Political parties: Gangs in disguise?

By Oliver Mills




Over the years, political parties in the Caribbean have been much criticised for lack of focus and action on the pressing issues of society, for not being sensitive to the wider needs of the most vulnerable in Caribbean society, not taking bold and aggressive measures to deal with the inequalities in Caribbean society, and for not seriously attempting to transform the structure and function of the various institutions of government to enable them to deliver on the many promises they make.

Furthermore, political parties in the Caribbean have been seen as elite organisations, which continuously co-opt aspiring and promising individuals into their ranks, exposing them to the benefits of office, and the opportunities connected with it, and so perpetuate the status quo.

In a recent article published in one of the leading Caribbean papers, the writer gives a new twist to the description of political parties, categorising them as gangs, in reference to the way these parties conduct politics in his country. He speaks of the exploitation of his country by the two major political parties for their own benefit, and says that most of the 40,000 or so fatalities since 1970 were because of the criminality attached to, and fomented by these parties. The writer further describes these political parties as having a gangster character.

The question is, are political parties really gangs in disguise? But what really is a gang? A gang usually comprises a leader, and committed followers, with a goal or mission. Their activities are usually geared to meeting their own needs at the expense of the wider society. Gangs prey on the wider society, and compete with each other for turf. Many of them also have symbols which identify their members.

Gangs also have a code of conduct, and if there are any infractions, severe punishment could be meted out to the guilty. They also seek to recruit others to their cause, particularly among the young, and disaffected, looking for an identity, and to be associated with something bigger than themselves. Members of gangs often say that the reason they join is because they feel appreciated and wanted, as well as protected. In many instances as well, before a person becomes a gang member, he or she has to undertake certain acts, testifying to their commitment.

But do political parties fit into this paradigm, or scenario? Indeed, political parties have a leader with committed followers, who are often fanatical to the point of seeing anyone who does not share their political views as the enemy, and assaults, sometimes fatal, are perpetrated against opponents, which is also what a gang does. Parties also have goals and a mission just as gangs do, and their activities are directed at meeting their own needs and, as they often state, those of the country as well. Gangs have no consideration for the needs of the wider society. But many people say that the personal needs of the political party are often disguised as the needs of the country. However, it is often said that gangs also have a constituency, which they look after economically.

Like gangs, political parties also compete for turf and, in some Caribbean countries, one section of a village, or even a street is controlled by one or the other party, and neither party’s supporters can cross this line. Some political parties, like gangs have also set up garrisons, in which their staunch supporters live, and the supporters of the opposite party dare not enter the zone controlled by one or the other party.

Like gangs, political parties also have symbols that represent their particular stances or beliefs. In one Caribbean country, the symbol for one party is the bell, which for them suggests freedom, while the other party has the shell, which represents the most important industry, or element of the economy. The shell also portrays strength and endurance. Other parties in other Caribbean countries use a particular colour, while in a particular country, the three fingers on the left hand, going left from the middle finger, are its symbol. So both political parties and gangs have the same kind of representative icons, which depict who, and what they are.

Political parties, like gangs, also have a code of conduct that governs membership, and the conduct of its members and supporters. We have seen party members, and even ministers of government being expelled for conduct unbecoming of the party, but they are often shuffled off to another post that is not conspicuous, only to reappear in politics later. Gangs could be somewhat more ruthless though. This is why we have gang warfare in cases where one, or some members of a particular gang are suspected of having alliances with the other, or even more extreme, some gang members become fatalities, particularly if they are suspected of being police agents.

In a wider perspective, can it be said that political parties are gangs in disguise? I have just pointed out their similarities. But in a formal sense are gangs and political parties the same? One Caribbean scholar recently described his country and its political system as a gangster state. However, if we look at the origins, philosophy, and reasons why political parties have been formed, we will see that their objectives were noble. They aimed at organising the people into a cohesive force to promote progress, mobilising public opinion around the issues, seeking to create growth and development in the country, and organising the resources of the country, so that the majority receives some benefit.

Political parties also help to maintain a balance of power, and prevent dictatorship in government. If we do not like the policies of a government, they can be changed through the use of the ballot. Despite this, though, political trickery, gerrymandering and deception are often employed to maintain a particular party in office over long periods in some countries. Gang leaders are often eliminated either through internal rivalry, in street battles with other gangs, or by the forces of the state.

