Pro-Gay Bully David Cameron is Ignoring Grave Health Impact: ...homosexual practitioners have a significantly higher incidence of anal cancer, chlamydia trachomatis, cryptosporidium, Giardia lamblia, herpes simplex virus, HIV, HPV, Isospora belli, microsporidia, gonorrhoea, viral hepatitis types B & C, syphilis... according to research published by the Medical Clinics of North America and even the LGBTHealthChannel...

Pro-Gay Bully Ignoring Grave Health Impact

Marc Ramsay, Guest Columnist

jamaica-gleaner

British Prime Minister David Cameron's comments threatening to withhold aid from developing Commonwealth countries which do not repeal laws criminalising homosexuality caught the attention of many.

Regardless of your moral position on homosexuality, withholding aid from a developing country to force them to change their legislation because of external contrary moral positions has the potential to be harmful.

My choice of words is very deliberate - the PM has put forward a moral position on homosexuality, which he is seeking to impose on certain Commonwealth states. He cannot say that no country has the right to impose its morals on others through legislation to defend that position. He is using aid, of all options, to impose his moral position - unequivocally his moral position is that homosexual acts should not be illegal, criminalised, or subjected to legislative sanction.

So firmly does he hold to this position that he is willing to impose sanctions on developing countries. As we debate this issue, let us bear in mind that moral neutrality is a myth, and thus weigh each side on its merits.

Ordinarily such comments would give rise to arguments as to whether morality should be legislated. However, since PM Cameron has made it clear that certain moral positions can be the subject of sanctions in international policy, the question is, rather, whether his threat is right on a balance of outcomes. I use the word 'right' in the secular sense of the word, questioning whether the urgency and moral duty expressed by the British prime minister are well founded based on an assessment of the consequences.

Certainly, foreign governments have not been as outspoken about garrison politics; the virtual dictatorship between the JLPNP in Jamaica; the imbalance between rich and poor; the lack of disclosure on campaign financing, and so on. Is this threat worth it?

Rights can be restricted

The first question is what is the negative outcome of withholding legal homosexual sex from citizens in countries such as Jamaica. The right to choose one's lifestyle is as applicable to homosexuality as it is to the use of narcotics such as marijuana, or tobacco or alcohol. All three are restricted in the United Kingdom to varying degrees. While the basis is the negative outcomes, based on medical, psychological and sociological study, authorities in the UK have been more open to data on the effects of marijuana, tobacco, or alcohol than they have been on data on the negative outcomes of the homosexual lifestyle.

They have also considered the sociological implications, which do not necessarily harm the person in a conclusive medical sense, but could have harmful effects on the fabric of society. Thus, they banned smoking indoors in England in 2007, restricted alcohol intoxication levels in certain spheres, and banned marijuana despite the human right to choose one's lifestyle. They will raid a private dwelling home in London to seize marijuana on those same grounds, violating various human rights on grounds they will argue are legitimate. So there is no blanket ban on restricting the right to choose, provided there are legitimate grounds.

Only one consequence of not repealing

Thus the only negative outcome of maintaining the anti-homosexual laws is restricting the individual's right to choose, a right which is not without legal restriction on legitimate grounds such as medical, psychological or sociological harm to the individual or society. Several studies, including those conducted by Professors Jones and Yarhouse, research published in the Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy in 2011, and Dr N. Whitehead in the Journal of Human Sexuality in 2011, show that like the choice to possess or smoke marijuana, an individual can not only choose whether or not to have homosexual sex, but also change their homosexual orientation without psychological distress.

Thus the right to choose homosexual sex is not a sacred genetic right, but is open to restriction, provided there are legitimate grounds.

Negative consequences

On the other hand, there are scientific arguments which show conclusive medical, psychological and sociological grounds for negative outcomes of homosexual sex. The negative outcomes of homosexual sex and the homosexual lifestyle are not myths of religious fanatics or ignorant homophobes.

An article by Dr John R. Diggs titled 'The Health Risks of Gay Sex' provides a good starting point, referencing several studies conducted by the scientific community. Diggs concluded: "Sexual relationships between members of the same sex expose gays, lesbians and bisexuals to extreme risks of sexually transmitted infections, physical injuries, mental disorders and even a shortened lifespan."

