jamaica-gleaner editorial
Most Jamaicans will have mixed emotions over Christopher Coke's guilty plea in America on racketeering and conspiracy charges. Primarily, though, they will feel a measure of relief.
There will be a sense of vindication, for they were certain all along that Coke had done the things of which he was accused. Yet, many of us can't help but be disappointed, hurt, angry even. We were taken through all of that only for this.
All of that, of course, is the trauma Jamaica was caused to suffer, including to its international reputation, over the affair involving this international gangster, whose base was Tivoli Gardens, the 'garrison' in west Kingston where voters are fiercely loyal to the governing Jamaica Labour Party, and which is part of the parliamentary riding of Prime Minister Bruce Golding.
When the Americans sought to extradite Coke on charges that he exported narcotics to their country and imported guns into Jamaica, the Golding administration stalled for nine months. Jamaica argued that the Americans had breached the extradition treaty between the two countries and had abused Coke's constitutional rights in the way it got hold of wiretap evidence used in the indictment against the drug boss.
The ruling party then hired American lobbyists to intervene in the dispute between the two countries to try to soften Washington's stance on the Coke extradition. In what supposedly was a private party endeavour mingled with official diplomacy, government spokespersons - not excluding Prime Minister Golding - often sounded more like Coke's legal strategists than state officials.
When the Government finally bowed to public pressure to execute the extradition request and to allow the courts to decide if it was in concert with the law, Coke gathered his private militia into his Tivoli Gardens redoubt. Coke's supporters elsewhere attacked police stations and generally caused mayhem.
The larger context
The effort by the security forces to pacify Tivoli Gardens left more than 70 people dead and the Jamaican state badly rattled, its fragility patent. That, we feel, provides the larger context within which to consider the Coke matter.
Christopher Coke personifies the kind of threat to the security and democracy of small and vulnerable countries like Jamaica. Control of large amounts of resources, illicitly derived notwithstanding, endow gangsters with the capacity to corrupt the political process and to control many levers of the State by proxy. Indeed, Coke's activities - and the criminal machinations of others - were an open secret in Jamaica.
However, given Coke's political and community connections, underpinned by his ability to distribute largesse and corral votes, it is likely that he would not have been arrested and prosecuted in Jamaica. Such an eventuality would have been made more difficult by the political fault lines in Jamaica.
In that respect, and as grudgingly as we concede it, Jamaica ought to be thankful for America's move against Coke, particularly as murders and other serious crimes have plummeted since his ouster by the military. Hopefully, Coke's arrest and guilty plea mark the crossing of a Rubicon - and the end of impunity by such hard men of violence and crime.
September 2, 2011
jamaica-gleaner editorial
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.
Friday, September 2, 2011
Thursday, September 1, 2011
WikiLeaks cables show Haiti as pawn in US foreign policy
by Katie Soltis, COHA Research Associate
When WikiLeaks announced its plan to release tens of thousands of classified U.S. diplomatic cables to the public, the U.S. government feared a massive international backlash and threat to national security. Although WikiLeaks’ impact on Latin America does not severely jeopardize U.S. security, the diplomatic cables could nevertheless cause irreparable harm to U.S. relations with several Latin American nations. Information released by WikiLeaks points to a continuation of U.S. dominance and the application of “neo-imperialist” diplomacy in Latin America, and the cables regarding Haiti, the poorest country in the Western hemisphere, exemplify the persistence of U.S. interference.
Haiti’s history is one of brutal colonial exploitation followed by systematic neocolonial intervention, and today the country faces extreme poverty and political turmoil. According to the UN Development Program, 78 percent of Haitians live on less than USD 2 per day and 54 percent of the population, or around four and a half million people, currently live on less than USD 1 per day.[1] In light of the problems facing this troubled nation, the new information revealed by WikiLeaks concerning U.S. involvement in Haiti is particularly disconcerting. Janet Sanderson, the previous U.S. Ambassador to Haiti, once dubbed the U.S. “Haiti’s most important and reliable bi-lateral partner,” but the cables released by WikiLeaks show a much more one-sided relationship.[2] Instead of helping Haiti develop economically and politically, Washington’s foreign policy seems completely dominated by influential and well-connected U.S. economic interests.
Petrocaribe: Haiti and Venezuela
René Préval became president of Haiti in 2006 and immediately attempted to improve U.S.-Haiti relations. U.S. Ambassador Sanderson reported in a cable that Préval “wants to bury once and for all the suspicion in Haiti that the United States is wary of him. He is seeking to enhance his status domestically and internationally with a successful visit to the United States.”[3] Yet despite his desire to improve relations, newly elected President Préval unintentionally began alienating the United States on the very day of his inauguration. On this day, Préval signed a deal with Venezuela to join the Caribbean oil alliance, Petrocaribe, which allowed Haiti to buy subsidized oil from Venezuela. The government of Haiti would pay only 60 percent up front and then pay the rest at 1 percent interest over the next 25 years.[4] This payment schedule would save the Haitian government USD 100 million per year, with which the government planned to supply basic needs and services to 10 million Haitians and increase investment in social projects like hospitals and schools.[5] Additionally, the Petrocaribe deal would help lower and stabilize the cost of oil in Haiti after several years of high prices.
However, the new Haiti-Venezuela alliance unnerved Washington, and Ambassador Sanderson abetted U.S. interests in Haiti. Apparently determined to hold a tough stance against the oil deal, she wrote in a cable on April 19, 2006, that “Post [the Embassy] will continue to pressure Préval against joining Petrocaribe.”[6] For two years, the U.S. government worked with ExxonMobil and Chevron, the two U.S. oil companies operating in Haiti, to undermine the new deal between Petrocaribe and Venezuela. The U.S. oil companies feared that they would have to buy their oil directly from the government of Haiti and would lose their profit margins as a result. As Thomas C. Tighe, a U.S. official in Haiti, wrote in a cable, “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 Government of Haiti that it will not import Petrocaribe products.”[7] Because Chevron and ExxonMobil controlled shipping and distribution channels, these two companies were able to prevent the Petrocaribe deal for two years simply by refusing to transport Petrocaribe oil and blocking their shipments. Throughout this time, Tighe said the Haitian government 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.”[8] Chevron eventually signed the agreement in 2008, but the two-year fight against the deal exemplifies Washington’s willingness to disregard Haiti’s interests for its own economic and political agenda.
The real problem for the United States in this arrangement appears to be not just the challenge to U.S. economic interests but also the development of a lasting Haiti-Venezuela relationship. The U.S. is inevitably skeptical of Haiti’s ties with Venezuela, a nation whose leader fiercely opposes the United States. Préval continued to develop Haiti’s relationship with Venezuela, first with the proposed Petrocaribe deal in 2006 and, subsequently, with Préval’s attendance of the ALBA (Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas) summit in Venezuela in 2007. At the summit, Préval received a deal for an energy aid package from Cuba and Venezuela. Yet despite the proposed benefits for the Haitian people with both the Petrocaribe agreement and the later energy package, U.S. officials fought against the deals because they did not trust Haiti’s possible close relationship with these two demonstrably anti-American governments.
However, the United States’ determination to undercut these agreements seems unwarranted. Although Venezuela and Cuba are outspoken in their opposition to the United States, Haiti does not participate in their leftist, anti-American rhetoric. In fact, Washington was cognizant of the fact that Haiti’s participation in these agreements did not reflect an alliance against the United States. Sanderson reported in one cable that “at no time has Préval given any indication that he is interested in associating Haiti with Chávez’s broader ‘revolutionary agenda.’”[9] Instead, Préval’s relations with these other governments stemmed from his desire for socioeconomic improvement. The U.S. government acknowledged this, as seen by Sanderson’s report that Préval “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.”[10] Despite this recognition, the U.S. government fought strongly against these agreements, evidencing the true priorities of U.S. policies towards Haiti. The U.S. earlier stated that it is “Haiti’s most important and reliable bi-lateral partner,” but these cables show the limits of Washington’s commitment to aid Haiti. Rather than supporting Haitian attempts at development, the U.S. was willing to undermine beneficial agreements in order to continue its anti-Chávez policies and to protect the interests of big oil companies.
