The rise of femicide and women in drug trafficking

by Andrea Mares, COHA Research Associate



While men have predominantly run drug trafficking organizations (DTOs), women have participated in them since the 1920s. Their role may have appeared miniscule compared to that of their male counterparts, but they have played key roles such as drug mules and bosses.

According to an interview with Howard Campbell, professor of anthropology at the University of Texas-El Paso, conducted by the Latin American Advisor, women, such as Ignacia Jasso de González (alias ‘La Nacha’) and María Dolores Estévez Zuleta (aka ‘Lola La Chata’) were prominent figures in drug dealing and trafficking in the 1920s and 1950s. [1]. Although women have been active in DTOs for many years, even at times taking on dominant roles, only in the past ten years have they become increasingly visible in the media.

The notion that women do not regularly participate and are not affected by DTOs is demonstrably obsolete. Women today are acting as equal partners in all aspects of drug trafficking, from running crews to laundering funds, resulting in the rise of incarcerated and violently treated women. [2] A glance into women’s association with DTOs reveals an increased crime rate, as well as the adversities that drug trafficking predictably brings upon them, and a clear lack of solutions to these often dangerous conditions.

Direct Effects of Drug Trafficking

In this era, it comes as no surprise that women have become more involved in the drug business. In the past, women could be counted on to struggle for their right to be loosely a part of a male-dominated world, not only in Latin America, but also around the globe. Over time, women have tended to enter many industries that were previously appealing to men. The same is true with drug trafficking, a very profitable business, with between $18 and $35 billion in drug earnings per year, according to US authorities. [3] It is not surprising that women gradually have increased their degree of participation. Once men started recruiting women as paid mules, their involvement escalated, as did the degree of violence.

Government efforts to impede drug smuggling have only increased the level of women’s participation in the business because women were less likely to be associated with drug trafficking and, therefore, could sneak past security with relatively small amounts of narcotics in their chests, or swallow pellets containing drugs. This second method of transportation could be highly lethal if the “swallower”, as they are known, does not make it to the destination in a timely matter, as the packet will disintegrate causing an overdose. [4]

Because a woman could use her appearance to bypass security officers, DTO affiliates began attending beauty pageants held in Latin America in order to approach contestants with the lures associated with drug trafficking and the income it is capable of providing. One example of an extremely successful woman is famed Colombian beauty queen and lingerie model, Angie Valencia, who was supposedly using other young, beautiful models to transport drugs in an international cocaine ring. [5]

Unfortunately, many women are willing to become a part of the drug industry because of their dire economic situations, and the fact that these dangerous missions were capable of rewards of thousands of dollars. The possibility of easily obtaining money to sustain a deluxe life style for their families is appealing to many women who consider drug trafficking as the one way they can gain access to a spectacular life. In addition, women are probably drawn to the excitement, mystery and power of drug trafficking. [6] By way of narcotic smuggling, some women are able to attain opulent lifestyles.

While some women are able to reach a high rank in DTOs, most women who get involved are taken advantage of because they lack alternative economic opportunities. These women are often easily convinced to act as drug mules and are assured it will be a quick and easy trip. The risks are not adequately explained, and, in fact, some women are even sent on missions, totally unaware that they are carrying drugs. What is even more distressing is that women continue to involve themselves in the business, blind to the consequences or too preoccupied with the chance to escape a life of degradation. Coletta Youngers, an expert on the subject finds that, “many of these women are single and poor mothers. The fear they may be ending up in prison or getting involved in the drug business is trumped by their need to provide for their families.” [7]

Indirect Effects of Drug Trafficking

Government crackdowns on drug cartels not only affect women directly, impacting those who may be working as bosses or mules, but also indirectly through a resulting increase of prostitution and sex trafficking. [8] These industries present an alternative when governments place heightened scrutiny on DTOs. According to the International Organization for Migration, sex trafficking alone can produce $16 billion a year in revenue in Latin America. [9] With such high profits, they are obvious choices to mobilize in the midst of increased government control.

Women also get coerced into joining DTOs because of rivalries between competing cartels. As reported in The Guardian, “the big rise in the number of women working for Mexico’s cartels comes in the context of the drug wars raging between different trafficking organizations and between them and the authorities.” [10] These violent altercations often result in deaths of loved ones, usually a boyfriend, husband, or other family member who was providing an income from drug trafficking.

When this occurs, the woman in the relationship is often forced to take over as the breadwinner. Trying to get a legitimate job may be very difficult if the woman has little to no experience or is uneducated; in this scenario, she will most likely enter the drug business and carry on where the deceased member left off, since she may already have easy access into the business.

