Do Not Exclude Cuba from the Summit of the Americas

Cuba denounces U.S. government exclusion of Cuba from preparations for Ninth Summit of the Americas

Excerpts from statement to the press by Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodríguez Parrilla

I am obliged to denounce the fact that the U.S. government has decided to exclude the Republic of Cuba from preparations for the Ninth Summit of the Americas set to take place in Los Angeles, June 8-10; and is currently exerting extreme pressure on numerous governments in the region that have privately and respectfully opposed this exclusion.

The U.S. government is misleading the public and governments of the hemisphere by saying that it has not yet made decisions regarding invitations.

I respectfully urge Secretary of State (Anthony) Blinken to say honestly whether or not Cuba will be invited to the Ninth Summit of the Americas.

A central axis, according to preparations for the event, will be health.  And I must inform our people and international public opinion that there are currently negotiations underway, conducted in an unclear manner, with quite a few neoliberal elements, and many shortcomings, in relation to the real needs of the peoples regarding the COVID-19 pandemic, the structural causes of precarious health systems that have led to tragic consequences and caused an extremely high number of deaths in our hemisphere, including the United States of America, and have avoided substantial cooperation and basic financing to address these consequences, and are now negotiating in an opaque manner a so-called Health and Resilience Action Plan for the Americas through the year 2030.

I must note that these negotiations are being held, in an obscure manner, with the exclusion of Cuba and other member states of the Pan American Health Organization, which are participating in these processes, in violation of their own mandates.

Cuba has always, in a modest but altruistic and persistent fashion, provided the possibility for international cooperation in health, which has been recognized worldwide.

There are Latin American vaccines against COVID-19 which are Cuban. The medical brigades that responded to the COVID emergency in the region, in the hemisphere in more than 50 countries on the planet, have been Cuban.

It would be convenient to take into account during this process, and benefit our peoples, Cuban medical presence in confronting natural disasters and epidemics in the past, the provision of tens of thousands of medical scholarships for low-income Latin American, Caribbean and United States youth, the existence of the Latin American School of Medicine in Havana, Operation Miracle that returned the sight of millions of low-income persons, Cuba's ability to establish cooperation, transfer state-of-the-art technology, provide pharmaceutical products, vaccines and novel treatments, the ability to share advanced protocols and medicines in the field of health…


Another central axis of the Summit, from which Cuba is intended to be excluded, is emigration.  A document with a long title: Letter of Understanding on Migration Management and Protection of Migrants is also being negotiated behind the back of international, US, Latin American and Canadian public opinion.  It is a code that seeks to force Latin American and Caribbean States to repress migration, to absorb the migrants that the United States decides to process outside its territory, which incorporates elements of the racist, xenophobic and plundering U.S. vision of our migrants.  It does not address in any way the real causes of migration, but it does, however, offer palliatives, stimuli, financing and economic incentives to countries that send migrants to the U.S. and are closer to its borders, to attenuate this process.

With Cuba, however, his recipe is the extreme tightening of the blockade, causing deprivation to Cuban families, the application of Undersecretary Mallory's stark memorandum: "depressing wages, causing hunger, despair and the overthrow of the Government," is the American prescription in relation to Cuba…
The exclusion of Cuba from the Ninth Summit of the Americas would constitute a serious historical setback in relation to the two previous editions.  In Panama, in 2015, Army General Raúl Castro Ruz led the delegation from our island which participated on equal footing, and raised his firm, dissenting voice, but always serene, respectful and constructive…

A third axis of the Summit of the Americas is that of democracy and human rights.  In the obscure negotiations taking place today, the intention is to establish the Organization of American States to certify all elections in the region.  This is the same OAS of the coup in Bolivia, and the intention of the United States, historically responsible for coups in our region, and also responsible for the coups in recent decades against progressive governments.

How can a Summit take place, centered on democracy, having excluded, at the arbitrary whim of the host, certain countries of Latin America and the Caribbean?  Can anyone think of something more undemocratic?
The U.S. has no moral authority to set itself up as a model in this matter or to criticize others…

The Ninth Summit of the Americas could still be an opportunity if, in an inclusive manner and on equal terms for all countries, it debated, without exclusions and with sincere commitment, the most pressing problems that affect the continent.

Cuba supports the genuine efforts to promote dialogue, links and cooperation between Our America, the America of Bolivar and Martí, and the United States, between the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States and the United States government…

Cuba, which firmly defends the unity within the diversity of Our America, today expresses our profound gratitude to the peoples and governments that maintain a courageous, dignified, solidary position, demanding of the U.S. government that Cuba not be excluded from the Ninth Summit of the Americas.

Source

Defending Latin American and Caribbean dignity

 

Anti-Cuban maneuver in the Organization of American States (OAS) defeated

...the OAS - an organization with no moral authority and a long history of betraying the peoples of Latin America

Author: Internacional news staff | informacion@granmai.cu

A call for a meeting made by the United States to the Organization of American States (OAS) to "analyze the situation in Cuba," no doubt to justify interference, failed miserably due to the refusal of the majority of its member countries.

Party Political Bureau member and Cuban Minister of Foreign Affairs Bruno Rodríguez Parrilla posted a tweet yesterday, July 28, describing the events as a defeat for the U.S. within the pro-imperialist entity.

"Anti-Cuban maneuver in the OAS defeated. Rejection by a majority of member states forced suspension of a Permanent Council meeting," the Foreign Minister stated, adding that the President pro tempore of the Council admitted the failure through a "pathetic letter insulting Cuba."

Rodríguez Parrilla also thanked the countries which "defended Latin American and Caribbean dignity," refusing to support the maneuver.

According to a report by Russia Today, Washington Abdala, president pro tempore of the Permanent Council, reported that, after receiving statements from several countries, it was decided to postpone the meeting to conduct consultations that could be useful.

Abdala added that he has asked the organization's Secretariat for Legal Affairs to prepare a report on the situation in Cuba in relation to the OAS - an organization with no moral authority and a long history of betraying the peoples of Latin America. He said the document will be shared with OAS members when it is available.

Source

Bocchit Edmond, Haitian Abassador to the Organisation of American States (OAS) ...expresses concerns about xenophobia and mistreatment of Haitians in The Bahamas

Xenophobia In The Bahamas: Haitian Ambassador Addresses Fred Mitchell

By RASHAD ROLLE

Tribune Staff Reporter

rrolle@tribunemedia.net

Nassau, The Bahamas



THE Haitian ambassador to the Organisation of American States raised concerns yesterday about xenophobia and mistreatment of Haitians in the Bahamas during a special OAS sitting in Washington, DC.

Addressing Foreign Affairs and Immigration Minister Fred Mitchell, Ambassador Bocchit Edmond called on the Bahamas government to consider launching a public campaign designed to underscore the notion that “verbal abuse” of Haitians is “unfair and unjust”.

Mr Edmond frequently emphasised that he did not wish to “cast aspersions” on the decisions of the Bahamian government, but he nonetheless raised several concerns about the policy measures this country has taken to deal with illegal immigration.

In his response, Mr Mitchell rejected suggestions of widespread abuse of Haitians and noted that the Bahamas government does not sanction discrimination.

“...I would like to raise the concern of my government as to the verbal abuse to which Haitian immigrants have been exposed in the Bahamas,” Mr Edmond said. “As you may know, sir, there are many great Haitians presently in the Bahamas, but that indeed have been in line with the immigration requirements for years…and yet too many of them are victims of certain abuse and denigrating (remarks) and I should go as far as to say frankly rankly discriminating behaviour simply because they are Haitians.”

