Who and What is "New Citizen" and "Center UA?" -- Part the Second

I had to break off going through the list of orgs under the umbrellas of "New Citizen" and "Center UA" -- both funded by Omidyar Network and USAID  -- after researching 15 or 16 of them because it is an exhausting endeavor if you aren't already familiar with the outfits and people involved. In order for me to do it, I have to find appropriate links and hope that there is an English version. If there isn't, the Ukrainian language site needs to be translated. Google Translate works well enough, but garbles some potentially important things, so I have to go back to the original and attempt to puzzle it out the best I can.

Then there are all the dozens to hundreds of related links and sites that crop up; these orgs have spawned and are integrated with many other orgs and individuals that aren't under "New Citizen" or "Center UA." Researching all the heads of these organizations -- and their many other links -- takes a great deal of time as well.

Consequently what I've been able to do is far less comprehensive and knowledgeable than I would like it to be. There are others going through this material, and I hope their work is more thorough than mine.

I can't draw any final conclusions about these organizations and their role in the overthrow of Yanukovych, but it really seems that most of them are organized for anti-Russian propaganda and revolt against Yanukovych and/or pro-EU propaganda and "educational" efforts. These are organizations with a common interest and mission: to detach Ukraine from the Russian orbit and from Russian influence, but not necessarily to offer Ukrainians a better life or a more inclusive and democratic future. It looks more like the idea is to detach and perhaps carve up a nation and exploit a relatively unsophisticated population on behalf of a certain faction of (primarily) European interests and oligarchs.

But there's much more, and it's time to get back to it.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Our next organization on the list is called the "European Association of Ukrainians," run by Alexey Tolkachev. He appears to be a rightist technocratic theorist associated with Svoboda. The European Association of Ukrainians is in Brussels, and its mission statement is as follows:

The main purpose of EUA - the development and deepening of relations between Ukraine and the European Union.
Association has the following strategic objectives:
- Promotion and protection of Ukraine and Ukrainians in the European Union;
- Promotion of Ukraine, creation and support of its positive image in Europe;
- Promoting effective and continuous dialogue with the Ukrainian public institutions and civil society in the European Union.

European Association of Ukrainians today in practice promotes European integration of Ukraine. The main activity of the Association is in the political, economic, social, humanitarian, cultural and youth aspects of cooperation between Ukraine and the European Union.

Yet another  EU centric organization, this time in the belly of the beast in Brussels. Tolkachev apparently formed this organization on behalf of Ukrainians living abroad but seems to have focused it on integration -- coordination -- of Ukraine with the rest of Europe.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Centre for the Development of Society is next. It appears to be promoting traditional cultural and social values, whatever they may be. The following appears on its "activity" page:

(Translation adjustments in process.)

 Development, public discussion and approval [of] fundamental ideological [document.]

Stvorennya [Creation], support and development of the Ukrainian community interaction orhanizatsiy [organization].

Zaluchennya [Involvement] to cooperate with TSRS business environment, education and training, sports organizations, professional organizations and movements, active social movements, local associations, public figures international orhanizatsiy [organization].

Vidtvorennya [Reproduction] and distribution of Ukrainian society, traditional values, family traditions and ideals, promoting the basic elements of national life, which came back from a centuries-old Ukrainian peasant kultury [culture].

Rozrobka [Working], implementation and improvement of mechanisms for practical cooperation between society to state and local public vladoyu [power].

Zdiysnennya [Implementation] monitoring and public control over activities of state and local vlady [power].

Stvorennya [Creation], support and development of their own media informatsiyi [information].

Stvorennya [Creation of] mechanism of accumulation, systematization and widespread collective knowledge and experience for the benefit suspilstva [of society].

Zdiysnennya [Implementation of] ongoing monitoring and research status and development of Ukrainian civil suspilstva [society].

Doslidzhennya [Research] and dissemination [of] techniques and practices of individual, physical, spiritual and mental abilities lyudyny [and rights].

Pidtrymka [Support] [of] education, research, innovation seredovyscha [environment].

Zahyst [Protection?], distribution and free development of the Ukrainian language, opposition to artificial restrictions on its use, literacy control its use in public places, advertising and media media.