The article cites 129 scientific studies, not conducted by Christians, or homophobes, or narrow-minded developing countries. But there is more. In 2004, WebMD reported a CDC study that showed homosexual sex forms a bridge for HIV to pass to women. This is due to the high levels of promiscuity, high levels of HIV infection, and the high percentage of homosexual males who also have sex with women.

In fact, homosexual practitioners have a significantly higher incidence of anal cancer, chlamydia trachomatis, cryptosporidium, Giardia lamblia, herpes simplex virus, HIV, HPV, Isospora belli, microsporidia, gonorrhoea, viral hepatitis types B & C, syphilis, according to research published by the Medical Clinics of North America and even the LGBTHealthChannel.

Other studies show that homosexual practitioners also have a higher incidence of haemorrhoids, anal fissures, anorectal trauma, hepatitis A, Giardia lamblia, Entamoeba histolytica, Epstein-Barr virus, Neisseria meningitides, shigellosis, salmonellosis, pediculosis, scabies and campylobacter, retained foreign bodies, and exclusive diseases such as herpes Type 8.

There are also serious mental health consequences. There are other alarming facts. A New York Times article by Erica Goode in 2001 revealed that the practice of anal sex increased in the homosexual community, while condom use has declined 20 per cent and multi-partner sex over seven years, despite billions of US dollars spent on HIV-prevention campaigns.

Furthermore, social and legal approval will lead to more sexual activity. This not only has the medical consequences already discussed, but also economic consequences. As a 2002 study by Michael Hamrick for the Corporate Resource Council shows, the health-care costs resulting from homosexual promiscuity are substantial.

In the Jamaican context, already burdened by free health care, the costs borne by the Jamaican taxpayer will be significantly higher.

In light of the brief summary I have provided, a balanced look at Prime Minister Cameron's threat reveals that there may be a lot more to lose if Jamaica is forced to repeal those 'anti-homosexual' laws. Not only could the country face sanctions from the United Kingdom prior to repealing the laws, but there are other consequences to the homosexual individual, women who may come in contact with them, and the wider society that may outweigh the restriction of homosexuals' right to choose their lifestyle.

These negative consequences may even lead one to conclude that it is necessary and fair to restrict any right to homosexual activity, as necessary and fair as restricting marijuana, alcohol, or tobacco use.

Nevertheless, if PM Cameron has his way, sovereign nations will have no right to choose.

November 12, 2011

jamaica-gleaner

Bahamas Blog International

...the laws criminalising homosexuality are depriving the Caribbean of the use of remarkably talented people in all fields of life who could be contributing to the development and prosperity of every Caribbean country

Gays have rights too: The Caribbean dilemma


By Sir Ronald Sanders


A statement by the prime minister of Britain, David Cameron, that his government will not provide budgetary aid to governments that violate human rights, including by discriminating against homosexuals and lesbians, has angered sections of Caribbean society.

The angry response may have arisen over a misunderstanding of Cameron’s remarks made in a BBC interview at the end of the 2011 Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) in Perth, Australia from 28 to 30 October. The remarks were not made at CHOGM itself.

While Cameron did say that his government would not provide general budget support to governments that do not uphold human rights, including the rights of homosexuals, lesbians and vulnerable communities such as young girls, his remarks were not specifically about homosexuals and he did not say that all aid would be withheld. In any event, no independent Caribbean country is a recipient of General Budget Aid from Britain, and, therefore, not one of them would be affected. In this regard, the response to Cameron’s remarks could have benefitted from more careful study.

Cameron did not state a new position. What he said has been the British government’s published policy since earlier this year when the Department for International Development (DFID) conducted a study, involving a wide range of organisations and countries, from which it was decided that General Budget Aid to governments should be linked to good governance, accountability and respect for human rights. British budgetary support is only 16% of the UK’s annual aid budget of £7.46 billion (US$12.1billion).

Nevertheless, the policies, laws and practices applicable to homosexuals and lesbians are real and growing issues in the Caribbean, not only from a human rights stand point but as a public health one too.

At the CHOGM in Perth, an Eminent Persons Group (EPG), of which I am a member, delivered a report to Heads of Government, who commissioned it at their meeting in Trinidad two years ago, on ways to reform the Commonwealth to make it relevant to its times and its people.

