HEART TO HEART
With Betty Ann Blaine
..."in doctrine showing integrity, reverence, incorruptibility, sound speech that cannot be condemned..." (Titus 2: 7,8)
Dear Reader,
Over the years, I have been a constant public critic of the failures of the Jamaican church. While I have openly recognised and congratulated the church on its history and continued commitment to education and social outreach, I keep reminding those of us who are the body of Christ that the area of greatest weakness is that the church has failed to act as the conscience of the state. To put it another way, the church has been reluctant and afraid to speak truth to power.
The words of the late Rev Dr Martin Luther King, Jr are haunting. In the book, Strength to Love, King asserted: "The church must be reminded that it is not the master nor the servant of the state, but rather the conscience of the state. It must be the guide and the critic of the state, and never its tool."
It is clear that some of our Jamaican pastors have forgotten whom they serve, and the most recent case in which the Rev Al Miller, one of the country's most influential pastors, has sided with the government on the extradition of a reputed "drug lord" and community "strongman", is to my mind the most glaring example of pastors allowing themselves to be used as tools of the state.
One of the observations I have made concerning Prime Minister Bruce Golding and Rev Al Miller is how quickly they have both became converted to full-fledged human rights activists. In fact, they have all but eclipsed Jamaicans for Justice and the Independent Jamaica Council on Human Rights in this particular so-called human rights case. Never before have I heard a pastor and a politician achieve such unison of thought and purpose, and speak so eloquently and stridently about the human rights of any Jamaican citizen in a country where violating people's rights is an accepted way of life. Are we to understand from the pastor and the politician that the human rights of some Jamaicans are more important then the human rights of others?
Somebody needs to tell Rev Miller that the debate surrounding the extradition of Coke is best left to lawyers, judges, politicians and to those constituencies where morality is inapplicable and where the law is supreme and self-serving. In biblical terms, it is the divide between the teachings of Jesus Christ and the system of Rome. One examined the soul of man, while the other was sworn to the service of Caesar.
There must be a greater motive unknown to us that would cause a pastor to ignore the brutality associated with "strongmen", and choose instead to focus on the "principle" of the extradition matter. I am reminded of a recent case where the accused rapist of a nine-year-old girl was set free because of a technicality involving DNA evidence. The question for the pastor is, where would you focus - on the horror of the crime or on the technicality of the law? What Rev Miller doesn't seem to realise is that lawyers have no responsibility to debate morality, but as a pastor he is absolutely obligated to doing so.
In fact, it is the moral failings of Jamaican society in general, and our political leaders in particular, which should be the concern of every pastor, let alone one who sits at the right hand of the prime minister. Instead of focusing on an issue that is best left to constitutionalists, lawyers and judges, Rev Miller ought to be speaking about the social ills in the society that have led to the ascendancy of "strongmen" and drug lords. The question that should be exercising the mind of every Jamaican pastor is, how do we build a society in which we can strengthen family life, protect our children and promote a consistent ethic of human life? Rev Miller needs to be reminded that if God is not at the centre of national life, then we can never achieve human rights.
Instead of "selling out" to man's politics, Rev Miller should be steadfastly focusing on perpetuating God's politics, and should make note of the fact that any discourse that is disconnected from moral values quickly degenerates.
Rather than "parroting" the government's position on the extradition, Rev Miller should be calling the leaders to a higher moral standard which dictates that they clean up and dismantle their garrison communities so that the murder and abuse of citizens will end, and that the scourge of strongmen will be cauterised and eventually eliminated.
Rev Miller should be calling for a deeper discourse about vision and values in public life. He should be speaking about how a new vision for the common good could inspire us all to lives of service and to a whole new set of public priorities.
Instead of pandering to politicians, Jamaica's pastors should heed the words of Rev Martin Luther King who warned that "if the church does not recapture its prophetic zeal it will become an irrelevant social club without moral or spiritual authority". In his book, God's Politics, author Jim Wallis asks, "Who will question the self-righteousness of nations and their leaders? Who will not allow God's name to be used to simply justify ourselves, instead of calling us to accountability? And who will love the people enough to challenge their worst habits, coarser entertainments, and selfish neglects?
I would implore Rev Miller to ponder on those things and to keep in mind that politics without a soul is anti-God. He should bear in mind too that pastors and politicians can make strange bedfellows.
With love,
bab2609@yahoo.com
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
jamaicaobserver
An International Caribbean Online Log about the news and opinions in the Americas and World. This Caribbean Blog of global reach and appeal is maintained by Bahamian Blogger - Dennis Dames with all readers and subscribers in mind.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Monday, March 22, 2010
Delay in joining Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) is amazing
By Oscar Ramjeet:
As Belize is about to join the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) as its final court, one of the seven judges and the Court Registrar visited the country and held discussions with local judges and explained the Rules and Procedure of the regional court with practising lawyers.
Their visit coincided with a farewell sitting for Appellate Court Judge, Jamaican-born Boyd Carey.
Justice Adrian Saunders, who was involved in drafting the Rules of the CCJ and Registrar, Dawn Pierre, explained to more than three dozen lawyers at a workshop on Saturday, the rules and procedures to be followed in filing appeals to the regional court.
Belize is the third CARICOM country to get rid of the Privy Council as the final Court, and the first to do so since its establishment, when only two countries, Guyana and Barbados, went on board. It baffles me why the other member states are hesitant and/or reluctant to do so, especially countries like Trinidad and Tobago and Jamaica, which were in the forefront in the setting up of the Court. However, I have been reliably informed that Dominica is in the process of making preparations to join, but that country is now experiencing parliamentary setback since the opposition party is boycotting parliament, claiming irregularities at the last general elections.
Jamaica as well as St Lucia are also considering joining in the near future. The Patrick Manning administration in Trinidad and Tobago is all in favour of the regional court, but in order for that country to join it must get the support of the Opposition, since it requires two thirds of the vote, and the then opposition leader, Basdeo Panday, was not in favour of the move. However, now that there is a new leader of the opposition UNC, in Kamla Persad-Bissessar, who is a West Indian- trained attorney, it is likely there will be a change in that regard.
