Google Ads

Saturday, March 31, 2012

The Cuban government, the Roman Catholic Church and the Cuban humanitarian group, the Ladies in White (Las Damas de Blanco), all formidable entities in their own right, found themselves thrust upon the world stage together this week as a result of Pope Benedict XVI’s first trip to Latin America in five years


Pope's Cuban pilgrimage and the suppression of the Ladies in White


by Faizaan Sami, COHA Research Associate



The Cuban government, the Roman Catholic Church and the Cuban humanitarian group, the Ladies in White (Las Damas de Blanco), all formidable entities in their own right, found themselves thrust upon the world stage together this week as a result of Pope Benedict XVI’s first trip to Latin America in five years.

Ahead of the papal three-day visit to Cuba, many of the Ladies in White were held by Cuban officials; a series of detentions that were initially prompted by the occupation of a local church in Cuba by members of the Republican Party of Cuba. The anti-Castro demonstrators were attempting to influence the pope before his impending arrival to directly address the human rights abuses leveled against the Castro regime.

The United States, a long time advocate of the Ladies in White, naturally glommed onto the public protest and, unsurprisingly, Havana was quick to accuse Washington of propping up the “subversive” movement. Tommy Vietor, a spokesman for the National Security Council said the detentions revealed “the disdain of the Cuban authorities” for civilian rights and critiqued “the acts of those who are standing in the way of the basic aspirations of the Cuban people.”

For breaching the strict, state-administered regulations of their weekly protest, the Cuban government has prohibited the Ladies of White from future protests, revoking what was already a narrowed platform to express their views.

In light of their suppression, it was expected that Pope Benedict XVI would emulate his predecessor John Paul II in publicly denouncing the Cuban administration as well as meet with the religious dissidents. However, the pope showed a reluctance to be drawn into alliance with either the Cuban administration or the anti-Castro dissidents, even those that are directly affiliated with the Church, demonstrating the Catholic institution’s principal intent to become reconnected with Cuban society at large and avoid intervention on domestic matters.

Back on October 16, 2011, the Ladies in White marched in somber stride through the streets of Havana, holding white gladiolas just as they had done for eight years after every Sunday mass at the Santa Rita de Casia Catholic Church. However, there was a special significance attached to that day; it was the first silent protest without their founding member, sixty-three year old Laura Pollán, who succumbed to cardiac arrest while under hospital care.

Pollán founded the Ladies in White after her husband, Héctor Maseda, an independent journalist, was arrested during the three day ‘Black Spring’ raid in March 2003, along with 74 other Cuban dissidents. The journalists were accused of “subverting the internal order of the nation” and received sentences ranging from six to twenty-eight years incarceration. Gradually, Pollán mobilized the wives of other dissidents and held routine marches to push for their release, even under conditions of adversity, when pro-government protestors would harangue the group during their marches.

In March 2011, the remaining dissidents were released, largely due to the efforts of the Spanish government and the Catholic Church in reaching an agreement with Raúl Castro for the prisoners to flee into exile; a condition that was not entirely adhered by those that were released. In spite of certain developments, such as the release of those incarcerated during the Black Spring, the subsequent fragmentation of membership resulting from the emigration of reunited families as well as the regrettable death of their leader, the Ladies in White have continued to demonstrate after every Sunday mass.

The impending arrival of his Holiness was viewed as an opportunity for their claims to be finally heard by the leader of the very institution that helped them form an unbreakable solidarity. However, compromised by the government’s authority, the Ladies in White and the Catholic Church were unable to establish a direct connection on this particular trip.

The Prospect of Conciliation Mediated by the Pope Benedict XVI

Received by Raúl Castro at the Santiago airport on March 26, the papal visit to Cuba is meant to commemorate the 400th anniversary of the El Cobre sanctuary of the country’s patroness, our Lady of Cobre, but there were certain other elements that comprised his visit. Of course, the primary agenda was to reach out to the Cuban majority and reinstitute the Catholic faith at a time when the country has been incorporating certain minimalist civil liberties and opportunities to its citizenry. Most of the Cuban faithful fled to the United States after the 1959 Cuban revolution, the vast majority of which now reside in Miami, but an estimated 800 Cuban Americans made the journey to attend the Pope’s mass in Havana.

While the nature of the pope’s visit was claimed to be “pastoral,” in light of the recent demonstrations in Havana, comparisons were inevitably drawn to Pope John Paul II’s visit to Cuba in 1998, which had marked inferences regarding the protection of civil rights and releasing incarcerated dissidents.

Apart from the expected denouncement of the US embargo on Cuba, as previously iterated by Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI was unlikely to be drawn into the current political skirmish. Not only would intervention threaten the Catholic Church’s mending relationship with the Cuban administration and thus its long-term goals in the country, but because it wouldn’t correspond with the Church’s current emphasis on counteracting its dwindling supporter base.

The pope, however, did give a frank assessment of Cuba’s Marxist political and economic framework, claiming it “no longer corresponds to reality.” But far from advocating outright economic liberalization, he also criticized the West’s capitalist model for leaving “humanity devoid of values” and “defenseless” against predatory powers.

The Resurgence of Catholicism in Cuba?

In some ways, there hasn’t been a better time for the Catholic Church to re-establish itself into the social fabric of this Caribbean island state, due in part to the efforts of Cuba’s Cardinal Jaime Ortega, who has been able to position the church increasingly as an intermediary force on the island. Under Ortega, the Church has offered care centers and limited training programs and pushed for church administered education, not to mention it was the Cardinal who helped to negotiate the release of the Black Spring political dissidents.

With various external forces trickling into the socialist state, the combination of light economic and social reforms under Raúl Castro’s government has highlighted a degree of adaptation of the stringent style of governance that his brother practiced. Raúl’s burgeoning relationship with the Cardinal is indicative of the leader’s acknowledgement of the Church as a positive influence in not only uniting the population but also providing them it with a semi-autonomous authority capable of adequately nurturing the population.

As it seeks to gain legitimacy outside of its US-inflicted seclusion, the promotion of religious freedom will deliver the benefit of reinforcing Cuba’s association with that of the Latin American region in which Catholicism plays a prominent role.

On the other hand, with the backing of the Cuban administration, the Catholic Church now has the capacity to influence public discourse in Cuba over the long term, a prospect that would have been vulnerable if it visibly sided with the Ladies in White.

As he stood before several hundred thousand Cubans at the open-air Mass in Havana, Pope Benedict XVI used the opportunity to directly connect with the public, ticking all the right boxes. In his speech, the pope urged for the recalibration of Cuban society characterized by greater civil liberties and material resources for Cubans, going on to denounce the US embargo, all of which reinforced papal indifference to government influence.

Cuba’s Minister of Planning and Economy, Marino Murillo, responded promptly and succinctly, confirming that in Cuba, “there would be no political reform.” The various initiatives of the Church, such as instituting Catholic teaching in schools, gaining access to broadcast networks, declaring Good Friday a public holiday and building new churches have been proposed to the Cuban administration but the general consensus is that the status quo will remain.

However, as marginal reform occurs under Raúl Castro’s administration and as both the president and Cardinal Ortega form a deeper relationship, it is the sense of timing that could ensure that the pope’s visit will act as a catalyst for change in the hearts in minds of the Cuban public.

March 31, 2012

caribbeannewsnow

Friday, March 30, 2012

The Bahamas: Branville McCartney - Democratic National Alliance leader on the spousal rape amendment: "I do not think (spousal rape) should be illegal

BLACKLISTED: BRANVILLE MCCARTNEY


By NOELLE NICOLLS
Tribune Features Editor
nnicolls@tribunemedia.net

Nassau, The Bahamas



WHEN it comes to illegal immigration Branville McCartney, member of parliament for Bamboo Town, time and time again, proves himself to be a master at pandering, but last week he added a new issue to his chest, in a desperate attempt to galvanise some form of base for his fledgling political party, the Democratic National Alliance.

According to Mr McCartney, rape in marriage is "too hard to prove", so the state should not waste its time implementing laws to enfranchise women with authority over their own bodies. "I do not think (spousal rape) should be illegal. I maintain that," said Mr McCartney, DNA leader.

He said so last week, during a taping of the TV programme Citizen's Review, hosted by Erin Ferguson, while fielding questions about the amendment to the Sexual Offences and Domestic Violence Act, proposed by the Free National Movement (FNM) in 2009.

Although Mr McCartney has since tried to back-track on his comments, because of his political miscalculation, sources who attended the event are saying, "not so fast Mr McCartney. You were clear and direct when you articulated your position."

The DNA's new official line is that if elected the choice will be put to the people. Mr McCartney should know by now that not all of us were born yesterday.

His personal views are no trivial matter, not just because he aspires to sit in the ultimate seat of political power, but also because this is a married man with two young daughters. What does it say about a change-agent candidate who cannot even be counted on to vote in the best interest of his own children.

I would love to hear him at bed time say, I love you honey, and just to show you how much, I am supporting a law that says, if your husband forces you to have sex against your will, too bad. It is your duty to please him at his leisure.

"When at the end of the day, you are sleeping in the same bed as your wife or spouse, you become one in that regard, and rape is very difficult to prove, especially as sexual intercourse is a part of marriage," said Mr McCartney.

These unfortunate positions ushered Mr McCartney into the spotlight last week not as the change-agent he would like us to see him, but as the anti-change agent, who seems satisfied with representing the dying bastions of patriarchal power. From a women's rights point of view that makes him public-enemy number one.

