Am I possibly exaggerating?

Reflections of Fidel

(Taken from CubaDebate)

AFTER referring on August 17 and 18 to the book by Daniel Estulin which relates with irrefutable facts the horrible way in which the minds of youth and children in the United States are deformed by drugs and the mass media, with the conscious participation of the U.S. and British intelligence agencies, in the final part of the last Reflection I stated: "It is terrible to think that the intelligences and sentiments of children and youth in the United States are mutilated in that way."

Yesterday, the news agencies communicated information that emerged from a study published by Beloit University, which notes facts occurring for the first time in the history of the United States and the world, associated with the knowledge and habits of U.S. university students who will graduate in 2014.

Granma daily reports on the news in eloquent language:



1. "They do not wear watches to tell the time, but use their cell phones."

2. "They believe that Beethoven is a dog that they know from a movie."

3. "That Michelangelo is a computer virus."

4. "That email is ‘too slow,’ accustomed as they are to sending messages on

sophisticated mobile phones."

5. "Very few of them know how to write in cursive."

6. "They believe that Czechoslovakia never existed."

7. "That U.S. companies have always done business in Vietnam."

8. "That Korean automobiles have always circulated in their country."

9. "That the United States, Canada and Mexico have always been bound by a

Free Trade Agreement."

It leaves one cold on seeing to what point education can be deformed and prostituted in a country that has more than 8,000 nuclear weapons and the most powerful war arsenal in the world.

And to think that there are still sane people capable of believing that my warnings are exaggerated!



Fidel Castro Ruz

August 19, 2010

11:13 a.m.

Translated by Granma International


granma.cu

Bahamas Blog International

Regionalism: The Caribbean prospective - Part 4

By D. Markie Spring
Turks and Caicos Islands:

Idyllic and liberating are the ways I’d describe every Caribbean nation that has gained its independence from European rule and governance. Hitherto, it has been twenty-five years since the last Caribbean nation disassociated itself from Britain.

However, some countries continued to be dependent upon Europe -- Britain, Netherlands and France -- with little political progress; hence, I recommend regionalism through political efforts.

In the Caribbean we differ extensively within the political arena. This is evident through the failed West Indies Federation, which was established in 1958 and ended in 1962.

There are too many disparities amongst our nations; ranging from the bashment between the governments of St Vincent and the Grenadines and Barbados over the drug trade between the two nations.

Also, most dependent territories, with the exception of Montserrat, view citizens of the other Caribbean islands as less fortunate. The same can be said about The Bahamas, Antigua and Barbuda, and Barbados to a lesser extent. Other political challenges exist.

Conversely, Cuba maintained a Communist regime for more than forty years. Recently, the former president handed over power to his brother Raul Castro; politics in this corner of the region has become a family business. The Cuban Communist regime must realize that communism and socialism have failed in every government that has adopted these political nightmares.

Similarly, Haiti’s political environment has been contentious with a long history of oppression administered by dictators -- Francois Duvalier and then his son Jean-Claude Duvalier.

Arguably, conscientious and considerate are true descriptions of the way Barbados’ governments have perpetrated their governance of that nation. The governments there have always worked for the citizens and strived to industrialize the country; thereby, producing political stability at home. It is also true that Barbados has its own political disputes and rivalries, but not as devastating as other Caribbean islands.

In the meanwhile, some scholars and citizens alike argued for and against regionalizing the political arenas of the Caribbean. Those against argued that the region has diverse political structures ranging from a Communist regime to a Westminster-style parliamentary system. Those who support regionalism argued that these dissensions are superficial and only subvert commonalities, which exist amongst states.

It is time for us to benchmark other nations that have fully integrated their political system and learn from their progress.

Ideally, the European Union (EU) has instituted the European Council, which has often being describe as the “Supreme political authority,” has political roles in the negotiating changes in treaty and demarcates the policy agenda and strategies of the EU.

The United States, although somewhat different has sub-regions, which they called states and each state has it own government; yet constituted and regulated by the federal government.

In the US, there are Californians, Texans and New Yorkers; yet they are all Americans; In Europe there are the British, Romanians, and Germans; collectively, they are Europeans. In the region, we maintain our nationalities whether St Vincentians, Barbadians or Trinidadians, but as a regional unit we are West Indians.

It is time for politicians across the region to stop focusing exuberantly on self; rather they should discuss the issues affecting the region. Additionally, lack of interest and support from major states has crippled regionalism, coupled with the exclusion of the Dominican Republic and Haiti as members.