The CCJ has been established since February 14, 2001, by an agreement signed by a dozen regional governments on February 15, 2003, but the inauguration took place nearly five years ago on April 15, 2005.
The Court has not heard many cases in its Appellate jurisdiction since only two of the 12 countries have accepted the CCJ as the final appellate court, and this is very unfortunate since the Port of Spain based Court has the best court facilities on the planet. I was privileged to visiting the Court and was impressed with what I have seen - besides the well equipped libraries, spacious conference room, robing room etc. I was elated with the court room appearance, with the most modern telephonic and fascinating equipment. The facilities include: A document Reader/Visual Presenter: Ability to use laptop computers, DVF/VCR: Audio/Video Digital Recording (microphones situated throughout the courtroom) ; wireless internet access, and audio/video transcripts.
International jurists who have visited the CCJ and read its judgments generally have a high opinion of the court. One of them, Francis Jacobs, a Privy Councillor and former Advocate General of the European Court of Justice, said that the CCJ is of a high calibre and would be able to take account of local values and develop a modern Caribbean jurisprudence in an international context. He also took a swipe at some Caribbean leaders when he said, "It is regrettable that political difficulties have obstructed acceptance of its Appellate jurisdiction and that the outdated jurisdiction of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council survives for many of those states.
One of the most respected Caribbean jurists, Dominican born Telford Georges, said before his death that he regarded it as a "compromise of sovereignty" for us to remain wedded "to a court which is part of the former colonial hierarchy, a court in the appointment of whose members we have absolutely no say."
I sincerely hope that steps will soon be taken by those countries that have not yet joined will do so as soon as possible.
March 22, 2010
caribbeannetnews
As Belize is about to join the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) as its final court, one of the seven judges and the Court Registrar visited the country and held discussions with local judges and explained the Rules and Procedure of the regional court with practising lawyers.
Their visit coincided with a farewell sitting for Appellate Court Judge, Jamaican-born Boyd Carey. Justice Adrian Saunders, who was involved in drafting the Rules of the CCJ and Registrar, Dawn Pierre, explained to more than three dozen lawyers at a workshop on Saturday, the rules and procedures to be followed in filing appeals to the regional court.
Belize is the third CARICOM country to get rid of the Privy Council as the final Court, and the first to do so since its establishment, when only two countries, Guyana and Barbados, went on board. It baffles me why the other member states are hesitant and/or reluctant to do so, especially countries like Trinidad and Tobago and Jamaica, which were in the forefront in the setting up of the Court. However, I have been reliably informed that Dominica is in the process of making preparations to join, but that country is now experiencing parliamentary setback since the opposition party is boycotting parliament, claiming irregularities at the last general elections.
Jamaica as well as St Lucia are also considering joining in the near future. The Patrick Manning administration in Trinidad and Tobago is all in favour of the regional court, but in order for that country to join it must get the support of the Opposition, since it requires two thirds of the vote, and the then opposition leader, Basdeo Panday, was not in favour of the move. However, now that there is a new leader of the opposition UNC, in Kamla Persad-Bissessar, who is a West Indian- trained attorney, it is likely there will be a change in that regard.
The CCJ has been established since February 14, 2001, by an agreement signed by a dozen regional governments on February 15, 2003, but the inauguration took place nearly five years ago on April 15, 2005.
The Court has not heard many cases in its Appellate jurisdiction since only two of the 12 countries have accepted the CCJ as the final appellate court, and this is very unfortunate since the Port of Spain based Court has the best court facilities on the planet. I was privileged to visiting the Court and was impressed with what I have seen - besides the well equipped libraries, spacious conference room, robing room etc. I was elated with the court room appearance, with the most modern telephonic and fascinating equipment. The facilities include: A document Reader/Visual Presenter: Ability to use laptop computers, DVF/VCR: Audio/Video Digital Recording (microphones situated throughout the courtroom) ; wireless internet access, and audio/video transcripts.
International jurists who have visited the CCJ and read its judgments generally have a high opinion of the court. One of them, Francis Jacobs, a Privy Councillor and former Advocate General of the European Court of Justice, said that the CCJ is of a high calibre and would be able to take account of local values and develop a modern Caribbean jurisprudence in an international context. He also took a swipe at some Caribbean leaders when he said, "It is regrettable that political difficulties have obstructed acceptance of its Appellate jurisdiction and that the outdated jurisdiction of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council survives for many of those states.
One of the most respected Caribbean jurists, Dominican born Telford Georges, said before his death that he regarded it as a "compromise of sovereignty" for us to remain wedded "to a court which is part of the former colonial hierarchy, a court in the appointment of whose members we have absolutely no say."
I sincerely hope that steps will soon be taken by those countries that have not yet joined will do so as soon as possible.
March 22, 2010
caribbeannetnews
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Jamaica: Extradition or not ... Coke is it!
Tyrone Reid, Sunday Gleaner Reporter:
COKE
Christopher 'Dudus' Coke will remain on the United States most-wanted list even if he is not extradited by the Jamaican authorities.
An official of the US Attorney's Office says the west Kingston strongman known as the 'President' will remain a priority for American law-enforcement agencies even if the Bruce Golding administration decides not to send him to America for trial based on the present extradition request.
"The indictment and the extradition are two separate things. The indictment is the charges against him, and the charges still stand," said Rebekah Carmichael, who is attached to the United States Attorney's public information office for the Southern District of New York.
Carmichael told The Sunday Gleaner: "The indictment still stands whether a defendant is extradited or not. The indictment continues to exist, the charges continue to exist."
As a result, Coke remains on the US Department of Justice's list of Consolidated Priority Organisation Targets, which includes the world's most dangerous narcotics kingpins.