 Rotislav Tomenchuk is the head, and so far as I can tell, he is very active in international NGO circles.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Have to stop again. The previous translation was on the difficult side since it meant going back and forth between alphabets and finding appropriate translations for words that the Google Machine didn't translate or didn't translate properly... exhausting...;->

Greenwald's Apologetics

I've seen enough of Greenwald's -- and others' -- apologetics on behalf of Omidyar and his New Media Venture First Look and on behalf of those employed by it to be a little bit sickened to slog through one of them again. Greenwald is even more prolix than I am, and he is known for being less than forthcoming. Marcy Wheeler has also issued a statement. There are apparently several others out there, but I'll stick with Greenwald for now.

Background

As a lot of people seem to know -- but many are blissfully oblivious, may they remain at peace! -- Mark Ames over at Pando, one of America's most inveterate Big (enough) Media journalists, a muck-raker of muck-rakers, and all around bon vivant terrible, posted a piece yesterday at Pando in which he pointed to documentary evidence that was apparently quite easy to find that Pierre Omidyar, through his Omidyar Network, has contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Ukrainian opposition that recently succeeded in overthrowing the Yanukovych regime in Kiev.

Omidyar's efforts were aligned with those of a plethora of State Department agencies and activists, NGOs and foundations which together poured millions and millions of dollars into the Yanukovych opposition, providing abundant financial support at the very least. The CIA has also long been rumored to be a part of the funding and support mix keeping the protests going and eventually enabling the end of Yanukovych's rather inept rule.

The fact of direct American involvement in funding the Ukrainian opposition is hardly a surprise, as these things are going on all over the world all the time, and they have a long and brutal history. The surprise, if there is one, is Omidyar's direct funding of opposition groups to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars. So far as I've seen, no other billionaire is directly funding the opposition in Ukraine.

Ames said he was clued to look into the matter of outside funding of Ukrainian opposition groups by a series of tweets by Marcy Wheeler which mentioned coups and dark or deep forces and American financial and other backing...

And shortly he found documentary evidence of Omidyar funding of Ukrainian opposition groups in the archives of one of those groups. You can find just about anything online if you look hard enough, eh?

Ames suggested that there might be a journalistic conflict of interest, hmmmm, if Omidyar is funding oppositions while his stable of journalists are... ignorant?

Hard to say.

At any rate, after stonewalling yesterday, both Greenwald and Wheeler have "responded" to the Ames piece with what can only be called Apologetics, and like the Catholic kind, one can believe them or not, but it is difficult or impossible to argue with them, for they ultimately rely on Faith Alone.

GREENWALD

I shall now attempt to do a running commentary on Greenwald's response. (Italicised segments are my paraphrases of Greenwald's statement at the Intercept.)

A. Intro. I just found out about this 30 minutes ago, sorry I haven't responded before now. I don't follow Twitter all the time, you know.

1. This would be called a "dodge" in any rational situation, as the story was posted many hours before someone apparently alerted him to it, and Wheeler had been furiously Twittering with Paul Carr for hours already over it. To suggest that Greenwald hadn't been alerted earlier than "30 minutes ago" is disingenuous at best. 

B. I have not spoken to anyone, not Pierre or anyone else in the world about this matter...

1. "Spoken" maybe not, but there is always Twitter and various other communications media that don't require one to "speak"  with whomever one is communicating. To say he hasn't "spoken" says nothing about other forms of communications.

C. I barely know what this is all about, but I'll try to address this and other issues I feel are important. 

1.  "I had no prior knowledge..." (h/t Tanya Harding) A classic dodge. Lawyers and politicians use it all the time. "You've caught me unawares, I know so very little, but if you'll permit me, I'll attempt to respond to your questions one at a time, and if you'll allow me to, I'll make a statement about what I believe is really important here."

D. While I literally know nothing about this article, in five minutes on the Google Machine, I discovered that this supposed Bombshell about Omidyar's funding of a Ukrainian opposition group was already long since made public because the investment was announced on the Omidyar Network website years ago. So obviously there's no story here. Move along.

1. Uh, "investment?" Ok then, so if this was an investment, one would assume earnings -- a return on investment, no? How, exactly, would that work? Oh, never mind.
2. A grant is not an "investment," but in classic Greenwald style, he conflates the two, at one point referring to an "investment" and in the very next paragraph referring to a $3 million "grant" that covers the same thing as his previous "investment."  This is a form of trickery called "sleight of hand," in which terms get deliberately jumbled so that later he can say with a straight face, "I don't know what you are referring to."

