Haiti and the issue of colour

By Jean H Charles



There has been recently continuous chatting on the Haitian cyber space regarding the issue of colour.

The chatting might have been caused by the pictures sent by those opposing the government of the inaugural ball, where most were of light skin colour, in a sea of black skinned Haitians in the country.

It might also have been caused by the rejection of the proposed prime minister, Gerard Rouzier, by the Haitian parliament. Gerard Rouzier is a mulatto; the Parliament is in majority black. Haiti for the past sixty years has been discriminating against the mulattos on the political side. They can succeed economically but they should not occupy high political positions in the government. This form of discrimination has been a secret code of modus operandi in the Haitian political panorama.

The debate started with an essay by one of the most talented Haitian economists cum agronomists, Jean Erich Rene, titled The Issue of Colour Is an Old Story in Haiti.

Daly Valet the director of one of the most important newspapers in the country, Le Matin, responded: the issue of colour is not dead!

I have entered into the fray to conclude and rule that the issue of colour is indeed alive and well in Haiti.

I have often commented in my column that Haiti and Guyana occupy the last wagon on the economic locomotive of the Caribbean. That situation is due chiefly because of the issue of colour. In Guyana, the PPP (People’s Progressive Party) with a majority of Indo Guyanese and white descendants of the Portuguese (52%) hold control of power with a clear disdain of the black minority (48%) who took refuge in the PNC (People’s National Congress). It is a country with two heads, one looking on the right and the other head looking on the left.

Thank God, Haiti does not have this radical political division, but on the political, social and economic side, Haiti, after the assassination of its founding father Jean Jacques Dessalines, is also a country with two heads; one looking at the right the other looking at the left.

Dessalines wanted to create a country where black and mulatto would live in peace and harmony in a hospitable Haiti. He failed lamentably in that dream. To immortalize the sentiment of hospitality, he offered his daughter Celimene to Alexander Petion. He was rejected. Dessalines believing that Petion had rejected Celimene because she was black never forgave him.

In fact, two hundred years later, Haiti has less inter marriage between black and mulatto than the United States, which started its experience of nation building only forty years ago, circa 1968. America in general, downtown Brooklyn in particular, has more marriages between white and black than Haiti between mulatto and black (of course, all proportion respected).

Henry Christophe, the second president of the country, was so vexed by that situation he took refuge in the northern part of Haiti when the parliament led by Alexander Petion in cohorts with the French took the decision to strip him of most the presidential powers.
On his way from Port au Prince to Cape Haitian he ordered to kill all the mulattos with the quip that “these citizens will never become true Haitians!”

The kingdom of Henry Christophe was destroyed seventeen years later with all the ethos of nation building sentiments. The republic of Alexander Petion survived for 150 years. It is a republic with disdain for the majority of the Haitian population that gravitated to the mountains to people rural Haiti. The only state presence in the rural village has been and is a decrepit school where the teachers arrive at 12.00 pm to leave at 2.00 pm.

During those 150 years there were two window opening opportunities. The first one occurred in 1902 when Antenor Firmin opposed Nord Alexis in the presidential election. The second took place in 1930 when Jean Price Mars was running against Louis Eugene Roy. Both Antenor Firmin and Jean Price Mars were advocating the concept that the Haitian elite should take in consideration the fate of the majority poor in bringing about fundamental change in the way the country treated its citizens.

On each of these occasions, the Haitian parliament supported by international hands has defeated these champions of human rights and of hospitality for all. They have forestalled all efforts towards nation building.

Jean Price Mars, an eminent anthropologist, crisscrossed the country with his lectures about the intrinsic beauty of the black race. He was indeed the forefather of the concept of black is beautiful. Yet his school was prostituted by the politicians such as Lorimer Denis, Francois Duvalier, Dumarsais Estime into a concept that now it is time for blacks to have their fair share to the detriment of all others.

That philosophy, called noirisme, is now the politics of the day. It started with Dumarsais Estime as president in 1946; it did have a hiatus under the presidency of Paul E Magloire, who ruled under the ostrich ideology that the issue of race is not important and it is over.

The noirisme concept came back with a vengeance under Francois and his son Jean Claude Duvalier. It has been muted into a clan politics in full force under Jean Bertrand Aristide and Rene Preval.

These successive governments have refused to look into the welfare of the majority of the population. The Duvalier clan, the Lavalas clan, and the Lespwa (Preval) have lived high and well while the people were vegetating in misery. It was one of the most elaborate political schemes of imposture that now is entrenched after sixty years on the Haitian firmament. They are pretending that their unlimited ambition, greed and avarice are in harmony with the fundamental interests of the nation.