Textiles: U.S. Interference in Wage Laws
In another instance of U.S. interference documented by WikiLeaks, the Obama administration tried to prevent minimum wages in Haiti from rising above 31 cents an hour. In 2009, Port-au-Prince passed a law that raised the minimum wage from an astonishingly low 24 cents to 61 cents an hour.[11] This law would have increased the minimum wage by 150 percent to about USD 5 a day, but, even with this large increase, the new measure would still have fallen short of the estimated USD 12.50 a day needed to provide for a family of four in Haiti.[12]
The proposed wage increase was of course enormously popular with Haitians, who argued that the increase was necessary because of the rising cost of living. However, U.S. textile companies with factories in Haiti, including Fruit of the Loom, Hanes, and Levi Strauss, fought the measure, while the U.S. State Department also exerted pressure on the government of Haiti. David E. Lindwall, a deputy chief of mission, said the minimum wage increase “did not take economic reality into account” and was a populist measure for “the unemployed and underpaid masses.”[13] U.S. plant owners argued that, should the cost of labor rise substantially, these U.S. companies would have to close their factories in Haiti and relocate. Based on the insistence of these U.S. textile companies and the U.S. embassy, the Haitian government agreed to limit the increase to only 7 cents, at 31 cents an hour.[14]
The recent fight over the proposed wage increase is merely the most recent instance where U.S. foreign companies have tried to keep wages low by threatening to close production facilities in the country. The Haitian Platform to Advocate Alternative Development (PAPDA) argues that every time the government of Haiti has proposed a minimum wage increase, lead industries “cried wolf” and threatened to halt production in all major factories in the nation, further jeopardizing economic stability in the country. However, according to PAPDA, “in every case, it was a lie.”[15]
PAPDA implies that closing factories is an empty threat made by U.S. businesses to extort low wages. Based on the actual cost of the minimum wage increase relative to overall profits, this is likely the case. According to a U.S. embassy cable, it would cost Hanes USD 1.6 million a year to pay its workers an extra USD 2 a day. This cost is very low compared to the company’s registered profits of USD 211 million with sales of USD 4.3 billion.[16] Furthermore, Haiti already has some of the lowest paid workers in the world, so finding cheaper labor would be unlikely. Yet whether or not U.S. factories would actually pull out of Haiti, the cables are significant in pointing to the weight of U.S. influence in Haiti. The degree of power U.S. businesses exert over the government of Haiti is particularly alarming as it prioritizes U.S. financial gains over fundamental economic improvements for 25,000 poverty-stricken textile workers.
Elections: International Support for Non-Democratic Process
Leaked cables also provide further information about the international community’s support for Haiti’s 2009 elections. International election donors, including ambassadors, members of NGOs, and leaders from the UN, were charged with monitoring the election procedures and reporting instances of electoral fraud. Yet these donors ignored their responsibility to uphold democratic standards, as they supported these elections despite unfair electoral procedures.
Haiti’s Provisional Electoral Council (CEP), which was appointed by then-President Préval, decided to exclude the political party Fanmi Lavalas (FL) under the guise of not having proper documentation. FL, the party of exiled former President Jean-Bertrand Aristide, is a leftist political party that is also very popular among the poor. However, its influence has waned since Aristide was overthrown in 2004 and exiled in a U.S.-supported coup. Since Aristide’s removal from office, Préval’s party has worked to curtail the FL’s influence and popularity, and the party has been excluded in several elections.
The FL’s exclusion caused concern among international donors charged with overseeing the electoral process. Canadian Ambassador Gilles Rivard questioned the impact that this exclusion would have on the elections: “If this is the kind of partnership we have with the CEP going into the elections, what kind of transparency can we expect from them as the process unfolds?”[17] Furthermore, leaked U.S. cables said the decision of the electoral council was “almost certainly in conjunction with President Préval,” as an attempt to rig the outcome of the election.[18] International donors recognized the dangers of supporting the elections: they would not only be undermining democratic procedures but also would be seen as supporting Préval.
Despite these initial concerns, the international community decided to support the elections. A cable sent by U.S. Ambassador Kenneth Merten recorded the views of a European Union representative, who said, “the international community has too much invested in Haiti’s democracy to walk away from the upcoming elections, despite its imperfections.”[19] Furthermore, Merten argued that the elections should proceed because “without donor support, the electoral timetable risks slipping dangerously, threatening a timely presidential succession.”[20] In total, international donors gave an estimated USD 12.5 million to finance the election—about 72 percent of the total cost—even though they knew that the election was not free or fair.[21]
The Organization of American States adjudicated the disputed first round results and decided that the run-off candidates would be Michel Martelly and Mirlande Manigat. Martelly proceeded to win the election, but, notably, only 23 percent of Haitians participated. This marks the lowest participation rate in the entire hemisphere since 1945. The lack of voter participation has been attributed to disappointment about the exclusion of the FL and dislike of the two candidates.[22]
The circumstances of the election reflect a difficult situation for the international community’s involvement in Haiti. Its disregard for standard democratic procedures, with open and fair elections, undermines a commitment to democratic ideals. On the other hand, if they had refused to support the elections, Haiti could once again fall into political turmoil. Such chaos would plague other international investments in the nation, while potentially further stalling the realization of stability and development in Haiti.
Conclusion
The repercussions of the WikiLeaks Haiti cables are a far cry from the massive national security breaches that the U.S. government originally feared. The cables detailing U.S. relations with Haiti do not contain the same devastating potential as other cables might have, and the information leaked here will not jeopardize national security. Whether or not WikiLeaks was justified in releasing this classified information, these cables shed valuable light on the hypocritical nature of U.S. foreign policy in one of the world’s most troubled nations. Based on these cables, we see a disturbing image where U.S. foreign policy is shaped by the interests of the rich and is geared toward underhanded interference in the affairs of other nations.
References for this article can be found here.
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 or email coha@coha.org
September 1, 2011
caribbeannewsnow
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Bahamas: Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham said capital punishment will probably not be a reality in the Islands in the near future...
PM: CAPITAL PUNISHMENT 'WILL PROBABLY NOT BE REALITY'
By SANCHESKA BROWN
tribune242
Nassau, The Bahamas
DESPITE calls for murderers to be executed, Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham said capital punishment will probably not be a reality in the near future.
Instead, the government is considering the possibility of a "life" sentence being changed to actually mean "for life."
The Prime Minister said he knows people are frustrated with the high level of crime in the Bahamas. He says this is a frustration shared by most of the Caribbean. However, Mr Ingraham said swift executions is something that probably will not be a reality anytime soon.
"This is a country about the rule of law, and we have to abide by decisions made by our courts, even if we don't agree with them. Sometimes to the extent where we have to swallow it and accept it as reality," he said.
"The government cannot execute someone without the court certifying that all things were done properly, otherwise the government itself is committing murder and unlawful killing. Even if we change the law, it will take some time for that law to be able to be applied to persons who are convicted, and so there are several other things the society ought to consider in the interim rather than to expect something that is not likely to happen."
One of the suggestions made by the Prime Minister is to change the current life sentence from 25 years to actual life imprisonment.
"We may have to determine that life imprisonment means life in prison, your natural life in prison, you won't come out anymore," he said.
"We will have to categorise murders to determine that some cases should warrant the death penalty, while others may warrant imprisonment for life, their natural life and others for a lesser period of time. So that's what we are seeking to do."
The government was scheduled to debate the death penalty bill before they adjourned for the summer. However, when the House adjourned the bill was still not ready for presentation.
The proposed legislation will outline specific categories of murder. It is still unclear if the government will bring the bill when Parliament resumes on October 5.
Opposition leader Perry Christie said in his national address if the Progressive Liberal Party is elected to government his party will carry out the law as it relates to hanging.
