This report was sent to us by Bri Kouri Nouvelle Gaye, an alternative media and community mobilization project in Port-au-Prince:

After the rain that fell last night in Port-au-Prince and flooded many villages and areas in the country, the official number of dead is 11, but they are still counting. The country is still under great risk because there is a high probability of more rain today or tonight.

We must raise the alarm about the situation of people in the camps. It is clear that the biggest problem in the camps is the question of transitional housing vs. those who do not have them. In the Carradeux Camp where the majority of people have transitional housing, they are not experiencing the same  kind of destruction as those still under tents. In camps like St Louis Gonzague, Palais de l’Art – those camps without any transitional housing are facing a much more grave danger.

In the same moment, several thousand Haitians are at risk of losing their houses and even their lives, the NGOs and United Nations continue to waste money on nice cars, beautiful houses and lovely hotels; they are not finding sustainable solutions to the problems we face nor are they embracing the solutions we envision. The state of vulnerability in Haiti shows that the NGOs and the UN need to put more focus on building transitional housing and creating a system of potable water that is sustainable.

In this moment too, we see the risk of cholera is skyrocketing. The rainy season is very favorable to the spread of cholera, and the NGOs that have money in their hands are doing almost nothing to reinforce the existing water systems. They focus instead on water distribution which is unsustainable and increases the risks of cholera. In the rural areas, there is no education for the prevention of cholera and many are dying in distant and isolated areas and not entering into official death counts. There is a system of discrimination in the treatment of cholera beause resources are centralized and people in rural areas not only don’t receive education or care, when they die they go uncounted.

The death of Osama bin Laden at the hands of US forces will no doubt bring closure to many throughout the world who’ve lost loved ones to al-Qaeda’s terror campaign. But far from signaling the end of the battle for supremacy in South Asia, bin Laden’s demise only marks the end of the beginning.

The United States reportedly launched the attack on bin Laden’s luxury Pakistani hideaway without informing the Pakistani authorities. The failure to gain prior consent lays bare the lack of trust which has characterized relations between Islamabad and Washington since the beginning of the War on Terror.

Speculation has been rife for years that Pakistan has been playing a double game with the West – posing as a cooperative ally in the war in neighboring Afghanistan while secretly aiding the Afghan Taliban which gave bin Laden sanctuary. Classified US documents posted online by Wikileaks repeatedly accuse the ISI, Pakistan’s most powerful intelligence agency, of supporting the Afghan Taliban.

Not surprisingly, Islamabad has vigorously denied all charges that it has or continues to help the Afghan Taliban, often citing its own fight against the Pakistani Taliban; a bogus comparison in my view given that the Pakistani Taliban is committed to the destruction of the government in Islamabad as opposed to the ouster of the US-led coalition from Afghanistan. Moreover, the location, scale and opulence of the compound where bin Laden met his end would seem to suggest that there are at the very least powerful elements in Pakistan’s establishment sympathetic if not supportive of al-Qaeda’s war against the West. The secured, luxury villa worth a reported $1 million was built five years ago in Abbottabad, an affluent garrison town firmly under the control of Pakistan’s military elite and home to its main military academy.

The fact that bin Laden was hunted down and killed just a stone’s throw from Pakistan’s version of West Point puts Islamabad between a rock and hard place. It is doubtful the civilian-led Pakistani government has the power to clean house and ruthlessly weed out Afghan Taliban and al-Qaeda supporters in the military and security services without inviting a coup. And if they throw their hands up and claim that they had no idea bin Laden was living comfortably right under their noses, it will completely undermine claims that Islamabad can prevent terrorists from doing as they like in the country– including exploiting Pakistan’s most precious military asset; its nuclear arsenal.

For years, Islamabad has refused to allow outside observers to check the safety of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons, stating it will never allow any country to have direct or indirect access to its nuclear facilities. Whether Islamabad pleads ignorance on sheltering bin Laden or starts purging its military and security services of al-Qaeda sympathizers, it will be very difficult now for Pakistan to resist US offers to help secure its nuclear assets (especially if the US secures the backing of the United Nations for such a plan).