Included in the 106 recommendations in the report was one that governments “should take steps to encourage the repeal of discriminatory laws that impede the effective response of Commonwealth countries to the HIV/AIDS epidemic, and commit to programmes of education that would help a repeal of such laws”. Amongst these laws are those that criminalize homosexuality.

The recommendation proved to be difficult for many African and Caribbean governments. Of the current 53-nations of the Commonwealth, 41 of them retain laws that criminalise homosexuality in particular. Some of these laws dictate that homosexuals should be flogged and jailed. Of the 41 states with such laws, all 12 of the independent Commonwealth Caribbean countries are included.

Remarkably, these laws are relics of the colonial past. They were introduced in the Caribbean by the British Colonial government. But, while Britain, like the majority of countries in the world, has moved on to decriminalize homosexuality, the colonial laws remain in many parts of Africa and the Caribbean.

In Britain, Australia, Canada, the United States and the majority of European and Latin American nations, many homosexuals and lesbians, freed from the criminalization of their sexual preferences, have risen to the top of their careers. Many are captains of industries, government ministers, leading sports persons and even members of the armed forces doing duty in dangerous places such as Iraq and Afghanistan. In the Caribbean, however, homosexuals are marginalised and the majority remain hidden, terrified of the consequences of “coming out”.

Caribbean governments face serious difficulties over this issue. There is a strong prejudice in societies based on both a lack of education and reluctance to engage the issue in public fora. The churches in the Caribbean are the most unyielding, constraining political parties from adopting a more enlightened and modern-day view of the matter.

The facts indicate that 60 million people worldwide have been infected with HIV and 33.3 million presently live with the virus. Over 60% of the people living with HIV reside in Commonwealth countries. The region with the highest rate of HIV/AIDS per capita is the Caribbean. In this sense, the problem for the Caribbean is one both of human rights and public health.

Homosexuals who live under the risk of flogging and jail are reluctant to reveal themselves if and when they become HIV infected. Consequently, they are left untreated and the disease spreads and eventually they die, although the real cause of death is usually hidden.

In any event, the laws criminalising homosexuality are depriving the Caribbean of the use of remarkably talented people in all fields of life who could be contributing to the development and prosperity of every Caribbean country. Some homosexuals have already emerged – despite the laws and the stigma – as outstanding Caribbean citizens, revered not only in the region but in other parts of the world, but they have been persons of great courage and unquestionable ability. Others have simply fallen by the wayside, or are living lives of lies.

On the eve of CHOGM in Perth, Helen Clark, the head of the United Nations Development Programme wrote to Commonwealth leaders pointing out that “it is important and urgent” for them “to promote and secure the repeal of the discriminatory laws which impede effective national HIV responses”. She called for “legislative initiatives and programmes which will repeal discriminatory laws” that “can not only turn back the HIV epidemic, but also improve the health and development of their citizens”. She urged leaders “to seize this opportunity for the Commonwealth to turn a corner in preventing and controlling HIV by embracing the proposals to repeal laws which impede effective HIV responses”.

In part, it was to this urging that the British prime minister was responding when he spoke in the BBC interview of the need to repeal discriminatory laws.

The issue will not go away. Britain’s linking of General Budget Aid to respect for human rights is one response. Others will follow in different ways. As the international community sees it, homosexuals and lesbians are entitled to rights too, as long as they do not affect the rights and preferences of others.

The Caribbean will have to face up to that reality -- as most of the rest of the world has. The best way to start is by informed public discussion.

November 11, 2011

caribbeannewsnow

Bahamas Blog International

Acting Assistant Secretary of State Roberta Jacobson says: ...the entire Caribbean is well positioned to get involved in the energy industry ...whether in terms of pursuing renewable energy or developing traditional hydrocarbon products

Energy is 'incredible opportunity'


EXCLUSIVE By PACO NUNEZ
Tribune News Editor
pnunez@tribunemedia.net

Nassau, The Bahamas


THE Bahamas has an "incredible opportunity" to improve on energy security while also increasing the safety of its citizens, a top US official said.

Acting Assistant Secretary of State Roberta Jacobson said the entire Caribbean is well positioned to get involved in the energy industry - whether in terms of pursuing renewable energy or developing traditional hydrocarbon products.

