Progressive News Hour regular James Petras once said most NGOs skim 90% of donations for themselves. They're predators, not humanitarians. They serve political agendas for profit.
They avoid denouncing governmental patrons providing financing. They don't link neoliberal exploitation and human rights violations to imperial agendas.
They support wrong over right. They prey on the world's vulnerable. They commit flagrant abuses for self-enrichment and close ties to top government officials. ICRC is no exception. More on it below.
On July 18, Security Council members again vote on a Western resolution. Russia and China vetoed two earlier ones.
They reject one-sided proposals. They advance the ball for war. This one includes UN Charter Chapter VII provisions. They range from economic sanctions to blockades or military intervention if other measures fail.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov rejects Chapter VII authorization. "We will vote against the U.N. Security Council resolution on Syria if it is not based on the Geneva agreements," he said.
Geneva language left much to be desired. It agreed on "facilitat(ing) a Syrian led political process," but overstepped at the same time.
Contrary to international law, it accepted "agreed guidelines and principles for a political transition that meets the legitimate aspirations of the Syrian people."
Syrians had their say earlier. They overwhelmingly adopted a new constitution by national referendum. First time ever parliamentary elections were held.
Turnout was high. Voting went smoothly. Independent monitors judged the process open, free and fair. Why repeat what's already accomplished?
Most important is that international law prohibits interfering in the internal affairs of other countries. Doing so in Geneva or elsewhere lacks legitimacy.
On July 18, Security Council roulette resumes. Rejection doesn't derail Washington's agenda. Regime change remains on course. What follows another vetoed resolution remains to be seen.
Months of externally generated violence continues. It's intensifying. NATO intervention may finish what insurgents began. Parts of Damascus are a war zone.
Before conflict ends, all Syria may be ravaged. No place is left to hide. There's no shortage of weapons or extremist mercenaries willing to get in the fight for love, money and/or ideology.
Some NGOs operate honorably. Mandated principles are followed. Most others fall short. They profit handsomely from disasters and wars. Entrenched bureaucracies infest them. Their officials are highly paid. They illegitimately claim non-profit status.
Many provide minimal or no humanitarian services. They operate unethically. They collude with governments and/or business interests. They exploit people shamelessly.
They profit from human misery. They perform PR, intelligence, and population control services. Often they're the preferred choice for Western aid and emergency relief.
They provide cover for imperial intervention. "Non-profiteering" is big business. Organizations cash in handsomely from wars, floods, famines, earthquakes, and other disasters.
ICRC is no exception. It blew its cover many times. It did again on Syria. It declared ongoing conflict a civil war. A previous article explained there's nothing civil about Washington's war.
Civil involves internal warring sides. In Syria, America largely uses imported proxy mercenaries. Doing so reflects naked aggression. Core international law provisions are violated.
ICRC understands but sold out anyway. Big bucks explains why. Doing so exceeds prostitution shamelessness. Selling bodies is one thing. Souls, honor, morals, ethics, and principles are quite others. It's especially so when human lives and welfare are at stake.
ICRC's claimed humanitarian mission is cover. What's involved is money, special privileges derived, and connections to people in high places.
Benefitting this way is loathsome and contemptible. Operations profiting from human misery have no place in society.
ICRC's 2011 annual report reveals what's at stake. Contributors donate hundreds of millions of dollars. Donor types break down as follows:
Governments provide 82.34% of funding. The European Commission donates another 9.17%. National Societies give 4.71%. Private sources contribute 2.30%. Others make up the remaining 1+%.
Twenty major 2011 donors were listed. They're all countries or related to them. Except for Japan and Australia. They're all Western.
Major contributors included:
- America - $241 million
- Britain - $153 million
- Switzerland - $112 million
- The European Commission - $106 million
- Sweden - $84 million
- Norway - $61 million
- Japan - $47 million
- Australia - $45 million
- Netherlands - $36 million
- Germany - $35 million
- Canada - $28 million
Other major donors included Spain, Belgium, Denmark, France, Ireland, Finland, and Luxembourg.
They derive more than they give. Contributions expect services in return. America and Britain are especially demanding. Francis Boyle explains that "(h)e who pays the piper calls the tune."
On July 16, a State Department Fact Sheet provided information on "US Humanitarian Aid Reaching Syria and Neighboring Countries."
America abhors humanitarian aid or other efforts to help troubled nations. It's agenda reflects exploitation and dominance. So-called aid is cover for these purposes.
"(I)nternational and non-governmental humanitarian partners" were listed and amounts donated. They include:
- $27.5 million to the World Food Program (WFP);
- $15.1 million to non-governmental organizations (NGOs);
- $8.5 million to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR);
- $8 million to the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC);
- $3 million to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA);
- $750,000 to the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF);
- $500,000 to the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs; and
- $300,000 to the UN Department of Safety and Security for support of humanitarian operations."
Boyle said ICRC got $8 million in return for giving Washington "a Declaration of Belligerency in Syria." As a result, US-recruited death squads "have the right" to keep on killing.
Boyle is a distinguished international law expert. He's also a champion of right over wrong. He called what's going on "(t)ruly shameless. But such has always been the ICRC."
It's "always been the most sanctimonious gang of hypocrites in the NGO world." Boyle hasn't trusted them in years.
Its close ties to Western intelligence is well-known but not publicly acknowledged. Doing so would blow its cover.
Boyle said he once caught them red-handed "ferrying arms to guerrillas in Sudan and sent them a demarche on it."
They ignored him. It's how all scoundrel individuals, organizations, corporate bosses, and government officials behave. ICRC is no exception.
Given the enormous amount it gets in donations, it ranks with the worst. Prostituting itself in support of Washington's war on Syria alone strips this emperor of clothes.
Calling naked aggression a civil war shows how far it'll go for a buck and whatever other benefits it derives.
It knows international law well. It's written about it. In October 2010, its web site featured a "War and International humanitarian law" overview.
It explained its inviolability and importance. It flagrantly violates principles it endorses. Saying one thing and doing another is indefensible. It's also lawless, reprehensible, and unforgivable.
ICRC's unstated mandate is show me the money. It sold its soul long ago. Its humanitarian mission is cover for supporting imperial lawlessness. Business is good. Washington's deep pockets alone assures it.
|< Prev||Next >|
|William A. Cook|