However, proponents of regionalism suggests that there are many benefits derived from strengthening the region’s governing bodies and political powers; creating efficiencies of scale and encouraging decentralization, amongst other benefits.

In Cuba’s case, I am not trying to hand down my political ideologies or those existing in the wider Caribbean; rather I am seeking to educate and solicit support from them to join the rest of the region in their quest for oneness through democracy. I realize that some scholars may disagree; however, there is real evidence that regionalism works.

August 18, 2010

Regionalism: The Caribbean prospective - Part 3

The “Ground Zero mosque”: Obama cowers before right-wing hysteria

With the US mid-term elections less than three months away, the issue that has become the focus of this campaign season is a telling indicator of the intensely reactionary character of official politics in America and of both big business parties.

Employing unbridled hypocrisy and cynicism, right-wing forces centered in the Republican Party, but aided and abetted by leading Democrats, have attempted to whip up mob hysteria against a proposed Islamic cultural center that has been approved by local authorities for construction in lower Manhattan.

The center, the Cordoba House, is to include a swimming pool, a gym, an arts center and a memorial to the victims of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. While its supporters have stressed its inter-faith character, it has been almost universally dubbed the “Ground Zero mosque.”

Semi-fascist elements have denounced the proposed center—to be built two and a half blocks from where New York City’s World Trade Center once stood—as a desecration of the “sacred ground” where over 2,700 people were killed on 9/11. Former House Speaker and likely contender for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012 Newt Gingrich has compared the backers of the project to Nazis protesting outside the Holocaust museum.

The reality is that, nearly nine years after the attacks, the former World Trade Center largely remains a hole in the ground, a sprawling construction site in which little has been built. No memorial has been erected to those who died, as real estate developers and government officials have haggled year after year over financial terms.

Within roughly the same walking distance from this “sacred ground,” one passes strip joints, porn shops, betting parlors and dance clubs, none of which appear to have wounded the sensibilities of these patriotic defenders of the sanctity of Ground Zero. The center itself is to take the place of a dilapidated warehouse, previously the site of a Burlington Coat Factory outlet.

The real aims of those attacking the Cordoba House are not the protection of the nonexistent sanctity of Ground Zero or the shielding of the sensibilities of 9/11 victims’ families. It is a vicious attempt to foment and exploit religious bigotry, xenophobia and outright racism to drive politics ever further to the right.

The far-reaching implications of this campaign entail an assault on the First Amendment of the US Constitution, guaranteeing freedom of speech and religion and barring the government from establishing a state religion or lending preference to one religion over another. This includes the right of Muslims, or any other religious minority, to worship how and where they choose, without the interference of the government or other religious institutions. The “Ground Zero mosque” campaign is consciously directed at mobilizing elements of the religious right that reject this principle.

It is entirely in sync with a parallel attempt to foment mass hysteria over immigration, portraying immigrants as a criminal class responsible for the loss of jobs and social services. Increasingly, this campaign has embraced the demand for the repeal of the US Constitution’s 14th Amendment—which guarantees citizenship to every person born in the US—in order to clear the way for the deportation of millions of children born in the US to undocumented immigrants. This amendment is the constitutional foundation of equal protection under the law.

In both cases, the assault on core constitutional principles and democratic rights has been coupled with venomous rhetoric that serves as an incitement to violence against immigrants, racial minorities and Muslims.

For months, the Obama White House refused to comment on the controversy, insisting in the face of an assault on core constitutional principles and a nationwide hate campaign that the dispute was little more than a local zoning matter.

Then, last Friday, Obama delivered a speech to a Ramadan dinner at the White House affirming that “Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country. And that includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center in Lower Manhattan … This is America. And our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakeable.”

Within the space of 24 hours—and in the wake of a firestorm of Republican right criticism—Obama demonstrated that his commitment was anything but unshakeable. “I was not commenting and will not comment on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque there,” he told reporters. “I was commenting very specifically on the right of people that date back to our founding.”

In other words, Obama’s White House speech was nothing more than a formal recognition of the constitutional rights that he is sworn to defend, upholding them in principle, while refusing to lift a finger in their defense against those who would deny these rights in practice.