E. I am as concerned as anyone else with the financial dealings of corporations and billionaires who fund journalistic enterprises, really, I am, but in this case, it doesn't look to me like the Omidyar Network is ashamed of funding this (single) Ukrainian opposition outfit. Look! They announced it years ago for all the world to see! Hardly hiding it at all.

1. This is both disingenuous and nonresponsive as nobody claims they were ashamed of it or trying to hide it. The fact that a grant (or was it an "investment?" You decide) was announced in a 2011 press release and detailed on a website doesn't indicate anything about how well it was publicized. But that isn't the issue. 

F. I am so confused! What is the "scandal" here? I thought just 72 hours ago EVERYONE was on the side of the opposition. Now we're not supposed to be? When did this change come about? And why in Heaven's Name should First Look be expected to respond to this nothingburger? I didn't support the opposition. Really. In fact, I was called a "Putin Shill" for NOT supporting the rebellion. I'm on your side. Really.

1. Nonresponsive, disingenuous, and distractive. The issue is not that this is a "scandal" but that it is potentially important that a billionaire who is funding a New Media venture is also backing opposition efforts in foreign lands. It has nothing to do with whether Greenwald supports the Ukrainian coup or not. It's not about him in that respect.

G. I am so hurt! My life is in danger! I've been accused of being a criminal by no less than a Congressman of the United States of America! I take these things very seriously! Now I am being accused of not being on the right side of the Ukrainian uprising! This is not fair! This is not right! This will not stand! I put my life on the line, and everyone I work with is a fierce critic of government and corporations, and I will not have you accuse me of being a CIA tool! Stop it!

1.  Nonresponsive, disingenuous, distractive, irrelevant. This is what's known as "grandstanding." It has nothing -- at all -- to do with the article in question, it's merely Greenwald's plea for attention. In fact, Ames never mentions the CIA. We may have to come back to this erm... slip... later.

H. I had no prior knowledge of Omidyar funding of this previously unheard of Ukrainian opposition group, really, I didn't, even though any journalist worth the name should have been able to find it because it was all public and shit and they weren't trying to hide it or anything. I didn't know because I didn't care, I'm a perfessional. It has nothing to do with me. So why would I care? Huh?

1. Typical dodge, but it points to something that, if true, should be worrisome. Basically, Greenwald is using "Lawyer Ethics" -- he'll work for anyone who pays him, and he won't ask questions. That's not journalism. Far from it. The question here is whether he's telling the truth, because if he has never looked into the backgrounds and ties of any of his current/former employers, then he isn't doing even rudimentary due diligence. Or did he, as Alexa O'Brien so elegantly put it, "He fucking lied."

I. No one can tell me what to do! No one! No one! No one! I am INDEPENDENT!!!!! I report what I want to report!!!! Leave me alone! 

1. Irrelevant, nonresponsive, juvenile. 'Nough said.

J. I know you are but what am I? Neener, neener, neener. 

1. Juvenile, puerile, strawman, horseshit. Here Greenwald is accusing Ames, who he refuses to name, of being just like him, unaffected by the "repugnant" views of the of the media outlets they work for. So there. The problem is, Ames hasn't accused Greenwald or anyone else of being "affected," by their employer's political views. That's not the point.

K. I'm not a stooge for the government!

1.   Nobody said he was. But since he's so sensitive to the accusation that isn't made, maybe somebody should look into it...

L.  Everyone who's anyone works for the Oligarchs now, buster, even you, so don't you get on your high horse with me! Even the ACLU gets Soros money. Soros! Soros! Soros!

1.  Irrelevant. Ames has always been very up front about the investors in Pando, and their roles with the organization; Greenwald has always feigned ignorance and/or been evasive when asked about Omidyar and his actual role in First Look. Basically, he won't answer about Omidyar, but he seems to know plenty about the funders of other organizations while claiming to know and care nothing about Omidyar.

