February, 01 2011, 12:54pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Nicole Phillips (Institute for Justice & Democracy in Haiti), 510-715-2855
Melinda Miles (Let Haiti Live), +509-3855-8861
19 Haitian and International Groups Call on Obama Administration to Cease Pressure on Haiti to "Arbitrarily Change" Election Results
WASHINGTON
19
Haitian and international policy and legal groups and human rights
organizations called on the Obama administration to "cease supporting
the OAS Verification Mission recommendations", something they consider
"an attempt to arbitrarily change the results of the elections and force
the people of Haiti to accept an election ...that do[es] not express
[their] will." Signers include the Center for Constitutional Rights,
TransAfrica Forum, the Institute for Justice & Democracy in Haiti,
Haiti Konpay, Unity Ayiti, and 14 others.
The statement urges "the U.S. administration" to "work with Haitian
authorities to carry out the fair and inclusive elections that Haiti
needs in order to move forward.
"Though it may take a few more months to meet the necessary conditions
for such elections to be held, the benefits for Haitian democracy and
recovery far outweigh the potential costs," it concludes.
The statement follows Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's visit to
Haiti over the weekend, in which she reiterated U.S. pressure for Jude
Celestin, the candidate favored by President Preval, to be removed from
the second round of elections, now scheduled for March 20.
The call for new, "fair and inclusive elections" echoes that of 12 of the 19 first round candidates, who recently called again for the first round elections to be scrapped and new elections to be held.
U.S. Congressman John Conyers also called for new elections in a separate statement:
"I disagree with [Secretary of State Clinton's] unequivocal support of
the Organization of American States' (OAS) recommendations addressing
voter fraud in the previous election. In order to ensure that all
Haitian voices are heard in this election, the electoral process should
be restarted."
The full text of the NGOs' statement follows:
***
Haitian and international organizations call on US administration to
support genuinely "free, fair and credible" elections in Haiti
Over the last few months, the Obama administration has repeatedly stated that
it wishes to see elections in Haiti that "reflect the will of the
Haitian people." As recently as January 21st, State Department Spokesman
P.J. Crowley reaffirmed
that the "focus" of the U.S. government is "ensuring a free, fair and
credible election process in Haiti." Despite these pledges, we note with
great dismay that the administration continues instead to endorse the
deeply flawed presidential and legislative elections that took place on
November 28, 2010. Worse still, the U.S. State Department, through
recent statements and actions, has been putting extraordinary pressure
on Haitian authorities to implement the arbitrary recommendations of an
Organization of American States (OAS) "Expert Verification Mission" and
modify the results of the first round of the elections.
Long before the disastrous November 28th vote took place, numerous
Haitian civil society groups and foreign observers, including 45 U.S. members of Congress,
voiced their concern regarding the undemocratic character of the
elections. On the one hand, Haitian authorities ignored widespread calls
to reform the country's Provisional Electoral Council (CEP, by its
French initials), widely seen as beholden to President Rene Preval, and
reverse its decision to exclude over a dozen political parties,
including Haiti's most popular party, Fanmi Lavalas. On the other hand,
inadequate measures were taken to ensure that eligible voters among the
million and a half Haitians displaced by the earthquake would be able to
access the polls. The U.S. government, as the top funder of Haiti's
elections, contributing $14 million, had enormous leverage over the
entire electoral process but chose not to insist on any standards to
ensure "free, fair and credible" elections.
Despite the failure to resolve these immense problems, and the
additional challenge of an out-of-control cholera epidemic, the Obama
administration and other foreign entities insisted the elections take
place on November 28th. The results, as predicted by civil society
groups, were catastrophic. Voter turnout - at under 27% - was the lowest
that Haiti, or any other country in the hemisphere had seen for a
presidential election in at least 60 years. Irregularities were so
prevalent that it was impossible to have any faith in the recorded
outcome of the vote, according to election observers, media reports, and independent examination of the official results.
As a result, a dangerous and debilitating political crisis was
unleashed on a nation already overwhelmed by an ongoing humanitarian
crisis.
As calls for new elections multiplied within Haiti, and from many of the presidential candidates themselves,
the U.S. administration threw its support behind an OAS "Experts"
Mission, tasked with analyzing the vote results and providing
recommendations to the CEP. The Mission acknowledged
that "by any measures, these were problematic elections" and identified
"significant irregularities" that "influenced the outcome of the first
round of the elections." Yet instead of recommending new elections, the
OAS Mission simply recommended that the CEP modify the electoral
results in such a way that ruling party candidate Jude Celestin would
drop from the second to third place ranking and thereby be prevented
from advancing to the second round of the elections. As the
Washington-based think tank Center for Economic and Policy Research
noted in an issue brief,
"the Mission's analysis does not provide any basis - statistical or
otherwise - for changing the result of the first round of the
presidential election." Simply put, the extent of irregularities, lost
votes and quarantined votes (amounting altogether to about 20 percent of
total votes), makes it impossible to accurately determine which two
candidates won enough votes to advance to the second round.