I am satisfied that on the issue of spousal rape, time will settle the score, but for now, Mr McCartney, the self anointed voice of anti-progress, will have to face the chorus of outrage from empowered Bahamian women many of whom have now added him to their blacklist.

Before he switched his mouth, I was ready to give Mr McCartney credit for one thing, laying his cards on the table. At the time, I thought it was more than I could say for the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP), who have pretty much sidestepped the issue, hiding behind a calculated political strategy of silent deliberation or sitting on the fence.

To his credit, Alfred Sears, PLP member of parliament for Fort Charlotte, was one of the few vocal PLP supporters of the amendment. He is a survivor of child abuse. Fred Mitchell, member of parliament for Fox Hill also spoke publicly in support of the amendment.

The FNM, although it brought forward the amendment, eventually took their cards off the table, cowering to the misogynist crusade of religious fundamentalists and their bandwagonists.

Sadly, however, Mr McCartney has proved himself as spineless as the rest. And his reward, given that he is on the wrong side of progress for women, is egg in the face.

For Mr McCartney's sake, and the wider Bahamian public, I shall attempt to break down this spousal rape issue into basic common sense.

Rape

The Sexual Offences and Domestic Violence Act defines rape, in its basic form, as the act of any person not under 14 years of age having sexual intercourse with another person who is not his spouse without the consent of that other person.

Where the parties are under the age of 14, the law classifies the act as unlawful sexual intercourse. If both parties are married, the law writes it off as an unfortunate situation, suggesting that the act of rape does not occur because a man is simply exercising his conjugal right, and a woman her conjugal duty.

The Bahamas inherited the spousal rape exception clause directly from antiquated British Common Law. It is just one of several areas in law that discriminate against married Bahamian women, on the basis that men, once upon a time, saw women, including their wives, as only a step above chattel slaves.

It is natural that I, a young, black, woman - the antithesis to the old guard - would stand at odds with that way of thinking, but I dare say that as a society, the majority of us have collectively evolved past that way of thinking. Right?

So I ask the question: Why are we making enemies out of married women? Why is it so difficult for Bahamians to adopt the common sense principle that married women should have equal rights in law to unmarried women, and furthermore that all Bahamian men and women and their children should have equal rights?

Just like opponents of the spousal rape amendment, opponents of the citizenship amendment that would empower all Bahamian women equally with the right to confer citizenship to their children like to obfuscate the issue, using red herrings to overshadow the common sense reality.

Advocates of the spousal rape amendment are not trying to rob any group of their rights or empower women with rights not already afforded to any other group? Advocates are simply saying do not discriminate against married women. The argument stops there and so does the proposed amendment. What is so egregious about that?

Marriage

What kind of institution is marriage to aspire to if Bahamian women are simply opening themselves up to egregious forms of discrimination, wilfully supported by pandering politicians.

The fact that a man and woman become one when they get married, or when they consummate their marriage, is metaphorical, even within the religious context, and even where it is understood that a metaphysical bond is formed.

For the sake of clarity I am going old-school, to the days of Debate Club: The online reference book, Dictionary.com defines metaphorical as "a figure of speech in which a term or phrase is applied to something to which it is not literally applicable in order to suggest a resemblance."

Outside of speaking about the conception of a child, a husband and wife do not literally become one when they get married. It is a metaphor. The "oneness" principle is not even mandated by the marital contract, a legal contract which generally oversees the distribution of marital assets. A man and woman are entitled to joint or separate assets, and in no circumstance is one partner considered the asset of the other.

So despite Mr McCartney's bogus suggestion, or the popular Christian interpretation, a marriage should not rob a wife of her free will, her identity, legal or otherwise, or her body.

The so-called responsibility to engage in sexual intercourse within a marriage should therefore have no bearing on the individuality of either party and their right to express that individuality, even by saying no to sex.

I believe everyone should have the right to conceive of marriage as they wish, even those who believe sexual obligation is central to the principle of becoming one. But shouldn't all right thinking people, even Christians, agree that when this principle is extended to the point of sexual violence, rape, then the law should afford spouses protection and due process.

Religious Values

And on the matter of religious values, the record is public. The following churches supported, and presumably still support, the proposed amendment when it was tabled: The Anglican Diocese, the Catholic Archdiocese, the Bahamas Conference of the Methodist Church, and the Seventh-Day Adventist Church.

The Bahamas Christian Council, surprise, surprise, was the champion of the lone rangers. Even apparent moderates like the respected Dr Myles Munroe raised red herring questions like whether "the long arm of the government" should extend to the "marriage bed."

While advocates of the spousal rape amendment have no qualms with religious values, they are drawn into conflict with religious leaders who use their faith-based pulpit to spread misinformation, over-inflate unfounded concerns, spread alarm and mislead the public. To what end?

At the height of the public discourse, former Christian Council president Rev Patrick Paul said he was concerned about the law opening the door for evil, malignant, spiteful women, and whoremongers to "get back at someone, because of some unfortunate circumstance."

Let me get this straight: Rev Paul conceives of rape as an "unfortunate circumstance" and further believes the constituency of evil, malignant, spiteful women is so substantial that in his righteousness, he must protect the society against their whoremongering ways. If this were not astounding enough, there are Bahamian women who have no objection with this self portrayal. Are we asleep or what?

Bottom line, the last time I checked, for all that we have learned about marriage from the good book, neither God the Father, the Son nor the Holy Spirit, condones a man raping his wife. Show me the justification, and I will eat a healthy serving of humble pie.

Bahamians should be very concerned, because many of these religious figures masquerading out there as leaders have very little knowledge of basic, yet fundamental facts of life, particularly when it comes to women's issues.

Pastor Cedric Moss, for example, of the Kingdom Life Church, said the following, shortly after the amendment was first tabled in 2009: "Any forced sexual acts on wives by husbands in non-estranged marriages should be punishable as some other crime, perhaps indecent assault, and not treated as if it were rape by a stranger."

Someone forgot to tell Pastor Moss that the perception that strangers are by and large responsible for rape is a false perception. Most rapes worldwide are committed by people known to the victims. Therefore, acquaintance rapes, although universally difficult to prove, account for the large majority of rapes.

Some countries in the world recognising that rape laws, with their false underlying assumptions, are insufficient to address this reality, have advanced their legislation to specifically address the challenges of acquaintance rape, thereby providing greater protection for their citizens.

Pastor Moss was also pushing the idea that inside a marriage there is a "contract that implies open-ended sexual consent." Say what? Show me the contract so I know where not to sign.

Common sense

The spousal rape amendment is not setting any new religious precedents, and it is not establishing a new definition of what a marriage is or is not.

The proposed amendment simply seeks to equalize how the definition of rape is applied, acknowledging that where married women suffer this most brutal form of sexual assault, the law should afford them due process.

I have faith that common decency and common sense will prevail in the end, and that on this issue, one day, there will be a government that does the right thing.

In the meantime, will women of the Bahamas, and decent, right-thinking men, for God's sake, please stand up and let their voices be heard.

We should be so solidly galvanised around this issue that green, red or yellow, no government should have a choice but to support this issues.

March 26, 2012


tribune242

Bahamas Blog International




Tuesday, March 27, 2012

The Bahamas: ...The number of reported child sexual abuse cases in 2011 increased by 11 percent over over the previous year

Reported child sex abuse cases rise


By Royston Jones Jr
Guardian Staff Reporter
royston@nasguard.com


Nassau, The Bahamas



The number of reported child sexual abuse cases increased last year by 11 percent over the year before, officials reported yesterday.

One hundred and sixty-seven cases of child sexual abuse were reported in The Bahamas last year, officials said.

One hundred and fifty-one were reported in 2010.

“Sadly the actions of too many do not create safe, happy and healthy environments for our children,” said Alpheus Forbes, deputy permanent secretary in the Ministry of Labour and Social Development.

“We are also aware that [last year’s] figures do not begin to account for cases which go undetected and unreported. Thus, we would like to appeal to anyone who knows or suspects that a child is being abused to report it to the Department of Social Services or the police.”

He added: “Child abuse tears at the very fabric of our community. We can ensure that every child matters by listening to what [they] are saying, recognizing the signs of child abuse and never assuming that someone else will do something about it.”

Officials also revealed that reported cases of child abandonment, emotional and verbal abuse increased in 2011 over 2010.

There were 615 reported cases of child abuse in 2010. The department said 499 were reported in New Providence and 116 in the Family Islands.

Last month, Minister of State for Social Development Loretta Butler-Turner revealed in the House of Assembly that there were 636 reported cases of child abuse last year.

Of that number, 547 cases were reported in New Providence and 89 were reported in the Family Islands, according to Assistance Director in the Ministry of Labour and Social Development Lorraine Duvalier.

In 2011, there were 141 reported cases of physical abuse; 11 reported cases of verbal abuse; 10 reported cases of emotional abuse; 11 reported cases of incest; 254 reported cases of neglect and 10 reported cases of abandonment.

Forbes said some of the figures, especially the increase in sexual abuse cases, were even more disturbing than the overall increase in cases of child abuse in The Bahamas.

“The immediate question is, what are the reasons for this increase?” said Forbes during a press conference at the Department of Rehabilitative and Welfare Services on Thompson Boulevard.

He explained that based on the matters referred to the department, some of the reasons included more occurrences of young Bahamians experimenting sexually; statutory rape and adult gratification and commercial sexual abuse, whereby a parent or guardian accepts money or benefits for the sexual use of a minor or child.

The majority of these types of cases involve young girls, Forbes said.