It could be said in one sense, then, that the activities of some political parties resemble those of a gang, while others stick to the noble purpose and philosophy from which they originated, and continue to sustain themselves.

April 16, 2011

caribbeannewsnow

Bahamas Blog International

Bahamas: ...the challenges facing children and adults who have been diagnosed with autism

Early diagnosis and treatment is key to addressing autism


By UNITED STATES AMBASSADOR TO THE BAHAMAS
NICOLE AVANT


APRIL is National Autism Awareness Month, which provides a special opportunity for individuals across the Bahamas to raise awareness in their neighbourhoods, workplaces, schools and local communities about the challenges facing children and adults who have been diagnosed with autism.

Autism affects one in every 110 children and one in every 70 boys, yet the cause remains unknown.

Signs and symptoms typically appear during the first three years of life and relate to language, social behavior, and behaviors concerning objects and routines.

Last August, I invited actress, author, and international autism activist Holly Robinson-Peete, and her husband former NFL quarterback, Rodney Peete, to an event at my residence to share their personal experiences raising their autistic son RJ, and the impact of his diagnosis on the entire family. The US Embassy partnered with the Resources and Education for Autism and Related Challenges (REACH) organization on the event that brought together Bahamian families with Autistic children and leading Bahamian autism experts and specialists for a discussion on this critical issue.

Holly and Rodney spoke candidly about raising an autistic child and their search for reliable information and the best treatments.

Although this was the Peete family's first autism outreach event outside of the United States, their message to Bahamian parents remained the same: "Get out of denial quickly, arm yourself with information, keep an open mind and stay proactive, hopeful, and prayerful. Above all, focus on your child's gifts, not on their limitations."

Through the Peete family's experience it became clear that early diagnosis and intensive intervention can have a profound impact on the lives of children and adults who have been diagnosed with autism.

Treatments have been developed in recent years that make it possible for nearly half the children who are diagnosed early with autism to eliminate the need for special education.

If children receive intervention treatment before the age of four, many of them go on to live productive lives comparable to those without a developmental disability.

Therefore, it is critically important to identify those children who are at-risk in order to reduce the time between symptom appearance and formal diagnosis and treatment.

I applaud REACH for providing a support system for parents with children affected by autism, for their efforts in April as well as throughout the year to raise awareness about autism and for arming parents with critical information on innovative treatment opportunities in the Bahamas and the United States.

As autism awareness increases throughout the Bahamas, parents, caregivers and educators are more likely to identify the early signs of autism and seek available treatment.

Raising awareness about autism will also encourage educators in the Bahamas to identify new approaches to ensure that students with developmental challenges have the opportunity to excel in an inclusive classroom, particularly on the Family Islands where special therapies and treatments may be out of reach.

Thursday, April 14, 2011

tribune242

Bahamas Blog International

Losing Latin America

By Steve Ellner - In These Times:



In his State of the Union address in January, President Obama pressed for quick passage of a free trade agreement with Colombia, and since then has followed up on the proposal. In doing so he has delighted Republicans who had been accusing him of failing to prioritize the issue. In his January speech, Obama made no reference to his unequivocal concern over human rights violations which he had raised in his third presidential debate with McCain.

Since 2008, little has improved to justify Obama’s reversal. Human Rights Watch has reported a 41 percent increase in the number of victims in 2010 over the previous year, including the murder of 44 trade unionists. In the first six weeks of 2011, death squads assassinated three more labor activists.

In an attempt to assure members of U.S. Congress that progress is being made, on April 7 Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos and Obama announced from the White House the approval of an “Action Plan,” whereby the Colombian government pledged to take stringent measures to curb abuses. Many Colombian trade union leaders, however, refused to buy into the arrangement and expressed skepticism about their government’s resolve. Tarsicio Mora, president of the Unitary Workers Confederation (CUT), objected by saying, “It just can’t be that respect for a basic right established in the constitution, such as the right to life, has to be required by a commercial transaction.”

Obama’s new stand has also failed to win over U.S. trade unionists. In January, Communications Workers of America President Larry Cohen argued against the agreement by pointing out that 15 million Colombians representing 82 percent of the working population are not recognized as workers and thus under the law “have no rights.”

Obama’s change—from opposition to the free trade agreement with Colombia, to lukewarm endorsement of it, to vigorous support—is just one example of his turnabout on Latin American policy. His modified stands distance Washington from an important bloc of Latin American governments and contribute to the decline of the U.S. leadership position in the hemisphere.

