Google Ads
Thursday, April 26, 2012
Bahamas: ...Support conch salad for Bahamians first - and end conch exports!
Tribune242
Nassau, The Bahamas
FIVE centuries ago, the Amerindian inhabitants of the Bahamas lived in a completely different world from the one we know today.
Early European explorers described flocks of parrots "darkening the sky", dense hardwood forests, and sea turtles so numerous they kept sailors awake by constantly knocking against ship hulls.
Seals and iguanas crowded the shorelines; whales were a common sight offshore; and lobster, conch and fish were abundant. Evidence for this are the large mounds of discarded conch and other shells and fish bones that are a ubiquitous feature of Lucayan archaeological sites.
And since slow-moving conch once abounded in shallow water, they became a staple food for the European settlers - giving rise to their nickname, "conchs", which persists to this day in the Florida Keys. In the Bahamas, the sobriquet has mutated into "conchy joe" - meaning a white or mixed-race Bahamian.
When South Florida was an impenetrable wilderness, Bahamian "conchs" looked upon the Florida Keys as northern out islands. In fact, Key West is famously known today as the conch republic, and early American dictionaries define conchs as "illiterate settlers of the Florida Keys" - meaning Bahamians, both black and white.
But today, the delectable queen conch - the one we all love to eat - is in serious trouble throughout the region. And that Bahamian delicacy, conch salad, is in danger of becoming a thing of the past.
Florida's conch fishery collapsed decades ago, and conch harvesting was banned throughout the continental United States in 1986.
With growing evidence that conch populations were collapsing in other territories, international export permits were required for all queen conch trade in 1992. Conch exports from the Dominican Republic, Haiti and Honduras (which used to supply the bulk of US demand) have now been suspended.
So most of the 1,000-plus metric tons of conch consumed by Americans each year is imported from a handful of countries like the Turks & Caicos, Belize and the Bahamas, where conch populations have been in somewhat better shape. But new research shows that the Bahamian conch fishery is also in danger of collapse.
A key point to consider is that conchs don't reproduce when populations fall below a certain density. That's because - like groupers - they gather in large spawning aggregations to breed. Within a few days, the eggs hatch into larvae that can float more than 100 miles from their point of origin. And after a few weeks the larvae settle on the seafloor to become juvenile conch - miniature versions of the adult mollusks we are all familiar with.
These juveniles bury themselves on the sea bottom to escape predators, spending more time on the surface as they grow, eating algae and detritus in the sand. They take several years to mature and can live as long as 20 years. But as we all know, they are ill-prepared to deal with human fishing pressure.
Scientists used to say that, throughout the region, only the offshore Pedro Bank in Jamaica and the Exuma Cays Land and Sea Park have average densities of conch greater than the threshold needed for reproduction (about 50 adults per hectare). But new research says that even in the Exuma park (which has been a no-take zone since 1986), conch densities have dropped 35 per cent over the last 17 years, suggesting that the population is no longer self-sustaining.
This research was conducted by Martha Davis, Catherine Booker and Dr Allan Stoner, a top scientist with the US National Marine Fisheries Service who led a multidisciplinary group studying conch ecology and conservation in the Exumas during the late 1980s. Davis and Booker are both environmental scientists who have spent a lot of time in the Bahamas and are collaborating with Stoner on the latest research.
It was Davis who founded the non-profit research group called Community Conch, which has conducted three surveys in the Bahamas since 2009, with support from the government and local conservation groups. The mission of Community Conch is to support sustainable conch populations in the Bahamas through research, education and collaboration with local communities.
Booker is Community Conch's field representative based in George Town, Exuma. And tonight, she will be discussing the organization's latest research at an open public meeting in the Bahamas National Trust headquarters on Village Road, starting at 7pm.
"So far, every place we've studied in the Bahamas - Andros, the Berry Islands, and the Exuma Cays - we've seen evidence that conch stocks are declining, and in some cases severely declining," Booker told me.
"The Bahamas is now experiencing what other countries in the Caribbean have been struggling with for decades."
Community Conch has prepared a technical brief on its research, and the Department of Marine Resources is considering new policies to better manage the Bahamian conch fishery. The brief is based on data collected 17 and 20 years ago by Dr Stoner, plus comparative data collected in the last three years by Community Conch under Dr Stoner's direction.
Researchers observed no mating at all with a density of less than 47 adult conch per hectare in the protected waters of the Exuma park, or at two traditional fishing grounds in the Berry Islands and off Andros. Logistic modeling suggests a 90 per cent probability of mating occurring at 100 adults per hectare in the un-fished area, but mating frequencies increased more slowly with density on the fishing grounds.
"Mating frequencies were 6.3 per cent in the Berry Islands and just 2.3 per cent at Andros," the researchers said. "In contrast to the marine reserve, 90 per cent probability of mating required 350 to 570 adults per hectare at Andros and the Berry Islands respectively."
So having more conch in the future is based on our ability to maintain sufficient population densities in the present. And this is further complicated by the fact that the animals are slow to mature, meaning they are often harvested before they have a chance to reproduce.
According to Catherine Booker, Community Conch recently studied the relationship between the age of a conch and its stage of reproductive maturity. "What we found, and what other scientists have found throughout the Caribbean, is that the queen conch needs to be older than we thought before it is capable of reproducing.
"We estimate age by looking at the thickness of the flared lip of the conch shell, and it turns out the lip actually needs to be about 15mm thick before a conch is sexually mature. Based on our work and others, female conch are probably not mature until they are at least five or six years old. Males mature a bit younger."
But the most important factor affecting conch stocks is fishing pressure. Improved diving gear, the use of freezer storage, and habitat degradation from development all add to the dramatic decline of the fishery throughout the region. This means that getting reliable data is key, so that marine resource managers can know what they are dealing with.
In the Berry Islands, for example, Community Conch found that juvenile populations in important nursery grounds that were studied in the 1980s had declined a thousand times to only a few hundred individuals by 2009. And of the eight historical fishing grounds surveyed off Andros in 2010, only one had adult densities allowing minimal reproduction.
Last year, Community Conch surveyed sites in the Exuma Cays that had been previously studied by Dr Stoner and others. They found that the overall density of adult conch had declined substantially over the past two decades, and the population had aged significantly.
"These results are expected when the adult population is not being exploited but where recruitment has slowed," Community Conch said. "We conclude that the park is not large enough to hold a self-sustaining population... a single marine reserve such as the ECLSP cannot protect a species with pelagic larvae when the population outside the reserve is heavily exploited. Rather, a network of marine reserves is needed to provide a chain of reproductive sources."
From this research, the scientists conclude that conch densities in commercially fished areas of the Bahamas are decreasing to levels that will not sustain the population. Fishing grounds in the Berry Islands, Andros and Lee Stocking Island in the Exumas all show evidence of collapsing populations.
And although the Exuma park protects existing conch, there is not sufficient recruitment from outside the protected area to maintain conch populations within the park, and further decline is expected if there is no change in fishery management policies.
"Queen conch populations are rapidly declining below critical thresholds for reproduction and they are being harvested before sexual maturity," Community Conch said. "Experience in Florida and other Caribbean nations show that recovery of conch populations is very slow after populations fall below those thresholds. Releases of hatchery-reared conch have not been successful in rebuilding stock, and natural populations need to be conserved."
According to Booker, "the reality is that it is much easier to make management changes now before it is too late. The current regulation of requiring a flared lip combined with minimal enforcement has produced the current situation.
"We like to say, if you can break the lip, that's an immature conch, so don't take it. The need to set priorities and implement a conch recovery plan is critical and urgent."
