With us or agai... DIE!

"The Bush administration has found its next target for pre-emptive war, but it's not Iran, Syria or North Korea -- not yet, anyway.

Before launching any new foreign adventures, the Bush gang has some homeland housekeeping to take care of: It is going to sweep up those pesky non-governmental organizations that are helping to turn world opinion against U.S. bombs and brands.

The war on NGOs is being fought on two clear fronts. One buys the silence and complicity of mainstream humanitarian and religious groups by offering lucrative reconstruction contracts. The other marginalizes and criminalizes more independent-minded NGOs by claiming that their work is a threat to democracy. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) is in charge of handing out the carrots, while the American Enterprise Institute, the most powerful think tank in Washington, D.C., is wielding the sticks.

On May 21 in Washington, Andrew Natsios, the head of USAID, gave a speech blasting U.S. NGOs for failing to play a role many of them didn't realize they had been assigned: doing public relations for the U.S. government. According to InterAction, the network of 160 relief and development NGOs that hosted the conference, Mr. Natsios was "irritated" that starving and sick Iraqi and Afghan children didn't realize that their food and vaccines were coming to them courtesy of George W. Bush. From now on, NGOs had to do a better job of linking their humanitarian assistance to U.S. foreign policy and making it clear that they are "an arm of the U.S. government." If they didn't, InterAction reported, "Natsios threatened to personally tear up their contracts and find new partners."

For aid workers, there are even more strings attached to U.S. dollars. USAID told several NGOs that have been awarded humanitarian contracts that they cannot speak to the media -- all requests from reporters must go through Washington. Mary McClymont, CEO of InterAction, calls the demands "unprecedented," and says, "It looks like the NGOs aren't independent and can't speak for themselves about what they see and think."

Many humanitarian leaders are shocked to hear their work described as "an arm" of government; most see themselves as independent (that would be the "non-governmental" part of the name).

The best NGOs are loyal to their causes, not to countries, and they aren't afraid to blow the whistle on their own governments. Think of M�decins sans fronti�res standing up to the White House and the European Union over AIDS drug patents, or Human Rights Watch's campaign against the death penalty in the United States. Mr. Natsios himself embraced this independence in his previous job as vice-president of World Vision. During the North Korean famine, he didn't hesitate to blast his own government for withholding food aid, calling the Clinton administration's response "too slow" and its claim that politics was not a factor "total nonsense."

Don't expect candour like that from the aid groups Mr. Natsios now oversees in Iraq. These days, NGOs are supposed to do nothing more than quietly pass out care packages with a big "brought to you by the U.S.A." logo attached -- in public-private partnerships with Bechtel and Halliburton, of course.

That is the message of NGO Watch, an initiative of the American Enterprise Institute and the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies, which takes aim at the growing political influence of the non-profit sector. The stated purpose of the Web site, launched on June 11, is to "bring clarity and accountability to the burgeoning world of NGOs."

In fact, it is a McCarthyite blacklist, telling tales on any NGO that dares speak against Bush administration policies or in support of international treaties opposed by the White House.

This bizarre initiative takes as its premise the idea that there is something sinister about "unelected" groups of citizens getting together to try to influence their government. "The extraordinary growth of advocacy NGOs in liberal democracies has the potential to undermine the sovereignty of constitutional democracies," the site claims.

Coming from the AEI, this is not without irony. As Raj Patel, policy analyst at the California-based NGO Food First, points out, "The American Enterprise Institute is an NGO itself and it is supported by the most powerful corporations on the planet. They are accountable only to their board, which includes Motorola, American Express and ExxonMobil." As for influence, few peddle it quite like the AEI, the looniest ideas of which have a way of becoming Bush administration policy. And no wonder. Richard Perle, member and former chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, is an AEI fellow, along with Lynne Cheney, wife of the vice-president; the Bush administration is crowded with former AEI fellows.

As President Bush said at an AEI dinner in February, "At the American Enterprise Institute, some of the finest minds in our nation are at work on some of the greatest challenges to our nation. You do such good work that my administration has borrowed 20 such minds." In other words, the AEI is more than a think tank; it's Mr. Bush's outsourced brain.