This potential can in turn be used to create economic opportunities that erode the underlying causes of crime and violence, she said.

Ms Jacobson, who is in Nassau to take part in the second Caribbean Basin Security Initiative (CBSI) Dialogue, explained that while combating the trafficking of drugs, guns and people is a cornerstone of the initiative, true regional security can only be attained if citizens feel their everyday lives have been impacted.

She said: "One of the reasons we talk now about citizen security and considerably less about just counter-narcotics is because it's so obvious that the phenomenon is broader than just drugs.

"It is in fact about whether people feel personally safe, secure, and we all know that in many respects that's a government's first duty - to keep its citizens safe. But when you start to look at the problem and you disaggregate it, it isn't just about where drugs or gangs may come from and the supply, it isn't just about the demand - it's about the socio-economic causes that underlie crime and criminality.

"If you go about fixing it only by trying to attack the symptoms and not the underlying causes, you're never going to get more than half way there."

A lack of economic opportunities - particularly for young men - is often significant among these root factors, and this is where energy diversification can come in, Ms Jacobson said.

"It isn't just economic opportunity," she said, "there are other things that have to come with it, but certainly if people don't feel they have an opportunity to progress economically, to have a life that holds promise for them, it makes it easier for gangs, for drug cartels to recruit."

Once a country accepts that crime prevention starts with social and economic opportunity, Ms Jacobson said, the next step is to identify the emerging fields that Bahamians can be prepared for.

"Obviously, there's a lot that's going on in the Bahamas that speaks to some of the, perhaps, more traditional areas of economic growth - there are building projects for new hotels, there are lots of industries related to tourism - but the fact of the matter is, as you look ahead, the issue of energy production, energy self-sufficiency, is also one in which you can really significantly generate jobs.

"Now, the kinds of jobs you are going to generate are also going to be fairly well paying jobs, but they may also be jobs where fairly specialised training is necessary."

In recognition of the region's potential, Ms Jacobson said, President Obama launched the Energy and Climate Partnership of the Americas (ECPA) in the Caribbean - at the Summit of the Americas in Trinidad and Tobago in 2009.

The ECPA, a relatively small agency, helps create pilot projects in countries where either private or public sector entities are interested in breaking into the energy industry.

"Our focus," she said, "has been heavily on how we work with countries on energy security, on clean energy, on renewables."

At the moment, the ECPA is involved in around 40 projects throughout the hemisphere.

Asked how the Bahamas could qualify for an ECPA pilot project, Ms Jacobson said: "The way that you have to look at that is, how do we develop the market for renewable energies? Because until those are really economically viable and there is a structure in place for those industries, they're not going to be developed by the private sector.

"I think in the end, obviously, every government has to make its own decision on how they proceed on this, but I think the more you look towards diverse sources of energy, the more governments are going to realise that they need expertise from those in the private sector and, hopefully, will work in partnership with them."

November 10, 2011

tribune242

Bahamas Blog International

Bahamas: ...the Bahamian democratic experience and the rationale underpinning parliamentary democracy in The Islands

Celebrating the Bahamian democratic experience

Front Porch

By Simon

Nassau, The Bahamas

Some of the frustrations with our political life are understandable, many of which are shared by those in frontline politics who daily manage the complex matters of state with which most of us would prefer not to contend.

Parliamentary debates are sometimes sterile and unimaginative.  The lack of preparation by some parliamentarians is an embarrassment for themselves and those they represent.

Yet, we need to place our frustrations within context, historically and geographically.  Familiarity often breeds contempt.  Yet, it is unfamiliarity with our parliamentary system that has bred contempt for the institutions and practices that provide for democratic stability.

Many in academia and journalism, and even in Parliament, are woefully ill-informed about the fundamentals of our parliamentary system.  There is a great deal of erroneous information transmitted by these opinion leaders.

The lack of knowledge by those who should know better by virtue of their profession helps to fuel the pining for certain elements of the American system of government despite the lack of in-depth familiarity with why that system was developed and how it functions.

This unfamiliarity has spawned wistfulness for a system that even some of its founders may have come to believe is in need of significant reform in light of a different America today than at its founding.