New management policies recommended by the scientists include an expansion of marine reserves to include appropriate conch habitat; banning the use of hookahs to harvest conch; establishing a lip thickness criterion of 15 mm; setting quotas for conch landings; and implementing a closed season on conch between July and September.
One key recommendation is to end conch exports. The United States now is the largest consumer of imported conch, buying more than 80 per cent of the conch available for international trade. And conch has been legally exported from the Bahamas since 1992 - almost 600,000 pounds last year alone. This only increases the fishing pressure on conch stocks.
"Closing off legal exports would reduce the pressure on local conch populations," Department of Marine Resources Director Michael Braynen told me recently. "Conch exports are still allowed because fishermen say they 'need' the income, after the local demand for conch has been met."
But it makes little sense to allow the export of hundreds of thousands of pounds of conch meat every year, while watching the decline of this key Bahamian fishery.
Over the years, conch fisheries have been closed in Cuba, Florida, Bermuda, the Dutch Antilles, Colombia, Mexico, the Virgin Islands and Venezuela.
Do we really want to see the end of this cultural catch in the Bahamas? Support conch salad for Bahamians first - and end conch exports!
■What do you think? Send comments to larry@tribunemedia.net or visit http://www.bahamapundit.com/ .
April 25, 2012
tribune242
.
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
Reflections of the 2007 general election in The Bahamas
Remembering the close 2007 general election in The Bahamas
Nassau, The Bahamas
Many have forgotten just how close the 2007 general election was. Some have held on to misconceptions about that race for five years. We recently witnessed a young Bahamian, who is keenly interested in politics, argue that the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) won the popular vote in 2007, but lost the seat count. That is incorrect.
The Free National Movement (FNM) defeated the PLP by 3,976 votes in 2007. The FNM won 23 seats and the PLP 18. In New Providence, the two parties fought to a virtual tie. The FNM beat the PLP in our main island by only 1,624 votes. In the Family Islands the FNM won by 2,352 votes.
The FNM did not win a majority of votes in that election. The FNM ended up with 49.8 percent of the votes counted; the PLP with 46.96 percent of the vote. Of the 41 seats contested in 2007, 10 constituencies were decided by 100 votes or less.
This race was quite a fight. The people did not overwhelmingly want one party over the next. It was our closest election in the popular vote since the dead heat of 1967 when the PLP secured 18,895 votes and the United Bahamian Party (UBP) 18,824 votes – a margin in favor of the PLP by only 71 votes.
For the PLP this election is a defining moment. The party has lost three out of the last four elections. It has been descended from the mountaintop of Bahamian politics where it was once perched during the golden years of Sir Lynden Pindling. A fourth loss in five years would indicate a fundamental disconnect between the post-Pindling leaders of the PLP and the electorate, especially when that electorate has the choice on the other side of Hubert Ingraham.
No one energizes the PLP base more than Ingraham, a man some opposition supporters call every unholy name in the book. However, in a direct election when it was only Ingraham and a PLP leader battling against each other, the PLP has never defeated him in a general election.
This election is a final test of post-Pindling PLPism versus the Ingraham brand (Ingraham has said he is not running again). The FNM leader has made the declaration that it is ‘me or them’; ‘me or Christie’.
The PLP must not underestimate Ingraham. His brash unapologetic style evolved from the rugged circumstances many Bahamians come and came from. He has been shaped and defined by his transition from childhood poverty to wealth and power.
In a traditional election, under the circumstances that currently exist in The Bahamas, a major crime problem, a high unemployment rate and a roadwork project that has become a fiasco of sorts, the opposition should be up significantly. However, many feel the mood remains similar to that of 2007. The divide between Ingraham and the post-Pindling PLP is close.
If Ingraham wins again in this environment he will not only be the man who won non-consecutive back-to-back victories, he would also be the man who deposed the entire post-Pindling ruling class of the PLP. The then opposition, having lost four of five elections, would then know that what it is, who it is, is not what the people want as compared to Pindling’s great pupil.
Much is on the line on May 7. Legacy is at stake.
Apr 24, 2012
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
What did CARICOM get from Canada?
The greatest foreign affairs prank by the Caribbean Community, CARICOM on Canada
By Ian Francis:
CARICOM Press Communiqué 98/2012 of April 16, 2012 under the caption “CARICOM lobbies Canada for G20 help” has caught my interest and curiosity, which warrants a Caribbean News Now Article on this critical issue.
It is important to state that my curiosity meant reading over the press communiqué several times in order to avoid criticisms from my analysis and response. Therefore, it is incumbent upon my part to address the content of the release in a chronological manner.
Paragraph one of the release highlighted that a meeting was held between the heads of government of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) and the Right Honourable Stephen Harper, prime minister of Canada. At the meeting, CARICOM heads requested Canada to continue the lobby to the G20 nations to focus on the plight of small vulnerable economies and highly indebted middle income countries. Harper nodded and maybe there is a reason why he opted for a non-verbal response.
Paragraph two lamented that it was the second meeting with a G20 nation, citing Mexico as the previous one. Again, there are no indicators as to how Mexico responded. Given the fact of increased drug trafficking, crime and lawlessness, human rights violation and recent natural disasters, one wonders if Mexico is seen as a reliable partner within the G20 community. Given this situation, it will be interesting to see future political development in Mexico and its relations with CARICOM states.
Paragraph three highlighted four topics that apparently consumed Prime Minister Harper’s time. These were 1) economic issues; 2) the ongoing negotiations for a trade and development agreement between the two sides, which it is believed is the CARIBCAN trade agreement; 3) security cooperation; and 4) an acknowledgement of the special relationship between Canada and CARICOM, which has existed for almost a century and described the relationship as “dynamic and evolving based on mutual respect and shared interests, from which the respective nations have benefitted.”
Paragraph four is very interesting as CARICOM states expressed appreciation to Canada for its assistance in advocating CARICOM’s views in a global forum such as the G20. Canada was asked to continue its advocacy role with even greater urgency, taking into consideration the seemingly endless global economic and financial woes that continue to wreak havoc on the small, vulnerable economies in the Community.
Paragraph five outlined an information sharing mechanism aimed at increasing Prime Minister Harper’s awareness about some of CARICOM initiatives. The prime minister was advised of CARICOM’s efforts to use its collective strengths to combat the challenges and secure the future through diverse measures. They emphasized the CARICOM Single Market and Economy (CSME) although they were not able to indicate its current status; establishment of CARICOM enterprises, which fell short of details even when the prime minister sought information about future participation by Canadian entrepreneurs; and, of course, they took the opportunity to express appreciation for the support provided to the CARICOM Secretariat through the CARICOM Trade and Competitive Project, which will likely integrate Haiti into the CSME.
Post Summit Perspective on the Canada-Caribbean Meeting:
The communiqué’s synopsis gives a clear indication about the Caribbean Community and Canada meeting. Once again, Canada should be commended for affording the opportunity to meet with a group of leaders who three months ago was unable to show guts by telling Venezuela and their misguided Latin nation allies that Canada should be invited to attend CELAC meeting in Caracas. They went along and joined the Latin pariah states in excluding Canada. In my view, Canada will always remain a friend of the Caribbean Community irrespective of their transience when El Presidente speaks.
The meeting with Canada demonstrated the show of regional collectivity, cooperation and leadership given by the CARICOM Secretariat. However, those who attended should understand that, although Prime Minister Harper was impressed by the show of solidarity, his briefing books and three ring binders would have indicated a totally different situation. So, Caribbean Community leaders, do not be fooled. The same applies to Mexico and the United States.
The Caribbean Community leaders who participated in the meeting need to clearly understand Canada’s role in the Caribbean. Traditionally, in the conduct of its foreign relations, Canada has always recognized the region as two distinct vantage points. Canada has traditionally maintained strong bilateral and multilateral cooperation with Barbados, Jamaica, Trinidad, Belize and the Republic of Guyana. They have established diplomatic missions in each of these nations as well as strong cooperation agreements ranging from military to education.
What was previously known as the Windward and Leeward grouping, which is now the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS), Canada has opted to allow its High Commission in Barbados to handle OECS Affairs. There, OECS states must understand that, although Canada recognizes and understands the plight of the OECS, there are indeed preferential treatments to the five nations mentioned above. Unfortunately, OECS leaders have not spent the time to re-orient Canada’s strategy in the region. A clear indicator of OECS deficiencies is accepting the suggestions of a soon to be retired Canadian diplomatic official to close the OECS diplomatic mission in Ottawa as a cost containment effort. To many diplomatic observers, it is an extremely dumb move to close a vehicle that provided an OECS diplomatic presence in Ottawa. The decision to close the OECS diplomatic mission in Ottawa was ill-fated and many leaders are now privately expressing regrets at the decision made in St Vincent.
The Caribbean Community’s desire to see Canada continue lobby efforts with G20 countries is laughable and could be considered the greatest foreign affairs prank by the Caribbean Community on Canada. Why is it laughable? Many of the G20 nations have bilateral diplomatic relations with most of the independent nations that constitute the community. While the exchange of diplomatic personnel might be at a non-resident level, the mere fact that all community members have flourishing and active diplomatic missions at the United Nations and in Washington should provide them the opportunity to access G20 nations to discuss economic and vulnerability issues on a bilateral level rather than begging Canada to ensure that the regional economic plight is mentioned in the final communiqué of G20 meetings.
Three other issues caught my attention. These are: 1) Canada’s significant multilateral assistance to the CARICOM Secretariat to implement the Caribbean Single Market and Economy (CSME) program, and the inability of the Community leaders to give an accurate progress report on the status of the CSME to Harper; 2) Canada’s false belief that OECS nations’ economic problems can only be effectively resolved by plowing more multilateral assistance within the CARICOM Secretariat, knowing full well that such assistance is not impacting on daily conditions faced by the poor and disadvantaged; and 3) the OECS Caribbean Community leaders shortsightedness, and lack of an economic development bilateral strategy for presentation to Canada.
To conclude, I will not add any further comments about the revised CARIBCAN trade agreement. However, I am curious about what OECS nations will sell and market in Canada, as the Caribbean rum environment in Canada is very competitive.
So, personnel in OECS foreign ministries need to become more visionary and place less emphasis on the next foreign posting.
April 23, 2012
caribbeannewsnow
Monday, April 23, 2012
A modern Bahamas must adopt modern ways of conducting its affairs... and if we are to contemplate a reform of our tax structure... we ought to look at all forms of taxation ...and select the most efficient and the most appropriate for the benefit of all Bahamians
Pursuing tax reform
Nassau, The Bahamas
Given the fiscal performance of the economy over the past few years and especially in the midst of the global recession, it has become increasingly clear that the days of relying on customs duties for the majority of the government’s revenue are rapidly coming to an end.
The arguments against, and the analyses of, the current tax regime are as numerous as they are compelling.
The more often repeated reasons are that customs duty as a major source of government revenue has outlived its usefulness because the system is extremely insensitive to changing circumstances in the economy; it is unintentionally unfair and regressive in its impact, particularly on low-income households, and at best it distorts the orderly and efficient working of a market economy.
To which we can add: In the context of the predominantly retail and wholesale services sector of the Bahamian economy, it ties up too much of the cash flow in advance of the first sale or turnover of the imported goods.
Some have argued, rather convincingly, that consideration ought to be given to introducing a more progressive tax regime, such as the value added tax (VAT), a tax regime that is used in more than 170 countries and that is generally considered less onerous on low-income households and small businesses.
Since the tax is levied on both goods and services, it is believed that the government’s overall take could increase without having to increase the tax rate.
Indeed, there may be scope for reduction in tax rates and fees in some specific categories.
In a country such as The Bahamas, that has historically boasted of its distaste for imposing direct taxes on income, the VAT has a certain amount of appeal in the sense that it has the potential to increase the tax yield to government without having to concede its historical adherence to no tax on income.
Given the developments over the past few years with the removal of the veil of secrecy and confidentiality as regards to bank accounts in The Bahamas, and more recently the almost 30 tax information exchange agreements (TIEAs) signed by the government and other foreign jurisdictions, perhaps the time has come to re-examine tax reform in The Bahamas beyond the consideration of a VAT.
Consideration could be given to a broad-based or selective income tax regime which would permit the country to enter into double taxation agreements, and by so doing obtain tax income from foreign companies operating in The Bahamas without increasing the overall tax burden to those companies since — because of the double taxation treaty — the existing tax would be shared between our Public Treasury and that of the company’s home country.
Such a move could also provide added protection against the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s constant threats to destabilize the so-called “tax haven” countries.
A modern Bahamas must adopt modern ways of conducting its affairs, and if we are to contemplate a reform of our tax structure, we ought to look at all forms of taxation and select the most efficient and the most appropriate for the benefit of all Bahamians.
Apr 23, 2012
Sunday, April 22, 2012
Bahamas Petroleum Company (BPC) stock has lost a fourth of its market value on the heels of a declaration from Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham that his government would not allow BPC to drill for oil in Bahamian waters
Oil company’s stocks plummet
Drop in market value follows PM’s comments
By Candia Dames
Guardian News Editor
candia@nasguard.com
Nassau, The Bahamas
Bahamas Petroleum Company (BPC) stock has lost a fourth of its market value on the heels of a declaration from Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham that his government would not allow BPC to drill for oil.
The company recently said it would seek to renew its licenses with The Bahamas government.
BPC wants government approval to drill an oil well in Bahamian waters by April 2013.
In 2005, BPC began its negotiations with the Christie administration for its various permits and licenses to look for oil in the country’s territorial waters.
Since then, the company has only done 2D and 3D underwater seismic testing to figure out the best areas to drill for oil and get a better handle on the country’s oil potential.
The Nassau Guardian asked the prime minister on Wednesday whether his administration would allow oil drilling in Bahamian waters, and he responded ‘no’.
Ingraham also said, “We are undertaking studies and after that we will see, but we don’t have any plans to drill for oil in The Bahamas.”
He also said certain senior members of the Opposition Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) have direct links to BPC.
“They (BPC) are very much tied to Perry Christie and those,” Ingraham said.
“In fact, I think he may be a consultant for them. He is certainly involved with them.”
Ingraham also suggested that attorney Sean McWeeney, a former PLP attorney general, is also tied to BPC.
On its website, under company advisors, BPC lists the law firm Davis & Co., run by PLP Deputy Leader Philip Brave Davis, as part of its Bahamian legal team.
McWeeney’s law firm Graham Thompson & Co. is listed as the second firm representing BPC in The Bahamas. McWeeney is a partner in the firm.
On Thursday, Christie told The Nassau Guardian he is a legal consultant for Davis & Co., the law firm which represents Bahamas Petroleum Company.
Christie confirmed that the company benefits from the advice he provides to BPC’s legal team.
Christie said the working relationship with Davis & Co., the law firm owned by Brave Davis, began after his party lost the 2007 general election.
Christie would not say definitively if his administration would allow any company to drill for oil if the PLP wins the election. He said that decision would depend on environmental studies presented to government on the issue.
While in opposition, the PLP has been relatively quiet on the issue of oil drilling in The Bahamas.
Former Minister of Trade and Industry Leslie Miller, however, recently accused the current administration of failing to keep the Bahamian people properly informed on the matter.
Apr 21, 2012
Friday, April 20, 2012
US facing bold new calls for 'drug war' alternatives
Research Associate at the Council On Hemispheric Affairs.