According to Howard Campbell, drug trafficking affects women indirectly even when “women do not smuggle drugs but are negatively impacted by the male smugglers with whom they are associated.” [11] If a woman’s husband or boyfriend is in a DTO and storing narcotics in the household, he may very well be under suspicion from the authorities, and his house could be raided at any given time. The woman may be held responsible for the drugs if the true owner is not present, regardless of the circumstances.

This was the situation for Veronica Vasquez, who was interviewed by the Los Angeles Times on women in the drug war. Vasquez said her husband “wasn’t at home the night the army came calling and didn’t have time to dispose of the bags of cocaine he had hidden in the bedroom. Now she’s serving five years in the crowded prison in Culiacan, the capital of Sinaloa, and he’s still free.” [12]

Overflow of Women in Prisons

The increased involvement of women in the drug industry is not only a problem for the women themselves; it affects the region’s crime rate and prison systems as well. Prisons in Latin America are quickly becoming filled with women imprisoned for drug trafficking; The New York Times reported that since 2007, there has been a 400 percent increase in the number of women jailed in Mexico for activity mostly linked to organized crime. [13] Considering that many countries in Latin America lack proper laws to deal with drug crimes, it is no surprise that women are overflowing the prisons. In some countries, a drug mule can face the same amount of time in prison as a murderer. [14]

There is a critical need for more government intervention and clarification on punishment for drug trafficking, particularly since there now appears to be more women imprisoned for drug-related crimes than men. A study conducted in 2010 concluded that overall, there are more men than women in the Latin American prisons, but a higher percentage of women in prison for crimes involving drugs. [15] As is evident, women will continue to be jailed for drug related crimes and the prison system will suffer overcrowding and worsening conditions unless legislation is adopted that can more forcefully control drug trafficking and related violence. More importantly, this legislation must be properly enforced.

Femicide Emerges

The rise of the number of women in prisons and the surge in their crime rate are symptoms of a prominent issue in Latin America, known as femicide. Femicide refers to the mass killings of women, and reflects the excessive masculinity that is associated with the drug industry.[16] The use of women is often resorted to modes of retaliation against the government for its crackdown on drug trafficking, or as a threat to other DTOs. In May 2011, a 20-year-old woman’s decapitated head was found inside a phone booth, with a message warning the government to stop policies aimed at impeding criminal activity. [17]

Drug trafficking seems to heighten the attitude that women are easily disposable, even though women often hold the family together in these societies. Femicides destroy family structures, forcing children to grow up in an entirely unstable environment. Furthermore, increased violence toward women creates an image that it is acceptable.

Although femicide remains an issue for all of Latin America, it has a greater presence in parts of Central America. For example, the amount of murdered women has tripled in four years, from 2005-2009, in many Mexican states from 3.7 to 11.1 per 100,000,[18] and María Virginia Díaz Méndez, of the Center of Women’s Studies in Honduras, states that, “Honduras comes in second to Guatemala for the highest femicide rate”. [19] Despite growing trepidation of femicide throughout the region, it appears as though there are little to no consequences for committing such crimes.

Where can we go from here?

From big-name beauty queens to poverty stricken women, drug trafficking has the potential to affect every woman’s life in Latin America. Drug trafficking is no longer a man’s world, and it continues to involve women at an increasing rate. As drug trafficking increases, it promotes violence against women and further cripples the legal system.[20] It is a very difficult issue, as policies aimed at cutting down drug trafficking seem only to exacerbate the victimization of women. Nonetheless, there is a need for better laws and efficient enforcement to curb the many pressing issues that drug trafficking poses.

It was perhaps inevitable that women would become involved in the drug trafficking industry. As Guadalupe Correa-Cabrera, an assistant professor of government at the University of Texas at Brownsville and Texas Southmost College, observed, “globalization, technology and modernization have facilitated the incorporation of women into…drug trafficking activities.” [21] Although foreseeable, no one could have predicted how tragically it would affect women, and it has now escalated into a seemingly immutable situation. Perhaps the only solution is to forcefully push government officials in Latin America to take more aggressive action against the human rights violations that inevitably crop up and the violence that emerges from drug trafficking. Until then, the future faced by growing numbers of women affected by drug trafficking violence remains bleak.

Source: Ethan S. James

References for this article can be found here.

