Google Ads

Sunday, June 5, 2011

New WikiLeaked Cables Reveal How Washington and Big Oil Fought PetroCaribe in Haiti



René Préval, who passed Haiti’s presidential sash to Joseph Michel Martelly on May 14, was described by U.S. Ambassador to Haiti Janet Sanderson as “Haiti’s indispensable man” in a Jun. 1, 2009 Embassy cable released by WikiLeaks last December.

Sanderson judged him “still moderately popular, and likely the only politician capable of imposing his will on Haiti - if so inclined.” At the same time,“dealing with Préval is a challenge, occasionally frustrating and sometimes rewarding,” she continued. “He is wary of change and suspicious of outsiders, even those who seek his success.”

Préval’s suspicions about “outsiders” seeking his “success” turned out to be justified. In two rounds of presidential and legislative elections held in November and March, Washington aggressively intervened, pushing out of the presidential run-off Jude Célestin, the candidate of Préval’s party Inite (Unity), to replace him with Martelly, a neo-Duvalierist konpa singer who vocally supported the 1991 and 2004 coups d’état against former president Jean-Bertrand Aristide.

Now the U.S. has even challenged the legislative races which would have given Inite virtual control of the Parliament, and hence approval of the President-designated Prime Minister, Haiti’s most powerful executive post. With U.S. support, challenges were brought against Inite victories in 17 Deputy and two Senate races. The Provisional Electoral Council (CEP) ruled in favor of only 15 challenges, leaving four seats with the original Inite winners. The U.S. is not even letting this mild, partial impertinence go, yanking the U.S. travel visas of six of the CEP’s eight members.

How did Haiti’s “indispensable man” become so dispensable? Why has Washington so brazenly intervened in Haiti’s elections to limit the power of Préval’s party and oust Inite’s presidential candidate from the run-off?

Clues to the answer lie in secret U.S. Embassy cables which the transparency- advocacy group WikiLeaks has provided to Haïti Liberté. The cables reveal that the U.S. was primarily irked by Préval’s dealings with Cuba and Venezuela, where the former Haitian president was unable “to resist displaying some show of independence or contrariness in dealing with [Venezuelan president Hugo] Chavez,” as Sanderson griped in a 2007 cable.

U.S. dismay began when Préval signed – the very day of his inauguration – a deal to join Venezuela’s PetroCaribe alliance, under which Haiti would buy oil paying only 60% to Venezuela up front with the remainder payable over 25 years at 1% interest. The leaked U.S. Embassy cables provide a fascinating look at how Washington sought to discourage, scuttle and sabotage the PetroCaribe deal despite its unquestionable benefits, under which the Haitian government “ would save USD 100 million per year from the delayed payments,” as the Embassy itself recognized in a 2006 cable.

A review of PetroCaribe’s genesis and the Embassy’s response to it provides a window into understanding why the U.S. has been so forceful in backing the U.S.-centric Martelly team over Préval’s two-timing sector.

 Venezuelan Trial Balloon Shot Down

Venezuela first offered a Petro- Caribe deal to Haiti under the de facto government of Prime Minister Gérard Latortue, whom Washington installed in March 2004 after the Feb. 29 coup against Aristide.“The government of Venezuela planned to send a negotiating team to Haiti (exact time undetermined) to negotiate a deal to sell oil at a preferential rate via PetroCaribe,” Embassy Chargé d’affaires Timothy Carney (the Charge) reported in an Oct. 19, 2005 cable. “Upon returning from a recent trip to Venezuela, Minister of Culture and Communication, Magali Comeau Denis told the Charge she was bringing Venezuelan oil back to Haiti with her.”

Prior to that trip, Carney “and Econ Counselor [his economic counselor] had spoken to acting Prime Minister Henri Bazin who said that the Interim Government of Haiti [IGOH] was looking for concessional terms for oil purchases from Mexico and Nigeria --but not Venezuela, he was quick to emphasize,” Carney continued. “In a follow-up conversation, Charge reiterated the negatives of such a deal with Venezuela. Bazin listened and understood the message,” that Washington would be unhappy about any oil deal with Venezuela.

To drive the point home, “Econ Counselor met with a contact at the Finance Ministry October 13 who confirmed that the IGOH has no plans to participate in any PetroCaribe deal,” Carney explained. “He added that our message to Bazin had an impact: Bazin had seen a draft of comments to be made by Haiti’s representative to the IMF [International Monetary Fund] that included a vague reference to someday purchasing oil at concessional prices from Venezuela, and Bazin had the sentence deleted, the only change he made on the text.” This was the kind of ultra-servile response Washington expected from a puppet regime in Haiti.

But Carney understood that Venezuela had not really expected to strike a deal with Latortue’s de facto government.“We suspect that the recent efforts by Venezuela here are designed more to get the issue on the agenda, and that Chavez’s strongest efforts will come after the elections, when a new Haitian government is inaugurated in February 2006,” Carney concluded.

In a Nov. 7, 2005 cable, Carney noted that “the pressure is still on the IGOH to strike a deal with Venezuela” as“organizations that have organized demonstrations in the past against high prices in Haiti have publicly called on the IGOH to accept Venezuela’s offer to negotiate on a concessional deal.” However Bazin reassured the Embassy that “Haiti was far from any agreement with Venezuela” and “instead discussions were ongoing with the Government of Mexico to obtain a special deal from them on petroleum imports.” (Dominican Foreign Minister Morales Troncoso told the DR’s U.S. Ambassador and visiting Western Hemisphere Affairs Deputy Assistant Secretary Patrick Duddy that “President Fox of Mexico was proposing a ‘Plan Puebla Panama’ to counter Chavez’s ‘Petrocaribe’,” reported a Jan. 23, 2006 cable from the Santo Domingo Embassy.)

As Préval Comes In, Troubles Emerge

Haiti’s presidential election did not take place until Feb. 7, 2006, and it was won by René Préval. Even before his May 14, 2006 inauguration, Préval clearly was anxious to allay Washington’s worries that he might lean towards its South American challengers. “He wants to bury once and for all the suspicion in Haiti that the United States is wary of him,” Ambassador Sanderson, then newly appointed, reported in a Mar. 26, 2006 cable. “He is seeking to enhance his status domestically and internationally with a successful visit to the United States.” This was so important that “Préval has declined invitations to visit France, Cuba, and Venezuela in order to visit Washington first,” Sanderson approvingly noted.

The new Haitian president went to great lengths to dispel the notion that he had any political sympathies for Latin America’s socialist regimes. “Préval has close personal ties to Cuba, having received prostate cancer treatment there, but has stressed to the Embassy that he will manage relations with Cuba and Venezuela solely for the benefit of the Haitian people, and not based on any ideological affinity toward those governments.”

But in April, shortly after his Washington visit, Préval traveled to Havana; the result confirmed Washington’s fears.“President-elect Préval announced to the press April 18 that Haiti will soon join Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez’s energy initiative, PetroCaribe,” Sanderson reported in an April 19, 2006 cable. “Préval made the announcement after returning from a five-day trip to Cuba, where he discussed the subject of Petrocaribe with the Venezuelan Ambassador to Cuba.” But Sanderson made clear that the Embassy – her Post – would not give up without a fight.

“Post will continue to pressure Préval against joining PetroCaribe,” she wrote. “Ambassador will see Préval’s senior advisor Bob Manuel today. In previous meetings, he has acknowledged our concerns and is aware that a deal with Chavez would cause problems with us.”

In a cable nine days later, Sanderson recognized that Préval was under “increasing pressure to produce immediate and tangible changes in Haiti’s desperate situation.” She also noted that “Préval has privately expressed some disdain toward Chavez with Emboffs [Embassy officials], and delayed accepting Chavez’ offer to visit Venezuela until after he had visited Washington and several other key Haitian partners. Nevertheless, the chance to score political points [with the Haitian people] and generate revenue he can control himself proved too good an opportunity to miss.”

Embassy cables always flag “independence” as this one decried Préval’s being able to “generate revenue he can control himself .” Sanderson went on to warn that Préval could “redirect the 40% that would have been spent on fuel to ‘special presidential’ development projects” and “we are wary of the creation of a special presidential fund.... We will encourage Préval to channel the money through existing programs,” meaning those which the State Department’s U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) had funded and therefore controlled.

In April 2006 cable, we see Sanderson hint at an observation that she would make almost a year later, that “Préval and company may be overselling their irritation toward Chavez for our benefit, but Préval has consistently voiced wariness of Chavez in conversations with Emboffs going back to the early stages of the presidential campaign in 2005.”

On the surface, Préval feigned ignorance of the hemispheric conflict between the U.S. and Venezuela. “One journalist asked Préval when he returned from Caracas if there would be ‘consequences’ for Haiti building links with Venezuela, which Washington increasingly sees as a regional threat,” wrote the weekly Haïti Progrés in May 2006. “‘The problems between the United States and Venezuela are problems that those two countries have to resolve themselves,’ Préval responded. ‘It does not affect Haiti in any way.’”

This was obviously untrue. In a May 15, 2006 cable reviewing the now inaugurated president, Sanderson noted that “despite U.S. discomfort with his links to Cuba and Venezuela, Préval seems determined to mine those relationships for what he can obtain.” This “pragmatism,” as she called it, would become the nub of U.S. dissatisfaction with Préval.