Up until his early months in office, Obama appeared to be following the path of liberal Democrats dating back to the 1930s. The liberal tradition on foreign policy toward Latin America was in many ways attractive. Key features included respect for the plurality of ideas – shown by Franklin D. Roosevelt’s acceptance of Mexican nationalism and its nationalization of oil in 1938; the Kennedy administration’s call to “complete the revolution of the Americas” through taxing the wealthy and land reform; and the suspension of aid by the Carter administration to several Latin American governments to protest human rights violation even though they were on the U.S. side in the Cold War.

During the presidential campaign, Obama not only stepped into this liberal tradition but defied the Democratic Party mainstream with positions different from those of his then-rival Hillary Clinton. Obama boldly proposed to meet with Fidel Castro, Hugo Chávez and other Washington adversaries. At the same time he declared “I think our foreign policy is all messed up” and promised a “new direction” in Latin American relations.

Under the Obama administration, the United States finds its historically unrivaled position in the continent challenged on a number of fronts. This July, a summit in Caracas will formally inaugurate the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) to group the 32 nations south of the Rio Grande and serve as a parallel organization to the traditionally U.S.-dominated Organization of American States (OAS).

Furthermore, in recent years of modest economic growth, Latin American nations have broadened commercial ties with nations outside of traditional spheres of U.S. influence, such as Russia, Iran and especially China. In 2010, China’s direct non-financial investments abroad increased 36 percent, most of which went to Asia and Latin America, while the Asian powerhouse displaced Europe as Latin America’s second largest trading partner (after the United States).

Obama, however, has failed to take bold moves to face the challenge. During his largely uneventful five-day tour of Latin America in March he did little to reverse the unfavorable trends. A statement of condemnation, or at least recognition, of the United States’ long and sorry record of intervention would have represented a good first step in treating Latin American nations as “equal partners” – a pledge made by the president that created great expectations.

Instead, when asked by a Chilean journalist about Washington’s role in the overthrow of Salvador Allende, Obama evaded the question. Furthermore, in Brazil, Obama failed to put forward concrete proposals to deal with the issue consistently raised by the Brazilians, namely U.S. agricultural subsidies and other practices that close the world’s largest market for Latin American goods.

Capitulation to the Right on Honduras
Obama’s abandonment of the liberal tradition in his stance on Latin America has been driven by the perceived need to placate rightist critics. Events following the overthrow of Honduran president José Manuel Zelaya in June 2009 put in evidence both the right’s clout and Obama’s failure to check the loss of U.S. influence. The Obama administration caved into pressure from Tea Partier Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina, who justified the coup on grounds that Zelaya — along with Hugo Chávez and Daniel Ortega — were “would-be tyrants and dictators.”

In response to DeMint’s threat to block ratification by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee of two key State Department appointments for Latin America, the Obama administration did another about-face. In late 2009, it went from condemnation of the overthrow of Zelaya and support for his return to power to endorsement of the elections sponsored by the coup leaders. Council of the Americas Policy Director Christopher Sabatini gave the South Carolina senator major credit for the change of policy, adding “DeMint’s role has been disproportionate to his interest in Latin America.”

The Obama administration had other options. It could have bypassed the senate committee by attempting to muster 60 votes on the senate floor, or else make the appointments when Congress was out of session, as Bush had done with his selection of John Bolton as UN ambassador. But either move would have meant giving up Obama’s much preferred style of “consensus politics.”

Since then the United States has been locked in an impasse over the issue of the democratic credentials of the Honduran government. In spite of Secretary of State Clinton’s active diplomacy, she has made little headway in convincing a group of Latin American governments to accept Honduras into the community of nations. The latest slap in the face to Honduran President Porfirio Lobo occurred in January when he was the only Latin American head of state to be excluded from the inauguration of Brazil President Dilma Rousseff.

The current battleground is the Organization of American States, which had suspended Honduras following the coup. A bloc of moderate South American governments including Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay have joined the more leftist ones of Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador in opposing Honduras’s re-admission. The moderates have conditioned their affirmative vote on allowing Zelaya to return to the country, restoring his political rights and lifting charges against him.