No comment
Carmichael declined to say what measures US authorities were prepared to implement to ensure that Coke faces the court. "I would not be able to comment on that, we have no comment," she said.
She also refused to comment on the Jamaican Government's decision not to sign the request for the extradition of Coke.
At the time the indictment was issued against Coke, Preet Bharara, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, described the charges against him as "another important step in our bringing to justice the world's most dangerous criminals, wherever they may be found".
Coke is "charged with conspiracy to distribute cocaine and marijuana and conspiracy to illegally traffic in firearms. If convicted on the narcotics charge, he faces a maximum sentence of life in prison, as well as a fine of up to (US)$4 million, or twice the pecuniary gain from the offence," read a section of a release issued by the US Attorney's Office last August.
Since then, Prime Minister Bruce Golding has argued that that there is an insufficiency of credible evidence to substantiate a criminal charge against Coke, and that the other available evidence was obtained in breach of the Interception of Com-munications Act, 2002.
While the prime minister did not rule out honouring the extradition request, he argued that the Government would have to be presented with information in accordance with Jamaican law.
The Government has also asked the US authorities to disclose the name of the police officer who passed the intercepted communication to them.
Under local laws, the policeman, so far identified only as 'John Doe', was not authorised to pass the information to the US authorities and committed a criminal offence.
But so far, the Americans have refused to disclose the name of the police officer or state if he is still in Jamaica.
This has led to a stalemate, which the US argues, can be resolved by placing the extradition request before the Jamaican courts, while the Golding administration claims that both parties should sit and try to arrive at an amicable solution.
tyrone.reid@gleanerjm.com
March 21, 2010
jamaica-gleaner
COKE
Christopher 'Dudus' Coke will remain on the United States most-wanted list even if he is not extradited by the Jamaican authorities.
An official of the US Attorney's Office says the west Kingston strongman known as the 'President' will remain a priority for American law-enforcement agencies even if the Bruce Golding administration decides not to send him to America for trial based on the present extradition request.
"The indictment and the extradition are two separate things. The indictment is the charges against him, and the charges still stand," said Rebekah Carmichael, who is attached to the United States Attorney's public information office for the Southern District of New York.
Carmichael told The Sunday Gleaner: "The indictment still stands whether a defendant is extradited or not. The indictment continues to exist, the charges continue to exist."
As a result, Coke remains on the US Department of Justice's list of Consolidated Priority Organisation Targets, which includes the world's most dangerous narcotics kingpins.
No comment
Carmichael declined to say what measures US authorities were prepared to implement to ensure that Coke faces the court. "I would not be able to comment on that, we have no comment," she said.
She also refused to comment on the Jamaican Government's decision not to sign the request for the extradition of Coke.
At the time the indictment was issued against Coke, Preet Bharara, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, described the charges against him as "another important step in our bringing to justice the world's most dangerous criminals, wherever they may be found".
Coke is "charged with conspiracy to distribute cocaine and marijuana and conspiracy to illegally traffic in firearms. If convicted on the narcotics charge, he faces a maximum sentence of life in prison, as well as a fine of up to (US)$4 million, or twice the pecuniary gain from the offence," read a section of a release issued by the US Attorney's Office last August.
Since then, Prime Minister Bruce Golding has argued that that there is an insufficiency of credible evidence to substantiate a criminal charge against Coke, and that the other available evidence was obtained in breach of the Interception of Com-munications Act, 2002.
While the prime minister did not rule out honouring the extradition request, he argued that the Government would have to be presented with information in accordance with Jamaican law.
The Government has also asked the US authorities to disclose the name of the police officer who passed the intercepted communication to them.
Under local laws, the policeman, so far identified only as 'John Doe', was not authorised to pass the information to the US authorities and committed a criminal offence.
But so far, the Americans have refused to disclose the name of the police officer or state if he is still in Jamaica.
This has led to a stalemate, which the US argues, can be resolved by placing the extradition request before the Jamaican courts, while the Golding administration claims that both parties should sit and try to arrive at an amicable solution.
tyrone.reid@gleanerjm.com
March 21, 2010
jamaica-gleaner
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Port au Prince, Haiti: Nou Bouke! We are exhausted!
By Jean H Charles:
This graffiti is now covering most of the remaining walls of Port au Prince, Haiti. During election time, candidates commandeered slogans and graffiti on the walls for a price. This slogan Nou Bouke (pronounced key) has nothing to do with politics; it is the cry of exasperation of a people that have endured misery, deception, earthquake, hurricane and ill governance constantly for the past sixty years!
I received last week a challenge from a brother from Jamaica now living in the Turks and Caicos asking me to clarify or expand on the issue of governance and democracy in Haiti, the relevance of the demise from Haiti and the forced exile to South Africa of Jean Bertrand Aristide and last but not least the issue of redemption to Haiti from France. I welcome the challenge hoping neither of us will be a winner but the larger community will benefit in knowledge and understanding from the exchange.
On the issue of redemption for past slavery, one will be surprised to find out I have single-handed initiated the process for putting on the table the issue of redemption for Haiti. It all started during a cursory visit to a bookstore in downtown Port au Prince. I came upon an issue of Paris Match where I read that a legislator from Martinique has succeeded in having the French Parliament pass a resolution condemning slavery as an act of cruel and inhuman treatment inflicted by France upon million of slaves. My legal mind told me that France has opened a hole that will make it liable and vulnerable to demand for compensation from former colonies in general and from Haiti in particular.
In a follow up conversation with my father, a retired chief judge of Haiti Civil Court and past Dean of a law school, I revived the discussion concerning the pros and cons of such an approach. On a strict construction of the law, the doctrine of clean hands and the doctrine of viability of an action in criminal matters are in full force. France cannot continue to benefit from the billion of dollars in retribution paid by Haiti while it has enjoyed the forced labor and the sweat of generations of slaves enriching named French citizens individually and the nation as whole for several centuries. Haiti has conquered its freedom on its own, paying a price in gold to have that freedom recognized by France is unconscionable morally and it is illegal now, considering the resolution passed by the French Parliament. There was a guest in my home at that conversation; he was a personal advisor of Jean Bertrand Aristide. He brought the issue to the President, the rest was history.