Mr Ingraham declined to comment on Mr Christie's statement but did say he was pleased Mr Christie was able to address the nation on national television.
"When I was in opposition it was not possible for me to do so. With one radio station I couldn't buy time to be able to address the nation. He has a right to do so and I applaud him for doing so. I also want to point out that while he was prime minister I found no record of a national address by him in his five years in office."
No hangings were carried out under the PLP administration. The last time a convicted murderer was hanged was on January 6, 2000.
August 30, 2011
tribune242
By SANCHESKA BROWN
tribune242
Nassau, The Bahamas
DESPITE calls for murderers to be executed, Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham said capital punishment will probably not be a reality in the near future.
Instead, the government is considering the possibility of a "life" sentence being changed to actually mean "for life."
The Prime Minister said he knows people are frustrated with the high level of crime in the Bahamas. He says this is a frustration shared by most of the Caribbean. However, Mr Ingraham said swift executions is something that probably will not be a reality anytime soon.
"This is a country about the rule of law, and we have to abide by decisions made by our courts, even if we don't agree with them. Sometimes to the extent where we have to swallow it and accept it as reality," he said.
"The government cannot execute someone without the court certifying that all things were done properly, otherwise the government itself is committing murder and unlawful killing. Even if we change the law, it will take some time for that law to be able to be applied to persons who are convicted, and so there are several other things the society ought to consider in the interim rather than to expect something that is not likely to happen."
One of the suggestions made by the Prime Minister is to change the current life sentence from 25 years to actual life imprisonment.
"We may have to determine that life imprisonment means life in prison, your natural life in prison, you won't come out anymore," he said.
"We will have to categorise murders to determine that some cases should warrant the death penalty, while others may warrant imprisonment for life, their natural life and others for a lesser period of time. So that's what we are seeking to do."
The government was scheduled to debate the death penalty bill before they adjourned for the summer. However, when the House adjourned the bill was still not ready for presentation.
The proposed legislation will outline specific categories of murder. It is still unclear if the government will bring the bill when Parliament resumes on October 5.
Opposition leader Perry Christie said in his national address if the Progressive Liberal Party is elected to government his party will carry out the law as it relates to hanging.
Mr Ingraham declined to comment on Mr Christie's statement but did say he was pleased Mr Christie was able to address the nation on national television.
"When I was in opposition it was not possible for me to do so. With one radio station I couldn't buy time to be able to address the nation. He has a right to do so and I applaud him for doing so. I also want to point out that while he was prime minister I found no record of a national address by him in his five years in office."
No hangings were carried out under the PLP administration. The last time a convicted murderer was hanged was on January 6, 2000.
August 30, 2011
tribune242
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Endgame for Brazil's role in MINUSTAH in Haiti?
by Alex Sanchez, COHA Research Fellow
Brazil’s leadership in the United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti (MINUSTAH) may be coming to its end. The newly-appointed defense minister, Celso Amorin (most recently he served as foreign affairs minister from 2003 to 2011) recently declared to the Brazilian media that he “supports the withdrawal of Brazilian troops from Haiti.”[1] Should this happen, it would be a major departure from the status quo, and would greatly affect MINUSTAH’s operations, as well as jolt Brazil’s role as the Caribbean’s major arbiter of security. Furthermore, Brasilia’s quest for a permanent seat in the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) has been partially based on its role in MINUSTAH as an example of its readiness for a UN seat, which may now be called into question.
Brazil’s role in Haiti
Brasilia racked up a huge leadership role in MINUSTAH, which had as its mission to aid the transitional government that gained control of Haiti (via the UNSC’s resolution 1542) after President Jean-Bertrand Aristide was ousted in early 2004. The mission was controversial at the time and drew heavy criticism from its inception as it was regarded as a type of colonial government by the UN in the wake of Aristide’s abrupt forced departure from power, following major national protests and violence. At the time, there were persistent accusations that the U.S., Canada and France had a role in the Haitian head of state’s ouster.
Brazil has provided the military commanders for MINUSTAH along with a significant number of its forces over the past seven years. Brasilia has reportedly deployed 1,266 army and navy troops to MINUSTAH,[2] but, in the aftermath of the massive January 2010 earthquake that struck Haiti, the Brazilian Congress approved a request to send 1,300 additional troops to the Caribbean country to help with relief operations.[3]
In January 2006, there was a bizarre incident in which MINUSTAH’s commander, Lieutenant General Urano Teixeira da Matta, committed suicide while in his hotel room in Port-au-Prince. In cables published by Wikileaks, Dominican President Leonel Fernandez told State Department Assistant Secretary Patrick Duddy that he suspected that Teixeira had been assassinated by a paramilitary group, possibly led by Guy Philippe, a renowned Haitian cutpurse and rebel leader with a good deal of political clout.[4] MINUSTAH’s current commander is Major General Luiz Eduardo Ramos Pereira, also from Brazil.[5]
According to MINUSTAH’s official website, the mission’s current strength (as of June 30, 2011) totals 12,261 uniformed personnel, not including volunteers as well as international and local civilian personnel. Since its inception, the mission has suffered 164 fatalities, 66 of which were military personnel. Twenty UN Brazilian soldiers were killed in the January 2010 earthquake.[6]
Brazil Inside and Out
Dilma Rousseff’s first year as president of Brazil has been far from ideal as a number of senior and high-profile members of her cabinet have resigned. The list includes: Agriculture Minister Wagner Rossi, Defense Minister Nelson Jobim, Transportation Minister Alfredo Nascimento, as well as President Rousseff’s chief of staff, Antonio Palocci.[7] Should the Brazilian head of state decide to maintain her troops in Haiti despite the defense minister’s opinion to the contrary, this may put Rousseff at odds with other key members of her cabinet, as well as with the military’s leadership. Furthermore, a recent letter to the Brazilian President was signed by a number of legislators, like Markus Sokol of the PT (Partido dos Trabalhadores – Worker’s Party) National Directorate, representatives of the CUT (Central Única dos Trabalhadores – Unified Worker’s Central) and the MST (Movimento dos Trabalhadores Rurais Sem Terra – Landless Workers’ Movement) , as well as others. The open letter states: “we must end Brazil’s participation in a military operation that is repudiated by the vast majority of the Haitian people … this occupation has only deepened the plight of the people and has denied them their sovereignty.”[8]
It is worth noting that some influential Brazilians do support a continued presence in Haiti. Geraldo Cavagnari, member of the Center for Strategic Studies at the University of Campinas (Unicamp) has declared that “the troops should stay put because there is no risk, and there are many things in play.”[9] The other “many things” most likely include Brazil’s hardly concealed quest for a permanent UNSC seat.
Another factor that may influence the future role of Brazil in Haiti may be budgetary issues. An August 15, 2011 article entitled “Bye Bye MINUSTAH” published by the Canada Haiti Action Network,[10] explains that since 2004, Brazil’s taxpayers have spent over R$ 1 billion on MINUSTAH. Last year alone, maintenance of the Brazilian troops in Haiti cost R$ 426 million: R$ 140 million for annual costs and other expenditures, plus R$ 286 million for humanitarian aid sent after the 2010 earthquake. The analysis goes on to argue that in principle, the UN should reimburse these expenses, but in recent years the reimbursements have amounted to only 16% of the payments made by the Brazilian government. The article finally adds that, in addition, the salaries of Brazil’s MINUSTAH troops have, in fact, exceeded R$ 41 million per year, but these costs are excluded from Brazil’s expenses on the mission because these individuals would be entitled to their pay even if they were in Brazil. The Portuguese-speaking nation is currently enjoying an economic boom, but this will most likely not last, in part because the Brazilian currency, the real, is showing signs of being overvalued. If a period of economic austerity appears, the Brazilian government may be forced to rethink some of its peacekeeping operations and other major military commitments.
An official interviewed by the author, who wished to remain anonymous, explained that Brazil as well as several other states have desired to leave Haiti for some time and they argue that there is already some kind of, at least superficial, political stability in the Caribbean state. It would seem that the recent Haitian presidential elections, as dubious and controversial as they were, may serve as part of Brazil’s “exit strategy” for leaving MINUSTAH.