M. I'm not responsible for Pierre!!!!

1.   Nobody said you were!!!! Why are you yelling!!!!!

N. Money makes the world go around, the world go around, the world go around.

1. We know. Thank you for sharing.

O. Ames [Whose name I shall not utter, no, no, no, you cannot make me!!!] is a LIAR. I don't have "exclusive access" to the Snowden Hoard. Others have lots of docs too, it's not just ME!!!! LIAR!!!!

1.  Lie. Ames says that he and Poitras have the only "complete" sets of Snowden Docs, something Greenwald has on other occasions acknowledged, but here he implies that Ames claims that Greenwald and Poitras are the only journalists with any of them, but that's simply, obviously and grossly false. Greenwald has done this on other occasions as well when people say he and Poitras have the only "complete" sets of Snowden Docs. He lies and claims they are saying he and Poitras have the only  Snowden docs. Both Greenwald and Poitras are also employed by Omidyar. The issue in dispute is whether Omidyar has access to the documents. Greenwald denies it, but we have only his word to rely on. And that word is... decide for yourself...

P. My history speaks for itself! I don't approve of US Government interference in the business of other countries. I don't know anything about Ukrainia, I don't know anything about Pierre's funding of the Ukrainan opposition, and I DON'T CARE!!!!! 

1.  Note the dodge here: he is opposed to government interference in the affairs of other nations, but he has nothing to say about private foundations or individuals interfering. Nope. Not a word. 

Q. Pierre lets me do and say whatever I want! You can't stop me! And you better not try!

1.   Juvenile, nonresponsive. Tiresome. Has nothing to do with the topic of Omidyar funding of Ukrainian opposition.

 -----------------------------------------------------------
This is typical of Greenwald's defenses and apologetics. It's mostly about something other than the issue at hand, and when the actual topic is addressed, the answer is basically, "I don't care about anything but ME."

That's long been his answer to everything. What about MEEEE?
-----------------------------------------------------------

Oh snap! Paul Carr, Pando editor, responds to Greenwald's apologetics.

Should Glenn Greenwald ever find himself curious as to what his boss is up to, he can rest assured the answers will always be found right here on Pando.

The whole thing is kind of precious. But I realize that Twit Wars and pissing contests bore a whole lot of people who have actual lives to lead... ;-)

Haiti a Year On

A year after the earthquake, Haitians are still in desperate straits: almost no rebuilding, a dreadful cholera epidemic that was not prepared for or anticipated in advance, a non-functional central government, a million residents still under tents and tarps, and more than 10,000 NGOs delivering "aid" -- but every one of them protecting their turf and their funding first and foremost.

What's happened in Haiti since the earthquake is a tragedy for the Haitians, and a shame for the world community that pledged so much assistance to rebuild.

What's happened is a descent into Modern Medievalism.

There is no central government in Haiti except in the abstract, much as was the case in Europe during the Dark Ages; one doesn't even know who the president might be, and it hardly matters given the fact that the "government" -- such as it is -- is essentially non-functional having suffered so many losses during the earthquake.

Consequently, a proliferation of NGOs are filling a vacuum of authority and power, but only partially, and only to the extent they are protecting their turf and their funding. They are doing as little as possible for and with the Haitian people, while they primarily look after their own interests and affairs in competition with all the other NGOs.

There is no coordination of effort, no common interest, no more than minimal "service" to the Haitian People. It is private interest every step of the way, and that is a huge reason why there is no progress at all. "Oh, but it could be so much worse without us!" cry the NGOs. Maybe, maybe not. But the Haitians are rightly fed up with the state of affairs they are subject to, and given some of the violent incidents in response to the cholera epidemic especially, they are on the verge of general insurrection.

This is pretty much what everyone's future will look like when government is reduced to an abstraction and competing private interests are left to their own devices. Each NGO becomes a kind of independent fief, struggling with all the others, using the People as pawns, providing them little or nothing, but always claiming that their efforts have kept things from getting worse.

Haiti should be a disturbing lesson for all of us, but strangely, the most obvious lessons are lost on most Americans.

-----------------

lea-p adds links to a Film@11tv documentary "Where did the money go?" to help round out the picture. Four of five episodes are on line now, the fifth and final episode should be posted soon.

Infuriating.



http://filmat11.tv/

Episode One: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpa8f3Q8eds

Episode Two: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rf-rC3VZxTo

Episode Three: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldZUqlgoyYQ

Episode Four: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqUDvoGOkTs