A Tribute to Barack Obama... America’s 44th President

Tribute to Barack Obama

BY DION FOULKES
Nassau, The Bahamas

The re-election of America’s 44th president is a profound accomplishment for our great neighbor to the north and a good omen for the rest of the world.

This is part of a broader trend in which the arc of history continues to bend towards greater equality and inclusion in the universal human family.

That arc must be bent by every generation, in every age, and in every place where exclusion and inequality smothers the human spirit and shackles progress.

As a student at the University of Indiana more than a few years ago I was privileged to participate in a campaign that successfully pushed for a U.S. federal holiday to honor the life and witness of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Those efforts included organizing hundreds of students for a modern March on Washington, ending at the National Mall in Washington D.C. where Dr. King led an earlier historic March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom.

Because of the power of the dream expressed at that protest march at the Lincoln Memorial in 1963, just 40 years after Dr. King’s death the world witnessed the first inauguration on the west steps of the U.S. Capitol Building of an African American as president of the most powerful country in the world.

That was four years ago.

On the 21st of January 2013, Martin Luther King Day, President Barack Obama will take the oath of office for a second time.

Both Dr. King and Mr. Obama understood that progress only comes when enough people feel the need to move “Forward”.

Here at home, The Bahamas long ago met the challenge of the forward movement when we ended the property vote, extended the franchise to women, achieved majority rule and opened up the highest offices in the land to all Bahamians regardless of race, ethnicity or gender.

Both major political parties in our nation count among their members and founders those who fought for human dignity and the expansion of human rights for every Bahamian, no matter their color or creed.

For any one party - then or now - to claim this legacy as an exclusive possession would be an act of amnesia, or gross arrogance.

I share with other second and third generation Bahamian politicians a personal connection to this national movement for freedom and progress.

My father,  H. E. Sir Arthur Foulkes, in the late 1950s collaborated with others to create the National Committee for Positive Action, the NCPA, which transformed the face of Bahamian politics.  To those who were saying, “no we can’t” or “maybe we shouldn’t”, our fathers said, “yes we can”  and they moved forward.

Both King and Obama would recognize in the NCPA a kindred spirit, a movement for change that grew out of the audacity of hope, a movement that combined high principles with grassroots organizing, idealism with pragmatism, thoughtful action with extraordinary courage.

I am proud that the party of which I am privileged to be a member, and which bears the name “freedom”, has a rich legacy of expanding democratic freedoms, be they political, economic or social.

The Free National Movement (FNM) moved forward with freeing the broadcast media and expanding civil rights.

The FNM moved with greater transparency and accountability in government.

The FNM moved forward with more progressive labor and inheritance laws.

We moved forward with a social safety net for the vulnerable and created empowerment and training opportunities for the economically displaced.

Barack Obama is a product of both the African Diaspora and European settlement, a convergence of which helped to mold the histories of both The Bahamas and America.

And, lest we forget, this child of a mother with deep roots in America is also the son of an African immigrant.

His story reminds us that while we must be ever vigilant regarding illegal immigration, we must be equally vigilant against the scapegoating of those from other lands, including those with so-called unusual names -- such as Barack Hussein Obama.

Part of the appeal of America is the ability to inspire and assimilate others into the enduring power of the American Dream, a dream rooted in the pursuit of a singular ideal:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.”

America’s election of a black man after a brutal legacy of slavery and racism is a testament to those ideals and a continued test for America, despite this historic election.

This struggle for justice and equality has never been confined within national boundaries.

In our 21st Century world older, imperfect democracies like The Bahamas and the United States of America have a shared moral obligation to ensure that those fighting against injustice and inequality within state boundaries find global allies.

Mass hunger, genocide, the spread of nuclear weapons and the effects of global warming are challenges for all states, whether they have a population of 330 million or a population of 330,000.

In The Bahamas and throughout the world there is tremendous hope that President Obama has the life story, vision and temperament to continue the work with the global community to re-energize international institutions and practices that are needed to confront a host of transnational issues.

President Obama’s experience living abroad, his openness of mind and spirit and his communications skills has helped him to live up to his stated commitment to seek common solutions over unilateral adventures.

Just as President Obama recognized that his election was a new moment in America, he appreciates that his re-election is a renewed moment for the world.  Today a country’s domestic concerns cannot be separated from broader international challenges.

The Bahamas, the Caribbean and the world look forward to a new era of cooperation with the United States of America and its president to promote human prosperity, to ensure energy security and to craft a sustainable future.

The journey that led to the historic election of America’s 44th president suggests that these goals can be achieved if we never lose the audacity of hope and a commitment to the conviction that all of God’s children, whatever their ethnicity, gender, color, creed or economic status are entitled to the fruits of justice, opportunity and freedom.

• Dion Foulkes is a former minister of labour in the previous Free National Movement administration.

January 04, 2013

thenassauguardian

Bahamas Blog International

Compromise and American politics

By Louis EA Moyston:



In recent months, weeks and days we have been listening to news on American politics and the search for a compromise. The history of this word is rooted in American politics from the Constitutional Convention in the post-1776 period to the civil war of the 1860s. The American system of government is based on a compromise - a reasonable agreement between two or more parties. The emergent Tea Party politics that has fuelled the Republican Party has outlined the ideological framework for the Republicans in Washington, creating an inflexible political atmosphere. It is this ideology that has caused the stalemate - the ideological thrust has no room for compromise because their inflexibility is rooted in the idea that they must get rid of Barack Obama, making him a one-term president.

Just look at the BRICS nations and you will understand the magnitude of America's problem. America has lost its industrial edge and has been in two major wars that have been sucking the nation's resources. This combination has led to the decline of the USA. If they manage to get rid of Obama, a nativistic agenda will emerge in the USA - blacks and foreigners will become the focal point of their aggression. Norway has given us an important lesson. The weakness of the sharing of power in the US government may require new reforms regarding decision-making of this nature.

There is a rich history of compromise in American politics. It was the compromise between the Virginia and the New Jersey plans on the idea for the system of government as it is today. Other major compromises - 1820, 1850 and 1877 - more or less had to do with slavery, the politics of the South and the new territories in the West. American politics is built on compromises - the ability for parties or others to arrive at a reasonable conclusion; it is about making deals.
Interestingly, many of the compromises in the past had to do with slavery. This is a history that Obama has to live with. The objective of the Tea Party-led Republicans is to get rid of Obama by bringing the government to its knees at all costs. It is important to look at the Tea Party and its last election campaign. There was a convergence of traditional right-wingers and Tea Party adherents in a campaign to demonise Obama. They insisted that he was not an American citizen and that he intended to apply the "Kenyan model" to America. There are two leading Tea Party women in the Republican Party who spend their time describing Obama as a person who lacks the capacity to lead. What is evident is not a new plan but the right-wing ideology that is linked to the fact that they cannot stand to see a black man in the White House. The world was in awe - the morning after - when Barack Obama became the president of the USA, and so too were many Americans. Obama has the capacity to lead. Indeed, he is among four great intellects of the American presidency - Lincoln, Wilson and Clinton. I write not as a fan of Obama but I respect his intellect and his story.

Generally speaking, political parties in America are different from political parties in England, Norway, Sweden, Germany and Jamaica. Parties in America are renewed, re-energised and re-inspired by external "locomotives". In recent decades there have been two clear regroupings of conservatives to play a "revolutionary" role in American politics. In the 1980s there was the emergence of the role of interest and lobby groups and their use of the media to influence American politics in their ideological interest. In the 1980s it was about the "Reagan revolution" and today in another "revolutionary" coat there is Tea Party politics. It was the surge of the Tea Party that significantly assisted the victory of the Republicans in the mid-term elections that put the Republicans in a leading political role on Washington. There is nothing easy about politics, but it is wise to defend a position as an end and not as a means. To treat political decisions like desire-satisfying desires is far from doing the right thing for the right reason. There is that inclination to remove Obama that has landed American politics in a morass of moral pollution.

It is important to look at America beyond Obama. Who landed the country where it is now? Who landed America in two major wars costing the country much of its wealth in a period when America was unable to create adequate wealth to satisfy its appetite? There are some practical things for the Americans to be concerned about like increasing (not regaining) its competitive edge. It must produce more scientists and increase the role of science and technology in national development. By not recognising American current weaknesses, right-wingers aim their anger at blacks and immigrants for America's declining and decaying economy. Other implications include the use of right-wing politics to invade and capture strategic resources from the developing countries. The European aspect of nativistic politics was illustrated by that mass killer in Norway on July 22.. Ominous clouds are on the horizon of American politics.


Louis EA Moyston
thearchives01@yahoo.com

Saturday, July 30, 2011

jamaicaobserver

Bahamas Blog International

Wyclef Jean Sees Martelly As Change Leader

From newsamericasnow:



AU-PRINCE, Haiti, Sat. May 15, 2011: Haitian-born, Grammy singer Wyclef Jean, has likened Michel Martelly to Barack Obama.

Jean’s comments came as Martelly, a Kompa singer known for mooning the crowds, was sworn in as the 56th President of the Republic of Haiti, replacing Rene Preval in the post.

Jean, who was among the many gathered for the swearing in on the lawns of the ruined National Palace earlier today, said Martelly’s dynamic promise of change has resonated with the people.

