Haitian President Michel Martelly's visit to The Bahamas turns political in a general election climate

Haitian president's visit turns political

tribune242 editorial

Nassau, The Bahamas




JUDGING from the squeals in the political arena since the two-day visit of Haitian President Michel Martelly, it would seem that many guilty consciences have been exposed.

In speaking with his people -- some born in the Bahamas with the legal right to be here-- President Martelly advised those registered to vote to organise themselves and "identify in this upcoming election with who is on their side".

In plain, simple English (and Mr Martelly speaks good English) they were told -- vote your conscience. No one heard him say vote FNM, PLP or DNA. The decision of each of them will be subjective, as it is with all voters. Each one will have had a different experience with the various governments -- and like each and every Bahamian, they too will have to decide which government is capable of doing the best, not only for them, but for the Bahamas - their country.

But now the political hoodwinkers are about their dirty work of confusion. The rumour, fanned by various members of the opposition, claim that President Martelly encouraged Haitians to vote FNM. If that is so, maybe some of them had better go back to kindergarten to learn to speak English. Many Bahamians complain that Haitians will eventually take over the Bahamas. If this is the level of Bahamian politicians' understanding of their own language, then maybe Haitians will one day takeover the country.

Mr Martelly did not instruct anyone on how to vote. He arrived in Nassau on Wednesday to have discussions with Bahamian officials and the Haitian community on how to develop trade opportunities and improve conditions for Haitians legally in the Bahamas. "I promised them to work for them to better their possibilities to remain in Haiti so I had a very open discussion with officials as to how can we protect those who at least have the legal papers."

President Martelly said he was "committed to working with the Bahamian government to find responsible and humane solutions to reports of mistreatment of legal residents and persons born in the Bahamas of Haitian descent." However, he said, his ultimate focus was to try to create jobs that would keep Haitians at home and stop the illegal flow to the Bahamas. He was also here to encourage investment in Haiti - "we want trade, we need to create jobs, as we create jobs, companies make money, they pay their taxes and Haiti prospers".

He also hoped to resume talks regarding the export of agricultural produce from Haiti. Apparently, Mr Martelly's predecessor was already negotiating with the Bahamas government for the importation of Haitian mangoes -- talks that ended with the 2010 earthquake that crushed Haiti. Mr Martelly was resuming those talks.

Bran McCartney, DNA leader, formerly Minister of State for Immigration in the FNM government, found that for Mr Martelly to "insinuate that Bahamians of Haitian descent are being abused is misleading".

Come now, Mr McCartney, you know that this statement is not misleading. Even today there are certain officials, in uniform, who will shake down a Haitian for his money. And what about the legal Haitians in Eleuthera -- many in their nightclothes - who were roused from their beds by the police and herded to a fast ferry bound for Nassau. Of the 193 persons arrested and sent to the Detention Centre, 170 had to be released because they were legal residents. True, in 2006, this was not on Mr McCartney's watch, but still, under then Immigration Minister Shane Gibson (PLP), it was unfair harassment, and a legitimate subject for discussion by Haiti's visiting president.

Mr Martelly talked of the children born here who have to wait until they are 18 to apply for citizenship - in the meantime they "don't belong anywhere". He said that if these persons are sent back to Haiti they would know nobody, and would not even recognise the place where they had landed.

We also know that this is true. We have had personal experience with such a situation. It was the case of a young girl, who if it had not been for her name, could pass as Bahamian. Both parents, had legal standing in the Bahamas. She arrived here a babe in arms. One day, she was picked up working as a shop girl -- her employers probably did not suspect she was Haitian. She was taken to the Detention Centre. The next day, she was to be flown to Haiti, where she had no family, friends, or even acquaintances. A top girl in one of the government schools, even her teachers went to bat for her. Eventually, we got her out. But how many more have there been like her who have had no one to turn to for help.

We understand that one of the issues that hastened Mr McCartney's departure from his post as FNM Minister of State for Immigration was his harsh position on the Haitian question. His policies were out of step with that of his party. Hence a parting of the ways, and the eventual establishment of the DNA party.