The Council on Hemispheric Affairs, founded in 1975, is an independent, non-profit, non-partisan, tax-exempt research and information organization. It has been described on the Senate floor as being "one of the nation's most respected bodies of scholars and policy makers." For more information, visit www.coha.org or email coha@coha.org

October 29, 2011

caribbeannewsnow

Bahamas Blog International

I want to see "WELCOME TO THE REPUBLIC OF JAMAICA" at my airports by 2015

Let's become a republic

By Franklin Johnston





I want to see "WELCOME TO THE REPUBLIC OF JAMAICA" at my airports by 2015. Let us put this on the agenda of the next Parliament. It won't make us more independent or more prosperous, but it has collateral benefits. The Queen is a good scapegoat to blame, but a republic is not about her. She is head of the Commonwealth and head of state for only a third of members so we join the majority. Some 75 per cent of Australians voted to change her, yet out of respect they give her a royal train to ride before the Perth conference next week. The Queen doesn't mind, nor do we, so who benefits from a republic? Politicians? Voters?

PJ Patterson said we would be a republic come 2007, and Bruce Golding raised it too when they were prime ministers. What is the attraction? More power for them? For us? Ideology? The arguments are esoteric; our manhood is threatened by the Queen wearing "the pants" in our house; but we know she is a cipher as she can do only what Cabinet tells her. So who benefits?

What is a republic?

Many things: rules-based governance, no king or hereditary sons or daughters - no relative takes over and no MP or PM can leave the seat to his chosen son. The seat is the voters's. A Russian president is powerful but has term limits so he puts a proxy in place, leave for a time to circumvent the law and comes back after. The US president gets two terms - end of story! And back to real life. I like it, a powerful president with checks and balances in the constitution and Parliament. So what should our republic be like? Here:

An elected House of MPs whose job is to represent and develop their constituencies. No more "PM pressure mi, too busy to see constituents!" They are lawmakers not ministers.

An elected Senate: One senator elected by each parish plus seven independent "wise men" from farming, business, the professions. At present, the Senate is "upper" house in name only, as most members are partisans who obey their paymasters in the "lower" house.

An elected president: After 2012 we want no PM imposed on us by a party. We are 50 and can choose. We want a directly elected president to serve a maximum of two terms. We will assess the achievements, plans and character of new people and old ones in a three-month primary. The PNP wanted a president with power and the JLP a ceremonial one. Powerful presidents as Hitler moved uneducated people to oppress others. In my inbox I see comments from people who can read and write every week, but reasoning, the "fourth R", is far from them. A bad president could really create havoc, so let's educate all our people!

A judiciary ring fenced in the constitution with our Supreme Court at the apex is the key to good law, good practice, prompt justice for all and tamper proof courts. Amen!

The Executive: These are doers. Talkers are in the House. The president is CEO of Jamaica Ltd, responsible for results, so he needs a team of top managers and choice to appoint the best - it's his neck. Jamaica is small, people know you or your work. A good manager cannot hide so the president will appoint men and women who have track record in the private and public sectors or from the diaspora. If they are good we see them on the news.

Fixed election date: We need pre-set election dates - MPs, senators and president. This is for us not parties! Let's kill the old view; "what is good for the party is good for the nation".

Voters are the "demos" in our democracy and the roots of freedom. Election dates are for voters not parties. We matter! Some people don't vote. I don't deal with them as they disrespect the elders' struggle. Let us match MPs' résumés against the job; see their voting record on ganja, JPS, hanging, contracts, etc, and judge him on performance. Some say one thing in the constituency and quietly vote for another in the House.

Small constituencies breed garrisons: We spend millions to elect and pay an MP to represent 20,000 plus voters - a travesty! We need 45 MPs with 100k people in constituency for good governance. Larger constituencies have a critical mass of taxpayers, schools, public works, churches, businesses, so a proper constituency development plan is feasible. A small voter base means it's easy to buy 3,000 votes or fewer to win. Large constituencies dilute a garrison. Tivoli would be lost in a large constituency, neutralised after two terms and absorbed in three. As we reject "rum bar" politics and embrace media-driven politics the garrison will disappear or have little effect on elections.

A president is the CEO. Some say former President Reagan was an actor so we do not need a good manager as PM. Bulls! He led a nation that was prosperous for generations and has well-established systems. He just had to steer and pursue enrichment projects. We are ground zero; we are not, were never prosperous and our systems suck. We need good managers to get us airborne. The US finds $1b a week to fight in Iraq and it was not in their budget. We can't find teachers pay and it's in our budget. So none of the first eight PMs were known top managers. Are you happy with the results? So in 2012 you elect one just like the others and expect a different result? We need a republic so we can vote for a president. Our PM is an important icon. Great as Bob and Usain are, it is the PM who shows off our gravitas to the world. Scrutiny of a president also means we do the same for political appointees as chairs of boards, high commissioners who are not civil servants. We need the best. Our PM knows the people who can build our prosperity because they build it in other fields. A republic means he can appoint a Don Wehby as minister to do the job directly, not to mentor an MP. In our first 50 years lawyers, trade unionists, sociologists tried to build our economic independence. The second 50 is for managers, engineers, scientists and innovators to take us to prosperity. When we are full throttle like America, any actor or trade unionist can steer the ship and even think of some nice project - an ice skating rink - to put the icing on the cake.