“It means a new start … the people want education not handouts. Now they have a leader who will mobilize then,” Jean told Reuters, comparing Martelly’s election victory with that of U.S. President Barack Obama in November 2008.

Ironically, during Martelly’s swearing in, in the country’s makeshift Parliament, the lights went out.

But the swearing in continues in the dark while Martelly went on to repeat his promises to transform Haiti from a development basket case into a new Caribbean destination for investment and tourism that will provide jobs and better lives for its 10 million people.

“Haiti has been sleeping,” Martelly, 50, said as dozens remained nearby in tent cities close to the former Palace. “Today she will wake up, stand up.”

He pledged to provide free education to the widely uneducated population and swore to bring to justice anyone who brings disorder to the country. Martelly also proposed restoring Haiti’s disbanded army to eventually replace the more than 12,000 U.N. peacekeepers in his country.

Several foreign dignitaries including former U.S. President Bill Clinton, Jamaica PM Bruce Golding and DR President Leonel Fernandez attended the swearing in. Though invited, neither former Presidents Jean Claude “Baby Doc” Duvalier or Jean Bertrand Aristide attended.


newsamericasnow

Bahamas Blog International

Mr Obama, it will not be an easy road

By Christopher-Burns



Without advancing the crucifixion theory, US President Barack Obama should have known that in politics the journey between Palm Sunday and Good Friday can be as triumphant as it can be absolutely hellish. Consequently, he should have anticipated the terrible results from last Tuesday's mid-term elections, because as he now concedes, "Ultimate power resides with the people"; however irrational the exercise of that power may appear. For, whether by fair means or foul, the Republicans, aided and abetted by an insurgent group of angry, impatient, ultra-conservative (and more often than not unreasonably myopic) Tea-Partiers, stuck to their message of demanding a smaller government and lower taxes and were handsomely rewarded by American voters.

Defeats are always hard to accept, even in circumstances where it was obvious from the start that the quality and quantity of inputs would not have produced good outcomes, but we have to move on. So like many other presidents, prime ministers and premiers, Mr Obama may have come to the realisation that leadership is not easy and that political leadership, in particular, is one of the most thankless jobs anyone could aspire to, because no leader, however well-intentioned, can ever meet everybody's expectations. Nonetheless, last Tuesday's election results were not about a pack of ingrates. People were "mad as hell" about everything and they forgot about what Obama inherited - since as president he owns all the issues.

Remarkably, Obama's admission that he has not been as passionate in leadership as he was as candidate - though visibly obvious - conveys a tiny part of a bigger problem. You see, Democrats foolishly underestimated the strength and reach of the Tea Party; herein lies the real problem. As I see it, Obama continues to err by stubbornly pursuing his brand of clumsy intellectualism over practical intelligence and empathy, especially in moments when the country wants compassionate leadership. Sometimes, he appears so academically bionic and unexcitingly robotic that he seems unable to read the mood of the people, much less understand the political zeitgeist, however threatening. I have never been able to fathom why he chooses to use feather pillows to fight the massive artillery power of his political opponents, knowing full well that American politics is a high contact sport.

None of this is to suggest violent confrontation or political incivility, but my gosh, stand up and fight like a man, if you truly believe in something, as I think Obama does in his policies. Say what you may about the Republicans and their coterie of Tea-Party supporters, they are never short on enthusiasm and stick-to-itiveness. This makes me worry about Obama's Pollyannaish expectations for bipartisanship and compromise. This approach may seal the deal for his ouster in 2012, as the Republicans are not in the mood for consensus and with Congress now at extremes, right wing-conservatives versus liberal democrats; "Blue Dog" democrats and moderate-conservatives were booted out, cooperation looks unlikely.

The Democrats lost big and the scale of the electoral trouncing will have far-reaching implications, not only on the Democratic Party or Obama's presidency, but also on policy issues affecting immigration, education, climate-change, trade, health care, social and welfare spending, among other things. Politically, the size of the Republican win will give it the ability to carry out major redistricting - a practice that could almost guarantee a Republican majority in both Houses of Congress for a long time to come. Nationally, there were about 680 seat changes (including governorships and state races) to Republican control. This is above the 412 or so seats that changed hands when Democrats lost in 1994 under Bill Clinton.

In fact, historians have now declared the 60-seat gain by Republicans in the House of Representatives as the biggest since 1948. Already, predictions are being made as to whether or not Obama can survive this massive political tremor as he heads into the lame-duck session of his presidency and then on to the 2012 presidential and mid-term general elections. Shortly after Obama won the 2008 presidential elections, I remarked privately to a friend that his victory and success, though absolutely thrilling, historic and substantially important, may have been a strategy to place an important, but necessary, pause - like a comma - in America's history to showcase America as the land of possibilities; however temporary. As I said then, I say now: unfortunately I do not envision Mr Obama serving as president for more than one term and it would have nothing to do with underachievement.

Undoubtedly, Mr Obama's accomplishments far outweigh those of his predecessor, George Bush. He has brought a refreshing pedigree and purpose to the White House and to American leadership around the world. He has achieved in that health care reform law what many presidents before him did not achieve. Yet, Obama has been subjected to more attacks on his legitimacy to be president, his religion and love of country than any other president. Without citing race as the underlying factor for the hostility and indifference directed towards him, Obama's success does not mean America is post-racial - just listen to some Tea Partiers talk about "putting real Americans back in the White House".

Now that the Republicans have some power, let us see what they are going to do with it because America's problems are bigger than tax breaks, debt and deficits. America has been lagging behind some other industrialised countries in areas such as education, innovation, research and science. If they think stepping back into becoming an isolationist state is good for America they'd better think twice. If they think locking out immigrants and restoring the Bush tax cut will lead to an automatic spiralling in job growth or robust investments and economic activities they'd better prepare for a major disappointment. Certainly, it will not be an easy road.

November 08, 2010

Burnscg@aol.com

jamaicaobserver

Bahamas Blog International

The crucifixion of Obama

BY LLOYD B SMITH




United States President Barack Hussein Obama's The Audacity of Hope has overnight become The Audacity of Hopelessness. At least, this is the opinion of his many detractors, namely the irascible Republicans and Tea Party affiliates, in addition to extreme rightists, disenchanted Independent and blacks, plus outrightly racist Anglo-Saxons who were never comfortable with the idea of a black man being in the White House.In November 2008 Senator Obama was elected the 44th President of the United States. And during his subsequent stroll from the Capitol in Washington DC in January 2009 I recall saying to myself here goes "the man of the moment" like Jesus Christ riding on the Democratic Party's proverbial donkey on his way to Jerusalem where he may well be betrayed, accused, tried and condemned to a swift political death.

Politics is an ungrateful profession. Here are some of the descriptions that were made about the first Black man to become president of the world's most powerful and influential country (cannot say it is the richest anymore): "The most exciting politician of the day" - Independent; "In our low-down, dispiriting era, Obama's talent for proposing humane, sensible solutions with uplifting, elegant prose does fill one with hope." - Washington Post; "The Audacity of Hope offers readers on this side of the Atlantic a window not just into the mind of one of America's most exciting politicians, but into the political landscape of post-Bush era...like Bill Clinton, he has the knack of weaving together the personal and the anecdotal with the political and the conceptual, so that each point seems both persuasive and commonsensical." - Guardian

Euphoria has turned to hysteria; love has turned to hate; admiration has turned to vilification; dreams have become nightmares and now the Pharisees and Sadducees, the High Priests and Scribes are shouting, "Crucify him, crucify him!" And whom do they want? Sarah Palin! Now if this scenario does not suggest that many Americans have lost their bearings, what could convince any sane person otherwise?

I am not for one moment saying that Obama has not fouled up in his presidency. There are times when I have quietly expressed anger at some of his decisions, actions and pronouncements, but does this make him into a Communist or Socialist, a Hitler, a Muslim sympathiser and worst of all an illegitimate president by virtue of the propaganda that he is not a born American? Many terrible things have been said of American presidents, but I am yet to be convinced that Obama has not been the most denigrated of them all. I am further convinced that he has suffered this opprobrium even from members of his own party because of his having had a Kenyan father.

Alas, poor Obama. In a bid to be all things to all men, he has failed most miserably and so he has ended up angering just about every spectrum of the American political kaleidoscope - Conservatives, Liberals, Independents, women, the Anglo-Saxon males, youths, seniors, Wall Street, the unemployed, etc. Will he ever be able to get it right? Not as long as he is deemed to be on the left, some say. Today, millions of Americans will go to the polls to vote in the Midterm elections. The latest CNN poll shows the GOP (Grand Old Party) 10 points ahead of the Democrats. It would appear that after today there will be a big, rambunctious elephant charging around in the Oval Office.