The correct solution, pruned by Mars and Firmin, was Haiti should belong to all its children, black and mulattos -- rural Haiti as well as the Diaspora; they should all enjoy the abundant and the resilient resources of the country.

The year 2011 represents for Haiti a new beginning. Akin to 1902 with Antenor Firmin and 1930 with Jean Price Mars, Haiti is yearning for a country where the rule of law is in force where the peasants are seen like human beings with the right to health, education, spiritual and material prosperity.

Joseph Michel Martelly who won on the political platform of repons paysan (the peasant challenge) can play the ostrich game like Paul Eugene Magloire and pretend that the issue of colour is dead and over.

He can also extend the life of the predatory culture of Aristide and Preval that pays no attention to the distress of the population.

He can also, because he has been elected with a large mandate to bring about radical change into the Haitian ethos, challenge the retrograde mentality of exclusion so proper to Haiti and to the Haitians.

He should put an end to the political, economic and social discrimination against rural Haiti that comprises 85 percent of the population. He should also attack the social and the political discrimination against the Diaspora (4 percent of the population) and last but not least he should stop the political discrimination against the mulattos (1 percent of the population).

That culture of discrimination cannot end with pious wishes but must be confronted with laser beam targeted affirmative action of economic incubation for the rural and urban poor. The government should immediately take steps to facilitate the voting process of the Haitian residents in foreign lands in the Haitian consulates or any other facility provided by organizations such as Woman’s League of voters or its equivalent.

Last but not least, President Martelly should end the political discrimination against the mulattos. It may have been his intention in nominating Gerard Rouzier as his prime minister, but he must engage first into the leadership of education and training before making such a bold step. Machiavelli is still right. It is never easy to bring about a new form of political order.

The year 2012 will be the Guyanese year. Presidential elections will take place. The indo Guyanese and the black Guyanese will have to decide to create the rule of law in their own country where all the composites – black, indo and white -- will enjoy the bliss of hospitality for all.

When this is done, the Caribbean will enter into a new era where the concept of one market of good and human services is possible from The Bahamas to Belize. The two social gangrenes of the region, Haiti and Guyana, have put their house in order. Their citizens will travel to enjoy, buy and socialize in the sister nations. They will be no more, international nomads always seeking for a better sky to compensate for an unfriendly home, inhospitable to their human needs and aspirations.

July 4, 2011

caribbeannewsnow

Bahamian Politics Blog

Dominique Strauss-Kahn's willingness to engage in casual, reckless sex with a stranger and the lore of his previous capricious affairs

Rape: A Case Where No One Wins

jamaica-gleaner editorial



It took just a few hours for Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the former leading steward of the world economy, and contender for the French presidency, to fall from grace, accused of molesting a maid in a posh New York hotel.

On May 14, images of the 62-year-old Strauss-Kahn were being beamed all over the world, paraded as an alleged criminal facing eight counts, including alleged rape and criminal sexual acts. But now as the case against him begins to unravel, the French multimillionaire is looking more like the victim. It has also renewed claims that he was set up by political rivals.

The latest buzz is that prosecutors doubt the veracity of claims made by the 32-year-old Guinean chambermaid who is being characterised to be an old hand at lying about being raped. There are also charges that she is linked to a drug dealer, and she has received hefty inflows into her bank account.

Strauss-Kahn's defence will claim consensual sex to explain the DNA evidence found by investigators.

The case, with its many twists and turns, is being hotly debated around the world and is likely to come down to whom is seen as more credible - him or her - since there were no witnesses. It has also raised some interesting questions about the issue of rape, including how it is investigated and how there can be equally fair treatment for the accused and the accuser.

highly under-reported

First, we submit that rape is a horrible crime. It is also a disturbingly under-reported crime. Rape and other sexual crimes should be thoroughly investigated, especially since the victims are usually young, poor and marginalised. Therefore, only proper and meticulous investigation will guarantee a restoration of credibility in the prosecutorial process.

In rape cases, the victim usually remains anonymous, while the accused is paraded before the world. Would it be more reasonable in the administration of justice that a person accused of sexual crimes to be only identified on conviction in a court of law?

Take the case of Mr Strauss-Kahn, who was forced to give up his job as head of the International Monetary Fund. Was he the target of extortion? If, indeed, his accuser lied, how will he begin to repair his tarnished reputation?

And what of the alleged complainant? It has been reported that the woman involved in this case is a single mother and a devout Muslim. How will this affect her life and that of her child? Will she be stigmatised by those who can identify her? In the end, no one seems to come out of such encounters victorious.