Filibuster

The accretion of powers within the United States Senate which allows a single senator to place lengthy holds on or filibuster certain legislation are profoundly undemocratic practices in what is often self-servingly called the world’s greatest deliberative body.

The American founders might also be horrified by the army of corporate lobbyists who have been adept at finagling gigantic tax loopholes, outsized subsidies, lax regulation and wink and nod legislation.  This system has cost America trillions at the expense of social protections such as an infant mortality rate of which the world’s greatest power should be embarrassed.

Both the executive and legislative branches of the U.S. government refused despite warnings to provide oversight – including legislation – that would have regulated OTC derivatives and other fanciful financial instruments.  This historic failure helped to ignite a global economic meltdown, crippling the housing market, life savings and prospects for millions in the middle class in the U.S. alone.

Most of those who helped create this disaster escaped responsibility.  It is baffling when so-called progressives at home call for the adoption of a more America-styled system supposedly to check the abuses of power.  Politicians do not have a monopoly on such abuse.  Unchecked financial interests are also toxic to the political system.

If America is the prime model for those Bahamians who want a reformed political system based on that model, they have some explaining to do in light of the failures of that country’s political system.

Despite the common misperception, ours is really not a Westminster system of government.  We have a written constitution which Britain does not, and a number of the customs and traditions used in the much larger British parliamentary system are not germane to and are unworkable in our context.  With a 650-member House of Commons compared to our 41-member House of Assembly, our practice of parliamentary democracy is necessarily different.

However, our system is derived from the British parliamentary tradition which has enjoyed significant success including stability and resourcefulness over many centuries.  With not even a half a century of majority rule we are still familiarizing ourselves with our parliamentary system and democratic politics.

The Bahamian system

Still, we have done quite well as a democracy since 1967.  In rapid succession we produced a number of firsts having thrown the major parties out of office after 25 then 10 then five years.  We have done so including surviving two elections with questionable results – 1962 and 1987 – with little to no violence.

Our system is resilient, anchored in a constitutional framework and a rule of law stronger than the personalities and parties who may hold legislative and executive power for a period.   We often confuse the current occupants of high office with the actual nature and powers inherent in those offices.

Some of this confusion takes the form of asking whether the prime minister has too much power as granted by the constitution.  Interestingly, this school of thought gains currency when more powerful leaders are in office such as Sir Lynden Pindling and Hubert Ingraham.  This was much less a concern during the weaker prime ministership of Perry Christie.

Curiously, many of those who have advanced this line of thinking while in opposition did not act on their convictions during their time in government.

The question about the prime minister’s power is a part of a larger question about the scope and nature of the powers granted to officeholders, particularly in the executive and legislative spheres.  It is often discussed in the language of the balance of power and checks and balances.

Our constitution provides numerous checks such as the provision that executive authority is held by the cabinet of The Bahamas, not singularly by the prime minister, a fact that seems to escape many commentators.  It also provides for the removal of a prime minister by his parliamentary colleagues.

All democratic systems wrestle with how much power to afford elected leaders, balancing sufficient power to get things done with checks on those powers to limit potential abuse.  That singular democratic impulse borne from the experience of time and various places has given rise to varying systems such as those of Britain and the U.S.

Before being mesmerized by the supposed greater genius of the American political enterprise, more of us may well examine the Bahamian democratic experience and the rationale underpinning parliamentary democracy.  Then we may more fully appreciate the genius of our system, which, while always in need of reform, has gotten the essentials right and offers more flexibility and built-in resources of which many remain blissfully ignorant and blithely uninformed.

Nov 08, 2011

frontporchguardian@gmail.com

www.bahamapundit.com

thenassauguardian

Bahamas Blog International

Haiti: Rebel daughter of Africa

By Jean H Charles


I was in Cape Haitian over the weekend, en route to Grand River for the gédé celebration on November 1. There, I was invited at the posh hotel of Cormier Beach to meet with a group of wholesale travel agents from Germany, Great Britain, Spain and the United States. They were lamenting to the fact that their own governments are putting obstacles in the way of their goal of selling Haiti as a tourist destination by placing the country on the list of the most dangerous places to visit, while the reasons for such a classification are spurious at best, discriminatory at worst.

Haiti, as an emerging democracy, has no political prisoners; its people, with no clannish tradition, refuse to fight amongst themselves, while surviving with resilience in the most difficult economic situation. Compared to other nations in the Caribbean and in Latin America, its crime rate is low, it has none of the at risk indices that plague the nations that comprise the so called pestiferous countries. It includes Afghanistan, Somalia, Iraq, DR Congo, Syria, Libya (I am sure will be off the list soon) and Haiti.

Que vient faire Haïti dans cette galère? It is the French translation of the English language term that cannot be printed in this essay.

When you are included in that league, the insurance companies refuse to provide the umbrella of protection for damages, injury and medical coverage. The travel agents have both hands tied, unable to pour into Haiti the million travelers that cannot wait to visit the last vestiges of pre-industrialization, where the McDonalds and the K-Marts are not king and queen in a bland post modernization culture where Bergen Norway is undistinguished from Bergen New Jersey.

Haiti’s descent into hell started with a quarantine imposed on the young republic in 1806 by the third president of the United States, Thomas Jefferson. In between there was gunboat diplomacy and plenty of ostracism from Europe and from the United States. Closer to us Ronald Reagan, the president of the United States in 1987, told the tourist industry to avoid that country because AIDS is rampant and maybe endemic to the country. Yet AIDS was brought into Haiti by Canadians and Americans who found a fertile niche in the country with young boys with parents too poor to provide them with education and sustenance.

As a plague when it is affixed on your back, the characterization is difficult to be removed, and the governments of the western countries blindly follow the lead of the United States. As a self prophecy Haiti has been sinking since, into the abyss of renegade and predatory governments that were too corrupt to lead the proper fight to facilitate the removal of the country from the list of the most dangerous nations on earth.

Worse, one of its own governments invited the United Nations peacekeeping force to set up shop in the country justifying the alibi that the nation is at war. Yet the only harm endured by any soldier of the United Nations in Haiti is the wearing of military fatigues that multiplies the centigrade temperature on the body by two from the year-round summer temperature.

In the chain of the Caribbean islands, Haiti occupies the pendant with pearls, gold and diamond that made that nation the reservoir of wealth for Europe in general, France in particular for three hundred years. Why was that reservoir tarnished and stopped in the last two hundred years, when nation building took hold under the command of the Haitians?

It is a story of self flagellation of course but it is also a story of discrimination against a nation that for the rest of humanity dared to stop the world order of slavery of man by man.

The last manifestation of that discrimination is in the placing without proper justification of the Republic of Haiti in the list of one of the most dangerous place on earth to visit. I have with the detached professional lens of a foreigner visited the four corners of the country. I have found a nation and a people at peace with itself, labouring every day with meager buying and selling to send the children to school, to eat every day, one day at a time with no protection from and no security in a police presence, yet they are living as though the police presence was everywhere.

While in Cape Haitian, I heard a big commotion in the middle of the night, it was a large crowd yelling, “Baré! Baré!” -- Take hold, take hold! They were in pursuit of a thief, the stronger ones holding the night intruder until the police arrived to take him to jail. Haiti’s cultural background that has its roots in the fear of authority, the Catholic Church and the voodoo syncretism offers a natural barrier against hooliganism, criminality and social disruption.

I am in awe every day at two manifestations that would fray the patience and endurance of any other population. In the midst of the extreme misery of the large part of the people, they do not take up arms against their successive predatory governments and they do not succumb to desperation leading to suicide or pathological behaviours.

Even the earthquake of January 12, 2010, that destroyed life and limb on a large scale did not produce a nation in constant mourning unable to recoup but one that keeps moving forward in the struggle for daily survival. The noblesse oblige attitude sort of national social security net that bonds the poor with the rich that was disrupted under the Lavalas regime is being replaced by an engaging president who believes hospitality for all must be the ultimate goal of its government.

Tourism is to the Caribbean what oil is to the Middle East. Haiti, well positioned in the Caribbean Sea, is unable to reap its share of the green gold bonanza because the Western nations have declared it should not do so!

Aside from good governance, Haiti needs no help or grants from the rest of the world, it needs the lifting of the embargo against tourism in the country. It has a large population (10 million people), a young population, resilient and very creative that needs to be educated and oiled with the rudiments of sophistication.