Joyful

Prime Minister Andrew Holness touched good bases in his speech; his bright young family was a joyful touch; we welcome him! Whether he is "more of the same" or the "special one" we will soon see. It is a hard job, thankless (unless you succeed in building prosperity) but well rewarded as no one runs from it - enjoy! Stay conscious, my friend!

Dr Franklin Johnston is an international project manager with Teape-Johnston Consultants currently on assignment in the UK. franklinjohnstontoo@gmail.com

October 28, 2011

jamaicaobserver

Bahamas Blog International

The Cuban Five for Alan Gross: A swap that may make preeminent sense

by Faizaan Sami, COHA Research Associate



Thirteen years after their imprisonment, the ill-fated Cuban Five have been looked upon, depending on one’s perspective, as either tragic figures or infamous conspirators. Consisting of five Cuban intelligence officers, the detainees were convicted in 1998 of spying on U.S. military installations, a charge vehemently denied by Havana, which claimed that their role was to monitor Miami-based “terrorist” exile groups that were regularly plotting and carrying out attacks against their homeland. On October 7, 2011, one of the Five, René González, was released from federal prison after serving his sentence. However, according to the terms of his release, one could argue that only the nature of his confinement has changed. González, who has dual U.S.-Cuban citizenship, will be forced to serve three years under supervision in the U.S. This could expose him to threats from extremist exile terrorists based in Florida, undoubtedly adding to the misery weighing on González and his family. Since her husband’s detainment, González’s wife has not even been allowed entry into the U.S., still another disturbing aspect of the Obama administration’s already crumbling Cuba policy.

The failure to take the positive step of allowing González and the remaining members of the Cuban Five to return to the island has been met with outrage as well as storms of criticism back in Cuba on all levels of Cuban popular opinion. Campaigning on the grounds of humanitarianism and fundamental social justice, scores of groups including the African National Congress, the Cuban Parliament, as well as the International Committee for the Freedom of the Cuban Five, have urged President Obama to grant the unconditional release of the Cuban intelligence officials.

While González is the first of the Cuban Five to be released, the main question that remains then is how the would-be ‘carrot’ that has now been dangled before the Castro administration can be made to influence the status of Alan Gross, a U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) contractor imprisoned for alleged espionage activities in 2009, who the White House would love to see released. Since González was released from detention, the president of the Cuban Parliament Ricardo Alarcón has dismissed the notion of a unilateral gesture that would bring about the early release of Alan Gross. In a stinging attack, Alarcón described former UN Ambassador Bill Richardson’s diplomacy as “amateur,” adding that he has “entangled everything” by suggesting a direct swap of González, who was close to finishing his sentence, with Alan Gross, who has only begun his.

Judging by the failed, but not necessarily useless humanitarian visits to Cuba by former U.S. President Jimmy Carter and Richardson, the point is being driven home to President Obama that he will have to make substantive rather than illusionary concessions to mend frayed U.S.-Cuban relations. The release of René González could be a constructive bilateral gesture, though its impact has now been somewhat mitigated by the spat surrounding its conditions. At the same time, Obama might respond to global voices calling for the release of the jailed Cubans and use his constitutional powers to offer executive clemency to the Five as part of a deal for Alan Gross’ release.

Both countries seem stuck in a fallow Cold-War scenario, reluctant to lose what could prove to be only pseudo leverage over one another. If Obama wants to stay true to his words relating to his vision of a new beginning with Cuba, he might start by eliminating useless bromides from his rhetoric and offer a serious deal to Havana that would provide a self-respecting government grounds for acceptance.

October 27, 2011

caribbeannewsnow

Bahamas Blog International

The Economist magazine's Intelligence Unit predicts that the governing Free National Movement (FNM) party in The Bahamas will win the 2012 general election

Magazine predicts FNM will win in 2012


By CELESTE NIXON
Tribune Staff Reporter
cnixon@tribunemedia.net

Nassau, The Bahamas



THE analysis arm of a renowned financial publication has predicted the FNM will win the 2012 election.