And, of course, we needn't remind anyone of the harsh treatment of Haitians under the PLP administration, particularly under former immigration minister Loftus Roker when Haitians were hunted from the bush with dogs, while their unattended homes were raided by thieving Bahamians.

Yes, Mr McCartney, Mr Martelly had a lot to talk about. It is now up to the Bahamians of Haitian descent and Haitians with the right to vote to decide which party has the more humane approach to their unfortunate situation.

But to say that Mr Martelly's presence was a "political ploy by the FNM to manipulate the (electoral) process" and the President's comments - at this politically sensitive time - were a "direct attack on Bahamian democracy" is just so much political chicanery.

February 10, 2012

tribune242 editorial

Bahamas Blog International

Haitian President Michel Martelly’s encouragement to Haitian-Bahamians to vote in a bloc for the party that best serves their interests in the upcoming general election in The Bahamas has sparked outrage among Bahamians

Outrage at Haitian leader’s remarks

By Taneka Thompson
Guardian Senior Reporter
taneka@nasguard.com

Nassau, The Bahamas

Haitian President Michel Martelly’s encouragement to Haitian-Bahamians to vote in a bloc for the party that best serves their interests sparked outrage yesterday from political observers, who called the comments ‘insulting’ interference in the country’s political system.

Some members of the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP), the Free National Movement (FNM) and the Democratic National Alliance (DNA) said Martelly’s comments were inappropriate.   Some observers also said they were ill-timed, considering the fact that the next election is so close.

It was also suggested by some yesterday that newly-regularized Bahamians might heed Martelly’s advice and be inclined to vote for the FNM.

“I thought it was an insult to the Bahamian people that a foreigner would come here and instruct Bahamian citizens to vote one way or the other,” said PLP Chairman Bradley Roberts.

Roberts, who was briefly a former immigration minister in the Christie administration, pointed out that only Bahamian citizens can vote in elections.  He said they should therefore vote for the party that best serves the country, not a particular sect or group.

His sentiments in this regard were echoed by Fox Hill MP Fred Mitchell and former PLP MP and senator Philip Galanis.

“People vote for their best interests, they don’t in my view vote as a bloc.   Every Bahamian who is voting will vote for the party that is in the best interest of The Bahamas,” said Mitchell.

He said, however, that the PLP was assured by the Haitian Embassy that the comments were not meant to be inflammatory.

However, Galanis said Haitian-Bahamians who were eligible for citizenship and regularized by the government over the past five years may see Martelly’s words as an endorsement of the FNM.

“It was totally inappropriate for him to make those statements in the run-up to the next election because there were so many persons who just received citizenship by the FNM, and they may take that as [a cue to say] that’s who they should vote for,” said Galanis.

The government granted citizenship to nearly 2,600 people in the four-and-a-half years it has been in power, Deputy Prime Minister Brent Symonette revealed earlier this week, but he did not indicate how many were of Haitian descent.

Yesterday, the Democratic National Alliance said Martelly’s comments were not suitable considering the heightened political season.

DNA Leader Branville McCartney said the president’s remarks were a “direct attack on Bahamian democracy and all Bahamians — those of foreign descent or otherwise — who uphold the ideals of the nation and their right to vote for whichever political party they see fit”.

“Haiti’s president should respect the sovereignty of our democracy,” McCartney added in a statement yesterday.

FNM Chairman Carl Bethel, who did not speak for the party but gave his personal views, said Martelly’s political statements shocked him.

“Non-Bahamians cannot dictate what goes on in The Bahamas, whether they visit or live here,” said Bethel, who stressed that this comment did not refer to President Martelly.

He also shot down speculation that Martelly’s visit was orchestrated by the FNM to gain votes from the Haitian-Bahamian community.

“The FNM is a Bahamian party whose first interest is the interest of The Bahamas,” he said.

During his brief visit to The Bahamas, President Martelly urged Haitian-Bahamians with the right to vote to support the party that could serve and protect their interests.

He made the statements during a meeting with Haitians and people of Haitian descent at Church of God on Joe Farrington Road on Tuesday night, and repeated them on Wednesday.