The State Department has pressured Honduran political players behind the scenes to meet these conditions, but the rightists in Honduras (although not Lobo himself) insist on Zelaya’s prosecution on charges of abuse of power. In attempting to break the impasse, the State Department is working at cross purposes with Republican hardliners. Florida Congressman David Rivera, for instance, stated in January: “The United States should be encouraging Honduras to embrace their democratic system, and not to absolve former President Manuel Zelaya of criminal charges or allow him to return to Honduras.”

U.S. efforts on behalf of Lobo ignore the evidence that violation of human rights has gone unabated under his rule (see “Campesinos Rising in Honduras” in In These Times’ March 2011 issue). In December, Human Rights Watch documented dozens of abuses in 2010, including the assassination of 18 journalists and human rights activists and called on the government to “finalize the impunity.” To date, nobody has been held criminally responsible for the atrocities committed since the coup.

Venezuelan rapprochement torpedoed
Another incident that demonstrated the ability of Republicans to set the agenda in Washington, as well as the vacillations of the Obama administration, was the appointment of Larry Palmer as ambassador to Venezuela. In August 2010, the nomination of Palmer appeared to be a routine matter until, upon the request of Republican Senator Richard Lugar, he agreed to answer questions from members of the Foreign Relations Committee in writing.

In his responses, Palmer affirmed that the morale of the Venezuelan armed forces was “considerably low” and that the Chávez government had “clear ties” with Colombian guerrillas. Palmer’s statements were then posted on Lugar’s website even though the questioning was presumed to be for internal use only.

Predictably, Chávez considered the remarks unacceptable and vetoed the appointment, as most governments would have undoubtedly done. Mark Weisbrot of the Center for Economic and Policy Research commented that Washington insiders considered the incident a “set up from the right.”

On January 1, Secretary of State Clinton had a brief amicable encounter with Chávez at Rousseff’s inauguration in Brasilia. Two days later, then-Assistant Secretary of State Philip Crowley announced that given the importance of relations with Venezuela, Washington would “have to renominate an ambassador candidate.” The hardliners reacted immediately, including the Washington Post, which wrote that the appointment of another ambassador would “hand the caudillo [Chávez] a considerable propaganda victory.” The same day, Crowley changed course again by making clear that the government would stand by Palmer. Chávez blamed the latest reversal on pressure from Republicans.

Washington hardliners with a Cold War mindset place the blame for the face-off entirely on the Venezuelan government. Jose R. Cardenas, a State Department veteran known for his hard-line positions, stated “No matter how hard the Obama Administration tries to ‘reset’ U.S. relations with Latin America, Hugo Chávez is there to spoil the fun.” Yet Chávez’s decision was predictable and consistent with his nationalist stance all along. The Obama administration’s behind-the-scenes maneuvering to attempt to convince Caracas that Palmer’s statement came from a low-level State Department official was at best naïve.

A new stage in hemispheric relations
In spite of convergences, Obama’s style and policies on Latin America are hardly indistinguishable from Republicans to his right. Obama’s all-smile encounter with Chávez in 2009 and Clinton’s in January of this year reinforced the president’s notion of engagement with enemies, quite different from George W. Bush’s “you’re with me or against me” approach. Furthermore, in January, Obama broke with hardliners by easing restrictions on travel and remittances to Cuba.

Nevertheless, Obama stopped short of lifting the 50-year embargo, a proposition which he himself had supported prior to running for president and which Latin American governments unanimously endorse.

The new political environment in Latin America demands more than moderate measures and a change in style. Latin America has never been so united and independent of U.S. influence. In recent years, Latin American governments, without input from Washington, have acted collectively to help resolve major conflicts involving Bolivia’s nationalization of Brazilian oil and gas interests, a coup attempt in Ecuador and Colombia’s incursion on Ecuadorian territory.

CELAC, which will facilitate collective action on an ongoing basis, is not solely the initiative of countries like Venezuela and Bolivia. Even countries with centrist leadership such as Mexico, Chile and Colombia have wholeheartedly endorsed the plan. Chile, along with Venezuela, is currently drafting CELAC’s statutes and will host the organization in 2012.

“With CELAC, the OAS will be put to the test,” Venezuelan ambassador Jorge Valero told me. Whether or not it survives will depend on how much it really defends Latin American interests.”