There are suggestions that, as the case appears near to collapse, Strauss-Kahn's backers think he still has a chance to snatch the presidency from the incumbent Nicolas Sarkozy. Yesterday's press conference and counter-press conference by the victim's attorney and the District Attorney's Office, respectively, are turning the case into more of a sensational circus than it already was.

Whatever the outcome of this highly publicised case, the French electorate might very well weigh, in the presidential ballot, Strauss-Kahn's willingness to engage in casual, reckless sex with a stranger and the lore of his previous capricious affairs.

The opinions on this page, except for the above, do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner. To respond to a Gleaner editorial, email us: editor@gleanerjm.com or fax: 922-6223. Responses should be no longer than 400 words. Not all responses will be published.

July 2, 2011

jamaica-gleaner editorial

Bahamian Politics Blog

July 2, 2011

The "Lotioner" in Bahamian politics and other kinds of Bahamian politicians

Portrait of the ‘Lotioner’
East Street Blues


BY IAN STRACHAN

Nassau, Bahamas


There are three kinds of Bahamian politicians. The question for the Bahamian electorate is, which kind is the best kind for these times and which should they give the powers of the Prime Minister to?

The first kind I’d call “The Lotioner.” Our people seem to like this kind a lot. They smile a lot. Love to shake hands and hug people. They make sure the black dye in their hair is always done perfectly. They seem to genuinely enjoy high office. I’m not sure they enjoy hard work and making unpopular decisions but they do enjoy attention.

This type of man is popular and has been his whole life. More than anything, he wants to be liked, likes to be liked, and usually that’s not very hard for him because he’s a natural charmer. He never wants to get on the people’s bad side. In fact, he tends to choose his sides depending on where the people stand. As soon as he’s pretty sure where most people stand, he’ll get up and say “You don’t have to vote for me if you want, but such and such is my position!”

Now, as a politician this makes very good sense, since the people elected you and can easily remove you. Popular opinion and popularity are the oxygen and bread the politician needs to survive. But there’s a flip side. The flip side is that the majority are often wrong, often misinformed, often emotional, often short sighted, often bigoted, so the politician who focuses on what the people want to the neglect of all else can turn out to be a leader history has little good to say about.

Pandering to the people at all times is no way to lead. In fact, it makes you a fraud. There are times when the people must be made to do what they would rather not do; there are times when for their own sakes, their appetites must be curbed, their habits altered, their convenience sacrificed.

When power for its own sake is the only goal, not actual progress, the Lotioner becomes a liability. But there he is, constantly flattering us, telling us how great we are, how great our nation is, how blessed he is to have this opportunity, how humbled he is by the power we have bestowed upon him.

Oh, and let us not forget one other very important thing about the Lotioner: he prefers form over substance. Nuts and bolts are anathema to him. He doesn’t have the appetite for it. Or he just doesn’t care about it. He lives for the grand speech, not the backdoor planning meeting. He goes in for grand gestures, for emoting, his goal is to be the One. He rarely ever really has anything he really wants to accomplish once he is the One, so long as he remains the One. The Lotioner strikes as someone who should have been a Hollywood actor but found that the crowds enjoyed political rallies and therefore gave up on the Hollywood dream and pursued Parliament instead. It’s easier.

Lotioners are very astute politicians when it comes to reading the current of popular opinion; they are very adept at expressing things with certitude and conviction even if their actual commitment to what they are saying is paper thin. They love the performance of politics but produce little change. The Lotioner is far better at keeping this going the way they are than he is at making dramatic changes or reform that could get people worked up and angry at him. This leader works better in government than in opposition and works better when times are good than when times are hard. He needs a well oiled machine to sit on top of. Don’t ask him to build the machine.

Now, I must give credit where credit is due. The Lotioner, in his eloquence and shininess is able to bring the masses to a level of euphoria, hopefulness and optimism that the other two kinds of politicians can rarely match. To put it plainly, the man can make you feel good about your life and your world. They can make you believe the world can be a better place. They can make you believe they will deliver that world to you. When they are their best, the Lotioners can make the masses stronger and more united than anyone thought possible.

It helps is the Lotioner is a man of high intelligence. His intelligence doesn’t make him less of a B.S.-er, it makes him more likely to surround himself with people who actually know what they’re doing. A super smart Lotioner, like Barack Obama or Bill Clinton, has good judgement and knows to listen to the experts. Lotioners almost always marry wives that are smarter and more competent than they are. That’s no mistake. You will find that such men lean on their wives heavily for their actual career success.