President Aristide could have called upon the best legal minds of the world, including those from France to make the legal case for Haiti for retribution in light of this new development. He chose instead to pursue a political and demagogic road poisoning for ever the legal advantage. At the other end of the spectrum France and Belgium owe the rest of their former colonies an obligation to help extract the virus of distrust, dissent and internal fratricide injected into the ethos and the culture of most of the former French and Belgium colonies. From Congo to Madagascar, from Haiti to Gabon and from Senegal to Tunisia, the story is the same with some variances, France meddling and the sequels of French culture is at the heart of the poor governance, the internal fighting and the robbing of the natural resources depriving the citizens of enjoying in peace their God given national endowment.
Should President Aristide have been deposed from power and sent to exile? This debate will continue for generations yet the truth of the matter is Aristide was deposed by a popular movement of the people of Haiti led by students who found his policies of dividing the already disjointed Haitian family too much to endure. As usual, France and the United States have come at the end to claim the paternity of the movement and lead the transition to their own advantage. Sending Aristide to exile was a small price to pay to bring about solace to million of Haitian families.
Under the Duvalier regime, the repression was codified and led by uniformed tonton macoutes, under Arisitide, the repression, the kidnapping and the killings were done by thugs, hired renegade paid by the government with not even a uniform to claim the appearance of a state enterprise. His complete disregard for law and order was putting the nation at its core into the path of disintegration. This axiom enshrined in the Preamble of the, Constitution of the United States is of value to the people of Haiti as well as the people of the world:
“All men are created equal; they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it and to institute a new government. It is the duty of the people to rise and to defend themselves against that tyrant.”
We often tend to follow the politics that the mice are smaller than the rats, as such we can live with the mice. Duvalier’s son was better than Duvalier therefore we can live with him. Arisitide was better than Duvalier fils therefore he is acceptable. Preval is better than Aristide, we should give him a chance.
The principle of democracy is a simple one. I have often called upon Ernest Renan as my preferred prophet for spreading the message. You shall defend your frontiers and your territory with all your might! You shall instill into the souls of your citizen the love and the admiration of the founding fathers! You shall take all the necessary measures to insure that no one is left behind!
In Haiti today the people are crying nou Bouke! nou Bouke! We have enough of this government that is interested in perpetuating itself while playing a scant view of the welfare of its people. Confirmed reports have informed me that before the earthquake some 900 projects vetted by Haiti’s own service of business promotion that would bring jobs for the Haitian people have been blocked by the Haitian government because graft has not been tendered for a final approval. After the earthquake the only reconstruction firms that can obtain a permit to start demolition projects are those introduced by or retained with the first Lady of Haiti.
It might be time for Haiti and for the friends of Haiti to plan regime change in Haiti, if the country should enjoy free and fair elections leading to democracy. The Haitian people did have their Friday of Crucifixion for too long it is time now for them to have their Easter Sunday. It is also the quickest way to bring about a minimum of coordination to the avalanche of help brought about by the international community to the gallant people of Haiti averting as such a second disaster.
It was a brother from Jamaica who sparked the Haitian revolution changing the world for ever and for the better! His name was Bookman. Would you, my dear brother from Jamaica, lend a hand again?
March 20, 2010
caribbeannetnews
This graffiti is now covering most of the remaining walls of Port au Prince, Haiti. During election time, candidates commandeered slogans and graffiti on the walls for a price. This slogan Nou Bouke (pronounced key) has nothing to do with politics; it is the cry of exasperation of a people that have endured misery, deception, earthquake, hurricane and ill governance constantly for the past sixty years!
I received last week a challenge from a brother from Jamaica now living in the Turks and Caicos asking me to clarify or expand on the issue of governance and democracy in Haiti, the relevance of the demise from Haiti and the forced exile to South Africa of Jean Bertrand Aristide and last but not least the issue of redemption to Haiti from France. I welcome the challenge hoping neither of us will be a winner but the larger community will benefit in knowledge and understanding from the exchange. On the issue of redemption for past slavery, one will be surprised to find out I have single-handed initiated the process for putting on the table the issue of redemption for Haiti. It all started during a cursory visit to a bookstore in downtown Port au Prince. I came upon an issue of Paris Match where I read that a legislator from Martinique has succeeded in having the French Parliament pass a resolution condemning slavery as an act of cruel and inhuman treatment inflicted by France upon million of slaves. My legal mind told me that France has opened a hole that will make it liable and vulnerable to demand for compensation from former colonies in general and from Haiti in particular.
In a follow up conversation with my father, a retired chief judge of Haiti Civil Court and past Dean of a law school, I revived the discussion concerning the pros and cons of such an approach. On a strict construction of the law, the doctrine of clean hands and the doctrine of viability of an action in criminal matters are in full force. France cannot continue to benefit from the billion of dollars in retribution paid by Haiti while it has enjoyed the forced labor and the sweat of generations of slaves enriching named French citizens individually and the nation as whole for several centuries. Haiti has conquered its freedom on its own, paying a price in gold to have that freedom recognized by France is unconscionable morally and it is illegal now, considering the resolution passed by the French Parliament. There was a guest in my home at that conversation; he was a personal advisor of Jean Bertrand Aristide. He brought the issue to the President, the rest was history.
President Aristide could have called upon the best legal minds of the world, including those from France to make the legal case for Haiti for retribution in light of this new development. He chose instead to pursue a political and demagogic road poisoning for ever the legal advantage. At the other end of the spectrum France and Belgium owe the rest of their former colonies an obligation to help extract the virus of distrust, dissent and internal fratricide injected into the ethos and the culture of most of the former French and Belgium colonies. From Congo to Madagascar, from Haiti to Gabon and from Senegal to Tunisia, the story is the same with some variances, France meddling and the sequels of French culture is at the heart of the poor governance, the internal fighting and the robbing of the natural resources depriving the citizens of enjoying in peace their God given national endowment.
