Google Ads

Showing posts with label Nelson Mandela. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Nelson Mandela. Show all posts

Thursday, December 12, 2013

Mandela is an unsurpassable example for Latin America and the Caribbean

• Speech given by Army General Raúl Castro Ruz, President of the Councils of State and Ministers, at the funeral honors for the historic leader of South Africa, Nelson Mandela, in Johannesburg, December 10, 2013, Year 55 of the Revolution






President Jacob Zuma:

Family members of Nelson Mandela:


High ranking dignitaries:


Sister people of South Africa:

Full of emotion, we pay tribute to Nelson Mandela, who is recognized as the supreme symbol of dignity and unyielding dedication to the revolutionary struggle for freedom and justice; as a prophet of unity, reconciliation and peace.

Together with his comrades in struggle, he led his people in the battle against apartheid, in order to open the way to a new, non-racial South Africa, united in the search for happiness, equality and the well-being of all its sons and daughters, and to overcome the consequences of colonialism, slavery and racial segregation.

An example of integrity and perseverance, he then led the effort directed toward the elimination of poverty, the reduction of inequality and the creation of opportunities for all.

Mandela is an unsurpassable example for Latin America and the Caribbean, which are advancing toward unity and integration to the benefit of their peoples, respectful of their diversity, with the conviction that dialogue and cooperation are the way forward for the solution of differences and civilized cohabitation among those who think differently.

Humanity cannot respond to the colossal challenges which are threatening its very existence, if it does not do so through a new coordination of efforts among all nations, such as the life of Mandela extols.

Cuba, which has African blood in its veins, rose up in the struggle for independence and for the abolition of slavery and, subsequently, has had the privilege of battling and building together with African nations.

We shall never forget Mandela’s moving tribute to our common struggle when he visited us on July 26, 1991, and stated, "The Cuban people hold a special place in the hearts of the people of Africa."

A symbol of the sisterhood between Africans and Cubans, I recall his close friendship with Fidel Castro, who affirmed, "Nelson Mandela will not go down in history for the 27 consecutive years he spent incarcerated without ever renouncing his ideas; he will go down in history because he was able to expunge from his soul all the poison that such an unjust punishment could have created; for the generosity and wisdom with which, at the hour of the already uncontainable victory, he was able to so brilliantly lead his self-sacrificing people, knowing that the new South Africa could never be constructed on the foundations of hatred and vengeance."

Eternal honor and glory to Nelson Mandela and the heroic people of South Africa!

Thank you very much.

December 11, 2013



 

Saturday, August 14, 2010

Taking further stock of Africa's half-century of Independence

KEEBLE McFARLANE




ONE fascinating and encouraging aspect of human affairs is that nothing and no one is ever entirely good or evil. Case in point: my discussion last week of the past half-century of Africa's political history undoubtedly left a totally bleak impression.

A senior academic at the University of the West Indies took issue with the case I tried to make. Professor Rupert Lewis of the Department of Government noted that I failed to talk about the evolution of democracy in several African nations. I take his point, and while I still believe there is very little to celebrate, the picture in the mother continent is by no means one of total gloom and despair. There are, indeed, several encouraging examples.

Tanzania, which has suffered significant economic setbacks because of misguided, failed experiments, has never strayed from the path of political stability, unlike several of its eight neighbouring countries. The spearhead of its independence, Julius Nyerere, left office voluntarily and his successors have all been chosen democratically. The country was known as Tanganyika until 1964, three years after it severed colonial ties with Britain. That's when it merged with the neighbouring island of Zanzibar.

While it is a functioning democracy with regular elections, Tanzania is effectively a one-party country, with the ruling Chama Cha Mapinduzi holding well over 90 per cent of the seats in the National Assembly. That is not, though, the result of political repression. Interestingly, the constitution requires political parties to have women comprising at least 20 per cent of their representatives. And Zanzibar has its own assembly responsible for matters peculiar to the island.

On the other side of the continent, Ghana started out with considerable promise but quickly descended into economic chaos and political morass. Kwame Nkrumah, first prime minister and then president of the new republic, had been influenced by agitators like Marcus Garvey, CLR James and WEB Du Bois. He never achieved his dream of uniting Africa but played a significant role in founding the Organisation of African Unity, which became the African Union eight years ago.