Big Oil Fights PetroCaribe in Haiti

On May 14, 2006, immediately after his inauguration, Préval summoned the press to a room in the Palace where he ostensibly signed the Petro-Caribe agreement with Venezuelan Vice President Jose Vincente Rangel (“Apparently, the signing... at the inauguration on May 14 was ceremonial... and the first shipment was a grant, not a part of the loan agreement,” Sanderson wrote later in an August cable.)

But it would be almost two years before PetroCaribe oil would begin flowing into Haiti, due to a myriad of political and logistical obstacles. The first hurdle was that Venezuela needed to give the petroleum to a state-owned oil company, which Haiti doesn’t have. So it was proposed that the oil be given to Electricité d’Haïti (EDH), the state-owned power company.

Michel Guerrier, the director of Haiti’s only domestic oil distribution company, Dinasa or National (which is owned by Haiti’s richest man, Gilbert Bigio), told the Embassy’s Economic Officer “one possibility is that PetroCaribe will sell the oil to Haiti’s National Electricity Company ... which will then sell to the four oil companies operating in Haiti: Texaco, Esso (a.k.a. Exxon), National (formally Shell), and [French-owned] Total,” explains a May 12, 2006 cable. Guerrier also said that PetroCaribe “is a great deal for the Haitian government” and “speculated that the government, in order to retain total control over the supply of the oil market (they already control the price), may put an end to the non- PetroCaribe oil-bearing ship which arrives every three weeks.”

Sanderson predictably opposed to the idea, calling EDH “an inefficient and corrupt public entity” while recognizing that “filtering oil through EDH could ensure enough fuel to power the electricity plants, without relying on the oil companies as a costly back-up plan.” Not surprisingly, all three foreign oil companies also opposed the Haitian government’s plan. Sanderson reported in a May 17, 2006 cable that “Dinasa, which supplies to Haiti’s domestic oil company, National, is the only voice in the oil business to endorse Préval’s proposal to have EDH control the oil supply. The other international oil companies are increasingly concerned -- both Texaco and Esso will meet with the Ambassador in the near future -- that they will have to buy their oil from the GOH [Government of Haiti].” On behalf of the oil companies and against the obvious benefits for Haiti, Sanderson said “we will continue to raise our concerns about the Petro- Caribe deal with the highest levels of government...”

In a June 1 cable, Sanderson reported that “Haitians have noted... that electricity in Port-au-Prince has improved since Préval’s inauguration with 6 to 8 hours a day, usually late at night until morning in residential areas,” but the Embassy continued to oppose the Venezuelan oil delivery.

In a July 7 cable, she said that Dinasa President Edouard Baussan told her that “the three international oil companies in Haiti feel uninformed about Haiti’s PetroCaribe plan and are wary of how PetroCaribe will affect their operations.” Baussan did not know that “separately, the Ambassador met with representatives of ExxonMobil and Texaco [owned by Chevron],” as Sanderson explained to Washington. “Both companies were concerned and curious about how Préval planned to implement Petro- Caribe.” Sanderson finished with some wishful thinking: “PetroCaribe seems stalled indefinitely, and it is possible that Haiti will not move forward with the agreement. The first and so far only ship, which was a minor victory for Venezuela’s Caribbean campaign and a tangible sign from Préval to his constituents that he will bring change, may mark both the beginning and the end of PetroCaribe in Haiti.”

Venezuelan Oil Starts to Flow

However, it was not to be the end, as the Embassy was to quickly learn. Three weeks later, on July 28, Sanderson had to write that “the Petro- Caribe petroleum ... has finally hit the local market. The Haitian Government (GOH) is selling the entire shipment, including the diesel (initially intended as a donation to the national electricity company) and the gasoline, at the same price as petroleum from a July 14 [oil] industry ship. (Note: The industry shipment arrives about every two to three weeks. Due to regular arrivals, petroleum companies have not experienced fuel shortages in several months. End note.) So far Dinasa, Haiti's domestic petroleum company, and Total, the French petroleum company with which the GOH has close relations, have expressed an interest in purchasing the PetroCaribe petroleum from the GOH. The two U.S. companies, Esso (ExxonMobil) and Texaco (Chevron), have received the proposal but have not responded."

Three days later, Sanderson added an SBU: Sensitive but Unclassified Information. "The GOH continues to misconstrue the actual benefits of the PetroCaribe deal," she condescendingly complained. "Ambassador has personally addressed the issue of PetroCaribe with GOH officials at the highest level explaining the pitfalls of the agreement... they do not have a state-owned oil company; they lack adequate port and storage facilities, necessitating use of private storage; and poorly-maintained roads and theft make transportation from the port to the final destination point difficult. Post has also reminded GOH officials that the transportation of PetroCaribe petroleum is not insured by Venezuela, and is often transported in ships which do not meet international standards." But, with her usual desire to highlight Préval’s amenability, she concluded that "finally, the GOH has stated that the international oil companies operating in Haiti are vital to the economy and does not want to risk pushing them out of the local market."

One month later, on August 25, 2006, Embassy Chargé d'Affaires Thomas C. Tighe wrote a cable that the Haitian Parliament was studying and likely to ratify the PetroCaribe agreement "because of the seemingly huge benefit to Haiti" and "PetroCaribe provides easy access to extra cash." In the same cable, he provides an SBU that "Public Works Minister Frantz Verella confirmed the arrival of a Venezuelan shipment of 10,000 barrels of asphalt. The GOH is having the same problems with the asphalt that they had with first shipment of petroleum: they are not sure how to transport the asphalt to its final destination and have no place for its storage." Haiti, which has some of the world’s worst roads, ended up selling the asphalt to the Dominican Republic, according to a May 24, 2007 cable.

PetroCaribe Ratified Unanimously

In an August 30, 2006 cable, Tighe reported that "Parliament ratified the PetroCaribe agreement during a session of the national assembly [Aug. 29], which included 19 of 27 senators and 47 of 88 deputies. 53 voted in favor and 13 abstained; no parliamentarians voted against ratification." He also noted that "because Haiti has a relatively low petroleum demand -- around 11,000 barrels per day -- and PetroCaribe has offered to supply up to 6000 barrels per day, the agreement could have a considerable effect on the petroleum industry in Haiti."

After ratification, "the international oil companies were shocked" when "President René Préval and finance minister Daniel Dorsainvil informed the four oil companies operating in Haiti of intentions to meet 100% of Haiti's petroleum demand through its Petrocaribe agreement," we learn in an Oct. 4, 2006 cable. "They thought they would still have the right to import their own oil, with PetroCaribe supplying only part of Haiti's petroleum demand," Sanderson explained, and only Dinasa "was not surprised."

Christian Porter, ExxonMobil’s country manager, "speaking for both ExxonMobil and Chevron, stressed that they would not be willing to do this because they would lose their off-shore margins and because of Petrocaribe's unreliable reputation" for timely deliveries, Sanderson wrote. She concluded that it was a "dubious proposal that neither the U.S. oil companies in Haiti -- responsible for about 45 percent of Haiti's petroleum imports -- nor Venezuela, for that matter, is likely to agree to."

She was wrong about Venezuela, but right about the oil companies. An October 13 cable explains that ExxonMobil and Texaco/Chevron were "shocked " but hadn’t "informed the government of their concerns," to which Sanderson "encouraged the two companies to do so."

Sanderson reiterated that despite her "numerous attempts to discuss (and discourage) GOH intentions to move forward with the Petrocaribe agreement, the GOH insists the agreement, implemented in full, will result in a net gain for Haiti."

The U.S. Ambassador also detailed how the oil companies, with her encouragement, were sabotaging the agreement: "Following Préval's September 27 meeting with all four oil companies... the oil industry association (Association des Professionals du Pétrole -- APP) received an invitation to meet with representatives of the Venezuelan oil company who were in Haiti. All four companies refused to attend. Also, the companies received letters separately requesting information on importation and distribution from the GOH on October 9. So far, no one has responded."

The oil companies also complained "that a Cuban transport company, Transalba, will ship the petroleum from Venezuela to Haiti, and that as U.S. companies, they would not be allowed to work directly with the Cuban vessel."

Sanderson concluded the long October 13 cable by reminding that she had stressed "the larger negative message that [the PetroCaribe deal] would send to the international community [i.e. Washington and its allies] at a time when the GOH is trying to increase foreign investment" lamenting that "President Préval and his inner circle are seduced by [PetroCaribe’s] payment plan."

The Oil Companies and U.S. Embassy Dig In

With ratification and a state enterprise to receive the oil, Préval thought he now had everything in place to get PetroCaribe implemented in early 2007. But the oil companies still had ways to undermine the deal.

Préval appointed Michael Lecorps to head the government’s Monetization Office for Aid and Development Programs (formally known as the PL-480 office), which would handle PetroCaribe matters rather than EDH. Lecorps told the oil companies that they would have to purchase PetroCaribe oil from the Haitian government, but the U.S. companies said no. Quickly, there was a stand-off.

Lecorps, "apparently infuriated by Chevron's lack of cooperation with the GoH, stressed that Petrocaribe is no longer negotiable," Tighe reports in a Jan. 18, 2007 cable. He also learned that "ExxonMobil has made it clear that it will not cooperate with the current GoH proposal either."