Last year, PLP Leader Perry Christie said successive governments have been hesitant to take a strong stance against the illegal Haitian immigrant problem because they fear a voting bloc of Haitian-Bahamians.

“Once governments become frightened of the numbers of Haitians who have become Bahamians and who can vote... they have become an important voting bloc.  So somewhere along the line the purity of the commitment to protect The Bahamas and its territorial waters is sort of merged to the fear of doing things that might cause you to lose an election,” Christie said.

"...We allowed ourselves to be influenced too much by their presence as opposed to using our own commitment to convince and satisfy them that they are Bahamians, accepted as Bahamians, and that the programs that we are offering them to close down illegal immigrants coming into our country are programs as much in their favor as in any other Bahamian's favor.”

Feb 10, 2012

thenassauguardian

The fringe political party Democratic National Alliance (DNA) is gravely concerned that the governing Free National Movement (FNM) would allow a presidential visit from Haiti's president, Michel Martelly during a heightened political season ...where general election is on the horizon in The Bahamas

DNA Concerned over Haiti President's Visit

by The Official Democratic National Alliance

The Democratic National Alliance (DNA) is gravely concerned that the present administration would allow a presidential visit from a foreign country during a heightened political season.

While the DNA believes that Haiti president, Michel Martelly should be welcomed to The Bahamas and it offers an opportunity to strengthen international relations, this was too sensitive of a time to do so.

As to President Martelly’s comments, the DNA find them to be inappropriate, not only because of the political season, but it also seemed to be a shameful political ploy by the Free National Movement to manipulate the process.

DNA leader, Branville McCartney said this unfortunate political tactic is a direct attack on Bahamian democracy, the victims being all Bahamians—those of foreign decent or otherwise, who uphold the ideals of the nation and their right to vote for whichever political party they see fit.

“As the DNA recognizes, moreso now after this disturbing visit, that the country’s leadership is in dire need of reform; we also recognize that Haiti’s president should respect the sovereignty of our democracy,” Mr. McCartney said.

The DNA found President Martelly’s careless use of the word “riot” as inflammatory and to insinuate that Bahamians of Haitian decent are being abused is misleading.

Mr. McCartney noted that The Bahamas has always been accommodating to our Haitian neighbours, so when he speaks of forming a pact, he should have been mindful that all voters are Bahamian. In other words, if one is eligible to vote, their vote should reflect Bahamian interests and not that of another country.

“Haiti’s president has a mammoth task of redeveloping his country and that does not begin in The Bahamas,” he said.

9 February 2012

Jamaica: Michael Manley, Garveyism and Matalon

Manley, Garveyism and Matalon

By MICHAEL BURKE

Forty-three years ago today Michael Manley was elected president of the People's National Party. Twenty-three years ago today, the PNP returned to power and Michael Manley once again got a chance to be prime minister. In this 50th anniversary jubilee of our political Independence, perhaps the man with the greatest impact over the last 50 years was Michael Manley. Whether he was the most effective prime minister or he did the most for Jamaica, was the greatest negotiator or was the worst thing to ever happen to Jamaica are all debatable topics. But not even Michael Manley's detractors can successfully challenge the impact that he had.

I call myself a Norman Manleyist, in that I recognise Norman Manley (Michael Manley's father) as the person as "the man with the plan". Indeed, Michael Manley, for the most part implemented his father's ideas. While I am not in favour of Michael Manley being made a national hero unless another 50 years have passed when there can be a proper evaluation of both the way he lived his life and contributed to the growth of Jamaica, it has nothing to do with the massive impact that he had on Jamaica, the Caribbean and the World.

In 1969 when he was Opposition leader, Michael Manley visited Ethiopia and returned to Jamaica with a rod purportedly from Emperor Haile Selassie. That fact alone inspired Rastafarians to participate in the Jamaican democratic process from which they had hitherto stayed aloof as they awaited a return passage to our African motherland.

