Chavez must look homeward to nurse his ailing revolution

By Monique Blanco, COHA Research Associate:

In 1998, Venezuelans broke with political tradition by electing a well-known and controversial populist colonel named Hugo Chávez Frias as president. They ignored precedent because the long-established, IMF-inspired, neoliberal prescriptions were hurting the nation and no longer credible.

In the eleven years since his rise to prominence, Chávez has changed the fabric of Venezuelan society through his self-denominated Revolución Bolivariana. Long-sought changes aimed at different sectors of Venezuelan society, such as the political system and the economy, have come at a heavy price: crime and violence are rampant, inflation is soaring, and Chávez’s often picante rhetoric has become an international punch line.

While it is undeniable that he has brought about vast social change in his country and region, his explosive administrative style and the alarming divisive state of the country call into question his ability to manage his socialist revolution.

Venezuelan Leader Begets Problems

For many of the twenty-eight million Venezuelans, equality in the nation’s social, economic, and political forums is a top priority. This basic principle is the essence of la Revolución, which provided the provenance for the promises that carried Chávez into office on a wave of popularity.

Despite the winds of change, Venezuela has shown considerable vulnerability in the current global recession, with an ailing economy, hunger, and huge inflation rates. Furthermore, the deteriorating safety net that has protected many of his core constituency—those who have been lifted from poverty by his social programs—has begun to exhibit signs of serious slippage. To top it all off, there has also been a growing dissatisfaction throughout his national constituency.

It is up to Venezuelans to decide whether Chávez is honoring his own pledge to sustainably implement his promises, rather than mishandle a golden opportunity. Chávez’s policies, both his achievements and his failures, must be examined in order to analyze whether the principles set forth by la Revolución have been strategically advanced. Ultimately, the verdict will rest in the hands of average Venezuelans who will judge the effectiveness of Chávez’s approach based on their long-standing aspirations for a more just society.

Venezuela before Chávez

Before Hugo Chávez was elected in 1998, Venezuela was a vastly different country than it is today. While it was still one of the wealthiest nations in Latin America, the elite political and economic establishments systematically mistreated and marginalized the larger segment of Venezuelan society: the poor. For four decades, only two parties ruled—Acción Democratica (AD) and Partido Social Cristiano de Venezuela (COPEI). Both of these traditional parties were effectively blind to the masses while they faultlessly catered to the political and economic elite. This system was a foundation for the growth of severe economic stratification prevalent throughout the region. The poor were largely invisible to the rich, with little or no access to the country’s natural resources and foundations of power. Millions of Venezuelans struggled to survive and lacked the political voice to affect their circumstances. These conditions were rooted in a deeply entrenched system of neo-liberal economic fundamentals and a corrupt bureaucracy led by a series of tough-minded presidents who were democrats only in name.

By the 1970s, when President Carlos Andrés Peréz first came to power, the Venezuelan government had an unalterable profile of being pro-business and pro-United States. However, the debt crisis of the 1970s-80s plagued Venezuela, along with the rest of Latin America, eventually leading to an IMF-architected free-market restructuring in 1989, which was championed by Peréz. This directly contradicted Peréz’s “no IMF” campaign promise and stirred waves of civil unrest. The intensification of neoliberal adjustments consisted of privatization and the elimination of oil subsidies that had been used for social programs and domestic staples. The elimination of these subsidies sorely tested Venezuelans, and in reaction to Peréz’s implementation of the IMF policies, people took to the streets in protest beginning on February 25th, 1989. The result was a tremendous violence that ultimately became known as el Caracazo, which took the lives of anywhere up to three thousand Venezuelans.

After the violence subsided, an air of anger swept over the nation. Venezuelans were tired of ineffective US-inspired free-market policies and a corrupt political system that underrepresented them. The resulting undercurrent boiled over again in 1992 when two separate coup d’etats were attempted, the more famous led by Hugo Chávez, who was later pardoned by President Rafael Caldera. In 1998, Chávez rode that very same wave of frustration and anger all the way into office, providing a fresh face, new voice, and promises to break the suffocating status quo. He swore to transform the government’s focus from catering to the elite to responding to the poor, leaving the neo-liberal system behind in favor of a socialist one. Eleven years later, the socialist Venezuela of today still remains a divided country embroiled in turmoil and engulfed by violence.

Chávez: Social Policies and Impacts

In his decade-long tenure, Chávez unquestionably has endeavored to improve conditions for the average Venezuelan. Of his many achievements, perhaps the most obvious is the hope and excitement he has brought to the country’s poor. Before his presidency, millions of Venezuelans had felt deserted, neglected, and marginalized by their government to the point where they could not envision change. Chávez reintroduced them to a hope that had previously been squelched. These promises of hope and equality for the poor took shape through his social misiones.

Barrio Adentro is one of Chávez’s original misiones that officially began in 2003. Its goal was to provide a national single payer system of health care comprised of free health clinics in poor Venezuelan barrios. The first clinics, which covered basic health care, dental care, and sports training, were so successful that the government created Barrio Adentro II. This second phase introduced more advanced and comprehensive diagnostic and rehabilitation centers. Individual bodies such as the World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) have praised these programs for their numerous successes, such as the drop in female infant mortality rates from 1.9% to 1.7%. Approximately 30,000 individuals, including thousands of Cuban doctors, staff the Barrio Adentro network of clinics. The program’s success can also be attributed to the job opportunities it has provided for the poor as staffers in the clinics.

Building on the success of the Barrio Adentros, Chávez implemented similarly structured missions covering such fields as nutrition (Misión Alimentacion), literacy (Misión Robinson), and eye diseases (Misión Milagro), among others. He’s also allocated US$57 million for future independent community improvement projects. Chávez has even extended his vision of equality and support to the indigenous community through Misión Guaicaipuro, specifically working to protect indigenous peoples from land expropriation, human rights abuses, and resource exploitation. There is still a long way to go, but under Chávez, these groups have experienced a higher degree of attention, protection, and integration than many had thought possible.

The misiones also have served to significantly reduce the degree of extreme poverty in the country. According to a study in the academic journal Social Medicine, between 1998 and 2007, extreme poverty drastically decreased from 20.6% to 9.41%. Overall poverty also declined during this period, from 42% of households living in poverty in 1999, to 37.8% in 2005. The extensive network of social programs and the lowered poverty levels are impressive examples of Chávez’s conversion of revolutionary campaign promises into tangible social results.

Although Chávez continues to implement positive social programs, he is also seemingly attempting to cement his position, prompting accusations of constitutional and civil rights violations. Whether or not Chávez is purposely attempting to create division, his approaches have left many feeling alienated, vulnerable, and disenfranchised, the media being a prime example. Much of the international community has become concerned over free speech violations as Chávez’s adversary treatment of the media in Venezuela has become widely documented, although his critics tend to downplay the media’s often unprofessional assaults against Chávez. While the hostilities are largely mutual, to Chávez critics, the government has a responsibility to remain unbiased in its law enforcement. On the other hand, Chávistas see this argument as lacking substance because of the opposition’s own virulent tactics.

Chávez’s confrontation with the media partly stems from a 2005 law that prohibits the writing and airing of material that is “deemed a danger to national security,” a violation punishable by jail time. There has been intense speculation that by lawfully establishing a vaguely worded prejudicial atmosphere, Chávez could implicitly intimidate the press by enforcing self-censorship, all the while avoiding accusations of doing so. In 2007, the conversation turned from speculation to accusation when Venezuelan authorities refused to renew Radio Caracas Television Internacional’s (RCTV) license. For many, this was blatant censorship given the fact that RCTV has been Chávez’s most formidable critic since 1998. Chávez advocates came forth with a powerful charge of their own, accusing the network of being actively engaged in the 2002 coup and other unprofessional actions, thus completely warranting its shutdown.

Outright hostilities grew when approximately 200 radio stations across the country were shut down in August of 2009, most of which were very small, local opposition stations. Here, government officials responded by warding off charges of censorship through an insistence that these stations were being closed because of license requirement violations, and not their political convictions. Chávez’s critics maintain that rather than talk, he is attempting to aggressively silence them and that his failure to negotiate a compromise has brought justified criticism upon his administration. Regional specialists also found that, like many of his other controversial policy moves, Chávez took a divisive approach, which has resulted in a propaganda war. This on-going confrontation alone runs the risk of escalating into an irresolvable conflict, which many fear could lead to civil war.

On a different front, Chávez is currently attempting to pass a law that would subject labor union elections to state scrutiny, which would be a clear violation of constitutional self-determination provisions. However, government officials make a good case that the notoriety of union leaders and their alleged penchant for corruption warrant the close government oversight of the current legislation. There also have been reports of pro-Chávez officials arbitrarily charging labor protesters with subversion because of protests in close proximity to designated security zones, i.e. the factories where they work. Chávez’s opponents insist that in trying to undermine the main unions, he has antagonized one of the most powerful allies of leftist governments, a mistake that could come back to haunt him. On the other hand, Chávistas cite the unions’ involvement in the 2002 failed coup as justification for the president’s wariness.

With his administration already embroiled in warfare along any number of sectors, Chávez’s choice to continue performing a constitutional tight rope act seems unwise. On February 15, 2009, President Chávez oversaw the passage of a constitutional amendment that eliminated term limits, allowing him and other elected officials, to run for re-election indefinitely. Despite international opposition, the referendum was carried out legally, but with troubling implications. Chávez pursued a change in one fundamental aspect of democracy—legally-mandated self-succession, making long-term abuses of power more possible. In addition, by eliminating presidential term limits, Chávez has made the revolution almost entirely synonymous with himself. This is a risky move because once Chávez is replaced, the revolution may have no chance of surviving without the guidance of its iconic leader.

With no term limits and with a discretionary eighteen-month period of rule by decree, accusations of a virtual Chávez dictatorship are not surprising. It seems that President Chávez, instead of subscribing to a philosophy that unifies his country by bringing differing elements of the population together, has chosen a different path. He continues to pursue ex parte measures to accomplish his goals, such as twice attempting to pursue elimination of term limits instead of finding more conciliatory means to maintain his influence after his initial referendum was rejected by the electorate. The results of such choices are obvious when looking at the violence, deep political polarization, and biting rhetoric, which has threatened the long-term viability of the revolution.

A Faltering Economic Transformation?

Some of President Chávez’s most progressive feats have been in the economic arena. Here, he has experienced two particular triumphs: restructuring the banking system and protecting Venezuela’s main sources of wealth. Chávez enforced stepped-up measures of banking regulatory provisions in order to prevent institutional misconduct. By implementing comprehensive regulations, Chávez has ensured the curbing of future banking abuses, saving Venezuela from a possible Wall Street-like debacle that could profoundly damage the national economy.

Secondly, while certainly controversial, Chávez’s nationalization campaign of large private industries has translated into a number of real benefits for the country. Instead of Venezuelan resources being exploited by profiteering foreign corporations, Chávez has made sure that the nation is the primary beneficiary of its national resources. The profits from oil and other minerals’ extraction and refinement, as well as the resources themselves, are now in the hands of their real owners—the Venezuelan people. This gives the government enhanced revenue for a greater number of social programs, as well as the raw materials needed to sustain its industrial sector. With the extra funds coming from the growing state-owned sector, Chávez’s social programs have helped Venezuela better weather the recent economic tribulations than other nations. For instance, according to the IMF, Venezuela’s predicted 2009 GDP growth is -1.9%, while countries like the Czech Republic and Germany are suffering through -4.3% and -5.2% contractions, respectively. While Venezuela is certainly not immune to outside trade and investment permutations, especially due to its dependency on oil revenues, the government’s social programs have been able to mitigate some of the immediate negative consequences impacting average Venezuelans.

It is certainly important to acknowledge the government’s aforementioned accomplishments, it is also important to address the massive setbacks that have developed under the Chávez administration. While a number of Venezuela’s current economic quandaries are in reality out of his control, many either have been poorly handled by the Venezuelan leader. One example that combines both outside circumstances and Chávez’s personal missteps can be found in specific corners of the Venezuelan economy. Despite nationalizing profitable industries, the economy is ailing due to high rates of inflation, an over-reliance on falling oil revenues, and a shortage of foreign direct investment. Inflation rates are astronomical, reaching 30% in recent months. Even though the rates of poverty have improved in recent years, that improvement is now unraveling.

Presently, inflation is so high that the average member of the lower class cannot afford basic amenities on their real wage salaries, and as a result, are sliding back into poverty. Inflation has not only affected the lifestyles of individuals: even discount food stores have suffered greatly. Many of these stores are closing down around the country because people cannot afford basic food items, even with the forty to fifty percent price cuts called for by the government. Although poverty rates have been steadily falling for a decade, today, around 40% of the population still can be found below the poverty line, a number that is inching upwards.

Chávez could have taken measures to ensure the structural integrity and sustainability of la Revolución Bolivariana. Instead, he at times miscalculated and now leads a country that still relies on oil for 90% of its export revenue and 50% of its federal budget. This has made for an asymmetrical economy with a devastating lack of FDI. Even though much of this plight pre-dates Chávez, his system of allowing Venezuela to rely almost entirely on oil for its revenue has put the country at the mercy of volatile international markets. In good economic times, oil prices are high and the country flourishes. However, when oil prices drop, Chávez’s misguided policies allow the economy to falter. Unfortunately, diversifying the country’s economy has not been the top priority for the Venezuelan leader and little progress has been made in this area.

As poverty continues to increase, people have been counting on the social programs which are also massively suffering. Not only have a number of Barrio Adentro clinic projects been abandoned, (only 3,000 of the planned 8,000 were actually constructed), budgetary cuts have also meant the scaling back on many of the services they once provided. Chávez has been forced to reduce expenditures and subsidies for hospitals, food, energy, and education. In 2009 alone, funding of social programs by Petroleos de Venezuela (PDVSA) dropped from US$7.1 billion to US$2.7 billion. Today, the programs are in a precarious position due to Chávez’s miscalculated over-reliance on oil proceeds for program funding which has placed the entire network in jeopardy. Consequently, even though the president has gone ahead with building the social safety net he promised, mistakes in the planning process may significantly reduce his ability to provide for a soft landing.

Venezuelans must now live with the financial repercussions of having no easy economic recourse in the event of low oil prices. Millions of Venezuelans are now hoping that the recession will pass quietly and without serious collateral damage to the country’s social structure. To make a bad situation worse, Chávez’s hostility towards foreign investors has scared off money from overseas, despite historical grounds for Chávez’s justified fears of private sector abuses. Nationalizing major industries has helped to keep the wealth at home, but it also has discouraged a number of potential investors and much needed foreign capital. As The Economist points out, state run and private corporations alike are apprehensive over investing in Venezuela. Chávez’s proposed contracts for oil extracting ventures are today demanding “a 60% share and operational control in each block while not putting up any money. On top of that the government will take a 33% royalty and a windfall tax.” Many corporations are wary of investing in Venezuela under such harsh terms with no assurances that Chávez will not expropriate their installations down the road. This fear has resulted in the country witnessing capital flight without any economic remedies to offset the dire transitional effects of such a rush.

While Chávez has made miscalculations when dealing with the national economy, on the international economic front, he has fared far better. Due to his differences with the US government, Chávez has tended to steer away from the historically dependent relationship with Washington in favor of building financial ties with other nations such as Cuba, Iran, Russia, and most recently, China. Russia has agreed to begin joint oil drilling ventures, Venezuela and Iran are exploring the country’s uranium deposits, and China has invested in Venezuelan oil fields, all providing sizable sums of investment. While these relationships are largely considered controversial, they could provide Venezuela with a much-needed alternative to the narrowly structured US-Venezuela trade relation. More important than even the symbolic rebellion over the unprecedented nature of these ties are their portentous economic implications. While oil revenues can cover much of the governmental costs for Venezuela’s expensive social programs, no nation can have a robust economy without a stable FDI structure. Given Venezuela’s tense relationship with Washington, Chávez has found a natural substitution with trade alternatives presented by Russia and China.

Chávez’s initiatives have not been limited to other continents alone. In fact, his most newly established involvements have been very close to home. Under his guidance, Venezuela has grown into a regional power player with deep investment in South American integration and development. In 2007, Venezuela and Brazil started a joint financial venture called BancoSur. This organization is meant to be a friendlier, Latin American-equivalent of the IMF, and is designed to provide financial aid in continental development projects, such as roads, pipelines, and railways. Chávez, along with other regional leaders, also launched TeleSur, a Latin American regional TV network that according to its chairman Andrés Izarra, has a “[common] aim to present Latin America’s vision of itself to the world.” In addition to these ventures, Chávez has been instrumental in founding PetroSur and PetroCaribe, organizations that facilitate the financing of subsidized oil purchases for Latin American nations and other parties.

Perhaps most importantly, Chávez has initiated a new concentration on continental trade. Countries can exchange subsidized Venezuelan oil for non-traditional products from otherwise underutilized industries as a way of boosting regional integration and development. One example is the 2006 trade deal between Venezuela and Bolivia where, according to the Council on Foreign Relations, Bolivia agreed to exchange goods and services for discounted Venezuelan oil and a US$1.5 billion investment.

Latin American integration and growing economic independence from the United States is becoming more of a reality everyday. In this regard, Chávez has done an innovative job of navigating regional politics and economic arrangements. Chávez and the Venezuelan economy have managed to make progress in weakening US influence in the region while promoting Venezuelan interests and projecting its power, no small accomplishment in a region historically dominated by the United States.

A Tarnished Image

Since appearing on the world stage in 1998, Hugo Chávez has become an international figure with his erratic personal behavior, legendary incorrect commentary, and often offensive evaluations of other leaders. Rather than comporting himself as a decorous world leader and sober national representative, he has at times behaved as what some have described as “a petulant child.” After calling former President Bush “the devil” at the UN General Meeting in 2006, leaders across the globe have cited the incidence as evidence of his “clownish” behavior and lacking political gravitas.

Chávez’s raffish style is further exemplified by his behavior at an Ibero-American Conference in 2007 in which he repeatedly interrupted the Spanish Prime Minister José Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, causing a rare outburst from the Spanish King Juan Carlos I, who told Chávez “que te calles.” Of course, to many, Chávez scored a winning response when he addressed the Spanish monarch as “Mr King”, reminding him that he did not achieve office via election. Chávez admirers would further argue that Chávez’s derelictions are mainly a matter of style, that the Venezuelan leader is a preeminent democrat, and that his multiple shortcomings are trivial in nature.

Where is la Revolución Bolivariana Going?

Although now in diminishing numbers, clearly a majority of Venezuelans still feel confidence in their leader. They have elected him three times by wide margins, reinstated him after an attempted coup, and eventually passed a referendum to end term limits on his presidency. Despite the continued confidence in him, there is a growing sense of doubt and disaffection over the direction in which Chávez is taking the country. For those who lived during the second term of Carlos Andrés Peréz, Venezuela looks much like it did then—a country of deep political divisions, an economy in trouble, and the resumption of widespread poverty. These similarities to the 1980s show that, like Peréz, most of Chávez’s major promises of a systemic overhaul of the country’s institutions remain largely unfulfilled.

Yet, it is undeniable that Chávez has brought fundamental change to Venezuela. The poor have been given a political voice with an attentive audience and hope for a better future, something Peréz could never boast accomplishing. Nonetheless, Chávez’s unique opportunity for equalizing Venezuelan society may be slipping through his fingers; instead of reorganizing his priorities and devoting himself to the careful management of his revolution, he continues to choose making unsubstantiated grand-standing speeches. If Chávez is to make progress in achieving his 21st century Socialist Revolution, he may want to go after more bunt singles than home runs that turn out to be strikeouts.

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



December 12, 2009


caribbeannetnews

Bahamas Blog International

Castro accuses Obama of cynicism over Nobel prize

HAVANA, Cuba (Reuters) -- Former Cuban leader Fidel Castro criticized US President Barack Obama on Wednesday for accepting the Nobel Peace Prize as he steps up the US war effort in Afghanistan by deploying more troops.

Castro said just two months ago that it was "a positive measure" for Obama to be awarded the prize by the Nobel Committee, a decision that stunned the White House when it was announced in October.

Obama will frame the war in Afghanistan as part of a wider pursuit for peace when he accepts the prize in Oslo on Thursday, a US official said.

But Castro, who has generally written positively about Obama, was more critical in a column published in state-run media.

"Why did Obama accept the Nobel Peace Prize when he'd already decided to fight the Afghanistan war to the last? He wasn't obliged to commit a cynical act," Castro wrote.

"The president of the United States doesn't say a word about the hundreds of thousands of people, including children and innocent elderly people, who have died in Iraq and Afghanistan," he said, adding that Washington's current policy is "the same as Bush's."

Castro, 83, ran Cuba for almost 50 years after taking power in a 1959 revolution but was sidelined by illness and handed over the presidency to younger brother Raul Castro last year.

The elder Castro has been seen only in occasional photos and videos since having surgery for an undisclosed intestinal ailment in July 2006. But he still has a behind-the-scenes role in government and keeps a high profile through his writings.

Climate change has been a prominent theme in his columns, and in Wednesday's article he said rich countries should make the "maximum sacrifice" at UN climate talks that began this week in Copenhagen.

December 11, 2009

caribbeannetnews

Ahmadinejad - No great bargain for a struggling Chavez

By Ethan Katz, COHA Research Associate:

Since the initial election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in 2005, Iran has become one of Venezuela’s most durable allies. But as this self-described “Axis of Unity” has developed, a predictable group of detractors has emerged. In a widely noted September op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, long-standing Manhattan District Attorney Robert Morgenthau argued that this alliance between “two of the world’s most dangerous regimes” has supplanted Iraq and North Korea as the new Axis of Evil. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has somewhat more cautiously echoed Morgenthau’s diagnosis, describing the relationship as “quite disturbing,” and not in the US national interest. These responses continue to employ a black and white logic of friend and foe that defines the ties between Venezuela and Iran solely as a function of their opposition to the US, effectively reducing them to allies, and nothing else, in a zero-sum game of competing geopolitical interests.

However, others might argue that Washington can no longer afford to view the two countries through the Manichean lens of the Bush Doctrine, which dictates “You are either with us or you are against us.” It is easy to make the error of defining Presidents Chávez and Ahmadinejad in terms of their proximity or distance from US interests, without offering a more nuanced and substantive understanding of the individual social and political projects on which they can be better judged. Only a deeper analysis of the motivations behind the budding relationship between Venezuela and Iran will allow policy makers to constructively engage them as growing regional powers, with rational goals that make sense for their own national interest.

Ahmadinejad likes to present himself as a Middle Eastern counterpart to Chávez: a populist whose standard stump speech invariably promotes the rights of the working class and the poor. But questions must be raised regarding exactly how similar are their policies, and in light of this, why Chávez has afforded Ahmadinejad near limitless support. Ultimately, Venezuela’s relationship with Iran may best be delineated as a rejection of the historical dominance of Western powers and the irreverence, if not contempt, they all too often have shown to the developing world. Nonetheless, uncritical support for Iran, based only on a rejection of perceived Western imperialism, without reference to the low points of Tehran’s domestic policy, can only injure Chávez’s already deeply controversial reputation and further obscure his actual and notable accomplishments. While the shared struggle against imperialism is important, it alone should not provide a wide enough foundation for a relationship of the magnitude that now exists between, according to Washington’s perspective, the two pariah nations.

The beginning of a wonderful friendship?

Hugo Chávez has been courting Tehran’s leaders since his election in 1998. Former Iranian President Mohammad Khatami and Chávez had a strong rapport, exchanging multiple visits and constructing a strong foundation of bilateral economic agreements in energy, housing, and agriculture, among other sectors. Both of the countries were founding members of OPEC, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, and maintained a mutual interest in stabilizing oil prices and politicizing the bloc to be more responsive to the needs of the developing world. In 2005, Chávez awarded Khatami Venezuela’s highest medal, the Order of the Liberator, as a token of their increasingly close ties. Iran reciprocated by awarding Chávez the Islamic Republic Medal, the highest state medal of Iran, and supporting Venezuela’s failed attempt to assume the U.N. Security Council’s rotating seat.

However, since the election of Ahmadinejad, an already burgeoning alliance has fully blossomed. Nuclear energy, to which Chávez has long supported Iran’s right to develop, has proved to be a major incentive in the development of their relationship. Iran’s clandestine nuclear program was shut down by Khatami after its existence was revealed in 2003. The program was revived with Ahmadinejad’s ardent support shortly after his election. In 2006, Venezuela was one of three countries in the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), along with Cuba and Syria, to vote against reporting Iran to the UN for suspicions that its nuclear program was directed to ends other than energy. Chávez often speaks of a desire to develop a peaceful nuclear program at home, most recently announcing his ambition to create a “nuclear village” in Venezuela with Iranian assistance. A recent joint survey by the two nations has elaborated upon uranium deposits in Venezuela that will reportedly be put to this end.

At September’s meeting of the UN General Assembly in New York, President Barack Obama’s speech was primarily dedicated to reproaching Iran for the direction of its nuclear program, again, after the discovery of another undeclared nuclear plant. Iran recently disclosed the existence of a new uranium enrichment facility near the city of Qom and opened it to IAEA inspections, but only after learning that the US, UK, French, and Israeli intelligence services were about to release this information themselves. Washington and Israel have used the existence of this plant to justify allegations that Iran will soon be capable of manufacturing a nuclear weapon.

One of the potential sanctions to be levied against Iran would severely restrict its gasoline imports, for while Iran possesses enormous reserves of crude, it lacks the refineries to process it. However, the recent Iran-Venezuela deal to import 20,000 barrels of gasoline per day makes it perfectly clear that Venezuela is willing to actively subvert UN attempts to reprimand Tehran. Such maneuvers by Venezuela and Iran in protest of the asymmetrical Western attitude on rights to nuclear weapons and energy can be anticipated with a high degree of predictability. As a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran is guaranteed the right to a peaceful nuclear energy program. Furthermore, as long as the UN upholds the right of Israel, India, and Pakistan to possess nuclear weapons, it will be difficult to convince hardliners in Tehran to dismantle their nuclear program, peaceful or not.

This is not to suggest that ties between Venezuela and Iran have been limited to matters of nuclear energy. There are now joint ventures in Venezuela for the production of tractors, “atomic” bicycles (a joke by Chávez regarding Venezuela and Iran’s nuclear ambitions), “anti-imperialist” (another, less comical this time) cars, and the two have signed numerous bilateral economic agreements that range from energy and oil, to agriculture and science. In opposition to the G-20 meetings of global financial elites, Iran and Venezuela have announced the “G-2″ Development Bank, based in Venezuela, with an initial funding of $1.2 billion, which will be used to challenge the fiscal hegemony of Western nations in providing aid to developing countries. The two have entered into military agreements that include the “training and mutual exchange of military experiences.” And most recently, Venezuela and Iran, along with Russia, proposed to replace the US dollar as the standard for international oil transactions.

Ahmadinejad’s troubling silhouette

The explanation for why Chávez continues to align himself with Ahmadinejad depends on an evaluation of the successes and failures of the Iranian leaders’ domestic policies, and whether they pursue the same social ideals as Chávez’s Bolivarian project. An outspoken figure, Ahmadinejad is perhaps best known for his spouting of a series of controversial declarations, such as a 2007 speech at Columbia University where he asserted that homosexuality does not exist in Iran. However, his most frequent examples of odium are directed at Israel. Ahmadinejad has repeatedly called for it to be “wiped off the map” and makes a divertissement of denying the Holocaust.

While Ahmadinejad’s denial of the Holocaust is irresponsible at best, taking this absurd claim literally plays directly into his hand. Such an outlandish assertion can only be understood as a ploy to redirect the conversation towards a more general dialogue about genocide, and he admitted as much in a September interview with Katie Couric.

In World War II, 60 million people were killed. Why are we just focusing on this special group alone? We’re sorry for all the 60 million people that lost their lives, equally. All of them were human beings. And it doesn’t matter whether they were Christians or Jews or Buddhists or Muslims. They were killed. So, we’re sorry for everyone.

Chávez has reiterated Ahmadinejad’s contention about Holocaust in more explicit terms.

I do not deny the Jewish Holocaust. And I condemn it. But in South America, when the Europeans arrived, there were close to 90 million Indians; 200 years later, we only had 4 million remaining. That was a holocaust. And the Europeans denied this holocaust.

Chávez and Ahmadinejad question the selective appropriation and politicization of humanitarian causes. Why does Israel continue to receive extraordinary and uncritical support from the U.S. when so many other “Holocausts” remain unspoken for? Ahmadinejad’s denial of the Holocaust, while politically irresponsible, may be more of a rhetorical trap set to interrogate one’s allegiances rather than a particular attempt to promote anti-semitism.

Here it is important to distinguish between a possibly justified criticism of Israeli policies and anti-semitism, as claims of the latter often are intermeshed with the former. Many in the U.S. proved incapable of making such a distinction earlier this year, when, after threatening to break diplomatic relations with Israel in 2006 over the Lebanon War, Chávez expelled the Israeli ambassador and other diplomats in response to Operation Cast Lead in Gaza. An international uproar grew a month later when a Caracas synagogue was desecrated under suspicious circumstances, precipitating an international competition to find out who could raise the charge of anti-semitism loudest, with the media accusing Chávez of playing a deliberate inflammatory role in catalyzing the incident. However, when it later was revealed that the supposed act of vandalism was really a robbery, an inside-job perpetrated by the synagogue’s security guards, the media dropped the subject.

Chávez’s diplomatic approach was meant to protest the Israeli military offensive that was condemned as a disproportionate use of force by the UN-endorsed Goldstone Report, which accused both Israel and Hamas of war crimes. However, Ahmadinejad’s calls for the destruction of Israel are of an entirely different nature, and a much more dangerous provocation than his denial of the Holocaust or Chávez’s reaction to the Gaza War. While perhaps these incidents are more properly meant as a rebuke to Zionism rather than an anti-semitic act, a call for the destruction of Israel will only narrow the room for fruitful peace negotiations, darkening the prospects of a long-overdue resolution to the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians. Furthermore, Iran’s rather well established ties to the bombing of a Jewish Community Center in Argentina in 1994, in which 80 innocent civilians died, only adds to suspicions of Iran over its motives in supporting such inflammatory speech and even worse actions.

A gilded revolution

While often depicted as a buffoon, Ahmadinejad must be taken seriously and judged on the substance of his policies, for he is neither aloof nor jocose. Elected on famous promises to “bring oil money to people’s tables” in 2005, Ahmadinejad has manufactured a political platform around the nucleus of social justice programs and the redistribution of the country’s massive oil wealth – an Iranian-styled Bolivarian Revolution. The former mayor of Tehran likes to brandish this populist image, often stressing his personal story of a man from a humble background who refused to live in the Presidential palace and continued to drive his old car well into his political career. But Ahmadinejad is hardly a friend of the working class, organized labor, or the poor, and such claims amount only to so much posturing. An examination of Ahmadinejad’s domestic policies will show they radically diverge from the model of social inclusion and equality that Chávez has nurtured now for over 10 years in Venezuela.

When in doubt, privatize!

The widespread privatization of public assets has been Iran’s most striking economic trend in recent years. Article 44 of the 1979 Iranian Constitution stipulates a tripartite economy of state, private and cooperative sectors in which private is meant to supplement the other two as the preferential option. In the wake of the Iranian Revolution and then the Iran-Iraq War, most of the economy migrated under government control. However, the balance has since shifted in favor of privatization and placed emphasis on the importation of private capital into the economy by means of a series of five year economic development plans.

In anticipation of the fourth and most recent plan, and immediately following Ahmadinejad’s 2005 electoral triumph, Supreme Leader Khameini reinterpreted Article 44 to repeal limits set on the private sector and to order the privatization of 80% of government assets in so-called “essential sectors.” Ahmadinejad has overseen the most accelerated phase of the application of this historically unsuccessful neoliberal prescription for the mass privatization of public holdings, also known as “shock therapy.” Since 2005, roughly 250 enterprises have gone through the Iran Privatization Organization, the governmental ministry set up to manage the privatization initiatives of the past two five-year plans. In a nation already blessed with great oil wealth, disposable capital is not necessarily the problem. What is needed is the proper oversight and distribution of already existing funds to create programs that will encourage sustainable growth.

Privatization is so valued in Iran that it forms the basis for Ahmadinejad’s most significant attempt to redistribute wealth, the Shares of Justice initiative. Created to distribute shares of recently privatized companies, the initiative has been judged ineffective and has provided little more than a cash handout. In its first two years of its life, Ahmadinejad did distribute roughly $2.5 billion in stocks to nearly 6 million citizens. But many predict that such a manner of redistributing wealth will lend itself to easy accumulation by speculators and business entrepreneurs as cash-strapped citizens turn and immediately sell the shares at low prices in a roundabout model of “rigged privatization.” The redistribution of wealth under Shares of Justice could likely resemble the initial phases of Russian perestroika, the transition from a state-controlled to a capitalist economy. Before the program of shock therapy took hold, Russia had 2 million people living in poverty and not a single millionaire. But by the mid-nineties, poverty had claimed an astonishing 74 million Russians, while by 2003, 17 citizens had accumulated wealth into the billions.

The new Iranian entrepreneurs most eager to take advantage of the giant “For Sale” sign placed on the country’s economy are the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). Formed in the midst of the 1979 revolution, the IRGC have transcended their military roots as ground, naval, air, and paramilitary (the basij, who received so much attention for their repression of students and protestors following the disputed June election) units to form a vast network of power that extends to nearly all corners of the Iranian economy. The IRGC’s foray into the economy began with their rebuilding of the state after the Iraq-Iran war. Since Ahmadinejad assumed power, the IRGC has been awarded over 750 government contracts, and currently, they reportedly control roughly half of Iran’s economy. In September, in the largest transaction in the history of the Tehran Stock Exchange, the government sold a majority of its stake in the country’s telecommunications company for $7.8 billion dollars to the IRGC.

Conversely, Chávez has shown an unwavering commitment to placing the means of production of the Venezuelan state in the hands of its people, and not private investors. So much so that Venezuela, as a result, suffers from a lack of foreign direct investment, as foreign businesses fear political instability and potential expropriation as the government increasingly dictates the trajectory of the economy. While Chávez has of course nationalized a host of significant Venezuelan industries and natural resources, the profits are used to support a wide array of social programs and to invest in a sustainable model of long-term growth, which is conspicuously lacking in Iran. Beginning with the 2002 battle over the PDVSA oil company, Venezuelan nationalizations have included major electricity and telecommunications firms, cement, iron and steel plants, as well as banking, mining and food processing industries. As of spring 2007, with the primary goal of achieving a position of national food security, Chávez had appropriated nearly 2 million hectares of land from the latifundistas, out of a total goal of roughly 6.6 million hectares. Half of the land was given to campesinos, 40% to strategic projects, and the remaining 10% to cooperatives.

(Un)Organized labor

In the midst of Iran’s attempts to accelerate the pace of privatization, independent labor organizations become all the more important in guaranteeing workers’ rights. However, the state of organized labor in Iran is in total disarray. While technically legal under Iranian law, independent unions must receive permission from the state to organize, and accordingly, are quite rare. If a government sponsored Islamic Labor Council already exists in the workplace though, such bodies are deemed illegal. The Workers’ Councils are anything but effective bargaining tools to assure workers’ rights, and many suggest they exist primarily to prevent workers from organizing vital and effective labor representation at the grass-roots level.

The International Trade Union Confederation recently submitted a report to the UN that lambasted the state of organized labor in Iran. Labor activists there are consistently intimidated, arrested, and beaten for attempting to independently organize for improved wages or conditions. The main tool available to disaffected workers, the strike, is often met with brutal force, sometimes with preemptive arrests, and for years now, International Workers Day has been an object lesson in the repression of free assembly. High profile leaders such as Mansour Osanloo, the president of Tehran’s bus workers’ union, remain imprisoned on completely arbitrary charges of “anti-regime propaganda” and “activities against national security.” Still, there are also many lesser known activists currently being detained and intimidated on a daily basis for campaigning for better wages and working conditions.

Meanwhile, workers form the backbone of 21st century Venezuela. Chávez has consistently raised the nation’s minimum wage, which now stands at $447 per month, the highest in Latin America, as well as reduced the workweek from 44 to 36 hours. Workers’ cooperatives and collective ownership of factories have further decentralized the leverage of business over labor, which has been an effective strategy in reducing unemployment and promoting endogenous development, both problems that continue to haunt Iran. Since Chávez came to power, the number of worker cooperatives has grown to encompass 5% of all Venezuelan wage earners.

Statistics establish that Ahmadinejad has achieved little success in fulfilling his promise to distribute oil revenues to ordinary Iranian citizens. His continual hand outs to the poor, such as the 400,000 tons of potatoes given away before the June election, are simply attempts to buy political allegiance and do not in any way address the structural causes of poverty that could lead to coherent and extended growth. Although Ahmadinejad did raise the minimum wage in 2006, the ill-timed order only exacerbated already significant unemployment and caused many businesses to go bankrupt, prompting accusations over Ahmadinejad’s unsophisticated economics. His proposed Compassion Fund, designed to provide Iranian youth with cheap loans to cope with the rising costs of marriage, housing, and education, was killed in parliament and only a limited version was able to be enacted.

Chaos in Tehran: Iran’s presidential ballot

After Ahmadinejad was declared the winner in the June 12th presidential election, with 62.6% of the vote, unprecedented numbers of citizens filled the streets in Tehran to protest the result. Led by the primary opposition candidate Mir-Hossein Mousavi, the protestors, who numbered well into the hundreds of thousands, were met with severe repression by the state. Reports of those arrested range from the hundreds to the thousands, and estimates of those killed hover around 30. The Iranian government banned international journalists from reporting on the protests, forcing them to remain in their hotel rooms, with severely restricted popular avenues of communication, such as the use of the internet and mobile phones. Commentators in the West were quick to celebrate the protests as the next “color revolution” that could eventually bring down the democratic-theocracy that is the Iranian government. But their projected hopes proved premature as the repressive apparatus of the IRGC proved cunningly effective at quelling the protests, which while visible for weeks after the election, slowly tapered out over time.

Chávez called to congratulate Ahmadinejad on his victory immediately after the results were released, and since then, the Venezuelan leader has almost gone out of his way to make his support for the results of the election known, whether on Alo Presidente, or through other media reports. The Venezuelan Foreign Ministry shamefully released a statement criticizing the protesters, stating, “the Bolivarian government of Venezuela expresses its firm rejection of the ferocious and unfounded campaign to discredit, from abroad, that has been unleashed against Iran, with the objective of muddying the political climate of this brother country.”

Given the concerns of democracy and human rights that were raised in the aftermath of the election, Chávez’s reaction proves troubling. It seems clear that the Venezuelan leader reacted so determinedly because of suspicions that the protests were largely manifestations of Western meddling. While Washington does not hide the fact that it favors regime change in Iran, the extent of US and UK involvement in the protests remains ambiguous, even unevidenced at this point. Supreme Leader Khamenei declared Iran free of such foreign influence, but Ahmadinejad and Gholam-Hosein Mohseni-Ejei, Iran’s intelligence minister, have declared that Western powers played an integral part in fomenting dissent. Many of the 100-some detained protestors awaiting trials have reportedly admitted their collusion with the US and UK although the legitimacy of such confessions traditionally deserve to be widely questioned and even discredited. Most frighteningly, three of the detainees have been sentenced to hang for their participation in the protests.

It is troubling, not so much that Chávez’s words did not lend any legitimacy to the demands of the protesters, but that he remained silent on the brutal and dismissive response by the Iranian government. Iran is a nation that has not been reluctant to use force against its citizens, and the latest repression of protesters only further confirms this. In 2008, Human Rights Watch released a report on the state of independent activism in Iran titled, “You Can Detain Anyone for Anything.”

Crackdowns on peaceful dissent have been a hallmark of all governments in the Islamic Republic of Iran, and there was already ample legal latitude for the persecution of government critics when Mahmoud Ahmadinejad took office in August 2005. It is the great expansion in scope and number of individuals and activities persecuted by the government that seems to distinguish the Ahmadinejad period to date.

The report goes on to detail repression of the women, labor, and student movements over the last two years, and strongly condemns the growing trend of arbitrary arrests, detention and punishment for any challenge to the government.

Supreme Leader Khamenei held a partial recount of the election results, which was denounced by the opposition as lending legitimacy to a false result, and in fact, the recount did confirm the initial results, albeit with small irregularities. Even though the light of the opposition movement is slowly being extinguished, the election revealed significant fault lines in Iranian society and politics, and the government surely has taken note of many of its citizens’ displeasure with Ahmadinejad’s harsh and authoritarian direction for the country.

What this tells us about Chávez

Venezuela and Iran both reject a geopolitical order that has been historically dominated by Western interests. While for more than a decade Chávez has rebelled against the Washington Consensus and its free-market fundamentalism, Iran stands opposed to Washington’s seemingly never-ending efforts to establish secular democracies in the Middle East. This rejection forms the heart of their relationship, and the only way to read Chávez’s uncritical support of Ahmadinejad is that he views the Iranian leader as a key ally in the war against imperialism.