Nkrumah fell into the common trap of the personality cult, calling himself Osagyefo (The Redeemer) and engaged in a number of ambitious projects which, unfortunately, came to naught. The Americans, feeling that he had become a liability, engineered a military coup in 1966, the first of several ending with the seizure of power by Flight-Lieutenant Jerry Rawlings in 1981. Rawlings later ran for office and won the presidency, re-winning it until he was prohibited by the constitution. Since then the country has had peaceful changes of government and appears to have settled into a state of stability.

Then there's South Africa, where a handful of descendants of Dutch and British settlers ruled the roost for a considerable part of the 20th century in a quasi-democracy only for their benefit. The black people, along with the "coloureds" and a relatively small number of immigrants from the Indian sub-continent, made up the overwhelming majority of the population but had essentially no voice. The Boers, as the Dutch settlers were known, played the Cold War game to the full, accusing anyone who opposed their diabolical schemes as "communist" and throwing them in jail.

At one point almost the entire senior leadership of the African National Congress was in prison, but through a steadfast belief in the rightness of their cause and stern discipline, they held their heads high until the system ultimately collapsed under its own weight and from tremendous domestic and international pressure. Nelson Mandela, a man of supreme sagacity, moral courage and tremendous grace, emerged unbowed after more than a quarter-century of hard prison time to lead his country into the fold of truly democratic entities. South Africa still has many problems - widespread unemployment, lack of prospects for hordes of young people, high urban crime and sub-standard housing in many places. But after observing, since 1994, the way South Africans have embraced the vote and all that goes with it, there's hardly any doubt that democracy has taken root. Mandela's example and leadership have inspired and encouraged people all over the continent.

Rwanda is another case where we can see more than glimmers of hope. Sixteen years ago, tribal hostilities boiled over at a cost of hundreds of thousands of lives. Members of the Hutu tribe, who had long harboured resentment against the smaller Tutsi ethnic group, lashed out and slaughtered Tutsis and Hutus who objected. There had been previous cases of internecine brutality, albeit on a much smaller scale, in neighbouring Burundi, which shared the same ethnic makeup as well as German and Belgian colonial rule. The slaughter went on for 100 days until the exhausted nation collapsed from sheer fatigue. The outside world looked on and did nothing.

Rwanda has slowly and painfully clawed its way back to some semblance of normality and last week held its second presidential election since the massacre. The man who led the rebuilding, Paul Kagame, was elected to a second seven-year term. His years have been marked by high growth and a significant increase in foreign investment, the building of infrastructure and tourism. But all is not roses; he ran almost unopposed and has come under criticism from opposition figures and human-rights groups for suppressing dissent. We will have to wait to see how this one will turn out; critics say Kagame is a mixture of nation builder and autocrat.

There are other cases of stability and reasonably good governance, but the overall picture remains dire.

Perhaps the most egregious example is this one: on June 30, 1960, the Republic of the Congo came into being as an independent country, ending 52 years of subservience to King Léopold of Belgium. (I said last week that the new Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba was leader of the French, rather than the Belgian Congo; several re-reads failed to catch the error). It was a stormy passage and the beginning of decades of even more stormy times. Two mineral-rich provinces, Katanga and South Kasai, decided to secede.

The place was overrun by armed men in uniform - Congolese army and resistance groups, Belgians as well as blue helmets from a UN emergency force mustered to try to maintain some order. The fabled UN Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjold made four trips to the Congo to try to procure peace and it was that quest that led to his death. In September 1961, his plane crashed in neighbouring Northern Rhodesia, which became Zambia upon gaining independence from Britain. Three inquiries failed to determine whether the crash was the result of an accident or hostile action.

Belgium, the United States and other Western countries connived to get rid of Prime Minister Lumumba and President Joseph Kasavubu. The eventual victor was Joseph-Désiré Mobutu, head of the secessionist movement in Katanga. The first two had set their country on a socialist path while Mobutu was deemed friendly to the west. He turned out to be a monster of enormous proportions - establishing one-party rule, a personality cult, widespread infringements of human rights and a kleptocracy of unprecedented proportions. He was eventually overthrown in 1997, but the wars continued, with forces from neighbouring countries coming across its borders to settle scores with their own refugees.

All these wars have cost the lives of almost five and a half million people, a toll dwarfed only by the Second World War. Truces and peace treaties have not stopped the brutality.