IAN STRACHAN is Associate Professor of English at The College of The Bahamas. You can write him at strachantalk@gmail or visit www.ianstrachan.wordpress.com.

Jun 30, 2011

thenassauguardian

Bahamian Politics Blog

Bahamas: Many Bahamians have an irrational fear and hatered of homosexuals... It is not popular to support homosexuals in any way in The Islands

Parties views on gay rights appropriate

thenassauguardian editorial

Nassau, Bahamas


Many Bahamians have an irrational fear and hatered of homosexuals. It is not uncommon in this country to encounter people having conversations advocating for violence against homosexuals.

Such hostility is unfortunate. Homosexuality is a normal phenomenon in human societies. A certain small population of every human community is gay. Some display homosexual inclinations as children, suggesting they were born gay, and others come to this place later in life. Homosexuality is not new and it is not rare.

We therefore should all be reasonable enough and accept that homosexuals are people entitled to the same protection under the law as heterosexuals when it comes to discrimination. Certainly, no sensible person should assert that a person should be fired, beaten or molested for being gay.

The United Nations Human Rights Council resolution affirming equal rights for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (GLBT) people, passed earlier this month, is a positive progressive step.

The resolution, which narrowly passed in the council 23 to 19 with three abstentions, expressed “grave concern” about discrimination against gays throughout the world and affirmed that freedom to choose sexuality is a human right. Surprisingly, when asked about the issue, both the Free National Movement (FNM) and the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) supported the resolution.

Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs Brent Symonette said the government supports the expansion of rights for “people of any persuasion.”

Opposition leader Perry Christie said the resolution is humane and therefore his party is in favor of it.

“I think from our point of view we understand the sensitivity of this matter,” said Christie, adding that the PLP has “always been committed to progressive policies — policies that emphasize our commitment to human rights.”

The parties demonstrated maturity by taking the public stands they did. It is not popular to support homosexuals in any way in The Bahamas. However, at times public officials must lead debates of conscience and not merely follow ignorant popular views.

The Christian church in The Bahamas has been vocal in its opposition to the more welcoming attitudes towards homosexuality that are being demonstrated in developed western societies in recent years. The church, as is its right, has affirmed that homosexuality is a sin.

The Bahamas Christian Council (BCC), in its release after the UN resolution, said it supports the protection of everyone from all forms of discrimination. However, it warned that The Bahamas government’s support of the UN resolution could open the door to all rights afforded heterosexuals to be offered to GLBT people, including marriage.

“We in the Christian church firmly believe that marriage is between a man and a woman — period. As imperfect as that might be at times, it is between a man and woman — full stop,” said the BCC.

For now the issues are separate. The step the Bahamian political parties have taken by embracing the resolution is simply to state that they support the right of homosexuals to live their lives free of discrimination based on their sexual orientation.

This should mean that the parties will not support laws or practices that discriminate against gays.

As the Bahamian democracy evolves, however, the parties will be confronted with more difficult issues. The law in democracies usually evolves through citizens challenging discriminatory practices via the court. The court, which is entrusted with the responsibility of protecting minority rights, has to determine if statues violate the broad principles of liberty enshrined in democratic constitutions.

Courts around the world have forced the hands of legislatures when it comes to gay rights. Some have argued that laws declaring that marriage is between one man and one woman discriminate against homosexuals. Hence, the old way is ruled unconstitutional and gay marriage is allowed.

Homosexuals understand that their fight for equality, as it was for blacks, has to be won one step at a time. As the homosexual lobby becomes more organized in The Bahamas and it understands that the court can help its cause, The Bahamas may be forced to accept gay marriage, gay adoption and further normalization of homosexuality.

Human societies are fickle – norms are always changing. Who knows what will be acceptable in The Bahamas a century from now. A century ago the thought of blacks and whites being equal and then ‘inter-marrying’ was offensive to many. Now, interracial marriage is a non-issue.

A century from now maybe Mr. Smith marrying Mr. Smith on a beach on one of our islands too may be normal.

Jun 29, 2011

thenassauguardian editorial

Bahamian Politics Blog

Turks and Caicos Islands: 'United we fall and divided we stand'

By Ben Roberts



In recent discussions in the UK between Honourable Minister Henry Bellingham’s Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO), and an FCO-chosen team of Turks and Caicos Islands “representatives”, the good minister said the following: “I am grateful to the delegation for accepting my invitation to come to London so that I could hear first-hand their views on the Draft Constitution” (he should have added his gratefulness at their acceptance at being chosen by him and his FCO).