Bill Clinton, the nemesis of Ronald Reagan, albeit not from the same party, the Cardinal Richelieu of Haiti imposed by the United Nations, has bread on the ground; he must undo the harm done to Haiti by Ronald Reagan! He should start the worldwide campaign against the listing of Haiti as one of the most dangerous place on earth, starting with his own government, the United States of America!

November 7, 2011

caribbeannewsnow

Bahamas Blog International

Caricom division on Palestine in UNESCO

By RICKEY SINGH

Jamaica and T&T among five abstentions in historic vote

LAST Monday when history was created with an overwhelming vote to admit Palestine as a full member of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO), there was division among member states of the Caribbean Community (Caricom) with five — among them Jamaica — abstaining.

Since this was a momentous decision by the General Assembly in the 53-year history of UNESCO -- a virtual household name in all regions of the world, and consistent with the Palestinian Authority's courageous quest to secure statehood status at the UN -- governments of Caricom that opted to abstain perhaps have a moral obligation to explain to their respective jurisdictions why they chose such a political route.

This seems all the more necessary, given the frequently stated commitment of Caricom countries to the Palestinian Authority's Herculean international campaign for statehood status, with sovereign territorial borders alongside Israel.

Having secured overwhelming endorsement at the recent UN General Assembly for its status as a full member — a matter that is expected to come before the UN Security Council later this month, possibly in a week's time — it was logical that the Palestinian Authority would have intensified efforts to gain maximum international support in seeking membership of the 16 UN agencies.

It chose UNESCO as the first hurdle, in the face of aggressive warnings from the Obama administration as well as retaliatory threats from Israel, but went ahead.

More UN agencies

Now, with membership status in UNESCO, and in the face of Washington's likely resort to using its veto weapon in the Security Council to frustrate its strategy to become a full UN member state with voting rights, the Palestinian Authority has already signalled its intention to access membership in all other UN agencies.

These would include specialised agencies such as the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF); the World Health Organisation (WHO); and the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO).

A question of relevance is that, since prior UN membership as a sovereign state was not a requirement to secure admission to UNESCO, why did the five Caricom countries choose to abstain rather than be counted among the affirmative votes?

President Barack Obama's administration and, not surprisingly, the Israeli Government, reacted swiftly in demonstrating their opposition. Washington announced the immediate suspension of its estimated US$60 million annual funding to UNESCO, while Israel lost no time in responding with plans to engage in further illegal construction of "settler homes" in Palestinian territory.

Within 24 hours of the admission of Palestine as a UNESCO member, the Obama administration was again talking about recourse to its veto weapon in the Security Council to block Palestine's statehood membership bid, which was already massively approved by the UN General Assembly.

How they voted

As reported by international news agencies, thunderous applause erupted when it was announced on Monday that of 173 countries that participated in the historic UNESCO decision, 107 voted in favour of Palestine's membership; 14 against and 52 abstained.

Among the Caribbean countries that endorsed the historic decision were Belize, St Vincent and the Grenadines, St Lucia, Grenada, Suriname, Cuba and the Dominican Republic.

The USA had the company of Canada and Panama in voting against, while five Caricom countries — The Bahamas, Barbados, Jamaica, St Kitts and Nevis and Trinidad and Tobago — abstained. Antigua and Barbuda and Guyana were absent.

However, while the USA and Israel are continuing their diplomatic lobbying efforts to frustrate the Security Council vote, Antigua and Barbuda, Belize, Guyana, Suriname, St Vincent and the Grenadines have already officially recognised Palestinian statehood.

Other Western Hemisphere nations that voted in favour of Palestine's membership in UNESCO were Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Peru, Paraguay, Uruguay and Venezuela.

The United States' annual funding of approximately US$60 million, represents about a quarter of UNESCO's annual budget and it would be of much interest to learn that since the nations in the Middle East enthusiastically voted for Palestine's membership in that body, they -- particularly the oil-rich ones -- would now be disposed to help UNESCO in overcoming its coming budget deficit problem.

Funding concerns

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, in expressing his concerns about threatened loss of financial support for UNESCO by retaliatory measures (mostly from USA, but also including voluntary contributions from Canada), said it was the responsibility of all of the UN's 193 member states "to ensure that all the agencies receive political and financial support".

