The UN says Zimbabwe's government is hiding the full scale of its cholera epidemic. Original video from the UK's Sky News.

Nicole Belle sent me a link today about a report by Physicians for Human Rights on the horror story Zimbabwe has become:

PHR found that the Mugabe government has withheld food aid, seed, and fertilizer to rural provinces in order to starve political opponents; that the regime nationalized and then withheld routine support for municipal water and sewer systems from cities that elected political opponents; that the health care infrastructure and the economy itself is nearing utter collapse; corruption is the rule not the exception; and that the regime brutally silences critics to cover its crimes, profound corruption and incompetence (see report here).

“While we were there,” Frank Donaghue, CEO of Physicians for Human Rights told Religion Dispatches, “human rights activists were imprisoned and tortured.”

“People think that the most compelling problem is cholera,” he said (and indeed, the cholera outbreak has been widely reported). But, adds Donaghue, it is also a symptom of more profound underlying problems. “The issue is the collapse of the government, the economy, and the health system” he said. “Human waste is running down the streets. Kids are playing in it. The sewage system is in such bad repair that you get sewage in tap water.”

and added:

This could so easily be a big foreign policy headache for Obama, too easily reminiscent of the Clinton policy in Rwanda -- with Hillary Clinton at State...

And it wouldn't hurt progressives to get out ahead on this

Nicole's correct. But what to do? I just don't see the US being able to act alone or cobble together another Coalition of the Willing without the UN's blessing. Mugabe is as nutz as the neocons would like us to think Ahmadinejad is and has the military's backing - sanctions and political pressure likely won't do a thing. Zimbabwe has only 30,000 of an army and an almost non-existent airforce so intervention by force would be a "cakewalk"...in the primary (invasion) phase...

But then there's the many short and long term drawbacks of yet another invasion and occupation to consider. South Africa's support and basing agreements would be essential. There would certainly be an insurgency of some kind. Accusations of colonialism and imperialist invasions would echo and probably rightly so. The US and others are still not set up for nation-building. The UK already has military contingency plans in place but has said clearly it won't go it alone for these very reasons.

The best bet, to my mind, would be a UN-mandated relief effort, protected by a UN-mandated force - which would have to include African troops. That's likely inadequate to the problem, but it's what's feasible in both short and long terms and a bit of help is better than no help at all.

The situation is certainly dire enough that PHR is asking for UN intervention.

Control of Zimbabwe's shattered health system should be handed over to the United Nations, an independent doctors group has demanded.

As the official death toll from the country's cholera epidemic yesterday topped 2,000, Physicians for Human Rights said government corruption was killing innocent people. The international doctors' group also called for President Robert Mugabe to be investigated by the International Criminal Court at the launch of a report titled Health in Ruins – A Man-made Disaster in Zimbabwe.

Is Zimbabwe a justified cause for a UN-approved coalition empowered under the Responsibility to Protect principles as ratified at the 2001 ICISS summit and recognized under UN Security Council Resolution 1674 (2006)? This resolution technically commits Security Council members to intervene in situations like this (if they are deemed to qualify as "genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity").

At that point, the first problem becomes one of getting such a resolution passed. China, which is heavily invested in Zimbabwe and thus the Mugabe government, might well veto any such move and some of Zimbabwe's neighbours including SA wouldn't be too happy at the prospect of refugees streaming across their borders. The second problem, of course, would be affording such a military-supported relief effort in the midst of an economic crisis. The third, stopping Zimbabwe turning into another quagmire.

Until recently, I thought that negotiations between the government and its main rival might provide a solution, but now it's obvious they won't. I'm not entirely opposed to the notion of using force for humanitarian interventions but I am very opposed to the notion that a new Zimbabwe effort would also open the door to more of the same after Iraq slammed it closed good and hard. The neo-whatevers, who have always loved war more than the humanitarian reasons they advance for those wars, would just love that. Since I'm no longer certain as to what to think, so this post is by way of asking for thoughts and debate.