Well, good for Honourable Bellingham. He got to hear first-hand where this group stood on crucial issues regarding a document very important to the lives of Turks and Caicos Islands citizens.

Their Constitution. Bellingham is way ahead of Turks and Caicos citizens in this regard, and beat them to the punch. He had the benefit of hearing their positions even before the people this group claimed to be going to represent, the citizens of Turks and Caicos, heard what their positions were.

Yes. No one can dispute this. The group went to Britain without engaging the citizenry in town meetings, or any other informative setting, to hear their views on what was important to them. They did not disclose their own views of where they stood on issues. In fact, they could not wait to pack their bags to get across the ocean to be “representatives” because HE Governor, Honourable Bellingham, and his FCO, designated them as such.

Before leaving they were a fractured and disjointed group, arguing about why the next guy on the team should not be going. They had no common strategy on the issues to be discussed (though one must credit Doug Parnell with making an effort to put heads together so as to speak with one voice), had no foreman to be the lead-off in discussions, and had no idea of what they would hold fast on and what they would give in on (a key strategy of anyone negotiating anything).

The British, and their people set to sit across the table must have been having a good laugh at the Turks and Caicos and its limitations, and their own brilliance at hand-picking.

Now a change of scenery. To England. Turks and Caicos “representatives” are there having discussions with the people who hand-picked them. These people must still be having a good laugh, because here the Turks and Caicos team still cannot agree on anything. Still arguing why the guy seated next to them should not be there; pushing the argument that the Draft Constitution was quite fine, only needing minor changes, and acknowledging the constitutional consultant for her diligence in securing submissions (but putting on the brakes here for a major concern of Turks and Caicos citizens about the glaring absence of their input submissions into the document); taking the opportunity here to outline political party positions instead of matters pertinent to the collective well-being of the Turks and Caicos citizenry.

At the conclusion of discussions there was an FCO press release of the outcome of the event, but no single on-the-same-page Turks and Caicos team release of what was accomplished (how can there have been when we had no single one-minded team). This was a negotiating team? And they were united against the common enemy? And they were negotiating on our behalf? And we should thank the creator, the moon and the stars for what they achieved and not critique them in any way? Please!

There is reason for no “Team TCI” press release. Nothing to report other than they were chosen by, crossed the ocean to the UK, sat in discussions with British career officials and negotiators, and came back with little changed from before. Period!

What is different? The change from “Belonger” to “Turks & Caicos Islander”? That is what we called ourselves since forever. It would only amount to something if those who came to Turks and Caicos and acquired citizenship were differentiated from those born there.

The UK has such a system: Once, we in the Territories were “British Subject: Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies” (as described in my first passport). Then suddenly, in 1985, a notable change to that document labels me: “British Dependent Territories Citizen: Turks & Caicos Islands”. All occurring without Turks and Caicos citizens knowing about or having any input in the process.

The drastic change came about due to British paranoia about possible waves of British citizens from their Hong Kong Territory flooding their shores as handover to the Chinese drew near. That is how my citizenship category was decided.

We should be able to implement such categorizations without the accompanying paranoia, and with respect for all our citizens regardless of category.

I digress. The matter of the Deputy Governor a success? How does that change the price of fish in the Turks and Caicos marketplace where people are losing jobs, are yoked with poorly thought out British tax schemes, are at the whim of British officials and advisors who make decisions “at their discretion”, are having a hard time overall making ends meet, and remain under threat of being undermined by the British disingenuous and unheard of attempt to “expand the franchise”.

Deputy Governor means little when put alongside these hardships. Effort would have been far better served championing issues like the Complaints Commissioner and absentee balloting for Turks and Caicos Islanders abroad.

This Turks and Caicos team going to the UK brings to mind the hilarious and wildly funny British comedian Benny Hill. You name it and he has poked fun at it: The British National Health scheme; British horse racing illegal activity; British intelligence; the Royal family; the French; the British welfare system. And on and on.

However, he does a skit about the British Foreign Office and diplomatic corps that is priceless. Here, Hill plays the part of this stodgy and stuffy high level British representative in discussions with an African leader. They are walking along a path and Hill is going on non-stop, selling his host a line about the British being his ally, how he can rely on them through thick and thin, and how they have his and his country’s interest at heart. During all this the host shakes his head vigorously and says over and over the word “Bulla,” “Bulla,” “Bulla,” as if he is in total agreement. Hill seems quite pleased with the headway he is making until the leader suddenly shouts, “Stop!” Hill freezes, wondering what is up. The leader points at the ground and says, “Careful before you step into that pile of Bulla.” You can figure out for yourself what the translation for “Bulla” was in the African leader’s language. Hill, the British Foreign representative, gives this facial expression of being embarrassed, bested, frustrated, and found out by someone he was sure he had the better of. Quite funny.