The Republicans have skilfully used fear as their major weapon against the Obama administration. Already known as "the party of no", they have set out to make it impossible for Obama to return to the presidency in 2012, if he dares. But history may well be on Obama's side - a history that has shown that incumbent presidents who fare badly in mid-term elections tend to be comeback kids. Ronald Reagan did it and so did Bill Clinton. Within the next two years, his fortunes can turn around, especially if the White House can build consensus with the Republicans on major issues without veering too much from his stated visions; defang Al-Qaeda, grow the economy and create jobs, reduce the national debt, empower the minorities (blacks, Hispanics in particular), deal effectively with the contentious immigration issue, revisit the health-care bill, tackle with compassion and common sense gay and abortion rights, among the many other matters that beset that great nation. A tall order, indeed, but Obama must be pragmatic and come up with an agenda and timetable that are doable within the years he has left in his presidency. Lest he forget, "It's the economy, stupid!"

The spectre of China superseding the USA as the number one world power is most frightening and demoralising to the Americans. It is this fear that has driven many individuals into the lap of the Republicans who, despite today's predicted landslide victory, are not seen by the majority of voters as much better than the Democrats. That is why the Tea Party has emerged in essence as a third party and has attached itself parasitically to the GOP - a marriage that may well end up in a bitter divorce.

I still believe in Obama and I have this gut feeling that he will rebound. After all, if there is any logical historicity to his presidency, then the crucifixion should be followed by the resurrection. His must not be a dream deferred but a dream realised.

lloydbsmith@hotmail

November 02, 2010

jamaicaobserver

Bahamas Blog International

Jaundiced voters all over send politicians messages

Keeble McFarlane





The severe economic crunch of the past few years has left millions of people from Athens to Atlanta in deep financial distress and frightened about the dismal prospects they face. The result has been a miasma of frustration, confusion and unfocused anger which is having an unsettling effect in the political sphere. In short, voters are feeling like the central character in the mid-1970s movie, Network: "Mad as hell and not going to take it anymore!"

Australians voted in June after the then-governing party, Labor, suffered a palace coup. Its leader, Kevin Rudd, had fallen out of public favour and the party held a convention, dumped him and replaced him with his deputy, Julia Gillard, who then called an election. Disenchanted voters rewarded them with Australia's first hung parliament in 70 years. Both Labor and a coalition of the Liberal and National parties each won 72 seats in the 150-seat House of Representatives. That's four seats short of what's required for a majority government. The balance of power now lies with two minority party members and four independents. Labor retained power by gaining the support of four cross-benchers.


The next month, grumpy British voters trekked to the polls and denied the ruling Labour Party a fourth term in office. The party, which had had an extraordinarily successful run under the telegenic Tony Blair, was now run by his very competent but totally underwhelming finance minister, Gordon Brown. He was one of the architects of the efforts by the G8 and G20 to use government stimulus to buffer the worst effects of recession but citizens were not happy about the sluggish response of the economy and the huge debts and deficits piling up. So they gave the traditional Labour and Conservative parties less than enthusiastic support but opened up to the traditional outsiders, the Liberal Democrats.

No party had a majority, so rounds of feverish negotiations began and the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats fashioned a workable deal. David Cameron of the Conservatives became prime minister and he appointed Nick Clegg of the Liberal Democrats as his deputy, while bringing several members of Clegg's party into his Cabinet. They immediately began slimming down the government, social programmes and the armed forces.

Voters are in a cantankerous mood even in well-off Sweden, one of the few countries in the world running a surplus in its national budget. The country is one of the models of the welfare state, paid for, it must be noted, by high taxes. This framework was built by the Social Democratic party, which has formed the government for 65 of the past 78 years and has never before lost two elections in a row. Well, even though they had allied themselves with the relatively new Green Party, they lost the election last month to a centre-right coalition which formed the last government under Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt.

The Social Democrats have lost their magic touch to the Swedes of today, who are more focused on the economy and question their country's generosity to outsiders, like the flood of refugees escaping the misery of war in Iraq. The election brought the spotlight on the Sweden Democrats, a xenophobic, anti-immigrant group some describe as racist, which managed to pick up 20 seats and for the first time gain a foothold in the national Parliament.

Just this week, voters in Canada's largest city, Toronto, displayed their anger. A man who runs a lucrative label-printing business with his two brothers accurately captured the dyspeptic voters' mood and ran with it to a very convincing victory for the mayor's chain of office. Rob Ford, the wealthy man who nevertheless personifies Joe Lunch Pail, ran on the mantra Stop the Gravy Train. Ford had been a city councillor for 10 years and always boasted that he never touched the discretionary allowance every councillor gets to help run their constituencies. He constantly criticised his fellow councillors for their spending as well as attacking such practices as having people on staff to water the plants in the multi-storey City Hall.

Newspapers had a field day digging up his record of bad behaviour, such as calling a fellow councillor "a waste of skin" and another of Italian origin the derogatory "Gino-boy"; verbally abusing fellow spectators at a sports arena and being busted for drunken driving and possessing ganja while on a visit to Miami. But the voters liked his simple message which he stuck to during a very disciplined and focused campaign and forgave him for being himself.

What resonated was his focus on the lack of respect for taxpayers' money and taxpayers themselves displayed by councillors and city staff even as taxes and levies kept going up. In his acceptance speech on Monday night, Ford summed up his approach: "The party with taxpayers' money is over!" Of course, the real task now begins, as this lone wolf former councillor who never made any alliances even with like-minded colleagues will now have to learn to work with others and forge alliances in order to wield his cost-cutting cutlass.

Perhaps the most grumpy voters around are those in the United States, and they vote on Tuesday in what the Americans call the off-year elections. They will choose a new House of Representatives, one-third of the Senate, one-third of the state governors and a host of state, county and city officials as well as numerous referendums.

Much of the frustration and anger is focused on President Barack Obama and his fellow Democrats. A movement taking its cue from a protest in formative years of the nation's history has been making noise from one end of the US to the other. It calls itself the Tea Party and masquerades as a grass-roots movement but most of its supporters are well-off older white men. They clamour for a return to the past, but their detractors point out that the past was one in which discrimination was the order of the day against people who were poor or black, or both. There's considerable overlap between members of the Tea Party activists and the Republican Party, but the mainstream party has an uneasy relationship with the Tea Partiers, some of whom come out with the most ludicrous of suggestions.

Underlying all the dyspepsia and frustration, the bleating about socialism and freedom from big government are real problems: the hollowing out of the country's mighty industrial base, the atrocious behaviour of the big financial institutions causing millions of people to lose their houses and way of life and the growing realisation that, as happened to Britain a half-century ago, their country is losing its pre-eminent place in the world.

Tuesday's vote will significantly change the political picture in Washington, with Republicans regaining control of one, and possibly both, houses of Congress. Then the US will be right back where it was halfway through Bill Clinton's first term, when the leader of the House Republicans, Newt Gingrich, brought the business of government to a grinding halt. Then the fun began.

keeble.mack@sympatico.ca

October 30, 2010

jamaicaobserver

Bahamas Blog International

Obama’s Iraq speech: An exercise in cowardice and deceit

By Bill Van Auken:



President Barack Obama’s nationally televised speech from the White House Oval Office Tuesday night was an exercise in cowardice and deceit. It was deceitful to the people of the United States and the entire world in its characterization of the criminal war against Iraq. And it was cowardly in its groveling before the American military.

The address could inspire only disgust and contempt among those who viewed it. Obama, who owed his presidency in large measure to the mass antiwar sentiment of the American people, used the speech to glorify the war that he had mistakenly been seen to oppose.

The most chilling passage came at the end of the 19-minute speech, when Obama declared, “Our troops are the steel in our ship of state,” adding, “And though our nation may be traveling through rough waters, they give us confidence that our course is true.”

It is for this statement, rather than all the double-talk about troop withdrawals, that Obama’s miserable speech deserves to be remembered. It was rhetoric befitting a military-ruled banana republic or a fascist state. The military—not the Constitution, not the will of the people or the country’s ostensibly democratic institutions—constitutes the “steel” in the “ship of state.” Presumably, the democratic rights of the people are so much ballast to be cast overboard as needed.

The occasion for the speech was the artificial deadline fixed by the Obama administration for what the president termed the “end of our combat mission in Iraq.” This is only one of the innumerable lies packed into his brief remarks.

Some 50,000 combat troops remain deployed in Iraq. While they have been rebranded as “transitional” forces, supposedly dedicated to “training” and “advising” Iraqi security forces, their mission remains unchanged.

Indeed, barely a week after the media turned the redeployment out of Iraq of a single Stryker battalion into a “milestone” signaling the withdrawal of the last combat troops, 5,000 members of the 3rd Armored Calvary Regiment, a combat unit, were sent back into the occupied country from Ft. Hood, Texas.

Washington has no intention of ending its military presence in Iraq. It continues to build permanent bases and is determined to continue pursuing the original agenda behind the war launched by the Bush administration in March of 2003—the imposition of US hegemony in the oil-rich Persian Gulf.

Obama’s speech was both incoherent and groveling. The president sought, dishonestly, to take credit for fulfilling his campaign promise on Iraq. As a candidate he had pledged to withdraw all US combat troops from the country within 16 months of taking office. In the end, he merely adopted the time table and plan crafted by the Pentagon and the Bush administration for a partial withdrawal, leaving 50,000 combat troops in place.

The Democratic president felt obliged, under the mantle of paying tribute to “our troops,” to fundamentally distort and whitewash the entire character of the war they were sent to fight, painting one of the blackest chapters in US history as some kind of heroic endeavor.