But the biggest challenge to U.S. influence in Latin America is Brazil, an economic powerhouse. Over the recent past, the Brazilian government has pursued bold independent positions on foreign policy which it hopes will boost third-world support for its bid for a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. Brazil went over the United States’ head in attempting to broker an agreement with Iran on nuclear energy and has criticized U.S. plans to install facilities at seven military bases in Colombia. In December it recognized the Palestinian state with its pre-1967 boundaries. Brazil’s increased political influence and its economic expansion go hand in hand. At the same time that President Lula defended the Palestinian cause on a trip to the West Bank, he pointed to a four-fold increase in Brazilian trade with the Middle East since 2002.

For U.S. hardliners, Lula strayed too far from acceptable diplomacy. During his last stretch in office, in the words of the Wall Street Journal, Lula pursued “an increasingly anti-American foreign policy.”

The time period following President Obama’s Latin American tour in March is an ideal moment for the administration to rethink its strategy for the continent. To check the loss of U.S. influence and prestige, the Obama administration needs to distance itself from Republican hardliners and reconnect with the best of the liberal tradition. Washington, for instance, should refrain from championing the cause of the Lobo government as long as it does little to break out of the banana republic mold. Furthermore, executive measures designed to eventually lift the trade embargo against Cuba would tear down one longstanding wall separating the United States from the rest of the continent — and the world.

Finally, Washington needs to cease equating the open-market economic policies it advocates with democracy. This line of thinking privileges nations like Colombia, Chile and Mexico as special allies simply because they accept International Monetary Fund-approved formulas and free trade with the United States. Such preferences divide the continent in half and distance America from countries like Argentina and Brazil, whose assertions of nationalism are not always to Washington’s liking. The hardliners will rant and rave about any type of renovation of U.S. foreign policy along these lines, but it may represent an important first step in regaining the respect and good will of what used to be called our backyard.

April 14th 2011

venezuelanalysis

Bahamas Blog International

Khaled bin Sultan's Living Oceans Foundation fights for Small Island Developing States (SIDS) to have the scientific right to ecological protection

Living Oceans Foundation fights ocean pollution in Small Island Developing States

By GENA GIBBS
Nassau, The Bahamas



FIGHTING for Small Island Developing States (SIDS) to have the scientific right to ecological protection is the mission of Khaled bin Sultan's Living Oceans Foundation.

After prior extensive aerial surveys and reconnaissance of the Cay Sal Bank, the first expedition will take place there on April 26.

Prince Khaled bin Sultan of the Saudi Royals began his foundation 10 years ago and is now funding a five-year global expedition. Since one of his passions is deep-ocean diving, he said he feels a special connection to the ocean. He has chosen a team of scientists who are now evaluating the impact that global pollution has on marine life and human survival.

"The first thing people ask is who is Khaled bin Sultan? He is a Saudi Arabian Royal and he is the Assistant Minister of Defence and Aviation in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia," said Captain Phil Renault, executive director of the Khaled bin Sultan Living Oceans Foundation.

"So, everyone says, 'well how did he ever start this foundation?' About 15 years ago, he built these ships and the ship we're standing on right here is the Motor Yacht Golden Shadow. It is actually designed as a logistical support ship for the yacht he has."

Captain Renault explained that the captain of the ship in the mid 90s realised the Golden Shadow was an amazing platform to conduct oceanographic research. The yacht began to attract business from many oceanographers and researchers from around the world.

"And then someone advised the Prince that might be the proper time to establish a foundation, and that was the genesis of the Khalid bin Sultan Living Oceans Foundation. We just turned 10 years old," said Captain Renault.

"I consider the first decade of our foundation to be a developmental phase and the first generation in building capabilities and capacities. We are looking forward to entering what I consider the second generation of the Living Oceans Foundation and that is this global reef expedition. It is a very, very ambitious project."

The Living Oceans Foundation chose the Bahamas to launch their "Science Without Borders" research project on board the Motor Yacht Golden Shadow to examine the coral reef systems in the Red Sea, Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Oceans.

The foundation spent their first 10 years finding a niche in coral reef studies and surveys. Now they will spend the next five years going around the world mapping, characterising, and surveying the ocean resources.

"Beginning right here in the Bahamas, we'll take this ship around the world and we'll survey both remote and near shore coral reefs. We're going to look across gradients of biodiversity, and man-made stress, and try to close some of these scientific gaps," said Captain Renault.

"We have some significant gaps in the scientific knowledge on these coral reef ecosystems and our contribution will be to applied science. Products and outputs from this big project can go directly towards management and that's where it all becomes important."

