When I heard the news from Honduras that democratically elected Manuel Zelaya was kidnapped in a coup, there was a 5 second delay before I thought about Haiti. In 2004, the democratically- elected president of Haiti, John Bertrand Aristide was also violently overthrown in a similar US-supported coup and taken hostage by military forces. Each coup was more than an action against a sitting president, but were counter-revolutions by elites aimed at silencing popular movements for social and economic change. We can't let them win.

In Honduras Sunday, the military took over the government television station, a curfew was imposed, and the Venezuelan, Cuban, and Nicaraguan Ambassadors were also kidnapped and detained. According to the New York Times, the only people permitted to have access to information were the wealthy with access to the internet. President Manuel Zelaya told Telesur from Costa Rica that he was kidnapped in his pajamas and told if he refused to hang up the cell phone, he would be shot. Zelaya was largely supported by organized labor and the poor. The referendum was largely expected to succeed by popular mandate---hence the violent reaction by elites who wanted to prevent the voting altogether. The referendum was bitterly opposed by the Honduran upper-classes who feared Zelaya would extend his four- year term limit and transform political inequalities in their representative system.

Choosing not to use violent revolution, a host of popularly elected leaders in Latin America are using the ballot box to empower the poor and working class. The most powerful weapon in their arsenal until now has been the referendum, which allows citizens to vote on constitutional reforms aimed at redistributing power and influence. Honduran president Manuel Zelaya, and Haiti's Bertrand Aristide had taken calculated risks, upsetting historical elites who for years have used the constitution to protect their private wealth and influence.

Today in Haiti, the same entrenched elites that staged the 2004 coup have united against former president Aristide's party, Femni Lavalas, by banning them from running candidates in the next election. They fear that the massive support which the party continues to enjoy could lead to a broader movement toward popular democracy in the poorest country in the western hemisphere. In response, the Lavalas party has called for a successful boycott of the elections which are clearly illegitimate without their participation.

In 2002, the democratically elected president of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez was also overthrown briefly before a popular movement and resistance in the military restored him to power. There is a widely circulated video on the internet called The Revolution Will Not Be Televised, which highlights how the US and Venezuelan media were culprits in fomenting the anti-democratic actions of domestic elites.

Much the same thing is happening in both Honduras and Haiti, where popular movements for justice are all to often silenced by violent reactionary force from people with tremendous historical privilege and power. In the United States of America, there needs to be more forums that allow popular movements in Latin America to express their struggle among those of among us with a conscience and heart for the poor and exploited.

The first half of the title of this post is a traditional Somali proverb, which I find particularly moving in the context of contemporary events in the eastern Horn of Africa. The longer the decades old conflict between various factions continues in Somalia, the more difficult a reversal of the tremendous human suffering, disease and hunger there becomes.

New ideas and fresh solutions are hard to come by, but it is crystal clear that endless war is not the answer to the devastating circumstances in which the Somali people now live. For advocates of peace and development, its time to let the US military know a middle-east style "war on terror" is unacceptable in east Africa.

The chain of events which led to this year's turmoil is long and can be difficult to untangle. BBC news has a fairly accurate time line of the major events in Somali history over the centuries. However, regardless as to how Somalia arrived at this point, the important thing now is turning the corner. So far, so bad.

Whatever their intentions for doing so, the US military's mobilization of new weapons armaments to send to the Somali government is a failed strategy---one that in the past has brought terrible consequences for the people. The US government's attempts to prevent a potential hot bed for future acts of extremism are doomed to fail when they involve further militarization of the conflict.

There has been a wealth of evidence that supporters of the rebel group Al-Shabaab (the youth) are motivated by a strong hatred of foreign intervention, and a desire for order and stability. Until now, the actions of the United States and other foreign actors has merely fed the flames, bringing more instability and chaos. Human Rights Watch and other international observers have accused Ethiopian, Somali and African Union forces of committing war crimes on innocent civilians since the chaos reignited in 2006.

Now, like a self-fulfilled prophecy, perhaps hundreds of foreign fighters under a proclaimed banner of Islam are entering Somalia to join Al-Shabaab. As the African Union prepares for its July summit in Libya, they should go fully aware of the long list of violent responses to Somalia's political crisis that have failed before. If by chance they decide to follow the example of the US military's recent actions, they risk any potential hope of lasting peace and development. Militarization of the conflict is not the answer.

see extended post here. 

http://www.athompsonmonitor.com/2009/06/war-and-famine-peace-and-milk-avoiding.html

As the debate about the safety and fairness of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) by large agribusinesses intensifies around the world, is it rational for the United States not to be debating the use of such products as food-aid to poor countries? Mandated by law in the United States, 75 perecent of all U.S. food donations must be produced, processed, and shipped by U.S. companies.

Large agribusinesses have recently been lobbying around the world to secure markets for their GMO products. Major agricultural oligopolies claim that their genetically modified products are completely safe. Furthermore, any attempt by governments to guard local farmers from their more advanced products was simply "protectionism".

But that hasn't stopped the groundswell of resistance in the European Union for example. Many countries inside the European Union refuse to accept many varieties of GMO's which are bought and sold in the United States. Citing higher safety standards than the United States, European countries remain committed to denying access of some GMO's into their territories. Eleven European Union countries will call next week for the right to opt-outs for growing genetically modified crops.

In response, to the question "should GMOs be banned in Europe?” conducted in April 2009, 79 percent said yes, 18 percent no and 3 percent did not know. There is no question that in Europe there is a deep skepticism about the growing pressure from agricultural powerhouses to pump their products into European markets.

In the US, fifteen groups in the top wheat-exporting countries of Canada, the U.S. and Australia released a joint statement of opposition to GMO wheat this month. The group cited competitive concerns as their primary resistance.

"If (genetically engineered) wheat is released commercially, contamination would be inevitable and markets would view all wheat produced from these areas as GE unless proven to be non-GE...Farmers growing GE wheat will take on all of the responsibilities, costs and liabilities, with little available legal recourse to recover their losses."

If such a resistance is emerging in the global North on the grounds of either safety concerns or competition with larger oligopolies, why is there virtually no debate about the use of these same genetically modified products flooding into poorer countries as aid, let along be sold in the US?

These products have been long criticized by advocacy organizations for hurting local farmers who can't compete. Concerns about the safety of these products are also voiced in regions of the world where cash-strapped governments are less likely to question the safety standards.

As the United States looks to spend hundreds of millions of dollars in foreign assistance to developing countries. There is an important but sadly absent debate about US food aid and GMOs that could prevent us from doing more harm than good.

It would be a complete shame if a little pink cat on youtube could host a more honest discussion on GMOs than the US government. Well i'll be darned....