“Much has changed” since Bush launched the war seven-and-a-half years ago, Obama stated. “A war to disarm a state became a fight against an insurgency” in which American troops battled “block by block to help Iraq seize the chance for a better future.”

The speech was crafted as if the president were addressing a nation of amnesiacs. Do they really think that no one remembers it was a war launched on the basis of lies? The American people were told that an invasion of Iraq was necessary because the government of Saddam Hussein had developed “weapons of mass destruction” and was preparing to place them in the hands of Al Qaeda to set off “mushroom clouds” over American cities.

There were no “weapons of mass destruction,” nor were there any ties between the Iraqi regime and Al Qaeda. These were inventions of a government that was determined to carry out a war of aggression to advance US imperialist interests.

These lies were thoroughly exposed and contributed to the growth of overwhelming hostility to the war among the American people. All of this is to be forgotten, dismissed as meaningless details.

The Iraqi people are presented by Obama as the fortunate beneficiaries of American self-sacrifice and heroism, which bestowed upon them the “opportunity to embrace a new destiny.”

One would hardly imagine that over a million Iraqis lost their lives as a result of this unprovoked US war; that some 4 million have been driven from their homes by violence, either forced into exile or displaced within the war-torn country itself. Every institution and essential component of social infrastructure was laid waste by the US invasion, which unleashed what can most accurately be described as sociocide—the murder of an entire society. The devastation wrought by US militarism has left a shattered nation of widows, homeless, unemployed and wounded.

While a temporary reduction in armed resistance to the US occupation was achieved by bleeding the Iraqi people white, what has been left is an unviable society and political system, dominated by sectarian divisions and overshadowed by the continuing US presence.

Among the more stomach-churning sections of the Obama speech was his gratuitous tribute to his predecessor, George W. Bush. While acknowledging that they had “disagreed about the war”—a disagreement he had no desire to spell out—Obama insisted that “no one could doubt President Bush’s support for our troops, or his love of country and commitment to our security.” This proved, he continued, that “there were patriots who supported this war, and patriots who opposed it. And all of us are united in appreciation of our servicemen and women.”

Bush launched a war that was illegal under international law. He and the other leading figures in his administration—Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice—dragged the American people into a war crime, essentially the same act for which the Nazis were tried and convicted at Nuremberg—the planning and waging of a war of aggression.

Obama told his audience that he had spoken to Bush that afternoon, apparently expressing his solidarity with a war criminal who belongs on trial at The Hague.

Inevitably, out of that essential crime, a host of other crimes followed. The American “servicemen and women,” whose honor is constantly invoked to justify mass killing, became participants in hideous crimes.

The people of the United States and the world were revolted by the images that emerged from Abu Ghraib. But the Obama administration has intervened in court to prevent the exposure of evidence of other criminal acts that are even more unspeakable.

The troops were themselves victims of this war. Nearly 4,500 lost their lives in the aggression launched by the Bush administration, with 35,000 more wounded. Hundreds of thousands have suffered psychological trauma as a result of being thrown into a dirty colonial war.

“The greatness of our democracy is our ability to move beyond our differences, and to learn from our experiences as we confront the challenges ahead,” Obama continued. What a travesty!

The reputation of American democracy was built upon constitutional principles and rights that were shredded by the Bush administration in the name of a “global war on terrorism.” The Obama administration has fully embraced these attacks on democratic rights, defending domestic spying, rendition, imprisonment without charges or trial and even arrogating to the executive branch the right to designate US citizens as terrorist suspects and order their extrajudicial execution.

The twisted path of the speech led Obama from Iraq to Afghanistan. Here he claimed, was a war that could be supported by “Americans from across the political spectrum,” because it is supposedly being waged against Al Qaeda, which “continues to plot against us.”

He declared that the “drawdown in Iraq” had allowed greater resources to be dedicated to this war, resulting in “nearly a dozen Al Qaeda leaders” being “killed or captured all over the world.”

What this has to do with the tripling of the number of US troops deployed in Afghanistan since Obama entered the White House was not explained. According to US military and intelligence officials, there are less than 100 Al Qaeda members in all of Afghanistan, which is now occupied by nearly 100,000 US and another 40,000 NATO and other foreign troops.

Obama went on to acknowledge that US forces “are fighting to break the Taliban’s momentum,” without bothering to even make a case for a connection between that and “taking out” Al Qaeda members around the globe. The reality is that in Afghanistan, US forces are fighting Afghans who are resisting foreign occupation. The aim is not defeating “terrorism,” but establishing US dominance in Central Asia, with its geo-strategic importance and vast energy resources.

Finally, after acknowledging that the Iraq war has contributed to bankrupting the country, Obama suggested that the change he has ordered in the military deployment in Iraq is somehow linked to a determination on the part of his administration to shift its focus to resolving the crisis that confronts more than 26 million American workers who are either unemployed or unable to find full-time jobs.

“Today, our most urgent task is to restore our economy, and put the millions of Americans who have lost their jobs back to work,” he said. “To strengthen our middle class, we must give all our children the education they deserve, and all our workers the skills that they need to compete in a global economy.”

This is one more lie. While the administration has handed over trillions of dollars to bail out Wall Street, it has repeatedly made clear that it will do nothing to create jobs for the unemployed. As for education, the federal government is continuing to cut funding, ensuring increased layoffs of teachers and more school closures.

Behind the duplicitous rhetoric one thing is underscored by the speech: the decisions in Iraq and Afghanistan have been dictated by the military brass and obediently implemented by the Obama White House. This is a government that has no independent policy, much less convictions. It implements policies that are worked out elsewhere—on Wall Street and within the Pentagon—and is dedicated to the defense of the financial aristocracy at the expense of the American people.

1 September 2010

wsws

Bahamas Blog International

I am ready to continue discussing

Reflections of Fidel

(Taken from CubaDebate)

TWO days ago I was watching Vanessa Davies on her "Contragolpe" (Counterpunch) program broadcast by Venezolana de Televisión’s Canal 8. She was dialoging with and multiplying her questions to Basem Tajeldine, an intelligent and honest Venezuelan whose face transpired nobility. When I switched on the television my thesis that only Obama could halt the disaster was being approached.

The incommensurable power attributed to him came immediately to the mind of the historian. And that is so, undoubtedly. But we are thinking of two distinct powers.

Real political power in the United States is held by the powerful oligarchy of multimillionaires who govern not only that country but also the world: the gigantic power of the Bilderberg Club described by Daniel Estulin, created by the Rockefellers and the Trilateral Commission.

The military apparatus of the United States with its security agencies is far more powerful than Barack Obama, president of the United States. He did not create that apparatus, neither did that apparatus create him. The exceptional circumstances of the economic crisis and the war were the principal factors that took a descendent of the sector most discriminated against in the United States, gifted with culture and intelligence, to the post which he occupies.

Where does Obama’s power lie at this point in time? Why am I affirming that war or peace will depend on him? Hopefully the interchange between the journalist and the historian might serve to illustrate the issue.

I will say it in another way: the famous little briefcase with its keys and button to launch a nuclear bomb emerged because of the terrible decision that it implied, the devastating nature of the weapon, and the need not to lose a fraction of a minute. Kennedy and Krushchev underwent that experience, and Cuba was at the point of being the first target of a mass attack using those weapons.

I still remember the anguish reflected in the questions that Kennedy suggested French journalist Jean Daniel should put to me, when he found out that Daniel was coming to Cuba and would meet with me. "Does Castro know how close we were to a world war?" I suggested that he return to Washington to speak with him. The story is a well-known one.

The subject was so interesting that I invited him to leave Havana, and we were approaching the issue well into the morning, in a house near the sea at the famous Varadero beach.

Nobody had to tell us anything, because they immediately advised me of the assassination and we tuned into to a U.S. radio station. At that very moment it was announced that a number of shots had fatally wounded the president of the United States.

Mercenary hands had carried out the homicide.

For the right in the United States, including the CIA mercenaries who landed at Girón [Bay of Pigs], he was not sufficiently energetic with Cuba.

Almost half a century has passed since then. The world changed, far more that 20,000 nuclear weapons were developed, their destructive power is equivalent to nearly 450,000 times that which destroyed the city of Hiroshima. Anybody has the right to ask: what is the use of the nuclear briefcase? Could a president possibly direct something as sophisticated and complex as a nuclear war?

That briefcase is something as symbolic as the ceremonial staff that is kept in the hands of the president as pure fiction.

The only significant fact is that in the United States there is a Constitution which establishes that there is only one person in the country who can give the order to start a war, which is now more important than ever, since a world nuclear war could break out in one minute and possibly last one day.

So, I can ask a number of questions. Could somebody other than the president give the order to start a war? Did Kennedy himself need another faculty to attack Girón and then unleash war in Vietnam? Johnson to escalate it? Nixon to devastatingly bombard that country? Reagan to invade Grenada? Bush Sr., on December 20, 1989, to attack the cities of Panama, Colón, to flatten the poor neighborhood of El Chorrillo and kill thousands of poor people there? Did Clinton need it to attack Serbia and create Kosovo? Bush Jr., for the atrocious invasion of Iraq? I have mentioned in their order only some of the best known crimes of the empire to date. Obama has done nothing more than to receive the inheritance.