Child Protection Month will be observed next month under the theme ‘Every Child Matters’.

Mar 27, 2012

thenassauguardian

Monday, March 26, 2012

POPE JOHN PAUL II’S VISIT TO CUBA --- A lesson to the world




By Dalia González del

Gado


AS the Popemobile moved along

Havana’s wide avenues lined with enthusiastic people,

chants of "You can feel it, you can feel it, the

Pope is here with us," and "Juan Pablo, friend, Cuba

is with you," could be heard.











Current Vatican Secretary of State

Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, affirmed in

his book
Un

cuore grande, Omaggio a Giovanni Paolo

II that the Pope confided in him that

possibly no head of state had so

profoundly prepared for the visit of a

Pontiff.



From January 21 through 25, 1998,

Cuba gave the world a lesson, one of many. One did

not have to be religious to feel the intensity of

the encounter between the Cuban people and the

Supreme Pontiff.


Cuba’s enemies wanted to celebrate.

But the idea of an alleged Apocalypse presented by

the foreign media ceded to the image of a people who

listened with affection and respect to his message.

Those five days did not change the history of Cuba,

they enriched it.


Cardinal Roger Eychegaray, then

president of the Justice and Peace Pontifical

Commission, stated in an interview with Granma,

"Rarely has a Papal visit aroused such universal

interest and infused in his diverse interlocutors a

responsibility so great that it commits all of one

and everyone."


Pope John Paul II defined a central

theme in each one of the four masses he gave. In

Santa Clara he dedicated his sermon to the family;

in Camagüey to youth, and in Santiago de Cuba to the

homeland.


In the José Martí Plaza de la

Revolución he devoted his reflections to the role of

laypersons in the Church.




REENCOUNTER WITH FIDEL




They already knew each other. They

had met in the Vatican on November 19, 1996.

Thousands of journalists, camera crews, reporters

for various foreign television and press networks,

transmitted images of a Pope and a Communist leader

which swept aside ill-intentioned commentaries and

their alleged differences with the second shaking of

hands.











Believers and non-believers showed

hospitality and respect toward the Holy

Father during his visit to Cuba.



Fidel Castro received the Pope and

bade him farewell at José Martí International

Airport, and met with him privately in the Palace of

the Revolution. He also accompanied John Paul II in

the encounter with cultural figures and during the

mass in Plaza de la Revolución.


"Fidel was the President who gave

the best attention to Pope John Paul II," Cardinal

Tarcisio Bertone, current Vatican Secretary of State,

affirmed years later in his book Un cuore grande,

Omaggio a Giovanni Paolo II
. "Fidel showed

affection for the Pope, who was already ill, and

John Paul II confided to me that possibly no head of

state had so profoundly prepared for the visit of a

Pontiff (...). Fidel had read the encyclicals and

principal speeches of John Paul II and even some of

his poems."




A LESSON TO THE WORLD




The Supreme Pontiff’s visit to Cuba

took place in the upheavals of the 1990s. The

disappearance of socialism in Eastern Europe and the

USSR had unleashed great euphoria within the U.S.

government and among counterrevolutionary groups in

Miami. It was predicted that the Cuban Revolution

would collapse in a matter of days or weeks. Cuban

exiles began to make political moves to organize a

new government.


They themselves described John Paul

II as a kind of exterminating angel of socialism, as

a man whose visit would be prejudicial to the

national social project.











The people greet His Holiness John


Paul II in Havana’s Plaza de la

Revolución.


(Photo: Ahmed Velásquez)



With his usual clarity of vision,

Fidel had observed that. "I see so many illusions

being created in desperation, that the Pope’s visit

will be somewhat tragic for the Cuban Revolution, a

fiery sword which is going to liquidate socialism

and communism in Cuba (...). They do not know the

Pope, they do not know him (...). They are

underestimating his intelligence, underestimating

his character, underestimating his thinking."


For that reason, as if in response

to those deluding themselves, Fidel stated at the

farewell to the Holy Father, "I think we have given

a good example to the world: you, in visiting what

certain people chose to call the last bastion of

communism; we, in receiving the religious leader to

whom they wanted to attribute the responsibility of

having destroyed socialism in Europe. And there were

those prophesying apocalyptical events. Some even

dreamed of them."


Unfortunately for those dreamers,

Cuba demonstrated to the world that, despite

erroneous interpretations, socialism can be

reconciled with religious faith. Fidel confirmed

that upon receiving the Pope. "There will not be any

country better prepared to understand your

felicitous idea, as we understand it and which is so

similar to what we preach, that equitable

distribution of wealth and solidarity among human

beings and peoples must be globalized."




AGAINST THE BLOCKADE




Fidel recalled the injustices being

committed against the country. "Cuba, your Holiness,

is currently standing up to the strongest power in

history like a new David, a thousand times smaller,

who in the same spirit of biblical times, is

fighting to survive against a gigantic Goliath of

the nuclear age who is trying to prevent our

development by forcing us to surrender through

sickness and hunger. If that story had not been

written then, it would have had to have been written

today. This monstrous crime cannot be ignored or

excuses given for it."


For that reason, it was gratifying

to hear the leader of the Catholic Church condemn

the U.S. blockade of Cuba, describing it as

"restrictive economic measures imposed from outside

of the country, unjust and ethically unacceptable."


At the same time he criticized

neoliberalism, then in its apogee. "Economically

unsustainable programs are being imposed on nations,

as a condition of receiving more aid and the

exaggerated enrichment of a few at the cost of the

impoverishment of many can be confirmed."




MESSAGES OF ENCOURAGEMENT AND

GRATITUDE




"Dear Cubans, upon leaving this

beloved land, I am taking with me a lasting

impression of these days and great confidence in the

future of your homeland," John Paul II affirmed in

his farewell address.


"I have experienced full and moving

events with the people of God, on a pilgrimage

through the beautiful land of Cuba, which has left a

profound impression on me. I will take with me the

memory of the faces of so many people whom I have

met during the last few days. I am grateful for your

cordial hospitality, a genuine expression of the

Cuban soul."


His words were in response to all

the affection shown him by the Cuban population.

Everyone – believers and non-believers – gave the

Pope a massive demonstration of hospitality and

respect.

Havana. March 22, 2012

granma.cu

Sunday, March 25, 2012

Holocaust survivor Rena Finder shares her story of pain and hope in Nazi occupied Poland during World War II with Bahamians

Holocaust survivor shares story of hope with Bahamians


By Travis Cartwright-Carroll

Guardian Staff Reporter

travis@nasguard.com

 

Nassau, The Bahamas

Rena FinderHolocaust survivor Rena Finder shared her powerful story of pain and hope with hundreds of Bahamians on Thursday night.

“Life was hell,” Finder told the crowd.

Finder was speaking of her experiences in Nazi occupied Poland during World War II.  She was only 10 when her hometown of Kracow was invaded.

Finder is one of the last Holocaust survivors who was employed by German industrialist Oskar Schindler.

Schindler saved nearly 1,200 Jews from the clutches of Nazi concentration camps by employing as many Jews as he could in his factory.

His story was turned into a book, “Schindler’s Ark”, and then into a movie in 1993, titled “Schindler’s List”.

Finder spoke after a public screening of “Schindler’s List” at the Sheraton Nassau Beach Resort.

She moved to the Untied States and since the 1970s she has spread her message of hope across the world.

“He treated us like humans,” Finder said.

“It was like being liberated, like being put in the hands of an angel. We knew from the very beginning that Oskar Schindler would take care of us.”

She continued, “Oskar Schindler gave us life, gave me a chance to grow up, to get married to have children, grandchildren and a great-grandchild.”

Finder’s story attracted many Bahamians, including College of The Bahamas (COB) professors Dr. Nicolette Bethel and Jessica Minnis to name a few.

Governor General Sir Arthur Foulkes also gave remarks.

“It is important that we are educated about the Holocaust and that we are never allowed to forget,” he said.

Sir Arthur added that it is important also that humankind never forget all the other atrocities and genocides that have taken place.

Finder said it is important to her and for those who survived the Holocaust how much difference young people can make.

“The worst crime is indifference,” she said. “The worst crime is to be a bystander.”

Sponsors of the event included Aetos Holdings Ltd, Atlantis, Banque Privee Edmond de Rothschild Ltd., Bank of The Bahamas (BOB), Colina Insurance, Diane Phillips and Associates (DP&A) and ICD Utilities.

Mar 24, 2012

thenassauguardian

Bahamas Blog International

Saturday, March 24, 2012

Impending war in the Middle East: ...What attitude will the United States adopt if Tel Aviv bombs Iranian installations and Tehran responds with a heavy counterattack?

 

US-ISRAEL-IRAN

Israel Iran War

Impending war in the Middle East

Juan Diego Nusa Peñalver

THROUGHOUT the history of humanity no war has been so foretold as the military conflict looming in the explosive region of the Middle East in relation to Iran and its controversial civil nuclear program, which the West charges has military ends, without any concrete evidence.


Studies indicate that these would be the three potential routes for an Israeli massive air strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities.