Crossposted from Newshoggers

With apologies to Talking Heads.

The Israeli Defense Force is using white phosphorus on built up areas in Gaza. They've denied it, sort of, by saying only that Israel is using "munitions that are allowed for under international law". Israel isn't a signatory to key arms control treaties, upheld by most of the rest of the world, which govern the use of WP and other chemical weapons. So those treaties can be ignored in favor of long-planned PR spin. Both the US and Israel claim that using WP as a smokescreen generator isn't prohibited by any treaties and they're correct - as long as the WP isn't being employed over built up areas, at which time the indiscriminate nature and incendiary anti-personnel effects of these airbursts make them illegal by the Geneva Conventions governing responsibilities towards civilian non-combatants and by article two, protocol III of the 1980 UN Convention on Certain Weapons. That is, a war crime.

That distinction came up in Fallujah, Iraq during 2004 when US forces initially said they were using white phosphorus only as a smokescreen, later on admitting reluctantly that it had also been used as an anti-personnel weapon on insurgents. The US military never officially admitted to using WP on civilian areas, however, despite numerous reports of second and third degree chemical burns consistent with WP use.

Incandescent particles of WP cast off by a WP weapon's initial explosion can produce extensive, deep (second and third degree), burns. Phosphorus burns carry a greater risk of mortality than other forms of burns due to the absorption of phosphorus into the body through the burned area, resulting in liver, heart and kidney damage, and in some cases multi-organ failure.[26] These weapons are particularly dangerous to exposed people because white phosphorus continues to burn unless deprived of oxygen or until it is completely consumed.

Earlier, the Bush administration had no problem with saying that Saddam's use of WP on civilian areas had been an atrocity, a war crime. Somehow I doubt they'll say the same about Israel.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOAD (224)

PLAY (234)

Thanks to Heather for the vid clip

One of the key parts of Israel's well-planned media narrative in Gaza is that they are carefully targeting attacks and that there is no humanitarian crisis there which isn't attributable to the mis-management of the elected Hamas government. President Shimon Peres repeated the claim this Sunday on ABC News "This Week with George Stephanopoulos".

STEPHANOPOULOS: Finally, sir, the head of the Shin Bet general security services told a cabinet meeting in Israel today, it's been reported, that Hamas has eased its demands for a cease-fire with Israel. Can you elaborate on that?

PERES: Yes. They made the demand, they made the suggestion to have a cease-fire and open the passages. To open the passages without control means to enable them to bring in more rockets, more missiles, more weapons, more supply from Iran. Doesn't make any sense that we should do it. Because it started with open passages. They could have moved around without any difficulties. We even permitted the supply of money, not only medical supply, money that we have collected to the Hamas. So what do they want, that we should open to them again, to have more supply of weapons and bombs?

We say that they are -- we are not going to. And even today, by the way, one of the passages is open, because there is no shortage of basic needs in Gaza. We take care that medical equipment and food and fuel will arrive to Gaza, even today.

STEPHANOPOULOS: OK, Mr. President, thank you very much for your

time this morning.

PERES: Thank you.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Now for reaction here in the United States, I am joined by the number-two Democrat in the Senate, Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois, the senior senator of Illinois.

Good morning, Senator. Let me get your reaction right away to President Peres. You clearly saw him, heard him this morning, no cease-fire, no withdrawal now. Is that wise?

DURBIN: Well, it's understandable.

The UN has a very different appreciation of the situation, however.

John Ging, the head of the UN relief agency in Gaza, described the situation there as "inhuman".

"We have a catastrophe unfolding in Gaza for the civilian population," he said. "The people of Gaza City and the north now have no water. That comes on top of having no electricity. They're trapped, they're traumatised, they're terrorised by this situation.

"They're in their homes. They're not safe. They're being killed and injured in large numbers, and they have no end in sight. The inhumanity of this situation, the lack of action to bring this to an end, is bewildering to them."

The UN has been particularly angered at the contention of the Israeli foreign minister, Tzipi Livni, that there is no humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

Ging also accused Israel of a campaign of destroying public buildings vital to the administration and governance of Gaza.