The old thinking does not adapt easily to new realities.

Well, all right. I have posed the idea, not of Obama being powerful or super-powerful; he prefers to play basketball or give speeches; he has, moreover, been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Michael Moore exhorted him to earn it. Perhaps nobody imagined, him least of all, the idea that, in this final stage of 2010, if he complies with the instructions of the United Nations Security Council, to which a South Korean named Ban Ki-Moon is possibly firmly exhorting him, he will be responsible for the disappearance of the human species.

I am ready to continue discussing the issue.



Fidel Castro Ruz

August 22, 2010

12:26 p.m.

Translated by Granma International

granma.cu

Bahamas Blog International

Washington Still Has Problems With Democracy in Latin America

By Mark Weisbrot - CEPR:

Imagine if Barack Obama, upon taking office in January 2009, had decided to deliver on his campaign promise to “end business as usual in Washington so we can bring about real change.”

Imagine if he had rejected the architects of the pro-Wall Street policies that led to the economic collapse - such as Larry Summers, Tim Geithner, and the stable of former Goldman Sachs employees running the Treasury Department - and instead appointed Nobel Prize-winning economists Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz to key positions, including the Federal Reserve chairmanship.

Instead of Hillary Clinton, who lost the Democratic presidential primary because of her unrelenting support for the Iraq war, imagine if he had chosen Sen. Russ Feingold (D., Wis.) for secretary of state, or someone else interested in fulfilling the popular desire to get out of Afghanistan.

Imagine a real health-care reform bill instead of the health-insurance reform we got - one that didn't give the powerful pharmaceutical and insurance lobbies a veto.

It goes without saying that Obama would be vilified by the major media outlets. The seething hostility of Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh would be matched by more mainstream news organizations, which would accuse the president of polarizing the nation and engaging in dangerous demagoguery.

With most of the establishment media and institutions against him, Obama would face a constant battle for political survival - although he might well triumph through direct, populist appeals to the majority of voters. This is what a number of left-of-center Latin American leaders have done:

In Ecuador, President Rafael Correa was reelected by a large margin in 2009, despite strong opposition from the country’s media.

In Bolivia, Evo Morales has brought stability and record growth to a country with a tradition of governments that didn’t last more than a year. And he has done so in spite of the most hostile media in the hemisphere, as well as unrelenting, sometimes violent opposition from Bolivia’s traditional elite.

And Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has survived a military coup attempt and other efforts to topple his government, winning three presidential elections, each one by a larger margin.

All these presidents took on entrenched oligarchies and fought hard to deliver on their promises.

Morales, the first indigenous president in a country with an indigenous majority, re-nationalized fossil-fuel industries, created jobs through public investment, and won approval of a more democratic constitution. Correa doubled spending on health care and canceled $3.2 billion in foreign debt that he declared illegitimate. Under Chavez, who took control of his country’s oil industry, poverty was cut in half, and extreme poverty dropped by more than 70 percent.

These presidents faced another obstacle to delivering on their promises that Obama would not: the opposition of the most powerful country in the world. The same was true of former Argentine President Nestor Kirchner, who had to battle the Washington-dominated International Monetary Fund to implement his economic policies, which made Argentina the fastest-growing economy in the hemisphere for six years.

Chavez, of course, has been the most demonized in the U.S. media. That is not because of what he has said or done, but because he is sitting on 100 billion barrels of oil. Washington has a particular problem with oil-producing states that don't follow orders - whether they are dictatorships (Iraq), theocracies (Iran), or democracies (Venezuela).

All of these leaders had hoped Obama would pursue a different, more enlightened Latin American policy, but that hasn’t happened. It seems that Washington, which was comfortable with the dictators and oligarchs who ran the show in the region for decades, still has problems with democracy in its former “back yard.”

Mark Weisbrot is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, in Washington, D.C. He received his Ph.D. in economics from the University of Michigan. He has written numerous research papers on economic policy, especially on Latin America and international economic policy. He is co-author, with Dean Baker, of Social Security: The Phony Crisis (University of Chicago Press, 2000) and president of Just Foreign Policy. He is also co-writer of Oliver Stone’s current documentary, “South of the Border,” now playing in theaters. He can be reached at weisbrot@cepr.net.

Source: Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR)

July 19th 2010

venezuelanalysis

Bahamas Blog International

British Petroleum (BP) Oil-spill anger unlikey to hurt US/UK ties

Oil-spill anger unlikey to hurt US/UK ties
BY ALICE RITCHIE:


LONDON, England (AFP) — US anger at oil giant BP is clouding ties with Britain's new Government only weeks after it took office, but poses little long-term threat to the 'special relationship', analysts say.

US President Barack Obama has ramped up the pressure on BP over the disaster, summoning chairman Carl-Henric Svanberg to Washington, criticising chief executive Tony Hayward and firing a warning over shareholder payouts.

BP's share price tanked last week under the strain and business leaders and politicians in London expressed concern about the impact on British pension funds that invest in BP as well as any backlash against other British firms.

"There is also growing concern that the president's angry rhetoric is going over the top and risks dividing the United States and the United Kingdom," former Conservative foreign secretary Malcolm Rifkind wrote in The Times.

Newspapers here demanded Prime Minister David Cameron stand up to Obama when the two leaders were scheduled to speak yesterday ahead of England's World Cup opener against the USA — which could itself strain ties further.

However, the US State Department and Cameron's Government played down suggestions of a rift, while analysts say the allies' primary concern remains their joint efforts in Afghanistan and over Iran's nuclear programme.

Much hailed in the British press, the historic "special relationship" with the United States has cooled since the close personal ties forged between ex-British premier Tony Blair and former US president George W Bush.

The Obama administration has stressed its close relations with a number of foreign nations, while Cameron's Government promised a close but "frank" relationship with Washington when it took office last month.

"This crisis has heightened that sense of distance, but I don't think in the end it'll have long-term damaging consequences," said Michael Cox, Professor of International Relations at the London School of Economics (LSE).

He acknowledged the pressure on BP was taking on a patriotic bent, noting the "peculiar" use of BP's old name, "British Petroleum", by the White House.

BP is far from a British firm any more — it employs 22,000 people in the United States and only 10,000 in Britain, while six of its directors are American and six British.

But Cox noted that Obama was under "a huge amount of domestic pressure" and "it's easier to direct attention to an apparently foreign company".

Amid fears of what BP will have to pay out for the oil-spill, US officials are looking to suspend shareholder dividends until compensation is paid.

But analysts at investment bank UBS say it is Obama's pressure as much as any economic fall-out from the spill that caused the share price to collapse last week.

"While progress on dealing with the spill continues, the share price falls now appear to reflect continued pressure from President Obama's administration, much of which appears to be politically motivated," a briefing note said.

Cameron's announcement Thursday that he would raise the issue with Obama "provides some (limited) support for BP", albeit "quite late in the day".

However, Cox suggested that the British premier would want to keep the issue "pretty down on the agenda" in his call with Obama, saying: "There are more important things" such as the Iranian nuclear crisis and Afghanistan.

Scott Lucas, Professor of American Studies at the University of Birmingham, agreed and said he believed the whole diplomatic spat was more in the heads of British newspaper editors than policymakers.

"There is animosity against BP's leadership, there's no doubt about that, because they didn't handle the situation well. But that animosity doesn't translate into a wider issue," he said.

British Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg also warned that bringing politics into the fray would not help the clean-up.

"I don't frankly think we will reach a solution to stopping the release of oil into the ocean any quicker by allowing this to spiral into a tit-for-tat political diplomatic spat," he said during a trip to Madrid Friday.

June 13, 2010

jamaicaobserver

Bahamas Blog International

Better educated citizenry builds prosperity and hope

Tribune242 Editorial Bahamas:


PRESIDENT Barack Obama, like College of the Bahamas president Janyne Hodder, stresses the need for a better educated work force to keep a country competitive.

Mrs Hodder, in an address to a women's luncheon earlier this year, underscored the threat to the Bahamas' economic future with fewer than "15 per cent of our young people enrolled in higher education when every prosperous nation around us is moving to increase higher education participation rates, as high as 50 per cent in some countries."

Paying a surprise visit to a school in Kalamazoo, Michigan Monday, President Obama told students that a better-educated workforce will help the U.S. stay competitive globally. Don't mimic Washington by making excuses, the Associated Press reported President Barack Obama as saying as he advised graduating high school students and encouraged them to take responsibility for failure as well as success.

In remarks delivered Monday evening at Kalamazoo Central High School, the President said it's easy to blame others when problems arise. "We see it every day out in Washington, with folks calling each other names and making all sorts of accusations on TV," the president said.

He said Kalamazoo high school students can and have done better than that.

The 1,700-student school in southwest Michigan landed President Obama as its commencement speaker after winning the national Race to the Top High School Commencement Challenge. It was among three finalists picked through public voting on the schools' videos and essays. The White House made the final selection.

The administration cited Kalamazoo Central's 80 per cent-plus graduation rate, improvements in academic performance and a culturally rich curriculum. Would that one day the Bahamas could boast such an achievement for its government schools.