Taken together with Mr. Natsios's statements, this attack on the non-profit sector marks the emergence of a new Bush doctrine: NGOs should be nothing more than the good-hearted charity wing of the military, silently mopping up after wars and famines. Their job is not to ask how these tragedies could have been averted, or to advocate for policy solutions. And it is certainly not to join anti-war and fair-trade movements pushing for real political change.

The control freaks in the White House have really outdone themselves this time. First they tried to silence governments critical of their foreign policies by buying them off with aid packages and trade deals. (Last month U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick said that the United States would only enter into new trade agreements with countries that offered "co-operation or better on foreign policy and security issues.") Next, they made sure the press didn't ask hard question during the war by trading journalistic access for editorial control.

Now they are attempting to turn relief workers in Iraq and Afghanistan into publicists for Mr. Bush's Brand U.S.A., to embed them in the Pentagon, like Fox News reporters.

The U.S. government is usually described as "unilateralist," but I don't think that's quite accurate. The Bush administration may be willing to go it alone, but what it really wants is legions of self-censoring followers, from foreign governments to national journalists and international NGOs.

This is not a lone wolf we are dealing with, it's a sheep-herder. The question is: Which of the NGOs will play the sheep?

Naomi Klein is the author of No Logo and Fences and Windows."



www1.iraqwar.ru...

we need more journalists like this woman

"It looks like the NGOs aren't independent and can't speak for themselves about what they see and think."

You're independant when you're spending your own money.When you spend money who's not your, you are NOT independant and you have to do/say what the peoples who give you THEIR money are telling you to do and say. It's not new you know. It has been like that since the begining.

So UP like I've told you a long time ago, freedom and democracy is just an illusion.

But to get on topic, I don't understand what you mean UP, who's money is it then ? Explain that..

I think it's more like this: when you say something that is against them, they'll shut you up, when you say something that is good for them, they'll think you're an hero. Why can't you understand that ?

Very good article, just the beginning of the end of "our freedom of speech", and the dictatorship is coming all over the world, NWO is hitting hard now, and that article shows how, good reading.

Originally posted by TigeriS

1) So UP like I've told you a long time ago, freedom and democracy is just an illusion.

2) But to get on topic, I don't understand what you mean UP, who's money is it then ? Explain that..

3) I think it's more like this: when you say something that is against them, they'll shut you up, when you say something that is good for them, they'll think you're an hero. Why can't you understand that ?

1) Yes and no. Until you don't cross the line, you're free. Anyway,I never thought a real democracy were possible. Our policy makers just cares for their own fat a$$ and the humanbeing ( you, me, everyones...) is too much selfish. But at least, we are not ( not yet ? ) living under a communist or nazi regime.That's not so bad after all. But we can do better for our future.

2) Easy. You have to do what the peoples who are giving you your money ask you to do. Kids VS their parents, NGO VS gov, employees VS boss...etc...Money = Power ( not the highest one ). I don't say I agree or that I'm happy with that, but it's a fact. Money is equal to Power. Nothing new under the sun.

3) I understand it perfectly. But I think you're fighting against the wind. It has been like that since the humanity down. What do you want to do ? If you have a brightfull idea who'll free us all from our poor human condition, just tell me what.

UP

1) Well that is exact my point, I'm glad we agree this time ! And by the way, I am not selfish.. at least not that I am aware off, I've done things in my life that others would say I am crazy for doing that.

2) It depends,the gov. doesn't have any money, the money they spend is from the people, so in fact the peoples can tell them what to do or not, but most peoples are not aware of their rights, only their obligations which is a sad thing.

3) Well you know I've been thinking about this since I was 15 years old, and I have to say that I could do that, but the thing is that some very very powerful peoples will never let me get so far. So we all have to do it together. Together we are stronger and can withstand much longer.. All we need to do is get a grip on the media. Because that is what they use to control the mass.

I'm streamlined so the wind doesn't hold me up much
But as you are saying the money is the problem, that is more important than life..

Originally posted by TigeriS
UP

1) Well that is exact my point, I'm glad we agree this time !

And by the way, I am not selfish.. at least not that I am aware off, I've done things in my life that others would say I am crazy for doing that.

2) It depends,the gov. doesn't have any money, the money they spend is from the people, so in fact the peoples can tell them what to do or not, but most peoples are not aware of their rights, only their obligations which is a sad thing.