Clearly, while there are positive developments to applaud, the tasks facing Africa's leaders are truly monumental.

keeble.mack@smpatico.ca

August 14, 2010

jamaicaobserver

Sunday, October 18, 2009

Obama's Nobel Prize: The stupidity of political bigotry

By Sir Ronald Sanders:


Barack Obama did not ask for the Nobel Peace Prize and he was probably the most shocked person to learn that it had been awarded to him.

He certainly made no secret of his surprise at the news. And, he was dignified and humble in publicly saying that he didn't feel that he deserved to be "in the company of so many of the transformative figures who've been honoured by this prize - men and women who've inspired me and inspired the entire world through their courageous pursuit of peace".

In selecting Obama, the Nobel Prize Committee said: "Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future". Few, except Obama's bitterest antagonists in the US Republican Party and right wing groups would deny that statement.

The Committee also justified awarding the Prize to Obama by saying it "attached special importance to Obama's vision of, and work for, a world without nuclear weapons". That, too, is true. Obama could not be any clearer on this issue.

I part company with the Committee in its prospective explanation that "as President (Obama) created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play". This latter assertion is left to be seen.

From a Caribbean standpoint, his desire for multilateral diplomacy - rather than the enforcement of a US position - is yet to be tested and will be judged on the readiness of his administration to include Caribbean governments directly in: addressing the economic development needs of the area through bilateral assistance and the mobilization of resources from the international financial institutions such as the IMF and World Bank; reviewing US policy on the deportation of criminals; reassessing and re-modeling the anti-drug trafficking programme in the area; and fashioning machinery that will allow Caribbean financial services to continue to compete in the global market place, particularly in relation to US businesses. On this, judgment of Obama's willingness to engage even the smallest of nations in multilateral decision-making has to be withheld.

But, whatever reservations may be harboured by non-Americans about the early award of the Peace Prize to Obama, two things cannot be denied. First, the Nobel Prize Committee is right in its assessment that Obama has captured the world's attention and given people of many nations cause to hope for a better future. And, second, he has been awarded the prize without seeking it.

In this regard, Barack Obama is far above reproach. His declaration that he did not feel he deserved to be in the company of the notable persons who preceded him also marked him as a special human being.

Every citizen of the United States of America should have rejoiced in the selection of one of their own for the Prize, especially coming after a period in which its government's policies and practices estranged the US from most of the rest of the world and created deep resentment of Americans as a nation. Americans of every stripe should have been delighted that their country had returned to a place of global honour.

And, it is worth saying that while the period before Obama was particularly awful under the administration of George W Bush, the previous Bill Clinton government was not without its flaws.

Any who would question my observation of the Clinton government should look at the number of routine air strikes in Afghanistan that killed many innocent people and spurred deep resentment.

For the Caribbean, the dislocation of banana farmers from their preferential market in the European Union was a direct result of the Clinton administration's decision to act in the World Trade Organization for US multinational companies that were banana plantation owners in Latin America as well as financial contributors to the Clinton presidential campaign. It was also under the Clinton administration that the US took a hawkish position in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) that blacklisted several Caribbean jurisdictions over financial services. Many never recovered.

There is no doubt that no one person in US history has done more to improve global attitudes to the US than Barack Obama. The American people purged themselves when the majority of them elected him President for the content of his character above the colour of his skin, and for recognizing that he had a quality in his reasoning and his aspirations that was inspiring and believable.

But, instead of applauding Obama's appreciation by a prestigious body that has honoured human achievement and ambition for over a century, Republicans and right-wing groups in the United States denigrated it.

Fox News called the Nobel Prize "tainted" and one commentator wallowed in the gutter to ask if the Prize Committee was pursuing "a policy of affirmative action" - in other words Obama got the Prize because he is black. The ridiculousness of the last comment is evidenced by the people who have won the Peace Prize in modern times. For the most part, they are not white and at least three of them are black - Nelson Mandela, Desmond Tutu and Martin Luther King.

These same groups cheered, celebrated, and rejoiced when their own country lost its bid to host the 2016 Olympics simply because Obama joined the effort to convince the Olympic Committee to choose Chicago. How sick is that?

As a non-American, wary of the tendency for big powers to overlook the human value of small countries and their tendency to marginalise weak nations in pursuit of their own interests, I have to hope that, in awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to Obama so early in his Presidency, the objective of the Committee was to hold him to the values that he has espoused and encourage him to live up to them.

But, those Americans who maligned this unsought honour to one of their own should be ashamed of their deplorable behaviour. The awful spectacle to the world of their bigotry on this particular issue lost them respect and was nothing short of stupid.

caribbean360