An Unsuccessful Departure?
Brazil’s military has been involved in Haiti since 2004 but, unfortunately, few positive developments have stemmed from Brazil’s limited interactions in the small Caribbean nation. MINUSTAH operations managed to pacify most violent neighborhoods, like Cite Soleil in 2005, but they also were responsible for carrying out human rights abuses that have been well- documented, which gained further criticism of the UN operation.
A critical moment occurred on January 12, 2010, when a 7.0 magnitude earthquake destroyed most infrastructure in Port- au-Prince as well as other Haitian towns across the country. A recent report by the U.S. Agency for International Development, obtained by the Miami Herald, states that between 46,190 and 86,961 people died and less than 66,625 quake victims are living in hundreds of camps scattered around the capital.[11] In the aftermath of the disaster, dozens of international governments agencies and relief organizations have poured into the country to help with search operations and to take care of the thousands of Haitians that were left homeless and with very little food and shelter. MINUSTAH was not spared of some of these losses. This was particularly the case as the mission’s headquarters in Haiti collapsed killing several UN employees;[12] however the body did continue to carry out relief operations. A February 2010 UN report praised MINUSTAH’s emergency response, explaining that “MINUSTAH, despite its own losses, acted as a crucial first responder, opening the major arterial road from the Port-au-Prince airport to the town centre, re-establishing communications and opening its medical facilities to victims.”[13] The Security Reform Resource Centre adds that:
“In the months following the earthquake, MINUSTAH made significant contributions providing logistical and administrative support to relief efforts. MINUSTAH supplied security assistance for humanitarian operations, operational support to the Haitian National Police (HNP), provided technical advice and support to state institutions at the sub-national level, assisted in repairing the damage to critical infrastructure of the judiciary, and coordinated a large-scale public information campaign.”[14]
In any case, the praise MINUSTAH received for its operations in the aftermath of the 2010 earthquake proved to be short-lived. In October 2010, MINUSTAH troops apparently introduced a cholera epidemic in Haiti by dumping fecal matter into the country’s rivers. Over 5,000 individuals have died due to the cholera outbreak and thousands more are infected. A March 2011 report by the BBC highlights the variety of estimates of how many Haitians currently are, and could possibly become, infected, with numbers ranging from 400,000 to a possible 779,000 by November of this year.[15] A July 2011 article in the Los Angeles Times reported that “the [Haitian] Health Ministry reported more than 1,000 new cholera cases a day last month [June].”[16] There were several protests against MINUSTAH when the local population realized how the epidemic started.[17] It is important to clarify that it seems that UN peacekeepers from Nepal most likely started the cholera epidemic, not personnel coming from Brazil.
Furthermore, it is necessary to note that a possible Brazilian withdrawal from MINUSTAH is just an option for the moment, and it would take time for the minister Amorin’s proposal to become an official government-sanctioned plan, if it does at all. Even more time would be needed to arrange the logistics for the Brazilian troops to actually leave Haiti; hence any Brazilian departure will not likely occur anytime soon.
MINUSTAH without Brazil?
Should Brasilia decide to pull all of its troops from the Caribbean nation, the future of MINUSTAH may be called into question. Can the mission survive without the major donor of its troops, and the one with the most zeal to do so? Possibly yes, but the UN will face several new problems, like finding replacement troops from other nations to make up for the departure of the Brazilians. In addition, if Brazil does depart, other states that supply troops to MINUSTAH, may decide to leave the operation as well. As previously mentioned, some states, besides Haiti, may already be looking for an exit strategy to leave that country. In an extreme scenario, MINUSTAH may end up with a reduced force and a more limited ability to carry out its operations.
A final critical factor that may affect MINUSTAH’s future will be the Haitian government, which now has a new president, if highly problematic, former singer Michel Martelly. As part of his campaign promises, the new head of state has declared his interest in reforming the controversial Haitian army to help improve internal security. The country’s military was disbanded in 1995 by President Jean-Bertrand Aristide, after he was deposed in a coup and then restored to power with the help of U.N. forces.[18] Historically the Haitian army has been known for its violent acts and lack of political neutrality, particularly under the Duvalier dictatorships. An April 2011 article in the Washington Post quotes Martelly as saying that “the new armed forces wouldn’t be known for brutality, as their predecessors were.”[19] The Haitian leader may be looking to replace MINUSTAH, which it cannot control, with local security forces sworn to comply with his orders.
If Brazil leaves, what role should the US play?
A 2008 State Department document made public by Wikileaks, explains that “the UN Stabilization Mission in Haiti is an indispensable tool in realizing core USG [U.S. government] policy interests in [that country].”[20] The disclosed report then adds “paying one-quarter of MINUSTAH’s budget through our DPKO [department of peace keeping operations] assessment, the U.S. reaps the security and stabilization benefits of a 9,000-person international military and civilian stabilization mission in the hemisphere’s most troubled country. […] in the current context of our military commitments elsewhere, the U.S. alone could not replace this mission.” With military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and, for the time being, in Libya, embarking on a series of new military challenges, even if it’s under an UN-peacekeeping mantle, may prove too costly for Washington and particularly the Barack Obama administration, which will have to face re-elections in 2012.
MINUSTAH has been controversial since its origins, and a more visible U.S. involvement in Haiti would be cumbersome and would add to a long list of lamentable military involvement in that country. U.S.-Haitian relations have been historically problematic, as they mostly revolve around American military operations in that island, including from 1914-1934, in 1994 and, most recently, in 2004 when Aristide was ousted. It is necessary to note that Washington did deploy the carrier USS Carl Vinson [21] along with the USNS Comfort and thousands of military personnel[22] to provide help in the aftermath of the 2010 earthquake.
Deploying American troops in Haitian territory is a questionable practice, and it’s highly unlikely that it will happen; nevertheless it would be helpful for Washington’s national interests to continue working with the UN and the Haitian government so that the Caribbean nation avoids becoming a failed state.
Regarding Brazil, one can see the reasons for leaving the mission, including its unpopularity, lack of major successes and financial costs. With that said, it is illogical to think that any departure would occur quickly. If Brasilia does decide to leave MINUSTAH, at the very least it should have a responsible exchange of power and responsibilities to other UN personnel or Haitian security forces. As a recommendation, we can observe that while most of Brazilian military personnel will ultimately leave Haiti, some senior officers should stay in a consultancy basis, particularly in order to keep training the Haitian police. In spite of MINUSTAH’s controversial origins, we cannot forget Haiti’s internal problems (some of which were collectively caused by foreign powers); the international community hopefully should leave the country in better shape than when it entered it.
Alex Sanchez, a COHA research fellow, recently published an article discussing Brazil’s UN ambitions and its role in MINUSTAH: W. Alex Sanchez, “An Easy Way to Improve U.S.-Latin American Relations” (Washington, DC: Foreign Policy In Focus, July 28, 2011). Available: http://bit.ly/qXB41y. In addition, an article that discusses Brazil’s role in MINUSTAH and the UN mission in East Timor will appear in an upcoming issue of the journal Globalizations. His personal blog can be found here.
References for this article can be found here.
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 or email coha@coha.org
August 30, 2011
caribbeannewsnow
Brazil’s leadership in the United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti (MINUSTAH) may be coming to its end. The newly-appointed defense minister, Celso Amorin (most recently he served as foreign affairs minister from 2003 to 2011) recently declared to the Brazilian media that he “supports the withdrawal of Brazilian troops from Haiti.”[1] Should this happen, it would be a major departure from the status quo, and would greatly affect MINUSTAH’s operations, as well as jolt Brazil’s role as the Caribbean’s major arbiter of security. Furthermore, Brasilia’s quest for a permanent seat in the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) has been partially based on its role in MINUSTAH as an example of its readiness for a UN seat, which may now be called into question.
