By Jerry Edwin:
The idea that Grenada may become the first CARICOM nation to follow the lead of Africa and Asia and issue a government guaranteed Diaspora Bond presents a compelling contract between the current government and the tens of thousands of its immigrants. Such an initiative could lead the way for Caribbean nations to find vast new sources of development funds.
While Grenada contemplates a Diaspora Bond, two other CARICOM nations, Jamaica and Guyana, appear better placed to issue these bonds, potentially receiving two billion dollars and two hundred and fifty million dollars respectively from their overseas nationals. Without question, the financial impact of a Diaspora Bond to these three economies will radically alter the trajectory of their national development plans.
Indeed, Grenada has progressed further in this regard than any other CARICOM member.
This past March, members of a research organization visited Grenada at the invitation of Prime Minister Tillman J. Thomas to address the Cabinet on their findings of the viability of using a Diaspora Bond to fund revenue-generating projects on the island. It is the first time that a CARICOM government has held a Cabinet-level discussion regarding the potential issuing of a Diaspora bond.
At a World Bank-sponsored conference on development finance held at New York University in December 2009, both Jamaica and Grenada were cited as viable candidates for Diaspora Bonds. Recently, the Bank also suggested that Haiti reach out to its vast Diaspora to issue a bond that can potentially raise up to two billion dollars.
According to the New York-based research organization, the Caribbean Development Policy Group, Inc. (formerly the Grenada Diaspora Organization), Grenada receives more than a third of its GDP from overseas remittances and has one of the largest annual out-migration rates globally. In its latest country report on Grenada, the International Monetary Fund further notes that remittances are the leading source of foreign exchange for the Spice Island as its construction and tourism sectors continue to lag.
So persuasive was the data compiled in support of the proposed Grenada Diaspora Bond by the New York research organization that the island’s leading newspaper, The New Today, said in an editorial that it fully supported the use of Diaspora Bonds as a leading alternative in the government’s toolbox of development options.
The organization also held high-level meetings with Opposition Leader, Dr Keith Mitchell, and opposition Members of Parliament, as well as stakeholders in the private sector and non-government organizations.
Bipartisanship and political cooperation are key elements to the success of a Diaspora Bond from any CARICOM nation including its governance, marketing and distribution. This approach is been fully embraced by both the Thomas Administration and Opposition Leader Mitchell and his MPs.
Moreover, Grenadian nationals have expressed their desire for separation of bond revenue from the government’s general budget. They also requested an oversight role for the Eastern Caribbean Central Bank or the Eastern Caribbean Securities Commission.
Although the Grenada government has yet to make a final decision on proceeding with a Diaspora Bond, several leading ministers have expressed full support and believe that this option could not have come at a better time for the island as it continues to experience a decline in tourism receipts and its export sectors.
From all accounts, stakeholder interest in and outside Grenada for a Diaspora Bond is highly animated. Grenada, renowned for the bold resolve of its past leaders like the Home Rule patron T.A. Marryshow and the revolutionary nationalist Maurice Bishop, appears ready for a government decision to issue a Diaspora bond that could dramatically alter the direction of its current and future economic and social development.
Some in Grenada’s Diaspora caution that, prior to issuing a Diaspora Bond, there must be careful planning, fiscal integrity and a transparent governance structure to secure the confidence of overseas investors.
“The Diaspora bond holds tremendous promise for CARICOM countries but its success requires leadership from experienced financial experts not from people with political alliances of one kind or another,” said Earle Brathwaite, a successful Silicon Valley financier and technologist, who is also the son of a former prime minister of Grenada.
Bernard Bourne, the research group’s Director of Community Relations, agrees with Brathwaite, adding that it is time Grenada changes its paradigm for seeking financing to develop the country. He stresses that with prominent nationals like race car superstar Lewis Hamilton, calypso icon Mighty Sparrow, former Chief Justice of the Federal Court of Canada, Julius Isaac, and scores of leaders in law, medicine, engineering and other professions, Grenada is more than capable of obtaining development finance from its own nationals once adequate protections are established.
Jerry Edwin, Executive Director of the Caribbean Development Policy Group, was a featured speaker on June 12, 2010, at the Annual Caribbean Private Sector Conference attended by CARICOM Ministers of Finance and Ministers of Trade. His topic was Diaspora Bonds: A Developmental Tool for Growth and Investment.
June 28, 2010
caribbeannetnews
An International Caribbean Online Log about the news and opinions in the Americas and World. This Caribbean Blog of global reach and appeal is maintained by Bahamian Blogger - Dennis Dames with all readers and subscribers in mind.
Monday, June 28, 2010
Sunday, June 27, 2010
The Politics of Leadership: Guyana and its Presidency (Part 3)
Sir Ronald Sanders
Guyana's system of government and its electoral system are very different from the systems in place in the other 14 Caribbean Community and Common Market (Caricom) countries. For a start, it has an Executive President whose powers under the Constitution are considerable. Understanding the system is important to appreciating the politics of winning the Government and the Presidency.
In 11 of the Caricom countries which, like Guyana, are former British colonies and Montserrat, which is a still a British colony, the electoral system divides the country into many constituencies. Each party wishing to contest a constituency puts forward one candidate to stand. Each voter in the constituency then casts one vote for the candidate of their choice. The candidate with the largest number of votes is elected as the Member of Parliament for that constituency, and the party whose elected members represent an overall majority then forms the Government.
The exception is where no party's elected members constitute an overall majority. In such a case, political parties then bargain with each other to form a coalition Government as happened recently in Britain where neither of the two largest political parties -- Labour and Conservative -- secured an overall majority of elected members. The Conservative Party and the smaller Liberal Democratic Party then struck a deal to form a coalition Government.
Among the Caricom countries that have a system similar to Britain's is Trinidad and Tobago where, at recent general elections, a number of political parties agreed to form an alliance to contest constituencies against the incumbent governing party but not against each other. At the end of the elections, having together secured an overall majority, they formed a coalition Government.
Guyana's system is different. Its system of elections is based on proportional representation. Each elector has one vote which is cast for a political party. The elector's vote is applied to the election of 65 members of parliament by proportional representation in two ways. First, the country is divided into 10 administrative regions (geographical constituencies) which elect 25 seats. Some of these regions are allocated more seats than others dependent on the size of their population. Second, the remaining 40 seats, called "top up" seats, are then apportioned to parties based on the proportion they received of the total valid votes cast nationally. A vote for a party in the geographical constituency is simultaneously a vote for that party's national "top up" seats.
Importantly, however, while the same single vote of an elector goes toward electing the President, the Constitution of Guyana states that a Presidential candidate shall be deemed to be elected President "if more votes are cast in favour of the list in which he is designated as Presidential candidate than in favour of any other list". In other words, the successful Presidential candidate requires only a plurality of the votes, not an overall majority.
So, given this electoral system, it is possible for a political party that secures the most votes (a plurality) to gain the Presidency outright.
What is not possible is for a coalition of parties after the election to gain the Presidency. Any coalition that wishes both to form the Government and get the Presidency must contest the election as a single entity with a single Presidential candidate whose name has to appear on its list as the Presidential candidate.
It is an interesting debate for lawyers versed in the intricacies of the Guyana Constitution as to whether a President, elected by a plurality of the vote, is obliged to call on a coalition of parties (that may together outnumber the votes cast for his party) to form a Government or could he simply call on his own minority party to form the Government.
The Guyana Constitution states that it is the President who "shall appoint an elected member of the National Assembly to be Prime Minister of Guyana", and the President who shall appoint "Vice Presidents and other Ministers from among persons who are elected members of the National Assembly". There is no stipulation that such appointments should or must be made from elected members of a party or coalition parties that have an overall majority in Parliament.
Therefore, it appears that a President who is elected by a plurality of votes can choose Vice Presidents, the Prime Minister and Ministers from his own party whether it has an overall majority or not.
While it is possible for the majority of elected members in Parliament to vote against legislation and budgets, creating havoc for a minority Government, it would not necessarily stop the Government from functioning. The classic case in point is Canada where the Conservative Party of Prime Minister Stephen Harper has been operating a minority Government since 2008.
This all serves to underscore two things if Guyana is to remain politically stable, build on its recent economic successes and take advantage of the enormous economic possibilities of successful oil exploration and minerals development.
First, it would be best if next year's general election is decisive in terms of a clear winner of both the Presidency and the overall majority in Parliament for one party. To this end, the ruling People's Progressive Party should ensure that both its Presidential candidate and its policies are broad enough to appeal to a wider cross section of the electorate than its core supporters. Similarly, the now disparate opposition parties (disunited internally and fragmented) should try to forge an alliance that also has a Presidential candidate and policies that are attractive across a wide swath of the Guyanese population.
Second, whoever wins the election, the problems of race, equal opportunity, bridging the increasing gap between rich and poor, and crime require tackling in an open, transparent and institutionalised way, or Guyana will always be a divided and weak society failing to be the cohesive and strong nation that it could be in its own interest, and the interest of its Caricom neighbours.
-- Sir Ronald Sanders is a consultant and former Caribbean diplomat
Responses and previous commentaries at: www.sirronaldsanders.com
June 27, 2010
Politics of Leadership - Guyana and its presidency (Part-1)
The Politics of Leadership: Part 2 of Guyana and its Presidency
jamaicaobserver
Guyana's system of government and its electoral system are very different from the systems in place in the other 14 Caribbean Community and Common Market (Caricom) countries. For a start, it has an Executive President whose powers under the Constitution are considerable. Understanding the system is important to appreciating the politics of winning the Government and the Presidency.
In 11 of the Caricom countries which, like Guyana, are former British colonies and Montserrat, which is a still a British colony, the electoral system divides the country into many constituencies. Each party wishing to contest a constituency puts forward one candidate to stand. Each voter in the constituency then casts one vote for the candidate of their choice. The candidate with the largest number of votes is elected as the Member of Parliament for that constituency, and the party whose elected members represent an overall majority then forms the Government.
The exception is where no party's elected members constitute an overall majority. In such a case, political parties then bargain with each other to form a coalition Government as happened recently in Britain where neither of the two largest political parties -- Labour and Conservative -- secured an overall majority of elected members. The Conservative Party and the smaller Liberal Democratic Party then struck a deal to form a coalition Government.
Among the Caricom countries that have a system similar to Britain's is Trinidad and Tobago where, at recent general elections, a number of political parties agreed to form an alliance to contest constituencies against the incumbent governing party but not against each other. At the end of the elections, having together secured an overall majority, they formed a coalition Government.
Guyana's system is different. Its system of elections is based on proportional representation. Each elector has one vote which is cast for a political party. The elector's vote is applied to the election of 65 members of parliament by proportional representation in two ways. First, the country is divided into 10 administrative regions (geographical constituencies) which elect 25 seats. Some of these regions are allocated more seats than others dependent on the size of their population. Second, the remaining 40 seats, called "top up" seats, are then apportioned to parties based on the proportion they received of the total valid votes cast nationally. A vote for a party in the geographical constituency is simultaneously a vote for that party's national "top up" seats.
Importantly, however, while the same single vote of an elector goes toward electing the President, the Constitution of Guyana states that a Presidential candidate shall be deemed to be elected President "if more votes are cast in favour of the list in which he is designated as Presidential candidate than in favour of any other list". In other words, the successful Presidential candidate requires only a plurality of the votes, not an overall majority.
So, given this electoral system, it is possible for a political party that secures the most votes (a plurality) to gain the Presidency outright.
What is not possible is for a coalition of parties after the election to gain the Presidency. Any coalition that wishes both to form the Government and get the Presidency must contest the election as a single entity with a single Presidential candidate whose name has to appear on its list as the Presidential candidate.
It is an interesting debate for lawyers versed in the intricacies of the Guyana Constitution as to whether a President, elected by a plurality of the vote, is obliged to call on a coalition of parties (that may together outnumber the votes cast for his party) to form a Government or could he simply call on his own minority party to form the Government.
The Guyana Constitution states that it is the President who "shall appoint an elected member of the National Assembly to be Prime Minister of Guyana", and the President who shall appoint "Vice Presidents and other Ministers from among persons who are elected members of the National Assembly". There is no stipulation that such appointments should or must be made from elected members of a party or coalition parties that have an overall majority in Parliament.
Therefore, it appears that a President who is elected by a plurality of votes can choose Vice Presidents, the Prime Minister and Ministers from his own party whether it has an overall majority or not.
While it is possible for the majority of elected members in Parliament to vote against legislation and budgets, creating havoc for a minority Government, it would not necessarily stop the Government from functioning. The classic case in point is Canada where the Conservative Party of Prime Minister Stephen Harper has been operating a minority Government since 2008.
This all serves to underscore two things if Guyana is to remain politically stable, build on its recent economic successes and take advantage of the enormous economic possibilities of successful oil exploration and minerals development.
First, it would be best if next year's general election is decisive in terms of a clear winner of both the Presidency and the overall majority in Parliament for one party. To this end, the ruling People's Progressive Party should ensure that both its Presidential candidate and its policies are broad enough to appeal to a wider cross section of the electorate than its core supporters. Similarly, the now disparate opposition parties (disunited internally and fragmented) should try to forge an alliance that also has a Presidential candidate and policies that are attractive across a wide swath of the Guyanese population.
Second, whoever wins the election, the problems of race, equal opportunity, bridging the increasing gap between rich and poor, and crime require tackling in an open, transparent and institutionalised way, or Guyana will always be a divided and weak society failing to be the cohesive and strong nation that it could be in its own interest, and the interest of its Caricom neighbours.
-- Sir Ronald Sanders is a consultant and former Caribbean diplomat
Responses and previous commentaries at: www.sirronaldsanders.com
June 27, 2010
Politics of Leadership - Guyana and its presidency (Part-1)
The Politics of Leadership: Part 2 of Guyana and its Presidency
jamaicaobserver
Saturday, June 26, 2010
Haiti, a transition from squalor to squalor; or from squalor to splendor
By Jean H Charles:
The story of Haiti is tragically the story of a wrong turn at each transition. Strangely this wrong turn has been micromanaged by a long hand with foreign gloves with good or bad intentions for the people of Haiti.
It all started in 1800 when Toussaint Louverture was at his apogee as the founding father of a possible nation that could be a model for a world where slavery was the order of the day.
According to J Michael Dash in Culture and Customs of Haiti, Toussaint emerged in 1799 as “the absolute authority of the whole island of Espanola, where the violence and anarchy of earlier years ended and prosperity was restored.”
CLR James in the Black Jacobins completed the picture of Haiti at the beginning of the nineteenth century: “Personal industry, social morality, public education, religious toleration, free trade, civic pride, racial equality was the corner stone of the emerging nation. Success crowned his labors. Cultivation prospered and the new Santo/Domingo/ aka Haiti began to shape itself with astonishing quickness.”
One would have thought that this Haiti could have been left alone to grow into a flourishing nation for the benefit of the entire world. The long hand of Napoleon Bonaparte, the French Emperor, with the support of the third president of the United States, Thomas Jefferson, had other plans. A fleet of the best European soldiers was dispatched to Haiti to stop the nation building process.
Toussaint was captured and send to jail in France, where he died of pneumonia, but the roots of liberty were already too strong to wither. Still quoting Dash, “By the end of 1803, Napoleon had abandoned his now catastrophic New World adventure, his general, Rochambeau, gave up this futile struggle, retreating to the Mole St Nicholas, the same point at which Columbus had landed 300 years earlier, inaugurating European domination of Hispaniola.”
The transition of Haiti into a free, independent and prosperous nation was to last only the span of a blooming rose. Charles X, king of France, exacted a massive indemnity of 150 million francs, the equivalent 23 billion in today’s money, to compensate the French planters after 300 years of free labor. It took Haiti more than a century to complete the payment, forestalling crucial investment in education, agriculture and infrastructure.
In addition, France’s intervention in Haiti’s national politics facilitated the division of the country into two governments, the kingdom of Henry Christophe in the north, well organized and prosperous, and the republic of the west, disorganized, dysfunctional and bankrupt, run by Alexander Petion. Haiti has adopted the Petion model of governance.
His successor, Jean Pierre Boyer, continued the culture of ill governance throughout the island. At the death of Henry Christophe, the massive treasure of the kingdom was put into a kitty outside of the national budget, starting the process of corruption in place now with the Preval government -- the Petro-Caribe account is outside of the purview of the Finance Minister.
According to Dash, “The seeds of national disaster were planted in this period as politics increasingly became a game of rivalry among urban elites and marked by insurrection, economic failures and parasitism.”
It did not take long for the Americans to intervene, as Haiti was descending into chronic disorder. It was occupied from 1915 to 1934 by the American government. In the end, using Dash’s language, “The United States simply exacerbated a phenomenon that had plagued the Haitian economy since 1843, the extraction of surplus from the peasantry by a non productive state. Perhaps the greatest single lasting effect of the occupation was the centralizing of state power in Port au Prince.”
Dash put it best: “The occupation left Haiti with very much the same destructive socioeconomic problems that it inherited from its colonial past. Beneath the veneer of political stability lay the same old problems of a militarized society; the ostracism of the peasantry and an elite divided by class and color rivalry.”
The decade of the 70s ushered in a wrong turn for Haiti after the rather peaceful governance of Paul Eugene Magloire. On his return from an adulated visit to the United States, where he was received by both branches of Congress, hubris or unfortunate advice settled in. He tried to remain in power beyond the constitutional mandate, throwing the country into a social, economic and political crisis that has now lasted fifty years.
The transition from Duvalier pere to Duvalier fils, causing thirty-five years of failed growth under the dictatorial regimes, was orchestrated by the very American Ambassador in Haiti. It took all the courage and the bravura of the Haitian people to root out the Duvalier government from the grip of power.
The populism concept of governance in place since the 90s has completed the final descent of Haiti into the abyss. Jean Bertrand Aristide was returned to power from exile under the principle of constitutional stability by a 20,000 American army troops under the leadership of Bill Clinton as commander in chief.
Rene Preval, who succeeded Aristide, was returned for a second term into power by the strategic maneuvers of Edmund Mulet, the United Nations chief representative in Haiti. After five years of poor, ineffective leadership, the same Mulet is orchestrating the concept of Preval after Preval. He has perfected, after the earthquake, the concept of disaster profiteering. Vast pieces of land that belong to the State of Haiti are being now subleased to well-connected affiliates of the government, to be resold at inflated price to the Reconstruction authority.
Will the people of Haiti succeed in stopping the political, economic, social and environmental abyss through this transition? Or will a sector of the international community continue to have the upper hand in preserving and incubating the status quo?
“Have no fear!” should be the mantra for those who forecast doom for Haiti without Preval!
The Haitian Constitution foresees that the Chief of the Supreme Court shall take command in case of presidential vacancy. To help him govern, Haiti has a range of qualified experts to facilitate the international community to come to the rescue of the refugees and rekindle the recovery.
They range from veterans in rural development expertise as Pierre D Sam, formerly a FAO expert with stints in Burundi, Ivory Coast, Madagascar, Togo, Senegal, Lesotho, Ghana, Burkina Faso and Haiti. Or Haiti has young lions such as Dore Guichard or Jean Erich Rene, economists and agronomists, who drafted, with the support of luminaries from the Diaspora and the mainland, a twenty-five-year plan for Haiti’s recovery.
A select committee of the Committee of Foreign Affairs of the United States Senate has recently made a finding that “Haiti has made little progress in rebuilding in the five months since its earthquake because of an absence of leadership, disagreements among donors and general disorganization… the rebuilding has stalled since the January 12, disaster. President Rene Preval and his Prime Minister Jean Max Bellerive have not done an effective job of communicating to Haiti that it is in charge and ready to lead the rebuilding effort.”
Vent viré! The wind is turning in the right direction!
Marc Bazin, a Haitian political leader who has tried for the last thirty years, to change the culture of nihilism from inside, is an indication that the assault against the status quo from outside must regain strength until the dismantling of the squalor politics to usher in the politics of splendor.
In the spirit of full disclosure, I should have been in the Preval camp. His newlywed wife is like my little niece. Our family is entangled with strong bond spanning more than a century of close relationships. Her great-grandmother was the companion of my grandmother in business, social and family links, her late grandmother and my mother of ninety years old have continued these bonds, her mother is like an elder sister. Hopefully, the children will continue the tradition of friendship and support. as such this is not a personal vendetta.
Yet the cries and the anguish of 9 million people, including 1.5 refugees under tents at the eve of a pregnant hurricane season, demand a break from the past to usher in a government hospitable to the majority.
June 26, 2010
caribbeannetnews
The story of Haiti is tragically the story of a wrong turn at each transition. Strangely this wrong turn has been micromanaged by a long hand with foreign gloves with good or bad intentions for the people of Haiti.
It all started in 1800 when Toussaint Louverture was at his apogee as the founding father of a possible nation that could be a model for a world where slavery was the order of the day.
According to J Michael Dash in Culture and Customs of Haiti, Toussaint emerged in 1799 as “the absolute authority of the whole island of Espanola, where the violence and anarchy of earlier years ended and prosperity was restored.”
CLR James in the Black Jacobins completed the picture of Haiti at the beginning of the nineteenth century: “Personal industry, social morality, public education, religious toleration, free trade, civic pride, racial equality was the corner stone of the emerging nation. Success crowned his labors. Cultivation prospered and the new Santo/Domingo/ aka Haiti began to shape itself with astonishing quickness.”
One would have thought that this Haiti could have been left alone to grow into a flourishing nation for the benefit of the entire world. The long hand of Napoleon Bonaparte, the French Emperor, with the support of the third president of the United States, Thomas Jefferson, had other plans. A fleet of the best European soldiers was dispatched to Haiti to stop the nation building process.
Toussaint was captured and send to jail in France, where he died of pneumonia, but the roots of liberty were already too strong to wither. Still quoting Dash, “By the end of 1803, Napoleon had abandoned his now catastrophic New World adventure, his general, Rochambeau, gave up this futile struggle, retreating to the Mole St Nicholas, the same point at which Columbus had landed 300 years earlier, inaugurating European domination of Hispaniola.”
The transition of Haiti into a free, independent and prosperous nation was to last only the span of a blooming rose. Charles X, king of France, exacted a massive indemnity of 150 million francs, the equivalent 23 billion in today’s money, to compensate the French planters after 300 years of free labor. It took Haiti more than a century to complete the payment, forestalling crucial investment in education, agriculture and infrastructure.
In addition, France’s intervention in Haiti’s national politics facilitated the division of the country into two governments, the kingdom of Henry Christophe in the north, well organized and prosperous, and the republic of the west, disorganized, dysfunctional and bankrupt, run by Alexander Petion. Haiti has adopted the Petion model of governance.
His successor, Jean Pierre Boyer, continued the culture of ill governance throughout the island. At the death of Henry Christophe, the massive treasure of the kingdom was put into a kitty outside of the national budget, starting the process of corruption in place now with the Preval government -- the Petro-Caribe account is outside of the purview of the Finance Minister.
According to Dash, “The seeds of national disaster were planted in this period as politics increasingly became a game of rivalry among urban elites and marked by insurrection, economic failures and parasitism.”
It did not take long for the Americans to intervene, as Haiti was descending into chronic disorder. It was occupied from 1915 to 1934 by the American government. In the end, using Dash’s language, “The United States simply exacerbated a phenomenon that had plagued the Haitian economy since 1843, the extraction of surplus from the peasantry by a non productive state. Perhaps the greatest single lasting effect of the occupation was the centralizing of state power in Port au Prince.”
Dash put it best: “The occupation left Haiti with very much the same destructive socioeconomic problems that it inherited from its colonial past. Beneath the veneer of political stability lay the same old problems of a militarized society; the ostracism of the peasantry and an elite divided by class and color rivalry.”
The decade of the 70s ushered in a wrong turn for Haiti after the rather peaceful governance of Paul Eugene Magloire. On his return from an adulated visit to the United States, where he was received by both branches of Congress, hubris or unfortunate advice settled in. He tried to remain in power beyond the constitutional mandate, throwing the country into a social, economic and political crisis that has now lasted fifty years.
The transition from Duvalier pere to Duvalier fils, causing thirty-five years of failed growth under the dictatorial regimes, was orchestrated by the very American Ambassador in Haiti. It took all the courage and the bravura of the Haitian people to root out the Duvalier government from the grip of power.
The populism concept of governance in place since the 90s has completed the final descent of Haiti into the abyss. Jean Bertrand Aristide was returned to power from exile under the principle of constitutional stability by a 20,000 American army troops under the leadership of Bill Clinton as commander in chief.
Rene Preval, who succeeded Aristide, was returned for a second term into power by the strategic maneuvers of Edmund Mulet, the United Nations chief representative in Haiti. After five years of poor, ineffective leadership, the same Mulet is orchestrating the concept of Preval after Preval. He has perfected, after the earthquake, the concept of disaster profiteering. Vast pieces of land that belong to the State of Haiti are being now subleased to well-connected affiliates of the government, to be resold at inflated price to the Reconstruction authority.
Will the people of Haiti succeed in stopping the political, economic, social and environmental abyss through this transition? Or will a sector of the international community continue to have the upper hand in preserving and incubating the status quo?
“Have no fear!” should be the mantra for those who forecast doom for Haiti without Preval!
The Haitian Constitution foresees that the Chief of the Supreme Court shall take command in case of presidential vacancy. To help him govern, Haiti has a range of qualified experts to facilitate the international community to come to the rescue of the refugees and rekindle the recovery.
They range from veterans in rural development expertise as Pierre D Sam, formerly a FAO expert with stints in Burundi, Ivory Coast, Madagascar, Togo, Senegal, Lesotho, Ghana, Burkina Faso and Haiti. Or Haiti has young lions such as Dore Guichard or Jean Erich Rene, economists and agronomists, who drafted, with the support of luminaries from the Diaspora and the mainland, a twenty-five-year plan for Haiti’s recovery.
A select committee of the Committee of Foreign Affairs of the United States Senate has recently made a finding that “Haiti has made little progress in rebuilding in the five months since its earthquake because of an absence of leadership, disagreements among donors and general disorganization… the rebuilding has stalled since the January 12, disaster. President Rene Preval and his Prime Minister Jean Max Bellerive have not done an effective job of communicating to Haiti that it is in charge and ready to lead the rebuilding effort.”
Vent viré! The wind is turning in the right direction!
Marc Bazin, a Haitian political leader who has tried for the last thirty years, to change the culture of nihilism from inside, is an indication that the assault against the status quo from outside must regain strength until the dismantling of the squalor politics to usher in the politics of splendor.
In the spirit of full disclosure, I should have been in the Preval camp. His newlywed wife is like my little niece. Our family is entangled with strong bond spanning more than a century of close relationships. Her great-grandmother was the companion of my grandmother in business, social and family links, her late grandmother and my mother of ninety years old have continued these bonds, her mother is like an elder sister. Hopefully, the children will continue the tradition of friendship and support. as such this is not a personal vendetta.
Yet the cries and the anguish of 9 million people, including 1.5 refugees under tents at the eve of a pregnant hurricane season, demand a break from the past to usher in a government hospitable to the majority.
June 26, 2010
caribbeannetnews
Friday, June 25, 2010
HIV/AIDS fight needs closer collaboration among public and private sectors and civil society
HIV/AIDS fight needs closer collaboration:
GEORGETOWN, Guyana, Friday June 25, 2010 -
Guyana's Prime Minister Samuel Hinds has called for closer collaboration among public and private sectors and civil society in the fight against HIV/AIDS which continues to be a major public health challenge globally and in the Caribbean.
He made the call in his address at the 5th Pan Caribbean Business Coalition Forum on HIV/AIDS.
“We meet at a time when the determination to stop HIV/AIDS must be reinforced and not wane. Globally and in the world, more people living with HIV are receiving treatment,” Hinds said.
He noted that the region has been making progress, pointing out that 90 percent of persons living with HIV in the region are now receiving treatment; and there is also a dramatic reduction in HIV infection among pregnant women in many countries.
But Hinds cautioned that "encouraging signs like these ought not to be used as evidence for the region to ease their determination to fight HIV."
"The battle has not been won. We have earned the right to be optimistic, but we have still a deadly, dangerous scourge before us,” the Prime Minister said.
He said that the partnership of business is of critical importance and, as such, his country has created a strong workplace programme coordinated by the Ministry of Labour through technical support from the International Labour Organisation and funding from the United States Department of Labour.
To date, he said, that initiative has resulted in a mapping of workplaces with HIV/AIDS programmes, the formation of a national workplace policy document through the National Programme Committee, and labour officers being trained as peer educators.
caribbean360
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Bahamas: The Health of Andros Coral Reef Systems
Andros reef health is 'good'
By NOELLE NICOLLS
Tribune Staff Reporter
nnicolls@tribunemedia.net:
CORAL reefs along the eastern coast of Andros are in good condition, according to American scientists from the Atlantic Undersea Test and Evaluation Center (AUTEC), a United States Navy site located in Andros.
Researchers presented 2007 and 2008 findings on the health of Andros reef systems to a delegation of Bahamian and United States government officials, including acting Prime Minister, Brent Symonette and US Ambassador Nicole Avant.
"Live coral cover has remained stable over the past three years with a slight increase each year. Commercially significant fish biomass is three to four times higher than (in the wider) Caribbean," said Marc Ciminello, AUTEC scientist.
Mr Ciminello said they observed high levels of lion fish in their latest survey on the 34 monitoring locations; however, they found no changes in species diversity because of the presence of the lionfish.
These findings depart significantly from research previously reviewed by Bahamian authorities on lionfish. Neil McKinney, Board president for the Bahamas National Trust (BNT) referred to research conducted by Dr Mark Hixon, marine biologist and professor at Oregon State University. Dr Hixon's research indicates small reef fish populations can be slashed by up to 80 per cent within a short period of the introduction of lionfish.
Mr Ciminello could not account for the discrepancies. He said he was not aware of the study and would be interested in reviewing the data mentioned by Mr McKinney. The data and analysis from AUTEC's annual reef surveys are submitted to Bahamian authorities annually for use in setting management protocols.
Although the scientists said the reefs could be harmed by dropped anchors, debris, plastic and fishing line, Thomas Szlyk, one of the researchers, said the human impact to the Andros reef systems was minimal due to the low population density. He said so responding to questions about how the research has impacted resource management decisions in the past.
Earl Deveaux, Minister of Environment, said he did not completely agree. He pointed to the bridge in Fresh Creek, Andros, which is the only land-based crossing point between Red Bay and Behring Point. One of the AUTEC research sites is located near Fresh Creek. "The bridge at Fresh Creek is the only opportunity to cross in the part of Andros. So the 7,000 people who might want to take that drive pass that one bridge. I think that is a huge cumulative impact. And they have to pass London Creek, which is one of these roads built over creek systems without a culvert, so whatever gas, oil or pollution that would likely fall and whatever impact that road had must be more significant in that environment than it would ordinarily be," said Mr Deveaux.
In order to provide additional information that would be relevant to authorities, Mr Deveaux recommended the scientists include in their survey design next year indicators to determine the relationship between the coastal environment on land and the health of the reef systems.
"Is there a relationship between the volume of blue holes, the type of vegetation, the flow of the current in the terrestrial environment and what they find on the reef in terms of biomass, fish species and the variety of fish on the reef? If they could do that it would help influence our decisions. If they could put that in their research and document it then we would know over time how to influence our road building activities and our farming activities," said Minister Deveaux.
Preliminary data seems to indicate a correlation, according to the researchers. Mr Ciminello said they found that the "healthier sites" were in the vicinity of blue holes.
June 24, 2010
tribune242
By NOELLE NICOLLS
Tribune Staff Reporter
nnicolls@tribunemedia.net:
CORAL reefs along the eastern coast of Andros are in good condition, according to American scientists from the Atlantic Undersea Test and Evaluation Center (AUTEC), a United States Navy site located in Andros.
Researchers presented 2007 and 2008 findings on the health of Andros reef systems to a delegation of Bahamian and United States government officials, including acting Prime Minister, Brent Symonette and US Ambassador Nicole Avant.
"Live coral cover has remained stable over the past three years with a slight increase each year. Commercially significant fish biomass is three to four times higher than (in the wider) Caribbean," said Marc Ciminello, AUTEC scientist.
Mr Ciminello said they observed high levels of lion fish in their latest survey on the 34 monitoring locations; however, they found no changes in species diversity because of the presence of the lionfish.
These findings depart significantly from research previously reviewed by Bahamian authorities on lionfish. Neil McKinney, Board president for the Bahamas National Trust (BNT) referred to research conducted by Dr Mark Hixon, marine biologist and professor at Oregon State University. Dr Hixon's research indicates small reef fish populations can be slashed by up to 80 per cent within a short period of the introduction of lionfish.
Mr Ciminello could not account for the discrepancies. He said he was not aware of the study and would be interested in reviewing the data mentioned by Mr McKinney. The data and analysis from AUTEC's annual reef surveys are submitted to Bahamian authorities annually for use in setting management protocols.
Although the scientists said the reefs could be harmed by dropped anchors, debris, plastic and fishing line, Thomas Szlyk, one of the researchers, said the human impact to the Andros reef systems was minimal due to the low population density. He said so responding to questions about how the research has impacted resource management decisions in the past.
Earl Deveaux, Minister of Environment, said he did not completely agree. He pointed to the bridge in Fresh Creek, Andros, which is the only land-based crossing point between Red Bay and Behring Point. One of the AUTEC research sites is located near Fresh Creek. "The bridge at Fresh Creek is the only opportunity to cross in the part of Andros. So the 7,000 people who might want to take that drive pass that one bridge. I think that is a huge cumulative impact. And they have to pass London Creek, which is one of these roads built over creek systems without a culvert, so whatever gas, oil or pollution that would likely fall and whatever impact that road had must be more significant in that environment than it would ordinarily be," said Mr Deveaux.
In order to provide additional information that would be relevant to authorities, Mr Deveaux recommended the scientists include in their survey design next year indicators to determine the relationship between the coastal environment on land and the health of the reef systems.
"Is there a relationship between the volume of blue holes, the type of vegetation, the flow of the current in the terrestrial environment and what they find on the reef in terms of biomass, fish species and the variety of fish on the reef? If they could do that it would help influence our decisions. If they could put that in their research and document it then we would know over time how to influence our road building activities and our farming activities," said Minister Deveaux.
Preliminary data seems to indicate a correlation, according to the researchers. Mr Ciminello said they found that the "healthier sites" were in the vicinity of blue holes.
June 24, 2010
tribune242
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Operation Peter Pan - Cuba
Peter Pan and child trafficking
By Gabriel Molina:
• IT is particularly difficult for Cuba’s enemies to justify the reason for U.S. citizens being prohibited to travel freely to Cuba.
Approximately 10 years ago, almost at the end of his second term, President William Clinton attempted to restore that right to his compatriots. At that time he affirmed that allowing citizens to travel to Cuba would be in the interest of the United States, as the best means of influencing the island.
But the rights and interests of U.S. citizens are not being respected. Mafia groups from Florida demanded of Clinton’s successor, the hated Bush, that he revoke that policy given that, incredibly, the ones who were influenced were the visitors and not the visited.
In total contrast to what is happening in relation to other underdeveloped countries, the interest of those groups, mostly located in Miami, is to provoke Cubans into leaving the island and taking refuge in the United States. Its neighbors cannot understand why, while walls have been constructed to keep them out, all kinds of obstacles are being put in their way, while they are hunted, maltreated, expelled and even killed, Cubans reaching U.S. territory illegally are given refugee status and all kinds of privileges – in the name of democracy and freedom.
That arbitrary regulation has been the cause of an incessant human trafficking that has turned into a lucrative and deadly business.
It all began 50 years ago, when in 1960 the CIA came up with a false law widely reproduced and distributed by its agents. In that way, Cubans were led to believe that the revolutionary government had decided to remove parental custody of children and abrogate it to the state.
An unheard of mass of confused children preparing to travel alone to the United States began to crowd into Havana’s José Martí airport. That was because approximately 14,000 families failed to think or act sensibly and let themselves be deceived by the criminal plot organized by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), under the codename Operation Peter Pan.
Researchers José Wajasán and Ramón Torreira describe it as "a sinister manipulation on the part of Washington of the major fears of Cuban parents."
In their book Operation Peter Pan, the authors quote documents from the Kennedy Library declassified from National Security Files, which, via a letter from General Maxwell Taylor, inform of a covert action program to defeat the Cuban government.
For the first time on October 26, 1960, the CIA-created Radio Swan referred to a supposed law to take children aged 5 to 18 from their parents, in order to convert them into "monsters of [Marxist] materialism."
The custody conspiracy had gone into operation by word of mouth months earlier. Initially the CIA gave the task to the conspiracy group headed by the ex-prime minister of the Carlos Prío government, known as Pony Varona, a derivative of his name Tony, in honor of his lack of personal refinement.
Later, other groups became involved, because Varona left the country, leaving the mission in the hands of his closest partners, Leopoldina and Ramón Grau Alsina, niece and nephew of ex-president Ramón Grau San Martín, who confessed their guilt after their arrest. They printed out the false law, saying that they had stolen it from President Dorticós’ office and circulated it clandestinely. The apocryphal document stated in its Article 3: "When this law comes into effect, the custody of persons under 20 years of age will be exercised by the state via persons or organizations to which this faculty has been delegated."
Panic virtually spread among thousands of Cuban families. Having structured the plot at national and continental level, the U.S. government stated that it could take in all Cuban minors who wished to travel there, without visas or papers. In that violation of its own immigration laws, Washington gave large sums of money to the airline companies to transport the minors to Miami.
Father Bryan O. Walsh, whom the authorities placed at the head of the program, declared years later that he received approximately 15,000 children. It was a tremendous paradox: parents abandoned their children to an unknown fate, with the ingenuous intention of protecting them.
The majority of those children suffered from major traumas that culminated in a total sense of non-belonging. Some of them learned alone to insert themselves in society, while there were extreme cases like that of Robert Rodríguez who, at the age of 55, brought a lawsuit before a Miami court, claiming that during the five years that he was under a "protection program in the archdiocese of the city, he was the victim, along with other children, of continuous sexual and emotional abuse." He affirmed that "he was mistreated and sexually abused in the various camps where he was placed, as were other children taken there."
During the last 50 years, a number of variations of Operation Peter Pan have emerged from Miami and Washington. The most recent one, essayed since 2003, did not surprise anyone. It was very much part of the excesses of the Bush administration, looked down on by the rest of the world on account of its unscrupulous form of government. But, by maintaining Cuba on the list of countries trafficking minors – as it announced on June 14 – the government of President Barack Obama, which it was thought had a minimum amount of decency, is destroying the few hopes of change that some people might still be holding onto. •
June 23, 2010
granma.cu
By Gabriel Molina:
• IT is particularly difficult for Cuba’s enemies to justify the reason for U.S. citizens being prohibited to travel freely to Cuba.
Approximately 10 years ago, almost at the end of his second term, President William Clinton attempted to restore that right to his compatriots. At that time he affirmed that allowing citizens to travel to Cuba would be in the interest of the United States, as the best means of influencing the island.
But the rights and interests of U.S. citizens are not being respected. Mafia groups from Florida demanded of Clinton’s successor, the hated Bush, that he revoke that policy given that, incredibly, the ones who were influenced were the visitors and not the visited.
In total contrast to what is happening in relation to other underdeveloped countries, the interest of those groups, mostly located in Miami, is to provoke Cubans into leaving the island and taking refuge in the United States. Its neighbors cannot understand why, while walls have been constructed to keep them out, all kinds of obstacles are being put in their way, while they are hunted, maltreated, expelled and even killed, Cubans reaching U.S. territory illegally are given refugee status and all kinds of privileges – in the name of democracy and freedom.
That arbitrary regulation has been the cause of an incessant human trafficking that has turned into a lucrative and deadly business.
It all began 50 years ago, when in 1960 the CIA came up with a false law widely reproduced and distributed by its agents. In that way, Cubans were led to believe that the revolutionary government had decided to remove parental custody of children and abrogate it to the state.
An unheard of mass of confused children preparing to travel alone to the United States began to crowd into Havana’s José Martí airport. That was because approximately 14,000 families failed to think or act sensibly and let themselves be deceived by the criminal plot organized by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), under the codename Operation Peter Pan.
Researchers José Wajasán and Ramón Torreira describe it as "a sinister manipulation on the part of Washington of the major fears of Cuban parents."
In their book Operation Peter Pan, the authors quote documents from the Kennedy Library declassified from National Security Files, which, via a letter from General Maxwell Taylor, inform of a covert action program to defeat the Cuban government.
For the first time on October 26, 1960, the CIA-created Radio Swan referred to a supposed law to take children aged 5 to 18 from their parents, in order to convert them into "monsters of [Marxist] materialism."
The custody conspiracy had gone into operation by word of mouth months earlier. Initially the CIA gave the task to the conspiracy group headed by the ex-prime minister of the Carlos Prío government, known as Pony Varona, a derivative of his name Tony, in honor of his lack of personal refinement.
Later, other groups became involved, because Varona left the country, leaving the mission in the hands of his closest partners, Leopoldina and Ramón Grau Alsina, niece and nephew of ex-president Ramón Grau San Martín, who confessed their guilt after their arrest. They printed out the false law, saying that they had stolen it from President Dorticós’ office and circulated it clandestinely. The apocryphal document stated in its Article 3: "When this law comes into effect, the custody of persons under 20 years of age will be exercised by the state via persons or organizations to which this faculty has been delegated."
Panic virtually spread among thousands of Cuban families. Having structured the plot at national and continental level, the U.S. government stated that it could take in all Cuban minors who wished to travel there, without visas or papers. In that violation of its own immigration laws, Washington gave large sums of money to the airline companies to transport the minors to Miami.
Father Bryan O. Walsh, whom the authorities placed at the head of the program, declared years later that he received approximately 15,000 children. It was a tremendous paradox: parents abandoned their children to an unknown fate, with the ingenuous intention of protecting them.
The majority of those children suffered from major traumas that culminated in a total sense of non-belonging. Some of them learned alone to insert themselves in society, while there were extreme cases like that of Robert Rodríguez who, at the age of 55, brought a lawsuit before a Miami court, claiming that during the five years that he was under a "protection program in the archdiocese of the city, he was the victim, along with other children, of continuous sexual and emotional abuse." He affirmed that "he was mistreated and sexually abused in the various camps where he was placed, as were other children taken there."
During the last 50 years, a number of variations of Operation Peter Pan have emerged from Miami and Washington. The most recent one, essayed since 2003, did not surprise anyone. It was very much part of the excesses of the Bush administration, looked down on by the rest of the world on account of its unscrupulous form of government. But, by maintaining Cuba on the list of countries trafficking minors – as it announced on June 14 – the government of President Barack Obama, which it was thought had a minimum amount of decency, is destroying the few hopes of change that some people might still be holding onto. •
June 23, 2010
granma.cu
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Rednecks in Chavezland
By John Little - Opednews.com:
One of the most bizarre features of my time here in Venezuela is the incredibly hypocritical way the redneck Americans who are here with me react to their foreign surroundings. They can’t stop praising almost everything about Venezuela, yet they also condemn almost everything about Venezuela.
Huh? “Splain, Lucy!”
It’s a given that all the rednecks consider Chavez to be a dictator. They can spout verbatim the entire Fox News storyline on Chavez and his horrible government. They have absolutely nothing good to say about him, about Socialism in general, and about how he is the epitome of all things evil.
But when they get sick and go to the free clinic just across the street from the main office, they are delighted that they are attended to immediately and at no charge. They grin from ear to ear when they go to the local pharmacy store and walk right up to the counter, order their medicine, and pay pennies on the dollar for it. They sing praises to the high heavens that they don’t need to schedule an appointment to see a doctor, and pay for it, then get the prescription, then go to the pharmacy and wait up to a day or two to get their medicine.
But Chavez is never, ever mentioned in all this glee. No one bothers to state that it’s because of socialized medicine that they are so well taken care of in such a “backward” country. It would be unconscionable for any redneck to actually equate their great medical attention to the current government of the country. That’s forbidden.
The rednecks are quick to complain about the violence. “It’s all Chavez’s fault,” they readily say.
“I always take my knife with me, wherever I go,” Cajun states. “They ain’t taking my money from me without a fight. Unless there’s more than three of them. Then I have to accept I’m gonna get the crap beat out of me.”
Cajun’s a good ol’ boy from Louisiana. He knows all about being taken hostage, having been one twice in Nigeria. He didn't have a problem with it since the Nigerians allowed him to drink and eat as he pleased. The oil company he was working for always promptly paid the ransom demand to free him and the others and he readily admits that the perks there are so great that he’d love to do another oil rig there.
But this is Venezuela, not Nigeria. And the inordinate amount of violence is preached everywhere here, especially on the American channels that are so popular here, like Fox and CNN. Yep, guess what, all Venezuelans get to watch as much American propaganda TV as they want, thanks to Chavez’s supposed “lack of free speech.” Just one more thing the rednecks quickly discuss until they mention what they saw the night before on CNN or Fox. Then, it’s as if they were in another country watching the show and magically returned to Venezuela once the show was over.
Cajun’s never been attacked. Nor has any of the other rednecks. In fact, when you ask them individually, they admit that the level of violence appears to be less than their home town of Tulsa, or Houston, or Atlanta, or elsewhere. But of course, that’s got to be because of all the minorities back home, not Chavez in Venezuela.
Now don’t get me wrong, the city here has its share of violence. Like I’ve mentioned earlier, I read the newspaper daily. There seems to be some malfeasance going on in surrounding communities everyday. That’s not a good sign. That’s also one of the reasons I’d like to see a few more cop cars on the streets. I guess old habits die hard.
But compared to the US, things are extremely calm. I never hear police, fire or ambulance sirens during the evening. In fact, I haven’t a clue what they sound like. Well, I did hear a police siren the other day and it sounded extraterrestrial to be honest. Apparently, the police were hungry for a Big Mac and didn’t want to wait their turn to park.
Another area that cracks me up to no end is in the language arena. Apparently, all the rednecks think that some language program called Rosetta Stone will instantly transform them into bilinguals. They seem to be both amazed and depressed at the fact that Venezuelans speak a language other than English and that not every single Venezuelan is fluent in American Southern English.
Rednecks are funny. They have never heard of the expression, “When in Rome, do as the Romans do.” They think they’re in the US, only with great Socialist perks that they can take advantage of. They praise the country they’re in, yet condemn the government that gives it to them. Hypocrisy 2010, it’s all the rage in Venezuela.
June 17th 2010
venezuelanalysis
One of the most bizarre features of my time here in Venezuela is the incredibly hypocritical way the redneck Americans who are here with me react to their foreign surroundings. They can’t stop praising almost everything about Venezuela, yet they also condemn almost everything about Venezuela.
Huh? “Splain, Lucy!”
It’s a given that all the rednecks consider Chavez to be a dictator. They can spout verbatim the entire Fox News storyline on Chavez and his horrible government. They have absolutely nothing good to say about him, about Socialism in general, and about how he is the epitome of all things evil.
But when they get sick and go to the free clinic just across the street from the main office, they are delighted that they are attended to immediately and at no charge. They grin from ear to ear when they go to the local pharmacy store and walk right up to the counter, order their medicine, and pay pennies on the dollar for it. They sing praises to the high heavens that they don’t need to schedule an appointment to see a doctor, and pay for it, then get the prescription, then go to the pharmacy and wait up to a day or two to get their medicine.
But Chavez is never, ever mentioned in all this glee. No one bothers to state that it’s because of socialized medicine that they are so well taken care of in such a “backward” country. It would be unconscionable for any redneck to actually equate their great medical attention to the current government of the country. That’s forbidden.
The rednecks are quick to complain about the violence. “It’s all Chavez’s fault,” they readily say.
“I always take my knife with me, wherever I go,” Cajun states. “They ain’t taking my money from me without a fight. Unless there’s more than three of them. Then I have to accept I’m gonna get the crap beat out of me.”
Cajun’s a good ol’ boy from Louisiana. He knows all about being taken hostage, having been one twice in Nigeria. He didn't have a problem with it since the Nigerians allowed him to drink and eat as he pleased. The oil company he was working for always promptly paid the ransom demand to free him and the others and he readily admits that the perks there are so great that he’d love to do another oil rig there.
But this is Venezuela, not Nigeria. And the inordinate amount of violence is preached everywhere here, especially on the American channels that are so popular here, like Fox and CNN. Yep, guess what, all Venezuelans get to watch as much American propaganda TV as they want, thanks to Chavez’s supposed “lack of free speech.” Just one more thing the rednecks quickly discuss until they mention what they saw the night before on CNN or Fox. Then, it’s as if they were in another country watching the show and magically returned to Venezuela once the show was over.
Cajun’s never been attacked. Nor has any of the other rednecks. In fact, when you ask them individually, they admit that the level of violence appears to be less than their home town of Tulsa, or Houston, or Atlanta, or elsewhere. But of course, that’s got to be because of all the minorities back home, not Chavez in Venezuela.
Now don’t get me wrong, the city here has its share of violence. Like I’ve mentioned earlier, I read the newspaper daily. There seems to be some malfeasance going on in surrounding communities everyday. That’s not a good sign. That’s also one of the reasons I’d like to see a few more cop cars on the streets. I guess old habits die hard.
But compared to the US, things are extremely calm. I never hear police, fire or ambulance sirens during the evening. In fact, I haven’t a clue what they sound like. Well, I did hear a police siren the other day and it sounded extraterrestrial to be honest. Apparently, the police were hungry for a Big Mac and didn’t want to wait their turn to park.
Another area that cracks me up to no end is in the language arena. Apparently, all the rednecks think that some language program called Rosetta Stone will instantly transform them into bilinguals. They seem to be both amazed and depressed at the fact that Venezuelans speak a language other than English and that not every single Venezuelan is fluent in American Southern English.
Rednecks are funny. They have never heard of the expression, “When in Rome, do as the Romans do.” They think they’re in the US, only with great Socialist perks that they can take advantage of. They praise the country they’re in, yet condemn the government that gives it to them. Hypocrisy 2010, it’s all the rage in Venezuela.
June 17th 2010
venezuelanalysis
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)