But seriously, was the Turks and Caicos group to the UK comparable to the savvy African leader who could see all the pitfalls and angles, or were they the ones stepping into the “Bulla”? In the Turks and Caicos our best asset are the minds of our people. It is also our worst prison, shutting us away from our future. Was this trip to the UK an example of using our best asset or showing how imprisoned our minds really are?

Ben Roberts is a Turks & Caicos Islander. He is a newsletter editor, freelance writer, published author, and member of TC FORUM. He is the author of numerous articles that have been carried by a variety of Internet websites and read worldwide. He is often published in Turks & Caicos news media, and in the local newspapers where he resides. His action adventure novel, Jackals of Samarra, is available at Amazon.com, and at major Internet book outlet sites. He can be contacted at: grandt730@aol.com

June 29, 2011

caribbeannewsnow

Bahamian Politics Blog

Haiti has lost a nation-builder in Guito Toussaint

By Jean H Charles



On June 12, 2011, in the evening, with the moon shining on the elite of Haitian society, brought together on the plaza of the Police Academy to celebrate the 16th anniversary of the creation of the Haitian police department, the atmosphere was festive and congenial. It was the Haiti of old time, the innocent Haiti in its golden age under President Paul E Magloire. President Martelly, sharp and dapper as Magloire, was singing with Jacques Sauveur Jean, a famous artist for the pleasure of the assistance.

The director of the police department, Mario Andresol, gave with brio a rendition of Charles Aznouvour. The speeches and the artistic part of the evening were at their end. As the buffet style banquet was beginning, two police inspectors seated at my table received a call: the president of Haiti’s National Bank of Credit was either kidnapped or killed at this very moment. They immediately left the festive party to be at the scene of the crime.

The party went on as scheduled but the mood was different. The dancing did not take place. A giant cake prepared for the occasion remained uncut and later mobbed by the service worker attendants.

I did not know Guito Toussaint but I knew something unusual was happening at the Haitian National Bank of Credit. It was transmuted into one of the most efficient banks in the nation. Guito Toussaint had succeeded in turning around a corrupt and decadent institution into the pride of the nation.

My personal encounter with the Haiti National Bank of Credit was not a pleasant one in the past. I had brought into Haiti an American investor ready and willing (a check on hand) to buy a bankrupt sugar mill in the north of Haiti called the Welsh Co., owned by the bank. As we were visiting the plant, a mob allegedly sent by associates of some of the directors of the bank was destroying the very same plant. Producing sugar in Haiti was against the interest of those who were using the bank’s money to import sugar from abroad.

When I visited the bank to urge the directors to save what could be saved from the pilfering of the economic assets of the plant, I was looked at as an intruder.

Guito Toussaint, recruited to lead the bank from its certain death, succeeded in bringing and keeping the confidence of a team dedicated to creating a national jewel for the benefit of the country.

Guito Toussaint hailed from the north of Haiti (the border town of Ouanaminthe) where it is still possible to find men of character not abused by the fifty plus years of ill governance, where corruption, greed and avarice have became the staple of the Haitian ethos.

He studied at the INAGUE – the Institute for International Affairs – the corresponding French ENA for Haiti where generations of young men and women are trained to become excellent public servants.

Along with a group of ten classmates who shared friendship, collegiality and the love for the motherland, Guito Toussaint was engaged in the business of nation building.

His last passion was Kay Pam (my own house) a product of the National Bank of Credit whose inauguration was planned on the very day of the funeral of the director of the Bank. In a land ravaged by the earthquake where housing is at a premium, Guito Toussaint has devised an instrument to provide a mortgage at a low rate of 8% to qualified subscribers.

He belongs in the class of those men and women who defy the interest groups that drag a country down, to create a nation that will become hospitable to all.

The outpouring of love and grief following Guito Toussaint’s assassination was an indication that Haiti is ready to get rid of its demons. Finding the criminal hands (wherever it may fall) who ordered and executed this death will be the signal that Haiti is entering in the domain of the rule of law, the precursor of growth and prosperity.

June 27, 2011

caribbeannewsnow

Bahamian Politics Blog Bahamas

What does the War on Libya Mean for the Rise of Latin America?