"The whole infrastructure of the future state of Palestine is being destroyed," he said. "Blowing up the parliament building. That's the parliament of Palestine. That's not a Hamas building. The president's compound is for the president of Palestine. Schools, mosques."

Now, there are indications that the Israelis are using either cluster munitions or white phosphorus over urban areas, which will inevitably push up civilian casualties and raise allegations of war crimes. Although Western media have been slow to acknowledge the use of such weapons - and Murdoch's London Times even altered its own photo caption to suggest otherwise - some pictures from Gaza clearly show the distinctive multiple explosive impacts from Israeli artillery shells bursting over built up areas.

If there wasn't a humanitarian crisis before, Israel seems set on manufacturing one now.

"When there was a siege, we kept taking about a catastrophe," said Hatem Shurrab, 24, of Gaza City. "But then the airstrikes started, and now we don't even know what word to use. There's no word in the dictionary that can describe the situation we are in."

Update: I've spoken to a couple of ex-military folk and they've confirmed that pictures coming out of Gaza by AFP news service show white phosphorous rounds exploding over and setting fires in urban civilian areas. Meanwhile Haaretz has confirmed that cluster munitions are also being used by the IDF but says they're being used over "open areas". Gaza is a lot smaller than Rhode Island and cluster bombs have a pattern as big as a football field so your definition of "open areas" may vary from the IDF's.

The BBC has a slideshow. here's the third photo.

Winning hearts and minds with a good attitude - NOT! A soldier complains about begging Afghan kids and tells one "your country sucks ass."

From the Gulf Times, a little-noticed aspect of the Bush administration's epic fail in Afghanistan. While the Western media is preoccupied with war - violent deaths, the resurgent Taliban and plans for a military Surge - the other Horsemen are even busier.

MORE than 1.6mn children under the age of five and thousands of women could die in 2009 as a result of the lack of food and medical care, particularly in terms of proper services for women and children, according to the Afghan Ministry of Health.

These are troubling statistics not only because of the human suffering involved, but because they indicate that millions of dollars poured into the country have not been able to reach the most vulnerable communities in the country.

Food shortages and inclement weather could leave 8mn Afghans -30% of the population - on the brink of starvation, according to several aid agencies. This is happening despite the World Food Programme (WFP)’s warning last January for a sharp increase in food assistance to the country. Lack of food is an actual threat not just in the remote regions of this country but also in Afghanistan’s urban areas.

Recent price increases in basic foods, particularly wheat, have adversely affected millions of Afghans, particularly in rural areas where domestic production cannot satisfy people’s needs. While in 2005 an average household was spending 56% of their income on food, that figure now rose to 85%, according to Susannah Nicol, a spokeswoman for the WFP.

...Children are particularly vulnerable. They are not only affected by lack of food. Diarrhea, acute respiratory infections and vaccine-preventable diseases are important threats to children’s health. Diarrhea and acute respiratory infections account for about 41% of all child deaths in this desperately poor nation of 26mn people, while vaccine-preventable diseases –such as measles, polio and diphtheria- account for another 21%, according to Unicef. The tragedy is that 80 to 85 % of these diseases can be avoided by preventive measures and appropriate and timely health care.

Afghanistan rates low in practically all health indicators. As a result, it has one of the world’s highest infant and maternal mortality rates. Hospitals in most of the country are in deplorable conditions, and lack enough trained doctors or medical equipment for even the most basic surgeries. Life expectancy is 42 years, according to figures from the World Health Organisation (WHO).

Do you think watching their babies die of famine and pestilence will help endear Afghans to the prospect of another 20-30,000 well-fed American soldiers in their country? Do you really think spending billions on those troops can possibly keep the lid on, given the statistics above? I know where I think the bulk of any surging should be going on.