"Chevron country manager Patryck Peru Dumesnil confirmed his company's anti-Petrocaribe position and said that ExxonMobil, the only other U.S. oil company operating in Haiti, has told the GoH that it will not import Petrocaribe products." Lecorps told the Embassy Political Officer that Chevron "refused to move forward with the discussions because their representatives would rather import their own petroleum products.’" Tighe continued that "Lecorps was enraged that ‘an oil company which controls only 30% of Haiti's petroleum products’ would have the audacity to try and elude an agreement that would benefit the Haitian population. Ultimately Lecorps defended his position with the argument that the companies should want what is best for their local consumer, and be willing to make concessions to the GoH to this end. Lecorps stressed that the GoH would not be held hostage to ‘capitalist attitudes’ toward Petrocaribe and that if the GoH could not find a compromise with certain oil companies, the companies may have to leave Haiti." Needless to say, the Embassy took a dim view of Lecorps’ attitude.

Tighe reported that "according to Dumesnil, ExxonMobil and Chevron have told the GoH that neither company can work within the GoH's proposed framework to import 100% of petroleum products via Petrocaribe" and that "together, ExxonMobil and Chevron supply 49% of all oil products in Haiti." He explained that "the U.S. companies stand together in opposition to the current proposal" while the French concern "Total is discussing the agreement but has not promised cooperation; and the only local company, Dinasa, has pledged cooperation."

Tighe noted that Lecorps and other Haitian officials "focused primarily on the cost benefits (estimated to be USD 100 million per year) to the GoH, which would be used for social projects like schools and hospitals" and that in discussing the U.S. oil companies’ intransigence, "Lecorps' self-control wavered."

Enter Hugo Chavez

In a Feb. 7, 2007 cable, Ambassador Sanderson reports that the Embassy learned from the Haitian media on Feb. 2 "that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez planned to visit Haiti as early as the following week." She recalled that in March, 2006, prior to his inauguration, "President Préval told visiting [Western Hemisphere Affairs Assistant Secretary of State] WHA A/S Shannon that Chavez was pushing a visit to commemorate the bicentennial of Venezuelan flag day on March 12 in Jacmel" but that "Préval told A/S Shannon he would do his best to avoid Chavez, and the visit did not occur. Since Préval's inauguration, however, Haitian-Venezuelan relations have warmed considerably... Haitian officials report that Chavez continues to aggressively court Haiti."

Indeed, Hugo Chavez arrived in Haiti on Mar. 12, 2007 to an unorganized, spontaneous hero’s welcome by tens of thousands of Haitians, who jogged alongside his motorcade to the Palace from the airport. And the Venezuelan president came bearing many gifts.

First, Chavez pledged a $20 million grant, which he had announced in Venezuela a week earlier. "Reportedly, the money will serve as humanitarian reserve fund for Haiti in order to back social, infrastructure and power-supply programs," Sanderson noted in a Mar. 13 cable.

Next, Venezuelan Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs Rodolfo Sanz had in January "announced a Venezuelan donation of five garbage trucks and one tanker as part of ‘operation pure air for Haiti,’ which he attributed to Chavez' earlier remarks to GoH officials that Venezuela owed a ‘historic debt to Haiti,’"Sanderson had noted in a February cable. Chavez "re-announced his donations of garbage trucks to Haiti," Sanderson’s Mar. 13 cable reported.

Thirdly, "the Venezuela president said he would augment the amount of fuel Haiti will receive through PetroCaribe from 5,000 barrels [in reality, 6,000] a day to 14,000 barrels," Sanderson continued, surpassing Haiti’s daily fuel consumption of 11,000 barrels.

Finally, the icing on the cake: "Venezuela pledged funds for improvement to provincial Haitian airports and airport runways (also previously announced) and experts on economic planning to help identify development priorities. Other pledges include Cuban commitment to bring medical coverage to all Haitian communes, Cuban and Venezuelan electrical experts to improve energy generation, and a trilateral cooperation bureau in Port-au-Prince," Sanderson wrote.

Somehow, Sanderson had to give all this good news a negative spin. She did so with her SBU "Comment" at the cable’s end: "[Former long-time USAID employee and now presidential economic counselor] Gabriel Verret, one of Préval's closest advisors, told the Ambassador that the trip could have been worse. The GoH stopped a rally that was supposed to take place in favor of Chavez and tried to limit Chavez' speaking time at the press conference. While waiting at the airport, Verret had let the Ambassador know that he (and presumably the President) were frustrated with Chavez' late arrival. Overall, disorganization and last-minute planning were evident, and even the pledges of aid and assistance are either old news or vague. GoH officials have complained to post privately in the past that Venezuelan aid can be a burden [on] the GoH..."

But Sanderson’s real vitriol would come in her next cable on Mar. 16. She was beginning to suspect (and imply) that the Haitians were feeding her Embassy negative reports about Chavez disingenuously, but she wanted Washington to be the final judge. "To hear President Rene Préval tell it, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez' visit to Haiti on March 12 was a logistical nightmare and an annoyance to the GoH," Sanderson begins the "Summary" of that cable. "Préval told Ambassador and others that he is skeptical of Chavez's promises, especially on delivery of gasoline through the Petrocaribe agreement. Secretary General of the Presidency Fritz Longchamps told Polcouns that the GoH viewed the Chavez visit as the price to pay for whatever assistance Venezuela provides to Haiti."

Sanderson highlighted the Haitian government’s negative feedback. "Préval told Ambassador the evening of March 13 that Chavez was a difficult guest" and "did not have a GOH invitation but insisted on coming to mark Venezuelan flag day." Préval then did his best to smooth Sanderson’s ruffled feathers. "Responding to Ambassador's observation that giving Chavez a platform to spout anti-American slogans here was hard to explain given our close relationship and support of Haiti and of Préval's government in particular, Préval stressed that he had worked hard to stop much of Chavez' proposed grandstanding," Sanderson wrote. "He vetoed a Chavez-led procession/demonstration from the airport to the Venezuelan Embassy (substituting a wreath laying at Port-au-Prince's monument to Bolivar) and limited the length of the press conference. Chavez, for his part, insisted that the press conference proceed as scheduled, thus cutting into bilateral meeting time. Préval added that he, Préval, is ‘just an independent petit bourgeoisie’ and doesn't go for the grand gestures that Chavez favors. Haiti needs aid from all its friends, Préval added, and he is sure that the US understands his difficult position."

Préval then addressed the massive show of support Chavez received. "He refused to get out of the car when Chavez insisted on greeting his demonstrators in the street on his way in from the airport," Sanderson relayed. "Préval and others in the government believe that the Venezuelan Charge d'Affaires orchestrated and paid for the demonstrations by Fanmi Lavalas militants at the airport, the Venezuelan Embassy, and the Palace, which numbered roughly 1,000 and also called for the return of former President Aristide." (This absurd account, whether concocted for Washington’s benefit or not, is scoffed at by several popular organization leaders who joined with thousands in the rapidly organized and largely spontaneous unpaid outpouring that day, similar to the human flood which greeted Aristide’s return to Haiti on Mar. 18, 2011.)

But despite the complaints of Haitian officials, Sanderson speculates that "Préval and company may be overselling their irritation toward Chavez for our benefit... It is clear that the visit has left a bad taste in our interlocutors' mouths and they are now into damage control."

So Sanderson felt compelled to read the Haitians the riot act. "The Ambassador and Polcouns have voiced concern to senior officials that Chavez had used his visit as a platform for an attack on Haiti's closest and steadiest bilateral ally, most recently with [Prime Minister Jacques Edouard] Alexis yesterday," she wrote, ending characteristically on a rationalizing note: "At no time has Préval given any indication that he is interested in associating Haiti with Chavez's broader ‘revolutionary agenda’" but "it is neither in his character -- nor in his calculation -- to repudiate Chavez, even as the Venezuelan abuses his hospitality at home."

Préval Continues to Play "Oblivious"...

Despite his hand-wringing and Sanderson’s scoldings, Préval kept angering the Americans. On April 26, 2007, Longchamps told the Embassy’s Political Counselor that "Préval will attend the ALBA [Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas] summit in Venezuela as a ‘special observer’ for the express purpose of finalizing a tri-lateral assistance agreement between Haiti, Venezuela, and Cuba, whereby Venezuela will finance the presence of Cuban doctors and other technicians in rural Haiti," wrote Sanderson in a cable the same day. "Longchamps expressed surprise that the USG [U.S. Government] would take issue with Préval's attendance at this meeting." Longchamps reminded the Polcouns "how President Préval had curtailed Chavez' activities during the visit and how uncomfortable Chavez' behavior had made everyone during his stay." Unimpressed, "Polcouns replied that though that may have been the case, for the USG, the net result was that President Préval gave Chavez another platform from which to attack the United States and then saw him off from the airport," and that Washington "did not understand why he continued to participate in fora where Chavez vilified Haiti's most important and reliable bi-lateral partner. USG officials would ask President Préval this question during his upcoming trip to Washington in May."

Sanderson said the meeting was "specifically to raise our displeasure with Préval's Venezuela trip" and that "Longchamps’ reaction probably reflects Préval's own obliviousness to the impact and consequences his accommodation of Chavez has on relations with us." Longchamps "betrayed a common trait among Haitian officials in misjudging the relative importance that U.S. policy makers attach to Haiti versus Venezuela and Chavez' regional impact." Sanderson suggested the U.S. "convey our discontent with Préval's actions at the highest possible level when he next visits Washington."