From the 1960s there were Rastafarians and Pan Africanists campaigning for Garveyism to be taught in schools. During the Social Services debate in 1992, then education Minister Burchell Whiteman announced that as of September that year, Garveyism would be taught in schools. I had advocated the teaching of Garveyism in my columns in the now defunct Jamaica Record, so I celebrated. But it was not to be.

The teachers said that they were not trained to teach Garveyism and that there was no Marcus Garvey textbook. To my mind, their stance was nothing but delaying tactics and I wrote as much. Now we hear that as of September Garveyism is to be taught in schools and a textbook has been provided. Is this another announcement which will be followed by delaying tactics for another 20 years? If it is not, then it will be ironic that it took a white man (education minister, Deacon Ronnie Thwaites) to implement the teaching of Garveyism in schools.

Children who were born out of wedlock could not inherit property until Michael Manley piloted the act to abolish the illegitimacy law in 1975, so that "no bastard no deh again". There was no minimum wage in Jamaica before 1975, some 84 years after Pope Leo XIII encouraged it in his encyclical Rerum Novarum in 1891. There was the adjustment of the land tax law in such a way that the rich paid more land tax. The establishment of the National Housing Trust so that ordinary people could access housing has done a lot to empower the poor. This was done under Michael Manley's watch in the 1970s.

And this brings me to the subject of the late Mayer Matalon, former chairman of West Indies Home Contractors who recently passed away. By the way, Mayer Matalon was chairman of the Jamaica College board of directors (1967-71) while at the same time his brother, Eli Matalon, was chairman of the Kingston College board of directors. Had it not been for the Matalons, who invested heavily in housing, we would have serious housing problems today.

As an aside, no one might know that housing in Jamaica also contributed to the ecumenical movement, where churches of different denominations come together for prayer and action. The Church of Reconciliation in Bridgeport, Portmore, St Catherine, was opened in September 1977. It is a church that is jointly used by the Roman Catholic and Anglican churches.

For its 20th anniversary in 1997, I was asked to prepare a history of the Church of Reconciliation. I approached the late Archbishop Samuel Carter (already retired from 1995), and asked him whose idea it was to have the joint church: was it his, or was it Bishop Herbert Edmondson's, then the Anglican Lord Bishop of Jamaica. "Neither," Archbishop Carter answered. "So whose idea was it then?" I asked. After a pause, the archbishop said "Matalon". However, he did not say which of the Matalon brothers.

Yes, it took a Matalon (who is of Jewish religion) who evidently wanted more space to build more houses to earn more money, when the Roman Catholic and Anglican churches applied for land within the Bridgeport Housing Scheme to build churches, to say, "Why don't you two bishops just build one church?" The truth is stranger than fiction.

I am not aware of any move by the powers that be to include in our celebrations a way of teaching our young people about the achievements of the last 50 years so that they understand that we truly have something to celebrate this year.

ekrubm765@yahoo.com


February 09, 2012

jamaicaobserver

Britain and Bolivarian Alternative for Latin America and the Caribbean (ALBA): Another Falklands War?

Britain and ALBA: Another Falklands War?

By Rebecca Theodore


Lights! Camera! Action! Yes! A new light is shining on the oil-bearing geological formations in the Falkland Islands’ waters. Light is immediately understood as ‘the true source of all things and the base on which the physicality of the material world is built.’

However, the new light that is shining on British energy companies Rockhopper Exploration, Falkland Oil & Gas, Borders & Southern, Argos Resources and Arcadia et al, flickers rising tension between Britain and Argentina. It is not the light that saturates the living radiance of nature. It is the light of war.

It is a different light that illumines borders and margins when three decades ago, then British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher dispatched the first warships to the Falklands after Argentina’s ruling military government invasion. Argentina surrendered to Britain, but the importance of the Falklands to both Britain and Argentina now echo heated discussions because of the discovery of ‘black gold’ in the surrounding waters.

The Falkland Islands are a British overseas territory in the south-west Atlantic Ocean, where fishing and sheep farming are the main economic activities. Isolated and meagerly populated, it is the subject of a sovereignty dispute between Britain and Argentina. Despite being soundly beaten in 1982 by the British, Argentina maintains that the Falklands and the surrounding waters are theirs, even including them in the Argentine constitution.