The U.S. administration, which previously had neglected to take any
effective measures to help ensure free, fair and inclusive elections,
now appears to be deploying intense pressure to force the Haitian
authorities to accept the OAS Verification Mission's arbitrary
recommendations. Senior administration officials, as well as officials
from France and Canada, have made numerous threatening statements in
recent days. On January 20th, the U.S. top representative to the United
Nations, Susan Rice, urged
"the Provisional Electoral Council to implement the OAS
recommendations" and suggested that "sustained support from the
international community, including the United States" could be suspended
if the Haitian authorities decided otherwise. At around the same time,
the US announced
that it had revoked the visas of a "couple dozen" government officials
and in Haiti news circulated that these revocations had targeted leaders
of the ruling party INITE. Two days later, INITE officials announced
that - following international "intimidation" - they would "agree to
see [Jude Celestin] withdraw his candidacy." Celestin, however, has so
far refused to withdraw his candidacy.
On Sunday, January 30th, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton added
another layer of pressure to the administration's demand when she made a
surprise visit to Haiti and announced to journalists that "we've made
it very clear we support the OAS recommendations and we would like to
see those acted on."
As many Haitians have pointed out, the administration's coercive
methods are not only disrespectful of what remains of the small nation's
sovereignty, they are also likely to exacerbate a growing political
crisis. The deeply flawed nature of these elections cannot be "solved"
through the application of arbitrary recommendations that favor one
political candidate over another. Haiti will only have the legitimate
and accountable elected authorities it requires to carry out the
daunting tasks of recovery and reconstruction once genuinely "free,
fair, and credible" elections that "reflect the will of the Haitian
people" take place.
We therefore call on the U.S. administration to cease supporting the
OAS Verification Mission recommendations. This constitutes an attempt to
arbitrarily change the results of the elections and force the people of
Haiti to accept an election and electoral process that do not express
the people's will. Furthermore, we request that the U.S. administration
work with Haitian authorities to carry out the fair and inclusive
elections that Haiti needs in order to move forward. Though it may take
a few more months to meet the necessary conditions for such elections
to be held, the benefits for Haitian democracy and recovery far outweigh
the potential costs.
Institute for Justice & Democracy in Haiti
TransAfrica Forum
United Methodist Church
General Board of Church and Society
Konpay
Center for Constitutional Rights
Gender Action
National Lawyers Guild International Committee
National Lawyers Guild Task Force on the Americas
Just Foreign Policy
Let Haiti Live
Bri Kouri Nouvel Gaye
Environmental Justice Initiative for Haiti
Other Worlds
Global Exchange
Grassroots International
UnityAyiti
Honor and Respect Foundation
Latin American and Caribbean Community Center
You.Me.We.
LATEST NEWS
Pesticide Scorecard Exposes Which Food Retailers Are Failing Bees
"Under the incoming Trump administration, the Environmental Protection Agency will likely do even less to mitigate the damage of pesticides, putting even more onus on companies to address the escalating risks," said one climate advocate.
Dec 10, 2024
A report released Tuesday from the environmental group Friends of the Earth finds that the U.S. food retail sector's use of pesticides on just four crops—almonds, apples, soy, and corn—could result in over $200 billion worth of financial, climate, and biodiversity risks for the industry between 2024 and 2050. Pollinators, including bees, form a crucial link between pesticide use and these risks.
The report was released in tandem with the group's annual retailer scorecard, which ranks the largest U.S. grocery stores on the "steps they are taking to address the use of toxic pesticides in their supply chains and to support the expansion of organic agriculture and other ecological solutions."
While it highlights some industry leadership on this issue, the authors of the scorecard say that, on the whole, retailer action to curb the impact of pesticides falls short. The following retailers received an "F" grade from Friends of the Earth: Wakefern, Publix, Dollar General, 7-Eleven Inc., Hy-Vee, Walgreens, H-E-B, BJ's, Amazon, and Wegmans.
Although its owner, Amazon, received an F grade, the grocery store Whole Foods was the only retailer that was given an A grade.
A handful of the companies, including Whole Foods, have made time bound pledges to address pesticide use by requiring fresh produce suppliers to adopt ecological farming methods and to confirm their practices through third-party verifications. Eight companies have created policies that encourage suppliers to reduce the use of "pesticides of concern—including neonicotinoids, organophosphates, and glyphosate—and to shift to least-toxic approaches," according to the scorecard.
Friends of the Earth's report on risks associated with pesticide use explains why scrutiny around retailers' use of pesticides is warranted, and why retailers themselves ought to be motivated to reduce these risks.