...While Getting More Aid from Venezuela

Préval returned from Caracas with "Chavez' promises to provide a combined total of 160 megawatts of electricity" to Haiti, after "parading with Chavez' rogues gallery of ALBA leaders," Sanderson fumes in a May 4, 2007 cable.

She outlined the essence of the Venezuelan/Cuban aid package: "The Cubans will replace two million light bulbs throughout Port-au-Prince with low-energy bulbs. The initiative will cost USD four million, but save the country 60 megawatts of electricity, which costs the country USD 70 million annually. Venezuela promised to repair the power plant in Carrefour, generating an additional 40 megawatts of electricity. Additionally, Venezuela will by December of this year build new power plants across the country to add 30 megawatts to Port-au-Prince's electrical grid and 15 additional megawatts each for Gonaïves and Cap-Haitian, all of which will use heavy Venezuelan fuel oil, a more efficient and less-expensive alternative to diesel." Venezuela did carry through on all these "extravagant promises and commitments," as Sanderson called them. Chavez also "promised to build a petrochemical complex, a natural gas plant, and an oil refinery to refine the crude sent from Venezuela." Those are still under construction but almost finished.

On May 4, Sanderson sent a second cable explaining that Lecorps "gave the four oil companies operating in Haiti until July 1 to sign the GoH contract on Petrocaribe," hoping that they "will sign the agreement voluntarily, instead of passing legislation obliging oil companies operating in Haiti to participate in the Petrocaribe agreement." After talking to ExxonMobil Caribbean Sales Manager Bill Eisner, the Embassy reported that Eisner "was shocked when he realized that Lecorps expected the oil industry to coordinate the PetroCaribe deal on behalf of the GoH" which would "make the oil industry prisoner to two incompetent governments," Haiti and Venezuela, in Sanderson’s words.

Meanwhile, Préval continued trying to bluff Sanderson that things were not so rosy with the Venezuelans, this time sending Senate President Joseph Lambert to deliver the spin. Lambert "described a ‘very tense’ atmosphere behind the scenes of the ALBA summit between President Préval and President Chavez in a meeting with Embassy staff on May 4," Sanderson’s Public Affairs Officer James Ellickson-Brown reported in a May 7 cable. "According to Lambert, Préval refused to join ALBA and told Chavez that if ALBA membership were a condition for Venezuelan aid, he would leave the summit," he wrote. "Lambert added that Préval and Chavez also clashed over drug-trafficking, diplomatic representation, what to wear to the summit's closing ceremony (Chavez wanted everyone in red), and the terms of the energy agreement Chavez offered Haiti." Lambert said that "Préval would never do anything to compromise relations with his ‘friends to the North’" and that Chavez "complained that for all the he gives to Haiti, the Haitians give nothing in return." Lambert trumpeted that "Préval's resistance to signing the ALBA accords so upset Chavez that the Cubans tried to get Préval to play along," but "Préval stood firm, in the end agreeing only to a ‘very general’ cooperation agreement."

The Americans clearly felt Lambert’s report was a little fishy, prompting the Political Counselor to ask "why Préval had not shared some of this with the Ambassador during their meeting," Ellickson-Brown wrote. "Lambert replied that Préval would be uncomfortable revealing details regarding such a sensitive subject."

Despite the Embassy’s misgivings, Sanderson chose to take Lambert at his word when reporting to Washington on May 24, just prior to Préval’s trip there to meet President Bush. She said that Préval "appears to be losing patience: Lambert told Emboffs [Embassy officers] that Préval took an anti-ALBA stance during private meetings with Chavez at the ALBA summit in April, telling Chavez he can keep his aid if ALBA membership is a condition."She judged that Préval was coming to the realization that "seeing is believing when it comes to promises from Venezuela, and Chavez' words are empty until he arrives with cash in hand."

Perhaps this generous appraisal explains why Bush administration officials were so nice to their wayward ally when Préval visited Washington a few days later. "Préval was very pleased with the reception he received from President Bush, Secretary Rice, other USG officials and members of Congress," Sanderson reported in a May 29 cable, and he "was neither surprised nor taken aback by President Bush's concerns regarding Haitian-Venezuelan relations." Nonetheless, "Préval's visit appears to have underlined for the delegation the importance of the Haiti-U.S. partnership and their need to cultivate Washington decision-makers," Sanderson reported, while expressing "hope that President Bush's clear message on Venezuela sank in, but only time will tell."

"Stonewalling" of PetroCaribe Continues

Two weeks after Préval’s return, a transport strike on June 12 and 13, 2007 "gripped Haiti's major cities and underscored a mounting crisis over fuel prices, which rose nearly 20% in just two weeks," the IPS reported. Many in Haiti believed that Haiti’s joining PetroCaribe "would alleviate high gasoline costs," and word was leaking out that "the two large US oil companies that export to Haiti are said to have stonewalled negotiations" for PetroCaribe’s implementation. The July 1 deadline for PetroCaribe compliance was fast approaching.

"Negotiations between the GOH and fuel vendors operating in Haiti to implement the PetroCaribe agreement with Venezuela remain stalled," Ambassador Sanderson begins a Jul. 20 cable. Oil company "representatives seem to accept that the government may eventually force them to accept PetroCaribe terms, but in the near term, they appear to hold most of the negotiating cards" because "in light of Haiti's weak infrastructure and precarious distribution system, the departure of any of the four companies from the market could severely disrupt the supply of gasoline throughout the country."

The stand-off over PetroCaribe would continue throughout the rest of 2007 with Chevron the most resistant to working within the PetroCaribe framework. But Haiti needed Chevron to ship the oil from Venezuela.

"It was ridiculous because they had been buying and shipping petroleum products from Venezuela for 25 years," said Michael Lecorps when asked by Haïti Liberté last week why Chevron put up such a fight. "And you know, Chevron is an American company, so maybe there were some politics behind that too, maybe because of Venezuela and Chavez. But they never said anything about that."

Indeed, the cables suggest that Lecorps’ suspicions that Chevron had a political beef are correct. After returning to Haiti on Dec. 22, 2007 from a PetroCaribe summit, Préval announced the negotiations with Chevron were nearing a close. "We're going to sign with Chevron and then we're going to start ordering oil," he said at the airport, reported the AP, adding that Venezuelan technicians would visit Haiti to consult on the project. But "Chevron management in the U.S. does not want to make a lot of ‘noise’ about the agreement because they do not want to appear to support PetroCaribe," Sanderson explained in a Feb. 15, 2008 cable. The AP also reported that "Chevron officials at the company’s San Ramon, California, headquarters did not respond to requests for comment."

Sanderson explained that the deal was sealed when "Chevron finally obtained its desired terms from the GOH" whereby the Venezuelan state-owned oil company Petroleum of Venezuela, Inc. or PDVSA "will sell to the GoH, which will then sell to private oil traders, who finally will sell to the oil companies in Haiti for distribution... Chevron also agreed to ship the refined petrol on one of its tankers. The GoH expects to receive a PetroCaribe shipment in late February or early March."

And PetroCaribe shipments, covering all of Haiti’s fuel needs, did begin on March 8, 2008, marking a victory for Venezuela and Haiti in surmounting the roadblocks thrown up by the U.S. Embassy and oil companies.

Préval strictly paid his oil bills, despite having to borrow money from the PetroCaribe fund following the disastrous events of September 2008, when four tropical storms slammed Haiti in as many weeks. "The Sixth PetroCaribe Summit in St. Kitts on June 12 [2009] congratulated Haiti as the ‘best payer’ out of [PetroCaribe’s] 13 countries, having paid approximately USD 220 million to Venezuela," reported Tighe in a June 19, 2009 cable. "As of April 30, Haiti's PetroCaribe account (after Haiti's withdrawal of USD 197 million for its emergency response to the 2008 hurricanes), had a balance of USD 58.5 million. On May 27, the Government of Haiti (GOH) announced that its total fuel imports under PetroCaribe, since the first shipment was received in March 2008, amounts to approximately USD 489 million. Haiti's long-term debt, payable over 17 to 25 years, amounts to approximately USD 240 million."

Tighe also reported that Chavez renewed his pledge, made at the July 2008 PetroCaribe Summit, to construct an oil refinery in Haiti. "Lecorps put its capacity at 20,000 bpd [barrels per day] and the cost at USD 400 million," Tighe wrote. He also noted that although Haiti was not an ALBA member, "a tripartite (Haiti-Venezuela-Cuba) energy cooperation agreement is waiting to be ratified by Parliament" whose "purpose is to decide how 10% of funds from Haiti's PetroCaribe revenue would be spent on social programs in Haiti."

Tighe continued: "Lecorps stated that PetroCaribe ‘...is very good for the country.’ He noted that Venezuelan-financed electricity generating plants are operating in Port-au-Prince [30 megawatts], Gonaïves and Cap Haïtien [15 megawatts each] and have led to longer hours of power in those areas. Haiti receives shipments of PetroCaribe fuel every two weeks... Lecorps asserted that Haiti is satisfied with the PetroCaribe agreement and that it should not be ‘politicized.’"

But politicized it was, and Tighe sounded the alarm, concluding: "In addition to three power plants already in operation and promises to modernize the airport in Cap Haïtien, Venezuela's oil refinery project... would expand Venezuelan and Cuban influence in Haiti."