By LIZZIE PHELAN

The rise of Latin America has been something that I have been very privileged to be able to witness in my lifetime. To see living, breathing examples of socialism, to see vast nations like Venezuela and Brazil lift thousands of people out of poverty and some of the historically most downtrodden and oppressed peoples of this earth regain dignity, to witness the first indigenous president in Bolivia, Evo Morales take power - these are all events that reverberate amongst oppressed peoples throughout this planet. 

But the most important lesson that 21st century socialism has hammered home is that socialism cannot develop according to a rigid formula. But it will develop according to the unique dynamics and contradictions that exist in any given location at any given time. It has shown that a political system should be judged on its content and outcomes rather than its form.

In saying that, whilst 21st century socialism in Venezuela may look different from how it looks in Ecuador, Bolivia, Brazil or elsewhere, there are crucial commonalities, namely the assertion of sovereignty from foreign interference, which for a continent that for centuries was treated as Europe and the United States’ back yard is an anti imperialist assertion.

The commonality of this struggle stretches to all corners of the Global South, and in that commonality, Latin America and its sister countries in the Global South find a basis for cooperation towards their common anti imperialist goal of sovereignty. 

The rise of Latin America is not an isolated story, it is also the story of the rise of China, the growing economic prowess of India, Russia, South Africa and other nations who now provide alternative trade partners to what used to be the only show in town - the US and Europe.

And up until three months ago, this remarkable story of progress away from a unipolar world of US-European control, towards a multipolar world, seemed unstoppable. But on March 31, when Britain, France and the US along with the rest of its friends in NATO and the GCC states, unleashed the first of thousands of bombs on the socialist Republic of Libya, this path of progress suffered a setback of grave proportions, the consequences of which are yet to become clear.

For the war on Libya is AFRICOM’s - the US’ project for military control over Africa - inaugural mission on the continent. It is a war on Africa.

Alongside the illegal sanctions on the nation of Zimbabwe, like Libya -another friend of Latin America’s, it is clear that the imperialists are coming straight for what leading figure in the US Black Liberation Movement, sister Viola Plummer said are the two “stalwart countries, who resist the militarisation of the continent”.

And since 1450, when the first of what is estimated to be 5 million African slaves, landed on the shores of the Americas, Latin America and Africa have shared mirror histories of European conquest.

Brazil itself can be considered an African country - it is often said that it has the largest population of Africans outside of Nigeria. In that sense it is appropriate that former Brazilian president, Lula da Silva, did more than any other leader on the continent to strengthen ties between Latin America and Africa, making 12 visits to the continent in his eight years in office.

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez also has been a very vocal champion of friendship between the two continents. During his visit to Tripoli, Libya, to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the revolution in that African country, he said: "I strongly believe that Latin America will have no future without Africa, the same way Africa will not have a future without Latin America ... both of us share the same dream of a better world, a world of free and equal people....Africa cannot ever allow again that countries from overseas come to impose certain kinds of political, economic and social systems. Africa has to be for the Africans and only through unity Africa will be free and great.”

As well as talking about solidarity between the two continents, Chavez stresses the importance of a united Africa not just for Africa, but also for the Global South more broadly. When that is understood, the basis for his, Lula’s, Morales’ and Latin America’s close friendship with Moammar Gaddafi is put into context because Gaddafi is, as former Black Panther, Deedan Kamathi stressed during an interview with Sukant Chandan in Tripoli, the vanguard of the pan-African revolution.

Kamathi said, “Libya became the vanguard country for the pan-African revolution and it also became the vanguard country for the international revolution in terms of - no other African country, even liberated zones in Africa - provided the kind of material, political and ideological support to the liberation movements throughout the world, especially to the liberation movements in the United States and the Carribean. So we salute brother Gaddafi and the Jamahiriya for that and that's why I'm here today and that's why we conduct some kind of a media campaign and actual demonstrations and protests in support of "Hand Off Libya" , "Stop the Bombing of Libya" and "No Regime Change", in fact we need to uplift the Jamahiriya to a higher elevated position and amongst the anti-war progressive peoples all around the world.”

In addition to Gaddafi’s Libya being a vital source of trade and political cooperation between Latin America and Africa, exemplified by the fact that between 2003 and 2009 Brazilian exports to Libya increased by 289 per cent, while Brazilian imports from Libya grew by 3,111 per cent. 41 years of the Jamahiriya also serves as a vital source of revolutionary inspiration for leaders like Chavez, which he paid homage to when he said, “What Simon Bolivar is for the Venezuelan people, Moammar Gaddafi is for the Libyan people. He's the Liberator of Libya."