The episode seems strange for the Falkland islanders themselves, who have freely chosen, through self-determination, to be an overseas territory of the UK and not a colony of Argentina. With British exploration set to begin in full swing, environmentalists also worry of the challenge it poses to the Falkland Islands government to protect the eco-system since the islands are a breeding ground for millions of penguins.

Now that the Falkland Islands are said to have one of the world's largest reserves of oil, mainly in the north, south and east basin and with British geological surveys estimating the oil at about 60 billion barrels; oil, money and drama not only excite the appetites of the British but that of a leading multitude as well.

Argentine President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner’s aggressive speech style has invoked the power of the Peróns on the issue, created a rift in Argentinian politics, and continues to fuel the patriotic ambitions of her people to reclaim the island archipelago. The EU, Venezuela's Hugo Chávez, Brazil, Nicaragua's Daniel Ortega and the rest of Latin America have all been seemingly supportive in the duel as well.

With Chavez loudly proclaiming that ‘the time for empire is over,’ he demands the UK hand back the Falklands to Buenos Aires, and condemns Britain for flouting international law by permitting drilling in the surrounding waters.

While Argentina simmers with anger at the possibility of the Falklands becoming an energy source for Britain, on the other side of the dubious coin, an attack by Argentina on the Falklands, would also be considered an attack on the EU, because Britain is part of the EU. This means that France and Germany would have to support a British effort to defend the Falklands in the event of war because Europeans would not accept to lose the Falklands and the oil to the Argentinians.

In fact, as proponents lament, the islands may eventually fall, either directly or indirectly, under the influence of Europe, especially if they emerge as a source for energy. This move would completely erode the monopoly of OPEC (The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries) in determining the price and the growing demand for oil and instill optimism in traders buying shares in Rockhopper Exploration.

Despite Britain’s close coalition with the US, the Obama Administration is determined not to be drawn into the conflict. It has also declined to back Britain’s claim that oil exploration near the islands is sanctioned by international law, saying that the dispute is strictly a bilateral issue choosing instead to back Argentina’s calls for negotiation at the United Nations.

The cause of the commotion is not the islands themselves, but the oil reserves within the Falklands’ territorial waters. This makes the islands a very big deal because whoever owns them would own one of the world’s largest oil reserves. With the rise in oil prices and the worldwide search for new oil and gas services, it has now become more than commercially viable for drilling to begin.

Britain’s large-scale drilling of oil in the Falklands, and its establishment of a military fortress in the south Atlantic provokes a dramatic response from Argentina. Argentina on the other hand, is flying the Argentine flag over Government House in the Falkland Islands' capital, Port Stanley, claiming territorial stake to the islands, which it calls the Malvinas, because it inherited them from the Spanish crown in the early 1800s.

Whether the light shines as a unifying cause in South America, or fans the flames of war into a major political conflict between Britain and Argentina, the outcome is well worth watching. In the meantime, the action for the British is: “Drill, baby, drill.”

February 7, 2012

caribbeannewsnow

Europe’s problems are now America’s headache... ...So as Washington scrambles to cope with the economic consequences of the euro zone crisis, it must also reassess how much it will be able to depend on Europe as a strategic partner in the future

Why the Euro Crisis Matters

By Bruce Stokes



The euro zone crisis is not simply an economic issue.   It is a political problem, one that poses a grave challenge to the foreign policy and security interests of the United States.   And its fallout could affect U.S. strategic interests for years to come.

The trans-Atlantic alliance, long the cornerstone of America’s engagement with the world, was already eroding before Europe’s sovereign debt problems came into view, thanks to the alliance’s lack of a clear future mission and the lure of Asia.   As the continent’s economic problems accelerate, they accentuate the alliance’s underlying problems, complicating Washington’s ability to deal with its myriad foreign challenges.

Sovereign debt defaults by one or more euro zone countries and the subsequent potential breakup of the euro zone could well lead to stagnant economic growth, debilitating introspection and self-preoccupation in Europe.