While both Chávez and Ahmadinejad claim their intentions to distribute their country’s oil wealth to the working class and the poor, Ahmadinejad’s claims of social inclusion and his attempts to redistribute wealth to traditionally excluded members of society are, as we have seen, a mere facade in comparison to the earnest and comprehensive programs undertaken by Chávez. The Venezuelan leader is hallucinating if he believes Ahmadinejad is genuinely working in pursuit of a society of equals. He must decide whether Venezuelan foreign policy is defined solely in terms of its opposition to the West (which, in fact, is the only rational basis for his intimate relationship with Tehran) or if he is intent on naively thinking he can alter Tehran’s convictions. The growing economic relationship of the two nations must be noted, but the only way of understanding Chávez’s support for Ahmadinejad hinges on the belief that Iran’s rejection of US hegemony is more important than the successes or failures of its domestic policies.

There are other questions that must be asked of Chávez. Concentration of executive and judicial power, political manipulation, and ongoing accusations of possible media censorship are all trends that must be noted, even if propaganda has often been employed by the opposition as well as US policy makers to counter moves by the Venezuelan leader. Like the Iranian economy, and due to a combination of the global recession and inadequate economic planning that depends too strongly on the export of oil and not enough on budgeting constraints and fiscal discipline, Venezuela has been hit by high inflation and unemployment that undercuts the laudatory successes of Chávez’s social programs, especially of late. Further, following in the footsteps of Iran, Venezuela has begun to exert pressure on labor unions that do not align themselves with Chávez’s politics by requiring the oversight and certification of all union elections by the government run National Electoral Council.

Nonetheless, Venezuela is still a much more democratic and free society than Iran. For example, one can weigh the balance of free speech versus the level of intimidation in Venezuela by examining the condition of the opposition. Is the anti-Chávez media afraid to confront and criticize the government for fear of reprisal? To the contrary: the opposition media in Venezuela is the primary proof that there is little fear of repression, with speech and action to a degree that would be considered unconscionable in Iran. These outlets would routinely outclass Fox News and The Weekly Standard with their inflammatory rhetoric. Tens of thousands of members of the opposition regularly rally and parade in anti-government protests in the streets of Caracas and throughout the country. At the least, one can say Chávez has inspired a generation of Venezuelans to become politically active and confident enough to articulate their views.

Chávez’s Venezuela is democratic in substance, although a case can be made that he is introducing a tone of incivility, venomous rhetoric and confrontation that may be confounding to some among his very large popular base of backers. On three occasions he has been elected president (98, 00, 06), once defeated a recall referendum (04), survived an attempted coup (02), and successfully revised the constitution twice (99, 09) while one referendum attempt was defeated (07). Ahmadinejad lacks anything like a similar democratic record to match against him, and the nature of Iran as an amalgamation of theocracy and democracy only further complicates the situation. The trajectory of Iranian politics is very much determined by the decisions of appointed or unelected religious elites who play a very strong role, along with Ahmadinejad, in shaping policy.

However, what must be asked of Chávez is consistently reduced by the international media to hyperbolic hate-speech against him that fails to contextualize or even try to minimally comprehend his actions within a larger appreciation of regional affairs. Mary Anastasia O’Grady, ranter in residence at the Wall Street Journal, who regularly vulgarizes Latin American issues in order to subjugate them to her extensive neoconservative agenda, is one of these. While hers is easily the most extremist editorial column in America today, she does have her rivals. London’s Economist published such a piece in mid-September that reproached Chávez for promoting a foreign policy giving “top priority…to forging an anti-American political alliance with Iran, Syria, Belarus, and Russia.” The author goes on to accuse Chávez of the unnecessary militarization of South America without acknowledging the new US presence at seven Colombian military bases, the lurking presence of an exhumed Fourth Fleet to be posted in South American waters, or the all too consistent history of US intervention in its “back yard” of Latin America. Similar polemics frequently appear in the mainstream media, irrespective of the outlet’s ideological loyalties, that perceive Venezuela as if it existed in a vacuum, picking fights for the sheer thrill of it. But perhaps they do have a small point here – one has to ask the question: Why does President Chávez risk his dignity and reputation by squandering his good name and political standing by picking too many fights on too many issues, in a process that inevitably leaves him weakened?

Chávez’s support for Iran is as uncritical as the routine nature of the condemnation of their alliance emanating from the US, a host of its Latin American neighbors and many overseas. There are many that believe that the anti-imperialist struggle is one that must be upheld, but not necessarily as dogma or screeching rhetoric. Therefore, it would be prudent on Chávez’s behalf, and certainly disarm many of his detractors, if he were to reconsider his ties to a government that certainly has the blood of students and other dissenters on its hands, and is personally awash with a sense of global adventurism that does not contribute to the advancement of genuine peace and reconciliation. Furthermore, serious doubts can be raised about Ahmadinejad’s economic development model that upholds principles of equality and redistribution of wealth far more in its rhetoric than its action. By aligning himself with Ahmadinejad, Chávez allows his detractors to continue to accuse him of being unwilling to find a peaceful path or concessional attitude in dealing with the US Such a revision of attitude would not necessarily call for a sacrifice of Chávez’s principles, but only for the crafting of better manners and more self-control. While his enemies may point to his sometimes boorish excesses, they should not be allowed to omit any reference to his progressive policies that have achieved major social successes in making Venezuela a far healthier society, even at the cost of gratuitous internal animosity. Perhaps the Venezuelan-Iranian relationship should be understood as a strategic alliance that should be maintained as long as it produces real benefits for Caracas, and not as a sentimental arrangement that caters to a fractured agenda, frightening away would-be friends while not advancing symmetrical interests.

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


December 10, 2009


caribbeannetnews

Bahamas Blog Bahamas

More countries showing interest in joining the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ)

By Oscar Ramjeet:


It is more than four and a half years since the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) was inaugurated and, so far, no other jurisdiction has joined Guyana and Barbados in accepting the CCJ as the final appellate court.

I read with great interest a statement made by St Lucia Oppositon leader, Kenny Anthony, calling for a region wide simultantous move to join the regional court.

He added that he does not believe that any government should go into amending their particular constitution to facilitate accesssion without securing the agreement of the opposition.

I wonder why when politicians are in the opposition they call on government to take action and when they are in power, they do not comply. Anthony was prime minister when the Court was inaugurated in April 2005. In fact he was present at the lavish ceremony in Port of Spain, and he was in government for 20 long months and he failed to set in motion for his country to remove the Privy Council as the final Court and replace it with the CCJ.

Now he is out of government, he wants co-operation between the government and opposition to join the regional court. This a good move on his part, but he should have done so when he was in government.

There are several factors why some countries are/were reluctant to join the regional court. Jamaica for instance, which was in the forefront in the establishment of the Court, lost interest. Former Attorney General Dr Oswald Harding, who is the current President of the Court of Appeal. who was the main advocate for the court in the late 1980s and early 1990s, said that, although Jamaica is contributing 27% towards the operation of the court, no Jamaican has been appointed as judge, although seven senior well qualified lawyers had applied for the position, and they were all by passed for persons who were less qualified.

He added also the former Prime Minister P.J. Patterson tried to railroad Jamaica's entry and failed to carry out the correct legal procedure to remove the Privy Council as the final Court, which was later struck down by the London-based final court.

The rejection by the electorate in St Vincent and the Grenadines of the November 25 referendum should not be used as a yardstick in the region to measure the thinking of the people whether or not to accept the CCJ as the final Court. I think there were other factors why that referendum failed.

Antigua and Barbuda Attorney General, Justin Simon, made the point that the results of the St Vincent rederendum should not deter other jurisdictions from seeking constitutional changes to accommodate the regional Court.

Belize will soon join the regional court. Jamaica has reconsidered its position and will soon put the mechanism in place to do so and a few OECS states including Grenada, Antigua, and St Lucia are also willing.

Trinidad and Tobago, which spearded the establishment of the Court along with Jamaica, will take some time before it comes on board. The reason being that it must first secure the approval of the Opposition, and Basdeo Panday's UNC is not interested... at least not for now.

Lets hope by the end of next year at least three other jurisdictions will be on board.

December 9, 2009

caribbeannetnews

Bahamas Caribbean Blog International

Mixed reviews for the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ)

Mark Beckford, Staff Reporter

Susan Goffe, chairperson, Jamaicans for Justice.

Despite assurances from the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) about measures put in place for the independence of the court, Susan Goffe of Jamaicans for Justice is expressing some concern about how it is administered.

Goffe noted that while there was a Regional Judicial and Legal Services Commission to oversee the selection of judges, the arrangements do not go far enough to ensure the legitimacy and security of the court.

Goffe added that more changes are needed to secure the independence and permanence of the court than the amendments already made to the Treaty of Chaguaramas. This treaty is the agreement between the Caribbean states, setting up the CCJ, among other things.

Goffe believes that any legitimisation of the court should be done by enshrining whatever changes there should be in the Jamaican Constitution. With that said, she believes serious national discourse should begin.

Judiciary independence vital

Answers to concerns about the independence of the court from manipulation are posted on the CCJ website.

"It is generally accepted in our societies that independence of the judiciary is a vital and essential ingredient of the rule of law, a basic principle of social engineering in CARICOM member states.

"To ensure independence of the members of the court, appropriate provisions have been elaborated in the agreement establishing the CCJ to provide for credible institutional arrangements," the website read.

It continued: "First, unlike the situation with the European Court of Justice, where Judges are appointed by the ministers of government, judges of the CCJ are appointed by a Regional Judicial and Legal Services Commission, whose composition should offer a reasonable degree of comfort to the court's detractors."

The funding of the court by member states of CARICOM has also raised the spectre of influence by these same states. However, the CCJ on its website said that certain steps have been put in place to ensure that this does not occur.

"In order to pre-empt this eventuality, the heads of government have mandated the ministers of finance to provide funding for the recurrent expenses of the court for the first five years of its operation."

A trust fund has been established and capitalised in the sum of US$100 million, so as to enable the recurrent expenditure of the court to be financed by income from the fund which is administered by the Caribbean Development Bank.

Former Solicitor General Michael Hylton said this provision has earned his confidence in the court.

Beyond the rules

"Political influence doesn't mean that a politician is going to call you and tell you what to do, but if a country doesn't like a judgment, it can withdraw its payment. This cannot occur under the treaty and with the trust fund that is set up," he said.

Attorney-at-law R.N.A Henriques, however, believes that independence goes beyond just putting in rules.

"We have had a history in Jamaica, where the bias of rulings are in favour of the government in cases. Therefore one is not really insulated by a Constitution. The dispensation of the rulings will be based on integrity not by what is in the constitution. Time will tell, that is why it is important that the judges are of a certain calibre."

December 7, 2009

caribdaily

Bahamas Caribbean Blog International

Amnesty concerned over 'apparent inaction' of the Bahamas towards 2008 report issues

By AVA TURNQUEST:

HUMAN rights group Amnesty International has expressed concern by the "apparent inaction" of The Bahamas government towards any of the issues tabled in the 2008 report published earlier this year.

The report tabled concerns over the death penalty, domestic violence and migrant's rights, and provided suggestions towards restoring the country's commitment to promoting and protecting human rights.

Commenting on the police and security forces, the report stressed: "The lack of an independent body to investigate allegations of ill-treatment involving police officers undermined confidence in due process."

Yesterday, Amnesty International spokesman R. E. Barnes named the allegations surrounding the deaths of Patrick Strachan and excessive force used on Emmanuel McKenzie as two examples of inaction towards the report, as the organisation is unaware of any conclusion to either investigation.

He also criticised Government's refusal to release reports on the Carmichael Road Detention Centre.

Amnesty International calls on Government to:

Repeal all provisions allowing for the death penalty and immediately declare a moratorium on all executions;

Ensure that all complaints of excessive use of force by the security forces are subject to immediate, thorough and independent investigation and, if state agents are charged with misconduct, that their cases are brought to trial in an expeditious manner;

Amend existing legislation to ensure that marital rape is outlawed;

Ensure the full and effective implementation of the Domestic Violence Protection Order Act;

Implement migration policies that protect human rights, including ratifying and implementing the international convention on the protection of the rights of all migrant workers and members of their families.

Mr. Barnes added: "We are concerned first and foremost about human rights, however we always try to allow governments or the appropriate bodies sufficient time to follow proper protocol.

"Our job is simply to observe and note what's occurred. However, it is our fervent hope that a report on the Detention Centre is forthcoming."

December 05, 2009

tribune242

Poor outlook for doing business across the Caribbean, says CDB president

GEORGETOWN, Guyana -- President of the Caribbean Development Bank (CDB) Compton Bourne believes the outlook for doing business in the Caribbean is a very poor one as it takes “forever” to get the paperwork and regulations to set up a business in the region.

Addressing the Georgetown Chamber of Commerce and Industry’s (GCCI) annual awards and dinner presentation on Wednesday, Bourne says another challenge is the slothfulness of the court system in resolving business disputes.

He has called for authorities across the Caribbean to address these shortcomings, so that the environment for doing business can be more conducive and attractive.

Turing his attention to the global financial crisis and its impact on the Caribbean, Bourne said several sectors in the Caribbean have been severely hit by the crisis, including tourism trade and bauxite.

He also cited the decrease in foreign investment in the Caribbean as another effect of the crisis.

However, Bourne said the CDB will not sit idly by and allow the crisis to shrivel the regional economies as already it is responding to the challenges facing the region.

“We at the CDB have been doing our best to modify policies and provide assistance... we have reduced the counterpart funding required for countries seeking to borrow money from the CDB, we are currently making fuller use of our policy based loans which provide strategy support to countries." Bourne explained.

He added that the bank has also reduced the interest rates continuously to the clients of the bank.

The CDB president added that two major initiatives are on stream to assist indigenous banks and hotels affected by low visitor arrivals.

The CDB will provide liquidity support to some banks, particularly indigenous banks that are in some difficulty, and liquidity support to some hotels in the region that would normally be viable but whose vulnerability is threatened by fall in visitor arrivals.

December 5, 2009

caribbeannetnews

Bahamas Blog Bahamas