Should President Aristide have been deposed from power and sent to exile? This debate will continue for generations yet the truth of the matter is Aristide was deposed by a popular movement of the people of Haiti led by students who found his policies of dividing the already disjointed Haitian family too much to endure. As usual, France and the United States have come at the end to claim the paternity of the movement and lead the transition to their own advantage. Sending Aristide to exile was a small price to pay to bring about solace to million of Haitian families.
Under the Duvalier regime, the repression was codified and led by uniformed tonton macoutes, under Arisitide, the repression, the kidnapping and the killings were done by thugs, hired renegade paid by the government with not even a uniform to claim the appearance of a state enterprise. His complete disregard for law and order was putting the nation at its core into the path of disintegration. This axiom enshrined in the Preamble of the, Constitution of the United States is of value to the people of Haiti as well as the people of the world:
“All men are created equal; they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it and to institute a new government. It is the duty of the people to rise and to defend themselves against that tyrant.”
We often tend to follow the politics that the mice are smaller than the rats, as such we can live with the mice. Duvalier’s son was better than Duvalier therefore we can live with him. Arisitide was better than Duvalier fils therefore he is acceptable. Preval is better than Aristide, we should give him a chance.
The principle of democracy is a simple one. I have often called upon Ernest Renan as my preferred prophet for spreading the message. You shall defend your frontiers and your territory with all your might! You shall instill into the souls of your citizen the love and the admiration of the founding fathers! You shall take all the necessary measures to insure that no one is left behind!
In Haiti today the people are crying nou Bouke! nou Bouke! We have enough of this government that is interested in perpetuating itself while playing a scant view of the welfare of its people. Confirmed reports have informed me that before the earthquake some 900 projects vetted by Haiti’s own service of business promotion that would bring jobs for the Haitian people have been blocked by the Haitian government because graft has not been tendered for a final approval. After the earthquake the only reconstruction firms that can obtain a permit to start demolition projects are those introduced by or retained with the first Lady of Haiti.
It might be time for Haiti and for the friends of Haiti to plan regime change in Haiti, if the country should enjoy free and fair elections leading to democracy. The Haitian people did have their Friday of Crucifixion for too long it is time now for them to have their Easter Sunday. It is also the quickest way to bring about a minimum of coordination to the avalanche of help brought about by the international community to the gallant people of Haiti averting as such a second disaster.
It was a brother from Jamaica who sparked the Haitian revolution changing the world for ever and for the better! His name was Bookman. Would you, my dear brother from Jamaica, lend a hand again?
March 20, 2010
caribbeannetnews
Friday, March 19, 2010
Too late to avert second Haiti disaster, says aid coordinator
PORT-AU-PRINCE, Haiti (AFP) -- Despite billions of dollars in pledges and an unprecedented humanitarian drive, it is likely too late to avert a second disaster in quake-hit Haiti, a top US aid coordinator warned Thursday.
Tents and tarpaulins are simply not enough to protect tens of thousands of Haitians from the coming rains and hurricanes, and a new wave of quake survivors could perish in a second "catastrophe," InterAction chief Sam Worthington predicted.
"Having observed camps on very steep slopes and that you cannot simply relocate hundreds of thousands of people easily, we anticipate that the rainy season will lead, to a certain degree, to another catastrophe that despite the hard work of the international community will be hard to avoid," he told AFP.
"Deaths, landslides and so forth," he explained, adding: "What we can do is work with the UN to create shelters that people can find refuge in, but there simply isn't the time."
In Haiti for a week for meetings with top government officials, including President Rene Preval, Worthington is coordinating the massive US NGO effort but is realistic about what can be achieved.
"We're in a race against time and even though a large number of people will be moved, I do anticipate that, sadly, many will be affected by the fact that they are living in areas that are dangerous.
"One could get a tent, one could get plastic sheeting but to get people in temporary shelter in such a way that it will withstand a hurricane or rains and ultimately rebuild, we are talking about an effort that will take years."
Teams from the International Organization for Migration are laboriously trawling hundreds of camps to register the particulars of each family, while other UN agencies draw up emergency plans for flood and hurricane prevention.
Some 218,000 Haitians are deemed to be in "red camps," those considered at gravest flood risk, and the race is on to find them alternative shelter before the rain and possibly calamitous landslides.
There have already been a few nights of torrential downpours in the past week and sustained rains could spell disaster in Port-au-Prince where countless people subsist in wretched conditions perched on treacherous slopes.
"Our community is talking about a second disaster happening when the rains hit," said Worthington. "I am not sure to what extent that can be avoided."
"Unfortunately, many of the camps are in areas that have no drainage whatsoever and many of the shelters are on slopes that are 20 degrees or steeper," he told AFP after a briefing at the UN logistics base.
The 7.0-magnitude earthquake that struck Haiti as dusk fell on January 12 was one of the worst natural disasters of modern times, if not the worst. It left at least 220,000 people dead and affected three million Haitians.
March 19, 2010
caribbeannetnews
Tents and tarpaulins are simply not enough to protect tens of thousands of Haitians from the coming rains and hurricanes, and a new wave of quake survivors could perish in a second "catastrophe," InterAction chief Sam Worthington predicted.
"Having observed camps on very steep slopes and that you cannot simply relocate hundreds of thousands of people easily, we anticipate that the rainy season will lead, to a certain degree, to another catastrophe that despite the hard work of the international community will be hard to avoid," he told AFP.
"Deaths, landslides and so forth," he explained, adding: "What we can do is work with the UN to create shelters that people can find refuge in, but there simply isn't the time."
In Haiti for a week for meetings with top government officials, including President Rene Preval, Worthington is coordinating the massive US NGO effort but is realistic about what can be achieved.