“A Europe that is not united,” warns Simon Serfaty, a scholar at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C., “is, by definition, less strong. And a Europe that is less strong will become increasingly less vital to the United States in the 2010s, when American power will need to rely on allies that are not only willing, but capable.”

The U.S.-European partnership and U.S. foreign policy have weathered potentially debilitating challenges in the past, to be sure: France’s withdrawal from NATO in 1966, the Vietnam War of the late 1960s and early 1970s, the basing of American intermediate-range nuclear missiles in the early 1980s, the wars in the Balkans in the 1990s and, most recently, the Iraq War.

Thanks to U.S. strategic leadership, the trans-Atlantic alliance remains solid, suggesting America can weather this storm, too.   But past performance is no guarantee of future results.   And it would be shortsighted to underestimate the challenges that lie ahead.

The Inconceivable Becomes Possible

The possibility that the euro zone could ever break up was once considered inconceivable, for several reasons. First, the economic cost of such an unraveling was just too high.   Moreover, the treaty creating the euro made no provision for a nation leaving.   Finally, the political commitment of the continent’s leaders to the project was so strong that it was widely assumed they would never let the euro fail.

But as the crisis has metastasized, the inconceivable has become possible.   Last November, a credit rating firm, Moody’s, told its clients: “The probability of multiple defaults by euro area countries is no longer negligible.   A series of defaults would also significantly increase the likelihood of one or more members not simply defaulting, but also leaving the euro area.”

This is true even though it has become increasingly clear that if any nation leaves the euro zone, it will probably have to leave the European Union, as well.   In the wake of a default on its government debt and the effective devaluation that would accompany a reversion to its former currency, bank deposits, people without jobs and goods would all flee.

In turn, other European governments would likely feel the need to limit those flows to protect their own economies.   This would effectively terminate a country’s participation in the European Union.

A Lost Decade?

A splintering Europe would be disastrous for the continent’s economy as a whole.   The euro zone, which the European Commission thought would grow by 1.8 percent in 2012, is now expected to increase by no more than 0.5 per cent.

Individual nations could fare even worse: growth for Italy is forecast at just 0.1 per cent, while Portugal’s economy should shrink by 3 percent and Greece’s by 2.8 percent.   And even these estimates may prove optimistic.

Accordingly, Europe risks a “lost decade,” not unlike that experienced by Japan in the 1990s — but with far graver consequences for the rest of the world.   After all, Tokyo had a deep pool of national savings to draw on. Europe does not.   The most immediate strategic problem for the United States created by the euro crisis will be the erosion of Europe’s capacity to share the burden of paying for global public goods. Debt-strapped countries are already tightening their belts, with even greater austerity in their futures. Flatlining growth will also mean decreased revenues, compounding their budgetary woes.

The Impact on Defense

The first casualty of the crisis is likely to be military spending.  In 2010, the United States devoted 4.8 percent of its GDP to defense, while the United Kingdom spent 2.7 percent and Germany just 1.3 percent.   So a burden-sharing gap already exists — and is growing.

“In Europe, defense spending has dropped almost 2 percent annually for a decade,” noted U.S. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, in a speech in Brussels in early October.   And since the financial crisis began in 2008, European nations have cut military spending by an amount equivalent to the entire annual defense budget of Germany.

This translates into real reductions in military capacity. Over the next several years, the United Kingdom plans to curtail defense spending in real terms by 7.5 percent by phasing out its troop deployment in Germany, scrapping the Nimrod reconnaissance aircraft, mothballing one planned aircraft carrier and leaving the other carrier with no planes to land on it for several years.

For its part, Berlin had already announced plans to trim €8.4 billion from its €31.5 billion annual defense budget.  It also plans to suspend conscription, reducing armed forces personnel from 250,000 to 185,000.   The Luftwaffe will curtail its planned acquisition of Eurofighters and reduce its contingent of Tornado aircraft, and the air force’s fleet of military transport aircraft will be cut back.

All of these measures will reduce Germany’s airlift potential and expeditionary capability.  And since all of these cuts had already been announced before the euro crisis hit with full force, more reductions in defense spending can be expected.