Washington's quick suspension of further financial support for UNESCO is located in a 1990 decision by the US Congress -- that was largely influenced by pro-Israeli representatives -- authorising the State Department to prohibit funding the UN "or any specialised agency thereof, which accords the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) the same standing as a member state".

Further, by 1994, the US Congress voted to ban funding to "any affiliated organisation of the UN which grants full membership as a state to any organisation or group that does not have the internationally recognised attributes of statehood".

Therein lies the hurdle that President Obama needs to overcome to give effect to his own claimed commitment to a two-state solution to the age-old Israel/Palestine conflict. To date, successive Washington administrations have anchored themselves in rationalisations of support for Israel while engaging in promising gestures towards the Palestinian people.

Questions of immediate relevance, therefore, are: First, will the oil-rich Arab states that voted for Palestine's UNESCO membership now step up to the plate to help meet the agency's budget deficit?

Secondly, does any or all of the five Caricom countries that surprisingly chose to abstain from the vote feel any obligation to offer a public explanation, considering, for a start, that even nations deeply beholden to Washington — like Iraq, Afghanistan, Kuwait as well as the "new" post-Gadhafi regime in Libya — voted in favour?

Let's wait and see!!

November 06, 2011

jamaicaobserver

Looking in Greek mirror and seeing Jamaica

jamaica-gleaner editorial

Jamaica, West Indies

Yesterday, Greece's prime minister, George Papandreou, shelved his proposed referendum on the austerity package that is to accompany the European Union's (EU) latest €$100-billion bailout for his debt-riddled country.

According to Mr Papandreou, he did so because the opposition has given its tacit support to the programme. He, therefore, has authority to push through the measures, against which Greeks have, for months, engaged in street protests.

The Greek case, including, if it holds, the opposition's support for reform, has especial relevance to Jamaica - not the least that the economies of both countries are gravely ill and attendance on which has for far too long been tardy. Their survival demands invasive surgery.

A few economic facts about Greece are worth recollecting: for instance, its €350-billion (US$485 billion) debt, which represents around 152 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP). Last year, the Greek government paid out 12 per cent more than all revenue it collected to service its debt.

Borrowing to provide basics

The government, therefore, had to borrow to meet its other expenses, the effect of which is to push up the cost of borrowing - not only to the state, but also the private sector. A consequence of this debt crisis is the collapse of the Greek economy. It declined 15 per cent in three years; unemployment is 16 per cent.

Greece's crisis has been building for years, but the Greeks paid little attention. Luckily for them, the eurozone has a stake in giving Athens a lifeline. But the Greeks still have to take the bitter medicine, including public-sector wage cuts, the lowering of state pensions, lowering the threshold at which workers have to pay income tax, and a rise in the value-added tax, among others.

Peel away Jamaica's façade and it reveals an economic situation similar to Greece's. For instance, our debt-to-GDP ratio of around 130 per cent appears lower, but doesn't capture many off-book obligations. For years, the revenue collected by the Jamaican Government has been insufficient to service its debt. Our Government borrows for basic housekeeping.

Jamaica's politicians sometimes allude to the problem, but not often in tones that invoke the depth of the crisis and the magnitude and toughness of the decisions to be taken. On the hustings, they, essentially, are Greeks bearing gifts.

engage middle class

Now, though, the crisis is upon us and the politicians must not be allowed to distract people with rhetoric and campaign razzmatazz. That, as the country heads into a general election, is the critical responsibility of the thinking middle class, without which either major party, playing to its Pied Piper-led base, can win, but whose support is important for effective government and governance.

While the thinking middle class must insist on having the critical policy issues as a central part of the campaign discourse, it must also demand that implementation start now. It must penalise those who would play fast and loose with the truth and demand a post-election economic agenda from the parties.

It may be that Jamaica's politics is insufficiently mature for a national unity government to manage the onrushing crisis, but the thinking middle class can demand that the parties agree on the framework for enhanced cooperation and consensus, once the people have voted. They should know that if Mr Papandreou falls in Athens, the Greeks are considering a former VP of the European Central Bank, Lucas Papademos, to lead a unity government.

November 4, 2011

jamaica-gleaner editorial

Bahamas Blog International