Brazil’s role in Haiti
Brasilia racked up a huge leadership role in MINUSTAH, which had as its mission to aid the transitional government that gained control of Haiti (via the UNSC’s resolution 1542) after President Jean-Bertrand Aristide was ousted in early 2004. The mission was controversial at the time and drew heavy criticism from its inception as it was regarded as a type of colonial government by the UN in the wake of Aristide’s abrupt forced departure from power, following major national protests and violence. At the time, there were persistent accusations that the U.S., Canada and France had a role in the Haitian head of state’s ouster.
Brazil has provided the military commanders for MINUSTAH along with a significant number of its forces over the past seven years. Brasilia has reportedly deployed 1,266 army and navy troops to MINUSTAH,[2] but, in the aftermath of the massive January 2010 earthquake that struck Haiti, the Brazilian Congress approved a request to send 1,300 additional troops to the Caribbean country to help with relief operations.[3]
In January 2006, there was a bizarre incident in which MINUSTAH’s commander, Lieutenant General Urano Teixeira da Matta, committed suicide while in his hotel room in Port-au-Prince. In cables published by Wikileaks, Dominican President Leonel Fernandez told State Department Assistant Secretary Patrick Duddy that he suspected that Teixeira had been assassinated by a paramilitary group, possibly led by Guy Philippe, a renowned Haitian cutpurse and rebel leader with a good deal of political clout.[4] MINUSTAH’s current commander is Major General Luiz Eduardo Ramos Pereira, also from Brazil.[5]
According to MINUSTAH’s official website, the mission’s current strength (as of June 30, 2011) totals 12,261 uniformed personnel, not including volunteers as well as international and local civilian personnel. Since its inception, the mission has suffered 164 fatalities, 66 of which were military personnel. Twenty UN Brazilian soldiers were killed in the January 2010 earthquake.[6]
Brazil Inside and Out
Dilma Rousseff’s first year as president of Brazil has been far from ideal as a number of senior and high-profile members of her cabinet have resigned. The list includes: Agriculture Minister Wagner Rossi, Defense Minister Nelson Jobim, Transportation Minister Alfredo Nascimento, as well as President Rousseff’s chief of staff, Antonio Palocci.[7] Should the Brazilian head of state decide to maintain her troops in Haiti despite the defense minister’s opinion to the contrary, this may put Rousseff at odds with other key members of her cabinet, as well as with the military’s leadership. Furthermore, a recent letter to the Brazilian President was signed by a number of legislators, like Markus Sokol of the PT (Partido dos Trabalhadores – Worker’s Party) National Directorate, representatives of the CUT (Central Única dos Trabalhadores – Unified Worker’s Central) and the MST (Movimento dos Trabalhadores Rurais Sem Terra – Landless Workers’ Movement) , as well as others. The open letter states: “we must end Brazil’s participation in a military operation that is repudiated by the vast majority of the Haitian people … this occupation has only deepened the plight of the people and has denied them their sovereignty.”[8]
It is worth noting that some influential Brazilians do support a continued presence in Haiti. Geraldo Cavagnari, member of the Center for Strategic Studies at the University of Campinas (Unicamp) has declared that “the troops should stay put because there is no risk, and there are many things in play.”[9] The other “many things” most likely include Brazil’s hardly concealed quest for a permanent UNSC seat.
Another factor that may influence the future role of Brazil in Haiti may be budgetary issues. An August 15, 2011 article entitled “Bye Bye MINUSTAH” published by the Canada Haiti Action Network,[10] explains that since 2004, Brazil’s taxpayers have spent over R$ 1 billion on MINUSTAH. Last year alone, maintenance of the Brazilian troops in Haiti cost R$ 426 million: R$ 140 million for annual costs and other expenditures, plus R$ 286 million for humanitarian aid sent after the 2010 earthquake. The analysis goes on to argue that in principle, the UN should reimburse these expenses, but in recent years the reimbursements have amounted to only 16% of the payments made by the Brazilian government. The article finally adds that, in addition, the salaries of Brazil’s MINUSTAH troops have, in fact, exceeded R$ 41 million per year, but these costs are excluded from Brazil’s expenses on the mission because these individuals would be entitled to their pay even if they were in Brazil. The Portuguese-speaking nation is currently enjoying an economic boom, but this will most likely not last, in part because the Brazilian currency, the real, is showing signs of being overvalued. If a period of economic austerity appears, the Brazilian government may be forced to rethink some of its peacekeeping operations and other major military commitments.
An official interviewed by the author, who wished to remain anonymous, explained that Brazil as well as several other states have desired to leave Haiti for some time and they argue that there is already some kind of, at least superficial, political stability in the Caribbean state. It would seem that the recent Haitian presidential elections, as dubious and controversial as they were, may serve as part of Brazil’s “exit strategy” for leaving MINUSTAH.
An Unsuccessful Departure?
Brazil’s military has been involved in Haiti since 2004 but, unfortunately, few positive developments have stemmed from Brazil’s limited interactions in the small Caribbean nation. MINUSTAH operations managed to pacify most violent neighborhoods, like Cite Soleil in 2005, but they also were responsible for carrying out human rights abuses that have been well- documented, which gained further criticism of the UN operation.
A critical moment occurred on January 12, 2010, when a 7.0 magnitude earthquake destroyed most infrastructure in Port- au-Prince as well as other Haitian towns across the country. A recent report by the U.S. Agency for International Development, obtained by the Miami Herald, states that between 46,190 and 86,961 people died and less than 66,625 quake victims are living in hundreds of camps scattered around the capital.[11] In the aftermath of the disaster, dozens of international governments agencies and relief organizations have poured into the country to help with search operations and to take care of the thousands of Haitians that were left homeless and with very little food and shelter. MINUSTAH was not spared of some of these losses. This was particularly the case as the mission’s headquarters in Haiti collapsed killing several UN employees;[12] however the body did continue to carry out relief operations. A February 2010 UN report praised MINUSTAH’s emergency response, explaining that “MINUSTAH, despite its own losses, acted as a crucial first responder, opening the major arterial road from the Port-au-Prince airport to the town centre, re-establishing communications and opening its medical facilities to victims.”[13] The Security Reform Resource Centre adds that:
“In the months following the earthquake, MINUSTAH made significant contributions providing logistical and administrative support to relief efforts. MINUSTAH supplied security assistance for humanitarian operations, operational support to the Haitian National Police (HNP), provided technical advice and support to state institutions at the sub-national level, assisted in repairing the damage to critical infrastructure of the judiciary, and coordinated a large-scale public information campaign.”[14]
In any case, the praise MINUSTAH received for its operations in the aftermath of the 2010 earthquake proved to be short-lived. In October 2010, MINUSTAH troops apparently introduced a cholera epidemic in Haiti by dumping fecal matter into the country’s rivers. Over 5,000 individuals have died due to the cholera outbreak and thousands more are infected. A March 2011 report by the BBC highlights the variety of estimates of how many Haitians currently are, and could possibly become, infected, with numbers ranging from 400,000 to a possible 779,000 by November of this year.[15] A July 2011 article in the Los Angeles Times reported that “the [Haitian] Health Ministry reported more than 1,000 new cholera cases a day last month [June].”[16] There were several protests against MINUSTAH when the local population realized how the epidemic started.[17] It is important to clarify that it seems that UN peacekeepers from Nepal most likely started the cholera epidemic, not personnel coming from Brazil.
Furthermore, it is necessary to note that a possible Brazilian withdrawal from MINUSTAH is just an option for the moment, and it would take time for the minister Amorin’s proposal to become an official government-sanctioned plan, if it does at all. Even more time would be needed to arrange the logistics for the Brazilian troops to actually leave Haiti; hence any Brazilian departure will not likely occur anytime soon.
MINUSTAH without Brazil?