About an hour before the Kalamazoo ceremony, President Obama surprised the 280 graduates by dropping in on them in the recreation centre at Western Michigan University as they prepared for the big moment.

Walking around with a hand-held microphone, he told the students to work hard, keep their eyes on the prize and continue to carry with them a sense of excellence.

"There is nothing you can't accomplish," he said, suggesting they might consider public service. "I might be warming up the seat for you." Students rushed from the bleachers to shake the President's hand and take cell phone pictures after he spoke.

President Obama, who says a better-educated workforce will help the U.S. stay competitive globally, said in his prepared remarks that the school had set an example with its level of community and parental involvement and the high standards of its teachers.

"I think that America has a lot to learn from Kalamazoo Central about what makes for a successful school in this new century," he said. "This is the key to our future."

He advised the graduates to work hard and take responsibility for their successes and their failures.

"You could have made excuses -- our kids have fewer advantages, our schools have fewer resources, so how can we compete? You could have spent years pointing fingers -- blaming parents, blaming teachers, blaming the principal or the superintendent or the government," the president said.

"But instead, you came together. You were honest with yourselves about where you were falling short. And you resolved to do better."

Education is widely seen as one hope for Michigan's long-struggling economy. The state has had the nation's highest unemployment rate for four consecutive years, including a 14 per cent jobless rate in April. Thousands of manufacturing jobs have been lost, many connected to the auto industry, and the state is trying to diversify its economy with alternative energy, biomedical and other jobs -- most of which require education beyond high school.

The White House said more than 170,000 people voted in the contest.

Kalamazoo Central's valedictorian, Cindy Lee, said she was excited but jittery about sharing the stage with the president.

"The whole school is excited about it. The whole community is excited. It's on the news every single day," Lee, 18, said last week.

As for COB President Hodder "a high school diploma is no longer the end point. There is more learning to be done if we are to have an informed, critical citizenry and to have better control over the prosperity of the nation. An expanded elite of well educated people build prosperity and where such status is open to all who work hard and want to, it also builds hope."

June 08, 2010

tribune242 editorial

Caribbean Blog International

The odious tyranny imposed on the world

Reflections of Fidel

OUR era is characterized by an unprecedented fact: the threat to human survival imposed on the world by imperialism.

The painful reality should not come as a surprise to anybody. We have seen it coming at an accelerated pace in recent decades, at a rate difficult to imagine.

Does this mean that Obama is responsible for or the promoter of that threat? No! It simply demonstrates that he is ignoring reality and neither wants to or would to able to overcome it. Or rather, he is dreaming of the unreal in an unreal world. "Ideas without words, words without meaning," as a brilliant poet once stated.

Although the U.S. writer Gay Talese, considered to be one of the principal representatives of the new journalism, affirmed on May 5 – according to a European news agency – that Barack Obama embodies the finest history of the United States in the last century, an opinion that could be shared in certain aspects, in no way does that alter the objective reality of the human destiny.

Events are happening, like the ecological disaster that has just occurred in the Gulf of Mexico, which demonstrate how little governments can do against those who control capital; those who, in both the United States and Europe, via the economy of our globalized planet, are the ones who decide the destiny of the peoples. We could take as one example measures coming from the U.S. Congress itself, published in the most influential media of that country and Europe, just as they have been circulated on Internet, without altering one word.

"Radio and TV Martí blatantly lie while broadcasting unfounded information, states a report by the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, which recommends that both stations be permanently moved from Miami and relocated in Washington and be ‘fully’ integrated into the propaganda framework of Voice of America (VOA).

"Besides deceiving the public… both broadcasting stations use ‘offensive and incendiary language,’ which discredits them.

"After 18 years, Radio and TV Martí have failed to ‘make any discernable inroads into Cuban society or to influence the Cuban government…’

"The report, which was circulated this Monday [May 3], recommends that the Office of Cuba Broadcasting (OCB) become part of VOA, the official propaganda radio of the U.S. government.

"’Problems with adherence to traditional journalistic standards, miniscule audience size, Cuban government jamming, and allegations of cronyism have dogged the program since its creation,’" recognized the committee, headed by Democrat John Kerry."

"The committee recommends urgently removing both stations from Miami, highlighting the need to hire personnel in a more balanced way to produce a ‘depoliticized and professional product.’

"In the report, Kerry makes reference to Alberto Mascaró, the nephew of Pedro Roig’s wife—Roig is the general director of Radio and TV Marti—who was hired as the director of VOA Latin America thanks to his relative.

"The document reports in detail how, in February 2007, the former director of the TV Marti programs, "along with a relative of a member of Congress" (who was not named), pleaded guilty in the Federal Court to receiving $112,000 in illegal kickbacks from an OCB contractor. "The former OCB employee was sentenced to 27 months in jail and fined $5,000 after being found guilty for taking as much as 50% of all monies paid by TV Martí for the production of television programming by vendor Perfect Image."

Up to here, the Jean Guy Allard article that appeared on the Telesur website.

Another article, by U.S. professors Paul Drain and Michele Barry, from Stanford University (California), translated on the Rebelión website, states:

"The US blockade on Cuba proclaimed after Fidel Castro’s revolution ousted Batista’s regime is 50 years old this 2010. Its stated objective has been to help the Cuban people to attain democracy but a U.S. Senate report from 2009 concluded that ‘the unilateral blockade on Cuba has failed.’

"…despite the blockade, Cuba has achieved better healthcare results than most Latin American countries and comparable with those of most of the developed nations. Cuba’s average life expectancy is the highest (78.6 years) and it also has the highest density of medical doctors per capita – 59 doctors to 10,000 people – and the lowest mortality rate for children under one year of age (5.0 per 1,000 life births) and infant mortality (7.0 per 1,000 live births) among the 33 countries of Latin America and the Caribbean.

"In 2006, the Cuban government allocated about $355 per capita for healthcare" … "The annual healthcare cost assigned to an American citizen that same year was $6,714… Cuba also assigned less funds to healthcare than most of the European countries. But, the low costs of healthcare do not explain Cuba’s successes, which could be attributed to a greater emphasis on prevention and primary care that the island has been cultivating during the American commercial blockade.

"Cuba has one of the most advanced primary care systems of the world. The education of its population in disease prevention and healthcare promotion has made the Cubans less dependent on medical products to keep the population healthy. The opposite happens in the United States, which is highly dependent on medical provisions and technologies to keep its population healthy, but at a very high economic cost.
"Cuba has the highest rates of vaccination in the world as well as the highest number of births assisted by expert healthcare workers. The clinical care provided in doctors’ offices, policlinics and the largest regional and national hospitals are free of charge for patients…

"On March 2010, the U.S. Congress introduced a bill to strengthen healthcare systems and increase the number of healthcare experts sent to developing countries… "Cuba continues sending doctors to work in some of the poorest nations on the planet, something it started doing in 1961.

"Given the recent support for healthcare reform in the United States, the possibility exists of learning some good lessons from Cuba on how to develop a really universal healthcare system with an emphasis on primary care. The adoption of some of Cuba’s most successful healthcare policies could be a first step toward the normalization of relations. The U.S. Congress could instruct the Medicine Institute to study the successes of Cuba’s healthcare system and how to start a new era of cooperation between American and Cuban scientists."

For its part, the Tribuna Latina news website recently published an article on the new Immigration Law in Arizona:

"According to a survey published by the CBS network and The New York Times, 51% consider that the law is an appropriate focus in relation to immigration, while 9% consider that it should go even further on this matter. Opposing them, 36% think that Arizona has gone ‘too far.’"

"…two out of every three Republicans are backing the measure"… "while just 38% of Democrats say that they are in favor of the law…"

"On the other hand, one out of every two recognizes that, as a consequence of this regulation, it is ‘highly probable that persons from certain racial or ethnic groups will be detained more frequently than others,’ and 78% recognize that it will pose more burdens for the police.

"At the same time, 70% consider it probable, as a consequence of this measure, that the number of illegal residents and the arrival of new immigrants in the country will be reduced…’"

On Tuesday, May 6, 2010, under the headline "Arizona: a pretentious death from hunger," an article by journalist Vicky Peláez was published in Argenpress, which begins by recalling a phrase by Franklin D. Roosevelt: "Remember, always remember, that we are all descendants of immigrants and revolutionaries."

It is such a well-argued document that I do not wish to conclude this Reflection without including it.

"The huge marches of this May Day condemning the pernicious anti-immigration law passed in Arizona, have shaken all of the United States. At the same time, thousands of Americans, politicians, jurists, artists, organizations, civil organizations demanded that the federal government declare unconstitutional Law SB170, which resembles laws passed in Nazi Germany or South Africa in the apartheid period.

"However, despite fierce pressure against the pernicious law, neither their government nor 70% of the inhabitants of that state wish to accept the gravity of the situation that they have created in order to blame undocumented immigrants for the severe economic crisis that they are experiencing. Meanwhile, they are asking Barack Obama for money to pay 15,000 police; they are radicalizing their racist policies. Governor Jan Brewer stated that ‘illegal immigration implies rising crime and the emergence of terrorism in the state.’