"We're in a race against time and even though a large number of people will be moved, I do anticipate that, sadly, many will be affected by the fact that they are living in areas that are dangerous.
"One could get a tent, one could get plastic sheeting but to get people in temporary shelter in such a way that it will withstand a hurricane or rains and ultimately rebuild, we are talking about an effort that will take years."
Teams from the International Organization for Migration are laboriously trawling hundreds of camps to register the particulars of each family, while other UN agencies draw up emergency plans for flood and hurricane prevention.
Some 218,000 Haitians are deemed to be in "red camps," those considered at gravest flood risk, and the race is on to find them alternative shelter before the rain and possibly calamitous landslides.
There have already been a few nights of torrential downpours in the past week and sustained rains could spell disaster in Port-au-Prince where countless people subsist in wretched conditions perched on treacherous slopes.
"Our community is talking about a second disaster happening when the rains hit," said Worthington. "I am not sure to what extent that can be avoided."
"Unfortunately, many of the camps are in areas that have no drainage whatsoever and many of the shelters are on slopes that are 20 degrees or steeper," he told AFP after a briefing at the UN logistics base.
The 7.0-magnitude earthquake that struck Haiti as dusk fell on January 12 was one of the worst natural disasters of modern times, if not the worst. It left at least 220,000 people dead and affected three million Haitians.
March 19, 2010
caribbeannetnews
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Hope for a basic shift in US Cuba policy disintegrates into continued polarization
By COHA Research Associate Katya Rodriguez:
Washington severed relations with Cuba on January 3, 1961 and launched its economic embargo against Havana the following year. Its intended target was to transform Cuba’s political system from being sympathetic to Moscow’s brand of Communism to one more harmonious with the Cold War ideology being proselytized by the White House. However, most regional specialists now dealing with the embargo issue, after forty-eight years in operation, agree that it has not been particularly effective in persuading the island leaders to take steps toward the democratization of the country. Instead, it only has served to damage Washington’s economic, diplomatic and national-security interests affecting Cuba as well as the remainder of the region.
During most of the last half century, discussions aimed at normalizing relations with Cuba have been rare and mainly unproductive. Due to Obama’s optimism for political change toward Cuba during his presidential campaign, there was considerable hope that the sterility and selective indignation that had characterized US policy toward Havana would be altered in a more constructive direction. But his election did not by any means serve to initiate a paradigm shift in US-Cuban relations, and after a year, one could say that when it came to change in Latin America, the direction of the new administration was more in reverse than in fast-forward. Once hopeful attitudes and expectations are now disintegrating, and as a result, there is a growing continuum of hostility between the United States and Cuba. Meanwhile, Washington, if anything, is becoming more isolated from much of Latin America than meaningfully connected to it.
This growing animosity was underlined when news surfaced that Cuba had not been eliminated from the State Department’s State Sponsors of Terrorism list, which would be issued in its finalized form in April. Scandalously (given the paucity of incriminating evidence in recent years), Cuba has held a prominent position on that infamous list since 1982, and its ancient tenure in this category represents the second-longest in duration after Syria, despite the Cuban government’s futile protests that it does not in any form deserve to be stigmatized in this manner.
While President Obama acknowledged that the policies made by prior U.S. administrations that were intended to democratize Cuba have come to no avail, he has not put to work a policy aimed at constructive engagement. Although he has been chief of state for over a year now, he has done little to fulfill his campaign promise to meet with Cuban leaders and take necessary steps toward normalizing ties with Cuba. His less-than-significant move to free up remittances allowed to be sent to Cuba as well as lifting travel restrictions against Cuban- Americans visiting Cuba reveal themselves as merely a reversal of nuisance regulations implemented by George W. Bush. If Obama intends to live up to the hype he initiated during his campaign in terms of thawing an otherwise fallow relationship with Cuba, he needs to address a much longer and larger restrictive strategy towards US-Cuban policies than just those put into effect by the previous administration. Furthermore, his executive orders regarding Cuba are not being enforced. On January 21, 2009 he signed orders instructing the CIA to close Guantanamo Bay; a year later, it remains open and Reuters reported that the deadline has been extended to an additional three years.
Obama has ordered that the release of all political prisoners held in Cuba as a reoccurring condition to regain ties. It has been indicated that Raúl Castro is willing to release anyone of importance to the US if the White House sees to it that the Cuban Five are freed. International support against the imprisonment of the Cuban Five remains strong. On January 28, 2010 three Argentinean men climbed Mount Aconcagua, the second tallest mountain in the world, to display a banner that read, “Obama, free the five Cuban heroes now!” The United Nations defended the Cuban Five, stating that the trial was not impartial; it happened in South Florida where anti-Castro sentiments are strong and harsh punishment for Castro supporters is routine. On October 10, 2009 a judge decided that the sentences were excessive and reduced them for three of the five. Antonio Guerrero’s sentence was reduced from a life sentence to a twenty-year term, due to insufficient evidence. The sentence reductions reflect negatively on the US criminal system and raises doubt that their right to a fair and speedy trial was acknowledged. If the United States truly wishes to have better ties to Cuba, the prompt release of prisoners in both countries will stimulate change.
By far the most damaging action taken by an administration supposedly trying to re-establish relations with Cuba was to abrogate the US Practice of almost automatically placing Cuba on the State Department’s State Sponsors of Terrorism list. According to Peter Kornbluh of the National Security Archives, a non-governmental research library located at George Washington University, the reason for Cuba’s inclusion on the list is punishment for not participating in Washington’s global War on Terror. This accusation is far from legitimate since Cuba has laws against terrorism. In addition, being on the list prohibits Cuba from receiving US foreign assistance, permission to export goods to the US, and requiring special licensing requirements for businesses exports to Cuba. But one would hope that the US possessed a justifiable reason for maintaining Cuba on its list rather than an ideological commitment to political values. For twenty-eight years, Cuba has languished on the list with no action toward democratic change or presenting credible evidence of Cuba supporting the War on Terror. Keeping Havana on the list for another year with no concrete evidence that it benefits the United States leads to the conclusion that it only negatively affects Cuba. Recalling Obama’s words on May 23, 2008 concerning US arrogance towards Latin America, it would appear that the US is in need of a pressing review of a hemispheric policy that brings with it vital new ideas.