Aftermath of a Struggle

Haiti’s Parliament did ratify the Tripartite agreement between Haiti, Venezuela and Cuba in late 2009, and in October 2009, Dinasa acquired Chevron’s assets and operations in Haiti, which included 58 service centers, the country’s largest gas station network. Shell Oil tankers now transport the PDVSA oil from Venezuela to Haiti, Lecorps toldHaïti Liberté.

Under the current PetroCaribe terms, Haiti pays up front 40% to 70% of the value of the petroleum products it imports from Venezuela – asphalt, 91 and 95 octane gas, heavy fuel oil (mazout), diesel and kerosene – with the remaining 60% to 30% paid over 25 years, with a two year grace period, at an annual interest rate of 1%.

The U.S. Embassy’s campaign against the South-South cooperation represented by PetroCaribe – which provides such obvious benefits for Haiti – reveal the ugly nature and true intentions of "Haiti's most important and reliable bi-lateral partner," as Sanderson calls the U.S.

Préval and his officials employed a preferred form of Haitian resistance, which dates back to slavery, known as "marronage," where one pretends to go along with something but then does the opposite surreptitiously. The U.S. got wise to this tactic and began to doubt Préval’s reliability. This is why Washington moved so forcefully to see that Martelly and his crew of pro-American Haitian businessmen were put in power.

So now we may see a marked shift in Haiti's political direction. Instead of Préval, who tried to walk the battle-line between Washington and the ALBA alliance, we find a pro-coup, long-time Miami resident in power who makes no secret of his antipathy towards Haiti's "stinking" masses, as he described them in a YouTube video.

"We have been on the wrong road for the past 25 years," Martelly recently declared, placing Haiti's wrong turn, in his opinion, at about the time of the U.S.-backed Duvalier dictatorship's fall and the emergence of the democratic nationalist movement that became know as the Lavalas. Martelly had a pre-inauguration meeting not with Venezuela's Foreign Minister, but with that of Colombia, whose development plan he has said he will emulate.

His reception by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, after his highly controversial and fraud-marred election, was exceedingly warm.

All of this augurs woe for Cuban and Venezuelan projects in Haiti, and possibly for the PetroCaribe agreement, despite its tremendous and evident contribution to the Haitian people's welfare.

June 2nd 2011

venezuelanalysis




Saturday, June 4, 2011

Bahamas: Unemployed Bahamians are 'unwilling to take on "menial" jobs from other Bahamians... as this type of labour is deemed "sub-servient" - says Minister of Foreign Affairs and Immigration Brent Symonette

Unemployed Bahamians 'unwilling to do menial jobs'


By AVA TURNQUEST
Tribune Staff Reporter
tribune242
aturnquest@tribunemedia.net
Nassau, Bahamas



UNEMPLOYED Bahamians are unwilling to take on "menial" jobs from other Bahamians as this type of labour is deemed "sub-servient", according to Minister of Foreign Affairs and Immigration Brent Symonette.

Poor work ethic was said to be at the centre of complaints which - according to Mr Symonette - have "bombarded" the Department of Immigration and fuelled the appeal for foreign labour.

Mr Symonette said: "The complaints we often hear include, Bahamians refuse to stay on jobs for any length of time; Bahamians are not consistent workers; Bahamians' work ethics are poor - showing up to work late, leaving early.

"I wish to appeal to all Bahamians to give a day's work for a day's pay. I am not at all happy about giving work visas to non-Bahamians, but we must pull up our socks in the work field."

Mr Symonette concluded that the high demand placed on the Department of Immigration (DOI) for "maids, caregivers and handymen" is representative of an unwillingness by Bahamians to pursue this type of labour.

"What is strange is that more Bahamians are prepared to do this work in hotels and for private homes of wealthy expatriates, to a lesser degree."

Mr Symonette addressed work visa statistics during his contribution to the 2011/2012 Budget yesterday.

The DOI approved 1,714 work visa applications during the first three months of this year, 385 were denied and 50 were deferred.

"Oftentimes, the Board is criticised as approving too many work permits/visas," said Mr Symonette.

"Very little is said by the Department, or the public for that matter, with respect to the number of permits refused by the Immigration Board."

Mr Symonette added: "The Immigration Board only approves applications in instances where no suitably qualified Bahamians can be found."

Priority job areas approved for work visas included live-in help, handymen or labourers, maids, caregivers, gardeners and chefs or cooks.

Mr Symonette said: "The fact of the matter is Bahamians are not willing or prepared to work in the home of other Bahamians as maids, caregivers, and handymen. Bahamians see this as sub-servient."

Meanwhile, Mr Symonette noted that Bahamian workers continued to dominate the banking and hotel industries at all levels.

Unemployed persons were urged to register with the Ministry of Labour to ensure the data bank store by his department could compare with incoming job requests.

"This appeal is for all categories of occupation, including persons returning home with certificates, degrees, vocational specialists, etc," he said.

"Although a Labour Certificate is issued by the Department of Labour, I would very much like to give closer attention to all those unemployed or on a waiting list for employment."

The DOI is set to initiate the sole use of electronic identification (EID) cards next month. Approved applicants for immigration services such as work visas, residence permits, homeowner's cards, and spousal permits, will receive a machine readable card about the same size of a driver's licence. Biometric data can also be stored on the card where applicable.

More than 1,000 EIDs have already been issued as the officials anticipate the paperless system will improve efficiency and eliminate fraud.

"The EID system manages the application and issuance process from the moment an applicant applies for a permit or certificate until it is issued," Mr Symonette said.

"This allows for a more secured and systematic application and issuance process."

EID cards can be found in New Providence, Grand Bahama, Abaco and Exuma.

The second phase will include Eleuthera, Bimini and San Salvador.

June 02, 2011

tribune242

Friday, June 3, 2011

Bahamas: ...the attitudes of most Bahamians towards Haitians is one of resentment, suspicion or outright hostility

The Haitian problem

IAN G. STRACHAN
thenassauguardian
Nassau, Bahamas



On Friday May 20th , 2011 a group of Bahamian and Haitian-Bahamian artists, hosted an art exhibit and mini musical concert in Nassau at Jacaranda House, called “Nostrum Fabula” (Latin for “Our Story”). The event was under the patronage of the Bahamian Governor General and the Haitian Ambassador to The Bahamas; the Minister of Youth, Sport and Culture also attended. Leading broadcast journalist, Jerome Sawyer, served as the master of ceremonies. It featured Bahamian folk musical artists like the Region Bells and the disc jockey alternated between Kompa and Goombay music.

An untitled art piece by Bernard Petit-Homme, a 26 year old Bahamian born of Haitian immigrant parents, served as the cover art for invitations and promotional material for the event. The image features the Bahamian and Haitian flags. The flags make up the torso of a man who is both black and white; he is silhouetted by the orange and yellow sun; his arms stretch across blue waters of the sea. In the painting Petit-Homme seeks to reconcile his Haitian and Bahamian selves and acknowledge the mixed bloodlines of many as a consequence of slavery. He crafts a celebratory message of unity and brotherhood; a message that ran like a thread throughout the entire event, at which the Bahamian and Haitian national anthems were played.

However, the spirit of unity, tolerance, mutual understanding and respect expressed at the exhibit are not shared by everyone in The Bahamas. Indeed, it is safe to say, that despite their proximity, their many shared cultural practices and a long history of relations between Haiti and The Bahamas, the attitudes of most Bahamians towards Haitians is one of resentment, suspicion or outright hostility.

The Haitian “problem” in The Bahamas is shaped by a number of factors. Haitian migrants are a crucial source of cheap, reliable, motivated labor, particularly in the agricultural sector. Increasingly, however, as the middle class shrinks and the ranks of the Bahamian working poor swell, there is growing resentment toward Haitian immigrants and their children because they are now competing for jobs deemed above their social station. Where once a Haitain only worked as a gardener, farmer, grounds keeper or “handyman”—work young Bahamian men have looked down on for the past forty years—they are now working at gas stations, in hardware stores, and gaining employment as masons and carpenters, jobs Bahamian men have dominated. Many a Bahamian contractor prefers Haitian immigrant labor to Bahamian, not simply because it is cheaper, but because it is better.

There is also the real and perceived strain on national services, such as education and health care, created by the immigrant influx. And there are national security concerns, fed by the fear of Haitian immigrants “violent” people. Added to this are Bahamians’ fears of cultural erasure, and political/economic displacement due to the perception of Haitians as a lurking enemy intent on “taking over.” All of these factors make the Haitian-Bahamian encounter a vexed one; one that reveals class, color and ethnic fault lines.

The often bigoted public discourse in newspapers, on radio and television speak to the volatility of the situation. For a time I would cut out the more virulent letters to the editor I came across in the papers. One of the most memorable was entitled “Haitians Attract Flies.” The most recent was blaming the devastating quake in Haiti on devil worship. I grew up with certain received notions about the Haitian people; they have been the butt of jokes my whole life. There was no greater insult among us as children than to be called Highshun. There is a stigma attached to Haitian origins; a social/ethnic blemish that many young people try to hide because of the stinging ridicule and contempt heaped on them through no fault of their own. I remember a young man at COB who insisted on Anglicizing his name in my class and others who tolerated all sorts of mispronunciations because they at least didn’t sound French.