The latest update by The Economist magazine's Intelligence Unit said that while the global economic outlook remains pessimistic, 1.8 per cent growth is expected in the Bahamas in 2011 and 2.3 per cent in 2012 - which should put the FNM in a favourable position for the next general election.

The report said: "With economic conditions improving and the opposition discredited by its own scandals, The Economist Intelligence Unit expects the FNM to retain a majority in the election."

The Intelligence Unit, a sister organisation to The Economist, provides forecasting and advisory services that help "business leaders prepare for opportunity, empowering them to act with confidence when making strategic decisions."

According to the report, the political scene in the Bahamas will be dominated by campaigning for the general election over the next six months.

It said: "The Free National Movement (FNM) led by the prime minister, Hubert Ingraham, has a small but workable majority in parliament and the election will indicate to what extent the FNM's support base has been eroded by the sharp economic contraction in 2008-09 and the government's privatisation programme, which is unpopular among much of the population.

"We forecast growth to pick up in 2012-13, although the more pessimistic outlook for the global economy and particularly the US, which will impact negatively on tourism, will hamper more rapid growth.

"We expect activity to expand by 1.8 per cent in 2011 and 2.3 per cent in 2012. Growth will pick up further thereafter, in line with more benign global conditions.

"Stronger growth will boost tax receipts, but spending will increase in the run-up to next year's election, causing the fiscal deficit to widen to 3.5 per cent of GDP in fiscal year 2011/12.

"The current-account deficit will start to narrow in 2012, as an easing of commodity prices offsets a rise in demand for imports."

The report also spoke of the government's efforts to crack down on crime, noting that on October 3, Mr Ingraham announced the establishment of two new courts to deal with crimes relating to drugs and illegal firearm possession, and a 30-day gun amnesty programme.

It said: "The ability of magistrates to hand down tougher sentences has also been strengthened, with the possibility of sentencing offenders -- including those on drugs and weapons charges -- to up to seven years in prison (raised from five years previously).

"Mr Ingraham also announced that amendments to the Firearms Act and the Dangerous Drugs Act are in the planning stage and that new legislation will strengthen law enforcement powers to address the sale of stolen goods and the proceeds of crime via third parties."

The Intelligence Unit described the new measures as "long overdue".

The unit said: "Considering the country's heavy dependence on tourism, there is widespread concern over the impact that such a deterioration in the security situation will have on the struggling economic recovery."

When informed of the report, FNM chairman Carl Bethel said: "While I have not seen it, let me say that we welcome any confidence from The Economist or other well respected institution, and are gratified that after examining our record the Intelligence Unit came to the same conclusion that we have: that the Bahamian people respect the good governance of the FNM and will reward it in the next general election."

October 25, 2011

tribune242

Bahamas Blog International

Jamaica: Redefining governance post-Bruce Golding

Redefining governance post-Golding

By LLOYD B SMITH



Even as Jamaicans breathe a sigh of relief in the wake of the departure of Bruce Golding as JLP leader and prime minister in what was a seamless transition, a dispassionate post-mortem needs to be done and a new job description arrived at for our head of government, the so-called first among equals.

Of course, one of the recurring challenges that beset any such attempt at meaningful discussion is the rabid tribalism that plagues the Jamaican society. So much so that even when a perceived "independent" political analyst seeks to cut through the putrid fat of partisan fatuousness in order to get to the bone of the matter, he or she is likely to be pilloried, if the views expressed are not in sync with a particular party and its motley assortment of hacks and spin doctors.

In this vein, political discourse in many instances becomes a desperate attempt at playing to the gallery or is so overly "balanced" that it becomes lukewarm — neither hot nor cold — which leaves many readers and listeners in a stupor, not knowing whether to swallow or spit it out.

One of the unfortunate traits of many Jamaicans is a seeming inability to argue a point without "tracing" (verbal assault which often leads to one denigrating one's opponent). This has become a regular feature in the political arena which also sees some talk show hosts and columnists joining in this kind of vacuous verbal diarrhoea leading to character assassination, especially when their victim speaks or writes the truth. Yes, the truth hurts, and can be very offensive.

Against this background of intellectual dishonesty, if governance in Jamaica is to take on a meaningful trend, then the role of the media needs to be redefined in this burgeoning information age. In the United States, for example, which is regarded as one of the bastions of democratic governance in the world, a journalist or newspaper can openly, or in any other acceptable way, endorse a political candidate or party. Even newspapers, radio and television stations are known to co-exist peacefully and without threat of extinction, notwithstanding their particular ideological or partisan stance.

