my interview with Father Miguel d’Escoto, the former president of the UN General Assembly.

AMY GOODMAN: You mentioned that the US hasn’t changed its policy to Latin America, but how has Latin America changed?

FATHER MIGUEL D’ESCOTO: Very much. For the first time—you see, I often make a comparison between what you witness happening in some couples, marriage, let’s say, where you have a monster of a man who beats and physically hurts his wife, and this is very painful, and she at first doesn’t even want to say this. And then he has instilled in her head that she is very stupid, that she cannot live without him, and that she better take whatever he does, because otherwise—he threatens.

We need the United States as much as we need arsenic, and that is the fact. We don’t need it. We would need it, if they wanted to join the rest of humanity and together work for a better future for all of us, but they are not doing that. They are instilling, they have instilled, a culture of death, of greed, of selfishness. And this is killing the world.

The world is now coming to a point where the very continuation of the human species is endangered. And the continuation of Mother Earth, her capacity to sustain life, is being hurt very gravely. And it is this religion that the United States is imposing on people. Its name is capitalism. It’s like a religion. They dedicate their whole military and every kind of power that they have to make sure that you do not use alternative means of development. If you dare to show that maybe there’s another way to develop, not necessarily to live better, but to live well, which is our ideal—to live well means to live in harmony with nature and with one another—they instill a culture of keeping up with the Joneses, of being better than the other. This is deadly, yeah.

AMY GOODMAN: One of the major proposals to come out of the Bolivia Peoples’ Summit is a climate change tribunal, a climate change crimes tribunal. What do you think of this?

FATHER MIGUEL D’ESCOTO: I think it’s indispensable, because some of the biggest crimes are being committed today by people who do things knowing what the consequences are going to be. I think it was a shame, I think it was really unbelievable, the proposal that the United States came to present at Copenhagen. And I think there has to be—I have written a proposal of how to do it and what that tribunal should do, like—and it’s indispensable. And it doesn’t matter, it should not matter, whether or not you are a party to a protocol, like [Kyoto] Protocol, or to a treaty, bilateral or multilateral, to a treaty that is meant to prevent the commission of certain crimes. It doesn’t matter whether you are a party to it or not, because not signing such a protocol or treaty does not give you the right to commit crime. And so, the tribunal will have the right to prosecute and to enforce.

The only thing is, that contrary to the United States, I am totally against the use of force. I’m totally committed to the Gandhian ideal of satyagraha, Gandhian nonviolence, which is not to be confused with passive resistance. There’s nothing passive about satyagraha. It’s dynamic. We have to begin to see how to implement it. Imagine the world tomorrow, saying that, in passing a resolution at the General Assembly, no member states of the inner assembly can, from now on, have any dealings with Coca-Cola. It’s not that big a deal. It’s a big symbol. Coca-Cola has become almost a symbol of the United States, and I drink it, but if there were such a resolution, there can be others. You have to find—we don’t need them. We can make a mutual cooperation. We must.

You know, there is a great African intellectual. He’s today teaching at the University of California at Berkeley. His name is Ngugi wa Thiong’o. One of his books, The Decolonization of the Mind [Decolonising the Mind], The Decolonization of the Intellect. We’ve got to speed up the decolonization and realize that what we need is solidarity among those who love life.

AMY GOODMAN: Father Miguel d’Escoto, former president of the UN General Assembly and former foreign minister of Nicaragua. I spoke with him in Cochabamba, just outside the Earth Day closing rally of the World Peoples’ Summit on Climate Change and Rights of Mother Earth.

=====

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

Read more…

HAVE YOU ASKED IF HAWAIIANS WANT THE AKAKA BILL?

Posted by Free Hawai`i on April 27, 2010 at 5:00am












Not since 2000 have hearings been held on any of the Hawaiian Islands.

Certainly the 2007 Akaka Bill which easily passed through many congressional committees then was not brought to the Hawaiian communities.

You’d think hearings would be held on such an important bill that affects our entire community.

I guess we can expect the same from Washington DC and Washington Place as we have from Wall Street.

More corruption with no remedy!

Foster Ampong
Kahului, Maui
Read more…