So, returning to my point about the symbolic impact of having living examples of socialism in Latin America and how socialism develops according to the unique dynamics of any given location, for 41 years we have also had the example of Libya, which kicked out the British and the Americans, closed their military bases, and nationalised their oil - and  has achieved for its people the highest standard of living in Africa in a country that was the poorest on this planet. In the west, and in that I do not include Latin America or other nations of the geopolitical sphere that we term the Global South, our orientalist disdain for Gaddafi has meant that in all of those 41 years, we have blinded ourselves to, and missed out on learning from the incredible progress that has taken place within Libya under the Jamahiriya.

And while for Latin America and the Global South, the Jamahiriya provides a great example of what can be achieved, the war on the Jamahiriya also exposes the great vulnerabilities of all nations of the Global South which assert their sovereignty and identity at the expense of US-European domination.

While people across the world, from David Cameron, to so-called anti-imperialists in the west were calling what was in fact a counterrevolution, a revolution against another “Arab despot”, Chavez knew exactly what was going on. Because in another time and in another place, the narrative being parroted out to the world by Al Jazeera and the western media against Gaddafi, could have been the same narrative being spun against him.

And so he said: “I am not going to condemn from afar. That would be cowardly with someone who has been my friend and our friend for a long time, without knowing what is happening in Libya … I am not a coward, I am not fickle.”

Similarly in the very early days of the attempted counterrevolution, Fidel Castro called it out for what it was, an opportunity for NATO to finish off what the US had attempted to start when it bombed Libya in 1986.

But neither Chavez’s attempt at a peace plan, nor denunciations from across the Global South were enough to stop the imperialists in their mission to take the oil rich Benghazi for itself, begin the recolonisation Africa and in the process leave Libya in ruins to the Libyan people and all the other African migrants who have been welcomed by the Jamihiriya

Drawing back for a moment to Latin America, the first victory in the rise of Latin America began at the end of the 18th century with the liberation of Haiti by African slaves and the establishment of the world’s first Black Republic. Today, on behalf of the same oppressor Haiti rose up against, black people are being lynched in Libya by NATO’s “revolutionaries”. Progress is hard won, but easily destroyed.

The lessons from this are twofold. The internationalism once expressed by nations like Cuba who bravely sent soldiers to fight in Angola are no more. Then the Cubans had behind it the threat of a nuclear ally in the Soviet Union. So, until nations in the Global South develop a military prowess that can temper that of the United States, all nations in the Global South are vulnerable to their achievements being snuffed out by Tomahawk cruise missiles in the blink of an eye as we are witnessing in Libya. 

The second lesson comes from the way in which the war in Libya has been termed a “humanitarian war”. This has been possible not just by the criminalisation of Gaddafi himself, but also by the criminalisation of the whole of Africa in the western media.

On the one hand we have the image of Gaddafi the “mad dog”, who dresses “eccentrically” (a racist assertion in itself, when one considers that he wears traditional African dress). That he is a crazy dictator controlling his own people. Nothing then of the universal health care, mass social housing, free university education, equality between black and white people, the high status of women, or the fact that far from being a dictator, Gaddafi has no official power in Libya, he is the symbolic leader of the revolution in much the same way Fidel is in Cuba today. And in regards to Libya being a dictatorship, democracy in Libya works through a system of people’s councils which is far more representative than anything we could dream of having here in England.

On the other hand we have images of Africans, starving, helpless, conflict hungry and unable to do much for themselves. For minds subjected to such images for the length of a lifetime, it is not such a surprise that people cannot contemplate an African Libya that is developed, where people live in peace, with dignity and a high quality of life.

This is cultural imperialism, and the western criminalisation of Asia, Latin America and Africa is perpetrated via imperialisms’ media machine. Al Jazeera was meant to be our beacon of hope in the west, until it became clear what game the Qataris were playing.

Chavez said it himself once, to a Fox news reporter: “The stupid people from Fox News”, he said. So the global South needs to stop allowing the stupid people to speak for it and it needs its own mass media machine to tell the world its own story from its own mouth.

If imperialism is victorious in Libya, not only Africa, but Latin America and the whole of the Global South will have lost a crucial friend. The lessons must be learnt quickly and as the Libyan people know as each day of bombing destroys a bit more of their hard fought for revolution, time is not on our side.

Long live Libya, only together will Africa, Latin America and the Global South rise.


This speech was delivered at Bolivar Hall, Venezuelan Embassy, London at the Latin America Rising event on June 16 2011.

June 24th 2011

venezuelanalysis

Bahamas Political Blog