The cost of shortchanging defense was already evident during the Libyan conflict, in which Britain and France would not have been able to carry out their successful mission without U.S. munitions.   Factoring in America’s own budgetary constraints, with the Pentagon facing tens FOCUS The U.S.-European partnership has weathered potentially debilitating challenges in the past.   But future success can’t be taken for granted. 25 of billions of dollars in mandated spending cuts, longstanding American resentment about Europe’s lack of defense burden-sharing is only likely to grow, poisoning future trans-Atlantic military collaboration.

... And on Climate Change Cooperation

European nations are on track to meet their share of the $30 billion goal, but that assessment is based solely on 2010 outlays.   Europe will need to pony up equal amounts in 2011 and 2012, and more in later years.   If the continent’s economy does not grow, cash-strapped governments may find it difficult to meet that commitment. And with America also facing budgetary and political constraints on such outlays, the West has little hope of leading the international effort to stop global warmEurope’s budget woes are also likely to weaken its commitments to help curb global warming. In December 2009, at the Copenhagen climate change summit, rich nations promised to give poor countries $30 billion in “new and additional” resources by 2012 to cope with climate change.   That sum would be a down payment on a pledge to provide $100 billion annually in climate finance by 2020.

A Less Attractive Role Model?

More broadly, the euro crisis is undermining Europe’s pivotal position as a democratic, free-market role model for its immediate neighbors.

“The idea of the E.U. and the euro was that affluence would be created and shared,” notes Charles Kupchan, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. “Now, that is fading.  Instead of delivering affluence, the E.U. now delivers austerity and pain.”

Nowhere is this more evident than in Greece. One of the main reasons Athens was admitted to the European Union in 1981 was to cement democratic governance in the land where democracy itself first blossomed — but which was ruled by a military dictatorship from 1967 to 1974.

“For the Greeks,” says Serfaty, “getting into the E.U. was a way to end political instability and an undemocratic threat that defined Greece in the past.   Being forced out of Europe would resurrect those things. Moreover, it would define an easy way out for other states with potential populist leadership.”

If the technocratic government installed in Athens last November fails, the temptation will be for the Greek electorate to turn to populist politicians who promise less pain.  A country where the standard of living declines sharply could also face a growing public backlash in the form of rising nationalism.  History teaches that an effective way to distract a disgruntled electorate is to foment external threats.   A Greek politician intent on doing so would have ample opportunities to fan latent anti-Turkey sentiment in Cyprus or in the Aegean.

At the same time, association with the European economy is likely to look less and less attractive to Turkey.  Already, fewer than half of Turks (48 percent) think joining the European Union would be a good thing for their country, according to the German Marshall Fund’s 2011 Transatlantic Trends survey. And given Europe’s current troubles, such support is likely to shrink over time.  In addition, a Turkey that no longer aspires to join the European Union and whose behavior is no longer constrained by the need to meet conditions for admission could well become a more unpredictable, unhelpful free agent in the Middle East.

As the E.U. looks less successful economically and less politically functional, it will also hold less appeal for the former nations of the Soviet Union, which are likely to slip further back into Moscow’s orbit.  For that matter, the idea of a united Europe has less allure for the Russians themselves.  “Russian liberals used to present the European project as a model for Russia,” notes Dimitri Simes, president of the Center for the National Interest. “Now they cannot say this with a straight face.”

With the future of North Africa up for grabs and the Balkans still unsettled, the last thing Washington should want is for the European Union to become a centrifugal rather than a centripetal force in its own corner of the world.

Compounding the problem, European weakness and self-preoccupation could dash all American hopes for trans-Atlantic cooperation in dealing with the China challenge.

An Opening for China

Beijing is already flexing its muscles in the South China Sea and the Indian Ocean, and extending its influence in Pakistan, Africa and Latin America. In addition, its brand of state capitalism looks more attractive to many governments around the world than the form being practiced in Europe or even in the United States.