In this uneasy climate, many Bahamian artists attempt to resist the stereotyping of the Haitian people. Artists such as John Cox, John Beadle, Jackson Petit-Homme, Maxwell Taylor, and Eric Ellis, and writers such as myself, Telcine Turner-Rolle, Patricia Glinton-Meicholas, Keith Russell, Nicolette Bethel and others have attempted to prick the conscience of Bahamian society. My play “Diary of Souls” was a fictional treatment of a true event; the tragic death of Haitian refugees at sea in the Exumas in 1990. Sadly, these tragedies have been happening for a very, very long time and still happen.

At stake is the very notion of what it means to be a Bahamian. Haitian immigration challenges the core values/ideals of the Bahamian state, putting the people and the nation on trial, and calling international attention to the question of just how committed The Bahamas is to freedom, equality and justice for all.

But we are an itsy bitsy country. We cannot possibly be expected to have an open door policy. We have the right to protect our borders from illegal entry. We are not the continental United States or Canada; we are specs on the world map. And even in a nation the size of the US, illegal immigration from Mexico and further south is the source of heated debate and conflict.

But though we may protect our borders, Haitian immigrants and those of Haitian descent are here to stay. We may not all want them here but all need them here. We need them, as we have always needed immigrants, to help build our country by doing the things we can’t or won’t do. It makes no sense to drive a wedge between them and us, to create a hated, disenfranchised underclass.

The reality is that our citizenship laws ensure the imperilment, not the protection, of The Bahamas. Disenfranchising a person for 18 years or more, while they await entry into the exclusive club of Bahamian citizenship, creates frustration, shame, anger, alienation and bitterness in the hearts thousands of young people who know, have, and want no other home but this one. It’s simply inhumane, short sighted and stupid.

If we cannot bring ourselves to make citizenship automatic upon one’s birth for all those born here, we should at least amend the constitution to lower the eligibility date. Why not 10 years old instead of 18? Avoid creating frustrated stateless teens that can’t get scholarships, can’t fully participate in national life.

Of course, there’s always the other option. While picking up my son from school, a gentleman who was also waiting for a child, told me he had the solution to the Haitian problem. “I would blow their boats right out of the water when we find them.” And then he proceeded to carefully lovingly take a child’s hand and lead her out of the school yard.

IAN STRACHAN is Associate Professor at the College of The Bahamas.

Jun 02, 2011

thenassauguardian

Thursday, June 2, 2011

Bahamas: Fred Mitchell, opposition Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) spokesman on foreign affairs questions the 'ethical standards' of The Nassau Guardian newspaper over Wikileaks reports on Bahamian political affairs

MP questions 'ethical standards' of newspaper over Wikileaks reports

tribune242
Nassau, Bahamas


FRED Mitchell, opposition spokesman on foreign affairs, questioned the "ethical standards" of The Nassau Guardian in its reporting of confidential US embassy cables on Bahamian political affairs.

During his presentation in the House of Assembly yesterday, Mr Mitchell said a Guardian reporter failed to declare her personal interests with respect to one of the subjects of the Wikileaks investigation. Mr Mitchell featured prominently this week in a Wikileak disclosure.

"I always envied my colleague the Member for North Andros that former lady friend of his who shall remain nameless who works at the Guardian and wrote that whole section about me this morning. As the song writer says: 'That Gal look good!' said Mr Mitchell.

"My only point is that journalism, the kind that the Nassau Guardian, The Tribune and the Bahama Journal are to practice carries with it certain ethical standards and it is unethical to write a story about one subject of which you had a close personal relationship as if you are a disinterested party. It can be seen as malicious. But neither she nor her employers seem to get the point," said Mr Mitchell.

He said ethical standards were important because the public relies on the media to "tell the Bahamian story; to tell it accurately, and without fear or favour."

Mr Mitchell said it "may be necessary" for the Embassy to disassociate itself from the attributed statements in the Wikileaks cables, so "they are not taken as an official view of events."

"It strains credibility to me that US professional diplomats, a person so high as a deputy chief of mission who was actually sitting in the seat of the ambassador, would accept and adopt uncritically propaganda lines from the Free National Movement. That is simply not a professional report," he said.

There is both "fascination and revulsion" at the disclosures, said Mr Mitchell. Revulsion that public officials "would be so open and callous" with information they share with "American diplomats." Mr Mitchell said Bahamians questioning whether Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham would "so loosely and callously spill all his guts to junior US officials."

"I can tell you also in connection with the public service, that the police commissioner was reeling yesterday. Again, that someone who this country trusted for our national security, a former Commissioner of Police could be quoted as spilling his guts out to junior U.S. officials. Again I say allegedly. We have to hope it is allegedly because no self-respecting Commissioner of Police would do any such thing. Perhaps we will see if the former Commissioner Mr. Ferguson will sue because most certainly he could not have sold his country out like that," said Mr Mitchell.

Putting the disclosures in perspective, Mr Mitchell said the country should understand the role of "public diplomacy and private diplomacy" in international affairs, said Mr Mitchell.

"There are many private ruminations and events which we know about US diplomats and their private activities in this country. But how would that serve the Bahamian interests for me to expose that. And that is what I admire about American diplomacy and about that country as a nation, it always pursues its interests," he said.

Describing his interaction with embassy officials during his tenure in government, Mr Mitchel said of the Wikileaks disclosures, "They are saying that I stood up for my country. I put Bahamians first."

He described a message sent by one of his former colleagues: "When I read the two page story about 'What the Americans Really Thought' of you in the Guardian, my chest swelled with pride, for the intended exposé turned out to be a public testimony to your diplomacy, tact and wisdom and to the fact that (unlike others of your colleagues) you are not in the least bit intimidated or in awe of any 'superpower'.

"The worst that could be said of you was that you are a Bahamian and a Black nationalist, whom they often times found to be aloof, close-mouthed and uncommunicative. If only that could have been said of Samson."

June 01, 2011

tribune242

Wednesday, June 1, 2011

[Jamaica-Gleaner] EDITORIAL - PM (Prime Minister Bruce Golding) On WikiLeaks

We commend Prime Minister Bruce Golding's engagement of this newspaper's ongoing publication of US diplomatic cables relating to Jamaica, even though the PM may have misapprehended the context of our action and the basis on which we have so far reported.

But while we would have preferred that the prime minister use a national platform, rather than a political party forum, from which to address the many critical matters raised in the communications to the State Department by America's envoys, we expect that Mr Golding will come to a clearer interpretation of the issues after fuller, sober consideration of the facts.

There are two points from Mr Golding's speech in Montego Bay on Sunday, however, that are easily attended and dispatched: that The Gleaner is wrong to publish stories from cables that may have been illegally acquired; and that we have "cherry-picked" our reports so as to harass his government and undermine those members of the two major political parties - the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) and the People's National Party (PNP) - whom we do not favour. The selective-reporting claim also relates, supposedly, to what Mr Golding refers to as "power brokers" at The Gleaner Company and others in the private sector.

Trafigura memories

Unlike with the purloined bank accounts in the Trafigura scandal, made public by the JLP, this newspaper did not inveigle the leak of the cables obtained by the free-speech website, WikiLeaks. We are publishing information that WikiLeaks will itself have published and is of vital importance to Jamaica.

We have access to more than 1,200 cables. These have to be sifted for, in some cases, threats to national security, and for defamation. We have no immunity from libel.

In this regard, it would be easy, as we suggested to the information minister, Mr Daryl Vaz - who, unlike Mr Golding, wants the uncensored publication of the cables - for the Government to table them in Parliament, thus giving the public unrestricted access to the information as well as providing the media with protection from defamation suits.

Indeed, this matter strengthens the argument for a reform of Jamaica's restrictive defamation laws, which Mr Golding himself placed on the agenda and with which we urge him to proceed with dispatch.

More fundamental, though, is the rare insight that these cables provide into how America's representatives view, and interpret, the behaviour of Jamaican institutions and their leaders and what informs Washington's policies towards our country. Some of what these envoys see in Jamaica is far from flattering. Much of it is embarrassing not only to Mr Golding and his government, but also to Opposition Leader Portia Simpson Miller and the PNP.

attacking the messenger

But shame is no cause for ad hominem attacks on the messenger, especially by an administration that promulgated whistle-blower legislation to provide protection for persons who, in good faith, disclose information that might redound to the benefit of society. Indeed, rather than power broking - the effective power brokers are the readers of this newspaper and civil-society institutions that they shape - what The Gleaner has sought to do is provide a balanced view of the issues, which, we hope, informs analysis and decision-making. Readers will be aware that in reporting, we have to conform to the laws of libel and cannot expect the US government to come to our defence in court in the event that we face lawsuits.

As Mr Golding knows, the vast majority of Jamaicans want good relations with the United States, Jamaica's close neighbour and, historically, good friend.

What the prime minister must do in his next intervention on the matter is say how he proposes to improve US-Jamaica relations and to honour his obligation to root from Government corruption and other forms of misbehaviour, which he promised when he took his oath of office.

The opinions on this page, except for the above, do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner. To respond to a Gleaner editorial, email us: editor@gleanerjm.com or fax: 922-6223. Responses should be no longer than 400 words. Not all responses will be published.

May 31, 2011

jamaica-gleaner


Tuesday, May 31, 2011

Haiti and the seven deadly sins

By Jean H Charles:


With the installation of a new government, Haiti needs to set itself into a mode where the culture of growth, development and hospitality can flourish without impediments. First and foremost, security for life and for limb must be high on the agenda.

The United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti (MINUSTAH) tag price of some $865 million per year to provide and enhance a blanket of security on the national territory is not only an international scandal but it represents the perfect model of how things should not be.