Should Brasilia decide to pull all of its troops from the Caribbean nation, the future of MINUSTAH may be called into question. Can the mission survive without the major donor of its troops, and the one with the most zeal to do so? Possibly yes, but the UN will face several new problems, like finding replacement troops from other nations to make up for the departure of the Brazilians. In addition, if Brazil does depart, other states that supply troops to MINUSTAH, may decide to leave the operation as well. As previously mentioned, some states, besides Haiti, may already be looking for an exit strategy to leave that country. In an extreme scenario, MINUSTAH may end up with a reduced force and a more limited ability to carry out its operations.
A final critical factor that may affect MINUSTAH’s future will be the Haitian government, which now has a new president, if highly problematic, former singer Michel Martelly. As part of his campaign promises, the new head of state has declared his interest in reforming the controversial Haitian army to help improve internal security. The country’s military was disbanded in 1995 by President Jean-Bertrand Aristide, after he was deposed in a coup and then restored to power with the help of U.N. forces.[18] Historically the Haitian army has been known for its violent acts and lack of political neutrality, particularly under the Duvalier dictatorships. An April 2011 article in the Washington Post quotes Martelly as saying that “the new armed forces wouldn’t be known for brutality, as their predecessors were.”[19] The Haitian leader may be looking to replace MINUSTAH, which it cannot control, with local security forces sworn to comply with his orders.
If Brazil leaves, what role should the US play?
A 2008 State Department document made public by Wikileaks, explains that “the UN Stabilization Mission in Haiti is an indispensable tool in realizing core USG [U.S. government] policy interests in [that country].”[20] The disclosed report then adds “paying one-quarter of MINUSTAH’s budget through our DPKO [department of peace keeping operations] assessment, the U.S. reaps the security and stabilization benefits of a 9,000-person international military and civilian stabilization mission in the hemisphere’s most troubled country. […] in the current context of our military commitments elsewhere, the U.S. alone could not replace this mission.” With military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and, for the time being, in Libya, embarking on a series of new military challenges, even if it’s under an UN-peacekeeping mantle, may prove too costly for Washington and particularly the Barack Obama administration, which will have to face re-elections in 2012.
MINUSTAH has been controversial since its origins, and a more visible U.S. involvement in Haiti would be cumbersome and would add to a long list of lamentable military involvement in that country. U.S.-Haitian relations have been historically problematic, as they mostly revolve around American military operations in that island, including from 1914-1934, in 1994 and, most recently, in 2004 when Aristide was ousted. It is necessary to note that Washington did deploy the carrier USS Carl Vinson [21] along with the USNS Comfort and thousands of military personnel[22] to provide help in the aftermath of the 2010 earthquake.
Deploying American troops in Haitian territory is a questionable practice, and it’s highly unlikely that it will happen; nevertheless it would be helpful for Washington’s national interests to continue working with the UN and the Haitian government so that the Caribbean nation avoids becoming a failed state.
Regarding Brazil, one can see the reasons for leaving the mission, including its unpopularity, lack of major successes and financial costs. With that said, it is illogical to think that any departure would occur quickly. If Brasilia does decide to leave MINUSTAH, at the very least it should have a responsible exchange of power and responsibilities to other UN personnel or Haitian security forces. As a recommendation, we can observe that while most of Brazilian military personnel will ultimately leave Haiti, some senior officers should stay in a consultancy basis, particularly in order to keep training the Haitian police. In spite of MINUSTAH’s controversial origins, we cannot forget Haiti’s internal problems (some of which were collectively caused by foreign powers); the international community hopefully should leave the country in better shape than when it entered it.
Alex Sanchez, a COHA research fellow, recently published an article discussing Brazil’s UN ambitions and its role in MINUSTAH: W. Alex Sanchez, “An Easy Way to Improve U.S.-Latin American Relations” (Washington, DC: Foreign Policy In Focus, July 28, 2011). Available: http://bit.ly/qXB41y. In addition, an article that discusses Brazil’s role in MINUSTAH and the UN mission in East Timor will appear in an upcoming issue of the journal Globalizations. His personal blog can be found here.
References for this article can be found here.
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 or email coha@coha.org
August 30, 2011
caribbeannewsnow
Monday, August 29, 2011
The rebellion against Christianity
"The spirit lusteth against the flesh and the flesh lusteth against the spirit."
Do you know it is vogue to be an atheist on university campuses? Do you know that every young person finds it interesting, modern and attractive when a professor or student says, "I don't believe in God" or "God doesn't matter." There is only one God, whether we be Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, animist. "God is the same for all religions and, therefore, Christianity is neither here nor there," our modern intellectuals would say.
There is also a popular sophisticated agnosticism which says, "I don't know if there is a God or not; it doesn't matter, we just need to live our lives passionately."
How can I deny an inner yearning, a deep desire, sometimes a desperate desire to kneel and bow before the almighty God and simply cry out: "I place myself before you, Almighty God. I know that I am nothing." Sometimes in exultation, sometimes in desperation, but always we want to submit ourselves to the almighty God as sinners, or, as someone yearning deeply for meaning. There are times we feel empty in this lonely and selfish world of ours, but better that than giving into the world.
Christ shows the way
Christ, the incarnate God, revealing the Father's will in the flesh, serving others, forgiving sins, performing miracles, dying on the cross, restoring the brokenness of our nature, loving us and calling us to repentance and to His heavenly Kingdom, suffered rejection and death as he fixed his attention on us, of His infinite love. He shows the way in an absolute world of absurdity, while we journey to the light and everlasting life.
There is a rebellion against the Church and Christianity in our modern times. We are like sheep who have gone astray. Many of us, pastors and shepherds, have lost the central focus of life, which is Christ.
There is also the media's lack of respect and its infinite variety of pagan values and pleasures. This flesh is always crying out to be satisfied. The vulgar part of us wants everything for me, my flesh, my popularity, position and prestige, rather than the spiritual desire to be one with the eternal God.
We no longer believe in the divine, the transcendence of God, and the longing of our spirit, our souls, to go beyond ourselves. Our materialistic and hedonistic flesh wants no moral mandates or restrictions. We want to be free, we want to be on our own, we want to do what pleases us.
Happy with atheism
Christianity - and its call (if it is the true brand of Christianity) - do not go along with the craving for self-fulfilment of every appetite. The market, or the world, is happy with atheism, individualism, and self-satisfaction. Thus, it needs to destroy Christianity and free us to live a hedonistic life.
We cannot continue feeding this valley of the flesh that Europe and North America seem to be encouraging all over the world, taking advantage of the poor countries and their naïve trust of rich countries which propose self-indulgent ways of living to be progressive.
The restlessness of our worldly appetites will only bring about death. We want to destroy the babies in the wombs, the old people, the people who are defective (by some people's definition), the poor and the non-productive people our world.
Wealthy, advanced persons of our world haven't been able to solve the problem of poverty. The rich must kill off the poor in order to eliminate conscience problems.
Yet, the call to self-sacrifice and service shall not stop. Christ, the crucified one, the one true God, the only God of all gods, who lived, suffered, and died for us remains indelibly on our souls, an everlasting image stamped in the very depth of ourselves, forever and ever.
The atheistic, materialistic world finds Christ dangerous. Today, He is ridiculed and mocked in movies, the general media, and the fuzzy-headed arguments at the universities and in our homes. But His word and His ways are firm: "I am the living bread of life: without me you will die."
We might rebel for a while but, finally, we must face up to the truth: "I am the way, the truth, and the life."
Father Richard Ho Lung is founder of Missionaries of the Poor Jesuit charity.
August 29, 2011
jamaica-gleaner
Do you know it is vogue to be an atheist on university campuses? Do you know that every young person finds it interesting, modern and attractive when a professor or student says, "I don't believe in God" or "God doesn't matter." There is only one God, whether we be Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, animist. "God is the same for all religions and, therefore, Christianity is neither here nor there," our modern intellectuals would say.
There is also a popular sophisticated agnosticism which says, "I don't know if there is a God or not; it doesn't matter, we just need to live our lives passionately."