Hard-pressed to counter this influence on its own, Washington could find itself without an effective European partner.   Already, European governments hoping to sell Beijing their sovereign debt have come under pressure to back off anti-dumping cases aimed at Chinese firms.   If Beijing ever contributes to a euro bailout fund, as some in Europe hope, the foreign policy price for its cooperation could be steep.   “The downside risk,” said Kupchan, “is that the U.S. will find itself navigating a new East Asia map very much on its own.

Left without an effective strategic partner, America’s drift toward an Asia-centric foreign policy will only accelerate.   Already, a majority of Americans (51 percent), including seven in 10 Americans born after the end of the Vietnam War, thinks Asia is more important than Europe to U.S. national interests, according to the German Marshall Fund survey.   And as Europe appears more and more dysfunctional, that sentiment is only likely to grow — a development that is in neither America’s nor Europe’s interest.e in Europe hope, the foreign policy price for its cooperation could be steep.   “The downside risk,” said Kupchan, “is that the U.S. will find itself navigating a new East Asia map very much on its own.”

For all these reasons, Europe’s problems are now America’s headache, too. So as Washington scrambles to cope with the economic consequences of the euro zone crisis, it must also reassess how much it will be able to depend on Europe as a strategic partner in the future.

Bruce Stokes is a senior transatlantic fellow at the German Marshall Fund in Washington, DC.

February 01, 2012

gmfus

Amnesty International slams Haitian judiciary for dropping Duvalier case

Amnesty slams Haitian judiciary for dropping Duvalier case


LONDON, England -- Haiti’s judicial authorities have dealt yet another blow to the victims of former leader Jean-Claude Duvalier, Amnesty International said this week after the criminal case against the former “president-for-life” for grave human rights violations was dropped.

An investigating judge in Port-au-Prince on Monday announced that Jean-Claude “Baby Doc” Duvalier will not stand trial for alleged crimes against humanity – including torture, disappearances and extrajudicial executions – but only for embezzlement of public funds committed during his rule between 1971 and 1986. The text of the judge’s decision has not been made public.

Duvalier has been under investigation in Haiti since he returned from exile in France in January 2011, after a group of victims filed complaints accusing him of crimes against humanity as well as corruption and theft.

The victims can appeal the judge’s decision and Amnesty International has vowed to continue supporting their search for justice.

“The conclusion of the sham investigation into Duvalier is a disgrace and will further entrench impunity in Haiti. No serious effort was made to determine the truth despite the multiple complaints and abundant evidence about the crimes committed and the victims,” said Javier Zúñiga, special adviser at Amnesty International, who researched the crimes of Jean-Claude Duvalier in the 1980s.

“The handful of victims that have been interviewed had been subjected to intimidation by Duvalier supporters and his lawyers. It is clear that the investigating judge left out invaluable evidence and decided not to interview all the victims that filed complaints. This is a dark day for Haiti and for justice.

“Duvalier benefited from a safe haven in France for 25 years until he returned to Haiti, where the authorities have failed to hold him to account for the crimes under international law perpetrated by his subordinates while he was in power.”

In January 2011, Amnesty International submitted extensive documentation on the grave human rights violations committed under Duvalier, none of which was considered by the magistrate.

Under international law, torture, enforced disappearances, extrajudicial executions and arbitrary arrests are considered crimes against humanity when committed as part of a systematic or widespread attack against the civilian population.

No statute of limitations may apply to crimes against humanity and the alleged perpetrators cannot benefit from amnesties, even in the case of former heads of state.

Amnesty International has expressed concern that the current Haitian government lacks the will to bring Duvalier to justice.

“Recent public statements from President Martelly hinted at pardoning Duvalier. This could amount to unacceptable pressure and interference with the investigation. Inviting Jean-Claude Duvalier to take part in public official ceremonies clearly showed that the government wanted to rehabilitate Duvalier instead of holding him to account,” said Zúñiga.

“Haiti has failed to live up to its international obligations to investigate all allegations of crimes against humanity and bring their perpetrators to justice. Victims have been awaiting justice for more than 25 years, and today’s decision is a major setback to them and all Haitians. But this is not the end of the road – we will continue to support the victims at the appeal stage and in international instances if necessary.”

February 2, 2012

caribbeannewsnow

Bahamas Blog International