The Council on Hemispheric Affairs, founded in 1975, is an independent, non-profit, non-partisan, tax-exempt research and information organization. It has been described on the Senate floor as being "one of the nation's most respected bodies of scholars and policy makers." For more information, visit www.coha.org
caribbeannetnews
Washington severed relations with Cuba on January 3, 1961 and launched its economic embargo against Havana the following year. Its intended target was to transform Cuba’s political system from being sympathetic to Moscow’s brand of Communism to one more harmonious with the Cold War ideology being proselytized by the White House. However, most regional specialists now dealing with the embargo issue, after forty-eight years in operation, agree that it has not been particularly effective in persuading the island leaders to take steps toward the democratization of the country. Instead, it only has served to damage Washington’s economic, diplomatic and national-security interests affecting Cuba as well as the remainder of the region.
During most of the last half century, discussions aimed at normalizing relations with Cuba have been rare and mainly unproductive. Due to Obama’s optimism for political change toward Cuba during his presidential campaign, there was considerable hope that the sterility and selective indignation that had characterized US policy toward Havana would be altered in a more constructive direction. But his election did not by any means serve to initiate a paradigm shift in US-Cuban relations, and after a year, one could say that when it came to change in Latin America, the direction of the new administration was more in reverse than in fast-forward. Once hopeful attitudes and expectations are now disintegrating, and as a result, there is a growing continuum of hostility between the United States and Cuba. Meanwhile, Washington, if anything, is becoming more isolated from much of Latin America than meaningfully connected to it.
This growing animosity was underlined when news surfaced that Cuba had not been eliminated from the State Department’s State Sponsors of Terrorism list, which would be issued in its finalized form in April. Scandalously (given the paucity of incriminating evidence in recent years), Cuba has held a prominent position on that infamous list since 1982, and its ancient tenure in this category represents the second-longest in duration after Syria, despite the Cuban government’s futile protests that it does not in any form deserve to be stigmatized in this manner.
While President Obama acknowledged that the policies made by prior U.S. administrations that were intended to democratize Cuba have come to no avail, he has not put to work a policy aimed at constructive engagement. Although he has been chief of state for over a year now, he has done little to fulfill his campaign promise to meet with Cuban leaders and take necessary steps toward normalizing ties with Cuba. His less-than-significant move to free up remittances allowed to be sent to Cuba as well as lifting travel restrictions against Cuban- Americans visiting Cuba reveal themselves as merely a reversal of nuisance regulations implemented by George W. Bush. If Obama intends to live up to the hype he initiated during his campaign in terms of thawing an otherwise fallow relationship with Cuba, he needs to address a much longer and larger restrictive strategy towards US-Cuban policies than just those put into effect by the previous administration. Furthermore, his executive orders regarding Cuba are not being enforced. On January 21, 2009 he signed orders instructing the CIA to close Guantanamo Bay; a year later, it remains open and Reuters reported that the deadline has been extended to an additional three years.
Obama has ordered that the release of all political prisoners held in Cuba as a reoccurring condition to regain ties. It has been indicated that Raúl Castro is willing to release anyone of importance to the US if the White House sees to it that the Cuban Five are freed. International support against the imprisonment of the Cuban Five remains strong. On January 28, 2010 three Argentinean men climbed Mount Aconcagua, the second tallest mountain in the world, to display a banner that read, “Obama, free the five Cuban heroes now!” The United Nations defended the Cuban Five, stating that the trial was not impartial; it happened in South Florida where anti-Castro sentiments are strong and harsh punishment for Castro supporters is routine. On October 10, 2009 a judge decided that the sentences were excessive and reduced them for three of the five. Antonio Guerrero’s sentence was reduced from a life sentence to a twenty-year term, due to insufficient evidence. The sentence reductions reflect negatively on the US criminal system and raises doubt that their right to a fair and speedy trial was acknowledged. If the United States truly wishes to have better ties to Cuba, the prompt release of prisoners in both countries will stimulate change.
By far the most damaging action taken by an administration supposedly trying to re-establish relations with Cuba was to abrogate the US Practice of almost automatically placing Cuba on the State Department’s State Sponsors of Terrorism list. According to Peter Kornbluh of the National Security Archives, a non-governmental research library located at George Washington University, the reason for Cuba’s inclusion on the list is punishment for not participating in Washington’s global War on Terror. This accusation is far from legitimate since Cuba has laws against terrorism. In addition, being on the list prohibits Cuba from receiving US foreign assistance, permission to export goods to the US, and requiring special licensing requirements for businesses exports to Cuba. But one would hope that the US possessed a justifiable reason for maintaining Cuba on its list rather than an ideological commitment to political values. For twenty-eight years, Cuba has languished on the list with no action toward democratic change or presenting credible evidence of Cuba supporting the War on Terror. Keeping Havana on the list for another year with no concrete evidence that it benefits the United States leads to the conclusion that it only negatively affects Cuba. Recalling Obama’s words on May 23, 2008 concerning US arrogance towards Latin America, it would appear that the US is in need of a pressing review of a hemispheric policy that brings with it vital new ideas.
The Council on Hemispheric Affairs, founded in 1975, is an independent, non-profit, non-partisan, tax-exempt research and information organization. It has been described on the Senate floor as being "one of the nation's most respected bodies of scholars and policy makers." For more information, visit www.coha.org
caribbeannetnews
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Bahamas: US tax treaty 'hasn't created Armageddon'
By NEIL HARTNELL
Tribune Business Editor:
THE Bahamas' Tax Information Exchange Agreement (TIEA) with the United States "hasn't created the kind of Armageddon" many feared when this nation signed that treaty back in 2002, a senior Ministry of Finance official said yesterday, adding that the number of requests submitted by Washington had not been "exorbitant".