How can I deny an inner yearning, a deep desire, sometimes a desperate desire to kneel and bow before the almighty God and simply cry out: "I place myself before you, Almighty God. I know that I am nothing." Sometimes in exultation, sometimes in desperation, but always we want to submit ourselves to the almighty God as sinners, or, as someone yearning deeply for meaning. There are times we feel empty in this lonely and selfish world of ours, but better that than giving into the world.
Christ shows the way
Christ, the incarnate God, revealing the Father's will in the flesh, serving others, forgiving sins, performing miracles, dying on the cross, restoring the brokenness of our nature, loving us and calling us to repentance and to His heavenly Kingdom, suffered rejection and death as he fixed his attention on us, of His infinite love. He shows the way in an absolute world of absurdity, while we journey to the light and everlasting life.
There is a rebellion against the Church and Christianity in our modern times. We are like sheep who have gone astray. Many of us, pastors and shepherds, have lost the central focus of life, which is Christ.
There is also the media's lack of respect and its infinite variety of pagan values and pleasures. This flesh is always crying out to be satisfied. The vulgar part of us wants everything for me, my flesh, my popularity, position and prestige, rather than the spiritual desire to be one with the eternal God.
We no longer believe in the divine, the transcendence of God, and the longing of our spirit, our souls, to go beyond ourselves. Our materialistic and hedonistic flesh wants no moral mandates or restrictions. We want to be free, we want to be on our own, we want to do what pleases us.
Happy with atheism
Christianity - and its call (if it is the true brand of Christianity) - do not go along with the craving for self-fulfilment of every appetite. The market, or the world, is happy with atheism, individualism, and self-satisfaction. Thus, it needs to destroy Christianity and free us to live a hedonistic life.
We cannot continue feeding this valley of the flesh that Europe and North America seem to be encouraging all over the world, taking advantage of the poor countries and their naïve trust of rich countries which propose self-indulgent ways of living to be progressive.
The restlessness of our worldly appetites will only bring about death. We want to destroy the babies in the wombs, the old people, the people who are defective (by some people's definition), the poor and the non-productive people our world.
Wealthy, advanced persons of our world haven't been able to solve the problem of poverty. The rich must kill off the poor in order to eliminate conscience problems.
Yet, the call to self-sacrifice and service shall not stop. Christ, the crucified one, the one true God, the only God of all gods, who lived, suffered, and died for us remains indelibly on our souls, an everlasting image stamped in the very depth of ourselves, forever and ever.
The atheistic, materialistic world finds Christ dangerous. Today, He is ridiculed and mocked in movies, the general media, and the fuzzy-headed arguments at the universities and in our homes. But His word and His ways are firm: "I am the living bread of life: without me you will die."
We might rebel for a while but, finally, we must face up to the truth: "I am the way, the truth, and the life."
Father Richard Ho Lung is founder of Missionaries of the Poor Jesuit charity.
August 29, 2011
jamaica-gleaner
Sunday, August 28, 2011
Post-Gaddafi, is Cuba next?
By David Roberts
As the Gaddafi regime appears set to crumble in Libya, perhaps now is as good a time as any to reflect on Latin America's last remaining dictatorship - Cuba.
There are more than a few similarities between the two regimes. Both are led by highly charismatic - some may say deluded - personalities in the form of Muammar al Gaddafi in Libya and, in the case of Cuba, Fidel Castro, who has largely given way in his old age to his slightly younger and much duller brother Raúl. Both the Libyan and Cuban systems of government claim to be socialist, in one guise or other, and both have lasted for decades, in part thanks to a brutal security apparatus. Both have also irked and confronted the liberal, democratic and capitalist west, and above all Washington, over the decades, in the case of Libya using terrorist tactics to do so.
In addition - and evidence of this has been seen in the Libyan conflict in recent months - both clearly have a significant degree of support among their respective peoples, although whether it was ever a majority is another matter. There are of course good reasons why the two regimes have enjoyed a degree of support. Gaddafi has used Libya's oil wealth over the years to make the country one of the most developed in the region, and also counted on the backing of his own tribe, while the Castro-led revolution overthrew a despised, pro-US dictator, winning the admiration of leftist ideologues around the world, and the subsequent regime has, despite its faults, made considerable progress in areas such as healthcare and education.
So why has one been brought to its knees while the other appears to be standing firm? There has, of course, been much speculation - often wild and unfounded, disguised as analysis - as to the real causes of the Arab uprisings, including poverty, corruption, cronyism, governments that simply don't care about their people and, at least the western world would like to believe, a genuine desire for democracy, all helped along by the use of social media. But one thing is clear, which is that no one foresaw what was coming and the governments that have been toppled or have come close to being toppled from Tunisia to Bahrain, all looked pretty secure less than a year ago from today. Just like Cuba right now.
So could the same thing happen in Cuba? Yes, of course it could. Many ask why don't the Cuban people rise up against the tyrants and demand their rights? Or how can people be so passive in the face of such tyranny? Yet the same could have been said all across North Africa and much of the Middle East until just a few months ago.
These things may not be predictable, even by the most astute of the so-called experts and analysts, but the important thing - whether we're talking about Libya today or Cuba tomorrow - is to be as best prepared as possible for a change, both the domestic opposition and the international community, to help ensure that mistakes of the past are not repeated and that what replaces the current regime is a big improvement on the old order, preferably with something resembling democracy. In the case of Libya, that includes not destroying the infrastructure developed by the Gaddafi regime, or "punishing" people for having worked for the government - and avoid letting the country fall into chaos like what happened in Iraq - and in the case of Cuba it would mean not reversing the gains made in health and education, among other things.
bnamericas
As the Gaddafi regime appears set to crumble in Libya, perhaps now is as good a time as any to reflect on Latin America's last remaining dictatorship - Cuba.
There are more than a few similarities between the two regimes. Both are led by highly charismatic - some may say deluded - personalities in the form of Muammar al Gaddafi in Libya and, in the case of Cuba, Fidel Castro, who has largely given way in his old age to his slightly younger and much duller brother Raúl. Both the Libyan and Cuban systems of government claim to be socialist, in one guise or other, and both have lasted for decades, in part thanks to a brutal security apparatus. Both have also irked and confronted the liberal, democratic and capitalist west, and above all Washington, over the decades, in the case of Libya using terrorist tactics to do so.
In addition - and evidence of this has been seen in the Libyan conflict in recent months - both clearly have a significant degree of support among their respective peoples, although whether it was ever a majority is another matter. There are of course good reasons why the two regimes have enjoyed a degree of support. Gaddafi has used Libya's oil wealth over the years to make the country one of the most developed in the region, and also counted on the backing of his own tribe, while the Castro-led revolution overthrew a despised, pro-US dictator, winning the admiration of leftist ideologues around the world, and the subsequent regime has, despite its faults, made considerable progress in areas such as healthcare and education.
So why has one been brought to its knees while the other appears to be standing firm? There has, of course, been much speculation - often wild and unfounded, disguised as analysis - as to the real causes of the Arab uprisings, including poverty, corruption, cronyism, governments that simply don't care about their people and, at least the western world would like to believe, a genuine desire for democracy, all helped along by the use of social media. But one thing is clear, which is that no one foresaw what was coming and the governments that have been toppled or have come close to being toppled from Tunisia to Bahrain, all looked pretty secure less than a year ago from today. Just like Cuba right now.
So could the same thing happen in Cuba? Yes, of course it could. Many ask why don't the Cuban people rise up against the tyrants and demand their rights? Or how can people be so passive in the face of such tyranny? Yet the same could have been said all across North Africa and much of the Middle East until just a few months ago.
These things may not be predictable, even by the most astute of the so-called experts and analysts, but the important thing - whether we're talking about Libya today or Cuba tomorrow - is to be as best prepared as possible for a change, both the domestic opposition and the international community, to help ensure that mistakes of the past are not repeated and that what replaces the current regime is a big improvement on the old order, preferably with something resembling democracy. In the case of Libya, that includes not destroying the infrastructure developed by the Gaddafi regime, or "punishing" people for having worked for the government - and avoid letting the country fall into chaos like what happened in Iraq - and in the case of Cuba it would mean not reversing the gains made in health and education, among other things.
bnamericas
Saturday, August 27, 2011
The war is on: The battle for Trinidad and Tobago
By Rebecca Theodore
A state of public emergency exists in the twin-island republic of Trinidad and Tobago. It includes the power to search and seize without a warrant and powers of arrest and detention by police officers and soldiers. Persons should not have in their possession materials or documents which are likely to lead to a breach of the peace. Persons are also prohibited from making statements that are prejudicial to public disorder.