If the US can get its foot in Pakistan’s proverbial nuclear door, it will be the ultimate game changer. Contrary to popular belief, the US and Britain are not Pakistan’s most treasured allies. It’s China (not only have I blogged frequently about this strategic relationship over the past year; it serves as the backdrop for my forthcoming novel, The Good Jihadist). China has huge influence with Islamabad; selling Pakistan arms and investing billions in developing natural resources and energy routes through the country including highways and a strategically important port in Gwadar, Baluchistan.

The Sino-Pakistani nexus is not just commercially beneficial to both parties. By serving as a direct energy conduit between oil rich Gulf nations and Western China, Pakistan is vital to Beijing’s future security. In turn, Beijing offers Islamabad a powerful buffer against its most bitter enemy, India (whose nuclear ambitions are currently being supported by the US).

Just last week, the Wall Street Journal reported that Pakistan’s prime minister was attempting to cut the US out of Afghanistan’s future by reportedly urging Afghan President Hamid Karzai to forget about a long-term US military presence in his country and instead embrace Pakistan and China as allies. The article went on to quote unnamed US officials, saying that ‘the idea of China taking a leading role in Afghanistan was fanciful at best.’

Anyone who has been following China’s commercial progress in Afghanistan and Pakistan knows full well that Beijing is in a prime position to be the hegemonic power in the region. But by finally killing bin Laden, the United States has shown it is not about to abandon South Asia to forces beyond its control.

—Bob Shepherd

Beneath western praise for the Egyptian people’s stunning victory over autocratic rule runs a deep concern about how these events will impact America’s and Britain’s most treasured ally in the region; Israel. From Washington to Whitehall, pro-Israeli pundits have already begun sowing seeds of anxiety, warning that Egypt could tear up its peace treaty with Israel and/ or go the way of Iran and embrace clerical rule.

It’s time for a little perspective.

It is far from certain that the Muslim Brotherhood will be voted into power (indeed, it’s a wide-open question whether the military government will even allow elections). But let’s assume for argument’s sake that the Muslim Brotherhood is swept into office by popular vote. It is unlikely that they will follow in Iran’s footsteps because the Brotherhood is not compromised primarily of clerics but professional men who embrace a profitable business climate as much as the Koran.

The yearning among Egyptians religious and secular for a more prosperous future is likely to ensure the peace treaty with Israel will continue to be honoured. Egypt has nothing to gain from invading Israel—the Sinai was returned after all. Moreover, the first whiff of aggression toward Israel would invite at best crippling economic sanctions and at worst, bombs. And don’t forget who’s been supplying Egypt’s armed forces. Most of their hardware and software is American. If it chooses, Washington can shut down the Egyptian military machine with a flip of the proverbial switch.

Of course, none of what I’ve written so far is terribly insightful. Even casual observers of Middle East affairs are familiar with these facts. So why all the scare mongering about clerics and broken treaties? The answer is simple. Israel does face a serious threat from Egypt’s revolution, but not the one the hawks in Tel Aviv would have us believe.

For six decades, Israel’s powerful propaganda machine has portrayed Arabs as violent, irrational and therefore incapable of summoning the civility and restraint a functioning liberal democracy requires. As the last line of defence against these lesser evolved societies, Israel demanded blanket support for any actions taken in the name of security. The events in Egypt this week have blown this myth wide open. The revolution launched by the young protestors in Tahrir Square was largely peaceful. If the military transition does midwife free and fair elections, Tel Aviv will lose its claim to being the only nation in the region that shares western liberal values — especially if Egypt elects a secular minded leader. Not only would Cairo emerge as the civil and moral equal of Tel Aviv, it would have the political clout to pursue what has eluded the greatest powers on earth for decades; a credible Middle East Peace solution.

This is the real threat to Israel. Hosni Mubarak supported Israel’s apartheid policies toward the Palestinians out of deference to his American pay masters and fear of Hamas emboldening Egyptian Muslim groups. A democratically elected Egyptian government would not have such constraints. Indeed it is far more likely to reflect the will of its people. I would not be surprised if a civil government in Cairo were to fully restore the flow of goods and services over the Rafah border crossing thereby ending Israel’s blockade of Gaza.