3) All we need to do is get a grip on the media. Because that is what they use to control the mass.

4) But as you are saying the money is the problem, that is more important than life..

1) All humans are selfish. Even you. We have all a good part and bad one. On an individual basis, we are all pretty nices peoples. But when it come to the mass, we are all completely dumb. If it wasn't true, we wouldn't see any wars, starvations, tortures, dictatorships and so on...

2) Yes, sure. But I'm very sure on one thing. Most of the peoples don't want to be really free because they fear the real freedom. " What ? I've to take my OWN decisions ? I've to be RESPONSIBLE for what I do and say ? "...That's why I really dislike the left-wing, the far-left-wing and the far-right wing. They want ( allways ) to have more control on everything, even with what we say ( i.e, politically correctness, " we can say this but we cannot say that... " ). Why do you think that most of the peoples are working for a company and are not their own boss, even if they don't like it ? Because it's far more easy to rely on someone else.

3) Once again, I agree with you. But I told you. I think the mass are stupid ( I'm from the mass too ).If the mass was not so stupid, we wouldn't have any dictatorships, wars,...etc... The mass do NOT think. The mass do NOT act. The mass just react to some basic stimulus ( fear, shame, ... )

4) Not for me. For me, life is more important than life ( except the lifes of some peoples as Pol Pot, Stalin,... who just desserves to die and burn in Hell for what they did to the humanity ).

1) who said I'm human ? For the rest I agree, but I'd never say humans are dumb, I say they are bad educated.

2) That is because they don't know what it is.. and indeed you'd be afraid. That should be done in steps. Everybody would be careful with things they don't know much about.

3) Yes, but I believe that the mass is not stupid but is being made stupid, first step for changes and real freedom starts with a rework of the educational system, that is flawed in the first place.

4) Yes every individual will say the same thing, but I suppose you have a job right ? Well most of us don't know the consequences about our jobs, in fact we wouldn't care because it's our job. And I can tell you that some actions by some peoples claiming to be only doing their job have very very bad consequences for some other peoples.

Waw, man it's the first time ever I have such a nice discussion with you, in fact I like it !

Originally posted by TigeriS
1) who said I'm human ? For the rest I agree, but I'd never say humans are dumb, I say they are bad educated.

2) That is because they don't know what it is.. and indeed you'd be afraid. That should be done in steps. Everybody would be careful with things they don't know much about.

3) Yes, but I believe that the mass is not stupid but is being made stupid, first step for changes and real freedom starts with a rework of the educational system, that is flawed in the first place.

4) a) Yes every individual will say the same thing, but I suppose you have a job right ? Well most of us don't know the consequences about our jobs, in fact we wouldn't care because it's our job.

b) And I can tell you that some actions by some peoples claiming to be only doing their job have very very bad consequences for some other peoples.

5) Waw, man it's the first time ever I have such a nice discussion with you, in fact I like it !

1) Ok, so let's say we are half dumb and half bad educated.

2) I really think the common human is very coward , selfish and afraid of allmost everything. That's why humans are easy to control. Just look around you how the peoples are acting.

3) A mass is ALLWAYS stupid. It's not new. take 1000 peoples with an 200 I.Q for everyones, it will still be a stupid mass. Have you ever seen a mass who was acting in a intelligent manner ? NEVER. The peoples, on a personal basis, can be smart.But a mass ? No way.

4a) To be honnest, I don't know what can I say but I can try. I know there is consequences for each act that we do, even in our jobs. But I don't think that my job hurt some peoples.

4b) Only one word : NUREMBERG.

5) Yep, sometime we can be pretty good, isn't it ?

Bush is a warmonger ever since 911 he has had war on his mind,Afganistan, Iraq......who's next?

Originally posted by drunk

who's next?

Heu ? France ? Germany ?

I remember that Bush had a vast popularity in the USA ( +/- 80% ? ). What's his popularity level right now ? More than 50 % or less ?

Originally posted by ultra_phoenix

Originally posted by drunk

who's next?

Heu ? France ? Germany ?

I remember that Bush had a vast popularity in the USA ( +/- 80% ? ). What's his popularity level right now ? More than 50 % or less ?

I have no idea (as usual) i didnt know Bush had any popularity.