Captain Renault said that global resource managers in business to protect coral reefs and their future natural sustainability are hungry for information.

"They are hungry for maps and they are hungry for outputs from a project like ours," said Captain Renault.

April 13, 2011

tribune242

Bahamas Blog International

Bahamas: Many of our children and youth have a deficit of reading, writing and speaking skills

Improving literacy, numeracy and oracy

thenassauguardian editorial
Nassau, The Bahamas



The Ministry of Education has pointed to plans to allow for the expansion of focus on literacy and numeracy by using a coordinated approach to improve both standards at the national level.

The ministry must be applauded for its intentions, but in addition to intensified literacy and numeracy efforts at the primary school level, there is also a need to focus on oracy or the oral skills of our students.

Many of our children and youth have a deficit of reading, writing and speaking skills. A comprehensive focus on all three skills is necessary. They complement one another.

We applaud those young people who are excelling in various speech and debate competitions. But the majority of our young people seem to become tongue tied when asked to speak in front of their peers or others.

This is not just natural shyness. It bespeaks a lack of confidence and a lack of mastery of various and basic verbal skills. These are skills our young people will continue to need in a global economy in which our major industries require superior language skills, including superior verbal skills.

That English is the world’s lingua franca is a major comparative advantage for The Bahamas, but only if we master it, along with other world languages.

As regards the ministry’s proposed efforts in the areas of literacy and numeracy, we note similar such efforts by successive governments and ministers of education. Many of them have had limited success.

The country will require more engineers, scientists, and other professionals who are numerate, a focus on this area is urgent and welcome.

Of course, reading is a prerequisite for a more literate country. In this regard, a love of learning and reading begins with parents and guardians who enjoy reading and whose curiosity propels them to life-long learning.

Whatever the deficits in our home life, schools can make an enormous difference in encouraging our young people to appreciate the joy of discovery and adventure that may be found in the world of ideas and books.

The Ministry of Education’s expanded focus on indigenous educational material may go a long way in helping to inculcate this spirit of learning in our young people, whether they are at risk learners or students who simply need a little more encouragement.

Disturbingly, many professionals and leaders in various areas of national life also demonstrate verbal and reading skills which reinforce in our young people certain poor attitudes and sloppy practices as regards to literacy and oracy.

Rather than simply bemoaning the lack of these skills in our young people, these professionals and leaders may wish to lead by example, improving both their reading habits and language skills.

4/11/2011

thenassauguardian editorial

Bahamas Blog International

Male achievement in education is one of the more urgent challenges facing The Bahamas

PM Laments Low Male Achievers

BY ANDREW J.W. KNOWLES

jonesbahamas



With males comprising just 15 per cent of the College of The Bahamas (COB) graduates, Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham admits that male achievement in education becomes one of the more urgent challenges facing the country.

"We are all concerned, for example, that males now comprise only 15 per cent of COB’s graduates," Prime Minister Ingraham said.

"The imbalance between the number of female and male graduates speaks to a deeper and broader national problem of male educational achievement. The subject is ripe I believe, for study and research by COB as we seek to develop innovative and practical ideas on how we may address the gender gap as it begins to manifest at the primary and secondary levels of our school system."

His remarks came during the official opening ceremony of the $28 million Harry C. Moore Library and Information Centre last Friday morning at COB’s campus.

Recognising that male achievement touches on areas of national life from family life to crime prevention to economic development to public health, the prime minister said this "great national challenge" requires innovative and cross-disciplinary responses from fields such as sociology, social psychology, education, criminology, economics and other disciplines.

"If ever we needed to find innovative solutions to a critical national issue, we urgently need to do so on the challenge of boosting male achievement and reducing the level of criminality by young men."

"Even as the country turns to government and others for responses, it also increasingly turns to the institutions of higher learning to provide the research and ideas for innovation that will help us to collectively address this great challenge," the prime minister said.

Standing as a structure that promises to be a centre of excellence, learning, research and innovation, the library marks a milestone critical to the advancement of Bahamian scholarship and national development.

It also is a compelling milestone for COB as it continues to prepare itself to achieve university status.

Prime Minister Ingraham noted that the architectural vision and sweep of the centre serves to unify the college’s campus with entrances facing the entire college complex and surrounding neighbourhoods.