Israel would no doubt raise the alarm and ask America to support maintaining the blockade. In the past, that would happen without question. But Egypt’s revolution is altering the rules of the game. It would be unwise of Washington to alienate a democratic Egypt in order to defend an Israeli policy that is illegal under international law. And if other Arab nations follow in Egypt’s footsteps, the US will face even greater pressure to end its blind endorsement of Israel’s colonialist policies. Imagine if Oman embraces democracy. The Straits of Hormuz are of far greater strategic importance to America than any slice of real estate in Israel.

The US and Britain need to break with the past and prove they are capable of being fair brokers in the Middle East. Failure to do so will risk ceding influence to a new hegemonic power. Remember, China already controls the port at Gwadar, Pakistan on the Arabian Sea—an asset it gained through diplomacy and economic incentives. Washington and Whitehall should put real pressure on Israel to pull back settlements that encroach on Palestinian lands (a suspension of credit lines should do the trick), appoint a credible envoy the Arabs can trust (Tony Blair’s appointment was tantamount to making Osama bin Laden mayor of New York City, in my view) and insist that Israel free jailed Palestinian political figures capable of uniting the West Bank and Gaza. Marwan Barghouti, Palestine’s Nelson Mandela, comes to mind.

Israel will probably resist any significant changes in US Middle East policy. Perhaps that’s the biggest threat of all posed by Egypt’s revolution. Old-style hawkishness can no longer guarantee Israel’s security and indeed, could run counter to it. In the new Middle East, a just and lasting peace between Israel and Palestine is the best way to ensure the Jewish state survives.

—Bob Shepherd

The scene: Arahama, Miyagi Prefecture, Japan.

A muddy and shivering spaniel-cross barks until he gets the attention of a film crew that is there to capture images of devastation. Film crew follows dog, who leads them to an apparently-dead canine friend. “Yes! Yes! He is alive!” shouts the reporter when the injured dog moves. Heartwarming dog-hugging moment at approximately the 2:04 mark:

The dogs were taken to a local shelter. Obviously, this will be coming to a movie theater just as soon as Disney wraps up the rights.

In a disaster the size of Haiti’s January 2010 earthquake, it might seem like only the big NGOs and government agencies could handle it. But 10 months after, with millions of Haitians left without some of the most basic necessities, the smaller players were doing some of the best work.

In the 4th episode in this 5-part series, we speak to members of small NGOs and independent businessmen who were on the ground in November helping Haitians protect themselves against Hurricane Tomas and the cholera outbreak. (You can also check out episodes 1, 2, and 3.)

At the beginning of November, Hurricane Tomas was approaching Haiti and millions of Haitians remained homeless and unprotected. Yet NGOs like the American Red Cross had declared Haiti out of the emergency phase. In April.

In the 3rd episode of this 5-part series, Haitians and Haiti experts speak to the issue of why so little had been done 10 months after the earthquake. (You can also check out episodes 1 and 2.)

There are international standards – agreed to by major charities – for displaced persons in disaster areas, but you wouldn’t know that walking around Haiti. Ten months after the January 12th earthquake, people were still crammed in back alleys, housed in torn tents, and provided too little drinking water . Instead of 20 people per toilet, it was over 300.

In the second episode of this 5-part series, we take a look at the high ideals of humanitarian aid vs. the intolerable misery of many Haitians’ lives.

Ten months after the January 12th earthquake, we traveled to Haiti to see what was being done with the $1.4 billion dollars US citizens had donated to help the Haitian people rebuild. Upon our arrival, we learned Hurricane Tomas was scheduled to hit Haiti that week and an outbreak of cholera was just starting up. In the first episode of this 5-part series, we take you into the Canaan II displaced persons camp outside Port-au-Prince. We’ll let the footage speak for itself.

Tune in here this week and next to see the struggles of everyday people left defenseless in the path of a hurricane and cholera. (You can also check out episodes 2, 3, and 4.)

Meet Mark Snyder. He’s been working with International Action Ties on earthquake relief in Haiti, helping to make sure displaced Haitians have the basics – water, food, toilets. He was kind enough to take us around during our trip to Haiti in November, and you’ll see a lot of him in our upcoming film, due out January 5th. But for now, check this out. We go behind the scenes with Mark to see what really drives him.

Jimmy McMillan doesn’t just head the Rent Is Too Damn High Party, he is The Rent is Too Damn High Party. But there’s one rent that’s not too high for him – the White House. McMillan makes an earth-shattering announcement to Film@11′s own Connor Kiesel.