For one thing, "under the incoming Trump administration, the Environmental Protection Agency will likely do even less to mitigate the damage of pesticides, putting even more onus on companies to address the escalating risks," according to Kendra Klein, deputy director of science at Friends of the Earth.
"Food retailers must urgently reduce their use of pesticides and advance organic and other ecologically regenerative approaches. They have the opportunity to lead in the fight against biodiversity collapse and climate change, helping to ensure Americans have continued access to healthy food," she said in a statement.
An estimated one-third of world crops rely on pollination, and a little less than three-fourths of fruit and vegetable crops require pollination from insects and other creatures, according to the report. Pollinators are often studied as an indicator for biodiversity risk and general environmental health—and experts cite pesticides as among the reasons that pollinators are in decline. Research also shows that pesticides poise a threat to healthy soil ecosystems.
According to the report, an estimated one-third of world crops rely on pollination, and a little less than three-fourths of fruit and vegetable crops require pollination from insects and other creatures. Pollinators are often studied as an indicator for biodiversity risk and general environmental health—and experts cite pesticides as among the reasons that pollinators are in decline, per the report. Research also shows that pesticides poise a threat to healthy soil ecosystems, the report states.
The report states that 89% of the almond crop area, 72% of apples, 100% of corn, and 40% of soy receives more than one "lethal dose" of an insecticide that is considered toxic to bees. This "quantification of the risk of pesticides to pollinators" for the four crops "provides the values to conduct the financial analysis in this study."
The document details how the food retail industry's use of pesticides creates direct costs for the industry—for example, the money spent purchasing and applying the pesticides, the CO2 emissions associated with using or producing pesticides, and the impact on crop yields, as well as indirect costs.
When it comes to climate damage costs, the report estimates that U.S. food retailer sales for products that include soy, corn, apples, and almonds will suffer $4.5 billion over the period of 2024-50. Biodiversity risk stemming from using pollinator-harming pesticides on those four crops is valued much higher, at $34.3 billion, over the same time period.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Arctic Tundra Has Turned From 'Carbon Sink to Carbon Source' in Dangerous Flip: NOAA
"This is yet one more sign, predicted by scientists, of the consequences of inadequately reducing fossil fuel pollution," said one scientist.
Dec 10, 2024
Permafrost in the Arctic has stored carbon dioxide for millennia, but the annual Arctic Report Card released by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a concerning shift linked to planetary heating and a rising number of wildfires in the icy region: The tundra is now emitting more carbon than it is storing.
The report card revealed that over the last year, the tundra's temperature rose to its second-highest level on record, causing the frozen soil to melt.
The melting of the permafrost activates microbes in the soil which decompose the trapped carbon, causing it to be released into the atmosphere as planet-heating carbon dioxide and methane.
The release of fossil fuels from the permafrost is also being caused by increased Arctic wildfires, which have emitted an average of 207 million tons of carbon per year since 2003.
"Our observations now show that the Arctic tundra, which is experiencing warming and increased wildfire, is now emitting more carbon than it stores, which will worsen climate change impacts," said Rick Spinrad, administrator of NOAA. "This is yet one more sign, predicted by scientists, of the consequences of inadequately reducing fossil fuel pollution."
Sue Natali, a scientist at the Woodwell Climate Research Center in Massachusetts and one of 97 international scientists who contributed to the Arctic Report Card, told NPR that 1.5 trillion tons of carbon are still being stored in the tundra—suggesting that the continued warming of the permafrost could make it a huge source of planet-heating greenhouse gas emissions.
Along with the "Arctic tundra transformation from carbon sink to carbon source," NOAA reported declines in caribou herds and increasing winter precipitation.
The report card showed that the autumn of 2023 and summer of 2024 saw the second- and third-warmest temperatures on record across the Arctic, and a heatwave in August 2024 set an all-time record for daily temperatures in several communities in northern Alaska and Canada.
The last nine years have been the nine warmest on record in the Arctic region.
"Many of the Arctic's vital signs that we track are either setting or flirting with record-high or record-low values nearly every year," said Gerald (J.J.) Frost, a senior scientist with Alaska Biological Research, Inc. and a veteran Arctic Report Card author. "This is an indication that recent extreme years are the result of long-term, persistent changes, and not the result of variability in the climate system."
Brenda Ekwurzel, a climate scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists, emphasized that the continuous release of fossil fuel emissions from oil and gas extraction and other pollution has caused the Arctic to warm at a faster rate than the Earth as a whole over the past 11 years.
"These combined changes are contributing to worsening wildfires and thawing permafrost to an extent so historic that it caused the Arctic to be a net carbon source after millennia serving as a net carbon storage region," said Ekwurzel. "If this becomes a consistent trend, it will further increase climate change globally."