He also added that it points to a mission of outreach to the surrounding communities and also to a broader mission; one suggested by its technological capacity.

"This centre is host to a virtual library which is to connect and unify our far-flung island chain while also connecting the Bahamian archipelago to the world. The library will provide more than cutting-edge technology. It will help to preserve, inspire and advance the Bahamian imagination in every field of endeavour and scholarship. Indeed, the virtual library will significantly assist in the historic challenge of developing an archipelagic nation such as ours."

Proud that her husband’s dream of a library worthy of a university had been realised, Monique Moore said the modern structure would open the doors to new worlds of knowledge and prove that "the best things in life are worth waiting for."

"I am only sorry that Harry could not wait around long enough to see his dream become reality," Mrs. Moore said.

"He would be standing here, his slow smile breaking into a broad grin, that twinkle in his eye sparkling and he would nod his head in approval. Yes, he would say, this is good."

The elaborate library and information centre boasts a holdings capacity for 150,000 volumes, institutional archives and special collections and features a small auditorium, classrooms, media production studios, individual and group study spaces, support offices, a 24-hour Internet café and a museum commemorating the life of former Prime Minister the late Sir Lynden Pindling.

April 11th, 2011

jonesbahamas

Bahamas Blog International

Freedom of movement curtailed since independence of Caribbean countries

By Oscar Ramjeet

The freedom of movement of Caribbean nationals has been severely curtailed since the breakup of the West Indies Federation five decades ago and the various countries in the region gaining independence.

It is unfortunate because in the colonial days persons were free to move from one country to another, even to Barbados, without hitch, but because some governments became intoxicated with sovereignty they imposed serious restrictions.

And although the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) Single Market and Economy (CSME) made provisions for free movements of professionals, musicians, journalists, etc., here is still a problem and regionalism does not seem to exist anymore.

There was some hope with the establishment of the University of the West Indies (UWI) and the West Indies cricket team, but that seems to be shattered because there is no longer that regional togetherness of UWI students because of recent significant changes.

For instance, students from Guyana now complete their LLB degrees in Guyana and no longer have to travel to Barbados, where hundreds of students enroll every year, and now Jamaica is offering the LLB programme and this reduces the Jamaican student population at Cave Hill.

Bahamas now has its own law school and, as a result, would-be lawyers study at home.

From the 1950s up to recently, all medical students in the region have had to attend Mona, but now they can do so in Trinidad and Tobago, Guyana, Grenada, and other Caribbean islands.

The poor performance of the West Indies cricket team has forced thousands of cricket fans to lose interest in the game and that to some degree has some effect on Caribbean unity.

The shameful behaviour of immigration and police officers at the Grantley Adams International airport against fellow Caribbean nationals should be dealt with by the Caribbean Community and it is unfortunate that CARICOM moves so slowly with these issues, as well as Caribbean unity.

Trinidad and Tobago Prime Minister, Kamla Persad Bisssessar made a couple of unfortunate statements that Trinidad and Tobago is not an ATM machine for other CARICOM countries, but she has nevertheless said that she is very much in favour of regional integration.

Owen Arthur, former Barbados prime minister, who was masquerading and preaching the importance of CSME, was critical of Mara Thompson, running for a seat in Barbados because she was not a born Bajan, but a St Lucian, although she was married to a Bajan, late Prime Minister David Thompson, for more than 20 years.

The British Overseas Dependant Territories of Anguilla, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands and Turks and Caicos require entry certificates (visas) from Jamaicans, Guyanese and citizens of the Dominican Republic.

For years the CARICOM has been discussing freedom of movement, but it seems as if they are not getting anywhere; as a matter of fact, it is getting worse since there is more harassment at airports, especially Barbados.

There have been reports that, in Antigua and Barbuda, Guyanese nationals are given a rough time by the Baldwin Spencer administration.

What is also unfortunate is the lack of interest and in some instances the refusal of governments to get rid of the Privy Council as their final court and accept the Caribbean Court of Justice as the final court.

Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago were the first countries to gain independence from Britain in August 1962, and it unfortunate that after nearly five decades they are still holding on to the coat tails of the United Kingdom for justice.   If you had political independence so long ago why not judicial independence, especially since you have highly qualified judges who can do a better job than the English Law Lords, who are so far away and do not understand the Caribbean culture and way of life.

April 11, 2011

caribbeannewsnow