“Then there are black Bahamians who are summarily interpreted as being Haitian and who have been subjected to the same treatment for that reason. I would very much hope that your government would take under advisement to launch a campaign of information of some kind to really underscore the fact that this is unfair and unjust. I believe the vast majority of Bahamian citizens are very good, but when I read the press or have seen a couple of video clips on the Internet or heard and read for myself a number of these statements that have been made, I have to say these are frankly inflammatory and cannot fail but to stir up feelings that are not conducive to peaceful coexistence.

“So I would implore you, sir, to, I won’t say so much to educate, but to inform, to make it clear the measures are being taken, measures in the public domain, measures that I have stated from the outset are absolutely in the purview of Bahamian sovereign decisions, but we also know that the Bahamas as do we all has the obligation to respect basic human rights.”

In his response, Mr Mitchell said much of what is represented in the press about the treatment of Haitians in the Bahamas is false.

“To speak for a moment about the question of prejudice and discrimination and what is said in the press and social media,” he said, “part of the reason we are here is because of the misinformation that was spun either in the press or social media about what this is. The government of the country is not responsible for what is in the press or what the people say in the press, although it might in fact reflect in some instances what public opinion is. But I think every Bahamian understands the nature of prejudice and bigotry and discrimination and certainly the government does not sanction any of these things and I want to separate myself from any effort which is suggesting that one ought to discriminate against any national group. This is a generic policy not expressed in terms of any national group.”

Nonetheless, Mr Mitchell acknowledged that many Bahamians are frustrated with the country’s illegal immigration problem and with having to absorb “hundreds and thousands” of illegal migrants.

“Our prime minister, when he speaks, often recounts a story of the first black member of parliament (who) was in fact a man named Stephen Dillet who was born in Haiti, came with his mother after the revolution as a child,” he said. “Our governor general who just retired, Sir Arthur Foulkes, his mother was Haitian. Haitians and people of Haitian descent are integrated in the country. And my view is that what you are seeing, you say expressed in the press, does not represent the majority view in our country. What is of concern to a small country is the question of can you continue to absorb hundreds and thousands of illegal migrants coming into a country undocumented knowing what your obligations are in the international arena for the security of your border and also for the future identity and safety of your own state. That is simply unsustainable and so we have an obligation, both internationally and within our own domestic borders to our own population to ensure, not that migrant stops, but that those who come to the Bahamas are properly documented to be in the Bahamas and come through the front door and not through the back door. That is what this is aimed at correcting.”

December 17, 2014

Tribune 242

OAS 44th General Assembly: U.S. increasingly alone in efforts to isolate Cuba

By Sergio Alejandro Gómez

The recent 44th General Assembly of the Organization of American States (OAS) held in Paraguay’s capital Asunción, clearly showed that the United States is increasingly alone in its efforts to isolate Cuba, a strategy unsuccessfully followed since January of 1959.

Although the issue was not listed on the official agenda, debate on Cuba’s participation in the upcoming Summit of the Americas, to be held in Panama next year, occupied a good amount of time at the June 3-5 gathering.

It is not, in fact, an issue to be decided by the OAS itself, but one made by the country organizing the Summit. It was clear that sister countries in the region are not disposed to live another 50 years with the unjust exclusion of Cuba and lost no time in making their position clear, reiterating that they will not accept another meeting without Cuban participation.

Cuba’s presence at these events, where heads of state from the Americas gather every three years, is a long-standing demand of the Latin American and Caribbean community, since the first Summit was held in Miami in 1994.

IF CUBA IS EXCLUDED, SO ARE LATIN AMERICA & THE CARIBBEAN

The issue emerged immediately during the opening of the 44th Assembly, when Nicaragua began the first round of statements and its representative Dennis Moncada recalled, “It is not possible to hold another Summit of the Americas without the presence of Cuba,” as many said during the 2012 Cartagena meeting.

Throughout the three-day gathering, statements were made by some 20 countries in support of Cuba. Roy Chaderton, Venezuela’s permanent representative to the OAS, insisted that “preconditions and vetoes” with respect to Cuba must end.

The delegation from St. Vincent and the Grenadines spoke for the Caribbean Community (Caricom), reiterating the group’s firm position in favor of Cuba’s participation, and St. Lucian Foreign Minister Alva Baptiste took advantage of the occasion to emphasize Cuba’s accomplishments in health and education as human rights, recalling that the majority of U.S. citizens now support a change in Washington’s policy toward Cuba.

Explicit rejection of the exclusion, along with statements indicating that countries would not attend the 7th Summit, if Cuba is not invited, were again expressed by representatives from Ecuador, Nicaragua, Venezuela and Bolivia. Argentina joined this group, with Foreign Minister Héctor Timerman summarizing the situation by saying, “If Cuba is excluded, we consider ourselves excluded, as well.”

OAS General Secretary José Miguel Insulza acknowledged, at the conclusion of the event, that the great majority of countries favor the attendance of all countries, saying, “If we talk about inclusion, we can not exclude anyone. All countries of this region and the Caribbean must be present.”

DEFENDING THE INDEFENSIBLE

The U.S. delegation, including Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources Heather Higginbottom and permanent OAS representative, Carmen Lomellín, were obliged to defend the indefensible U.S. position alone, with a brief, tepid statement of support from Canada. The two could only manage to repeat the overused U.S. refrain about the need for a “democratic Cuba,” before the country could attend a Summit of the Americas. Lomellín and Higginbottom were responding, surely unaware, to a question posed by Comandante en Jefe Fidel Castro 52 years ago, in the Second Declaration of Havana, when he asked, “How long will they be so shameless and cynical to talk about democracy?”

“If democracy means the people, if democracy means government of the people, then what is this?” he added, speaking before hundreds of thousands of Cubans gathered in Havana’s Plaza de la Revolución for a general assembly of the people, following the OAS decision made in Uruguay to expel Cuba.

Fidel was confident that Cuba would always have at its side “the solidarity of all free peoples of the world,” and “all honorable men and women of the world,” clarifying that what had been heard in Punta del Este was the voice of oligarchies, not that of the peoples.

UNITY WITHIN DIVERSITY

It was precisely this new voice of the people which was heard in Paraguay, not only in support of Cuba, but during discussions of common positions on the region’s principal problems.

Based on the principle of unity within diversity, an agreement was reached to call on Britain to participate in talks with Argentina on the issue of the Malvinas, with speakers emphasizing their support for Argentine sovereignty over the islands, occupied by force to create a 21st century British colonial enclave.

The U.S. delegation could not have felt comfortable with the agreement, having violated the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance, to support the UK during the 1982 Malvinas War.

Those attending the General Assembly also voted to support the government of Venezuela, facing violence perpetuated by the right wing opposition and supported from abroad. Foreign Minister Elías Jaua described the attacks on the country’s constitutional order which has been fully documented and widely denounced.

The OAS body agreed to a resolution supporting peace talks between the Colombian government of Juan Manuel Santos and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia-People’s Army (FARC-EP) which have been underway in Havana since November of 2012. Colombia’s Foreign Minister María Ángela Holguín, thanked everyone for their support, especially guarantors Cuba and Norway, and companion countries Venezuela and Chile.

VOTES FOR JUSTICE

The future of Our America is to be found in integration, in regional organizations such as the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC); Unasur, (the South American Union); the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America, Alba; and others. These groups have shown that it is possible to build unity within diversity, with respect for the histories and cultures of all, without discrimination.

These are the values recognized by the vast majority of the world’s countries, in the yearly UN vote against the U.S. blockade of Cuba. These are the values of those who demand that Cuba be removed from the spurious list of state sponsors of terrorism; and by those recently assembled in Washington demanding justice for the Cuban Five.

Now, as U.S. citizens increasingly favor a change in U.S. policy toward their neighbor to the south, it behooves the government to stop listening to a radical, right wing minority which supports continued aggression and subversive operations in Cuba.

How far will U.S. disrespect for Latin American and Caribbean countries go? How will the U.S. deal with this increasing isolation, given the process of change underway in the region? Will the U.S. boycott the Summit of the Americas which it created, for fear of being in the same room with a revolutionary leader? These are only a few of the questions which remain unanswered after the 44th General Assembly of the Organization of American States.

June 11, 2014

Granma.cu

The Summit of the Americas: A Cuban conundrum for Colombian President Santos

by COHA Staff

From April 9 to 15, 2012, the Organization of American States (OAS) and other multilateral bodies will host the Sixth Summit of the Americas, which will take place in Cartagena, Colombia. Bogota is absorbed by this major meeting of hemispheric heads of state; according to the Spanish website Infodefensa.com, Colombia will deploy up to five thousand police officers, six planes and helicopters and three unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV), to ensure the event goes on without a hitch.[1]

Unfortunately, the Juan Manuel Santos administration has been deeply concerned that the event’s occurrence would be flawlessly staged, while at the same time it has had to face a diplomatic incident leading up to what Latin America correctly has conceptualized as an extremely important summit. Cuba, which is the only state in the Western Hemisphere that is not a de facto member of the OAS, declared its interest in attending what is certain to be a very substantive meeting of the heads of state.

This possibility became a concern for Washington, which has been at diplomatic odds with the Castro government (first Fidel and then Raul) for decades. Tensions regarding the OAS-led summit further flared up even more when Ecuador, a member of the ALBA bloc (Alianza Bolivariana para las Americas – Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas), let it be known that the ALBA bloc could possibly boycott the meeting if Havana was not allowed to participate.

This situation led to President Santos being placed in an untenable position (he would have to invite Castro to avoid an ALBA boycott but, in turn, this would have angered Washington, who would undoubtedly decide to boycott the meeting), so the Colombian head of state decided to travel to Havana to meet with the Cuban leadership. He met with Raul Castro closed doors and had the onerous chore of having to ask Castro to reconsider his intention to go to Cartagena, in order to avoid an incident with the US delegation. This incident, if it had progressed, would have presented Santos with a guaranteed diplomatic conundrum, but thankfully, this situation did not escalate. The ALBA bloc, including Venezuela, will attend the meeting in lieu of a boycott, and Castro won’t attend.[2]

Cuba, the OAS and the Santos Trip

Cuba and the OAS historically have had a troubled relationship. The island state, with its pre-revolution regime, was one of the original OAS members. The OAS was founded in 1948 as successor to the Pan American Union. After the Cuban 1959 revolution was staged, the John F. Kennedy administration pushed for the continent to politically and economically isolate Cuba after its military relationship with Soviet Moscow was acknowledged by Fidel.

The OAS suspended the Caribbean island from January 1962 until June 2009. It would take nearly five decades for there to be sufficient momentum on the continent for a major policy shift to be made regarding Cuba. In the end, even though Cuba’s membership was validated, Havana decided to dismiss its prospects for full participation and chose not to return to the OAS at this time.

This historical development occurred due to the rise of regimes in the region which have been vociferous in their criticism of US foreign policy (as can be found in Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador), along with the rise of powerhouses like Brazil.

In 2002, Mexico held a major international conference on financing for development, called by then-United Nations (UN) Secretary General Kofi Annan.[3] Then-US President George W. Bush was scheduled to attend, but a diplomatic impasse developed when Fidel Castro, the historical Cuban head of state, decided to attend as well. In order to avoid the embarrassment that was sure to follow, then-Mexican President Vicente Fox privately called Castro and asked him not to come, and the Cuban leader appeared to agree to this. However, even though the conversation between the two leaders was supposed to have been private, Castro actually taped their phone conversation and then made it public. In a famous line, Fox tells Castro that “puedes venir pero comes y te vas” (“you can come, but you eat and then you’ll leave”).[4]

Another causative Cuba-related diplomatic incident occurred in 2009, when Trinidad and Tobago hosted the Fifth Summit of the Americas, and there was a clash between Washington and Caracas over Havana. Even before the summit, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez declared that it would be clear that “we’re going to Trinidad and Tobago to put that issue on the table […] from the moment the curtain goes up, Cuba will appear on the stage.”[5] Throughout the Summit, there also was concern that Chavez and his allies would follow the final declaration at the end of the meeting with one of their own as a way to protest the US embargo against Cuba.

Ironically, in spite of the tension surrounding the meeting, Obama met with Chavez, which was immortalized in an iconic photograph.[6] The US leader also stated that “the US seeks a new beginning with Cuba […] I know there is a longer journey that must be traveled to overcome decades of mistrust, but there are critical steps we can take toward a new day.”[7]

As preparations for the Cartagena summit began to take shape, rumors began to circulate that Cuba would insist in attending the summit. At first, Bogota remained neutral on this development. For example, in early February, Colombian Foreign Minister Maria Angela Holguin stated to the press that “it is not up to Colombia to invite Cuba to the Summit of the Americas.”[8]

Bogota’s position was in response to declarations made by Ecuador’s President Rafael Correa, who said that “from now on I propose that if Cuba is not invited to the Summit of Americas, no member of ALBA is to attend the summit.”[9] Correa’s statements gained some momentum as fellow ALBA members like Venezuela and Bolivia also seemed to be considering a boycott of the summit if Castro was not invited. ALBA has 11 members, all of which are OAS members (which has 34), hence a boycott would have a significant impact on the summit as it would cut the number of attending heads of state by a third. Washington has made it clear that it will not attend the meeting if Castro is present.

William Ostick, a spokesman for the State Department, said that “today’s Cuba has in no way reached the threshold of participation […] there must be significant improvements in political liberties and democracy in Cuba before it can join the summit.”[10] If Washington carries out this threat, this will continue to diminish the multilateral and institutional ties it has with the rest of the continent, at a time when we are witnessing the creation of regional bodies to which US does not belong, like UNASUR (Union de Naciones Suramericanas – Union of South American Nations) and CELAC (Comunidad de Estados Latinoamericanos y Caribeños -- Community of Latin American and Caribbean States).

To prevent the hemispheric rift from growing, in early March, President Santos traveled to Cuba to ask point blank Raul Castro not to travel to the Cartagena Summit. Given the 2002 precedent, it is understandable that Santos decided to travel to Havana instead of calling Raul Castro. As part of the aftermath, President Chavez stated that there seems to be a consensus among the ALBA bloc to attend the meeting. Nevertheless, he warned that, from the bloc’s point of view, this should be the last summit in which Cuba does not participate.[11]

Cuba and the US: No Breakthroughs On the Horizon?

In recent years there has been a rising momentum to improve relations between Washington and Havana. When President Obama was campaigning, he pledged that he would close down the detention center in the naval base in Guantanamo Bay, located in Cuba. Unfortunately he has yet to do so.

Other more ambitious initiatives included lifting the decades-old embargo on the island. Obama managed to gain enough support to lift some travel restrictions so Cuban Americans can more easily travel to the island or send money to their relatives there,[12] but the trade embargo relentlessly remains, and will continue to do so as long as the political weight in Miami continues.

Regarding the continued tensions between the two countries, in February of this year, Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont traveled to the island and privately met with Raul Castro to pledge for the release of US contractor Alan Gross, who is serving a 15 year sentence for espionage and “smuggling illegal communications equipment and attempting to set up an Internet network that could escape government detection.”[13]

On the other hand, the US has controversially imprisoned five Cuban citizens (known as the Cuban Five), for allegedly being spies for Havana. One of the Cubans, Rene Gonzalez, was released this past October 2011 after serving 13 years in prison.[14] The global negative reaction to this political trial further undermined U.S. stature in the region.

Summits of the Americas, a Historical Source of Criticism

If anything, the tensions over whether Cuba should or will attend the Summit of the Americas adds some flavor to a hemispheric gathering that is usually critiqued for its irrelevancy. The first Summit was carried out in Miami in 1994; at the time, the OAS had former Colombian President Cesar Gaviria as Secretary General. While the 1994 summit was an important milestone regarding the initiatives for hemispheric integration, it was critiqued by Latin American specialists as a simple gathering of heads of state without much substance.

Criticism of such high-level meetings and whether anything productive ever comes out of them has continued over the past two decades. In a recent interview between journalist Andres Oppenheimer and former Peruvian President Alan Garcia, the two-time head of state downplayed the importance of these Summits. The Peruvian politician stated that such high-level encounters “[are] a dialogue for the deaf,” and that each leader “goes with a prepared speech, to read it, and to blame someone else of [his country’s] problems, usually Uncle Sam or the ‘horrendous’ international financial system.”[15]

To be fair, it is noteworthy to state that such meetings have brought about important initiatives. For example, in April 2001, during the Third Summit of the Americas, held in Quebec City, the heads of state decided to push for a new pro-democracy treaty, which would become known as the Inter-American Democratic Charter. As the Charter states, the hemispheric leaders decided to create:

“A democracy clause which establishes that any unconstitutional alteration or interruption of the democratic order in a state of the Hemisphere constitutes an insurmountable obstacle to the participation of that state’s government in the Summits of the Americas process.”[16]

Washington has never been slow to point to this clause when it comes to promoting and protecting its interests in the Western Hemisphere.

The Agencies of the OAS: Working in Obscurity

At a time when the OAS continues to be critiqued regarding how it serves Washington’s interests, it is noteworthy to highlight how the OAS has fielded a number of autonomous agencies that carry out important and relevant work for hemispheric issues. When the OAS is criticized, this is usually targeted at the Secretariat and the General Assembly, but there are various agencies that operate under the OAS umbrella, like the Pan American Health Organization, Inter-American Commission of women,[17] Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Inter-American Committee against Terrorism[18] and the Inter-American Defense Board[19] ( IADB; and its military educational wing, the Inter-American Defense College –IADC).

The IAD Board (created in 1942, which makes it older than the OAS), and the IAD College (created in 1962), throughout their existence, have been accused of being at best, irrelevant, and at worst, a “mooseclub.” In a Strategic Forum report entitled “Reforming the Inter-American Defense Board,”[20] John A. Cope, Senior Research Fellow in the Institute for National Strategic Studies (INSS) at the National Defense University (NDU), perfectly conceptualizes the issues with the IADB, explaining that:

“The reluctance of diplomats to tap the Board’s expertise, even when considering regional defense and security issues, and the IADB’s unwillingness to subordinate itself in practice to the Committee on Hemispheric Security of the OAS Permanent Council or the Secretariat for Multidimensional Security, present a serious impasse.” (P.2)

Cope also adds that, beyond senior officials, most OAS staff members have little awareness of IADB activities (P.2) and that “the IADB structure evokes an earlier period in Latin American and Caribbean history when military institutions were largely autonomous and regularly played a significant role in politics. The legacy of civil-military tension still influences thinking and actions at both the OAS and IADB.” (P. 3)

Conclusions

It appears that Cuba will not attend the summit in Cartagena after all, and the Cuban government is blaming Washington for its likely absence. Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez has stated that the US government has acted with “disdain and arrogance” over Havana’s intentions to participate in Cartagena.[21] The Cuban official also stated that:

“The exclusion of Cuba is probably the most notorious, most evident symbol that (these summits) are made in the image of the owner, which is the government of the United States, and they are instruments to exercise domination in a manner not at all democratic”

Indeed, the upcoming Cartagena summit has proved to be a big headache for President Santos. The Colombian leader successfully achieved a diplomatic solution for the Cuba question. At the end of the day, Santos did manage to avoid a humiliating personal defeat as he was put between a rock and a hard place by Hillary Clinton’s completely obdurate and senseless actions on Cartagena, all aimed at improving Obama’s political prospects in November. But its outcome hardly represented a brilliant victory for Santos’ image as a brave and principled new voice for Colombia and his own amazing hegira from being a defense ministry goon to earning the right to a completely renovated reputation.

After all, while Bogota no longer can be found on the wrong end of the leash regarding its diplomatic relationship with the US, the events leading up to the Cartagena summit so far are hardly a victory for him. By carrying out Washington’s wishes regarding Castro’s presence at this major gathering, the Santos presidency appears to continue being under Washington’s sphere of influence as it was during the Cold War. It seems that, when it comes to hemispheric gatherings, the US continues to reserve the right of determining who makes up the guest list. In 2012, it is correct for Latin American and Caribbean governments to advocate that they should no longer feel destined to be eternally under Washington’s narcotic policy spell.

To review sources, please click here

The Council on Hemispheric Affairs, founded in 1975, is an independent, non-profit, non-partisan, tax-exempt research and information organization. It has been described on the Senate floor as being "one of the nation's most respected bodies of scholars and policy makers." For more information, visit http://www.coha.org/ or email coha@coha.org

April 5, 2012

caribbeannewsnow

One year after: Taking stock of the Haitian recovery

By Jean Herve Charles


Every year at the beginning of the New Year I take time to stop, to take stock of the Haitian situation. Haiti has been going from bad to worse every year during those last ten years! It is true 2004 was also an annum miserabilis but the wave of misery fallen on the nation and the people of Haiti in 2010 was so frequent and so wide and deep that the year can be characterized as an annum miserabilissum.

At the dawn of the year, and the end of a magnificent tropical winter day filled with golden colors of the sun going to sleep on the hills surrounding Port au Prince, the land shook so violently under the capital and the adjoining cities that 300,000 people were found dead and 1.5 million have remained without a home. There was also inundation in the spring causing more damage to the land, followed by the seasonal hurricane during the summer.

As if it was not enough an imported germ of cholera from South Asia brought by one of the UN contingent into the country, has decimated some 3,000 people and sending 50,000 to hospital during the fall. The tropical winter has brought its lot of misery in the form of a political crisis when the Haitian government, supported by a sector of the international community, in particular the OAS-CARICOM team, has stolen the vote of the Haitian people thirsty of a life of peace and prosperity in one of the most beautiful place on earth.

The international media will descend en masse to Haiti on January 12, 2011 to make an assessment of the progress realized since the earthquake. They will be disappointed to find there was no progress according to the lowest standard of evaluation. Only 15 percent of the debris has been removed. The majority of the people are still living under tents, in fetid and dependent condition.

There was a massive outpouring of goodwill and financial support from the world community to Haiti. The Haitian government has exhibited a level of leadership so frail, mixed with a culture of corruption so deep, draped with complete indifference to the fate of its people that the enthusiasm of the donors and the NGOs has been reduced to naught.

The president of Haiti, Rene Preval, as well as his government led by Mr Bellerive, after two non consecutive mandates has no idea where he wants to lead his people. He is only concerned about remaining in power through a subaltern in order to dole out to associates and to partisans the spoils and the funds of the reconstruction without concern for the welfare of his citizens.

One would expect that the leadership vacuum in service delivery could have been filled by the myriad of non-governmental organizations that received the bulk of the funding raised for and on behalf of the Haitian people. Haiti is the perfect example that a nation cannot be developed harmoniously when the government as the main vehicle for service delivery has outsourced to NGOs the steering wheel to lead the growth process.

Case at point is the policy of building Corail (the biggest and the largest ghetto in the Caribbean) under the supervision and the expertise of the largest international NGOs such as Food for the Poor, International Red Cross, and Doctors Without Borders, etc.

Haiti’s recovery stands in the policy choice of building Corail or rebuilding the nation. So far the choice has been to rebuild Corail and ignore the rebuilding of the nation. The republic of Haiti with its 365 rural counties, its 142 towns, its 10 cities and the capital is either in complete ruin or has never been constructed. After January 12, 2010 Haiti had a chance to start de novo and rebuild itself. I am witnessing with the building of Corail, the compromising of the rebuilding of the rural villages, the towns and the cities of Haiti.

I have visited Corail on several occasions. On a rugged deserted hill facing Port au Prince, where you will not find one single tree, a sprawling new fevella or ghetto is being constructed, with homes designed by the international community no larger than a slave cell, while ignoring or feigning to ignore the fact that this agglomeration is ferment for future social explosion. The funding for this monstrosity should go instead to rebuild the town of Corail (a real agglomeration in the south of Haiti) as well as the other similarly situated 150 other towns of the nation.

The concept of nation building includes the concept of rooting the citizens in their own localities with their culture, the infrastructure, the institutions and the creative incubation to insure that they not become nomads in their own land. If the Haitian government has been delinquent in formulating and enforcing the policy of rooting their citizens at home in their towns or their villages, I would expect the international community, with funding from the good people of this earth, would know better!

I am observing a culture of map roule or faking diligence or disguised empathy practiced by both the Haitian government and the international community. The true beneficiaries of the avalanche of international NGOs in Haiti are the well wheeled Haitians who own a splendid villa for rent at the rate of $4,000 per month and/or a brand new 4/4 diesel jeep with a driver for rental at the rate of $4,500 per month.

Haiti has a window of opportunity this month and in the coming weeks to escape from its turbulent life of misery and squalor. The OAS as a corrupt incubator is multiplying its intervention in Haiti to keep alive a culture of death that is now sixty years old. It will become clearer for each and everyone to assess whether the international community is a foe or a friend of the Haitian people. It has in the past hijacked its political transition at each significant corner to maintain the economic strangulation.

The test will be whether the ghetto of Corail, right across the magnificent bay of Port au Prince shall continue to be a permanent fixture in the Haitian panorama or whether significant funding will trickle down into the rural villages, the towns and the cities of Haiti so the nation can rebuild itself on a permanent and sustainable basis!

The test will be also, whether the OAS/CARICOM tandem will succeed in reviving against the will of the people of Haiti, the Preval regime through a Siamese brother to maintain the misery of the majority of the population.

Stay tuned next week for an essay on: The epidemic of cholera and Haiti.

January 1, 2011

caribbeannewsnow

Bahamas Blog International

Deconstructing the Haitian political crisis

By Jean Herve Charles



The Republic of Haiti is at a stalemate. A national election took place on November 28, 2010. It was encrusted with so much irregularity, government-led violence and polling manipulation, including international mishap and corruption, that the final results cannot be proclaimed. One of the most popular candidates, Joseph Michel Martelly, was relegated to the third place, denying him the right to a second round of balloting.

There was rioting, and protests all over the country. The candidates, the pundits and the electoral board as well as the international community are all shooting at each other, diverse formulas to redress this gross disrespect for the sacred principle of democracy, which is the right of the people to choose their own leader without interference.

Haiti, as most third world countries, is familiar with the strength of a long hand (national and/or international) that manipulates the electoral transition to ensure that political stability is equal to or tantamount to the status quo.

There was an election recently in St Vincent and the Grenadines. The people of St Vincent at home and abroad for the past five years in the media and out loud have cried out against the arrogance and the ill advised policies of their government. Yet at election time, the same Prime Minister, Dr Ralph Gonsalves has been returned to power for the next five years, albeit with a slim majority.

Rene Preval, after two five-year, non consecutive mandates has led the Republic of Haiti with a desinvolture so pregnant with ineptness that all types of catastrophes are falling to his people, inundation with landslides, earthquakes with disastrous consequences, rampant disease such as cholera, causing thousands of deaths and immense hospitalization. Yet his slogan of political stability is translated into using all the state and international resources to put his own son-in-law into power to continue the culture of keeping Haiti in the state of squalor.

My eureka in the process of the deconstruction of the national and international link of the Haitian political crisis started in September 2009 at the Clinton Global Conference in New York. I was hobnobbing with world leaders when a personal friend introduced me to the mighty and the powerful of this earth as the next head of state of Haiti. One of them took my friend on the side and told her, “Do not listen to this lad; the next president of Haiti will be the wife of President Preval!” President Preval was not married yet to his present wife; the wedding took place in December 2009.

In the meantime, God himself got into the fray! A powerful earthquake on January 12, 2010 shook the land under the capital, Port au Prince, destroying most of the governmental buildings and killing more than 300,000 people. A plan B was designed by President Rene Preval. He would incubate the former Prime Minister Alexis as his successor. Alexis had a good following amongst the legislators, but he was decried by the people as a poor policymaker when they forced him out during the first stage of food riots that would circle the whole globe in 2008.

This choice was secretly endorsed by the international community. The American Democrat Party was ready to lend its best technicians in campaign practices to the Unity Party. I had no information or knowledge about the preferred candidate of the Republican Party.

At a conference organized by the OAS in Washington for the Haitian Diaspora to participate in the reconstruction of Haiti, I was warned by one of the operatives that my intrusion into Haitian politics was not welcome, Alexis was their man!

CARICOM, through their associate director Colin Granderson, was proposed and accepted to anoint, supervise, tabulate and give credence to the gross organized deception that the Haitian people have called a selection not an election. CARICOM has no funding for such operation.

Another plan was devised to have the American government and the American taxpayer pay for the macabre exercise. It did so to the scale of 12 million dollars, with no strings attach, with Mr Granderson doling out the dollars at his choice under the pretext of international observation.

Elizabeth Delatour Preval has other plans; she does not get along with Frederika Alexis, a strong willed lady in her own right. The reigning First Lady will not accept that the aspiring first lady occupies the National Palace. She put her veto to the choice. President Preval had to come up with option C. Jude Celestin, his aspiring son in law, was the nominee of the brand new party, Unity, reconstructed overnight as the Senate and the assembly deserted the president in his choice.

Massive resources of the national treasury brought some of them in line; Jude Celestin had an open checkbook to plaster the country with posters and giant billboards. His credentials for the top job of the nation has been honed by the president who created the CNE (outside of the governmental scrutiny) to build roads and provide national sanitation. He was also in charge of collecting the bodies after the earthquake.

The people of Haiti have decided to grant a failing grade to the Preval government that exhibited any constructive leadership under the lowest standard of good governance during the last five years. The balloting of November 28, 2010 reflected that evaluation.

Yet, through national and international connivance, (OAS, CARICOM and the Canadian expert in charge of the tabulation) a massive fraud was concocted to position the candidate of the government as eligible for a second balloting.

The people of Haiti as one have stood up to stop this gross violation of their rights. The political crisis has since been in full force. The Haitian Constitution has provision for such a crisis. A new government must be in place on February 7, 2011 to replace the Preval administration. In his spirit of callousness, he has avoided during the last five years to name a chief of the Supreme Court who by law would be named the next chief of state in case of political stalemate.

The Constitution foresees also the investiture of the oldest judge of the Supreme Court as president in case the chief judge is not available. The Haitian civil society, the international community, the political parties will agree to nominate a prime minister who will organize a government in the spirit of the Constitution to organize new elections and lead the transitional reconstruction of the country.

The people of Haiti have exhibited, according to the Wall Street Journal, a saintly patience and resilience during the successive waves of national trauma. Haiti is not St Vincent and the Grenadines; its patience with an arrogant and inept leader, unwilling and unable to hear and empathize with its suffering, is not without limit!

Stay tuned next week for an essay: One year after, taking stock of the Haitian situation: Building Corail or rebuilding Haiti!

December 25, 2010

caribbeannewsnow

Bahamas Blog Internaional

Michaelle Jean and UNICEF

By Jean H Charles



The United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) may have made the wrong move in naming the brainy and attractive Canadian-Haitian Michaelle Jean, formerly the Governor General of Canada, as its representative in Haiti. She minced no words and wasted no time in letting the world know it is time to stop the successive failed experiments in Haiti.

During the year 2010, no country has benefited from so much publicity and marketing and goodwill as the Republic of Haiti. Yet the return for the Haitian people is so insignificant that proper research must be done to find out why a consortium of actors and actions keep contributing to bringing Haiti into an abyss so deep that light at the horizon cannot be seen.

January 12, 2010, was a defining moment for Haiti to be reborn from its recent and past ashes. In less than one minute, a formidable earthquake shook the land under the capital Port au Prince and destroyed lives and limb in a random pattern affecting some 1.5 million people and killing more than 300,000.

A proud and resilient nation that instructed the world about the way to human rights two hundred years ago has been engulfed in a national and international intrigue that now lasted two centuries. The last sixty years have been one of the most painful for the nation. I am a living witness of a country seeking its destiny but halted by dictators, military misfits, and petty demagogues clothed with democratic vestments in bed with an international community too cynical to be naïve about the caustic mix of the relationship.

The Haitian intellectuals -- those who should have led the masses -- have short-circuited the long march forward. Like the Israelites in the Bible they have escaped into Egypt. That Egypt was Canada for Michaelle Jean; it was the United States for me and my family. It has been the Dominican Republic, the Bahamas, France and Florida for others.

Luckily, a critical mass of Haitian intellectuals is returning home to lead the fight for a regime change that implies more than a masquerade election. It signifies the creation of a nation at the dimension of its initial aspiration; a country hospitable to all. The obstacles are many. In the past sixty years the ill governance of the Duvaliers, the Aristides and the Prevals has elevated mediocrity and stupidity as queen and squalor as king of Haiti.

During a cursory visit to Haiti, whether in the countryside or in the main cities, you will find the indices of no government, as well as a myriad of nongovernmental organizations like chicken heads seeking a proper mission. The main highway from Port au Prince to Cape Haitian is impracticable halfway from Gonaives. Desolation, misery lack of institutional support is the lot of the small towns. Bidonvilization, lack of electricity, no potable running water, and sporadic street cleaning is the expectations for the major cities. Port au Prince the capital is a ghost town at night and a hodgepodge of traffic jams and confusion during the day.

This canvas is framed with a mammoth United Nations occupation contingent, with the soldiers ready to shoot from a mounted vehicle or war tank. The only casualty for those soldiers is the wearing of the heavy helmet in 80-degree weather at the dawn of winter.

The international community, with the OAS as the lead agent, is pushing full speed for the futile exercise of election, pretending that democracy is the goal. With a population in abject poverty, uneducated and without hope, the present government is ready and able to buy each vote with a crisp 1,000 gourdes or the equivalent of US$25. For the millions who live under tents and in the hills of the countryside, this sum represents a winning lotto ticket.

This is democracy a la OAS and a la UN. Michaelle Jean, like her namesake St Michael, who chased Satan and the evil angels from heaven, might represent a Trojan horse thrown into the city ready to become a fierce advocate of true democracy in Haiti. From the international podium she may be needed on the national one as the CEO of CRHI, the Haiti Reconstruction Authority that has been dragging its feet on the speedy recovery process.

To apprehend the real problem of the country one has to superpose a triangle over the map of Haiti. The basis of the triangle is formed with a line that includes the 566 rural villages. The second layer represents the 142 small towns. The third layer constitutes the 10 major cities and the capital Port au Prince as the apex.

The rural villages constitute the structural basis of the triangle. They have not received funding for infrastructure and institutional buildings since the birth of the nation. Consequently, the internal migration to the cities has compromised the integrated development. Catastrophes, erosion, public health outbreak are constant companions that visit the nation regularly.

My organization – AIDNOH – has teamed up with Caritas to launch a project of (re)building in the north and the northeast part of Haiti. We have targeted six rural villages to bring about the rudiments of infrastructure and services such as school, health, economic development, youth leadership to root the citizens in their localities. There are 560 more rural villages to reach with the indices of good living! Starting Haiti on the right tract must go through that process.

Note:

A fund called the blue and red (the color of the Haitian flag) angel has been set up to that effect. It is seeking the tax exempt contribution of one thousand angels who will pledge $100 per month for the reconstruction of Haiti starting from the bottom up not the top down. We have already found one angel (Pat Schenck from upstate New York) as such we need 999 more. Would you subscribe to that worthy cause?

November 13, 2010

caribbeannewsnow

Bahamas Blog International

OAS/Caricom Challenges in Haiti

Facing up to broken aid promises and interferences in Nov 28 poll
By RICKEY SINGH



LAST Wednesday's (October 20) annual Eric Williams Memorial Lecture, delivered in Miami, Florida, by Jamaica's former Prime Minister PJ Patterson, would have served to further underscore the urgent need for the international community to cut the talk and walk the walk in delivering pledged reconstruction aid for earthquake-ravaged Haiti.

Questions raised among the hundreds in attendance for the lecture pointed to the horrors of life for the people of Haiti, the "mother of freedom in this hemisphere".

Hopefully, the concerns expressed at the event would also serve as a reminder why both the Caribbean Community and the Organisation of American States should speak boldly to the reconstruction aid problem, among other things.

There is also the dangerous politicking that has already led to the unilateral exclusion of some 14 parties from contesting the upcoming November 28 presidential and parliamentary elections.

Before returning to the aid and political problems affecting Haiti, readers should know that the topic for this year's lecture was "The Renaissance of Haiti: A Template for Caribbean Integration".

It was organised by The Eric Williams Memorial Lecture Collection (EWMC), headed by Erica Williams-Connell, daughter of the late historian prime minister of Trinidad and Tobago who led the country into independence and headed governments over a quarter century until his death in office in 1981.

Patterson's assessment


Patterson, known for his deep commitment to regional integration, was chosen as the Caribbean Community's special envoy for Haiti in the wake of last January's unprecedented earthquake disaster.

He knows only too well about the prevailing "words game" over the distressing gap between aid pledges by donors and lack of deliveries in the face of immense suffering of Haitian earthquake victims, and in general the entire population of Haiti. In the circumstances, Patterson was the perfect choice for this year's Eric Williams Memorial Lecture.

He is well aware of the influence of Williams' pan-Caribbean vision that had significantly contributed to the inauguration of the Caribbean Community at Chaguaramas in 1973; and why today's 37-year-old Caricom must remain firmly committed to being a strong voice in the mobilisation of international support for the reconstruction of Haiti.

With respect to the current challenges facing the Haitian people and what functions as their "government" amid the ruins and squalor in Port-au-Prince, it may be useful for the region's public to learn of Patterson's latest assessment as Caricom's special envoy on Haiti.

Two critical issues


It is certainly time that the secretariats of Caricom and the OAS communicate with the region's public, either separately, or through a joint statement, their own concerns over the two very critical, agonising problems affecting the Haitian people -- one economic, the other political.

Desperately struggling to survive amid choking poverty long before their country was devastated by an unprecedented earthquake disaster, Haitians are today anxious to know why it is taking so long -- nine months after their worst natural disaster - for just US $732 million of the promised US$5.03 billion in "reconstruction aid and debt relief" to trickle down to them.

Of particular concern is, why has the administration of President Barack Obama, which had committed itself to an initial US$1.15 billion of the original US$5.03 billion, not yet delivered even a portion of its pledge?

Both United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, and former President Bill Clinton, the UN special envoy to Haiti, continue to openly lament the failures to honour aid pledges in the face of the horrible daily problems of Haitians, who languish in tents where criminality, sickness, hunger and a loss of dignity for many remain a way of life.

The second, and related question, is why are donor nations, among them the USA and Canada, yet to condemn the arbitrary exclusion by Haiti's Provisional Electoral Council (CEP) of candidates from 14 political parties?

Among the parties is Haiti's largest and most popular Fanmi Lavalas, whose founder-leader, ex-President Bertrand Aristide, remains in exile. What would justify this most strange action by the Electoral Council?

With presidential and legislative elections just about six weeks away, there needs to be a proper explanation from the Council, a constitutional and supposedly independent body, which is being funded by the international community to ensure free and fair elections in the interest of democratic governance.

That's why neither the OAS nor Caricom can fail to share their positions on the sensitive issues of lack of aid delivery and the arbitrary exclusion by the CEP of more than a dozen parties from contesting the forthcoming elections.

After all, both Caricom and the OAS have teamed up to monitor the conduct of the Novermber 28 elections.

October 24, 2010

jamaicaobserver

Bahamas Blog International

Haiti needs a democratic revolution not an election!

By Jean H Charles:


“After Rwanda and Yugoslavia, Haiti seems to be the next theater of a major mischief by some international institutions.”

I must state at the outset that I am not advocating nor promoting neither a violent nor an armed revolution. I am talking about a democratic revolution in the minds and the spirit of the people, a revamping of the institutions and a new covenant of the government to usher in a true process of democracy. Once this revolution is on the way, Haiti can then proceed with a free and fair election.

The country needs a hiatus of three to five years of reconstruction, free of politicking, to heal the nation and set the country on the road of reconciliation and nation building. The present regime can be compared to a piece of wood filled with termites in a piece of furniture. To repair the furniture one needs to cut and throw away the damaged wood before affixing a new piece. Otherwise the damage part will eventually infect the entire furniture, including the new piece.

It was Alexis de Tocqueville who coined the concept of democratic revolution, while speaking of the birth of the United States. Akin to South Africa before Mandela, Haiti must transform itself from a de facto apartheid country to a state where the sense of appurtenance is the rule. It needs now a democratic revolution not an election.

I have this week visited a rural community named Mazere on the road from Grand River to Bahon. I have in mind these pictures that depict the extent of the misery, the magnitude of the squalid conditions as well as the inequality that 85% of the population of Haiti is forced to live under.

The public school, the only state presence of the area is located across the river. There is no bridge for easy access. I asked the kids how they get to school, one of the mothers interjected to let me know they carry the younger ones across the river, which sometimes destroys everything in its way, including an irrigation dam recently built.

Inquiring further with the adults, I asked them what their most pressing needs are. They told me that the government used to protect the land with rock formation on the hills to prevent avalanches during the rainy season. This operation has not been done for the past decades. We have now huge amount of water sitting for months in the fields destroying our produce.

It has been decades that the Haitian government has been a predatory entity preying on its people instead of providing services and support to help its citizens to enjoy the pursuit of happiness.

As such the people of Haiti educated or otherwise are waiting for the Blanc (the white man) to bring about deliverance. On the political scene, the question is not what is the agenda of the candidates, it is rather who has the blessing of Barack Obama for the presidency of Haiti? The sense of civics patriotism and leadership has been dimished by the last sixty years of corrupt governance.

The entire population is a crowd in transit. The rural world with no services from the government is in transit towards the small cities. The small towns have become ghost entities with the citizens in transit towards the larger cities, their citizens are in transit towards the capital and there the dream is to find an American visa or take a leaky boat towards Florida or the Bahamas.

Building up the sense of nation has not been a governmental priority or a United Nations foreign intervention initiative. MINUSTHA (the UN force) is substituting itself as the Haitian army without assuming the defense of the country. Inequality and injustice is queen, extorting the notion of appurtenance from and for each other. The sense of noblesse oblige of the past that kept the poor ones afloat has been substituted by the doctrine of “rock in the water against rock in the sun” or class warfare by Aristide. The Preval regime has introduced the concept of “swim to the shores at your own risk” leaving everyone to fend for themselves... It has left no lifeline of security for the majority of the population which is going into a free fall abyss.

In an article this week in the Miami Herald, Jacqueline Charles depicted the fetid situation where the Haitian refugees are living under in the Corail camp. “What was supposed to be the model for a new Haiti looks like the old one, a menacing slum.” Jean Christophe Adrian the United Nations Human Settlements Program added “the international community has a tremendous responsibility for creating this monster.”

Haiti, after Rwanda and Yugoslavia, could be the scene of a major catastrophe orchestrated by a non sensitive government with the connivance of major international institutions. I was in Washington last June at the OAS mansion at a conference on Haiti organized by CARICOM. In a conversation with Mr Colin Granderson, the Haiti resident, I shared my intention of running in the next election. His answer: how much money do you have, instead of what is your vision for Haiti? Sounds like “how many regiments do you have at your disposal?”

The gang of three -- the UN, the OAS and CARICOM -- in its dealing with Haiti is using according to Emil Vlajky in the wretched of the modernity, the absolute rationality which is anti-human. The human rationality with its sense of ethics is not in favor. The poor, the wretched, the refugees of the catastrophe will continue to live with unkept promises. While the entire country is decrying the upcoming election as a masquerade with the president holding all the marbles, the General Secretary of OAS characterize the process as “credible”. The Haiti of the Duvalier’s, the Aristide’s and the Preval’s culture is a gangrene that must be extirpated to create a modern nation sensitive to the needs of its people.

Any policy short of this radical intervention is unfriendly to the gallant people of Haiti that deserve a break from a life of abject misery.

September 20, 2010

caribbeannewsnow

Bahamas Blog International

Haiti a missed opportunity!

By Jean H Charles:




Haiti, the first and only successful slave revolt experience to become a nation, has been a failed opportunity to polish its raw material and remain the pearl of the islands. After the earthquake of January 12, 2010, Haiti has failed to embark into a mode of development to recuperate the two hundred years of failed opportunity.

Some will say it is too early to tell. Seven months into the process, is not enough for a prediction into the future! Yet it is enough time to indicate the direction of the wind, is it towards change or towards the status quo?

On the ground in Haiti, I am witnessing all the elements are in place for a complete disaster in the coming months as well as the harbinger of years of unrest in the future.

I have developed in this journal, for the past two weeks, the conceptual framework attributing the notion of the failed state business systematically replacing the slaving business. I have also advanced the hypothesis that Haiti was the first nationally and internationally organized failed state entity.

Alexander Petion and his successor Jean Pierre Boyer, in accepting to negotiate the price of French recognition, has set a mortgage so high on the back of the brand new nation, it was designed to fail. When later that mortgage has been renegotiated, it was not to pay the installments but to kill each other in clan politics. This tragedy or that drama lasted two hundred years.

In this modern day era where an event of biblical proportion happened to Haiti, one should expect a new national and international order; it is business as usual in Haiti. Alie Kabbar of the United African organization on CBS today complained that “the American Red Cross that collected 465 million dollars on behalf of the people of Haiti is spending the money on five figure salaries, hotels, car rentals, air-conditioned offices for its staff instead of (or in addition) to spend the money for real people with real needs on the ground.”

Lionel Trouillot, the celebrated Haitian essayist wrote in a piece signed as of today, there is a smell of putrefaction in the air in Haiti. It is the smell of lies, the smell of big salaries of the multinational NGOs mixed with the fetid smell of the camp right across the hotel on the main plaza of Port au Prince.

I would add there is also the smell of resignation, the smell of laissez faire. I was invaded by that smell, because as of yesterday, I could not get myself into writing this essay, I was telling myself, it does not matter to raise the world consciousness about Haiti; things will remain the same.

I have in mind this lady in the camp right across the main hotel of Port au Prince, the Plaza Hotel, who told me not to take her picture. She is tired of people taking her picture and promising to do something for her and for her baby. Nothing has happened.

The machine set by the Haitian government, the United Nations, the OAS and Caricom for a faked election where the three main political parties have been ostracized, with the result, selected by the president, is already in motion. The thousands of NGOs from all over the world faking development initiatives while building mainly latrines and paraphernalia of that sort is suffocating.

The mammoth UN agency MINUSTHA faking support to the people of Haiti with the entire material one can order all over the world used only for its own needs. The city of Port au Prince at night is a ghost town with only the UN complexes lighted as in a developed country.

I am constantly stimulated by the high and down of feeling of anger and bliss – anger, because of the arrogance and the lack of empathy of the UN people vis a vis the displaced Haitians and the populace in general as well as the feeling of bliss for living in a land so lush where the cost of living is so low and the opportunity so plentiful that maybe Haiti is the lost paradise!

Speaking with a an investor friend at the hotel, musing on why Haiti cannot take off, he told me that Haiti needs the creative strength of the United States. I retort that no country in the Caribbean has so many creative people as Haiti! His answer was illuminating:

“They may be creative in arts! They need to be creative in engineering, in machinery, in planting, in soil conservation, in husbandry. Any farmer from the United States can help the Haitian people with those skills you do not need any PhDs for that.

“That is the reason why I am here to show them how to build their own anti-earthquake home. How to recycle the plastic material with scrap wood to produce building blocks stronger and cheaper than the cement block in use in Haiti now.”

He has been looking for an audience with those in authority, so far with not much success. Containers of prefabricated homes have already been secured by those close to the power base!

Will Haiti recover from this devastating earthquake? Or will it surge from its failed state status to an enlightened one? I suspect it will take a critical mass of Haitian people to understand that they have the undeniable right to the pursuit of happiness and to justice in their own land.

The national and international apparatus in place now is ensuring that critical mass of understanding does not occur. I am not optimistic for or about Haiti!

The woman who spoke to me at the Camp right outside the Plaza hotel

August 28, 2010

caribbeannewsnow

Bahamas Blog International

To OAS or not to OAS: that is the question

Ronald Sanders





At a meeting of leaders of Latin America and the Caribbean on February 23, Caribbean Community (Caricom) governments supported a joint "Declaration on (the) Falklands Islands Issue".

The Declaration "confirmed their support of Argentina's legitimate rights in the sovereignty dispute with the United Kingdom over the Falkland Islands Issue", and recalled "regional interest in having the governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom resume negotiations to find a fair, peaceful and definitive solution to the dispute over the sovereignty" of the Falklands/Malvinas islands. They went further to call on the European Union (EU) countries to amend their charter to remove the Falkland Islands from the list of overseas territories associated with the EU.

The support of Latin American countries for Argentina in this matter is quite understandable. They have links of language, culture, history and proximity that go back centuries.

But the support of Caricom countries for Argentina's "legitimate rights" is puzzling. Both the UK and Argentina have claimed the Falklands/Malvinas for almost 200 years. So what now makes Argentina's rights more "legitimate" than Britain's? And why call for "negotiations" between Argentina and Britain to find "a fair, peaceful and definitive solution" to the dispute if it has already been decided that Argentina's rights are "legitimate"?

Unless there is something they have not made public, this position by Caribbean governments appears on the surface to run counter to their own national interests.

The Caribbean has always strongly supported a people's right to self-determination. It is in fulfilment of their own right to self-determination that Caribbean Community (Caricom) countries are independent states. In this regard, since the people of the Falklands/Malvinas have consistently and overwhelmingly chosen to be British, Caribbean governments would certainly not argue that the manifest wish of the people of the Falklands/Malvinas should be ignored, particularly since Britain has exercised de facto sovereignty over the islands continuously since 1833.

The national interests of 12 of the 14 independent Caricom countries are much more bound up with Britain than they are with Argentina. Caricom's trade with Britain far exceeds trade with Argentina; investment in Caricom countries from Britain is much greater than any investment from Argentina; official development assistance from Britain to Caricom countries directly and indirectly (through the European Union and the Commonwealth for instance) is much larger than any assistance from Argentina; the number of tourists from Britain to Caricom countries is considerably greater than from Argentina; and far more Caricom nationals live, work and study in Britain than in Argentina.

What appears to have triggered this discussion at the 33-nation Cancun meeting is the fact that a British oil exploration company, Desire Petroleum Plc, announced that it had started drilling for oil 60 miles (100 kilometres) north of the Falklands/Malvinas. Argentina objects to this development.

In giving support to Argentina, Caricom countries run the risk of compromising their own interest. For instance, where would they stand if Venezuela objected to oil exploration off part of Guyana, despite long-standing international arbitrations and agreements confirming Guyana's title? Also, where would these countries stand if Venezuela objected to oil explorations that might be granted by some of them near Aves Island/Bird Rock to which Venezuela lays claim? In the case of Belize where Guatemala claims the entire country, the same argument applies.

Then we come to the matter of the creation of a grouping of these 33 countries that excludes Canada and the United States. Some of the Latin American leaders - in particular those with a strong anti-American position - proclaimed to the media that this new grouping should replace the Organisation of American States (OAS).

Well, replacing the OAS is simply in no country's interest - not even those with the most rabid anti-American governments. There has to be a forum in the Hemisphere where all its countries are represented and where discussions can take place at all levels of government and on all issues. And that organisation is clearly the already well-established OAS. In this regard, Cuba should return to the OAS and the exclusion of the present elected government of Honduras should cease.

In any event, I suspect that only a very few governments touted the idea of an "alternative" organisation to the OAS and even fewer would have supported it. Certainly for Caricom countries, there is no other organisation in which they can engage the US government on a regular and sustained basis at all levels. That alone makes the OAS worthwhile for them.

Further, Caricom governments greatly value their relations with Canada, which has been an ally and partner for generations in the Hemisphere and in the Commonwealth. They would want deeper, not distant relations with Canada.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with Latin American and Caribbean countries establishing a grouping that is not an alternative to the OAS, but is additional to it.

However, no one should believe that it will be anything more than an opportunity for dialogue at the leadership level. It will have no secretariat and therefore little means of implementing decisions; decisions will have to be made by consensus, therefore no binding decisions will be made. In truth, the grouping is so amorphous and is made up of countries at such different levels of development and with such differing interests and ambitions, that its meetings will largely be obligatory and its decisions only declaratory.

The Summit "Declaration of Cancun" does have as one of its objectives "the co-ordination of regional positions ahead of meetings and conferences of global reach... to project the region and increase its influence". This is to be welcomed provided that the view of smaller Caribbean islands are seriously considered and reflected by the larger Latin American states.

This brings us to the OAS itself. The US government should regard this move by Latin American and Caribbean countries to set up a Hemispheric grouping, which deliberately excludes it, as a firm warning that its neglect of Latin America and the Caribbean's development needs and issues, and its oftentimes casual dismissal of their positions is not in the interest of the United States. The authorities in Washington need to engage Latin American and Caribbean countries as genuine partners and neighbours, and a strengthened and revitalised OAS is the place to do so.

In this connection, Caricom countries should indicate their support for the re-election on March 23 of the incumbent Secretary General José Miguel Insulza. His task over the last five years in a fractious organisation, which also relies on consensus for decision-making, has not been easy. But he has tried to introduce reforms and he has been the most forceful secretary general the OAS has seen for a long time. Additionally, he has been very mindful of his obligations to his Caribbean member states.

He has also taken on Hugo Chavez over violations of media freedom in Venezuela and he has not been afraid to point out shortcomings by the US government. To have offended both these adversaries, he must have done something right for the rest.

Over the next five and final years as secretary general, Insulza can be bold in giving the OAS real direction in reforming its mandate and establishing it as a meaningful forum for settling hemispheric issues and advancing democracy, development and human rights.

Responses and previous commentaries at: www.sirronaldsanders.com


Sir Ronald Sanders is a consultant and former Caribbean diplomat.


February 28, 2010

jamaicaobserver

Bahamas Blog International