Crossposted from Newshoggers

Via my Newshoggers colleague Anderson comes this:

By a vote of 180 in favour to 1 against (United States) and no abstentions, the Committee also approved a resolution on the right to food, by which the Assembly would “consider it intolerable” that more than 6 million children still died every year from hunger-related illness before their fifth birthday, and that the number of undernourished people had grown to about 923 million worldwide, at the same time that the planet could produce enough food to feed 12 billion people, or twice the world’s present population. (See Annex III.)

The Bush administration, speaking for the U.S.A., therefore must consider it tolerable that 6 million children die every day - children who could be fed if we weren't wasting billions on stealth fighters, littoral combat boondoggles and non-effective defense against non-existant ballistic missiles from Iran.

Just so you get that, here it is again:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of), Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: United States.

Merry Christmas to the World from Dubya and his chums - who are currently geeing up the notion that an increase in defense spending (say, to 4% of GDP) would be a great economic stimulus package! Actually, it wouldn't - defense spending "drains resources from the productive economy" and costs more jobs in other sectors than it creates.

How much better an economic stimulus - both for America and the world - it would be to mobilize American might for good instead of destruction, Dubya and his fellow travellers remain silent upon.

The Reaction: Nationalist kitsch and the GOP

naked capitalism: Foreclosures and delinquencies reach record highs. McCain nomination greeted by economic collapse

Corrente: Polish prosecutors probe Bush gulag at last

Ta-Nehisi Coates: What the white man means when he says "Ghetto"

Tomgram: In the course of any year, there must be relatively few countries on this planet on which U.S. soldiers do not set foot, whether with guns blazing, humanitarian aid in hand, or just for a friendly visit.

Bob Geiger: The Saturday Cartoons

President Karzai of Afghhanistan's signature is on a pardon for three gang-rapists who just happened to be cronies of a former Taliban commander and Afghan MP. The woman who was raped and her family didn't even know about it until the men turned up in their village again, but Karzai's office says he doesn't know anything about it.

“Everyone was shocked,” said Sara’s husband, Dilawar, who like many Afghans uses only one name. “These were men who had been sentenced and found guilty by the Supreme Court, walking around freely.”

Sara’s case highlights concerns about the close relationship between the Afghan president and men accused of war crimes and human rights abuses.

The men were freed discreetly but the rape itself was public and brutal. It took place in September 2005, in the run up to Afghanistan’s first democratic parliamentary elections.

... A copy of the pardon was numbered, dated in May and appeared to bear the personal signature of Hamid Karzai. It recommended the men’s release because, it said, “they had been forced to confess to their crimes.”

When showed copies of the presidential pardon and court papers, President Karzai’s spokesman, Hamayun Hamidzada, was visibly shocked and said that if the documents proved genuine, Mr Karzai would be “upset and appalled.”

He said it was impossible that President Karzai could knowingly have signed a pardon for rapists, but refused to speculate on how the pardon could have come about.

An Afghan MP told the Independent's Kate Clark that “The commanders, the war criminals, still have armed groups,” he said. “They’re in the government. Karzai, the Americans, the British sit down with them. They have impunity. They’ve become very courageous and can do whatever crimes they like.” UN officials say cases such as this are increasingly common - and the family of Sara, the raped woman, are in hiding again.

There's none of this that an Afghan Surge can solve - just as the Iraqi Surge hasn't solved very similiar problems there. And yet again the need to pretend that "democracy" follows in the Bush administration's wake outweighs the needs of the common people, while exiles pushed by the West and local crooks carve up the country to suit themselves. Such nice allies we have.

Download | play Download | play

American speed skater Joey Cheek has done a great deal to bring global attention to the immense suffering of the people of Darfur, forming Team Darfur and even going so far as donating his $40k Olympic bonus to the cause in 2006. Unfortunately, the gold and silver medalist was punished for his activism by the Chinese government -- who has contributed to the genocide in Darfur by fueling and supporting Sudan's murderous military government -- when they revoked his visa this week, preventing him from attending this year's Olympics in Beijing.