Jean H Charles MSW, JD is Executive Director of AINDOH Inc a non profit organization dedicated to building a kinder and gentle Caribbean zone for all. He can be reached at: jeanhcharles@aol.comKidnapping, the absence of night life, the complete disregard for the rule of law have been the staple of life in Haiti, sometimes supported and entertained by the very Haitian governments. The many nations that comprise the MINUSTAH family excel in faking the duty of care and support to the stabilization of the country.

With one tenth of that amount, Haiti can set up its own national army that will protect the population, serve as a first defense system in case of environmental disaster and repel and control the drug reshipment invasion. The tourism industry, the commerce, the resilience and the creativity of the Haitian people need a true national security blanket to flourish.

Haiti needs in the second place to uproot the culture of the deadly sins so pervasive in the country. With bad governance implanted into the soul of the nation for the past sixty years, virtue has not occupied a place of choice in the intercourse of people living in the same land.

Haiti of today is comparable to France under the Regency regime in 1715, where the Duke of Orleans promoted a culture of greed, lust and debauchery, where adventurers mixed with do-gooders were seeking fast money followed by spectacular bankruptcy, poisoning the atmosphere for everybody.

The deadly sins you remember, immortalized by Dante, include pride, avarice, envy, wrath, gluttony, sloth and lust. Those vices have found a fertile land in Haiti to germinate and propagate amongst the poor as well as the rich citizens.

Michel Martelly, a former bad boy, might seem the wrong messenger to inject the culture of virtue into the country. Yet God himself did use sinners like Saul who become Paul to spread his religion of love charity, and humility. The Samaritan as well as Mary of Magdalene, both former sinners, were efficient missionaries of the new doctrine that humility, generosity, love, self control, faith, zeal, and prudence should rule the interactions between citizens of the same country and those of different nations.

Gandhi, the father of revolution with non violence, devised the concept of seven social sins. Politics without principles, wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, science without humanity, worship without sacrifice and commerce without morality.

I am witnessing in all aspects of life in Haiti the pervasive influence of the seven social sins. The legislative, the electoral board, the presidency, even the international organizations whose mission was to heal the wounds of a devastated population have been competing amongst themselves to serve mostly their own venal needs while professing compassion to the fate of the people.

The new government, with its prime minister designate, Daniel Rouzier, will have bread on the table. Before it embarks on any aspect of development those first two pillars – national security and moral sustenance -- must be firmly entrenched into the ethos of the new Haiti.

The people of Haiti, who fought all through to impose their own transition, have a high expectation from the new government. It is ready to uproot the old culture of the seven deadly sins. Martelly will have not only to set an example in his administration but he will have to call on the moral suasion of the Church and the civil society to preach and practice the new doctrine. The Archbishop Louis Kebreau in the homily at the inauguration has set the tone. His call for a culture of virtue was well received by the population who elevated him to a stature of a pop star.

The Haitian government must stop sustaining the lower instincts of the population. No nation has ever survived with the love of lust, greed, and wrath. Development, peace, growth and prosperity demands first and foremost good citizenship!

May 30, 2011

caribbeannewsnow

Monday, May 30, 2011

Bahamas: The time has long passed for the nation to demand value for its money in public Education

Education: Are your children getting value for money?

By NOELLE NICOLLS
Tribune Staff Reporter
nnicolls@tribunemedia.net
Nassau, The Bahamas



Last week during a public address Education Minister Desmond Bannister said it is time for the nation to "demand value for (its) money."

The Minister was wrong about only one thing: The time has long passed. The government consistently invests some $200 million in the Ministry of Education annually. So the Minister was definitely correct in saying the nation has great expectations for its education leaders.

Most of the Ministry's budget is allocated to the Department of Education, with as much as 70 per cent going towards salaries. That leaves the department with under $30 million to distribute amongst the various school boards; to purchase school supplies and equipment for the 4000 teachers across 160 schools and everything in between. That $30 million is bolstered by millions of dollars in funding from the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB). Since the mid-1990s, the Ministry of Education (MOE) has spent well over $70 million in IDB money.

Despite the cumulative billions spent on education, the public school system still leaves a lot to be desired, especially when it comes to technology. Less than 10 out of 160 schools in the system have publicly funded computer labs, and only a handful more has self-funded labs. Computer literacy amongst the nation's teachers is still woefully low, which has hampered the transition from "chalk and talk" classrooms to multimedia centres of learning. To this day, there is still no information technology (IT) curriculum for the Bahamas General Certificate of Secondary Education (BGCSE). The closest the public school system gets to preparing our students for the technology needs of the twenty-first century is a BGCSE in keyboarding.

I am taking the minister up on his public invitation; I only hope the guardians of the nation's education system are really prepared for the scrutiny. The truth is often inconvenient. So far there has been a pleasantly surprising level of openness at the directorate level within the department of education (DOE).

There are some harsh realities facing the education apparatus. People inside the inner circles know all too well, the MOE has many dirty little secrets. Over the years, institutional and political roadblocks have stonewalled many who tried to bring them to light.

Earlier this year, ten people were transferred from their posts in the MOE amidst investigations of corruption and theft. One of the employees, it was alleged, was found with a "laundry list" of items that had been taken from a storage unit. Police investigations into this matter stalled, because the suspects were allegedly "vouched for" by senior ministry officials. It was claimed that one of the persons involved was even transferred to a section of the ministry overseeing the current $11.8 million IDB project.

Unfortunately, this highly suspect move is not surprising to some. Informed sources claim that a culture exists at the MOE where certain people are able to escape disciplinary action because they have something to hold over the head of another. There is a fear that any given person can and will "talk ya business, and name names." The culture has created an environment where many escape judgment. Culpable employees have even become untouchable to the minister.

Despite this perceived reality, there are those who would try to project an image of no reproach. No doubt this posturing is intended to protect the reputation of the MOE and those that lead it. But in the end, this strategy seems counterproductive.

It is an unfortunate predicament, particularly for those who are genuine about creating a system deserving of our public school students. No doubt, the genuine majority outweighs the questionable few, but given the education budget, the cost of mismanagement amounts to millions of dollars in waste. One 10 per cent kickback could amount to the cost of a badly needed new computer lab for a public school.

The MOE has been on the radar of the Ministry of Finance for several years. A few years ago, Finance changed the way money is disbursed for certain procurements, such as computers, and increased its oversight of education funds provided through the IDB loan facility. There was a concern about "kickbacks" in the system, so the ministry had its financial controls tightened.

Government regulators get a bad rap for allowing this institutional impropriety, but as one high level source at the Ministry of Finance told me, when you investigate a situation, there is often enough evidence "for me to believe", but that does not mean there is sufficient "evidential fact to dismiss or prosecute".

Officials are faced with a complex system that makes it near impossible to clean up shop. They often rely on shuffling or retirements to avoid lengthy and costly investigations that can get messy for all parties involved, and destroy public confidence in the process. Even still, the MOE has a number of employees under investigation. They all remain on the government payroll, and some of them are chilling at home laughing their way to the bank.

Discussing these shortfalls is not to dismiss or overlook the positive things happening in education. Last week, the permanent secretary, Elma Garraway, proudly reminded me about how well the system is working for children of all "abilities and disabilities", pointing to the recent success of a blind student from Abaco, who secured the prestigious Bahamas Primary School Student of the Year award this year.

There are many positive education stories that deserve to be shared, and many of them are. Like the story of the model computer lab at L W Young that was independently funded by private donors based on the aggressive fund raising efforts of its former principal. But when we ask the inconvenient questions, thin-skinned educators should remember, it is not personal. The reality is when things work well in education the proof of the pudding is in the results. When things go awry the proof is in the public purse.

When the government announced its new budget last week, the MOE got "everything it asked for", as one source said, all $200 million of it. How many departments and ministries can boast of the same? The public education system is one of the nation's most important institutions, so I believe like the minister said, the country has a right to ask and a right to know if we are getting value for our money.

Given all that has been said, let us apply scrutiny to the MOE, starting in the area of information technology. The MOE has an inspiring vision of how information technology can modernize the education system and provide innovative ways to bring about a unified and automated system of data management.

Over the past two years, the MOE successfully piloted the introduction of Pearson's PowerSchool, a web-based student information software (SIS), in several public schools, including Anatol Rogers, CR Walker High School, St George's High School and Mary P Russell Junior High. The software manages student grades, attendance records, and any number of other data variables. It provides real-time access to student records for teachers, students, parents and administrators.

The implementation of an SIS system by the department of education is a key pillar of modernization. Such systems have the power to centralize all of the records in the public school network, providing administrators and policy makers access to reliable data based on any number of variables.

In practical terms, this means schools could finally have an automated process of generating report cards; teachers could stay in the comfort of their homes on a Saturday afternoon while entering assignment grades. Parents could log into the system from work and access the school records of their children. Truancy officers could log into the system from a handheld device and pull up a student record to match against any explanation a child in the field may provide. The possibilities are unlimited for a robust SIS.

Private schools in the country have long since joined the international pack. The Catholic Board of Education and a few other private schools, like the Lyford Cay School, are using the same software being piloted by the ministry. Other private schools like Queen's College, St. Andrew's School and St Augustine's College have been using a similar SIS product offered by Rediker Software Inc.