Virtually every day the drums of war are sounded in the region, in the form of harsh economic sanctions against Tehran, excessively bellicose anti-Iranian rhetoric, and covert actions on the part of Western and Israeli special services on the ground. These include selective assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists and sabotage attempts on its industrial infrastructure, as well as sustained military exercises on both sides, all of which is creating a dangerous pre-war atmosphere, a war which, if it should occur, would inexorably have apocalyptic consequences for the world, as the leader of the Cuban Revolution, Fidel Castro, has repeatedly warned.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit to the U.S. capital in early March obliged the U.S. President to give a clearer definition of where the United States draws the so-called red line which the government of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad must not cross. However, its placing is not exactly where Israel wants it, the latter country being in favor of the use of weapons before it is supposedly too late and the Ayatollah’s regime has sufficient enriched uranium to manufacture nuclear weapons, as Zionist leaders would have it believed.


In his meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House, President Barack Obama explicitly discounted U.S. agreement to a contention policy in relation to an Iran with nuclear weapons.

However Obama, concerned about his reelection; hounded by the Republican camp and the powerful Zionist lobby, which are branding him as weak; with a depressed economy and the traumatic imperial adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan still fresh in his memory, is obliged to be more cautious than his uncomfortable Middle Eastern ally and give diplomacy and harsh economic sanctions a certain margin of action.

Experts consider that the decision concerning a 2012 attack has been left in Israeli hands. And that is what Netanyahu came to say in the Oval Office, invoking Israel’s right to security, which Obama acknowledges.

To the surprise of many, the sensation of an imminent attack was reinforced by U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, speaking to a Washington Post journalist. He affirmed that Israel could launch a Spring attack on Iran (in April, May or June), thus triggering all the alarms.

The well-informed Israeli Haaretz newspaper further fuelled the Iranian furnace, stating that Bibi, as the Israeli premier is known to those close to him, had asked Washington to approve the sale of military materials needed to bomb Iran.

The leader of the Likud Party, considered a hawk, a veteran of the 1973 Yom Kipur War and a member of the Sayeret Matkal (Israeli special forces) in his time, asked for the acquisition of advanced in-flight refueling systems for sophisticated Israeli warplanes, and powerful GBU-28 anti-bunker bombs to destroy the principal Iranian nuclear program facilities. These would make it possible for Israel to inflict credible damage, particularly on the Fordow atomic plant, partially constructed within a mountain, close to the holy city of Qom, in which Tehran is manufacturing enriched uranium (to 20%), and the Natanz installation south of the capital, constructed at a depth of eight meters below ground and protected by various layers of cement.

Haaretz, basing its information on the words of an unidentified high-ranking U.S. official, notes that Obama instructed Panetta to work directly on the issue with his Israeli counterpart Ehud Barak, and that he is inclined to give the go-ahead to the petition as quickly as possible.

It is significant that the George W. Bush administration rejected the same request on the basis that Israel would use the material for bombing Iran while, with Obama in the White House, military cooperation between the two allied countries has reached unprecedented levels, as their respective leaders emphasized.

In this context, the Israeli state armaments corporation recently presented new, improved penetration bombs, such as the MPR-500 Multi-Purpose Rigid Bombs, with greater penetration, less fragmentation and compatible with the Boeing JDAM guidance system, as the Israel Military Industry explained in a communiqué.

This weapon is "ideal for hardened targets in densely populated urban areas or close to friendly troops… and is designed to penetrate more than one meter of reinforced cement and perforate floors or walls of 200-milimeter thickness," it notes.

Israel has also continued testing its Jericho-3 missile, with a capacity for nuclear or conventional warheads.

In spite of its military superiority, the magnitude of an air attack such as the one Israel is planning on Iran would exceed its capacities and obligatorily require U.S. military support, given that the announced operation is nothing like the selective strike by Israeli aircraft on the Iraqi Osiraq nuclear plant in 1981 and the Syrian atomic site of Al-Kibar, in the Dayr az-Zawr region in 2007.

In another twist of the screw, Obama and British Prime Minister David Cameron, meeting in Washington, recommended the Iranian government to take advantage of the opportunity offered it by the major powers to negotiate its nuclear program because, as the U.S. President has warned, the margin of time for resolving the situation via the diplomatic route is diminishing.

IRAN ALSO PREPARING

Given the presence in the Persian Gulf of formidable air and sea squadrons of the U.S. and its Western allies, which includes a number of yankee aircraft carriers, plus overt Israeli test flights, Iran has warned of a preventive attack on its part if it perceives itself in imminent danger. Deputy Commander Mohammad Hejazi of the Iranian Armed Forces told the national Fars agency that if national interests are endangered, the country "will act without waiting for an enemy action."

This logic includes an Iranian navy blockade of the vital Strait of Hormuz which, with its habitual arrogance, the United States has defined as the "red line" which Tehran must not cross at the risk of exposing itself to a devastating strike.

According to data from the U.S. Department of Energy, 15.5 to 16 millions barrels of oil a day pass through this maritime corridor, approximately 40% of the world’s maritime transportation of crude oil.

The resulting blow to the ailing Western economy during a time of various crises would be serious. Oil prices have already spiraled to more than $120 a barrel, virtually restrictive for any nation.