Obama’s cowardly retreat was followed by a similar statement from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Democrat, Nevada), who on Monday issued a gutless statement acknowledging that “The First Amendment protects freedom of religion,” while insisting “the mosque should be built someplace else.” Needless to say, the senator did not propose any alternative site, much less offer to have the center built in Nevada.

There is little to distinguish Obama and Reid from Gingrich, Sarah Palin and others on the Republican right, who also formally acknowledge freedom of religion, while demanding that this freedom be denied to Muslims. Both parties are content to turn the Constitution into a dead letter, replacing it with statutes more suited to police-state repression at home and permanent military aggression abroad.

Why did Obama bother giving the speech if he was prepared to repudiate it so quickly? Clearly, it was not motivated by any concern for religious freedom or democratic rights.

The real motivation was suggested in a Washington Post column by Michael Gerson, the former speechwriter for George W. Bush, who aptly noted that with his speech and speedy backtracking, “Obama managed to collect all the political damage for taking an unpopular stand without gaining credit for political courage.”

The US president, Gerson continued, was compelled to make such a speech, because he “leads a coalition that includes Iraqi and Afghan Muslims who risk death each day fighting Islamic radicalism at our side. How could he possibly tell them that their place of worship inherently symbolizes the triumph of terror?”

Obama acted not out of commitment to constitutional principles, but rather, in all likelihood, at the prodding of the Pentagon and the US foreign policy establishment. They fear that the anti-Muslim campaign being whipped up by the Republican right could undermine US military campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan to affirm Washington’s hegemony in the overwhelmingly Muslim Middle East and Central Asia, the world’s two most important sources of oil and gas.

Indeed, the principal figure involved in the Cordoba House project, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, plays a direct role in these US efforts. The State Department announced last week that it is sending Rauf on a goodwill tour of the Middle East, the third such mission by the Muslim cleric, with whom the State Department acknowledged having “a long-term relationship.” The Imam has also provided training for the FBI and police agencies in dealing with Muslim populations.

The “Ground Zero mosque” controversy has ensnared the Obama administration in an unavoidable contradiction. On the one hand US imperialism needs to recruit Muslim allies and puppets to further its two ongoing wars, as well as to support aggression against Iran. On the other hand, it has whipped up anti-Muslim sentiment within the general population and among US troops in order to generate religious-based support for these wars.

In the final analysis, the fascistic agitation against the Islamic center in Lower Manhattan, together with the cowering response of the Obama administration and the Democratic Party, demonstrate that militarism and imperialist war abroad coupled with ever-widening social inequality at home are incompatible with democratic rights. The escalating attacks on rights that go back to the founding of the American republic constitute a stark warning. The defense of these rights requires a counteroffensive by the working class against the reactionary social and political forces being mobilized to subvert them and against the profit system that gives rise to these attacks.

Bill Van Auken

18 August 2010

wsws

Bahamas Blog International

Illegal immigrants residing in The Bahamas were ordered to voluntarily leave the country ... or face immediate repatriation

'Leave now' illegal immigrants told
By PAUL G. TURNQUEST
Tribune Staff Reporter
pturnquest@tribunemedia.net:



ACTING Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs Brent Symonette has ordered all illegal immigrants residing in the Bahamas to voluntarily leave the country ... or face immediate repatriation.

Acknowledging that there has been a noticeable increase in the number of Haitian migrants attempting to gain entry illegally into the Bahamas over the past six months and, in particular, during the last two weeks, Mr Symonette said he wants these persons to know that if they are caught, they will be sent "straight back."

"We want those persons who are thinking of coming here from different countries to think again. So before they start to jump on that boat to try and make it to the Bahamas to know fully well that if they are caught here we will send them straight back. We have demonstrated that in the past few weeks where we have sent back a significant number of persons and that number as you are well aware has increased.

"There are some who have only made it as far as Inagua and they have been sent back. So we are trying to say to people that if you are thinking of coming here to find a better way of life to please rethink that. Now for those who are here who have yet to have their status regularized we have been working hard on that. But for those who are here illegally, the consequences will flow," he said.

In a statement issued from the Department of Immigration, it notes that following the January 12 earthquake in Port au Prince, the government of the Bahamas was "understanding and responsive" by temporarily suspending its apprehension exercises with respect to Haitians residing illegally in its territory.

Further, the statement read, the department issued permits "to reside" to 102 persons who were detained at the Bahamas Detention Centre, on Carmichael Road.

"However, having regard to the recent heightened infringement of the Bahamas Immigration Law, notice is hereby given that with immediate effect, all illegal immigrants are requested to leave the Bahamas voluntarily. All persons who are here illegally are in contravention of the laws of the Bahamas, and are advised to return to their country of origin or be subject to apprehension and deportation. Persons who are found to be in the Bahamas illegally will be repatriated forthwith," the statement read.

This statement from the department was also issued in Creole and is printed in full in today's Tribune.

Mr Symonette: "As a country we have to have a nation-wide discussion on immigration. One thing we have to do is look at what other countries (in our region) do. Some of our neighbours only allow you to come and work for three years for instance, and you are not allowed to bring your wife, or your children.

"The same goes for education, and healthcare. It is not a part of that consideration they give to non-national labour. But we do. We may have to re-look at all of these things and decide what is the level of non-Bahamian workforce that we need."

To answer this question, Mr Symonette said we can ask ourselves how many Bahamians are willing or prepared to be gardeners or household keepers. While some might argue that Bahamians are capable and willing to work in any field, the Minister said there are instances where persons have simply sought to remain unemployed instead of taking a job that might pay less than they desire.

However, when it comes to making a dent in the flow of illegal immigrants, Mr Symonette said there needs to be amendments to the immigration laws to plug any loopholes that smugglers might exploit, as well as a drastic change in the thinking of Bahamians who continue to employ these illegal workers.

August 16, 2010

tribune242

Bahamas Blog International

Kill Hugo? Why Washington Hates Hugo Chavez

By Mike Whitney- Counterpunch:

It's no fun being on Washington's enemies list. Just ask Hugo Chavez. Last week, the Venezuelan president had to cancel a trip to Cuba after he was told that a coup was underway and his life was in danger. The information came from an anonymous source who had delivered a similar warning prior to the failed coup in 2002. The letter said: “The execution phase is accelerating..… There is an agreement between Colombia and the US with two objectives: one is Mauricio and the other is the overthrow of the government.… They will hunt down ‘Mauricio’ (and) try to neutralize part of the Armed Forces.” ("Venezuela Pushes for Peace", Coral Wynter, Green Left News)

“Mauricio” is Chavez's codename. Whoever is behind the coup, wants to kill Chavez.

There's no way of knowing whether Chavez is really in danger or not, but we shouldn't be too surprised if he is. After all, the US claims it has the right to kill anyone it sees as a threat to its national security, and Chavez surely ranks high on its list of threats. So it's wise to be careful. In any event, the warnings coincide with other unsettling developments. At a recent meeting of the Organization of American States (OAS), Colombian ministers charged Chavez with harboring guerrillas on Venezuelan territory. (The allegations could be used to justify a preemptive attack) Chavez reacted swiftly and broke off diplomatic relations with Colombia, but the row did not end there. Obama's nominee as US ambassador to Venezuela, Larry Palmer, threw a little gas on the fire by backing-up Colombia's claims. Now the two countries are at loggerheads which seems to be what the Obama administration had in mind from the very beginning. US policy towards Venezuela has [not] changed at all under Obama. If anything, it's gotten worse. 

US EXPANDS 7 BASES IN COLOMBIA

The Pentagon recently announced that it plans to expand 7 military bases in Colombia. State Dept officials said that the US merely wants to step up its counter-narcotics operations, but no one's buying it. Everyone knows the US wants to reestablish its control over the region. The military build up in Colombia is another way of ratcheting up the pressure on Chavez and fanning the flames of political instability in the hemisphere. Naturally, the base expansion has the region's leftist leaders worried that Latin America may be headed for another era of US-backed dirty wars.

Also, the internet is abuzz with stories that Obama is planning to deploy warships and ground troops to Costa Rica in the near-future. Here's an article on Alternet that lays out the basic theory:

"Rather than retooling its diplomatic approach to fit the new reality in Latin America, Washington is expanding its military footprint. It will soon be operating out of seven military bases in Colombia and has reactivated its 4th Fleet, both highly unpopular moves in Latin America. Rather than taking the advice of countries in the region to demilitarize its war on drugs, the U.S. recently announced it is deploying 46 warships and 7,000 soldiers to Costa Rica to “interdict” drug traffic and money laundering." ("Recent Colombian Mass Grave Discovery May Be “False-Positives", Conn Hallinan, Alternet)

Although the rumors have not been verified, the anxiety is growing. The US has never played a constructive role in Latin America's affairs, and the prospect of more meddling and violence is frightening. The truth is, US intervention has continued even during relatively peaceful periods like the last decade. US intelligence agents and NGOs are sprinkled throughout the civilian population gathering information, swaying elections, and fomenting social unrest. Here's a clip from an article titled "America's Covert 'Civil Society Operations: US interference in Venezuela keeps growing" which shows how America's tentacles extend everywhere:

"Foreign intervention is not only executed through military force. The funding of “civil society” groups and media outlets to promote political agendas and influence the “hearts and minds” of the people is one of the more widely used mechanisms by the US government to achieve its strategic objectives. In Venezuela, the US has been supporting anti-Chavez groups for over 8 years, including those that executed the coup d’etat against President Chavez in April 2002. Since then, the funding has increased substantially. A May 2010 report evaluating foreign assistance to political groups in Venezuela, commissioned by the National Endowment for Democracy, revealed that more than $40 million USD annually is channeled to anti-Chavez groups, the majority from US agencies....

A large part of NED funds in Venezuela have been invested in “forming student movements” and “building democratic leadership amongst youth”, from a US perspective and with US values....In the last three years, an opposition student/youth movement has been created with funding from various US and European agencies. More than 32% of USAID funding, for example, has gone to “training youth and students in the use of innovative media technologies to spread political messages and campaigns”, such as on Twitter and Facebook.

NED has also funded several media organizations in Venezuela, to aid in training journalists and designing political messages against the Venezuelan government. ..What these organizations really do is promote anti-Chavez messages on television and in international press, as well as distort and manipulate facts and events in the country in order to negatively portray the Chavez administration... Yet such funding is clearly illegal and a violation of journalist ethics. Foreign government funding of “independent” journalists or media outlets is an act of mass deception, propaganda and a violation of sovereignty. ("America's Covert 'Civil Society Operations: US interference in Venezuela keeps growing", Eva Golinger, Global Research)

It's hard to believe that a two-year senator from Chicago with a background in "community organizing" presides over this elaborate and opaque system of imperial rule. He doesn't, of course. The real leaders remain hidden behind the cloak of democratic government and all of Washington's phony institutions. Obama is merely a public relations hologram, a friendly face that conceals the machinations of a global Mafia. Other people--whoever they may be--control the levers of power moving the pieces as needed to assure the best outcome for themselves and their constituents. Now, it appears this shadow government has its eyes on Latin America once again. That's bad news for Chavez and anyone else who hoped that political instability and US black ops were a thing of the past.

Washington hates Chavez because he's raised living standards for the poor. (and because he won't bow to the giant corporations) That's why he's pilloried in the media, because his socialist model of democracy doesn't jive with America's slash and burn-style of capitalism. Chavez has enacted land and oil industry reform, improved education and provided universal healthcare. He's introduced job training, subsidies to single mothers, drug prevention programs, and assistance for recovering addicts. Venezuelans are more educated than ever before. Illiteracy has been wiped out.

Chavez's policies have reduced ignorance, poverty, and injustice. The list goes on and on. Venezuelans are more engaged in the political process than anytime in the nation's history. That scares Washington. US elites don't want well-informed, empowered people participating in the political process. They believe that task should be left to the venal politicians chosen by corporate bosses and top-hat banksters. That's why Chavez has to go. He's given people hope for a better life.

Movie director, Oliver Stone, summed it up perfectly in a recent interview with Nathan Gardels. He said, "The US remains hostile to anyone on the left coming to power in their "backyard," anyone who thinks the resources of a country belong to its people....For the first time in modern history, much of South America is beyond US control.....It is also beyond the influence of the US-dominated IMF."

The people of Venezuela are better off under Chavez; better fed, better educated, and with better access to medical care. The government safeguards their civil liberties and political activism continues to grow. Democracy is thriving in Venezuela. Hurrah for Hugo Chavez!

Mike Whitney lives in Washington state and can be reached at fergiewhitney@msn.com

August 13th 2010

venezuelanalysis

Bahamas Blog International

Caricom's management change overdue

Analysis
Rickey Singh



ARRANGEMENTS have been finalised for a special meeting in Grenada of seven Caribbean Community Heads of Government to discuss the critical matter of "governance" on Tuesday, August 17.

But the big question remains: how seriously committed are the leaders of our 37-year-old economic integration movement to grappling with the elusive but very vital issue of governance?

They have been doing the ritual political merry-go-round on this governance challenge ever since the 1992 Time for Action report was issued by The West Indian Commission.

A new governance system, relevant to the challenges of our time, has been on and off the Caricom leaders' work agenda for at least 14 years, dating back to the West Indian Commission's 1992 report, followed by a series of other reports from technocrats and, lastly, that of 2006 from a Technical Working Group (TWG) on "matured regional governance".

A litany of deferred decisions on governance has been the norm. Then it came as a surprise when this prickly topic surfaced again at last month's 31st regular annual Caricom Heads of Government Conference in Montego Bay.

It occurred against the backdrop of spreading discontent and cynicism over the evident lack of progress in completion of the single market arrangements — not to mention the related major project of inauguration of the much-touted common regional economic space.

In the process, two significant developments occurred behind closed doors in Montego Bay.

Conceding that there can no longer be a business-as-usual approach in the face of declining faith in effective governance of the community's wide-ranging policies and programmes, there was a caucus session that focused both on Edwin Carrington's future with Caricom as well as the way forward for the community in all major areas of operation.

By the time the July 4-7 Montego Bay summit concluded, we were learning that consensus had emerged to treat with urgency the business of governance of the community, and particularly in relation to its flagship CSME project.

It was agreed that a special meeting of the Caricom Bureau, plus some other leaders of the 15-member community, would take place in Grenada and that they would be assisted by members of the TWG on "matured regional governance" that was chaired by Dr Vaughn Lewis.

Sitting on hands

It is of relevance to note here that Caricom leaders have been sitting on their hands on the TWG's recommendations for more than three years. The centrepiece of recommendations submitted was the creation of a high-level commission, or similar mechanism, with executive authority and functioning under the direct supervision of Heads of Government.

This specific recommendation was to serve as a reminder of the idea that had originated with the 1992 West Indian Commission, under Sir Shridath Ramphal's chairmanship. The commission had proposed an empowered three-member Caricom Commission to help deal with the challenges of effective governance.

The intention now is for the outcome of this Tuesday's meeting in St George's to be forwarded for decision at a special meeting of Caricom Heads late next month in Jamaica, whose prime minister is the current chairman of the community.

However, while the committee of Caricom leaders was preparing for the meeting in St George's, there came the breaking news from Secretary General Carrington that he had informed Heads of Government of his decision to retire from his post, effective December 31, 2010.

Consequently, a core feature of next week's meeting in Grenada will be the focus on finding a new secretary general to be on board from January 1, 2011.

Prime Minister Golding has been quick to deny suggestions that Carrington may have been "pushed" into advancing his retirement — almost two years before the conclusion of his current fourth term contract.

On the other hand, by his own statement of August 4, Carrington had declared: "The last 18 years have been the pinnacle of my public service career. I have, despite the odds, done all I could to help create a viable and secure community for all..."

Strong voice

Whatever his detractors may now say, Carrington, as head of the Secretariat in Georgetown, has been — warts and all — a strong, regular public voice, via the region's media, in support and defence of Caricom.

There has undoubtedly been progress over the years to applaud, particularly in areas of functional co-operaton, trade and external relations. But there is also blame to be shared between the Secretariat's management and the political directorate of Caricom, in terms of implementation of approved major policies and programmes. Think, for example, the mounting frustration to realise the full CSME.

Carrington was perhaps the equivalent of a chief executive officer functioning in co-operation with the Heads of Government as the regional political directorate with ultimate responsibility.

Now that the community leaders appear willing to take new initiatives in the direction of a management structure relevant to effective "governance for the 21st century", it is to be hoped that the recommendations to emerge from Tuesday's meeting in St George's will prove helpful for hard decisions at the special meeting of Heads planned for late next month in Jamaica.

In accordance with the sentiment of the West Indian Commission's seminal report, it is most certainly "time for action" by Caricom to achieve a quality of governance to make a reality policies and programmes seriously hampered by lack of implementation processes -- whatever the contributing factors.

The CSME project, too long in the making (following the historic Grand Anse Declaration of 1989), as well as the comparatively recent Economic Partnership Agreement with Europe (June 2009i), are outstanding examples of the need for an envisaged new architecture of governance to ensure systematic and timely implementation of decisions.


August 15, 2010


jamaicaobserver

Bahamas Blog International

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

KEEBLE McFARLANE




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

keeble.mack@smpatico.ca

August 14, 2010

jamaicaobserver

Bahamas Blog International