In Jamaica, because of the divisive, intimidatory and vindictive nature of our political culture, most media practitioners are forced to walk a tightrope, and so in many instances a latent form of hypocrisy laced with sycophancy and doublespeak becomes the order of the day. "O judgement thou art fled to brutish beasts and men have lost their reason!" (Shakespeare - Julius Caesar)

I therefore posit that if good governance is to come to the fore and is sustainable, then the media in Jamaica must be truly liberated, not shackled by an archaic set of libel laws. As the people's watchdog, it must be allowed to have more bite than bark which means that the politics of the day must become more enlightened, tolerant and accountable.

For this to happen, then those at the top must raise the bar of discourse within the context of contending opinions which too frequently become the news of the day via soundbytes and "select" headlines. Newly installed Prime Minister Andrew Holness and Opposition Leader Portia Simpson Miller must declare their hands during the coming general election campaign because it cannot be business as usual.

At the outset of what was to be Golding's ill-fated "governorship", he set out to define his style of governance by dubbing himself the chief servant, a sobriquet fraught with good intention and a sincerity of purpose. But very soon, the man who was also called "driva" found himself in a pickle and had to opt, in the final analysis, to put the interest of the party over patriotism.

Golding, in essence, became victim of a political system which he once abhorred but had to ultimately embrace in his quest for power. Looking back, one may well ask if Golding had stuck with the National Democratic Movement through thick and thin, would his legacy have remained untarnished and would that fledgling party have gained enough social capital to take on successfully the status quo?

Interestingly and most intriguingly, Prime Minister Andrew Holness has attributed much of his political acumen to the mentorship of Edward Seaga and Bruce Golding. He has, in one fell swoop, defined his political persona, and what remains to be seen is whether he will emulate the good qualities of his mentors or embrace their bad characteristics.

Picture a typical cartoon character with an angel on either shoulder (usually one is a good influence and the other bad). We have been told that "Prince Andrew" is his own man; let's now see if he will be able to prove that he is not a chip off the old block, or worse, a clone.

From all indications, he has the acumen to rise to the occasion, but his most serious challenge will remain how he manages the JLP while steering the ship of state. For this to happen, he will need all hands on deck, so I am very pleased that so far one commentator has described him as a consensus builder, because in redefining governance in Jamaica, the nation's leaders need to coalesce around certain objectives, and whoever is prime minister must lead that charge.

At the same time, prime minister and JLP leader Andrew Holness, now that he is fully in the saddle, must rein in those unrepentant "tribalists" who see as their only role that of tarring and feathering as well as running out of town anyone who dares to criticise him, the party or the Government of the day.

If Jamaica is to be governed effectively with equal rights and justice for all, then there must be room for dissent. We cannot all see things through one set of spectacles. Let the wheat and the tares grow together until the day of harvest.

Outside of the media and political leadership, the church and civil society need to play a more aggressive as well as assertive role in the redefining of governance in Jamaica. The power and influence of civil society and the media were in full force during the Manatt/Dudus affair and we have seen the result of that debacle.

It has allowed a new day to dawn on the island's political landscape teeming with many possibilities. Increasingly, the church must be the moral compass without taking sides, and civil society must pursue without fear or favour that route that leads to equity in terms of justice and economic opportunities.

Once again, Jamaica is at a crossroads and we must decide where we are going in real terms. Winning an election must not be an end in itself, but the first step in a journey towards economic independence, peace, safety and national unity. Whichever party wins, it will not be an easy road. Governance, not "gangsterism", must define our path. Enough said!

lloydbsmith@hotmail.com

October 25, 2011

jamaicaobserver

Bahamas Blog International

St Vincent and the Grenadines: Now praise we great and famous men

By Rebecca Theodore


The music plays triumphant. Drifting notes quiver.

‘So praise the wise, the brave and strong who built fair isles of beauty
And rich in art made richer still
The brotherhood of duty.’

Light beams from blatant eyes. Beauty is bewitched with feelings. There is infinite contentment.

And ‘The Comrade,’ Dr The Right Honorable Prime Minister of St Vincent and the Grenadines, Ralph Everard Gonsalves joins the rank of noble men.

Under heavy smog, I cast an ear to the distant chorus while ‘The Comrade’ opens the vista to the people of St Vincent and the Grenadines and to the world. There is meaning to life as he establishes a vertically-oriented style of government so ideologue that even critics stop to think.