Rowena Bethel, in-house legal adviser at the ministry, told a Society of Trust and Estate Practitioners (STEP) luncheon yesterday that the Bahamas' first-ever TIEA, which took effect with the US for criminal tax matters from January 1, 2004, onwards, and New Year's Day 2006 for civil matters, had "been a fairly smooth process to date".
Responding to questions from STEP members as to how the US TIEA had worked and been administered in practice, Mrs Bethel said the Bahamas' "long-standing relationship" with Washington in many areas had ensured the tax information exchange process had been relatively hassle-free.
"I'm not aware that there have been any issues in terms of processing of requests from the US, and that speaks in the Bahamas' favour," Mrs Bethel said. "It hasn't been an exorbitant number of requests, to my knowledge.
"We have a long-standing relationship, and it [the US TIEA] hasn't created the kind of Armageddon spoken about" when the Bahamas signed the agreement back in 2002.
The Bahamas' experience in responding to US requests for assistance under the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT) had served it well in dealing with TIEA requests, she suggested, as the processes involved had their similarities.
Referring to the wider TIEA network the Bahamas had signed up to, Mrs Bethel added: "What we're looking at is the new norm, and operating within the scope of the new norm, recognising certain obligations have to be met, and the parameters to work within."
Analysing the TIEAs' likely impact on the Bahamas financial services industry going forward, Mrs Bethel said this nation was "very good at adjusting", as it had shown throughout its history, and the key was its response to the new international financial services regulatory climate and whether it "takes advantage of the opportunities" now presenting themselves.
"It's a foregone conclusion that things have changes, and in many ways they've changed irreversibly," she told STEP members. "It's important to see how we can benefit from the new opportunities that have emerged from these changes.
"What is important is building a strategy to ensure the Bahamas remains a viable and competitive centre."
Moving forward, Mrs Bethel said the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development's (OECD) 'Peer Review' programme, which would assess the Bahamas and 90 other nations on their compliance with global standards for tax transparency and information exchange, was they key consideration this nation had to be aware of.
The review would take place in two phases, the first of which would assess whether the Bahamas had the legal, administrative and regulatory framework to achieve the desired standards. The latter would assess whether this nation was effectively implementing them, and exchanging tax information in an effective manner.
Asked why several TIEAs, including those the Bahamas had agreed with the UK, France and the Netherlands, included a provision that made information exchange on criminal tax matters retroactive to January 1, 2004, Mrs Bethel replied that based on the OECD model agreement, the earliest tax year for which information could be shared was the one that began on that date.
She added: "The Bahamas hasn't done anything outside the standard, except set a floor in terms of how far back it goes in providing assistance in criminal tax matters."
March 17, 2010
tribune242
Tribune Business Editor:
THE Bahamas' Tax Information Exchange Agreement (TIEA) with the United States "hasn't created the kind of Armageddon" many feared when this nation signed that treaty back in 2002, a senior Ministry of Finance official said yesterday, adding that the number of requests submitted by Washington had not been "exorbitant".
Rowena Bethel, in-house legal adviser at the ministry, told a Society of Trust and Estate Practitioners (STEP) luncheon yesterday that the Bahamas' first-ever TIEA, which took effect with the US for criminal tax matters from January 1, 2004, onwards, and New Year's Day 2006 for civil matters, had "been a fairly smooth process to date".
Responding to questions from STEP members as to how the US TIEA had worked and been administered in practice, Mrs Bethel said the Bahamas' "long-standing relationship" with Washington in many areas had ensured the tax information exchange process had been relatively hassle-free.
"I'm not aware that there have been any issues in terms of processing of requests from the US, and that speaks in the Bahamas' favour," Mrs Bethel said. "It hasn't been an exorbitant number of requests, to my knowledge.
"We have a long-standing relationship, and it [the US TIEA] hasn't created the kind of Armageddon spoken about" when the Bahamas signed the agreement back in 2002.
The Bahamas' experience in responding to US requests for assistance under the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT) had served it well in dealing with TIEA requests, she suggested, as the processes involved had their similarities.
Referring to the wider TIEA network the Bahamas had signed up to, Mrs Bethel added: "What we're looking at is the new norm, and operating within the scope of the new norm, recognising certain obligations have to be met, and the parameters to work within."
Analysing the TIEAs' likely impact on the Bahamas financial services industry going forward, Mrs Bethel said this nation was "very good at adjusting", as it had shown throughout its history, and the key was its response to the new international financial services regulatory climate and whether it "takes advantage of the opportunities" now presenting themselves.
"It's a foregone conclusion that things have changes, and in many ways they've changed irreversibly," she told STEP members. "It's important to see how we can benefit from the new opportunities that have emerged from these changes.
"What is important is building a strategy to ensure the Bahamas remains a viable and competitive centre."
Moving forward, Mrs Bethel said the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development's (OECD) 'Peer Review' programme, which would assess the Bahamas and 90 other nations on their compliance with global standards for tax transparency and information exchange, was they key consideration this nation had to be aware of.
The review would take place in two phases, the first of which would assess whether the Bahamas had the legal, administrative and regulatory framework to achieve the desired standards. The latter would assess whether this nation was effectively implementing them, and exchanging tax information in an effective manner.
Asked why several TIEAs, including those the Bahamas had agreed with the UK, France and the Netherlands, included a provision that made information exchange on criminal tax matters retroactive to January 1, 2004, Mrs Bethel replied that based on the OECD model agreement, the earliest tax year for which information could be shared was the one that began on that date.
She added: "The Bahamas hasn't done anything outside the standard, except set a floor in terms of how far back it goes in providing assistance in criminal tax matters."
March 17, 2010
tribune242
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)