"Placing undocumented immigrants on the same plane as terrorists authorizes the police to fire on people simply on the basis of the color of their skin, their clothing, what they are carrying in their hands or even their way of walking. Without any doubt, this will also affect the 280,000 Native Americans who live marginalized and in extreme poverty, as well as other minorities in addition to Hispanics, who have found refuge and work in this arid zone of the United States.

"Following the line of Republican Pat Buchanan, who says, ‘The United States must make a stronger crusade for America’s liberation from the barbarian hordes of hungry foreigners carrying exotic diseases,’ after hitting out at undocumented day laborers, construction workers, domestic employees, gardeners and cleaners, Governor Brewer has now directed her campaign against teachers of Hispanic origin.

"According to her new decree, teachers with a marked accent will not be able to teach in schools. But her crusade does not end there because, in all historical periods, ‘ethnic cleansing’ has always been accompanied by ideology. From now on, ‘ethnic studies and projects’ are abolished in schools. They are also banning the teaching of subjects that could promote resentment of a certain race or social class. This implies politicizing knowledge, converting myths created by the U.S. system into a reality. It also signifies exhuming the most respected thinkers in the United States such as Alexis de Tocqueville who, in 1835, said that ‘the place where an Anglo-American sets his boot is forever his. The province of Texas still belongs to Mexicans but soon there will not be one Mexican there. And that will happen anywhere.

"The sole consciousness of racists is hatred and the only weapon that can overcome it is the solidarity of human beings. This state was already defeated when it refused to make Martin Luther King Day a public holiday; the boycott was solid and overwhelming…"



Fidel Castro Ruz
May 7, 2010
6:15 p.m.

Translated by Granma International

granma.cu

Bahamas Blog International

Church urges Cuba to make 'necessary' economic changes

HAVANA, Cuba (AFP) -- Cuba's Catholic Church on Monday called on the country's regime to make "necessary changes" to reverse a spreading economic crisis and urged dialogue without conditions between Havana and arch foe Washington.

Church leader Cardinal Jaime Ortega pressed the government of President Raul Castro to "promptly make the necessary changes in Cuba" to alleviate hardship, stressing that the Cuban people were growing restless over deteriorating conditions in the only Communist-ruled nation in the Americas.

"This opinion has reached a kind of national consensus, and postponement produces impatience and discomfort in the people," Ortega said in "Palabra Nueva," the magazine of the Archdiocese of Havana, in reference to recent criticism by economists, academics, dissidents and artists.

Castro, who announced a need for reforms shortly after taking over from his ailing brother Fidel Castro four years ago, warned recently that while many "desperate" Cubans were seeking immediate change, it was vital to avoid "haste and improvisation."

Ortega's statements were the latest criticism aimed at the regime by the church, which warned in late March that "a worsening crisis is on the horizon that could break the fragile social cohesion."

The church has encouraged promotion of self-employment, legalized but restricted since 1993, and called for a law protecting small and medium private enterprises in a country where the state controls 95 percent of the economy.

It has also said performance-based pay, currently used by only 18 percent of state enterprises, should be expanded, urged "greater security" for foreign investment, and called for a boost in exports.

Ortega on Monday also urged Havana to get serious about improving ties with Washington.

"I think a Cuba-US dialogue is the first step needed to break the cycle of criticism," the cardinal said, recalling the various offers of top-level dialogue by Castro as well as US President Barack Obama, when he was campaigning for the White House in 2008.

But the cardinal also criticized Obama for repeating "the same old scheme of previous US governments," by insisting that Washington would lift its five-decade embargo on the island nation and enter high-level talks only if Havana made major changes on human rights.

"Only in advancing the dialogue can steps be made to improve or overcome the most critical situations," he said.

Havana has faced mounting international criticism that increased in February when dissident Orlando Zapata died 85 days into a hunger strike.

Cuban bishops lamented Zapata's death and called on the authorities "to take appropriate measures so that such situations do not recur."

The church also repeated its call for dissident journalist Guillermo Farinas to end his own hunger strike, begun the day after Zapata died.

Farinas told AFP Monday that he "respects" Ortega but was firm in his decision to carry on with his fast.

Ortega also criticized the harassment of the wives of political prisoners known as the "Ladies in White," who have been prevented from marching in recent weeks.

"This is no time to stir up passions," Ortega said.

April 20, 2010

caribbeannetnews

Bahamas Blog International

Support Obama - It's in our interest

By Sir Ronald Sanders:


Barack Obama is earning the Nobel Prize for Peace that he received late last year amid criticism that he had done nothing to deserve it.

The arms treaty that he personally pushed and signed with the Russian leader Dmitry Medvedev on April 8 in Prague is cause for the entire world to breathe a sigh of relief.

For sure, the world is a safer place for the fact, that under this Treaty, the nuclear arsenals of both the United States and Russia will be cut by a third.

Small nations, such as those in the Caribbean, would never have been part of the nuclear arms race, but once these weapons are in the hands of countries which might be tempted to use them, the real risk exists that small countries in their proximity could become innocent victims.

Of course, the risk now goes beyond nations to rogue groups with the financial capacity either to buy or develop nuclear weapons for use against nations they consider enemies. By the nature of its involvement in global affairs, the United States is an obvious target for hostile nations and anti-American organisations.

A nuclear attack on the United States would have dramatic and fatal consequences for the Caribbean in a range of ways that go far beyond the overspill from nuclear explosions.

Against this background, Caribbean countries should applaud the treaty signed by Obama and Medvedev. Similarly, they should welcome the Conference to be held by 47 nations, hosted by the United States on April 12 and 13.

Small states will forever be spectators at such Conferences – not being nuclear nations themselves – but they should be active spectators cheering on the governments that resolve not to develop nuclear weapons as well as the governments that take the bold step to reduce their arsenals. In this regard, governments of small states would act in their own interest and in the interest of all mankind if they sent messages of congratulations to Presidents Obama and Medvedev. These two leaders need to know that people around the world approve of their action.

It would not be amiss too if Caribbean governments also sent messages to the leaders of all 47 states participating in the Summit meeting on nuclear security starting on April 12. Such a message should make it clear that the world expects them to act responsibly and collectively to uphold the fundamental premise of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NTP) which is that while all nations have the right to seek the peaceful use of nuclear energy, they all also have the responsibility to prevent nuclear proliferation, and those that do possess these weapons must work towards disarmament.

Both Medvedev and Obama have already received strong criticism from influential persons and groups within their own countries, making it even more urgent for peace-loving nations to register their vibrant support for their courage in resisting the combatants in their own societies. The ink was not yet dry on the signatures to the Treaty signed on April 8 when conservatives opposed to Obama’s agenda for nuclear non-proliferation attacked him, saying that he will weaken the US nuclear deterrent against possible attack.

Not surprisingly among the nay-sayers was John McCain, the Republican Senator against whom Obama ran for the US Presidency. He was joined by another Republican Senator in saying: “We believe that preventing nuclear terrorism and nuclear proliferation should begin by directly confronting the two leading proliferators and supporters of terrorism, Iran and North Korea. The Obama administration's policies, thus far, have failed to do that and this failure has sent exactly the wrong message to other would-be proliferators and supporters of terrorism”.

Their statement indicates quite clearly what the attitude of the Republicans will be in the US Senate which has to ratify the Obama-Medvedev treaty before it can come into force. They will subject Obama to a verbal bashing, and raise the spectre of American vulnerability as they try to scaremonger the entire nation into rejecting it. The Russian Parliament also has to ratify the treaty, and while the ride there may be easier, it will not be entirely smooth. This is even greater reason for other nations to transmit to these bodies their support for the agreement.

The Summit on Nuclear Security is not expected to discuss particular countries but undoubtedly Iran and North Korea will be discussed in the margins of the meeting. Iran is widely suspected of pursuing nuclear weapons, and North Korea, which withdrew from the NPT in 2003, has twice detonated nuclear devices. Both countries are under UN sanctions, and both are governed by regimes that have demonstrated a dislike and disregard for international rules.

What was particularly significant about the speech made by Medvedev after signing the April 8 treaty is that he was severely critical of Iran saying that the world could not turn a blind eye to Iran, which he said had not responded to "many constructive proposals". He suggested that Russia would be open to further sanctions against Tehran.

Small states, particularly those that are actively seeking economic links to Iran, also need to be careful that the Iranian government does not expect their votes in diplomatic tussles at the United Nations and other international bodies over Iran’s nuclear programme. While all countries should support the desire for nuclear energy, it is not at all clear that Iran’s programme stops there. And rejecting any overtures from Iran for diplomatic support in the nuclear controversy would not be submission to a US-Russia position; it would be an assertion of the vital concern of small nations for a world in which no new nuclear weapons are built and existing arsenals reduced.

On April 7, the Obama government committed the US not to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states provided that they are party to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and in compliance with their nuclear non-proliferation obligations. Only North Korea and Iran are presently omitted from this undertaking.

The nuclear security Summit could be a first step in a constructive nuclear-use strategy. If the development of nuclear weapons could be universally rejected and a commitment made to the peaceful use of nuclear energy, nuclear power could be used in the fight against climate change and in giving the entire world greater confidence in energy security

Obama has given the world the right lead by his intense desire to end nuclear-proliferation. Yes, the US would be safer if this happens, but so too would the rest of the world particularly those with no nuclear weapons. Obama deserves support.