During the opening ceremony NBC's Bob Costas discussed the controversy surrounding Cheek and the Chinese government, noting that he made it clear he would not protest the Chinese government during the Olympics:

Costas: "Joey Cheek had planned to invoke the Olympic truce, the time-honored concept of an Olympic truce, to call attention to the humanitarian crisis in Sudan. He did not intend to directly protest the Chinese government. The fact that they pulled his visa is so contrary to the Olympic ideal it is simply outrageous."

I wondered if NBC was going to cave on this or take a stand and defend Cheek against the reprehensible actions of the Chinese government. I applaud Costas for choosing the latter.

Today is World Refugee Day. Yesterday the House passed an Iraq Supplemental with no deadlines for withdrawal and with funding for the occupation into next year.

Every day in Iraq, the Iraqi Red Crescent workers put their lives on the line to bring food, water, and medical care to their fellow Iraqis. Scores of these humanitarian workers have been kidnapped, murdered and harassed by death squads. Reports of raids on Red Crescent offices by our forces are frequent. Yet they keep on working – doing all they can to bring relief to internally displaced Iraqis and to their neighbors across Iraq. IRC is the only organization still bringing such aid to every region of Iraq and across all sectarian lines.

A number of us thought today was a very good day to flood the IRC with donations – and even if you can only donate a little, they will put every bit to work. This is one small way we can show our opposition to the occupation and our concern for the devastation our country is causing the Iraqi people.

To send a donation, click here and select “Iraq Humanitarian Response” in the “I want my contribution to go here” box. 100% of your donation will go directly to assisting Iraq Red Crescent’s work. Here's what your donation will buy:

Every 15 days, Iraqi Red Crescent networks deliver food rations that include flour, rice, sugar, vegetable oil, tomato paste, salt, jam, spaghetti, lentils, tea, sardines, and cheese. The $33.50 USD cost per family ration covers the expense of the food, distribution, transport and security. (These rations are delivered to 200,000 families.)

Continue reading »

Following up on an earlier item, yesterday was not an encouraging day for those who still take U.S. torture policy seriously.

A senior CIA lawyer advised Pentagon officials about the use of harsh interrogation techniques on detainees at Guantanamo Bay in a meeting in late 2002, defending waterboarding and other methods as permissible despite U.S. and international laws banning torture, according to documents released yesterday by congressional investigators.

Torture “is basically subject to perception,” CIA counterterrorism lawyer Jonathan Fredman told a group of military and intelligence officials gathered at the U.S.-run detention camp in Cuba on Oct. 2, 2002, according to minutes of the meeting. “If the detainee dies, you’re doing it wrong.”

The document, one of two dozen released by a Senate panel investigating how Pentagon officials developed the controversial interrogation program introduced at Guantanamo Bay in late 2002, suggests a larger CIA role in advising Defense Department interrogators than was previously known. By the time of the meeting, the CIA already had used waterboarding, which simulates drowning, on at least one terrorism suspect and was holding high-level al-Qaeda detainees in secret prisons overseas — actions that Bush administration lawyers had approved.

Of course, senators also got to hear from William “Jim” Haynes II, the Pentagon’s former top lawyer who signed off on those techniques (he was also, ironically, a one-time Bush judicial nominee). Regrettably, Haynes came down with an acute case of Alberto Gonzales Disease.

Over the course of just a few minutes, Haynes said, “I don’t recall seeing this memorandum before and I’m not even sure this is one I’ve seen before…. I don’t recall seeing this memorandum and I don’t recall specific objections of this nature…. Well, I don’t recall seeing this document, either…. I don’t recall specific concerns…. I don’t recall these and I don’t recall seeing these memoranda…. I can’t even read this document, but I don’t remember seeing it…. I don’t recall that specifically…. I don’t remember doing that…. I don’t recall seeing these things.”

And making the scandal significantly more painful, newly released materials also showed that lawyers candidly talked about curtailing abuse when Red Cross observers came around, and even tried to hide detainees from the humanitarian group.

I remember a time — I believe it’s known as “pre-2001″ — when the United States used to accuse countries which did this of being guilty of disgraceful human rights abuses.