Wiretap transcripts bears incongruous tales of an autocratic style leadership and a centralized political system exercising near-dictatorial control, but his constitutional reform efforts for the people of St Vincent and the Grenadines cannot go by unnoticed.

In standing up to a woeful and lost NDP defunct form of leadership, Dr Gonsalves shows that he is not a puppet of either the US, Venezuela, Iran or anyone, but a man of sound moral principles and he leads his country accordingly, for ‘The Comrade’ dances to the music and not the instrument.

Then the chord of victory strikes. In joining the company of noted Caribbean leaders as Eric Williams of Trinidad and Tobago, Norman Manley of Jamaica and Errol Barrow of Barbados, it is needed in the rhyme of reason.

There is a fine refrain as ‘The Comrade’ bolsters himself locally while maintaining good relations with the US on security and law enforcement issues. He beckons to other Caribbean islands to follow, for he knows the names of reliable strategic partners and important sources of investment, tourists and trade. He does nothing to damage that relationship.

There is no fire fuelling in his back yard for he is the new architect of fundamental political change in the region. His personal political leanings have nothing to do with his leadership style. His country needs money and the ULP needs money to support the public infrastructure programs that bring jobs, and so atop a vibrant bass he reaches out to non-traditional sources of funding and ignores the overblown frustrated rhetoric of NDP critics.

Then there are pauses between the notes but this is where the art resides.

Intelligence is at its peak in St Vincent and the Grenadines. ‘The Comrade’ is not a Chavista neither an Iran satellite and will not become one. In all honorable conduct, he secures handouts from whoever will provide them, yet his freedom of action is at a top maintenance. In keeping with this pragmatic approach to foreign relations, ‘The Comrade’ performs the ‘foil play’ with the US and other colonial powers, for he knows the art of handling the notes better than the other dancers.

Honed in stereophony, I hear the last movement of Beethoven's seventh for they are fading slowly. Why waste time on NDP illusions when you can listen to the B minor mass?

October 25, 2011

caribbeannewsnow

Bahamas Blog International

Gaddafi the enigma: A villain or a hero?

*How not to suppress revolution

BY HUGO ODIOGOR


There is an African saying that it is a stubborn fly that accompanies the corpse to the grave. This best captures the death of Libya’s leader Col. Muammar Gaddafi who met his end in his home town of Sirte, killed like a rat.

Ironically, Gaddafi had, for eight months, denounced the rebels that took up arms to resist his 42-year old dictatorship as “rats” but in the end he was smoked out of a tunnel by Libya’s revolution cry fighters backed by NATO airstrikes.

Born in Sirte 69 years ago to the Gadafi tribe in Libya, Gaddafi, whose name has as many variants as the man’s mercurial nation, captured power in 1969 when he toppled King Idriss by driving a tank into the palace and mesmerising the monarch.

His leadership was as eventful as it was controversial. He began as a pan Arabist and supported the cause of Arab people especially in the conflicts with Israel and its Western backers. Gaddafi graduated to becoming a pan Africanist at least, so was his posturing, as he funded the liberation movements in Africa, funded the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) and engineered the transformation of the organisation into African Union. He floated the concept of a United States of Africa where he will become the head of state.

Gaddafi was a pain in the skin of the Western nations who were as ambivalent in their relations with him as they were driven by their greed to benefit from his massive oil wealth.

In the end, Gaddafi could neither manage his ego nor his foolhardiness. His futile attempt to resist the wave of revolution that was ignited by Mohammed Bouazzi, the 26-year old Tunisian whose self immolation triggered off the Arab spring was a fatal hubris which Gaddafi and his family tried to resist in bloody battle.

The revolution swept off Zine El Abidine Ben Ali of Tunisia, Hosni Mubarak of Egypt threatens Syria, Yemen, Bahrain and many more. The revolutions began as mass protests against iron fisted regimes, then graduated to military engagements.

The case of Libya was made worse by the cronyism that became the leadership style of Gaddafi who appointed his children and son-in-law into sensitive security positions in government as his strategy to secure his despotic leadership.

Of all the North Africa, Arab and European countries that have witnessed the wave of mass protests in their domain, perhaps Libya had been the bloodiest, with a civil war that Sail Al-Islam, Gaddafi’s son, promised his compatriot. Saif is the most politically influential of all Gaddafi’s children. He was stubborn and boastful as his late father, and had no compunctions about spilling as much Libyan blood as he could, to keep his father in power.

Saif was seen in many quarters as the likely successor to his father. But there were potential threats from his senior brothers Mohammed and Hannibal.