The ultimate objective of the DOE is to have every school networked through a web-based information-management system. Informed sources say, in three to five years, this could be a reality for less than $1 million per year. But the ministry is not ready to green light the full-scale implementation, for several good reasons. Chief among them: Over the six to eight years the MOE spent some $6 million on an older "dead-beat" system that has failed to live up to expectations. The government is still spending upwards of $91,000 per year on that system.

This happens to be a part of the back story to the ministry's foray into the world of education software. The PowerSchool pilot project has been deemed a success by education officials, but it represents the middle part of a story that has an unfortunate beginning. Education officials were burned badly in the past and they are doing their best not to jump into the fire again.

Over six years ago, the MOE contracted Software Technology Inc (STI), a US company specialising in SIS, to be the chosen partner to modernize the school system. The STI system was rolled out in 20 public schools. It would be an understatement to say, the MOE has been "challenged" with the implementation of STI. So much so that let us say, the MOE is about ready to send STI on its merry way, scrapping the system entirely, informed sources say.

Ask any school administrator about the STI system, and you may get the same response I first got: "That's secret." Amongst the teachers you will get a mixed bag of reactions, including a lot of frustration and disappointment.

"To be honest, my opinion of STI is that it seems to me a bit of an antiquated system that we got, because other schools are using systems that are tried and tested. Why didn't we get one of those? Why did we get that system?" asked one high school teacher.

When STI was originally rolled out, it was not an online system. So even though CV Bethel was one of the original schools on the STI pilot, its system is not online to this day and its capabilities are below expectations. The original STI was a server based programme that could only be accessed on the internal network of an individual school, said a source. The company has upgraded since it was first contracted by the MOE, but its transition has not been seamless.

One primary school teacher said the problem of STI is the level of computer literacy amongst school administrators and teachers, and the level of access to computers at schools. He works at a primary school where STI is functioning. With more training he said the system could work, but there seems to be a lack of buy in from teachers, particularly the older ones, who "are not going to learn to use the computer just to use STI."

Director of Education Lionel Sands is not ashamed to admit, the STI system is not functioning in the way it ought to. Other high-ranking sources inside the ministry echoed his sentiment: "The contract that was negotiated with STI was not in the best interest of the department."

The cost of STI continues to grow each year without the concurrent increase in benefit. In fact, two of the original 20 STI schools were removed from the network and placed in the PowerSchool pilot. Just a few weeks ago, executives from STI were in the Bahamas having high level discussions with the MOE. They visit every year to be debriefed on the experience with the system locally.

"Of course this year was no different. We explained that we were not fully satisfied with where we were with respect to the number of schools that should have been involved in STI. We were not completely satisfied that it was operating the way we thought it should be operating. Even the schools that were on STI, they were still having problems over all of these years. We sought to explain that to them," said Mr Sands.

"Certainly we did not think that the license fee we were asked to pay was justifiable in light of the fact that we were not getting the full benefit of the system," he said.

Some details of the original STI contract remain sketchy. It was signed several years before Mr Sands assumed the directorship, so there are things he said he cannot fully explain, like what has been the exact cost outlay on STI. Sources claim $6 million and perhaps more was spent originally. Mr Sands was uncertain, but said the $6 million figure could be the cumulative cost over the years. One source, however, claimed there is missing documentation in the MOE concerning transactions related to the original STI license agreement.

According to sources close to the matter, the MOE lacked the internal expertise to effectively negotiate the original agreement. And to this day, one source said, the MOE does not have the internal technical expertise to manage the system.

If a school on the system experiences a server failure on report card day, for example, there is no system plan in place to solve that problem. This scenario played itself out in the past. The MOE has to give STI technicians an all-expense paid vacation in the Bahamas to handle any major technical problem that arise. The teachers who were originally trained to manage STI have since been redeployed to teach. Only one of the originally trained persons is still assigned to deal with STI.

When the STI system was implemented, there was "not a lot of forward thinking and planning", said the source. In some instances, for example, schools had to manually calculate the cumulative grade point averages for their finalizing students, because the STI system could not account for students' historical data. So STI report cards that were generated by the system had handwritten cumulative GPAs, according to a source. Details such as this were not taken into proper consideration in the first instance.

Further proof is the fact that to this day, all of the data on the STI system is stored off shore. In other words, the STI servers are located in the United States of America. And so a foreign country is housing government data on students in the 18 schools. Some have raised questions about the legality of that arrangement.

Mr Sands said he is not clear about how the data storage predicament came to be. As best as he can understand, he said at the time the system was launched, there was no local capacity to handle a server of that size. It was envisioned that the system would eventually migrate to the Bahamas.

The situation has somewhat changed today in that Cable Bahamas has the capacity and currently stores the data for public and private schools using the PowerSchool system. Mr Sands said localizing the MOE's database from the STI system is currently a high priority.

The bottom line in the STI saga seems to be a sense that STI should have delivered far more given the amount of time and money the government has invested in the system to date.

"We are supposed to be able now to say to a parent, if you want to see how your child is doing in school, just get online and you can see that without having to wait for report card day. That is what the system ought to be able to do. It is not doing that. Those are some of the challenges we are faced with," said Mr Sands.

"When I want to look at what a teacher is doing in a particular class I should be able to do that from my office computer, so I can see time on task; so I can see report cards being completed; so I can see how students are functioning; so I can see whether the curriculum is meeting the needs of the children. I don't have that with (the STI programme) even though it has the capacity to give me that," he said.

Fortunately, there is a silver lining for the 50,000 students in the public school system. The Director said he is still committed to getting it right and realizing the vision. And despite their frustrations, most of the stakeholders appear to be sold on the need to push forward.

"Working properly the system is very advantageous for us. I certainly would pursue something like that simply because I know the benefits of it. I have seen the benefits of it. We live in an age where we have to get away from doing all of these things manually. We can get it done with technology. There is a need no doubt about it," said Mr Sands.

So far the project has been moving at "snail's pace", said Mr Sands. There are 18 schools with STI out of 160 "over the past however long." With the speed of technological advancements, Mr Sands said he could only imagine what the MOE is missing out on. "We are still back in 2003/4 with technology of that time when we need 2011/12 technology," he said. That is another reason why the DOE wants to get it right this time around.

"That is why we want to make sure PowerSchool is giving us something that keeps us abreast and moves us. We want to make sure that as technology advances we are advancing with technology to get the best for our children. That is the bottom line. We want to see change in our instructional programmes. We want to see our student succeeding. We want to see administrators and teachers at their best using technology. We can't be in 1950 and expect that to happen in 2011," he said.

This time around the MOE has hired in the expertise. The DOE is currently using the technology consulting services of Deloitte and Touche to pilot PowerSchool. Mr Sands said he is comfortable saying, "The PowerSchool pilot has been a success", but that is not stopping the DOE from proceeding with due care.

"Our challenge is to be sure that if we were to go with PowerSchool for all of the other schools that we would get the kind of proposal from Deloitte that would be consistent with the service provided and not necessarily a money making venture for Deloitte, because you could have that whenever you have a monopoly. If you are the only person doing it you can charge me whatever you feel like simply because I need it and you are the only one doing it. And so we are very careful that we do not get into a situation where we are paying out more money than the service that we need," said Mr Sands.

"So what we are doing in addition to looking at Deloitte, we are looking at other companies that might be able to provide a similar service to see what their costing would be like, so we could compare proposals. Yes we are satisfied with Deloitte and PowerSchool, but we will not run headlong into Deloitte and PowerSchool, because we understand the nature of business. So we are cautious and will be cautious in doing that. We do not want to run the risk of doing a similar thing that STI did. Back then they saw something good that could come out of STI and they just ran with it. We want to be very careful," he said.

Deloitte and Touche was invited into the project through a recommendation by the Ministry of Finance, according to sources. The company is no stranger to government contracts. In fact, its managing partner Raymond Winder is one of the government's lead negotiators at the World Trade Organisation (WTO). Sources claim, the Ministry of Finance took an interest because it was concerned about plugging the leak in STI expenditure.

The team at Deloitte operating the project, according to Tribune sources, is not off-shore, but rather "100 per cent Bahamian run", including their database administrators, security experts, project implementers and managers.

Donavan Morrison, IT Administrator at the Catholic Board of Education, said anyone running a project like PowerSchool should have expertise in areas like networking, system design, database systems, and web-based software.

"It requires a very in depth background when it comes to software development. You have to know for instance, what the server size needs to be are based on the bandwidth requirements. The person needs a huge background in networking and software implementation," he said.

There are a variety of "consulting shops" based in the Bahamas that have that type of expertise, according to sources, but not all of them are focused in the area needed by the MOE. IBM, for example, has the capacity; however, one source, with a stake in Deloitte, said, "They only sell hardware in the Bahamas."

Ernst & Young and PWC, have the capacity, but their local operation is built around auditing services, said the source. The same goes for KPMG, the consulting firm that handled the BTC sale. It focuses on "corporate finance", said the source.

The MOE has a major decision to make about pushing forward with its agenda. The best thing they can do to avoid creating any clouds of suspicion that could sour their chances at progress is to be more transparent than ever before. Government administrators should not be ashamed to speak about their past shortcomings or failures. It should be encouraged, so the public can have confidence in their ability to learn from the past.

So far, it appears that the muddy waters of the past seem to be settling. For now, in assessing the MOE's use of public funds to invest in student information software, I can say, we are not there yet, but it seems as though we are on our way to getting value for our money.

May 30, 2011

tribune242