April 9, 2010

caribbeannetnews

Bahamas Blog International

Health reform in the United States

Reflections of Fidel

(Taken from CubaDebate)

BARACK Obama is a fanatical believer in the imperialist capitalist system imposed by the United States on the world. "God bless the United States," he ends his speeches.

Some of his acts wounded the sensibility of world opinion, which viewed with sympathy the African-American candidate’s victory over that country’s extreme right-wing candidate. Basing himself on one of the worst economic crises that the world has ever seen, and the pain caused by young Americans who lost their lives or were injured or mutilated in his predecessor’s genocidal wars of conquest, he won the votes of the majority of 50% of Americans who deign to go to the polls in that democratic country.

Out of an elemental sense of ethics, Obama should have abstained from accepting the Nobel Peace Prize when he had already decided to send 40,000 soldiers to an absurd war in the heart of Asia.

The current administration’s militarist policies, its plunder of natural resources and unequal exchange with the poor countries of the Third World are in no way different from those of its predecessors, almost all of them extremely right-wing, with some exceptions, throughout the past century.

The anti-democratic document imposed at the Copenhagen Summit on the international community – which had given credit to his promise to cooperate in the fight against climate change – was another act that disappointed many people in the world. The United States, the largest issuer of greenhouse gases, was not willing to make the necessary sacrifices, despite the sweet words of its president beforehand.

It would be interminable to list the contradictions between the ideas which the Cuban nation has defended at great sacrifice for half a century and the egotistic policies of that colossal empire.

In spite of that, we harbor no antagonism toward Obama, much less toward the U.S. people. We believe that the health reform has been an important battle, and a success of his government. It would seem, however, to be something truly unusual, 234 years after the Declaration of Independence in Philadelphia in 1776, inspired by the ideas of the French encyclopedists, that the U.S. government has passed [a law for] medical attention for the vast majority of its citizens, something that Cuba achieved for its entire population half a century ago, despite the cruel and inhumane blockade imposed and still in effect by the most powerful country that ever existed. Before that, after almost half a century of independence and after a bloody war, Abraham Lincoln was able to attain legal freedom for slaves.

On the other hand, I cannot stop thinking about a world in which more than one-third of the population lacks the medical attention and medicines essential to ensuring its health, a situation that will be aggravated as climate change and water and food scarcity become increasingly greater in a globalized world where the population is growing, forests are disappearing, agricultural land is diminishing, the air is becoming unbreathable, and in which the human species that inhabits it – which emerged less than 200,000 years ago; in other words, 3.5 million years after the first forms of life emerged on the planet – is running a real risk of disappearing as a species.

Accepting that health reform signifies a success for the Obama government, the current U.S. president cannot ignore that climate change is a threat to health, and even worse, to the very existence of all the world’s nations, when the increase in temperatures – beyond the critical limits that are in sight – is melting the frozen waters of the glaciers, and the tens of millions of cubic kilometers stored in the enormous ice caps accumulated in the Antarctic, Greenland and Siberia will have melted within a few dozen years, leaving underwater all of the world’s port facilities and the lands where a large part of the global population now lives, feeds itself and works.

Obama, the leaders of the free countries and their allies, their scientists and their sophisticated research centers know this; it is impossible for them not to know it.

I understand the satisfaction in the presidential speech expressing and recognizing the contributions of the congress members and administration who made possible the miracle of health reform, which strengthens the government’s position vis-à-vis the lobbyists and political mercenaries who are limiting the administration’s faculties. It would be worse if those who engaged in torture, assassinations for hire, and genocide should reoccupy the U.S. government. As a person who is unquestionably intelligent and sufficiently well-informed, Obama knows that there is no exaggeration in my words. I hope that the silly remarks he sometimes makes about Cuba are not clouding his intelligence.

In the wake of the success in this battle for the right to health of all Americans, 12 million immigrants, in their immense majority Latin American, Haitian and from other Caribbean countries, are demanding the legalization of their presence in the United States, where they do the jobs that are the hardest and with which U.S. society could not do without, in a country in which they are arrested, separated from their families and sent back to their countries.

The vast majority of them immigrated to Northern America as a consequence of the dictatorships imposed on the countries of the region by the United States, and the brutal policy to which they have been subjected as a result of the plunder of their resources and unequal trade. Their family remittances constitute a large percentage of the GDP of their economies. They are now hoping for an act of elemental justice. When an Adjustment Act was imposed on the Cuban people, promoting brain drain and the dispossession of its educated young people, why are such brutal methods used against illegal immigrants of Latin American and Caribbean countries?

The devastating earthquake that lashed Haiti – the poorest country in Latin America, which has just suffered an unprecedented natural disaster that involved the death of more than 200,000 people – and the terrible economic damage that a similar phenomenon has caused in Chile, are eloquent evidence of the dangers that threaten so-called civilization, and the need for drastic measures that can give the human species hope for survival.

The Cold War did not bring any benefits to the world population. The immense economic, technological and scientific power of the United States would not be able to survive the tragedy that is hovering over the planet. President Obama should look for the pertinent data on his computer and converse with his most eminent scientists; he will see how far his country is from being the model for humanity he extols.

Because he is an African American, there he suffered the affronts of discrimination, as he relates in his book, The Dreams of My Father; there he knew about the poverty in which tens of millions of Americans live; there he was educated, but there he also enjoyed, as a successful professional, the privileges of the rich middle class, and he ended up idealizing the social system where the economic crisis, the uselessly sacrificed lives of Americans and his unquestionable political talent gave him the electoral victory.

Despite that, the most recalcitrant right-wing forces see Obama as an extremist, and are threatening him by continuing to do battle in the Senate to neutralize the effects of the health reform, and openly sabotaging him in various states of the Union, declaring the new law unconstitutional.

The problems of our era are far more serious still.

The International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and other international credit agencies, under the strict control of the United States, are allowing the large U.S. banks – the creators of fiscal paradises and responsible for the financial chaos on the planet – to be kept afloat by the government of that country in each one of the system’s frequent and growing crises.

The U.S. Federal Reserve issues at its whim the convertible currency that pays for the wars of conquest, the profits of the military industrial complex, the military bases distributed throughout the world and the large investments with which transnationals control the economy in many countries in the world. Nixon unilaterally suspended the conversion of the dollar into gold, while the vaults of the banks in New York hold seven thousand tons of gold, something more than 25% of the world’s reserves of this metal, a figure which at the end of World War II stood at more than 80%. It is argued that the [U.S.] public debt exceeds $10 trillion, more than 70% of its GDP, like a burden that will be passed on to the new generations. That is affirmed when, in reality, it is the world economy which is paying for that debt with the huge spending on goods and services that it provides to acquire U.S. dollars, with which the large transnationals of that country have taken over a considerable part of the world’s wealth, and which sustain that nation’s consumer society.

Anyone can understand that such a system is unsustainable and why the wealthiest sectors in the United States and its allies in the world defend a system sustained only on ignorance, lies and conditioned reflexes sown in world public opinion via a monopoly of the mass media, including the principal Internet networks.

Today, the structure is collapsing in the face of the accelerated advance of climate change and its disastrous consequences, which are placing humanity in an exceptional dilemma.

Wars among the powers no longer seem to be the possible solution to major contradictions, as they were until the second half of the 20th century; but, in their turn, they have impinged on the factors that make human survival possible to the extent that they could bring the existence of the current intelligent species inhabiting our planet to a premature end.

A few days ago, I expressed my conviction, in the light of dominant scientific knowledge today, that human beings have to solve their problems on planet Earth, given that they will never be able to cover the distance that separates the Sun from the closest star, located four light years distant, a speed that is equivalent to 300,000 kilometers per second – if there should be a planet similar to our beautiful Earth in the vicinity of that sun.

The United States is investing fabulous sums to discover if there is water on the planet Mars, and whether some elemental form of life existed or exists there. Nobody knows why, unless it is out of pure scientific curiosity. Millions of species are disappearing at an increasing rate on our planet and its fabulous volumes of water are constantly being poisoned.

The new laws of science – based on Einstein’s theories on energy and matter and the Big Boom theory as the origin of the millions of constellations and infinite stars or other hypotheses – have given way to profound changes in fundamental concepts such as space and time, which are occupying theologians’ attention and analyses. One of them, our Brazilian friend Frei Betto, approaches the issue in his book La obra del artista: una vision holística del Universe (The Artist’s Work: a Holistic View of the Universe), launched at the last International Book Fair in Havana.

Scientific advances in the last 100 years have impacted on traditional approaches that prevailed for thousands of years in the social sciences and even in philosophy and theology.

The interest that the most honest thinkers are taking in that new knowledge is notable, but we know absolutely nothing of President Obama’s thinking on the compatibility of consumer societies with science.

Meanwhile, it is worthwhile, now and then, to devote time to meditating on those issues. Certainly human beings will not cease to dream and take things with the due serenity and nerves of steel on that account. It is a duty – at least for those who chose the political profession and the noble and essential resolve of a human society of solidarity and justice.



Fidel Castro Ruz
March 24, 2010
6:40 p.m.

Translated by Granma International

granma.cu

Bahamas Blog International