The Arctic Report Card was released weeks before President-elect Donald Trump is set to take office. Trump has pledged to slash climate regulations introduced by the Biden administration and to increase oil and gas production. He has mused that sea-level rise will create "more oceanfront property" and has called the climate crisis a "hoax," while his nominee for energy secretary, Chris Wright, the CEO of the fracking company Liberty Energy, has claimed that climate warming is good for the planet.
"These sobering impacts in the Arctic are one more manifestation of how policymakers in the United States and around the world are continuing to prioritize the profits of fossil fuel polluters over the well-being of people and the planet and putting the goals of the Paris climate agreement in peril," said Ekwurzel. "All countries, but especially wealthy, high-emitting nations, need to drastically reduce heat-trapping emissions at a rapid pace in accord with the latest science and aid in efforts of climate-vulnerable communities to prepare for what's to come and help lower-resourced countries working to decrease emissions too."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Huge Administrative Waste Makes Clear For-Profit Insurance Is 'Actually Very Bad': Analysis
"It is totally fair for people to identify private insurers as the key bad actor in our current system," writes Matt Bruenig of the People's Policy Project. "The quicker we nationalize health insurance, the better."
Dec 10, 2024
Last week's murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson brought to the surface a seething hatred of the nation's for-profit insurance system—anger rooted in the industry's profiteering, high costs, and mass care denials.
But that response has led some pundits to defend private insurance companies and claim that, in fact, healthcare providers such as hospitals and doctors are the real drivers of outlandish U.S. healthcare costs.
In an analysis published Tuesday, Matt Bruenig of the People's Policy Project argued that defenders of private insurers are relying on "factual misunderstandings and very questionable analysis" and that it is reasonable to conclude that the for-profit insurance system is "actually very bad."
"From a design perspective, the main problem with our private health insurance system is that it is extremely wasteful," Bruenig wrote, estimating based on existing research that excess administrative expenses amount to $528 billion per year—or 1.8% of U.S. gross domestic product.
"All healthcare systems require administration, which costs money, but a private multi-payer system requires massively more than other approaches, especially the single-payer system favored by the American left," Bruenig observed, emphasizing that excess administrative expenses of both the insurance companies and healthcare providers stem from "the multi-payer private health insurance system that we have."
He continued:
To get your head around why this is, think for a second about what happens to every $100 you give to a private insurance company. According to the most exhaustive study on this question in the U.S.—the CBO single-payer study from 2020—the first thing that happens is that $16 of those dollars are taken by the insurance company. From there, the insurer gives the remaining $84 to a hospital to reimburse them for services. That hospital then takesanother $15.96 (19% of its revenue) for administration, meaning that only $68.04 of the original $100 actually goes to providing care.
In a single-payer system, the path of that $100 looks a lot different. Rather than take $16 for insurance administration, the public insurer would only take $1.60. And rather than take $15.96 of the remaining money for hospital administration, the hospital would only take $11.80 (12% of its revenue), meaning that $86.60 of the original $100 actually goes to providing care.
High provider payments, which some analysts have suggested are the key culprit in exorbitant healthcare costs, are also attributable to the nation's for-profit insurance system, Bruenig argued.
"Medicaid and Medicare are able to negotiate much lower rates than private insurance, just as the public health insurer under a single-payer system would be able to. It is only within the private insurance segment of the system that providers have been able to jack up rates to such an extreme extent," he wrote. "Given all of this, I think it is totally fair for people to identify private insurers as the key bad actor in our current system. They are directly responsible for over half a trillion dollars of administrative waste and (at the very least) indirectly responsible for the provider rents that are bleeding Americans dry."
"The quicker we nationalize health insurance," he concluded, "the better."
Bruenig's analysis comports with research showing that a single-payer system such as the Medicare for All program proposed by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), and other progressives in Congress could produce massive savings by eliminating bureaucratic costs associated with the private insurance system.
One study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine in January 2020 estimated that Medicare for All could save the U.S. more than $600 billion per year in healthcare-related administrative costs.
"The average American is paying more than $2,000 a year for useless bureaucracy," said Dr. David Himmelstein, lead author of the study, said at the time. "That money could be spent for care if we had a Medicare for All program."
Deep-seated anger at the systemic and harmful flaws of the for-profit U.S. insurance system could help explain why the percentage of the public that believes it's the federal government's responsibility to ensure all Americans have healthcare coverage is at its highest level in more than a decade, according to Gallup polling released Monday.
"There's a day of reckoning that is happening right now," former insurance industry executive Wendell Potter, president of the Center for Health and Democracy, said in an MSNBCappearance on Monday. "Whether we're talking about employers, patients, doctors—just about everybody despises health insurance companies in ways that I've never seen before."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular