Bahamas Minister of Education to Bahamian parents: Stop making children of Haitian parentage 'scapegoats' in the education system...

Minister: stop making children of Haitian parentage 'scapegoats'
By ALISON LOWE
Tribune Staff Reporter
alowe@tribunemedia.net:


BAHAMIAN parents who are not living up to their responsibility to provide the support their children need to achieve their potential must focus on doing this rather than making children of Haitian parentage "scapegoats" in the education system, according to the Minister of Education.

Pointing out that there are children of both Bahamian and Haitian parentage who are excelling in their schools, Minister of Education Desmond Bannister chalked this up to the supportive environment these children's parents have provided for them and said that as Minister of Education one of his priorities is "trying to create an awareness of the need for Bahamian parents to pay attention to the education needs of our children."

"We have many success stories - if you see the high level of attainment we had this year it has given me a problem because I have to find funding for scholarships at a level we have never seen before, even though we put $7 million for scholarships this year it is still not enough, (because) so many of our children who are getting parental support who are doing magnificently in school.

"What I am concerned about those parents not spending time with kids whose kids are engaging in anti-social conduct and who are not doing well, and who are using children of Haitian origin as scapegoats. We don't need that in our country. We need all of our children to do well," said the Minister.

Mr Bannister was speaking on Island FM's Parliament Street radio talk show yesterday afternoon.

In response to a question from host Dr Sophia Rolle in which she asked him to respond to "some of your detractors who would be overly concerned about the number of foreign students in the Bahamian school system", Mr Bannister said: "This issue is very explosive in The Bahamas. Extremely explosive."

He noted how he had been the subject of "some really nasty remarks" after The Tribune printed an article in July in which he was quoted as acknowledging the impressive achievements of many Haitian children in Bahamian public schools and said that The Bahamas has an obligation to ensure every child is educated.

He also commented at that time on the fact that many Haitian parents take a very active interest in their child's education, which was enabling them to excel in school.

Speaking yesterday Mr Bannister said: "Since then people have attributed all kinds of remarks to me which are not true. What I am trying to create in The Bahamas is an awareness of the need for Bahamian parents to pay attention to the education needs of our children.

"Too many parents have dropped the ball in terms of spending the time that is required to help their children achieve success in education so children of Haitian abstraction will always be a focus of discontent because so many of them are doing well, and so many of our parents - many are doing good jobs - but some who are not doing a good job are going to utilise (children of Haitian parentage) as scapegoats when the reality is got to focus on what our children are doing."

Illustrating the role that parenting plays in creating the environment which can allow a child to excel, Mr Bannister noted the example of a friend who home-schooled his son.

"He called me the other day so gratified we helped his son take his BGCSEs. His son got eight A's in the BGCSEs. He's put everything into this child, so of course that meant sacrifices at home, that meant someone staying at home, less income for the family, but the child did extremely well."

Meanwhile, he spoke of two girls born in the Bahamas, each of whom has one or more parents of Haitian origin, who are both valedictorians at their respective public high schools in New Providence.

"They are no more intelligent than any other child who is in the school, they are entitled to be in our system, but the reality is that the parents are spending the time with them and they are excelling.

Someone called me from Grand Bahama and someone called me from Abaco and they told me the same story and it's not that anyone is any smarter than any of our children but it's time for us to appreciate children will excel when they get parental support.

"If you get up in the morning and don't pay attention to your children, don't make sure they get breakfast, that they're prepared for school, if you stay out late at night and don't help them with their homework if you are not putting time into their lives they are not going to see what these children (the ones who do well at school) see," said Mr Bannister.

August 23, 2010

tribune242

Bahamas Blog International

Caricom's 'buck-passing' culture

ANALYSIS
RICKEY SINGH




THE latest example of amusing buck-passing, or how to avoid taking political responsibility as leaders for advancing the goals of the Caribbean Community, emerged from a meeting in Grenada last Wednesday of five Caricom prime ministers and two foreign ministers.

Comprising a committee mandated to deal with the critical issue of improving governance of the affairs of the 37-year-old community, the participants were mindful to reflect customary caution in decisions taken for expected endorsement next month by the wider body of Heads of Government.

The committee's mandate flowed from last month's 31st Caricom summit in Montego Bay where the Heads of Government of the 15-member community had once again shied away from any consideration to introduce an empowered management structure that could have the effect of diluting, in some aspects, their domestic political authority.

This, even if such a course could result in satisfying, to some extent, their own often claimed commitment to achieving what's good for the regional economic integration movement as a whole, and knowing that it would require a sharing of some defined measures on sovereignty.

It is the reluctance to manage national sovereignty in the interest of the declared concept of 'One Community' that surfaced in Montego Bay last month.

The customary rhetoric about "commitment to Caricom" (read CSME; functional co-operation; integrated foreign and economic policies, etc), gave way to mild initiatives for tinkering with the community's prevailing governance status quo.

Consequently, the decision came from last Wednesday's meeting in Grenada on governance, plus another on a large nine-member "search committee" to help find a new secretary-general for Caricom with the retirement from year end of Edwin Carrington.

Two decisions

Participating in the meeting were the prime ministers of Jamaica (Bruce Golding, current Caricom chairman); Grenada (host Tilman Thomas); St Vincent and the Grenadines (Ralph Gonsalves); St Kitts and Nevis (Denzil Douglas) and Dominica's Roosevelt Skerrit. The two foreign ministers were Barbados' Maxine McLean, and Trinidad and Tobago's Surujrattan Rambachan.

First surprise was the disclosure that a nine-member "search committee", chaired by Foreign Minister McClean, would begin the process of pre-selecting candidates for the appointment of a successor to Carrington.

The committee's terms of reference, still to be formulated, will be determined by the Heads when they meet on the periphery of next month's start of the annual session of the UN General Assembly in New York.

The second surprising decision was even more baffling, in the sense that it offered neither anything new, in terms of a fundamental restructuring of the community Secretariat; nor any creative initiative for improved decision-making and implementation processes to check the snail's pace at which the CSME project continues to proceed.

The surprise came in the form of the announced decision to create a "Council of Community Ambassadors". It would operate on a permanent basis from the respective capitals to help remove barriers, at national levels, that frustrate implementation of regional decisions, and to strengthen co-operation.

If, after all the research materials and range of proposals over the years on alternative systems for improved governance of the community, Caricom leaders are to now offer a Council of Ambassadors as a standing mechanism for improving "governance", then they should not be surprised by an expected wave of cynicism and disenchantment across the region.

The Heads of Government may be scared of the politics of sharing a measure of sovereignty in the functioning of an empowered executive management structure, even though it is intended to function under their direct supervision and final authority.

How could it be explained -- if it is not a case of unintended contempt for the region's people -- the Heads' assumption of public acceptance of the proposed Council of Ambassadors as representing a creative effort for improved governance from the second decade of the 21st century?

Not flattering

For a start, the proposed Council of Ambassadors should not be confused with what obtains at the Organisation of American States (OAS), or in relation to the African Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) group. For a start, such councils function from a common location-- Washington (for the OAS) and Brussels (for the ACP).

For now, we are aware of examples of how senior cabinet ministers, and in a few cases at Heads level, have encountered difficulties in resolving sensitive bilateral matters and also failing to take advantage of the disputes settlement provisions located in the revised Treaty of Chaguaramas.

It would not be flattering for the Heads to hear criticisms of them "joking around" on the governance issue. But it is quite disappointing to note, in 2010, that ours remains a "Community of sovereign states" that has acquired a reputation for making bold, at times quite imaginative decisions, only to falter, too often, when it comes to implementation of unanimously approved decisions.

Examples abound, but a few should suffice, for now, such as failure to give legislative approval of the Charter of Civil Society -- one of the core recommendations of the West Indian Commission that was released as a document of the community since 1997.

(Incidentally, "good governance" is one of the Articles of the Charter that calls for establishment of a code governing the conduct of holders of public office and all those who exercise power that may affect the public interest).

Policies requiring implementation would also include the sharing of external representation; pursuing, with vision and vigour, a common policy on regional air transportation; the dismantling of barriers to free intra-regional movement of Caricom nationals (currently some states are making things worse for nationals).

The question, therefore, remains: Who among the Heads of Government of the estimated dozen countries fully participating in the policies and programmes of Caricom is now ready to call a halt to the community's governance system?

While they try to market the idea of a Council of Community Ambassadors that, in the final analysis, would be accountable to them, why this widening of a bureaucratic management system? Is it really a plausible approach for changing the prevailing buck-passing culture that has been virtually institutionalised by a model of governance our Heads of Government — past and present — seem so loath to change?

August 22, 2010

jamaicaobserver

Bahamas Blog International

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