The end game came for Col Gaddafi in February, 2011 when a civil war broke out in his country with rebel forces beginning their battle in Benghazi, the country’s second largest city in the western part of the country with six million people with powerful tribal linkages. Gaddafi responded with a heavy hand and massacred thousnads of his country men and women. A National Transition Council (NTC) was formed in March, with defectors from Gaddafi’s government as the leading lights.

The challenges of managing a revolution

The NTC, which appointed Mustafa Abdel Jalil as its chairman, a former judge in the Gaddafi regime, was a conglomeration of defectors namely from the public foreign and military services. They had the challenge of finding a common ground to rest their opposition.

The NTC had to manage the personality rivalry, mistrust and different agenda among its members. It had to find a formula to manage its troops drawn largely from ordinary people, men and women, who had a common goal of ending the 42 year old regime of Gaddafi. Far and above all, the NTC had to ensure that the battle did not degenerate into ethnic reprisals, which would have left Libya a divide country, to the advantage of Gaddafi.

The NTC got a moral booster when it secured the endorsement of France, the first European and major world power to back the rebels. France rallied other countries within the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) as well as the United Nations to impose a no – fly zone in Libya, to save the largely untrained Libyan resistance group from a massacre.

This marked a defining moment in the conflict as NATO air power was deployed to support the ground troops. Six months of air strikes on Libyan cities, especially Tripoli, its capital, was beamed across the world, to show how a man could stupidly destroy all that he had accomplished for his country.

GADDAFI’S ERA

The era of Gaddafi may have come to an end but his country and indeed the world would remember him in so many ways. First, Gaddafi positioned himself as a nationalist and supported the cause of Arab people. He extended this to the African continent where the oppressive regimes in southern Africa felt the impact of Gaddafism with his massive funding of liberation movements.

He funded non- state actors like the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO), the Irish Republican Army (IRA), the African National Congress (ANC) among others. He was regarded as a terrorist by the Western nations.

The involvement of Libyan secret service agents in the downing of Pan Am Flight 103, an American flight, over Lokerebie in 1988, was a major source of tension with Western nations which imposed sanctions on Libya for causing the death of 270 people. Before then, Libya had attained the status of a ‘terrorist state’ as it was implicated in the death of a British police woman Yvonne Fletcher, who was shot dead in front of Libyan embassy in April 1984.

In 2001, a Scottish court convicted one of the two Libyan secret service agents, Abdel Al.Megrahi implicated in the Pan Am Flight bombing and sentenced him to life imprisonment in 2003. Libya accepted responsibility and agreed to pay up to $10 million to relatives of each of the 270 victims of the attack. Gaddafi flirted with his own idea of socialism which was detailed in his Green Book. He changed the name of Libya to Jamahiriya Republic of Libya, meaning a state govern by the masses.

POST-GADDAFI ERA

The exit of dictators with long tenure in power is known to be preceded by political instability. Although the NTC has announced that it will hold an election in eight months, Dr. Francis Oshodi, an international politics expert, is of the view that the international community must tread with caution in exporting democracy to Libya.

Oshodi said the country has not seen democracy for over 60 years, saying it takes time to nurture political attitudes and now that we have so many people with weapons, any mistake in the handling of this phase of life in Libya would be catastrophic.

Another expert, Mrs Chinaka Uche says the death of Gaddafi must be a lesson for other dictators who want to resist the will of their people.

Africa without Gaddafi

Africa is a continent with contradictory political aspiration and suffused with leaders like Gaddafi who was the chairman of African Union from 2009 to 2010. African leaders had conflicting attitudes to Gaddafi’s brand of politics. He fought hard to impress himself on African politics through massive investments in African Development Bank where Libya is a major shareholder.

Gaddafi has huge investments in many African countries, especially in Kenya’s hospitality industry. The huge investments of Libya in the African countries will be a potential source of conflict between the leaders of the National Transitional Council, NTC, Gaddafi’s children and the African countries.

Gaddafi sponsored internal strifes in Chad, Liberia, Uganda and many other African countries. Throughout his tenure, he treated Nigeria with contempt.

During his visits to Nigeria, Gaddafi came with female security teams and often tried to undermine Nigeria’s security. In 1982, he called Nigeria a big for nothing country. In 2001, Gaddafi berated Muslims in Nigeria for allowing a Christian to become the president. In 2010, the slain Libyan leader advocated the division of Nigeria along religious lines. But Nigeria has maintained a more conciliatory attitude towards Libya and Gaddafi.

His pretensions to pan Africanism suffered by reports of detention, torture and deportation of Africans from Libya.

OCTOBER 23, 2011

vanguardngr