Moreover, the Islamic Republic’s ground, air and sea forces, on alert, are undertaking frequent maneuvers, while its military commands are announcing a number of advances in the country’s armaments and military technology.

Within this context is the creation of the Central Cyberspace Council, aimed at controlling this material, on the basis of a decree signed in early March by the supreme leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Jamenei, according to the Iranian Mehr agency.

In the same context, General Gholam Reza Jalali, director of the Iranian Passive Defense Organization, said that Tehran is to create a cybernetic army to counteract potential threats from the U.S. and other countries, in particular to its nuclear installations.

Jalali announced the installation of a cyber-commando to combat possible pirate attacks on the country’s networks, with the mission of "guarding, identifying and counterattacking in the eventof informatics threats to national infrastructure."

In the last two years, the dangerous Stuxnet and Duqu viruses were introduced into Iranian computers, an action which points to Tel Aviv and Washington, which would mean a first-time escalation to cyberspace war. Iran confirms that it was able to neutralize the two attacks using national software.

Experts also took note of the results of the trilateral summit between Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iran mid-February in Islamabad, the Pakistani capital. In the final press conference with the Afghani and Iranian leaders, President Asif Ali Zardari openly affirmed that his country would not provide any support to U.S. forces if that country were to attack Iran, which is a significant setback for the White House. Washington’s relations with Islamabad and Kabul have been undermined by mistrust.

This was an important goal for Tehran which, in an open conflict with the Israeli regime could count on military backing from the Lebanese Hezbollah organization and the Palestinian movements of Hamas and the Islamic Jihad. Given Washington’s strong commitment to Israel’s security over the past 60 years, the key question analysts are posing is: What attitude will the United States adopt if Tel Aviv bombs Iranian installations and Tehran responds with a heavy counterattack? The cards are on the table.

Havana.  March 22, 2012

Granma.cu

Tehran's quest to expand its diplomatic frontiers in Latin America

by Lemi Tilahun, COHA Research Associate:





While the West continues to read Iran as a threat to world peace, the Middle Eastern nation aggressively seeks non-traditional friends and markets elsewhere in an often stress-driven attempt to prove that the country is not as isolated, feared and despised as many in Europe and the United States make it out to be. To fight the sanctions that have been imposed on them from the outside, its leaders furiously attempt to enter into new allegiances as an imperative to boost the Iranian economy and support the ruling government’s self-interest. Once labeled as a charter member of the ‘Axis of Evil’, Iran has recognized the survival strategy of forging new partnerships while retaining old ones.



In 2009, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad visited Brazil, becoming the first Iranian head of state to visit it since the early 1960s. Iran’s involvement in Latin America is, without a doubt, widening and deepening. Many in the West, especially the United States see this as a security threat in their own backyard.



Since President Ahmadinejad came into power seven years ago, Iran has built six new embassies in Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Nicaragua, and Uruguay. The emergence of these embassies shows the strength of Iran’s enhanced influence in the region. Prior to 2005, Iran had five embassies operating in Latin America; and in a span of seven years, they have managed to double that number.



Is Iran’s involvement in Latin America strategic, or is it simply a publicity stunt meant to prove Tehran’s diplomatic prowess or the new economy? The answer to this question is bound to vary, depending on the ideological orientation of the respondents. Venezuelan political power brokers would likely disagree with the notion that Iranian diplomacy in Latin America is mainly more than just a publicity stunt, citing that Iran and Venezuela’s important partnership as founding members of Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). On the other hand however, the American perspective believes Iran’s actions appear to be a destabilizing threat to Washington’s diplomatic overtures in the US sphere of influence.



Venezuela and Iran have developed a unique friendship mainly based on mutual distrust towards the US embodied in Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s similar views on perceived abominating Western imperialism. The same is true for the Castro government in Cuba, which has welcomed, Ahmadinejad with open arms. Many argue that Iran’s involvement in the area is mainly political and lacks economic viability. However, one can easily recognize the benefits of a Tehran-friendly South America that refuses to comply with international economic sanctions imposed against Iran. Likewise, Iran’s burgeoning economic involvement in the region could potentially divert Latin American bound trade away from the US, which currently serves as the largest, or near largest trading partner for the vast majority of these countries.



On the political side of this discussion, Iran’s saber rattling rhetoric has been met with suspicion and skepticism in various parts of the world community. By targeting long-term alliances in Latin America, Iran is hedging its vulnerability to further isolation and global mistrust regarding its supposedly peaceful nuclear program. Tehran is not about to supersede Washington’s predominance in Latin America, but by encouraging anti-American sentiments amongst its newfound friends, Iran presumptively poses an irritating and complex foreign policy problem for the United States that by no means is readily solvable.



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, visitwww.coha.org or email coha@coha.org

March 24, 2012

caribbeannewsnow

Bahamas Blog International