Yes, “the war on crime is on,” declares attorney general Anand Ramlogan. The recent occurrence of 11 murders in one day bears the scars for immediate action. The air is filled with fear. Blood stains the alleyways. Distant screams haunt the night as mothers wail over the loss of their sons and daughters. Streets lay empty and bare while starving dogs fight over misplaced men's meat and children's bones. “Indeed!” laments the passer-by, “crime has besieged the consciousness of our nation.”
This is the new Trinidad and Tobago. This is the land of hope and glory and the sweet black trinity that calypsonian Sparrow sang about. This is the oil rich republic that historian Dr Eric Williams defended to his dying breath. This is the unrecognizable land mired in chaotic and contradictory fury, held hostage by a pillaging group of thugs and gangs, who are rewriting its history to reflect their own morbid view of reality.
And now the only choice left is to pay careful attention to the criminal element that exists within the very ranks of the police service, the army and other government departments.
Trinidad and Tobago was placed on a Tier Two Listing by the International Organization for Migration (IOM) and the US Department of State as early as 2010. As the most active country of origin and transit point for regional and extra-regional irregular migration to North America and Europe, Trinidad and Tobago was warned about the vulnerability of its borders to transnational organized crime networks and the risk of being exploited by terrorists and murderous drug lords by its own immigration officials and security personnel.
But this warning fell on deaf ears.
According to the US State Department, the regular presence of small cargo fishing boats (pirogues) from Venezuela and other Caribbean islands, loaded with drug shipments, continue to go unnoticed because security forces do a poor job of screening maritime traffic and who many times have been paid large sums of money to remain quiet.
Gangs loyal to political parties or to the police garner more respect than law abiding civilians. Victims of police brutality go by unmentioned. Institutional dysfunction allows violence to continue into escalation of gang warfare.
A state of emergency at this late stage of the game, after the criminals have long been given notice by interior forces to leave the hotspots and go underground allowing them to set up new cells and safer havens, comes as a laughing game.
Now attorney general Ramlogan, national security minister John Sandy, acting police commissioner Stephen Williams and chief of defence staff Brigadier Kenrick Maharaj are at their peak in going after gang members, circulation of firearms and drug traffickers and are bidding to get as many weapons as possible off the streets.
But this action comes a bit too late.
Rather than embrace their responsibility of sweeping out corruption within their own ranks, prime minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar has instead chosen to incite fear and confusion in the minds of the citizenry and visitors alike by instigating a state of emergency, while the very creed of national security and all its code of ethics of the public service are being ceaselessly undermined by the corruption of its own immigration officers, police officers, military personnel and some of its notorious elites.
Abuse of immigration stamps, issuance of birth certificates, bribery and government passports to foreign nationals, has failed to ensure immediate actions into tabling legislation to deal with the problem of human smuggling and trafficking, hence inciting a free reign to make a mockery of justice by deflecting responsibility back to the very system that failed in the first place.
Critics argue that the state of emergency curtails the freedom of citizens, suspends the public’s constitutional rights, deprives citizens of their human rights and scares investor confidence. The rhetorical and inflammatory call to action for a state of emergency repels the root of the problem and favours the murderous gang lords more than the citizens and does not equal a platform for change.
Simply stated, the criminal element in Trinidad and Tobago lies in weak legislation and lax border controls to corrupt immigration officials, and police and security personnel operating from within.
The unrivaled moral task of saving Trinidad and Tobago, while at the same time safeguarding the lives of its citizens from the destructive effects of crime, sits evenly with co-operation and intelligence sharing between Trinidad and Tobago, and US officials.
August 27, 2011
caribbeannewsnow
A state of public emergency exists in the twin-island republic of Trinidad and Tobago. It includes the power to search and seize without a warrant and powers of arrest and detention by police officers and soldiers. Persons should not have in their possession materials or documents which are likely to lead to a breach of the peace. Persons are also prohibited from making statements that are prejudicial to public disorder.
Yes, “the war on crime is on,” declares attorney general Anand Ramlogan. The recent occurrence of 11 murders in one day bears the scars for immediate action. The air is filled with fear. Blood stains the alleyways. Distant screams haunt the night as mothers wail over the loss of their sons and daughters. Streets lay empty and bare while starving dogs fight over misplaced men's meat and children's bones. “Indeed!” laments the passer-by, “crime has besieged the consciousness of our nation.”This is the new Trinidad and Tobago. This is the land of hope and glory and the sweet black trinity that calypsonian Sparrow sang about. This is the oil rich republic that historian Dr Eric Williams defended to his dying breath. This is the unrecognizable land mired in chaotic and contradictory fury, held hostage by a pillaging group of thugs and gangs, who are rewriting its history to reflect their own morbid view of reality.
And now the only choice left is to pay careful attention to the criminal element that exists within the very ranks of the police service, the army and other government departments.
Trinidad and Tobago was placed on a Tier Two Listing by the International Organization for Migration (IOM) and the US Department of State as early as 2010. As the most active country of origin and transit point for regional and extra-regional irregular migration to North America and Europe, Trinidad and Tobago was warned about the vulnerability of its borders to transnational organized crime networks and the risk of being exploited by terrorists and murderous drug lords by its own immigration officials and security personnel.
But this warning fell on deaf ears.
According to the US State Department, the regular presence of small cargo fishing boats (pirogues) from Venezuela and other Caribbean islands, loaded with drug shipments, continue to go unnoticed because security forces do a poor job of screening maritime traffic and who many times have been paid large sums of money to remain quiet.
Gangs loyal to political parties or to the police garner more respect than law abiding civilians. Victims of police brutality go by unmentioned. Institutional dysfunction allows violence to continue into escalation of gang warfare.
A state of emergency at this late stage of the game, after the criminals have long been given notice by interior forces to leave the hotspots and go underground allowing them to set up new cells and safer havens, comes as a laughing game.
Now attorney general Ramlogan, national security minister John Sandy, acting police commissioner Stephen Williams and chief of defence staff Brigadier Kenrick Maharaj are at their peak in going after gang members, circulation of firearms and drug traffickers and are bidding to get as many weapons as possible off the streets.
But this action comes a bit too late.
Rather than embrace their responsibility of sweeping out corruption within their own ranks, prime minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar has instead chosen to incite fear and confusion in the minds of the citizenry and visitors alike by instigating a state of emergency, while the very creed of national security and all its code of ethics of the public service are being ceaselessly undermined by the corruption of its own immigration officers, police officers, military personnel and some of its notorious elites.
Abuse of immigration stamps, issuance of birth certificates, bribery and government passports to foreign nationals, has failed to ensure immediate actions into tabling legislation to deal with the problem of human smuggling and trafficking, hence inciting a free reign to make a mockery of justice by deflecting responsibility back to the very system that failed in the first place.
Critics argue that the state of emergency curtails the freedom of citizens, suspends the public’s constitutional rights, deprives citizens of their human rights and scares investor confidence. The rhetorical and inflammatory call to action for a state of emergency repels the root of the problem and favours the murderous gang lords more than the citizens and does not equal a platform for change.
Simply stated, the criminal element in Trinidad and Tobago lies in weak legislation and lax border controls to corrupt immigration officials, and police and security personnel operating from within.
The unrivaled moral task of saving Trinidad and Tobago, while at the same time safeguarding the lives of its citizens from the destructive effects of crime, sits evenly with co-operation and intelligence sharing between Trinidad and Tobago, and US officials.
August 27, 2011
caribbeannewsnow
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)