At a poorly attended summit of Central American leaders, the host President Otto Perez Molina of Guatemala reiterated calls for the decriminalization of recreational drug use. Although some regional former heads of state have called for such a solution, President Molina became the first sitting head of state to openly advocate for such a controversial stance when speaking at the Central American Security Summit in Antigua, Guatemala.
Billed initially as a groundbreaking summit during which “alternative solutions” to the War on Drugs were to be discussed, the conference’s emphasis on how to manage the War on Drugs, as well as talk of decriminalization, were sidelined before the conference even began.
After accepting invitations to the conference, three heads of state, representing fully half of the countries in the region, pulled out of the conference on short notice. This was likely the result of pressure from Washington, which has long opposed legalization, and the reluctance of the Organization of American States, the (OAS) to face up to the issue of drug trafficking and related violence.
President Molina declared that the War on Drugs had failed, asserting that it was time to reconsider drug policy in the region. The summit, he hoped, would put an end to the stigma surrounding the discussion of decriminalization as a serious policy alternative to outright prohibition. He added that the conflicts surrounding their countries have cost Central American countries hundreds of millions of dollars annually and tens of thousands of lives.
Referring to the current policy, Molina opined “We have seen that the strategies that have been pursued against drug trafficking over the last 40 years have failed.” He added that there was a need to “look for new alternatives” and “end the myths, the taboos, and tell people we need to discuss this.”
Also in attendance was Laura Chinchilla, President of Costa Rica, who decried the cost in terms if human lives, asking rhetorically, “How much have we paid here in Central America in deaths, kidnapping, and extortion?”
The summit came in the wake of US Vice President Joe Biden’s trip to the region in early March, wherein he restated the United States’ opposition to the decriminalization of drugs in Latin America, and attempted to muster support for a renewed push in the US-led War on Drugs. Speaking in Mexico City, Vice President Biden told reporters that, while the discussion on decriminalization was a “legitimate” one, the dangers of legalization outweighed any benefits.
Biden’s visit came shortly after the OAS warned against the crippling social and economic effects that Central American and Mexican drug cartels are having on the region. In remarks to the OAS-sponsored Conference on Transnational Organized Crime in Mexico City, OAS Secretary for Multidimensional Security, Adam Blackwell said that the state of transnational crime in the region not only threatens to undermine institutional security and stability, but also poses a systemic threat to democracy.
In his further comments at the conference, Secretary Blackwell admitted that there had been an increase in the regions drug-related violence, but stressed the importance of remaining steadfast in the ongoing fight against the criminal organizations behind it. He stated, “I urge you to direct our efforts to the development and strengthening of our institutional capacities, through knowledge-sharing, the exchange of information and experiences, and wherever possible, joint action.
This increased pressure on area countries from the OAS and the US, as demonstrated by Mr Blackwell and Vice President Biden respectively, to stick to the script in regards to the war on drugs, is symbolic of how oblivious the hand-me-down US policy regarding her neighbours in the western hemisphere is to changing realities on not just the war on drugs, but on seemingly unrelated issues such as the US embargo against Cuba.
The calls by Presidents Perez Molina of Guatemala and Chinchilla of Costa Rica, while by no means unequivocal, signify a shift of tectonic proportions when it comes to dealing with the drug gangs that have terrorized the Central American countries from their bases in Mexico.
It remains to be seen, however, just how unyielding such calls for legalization will be in the face of strident US opposition. Already, President Molina has suggested alternatives to decriminalization. He proposed a tax levied on the US for all drugs seized in Central American countries because the US is the largest consumer of these drugs. He also proposed that Central American governments set up a court with regional jurisdiction that deals with transnational similar to the approach of the UN’s International Criminal Court.
Overall, two factors remain to be weighed. First, will the United States encourage some of the new alternative solutions presented by President Perez Molina? But even more important to the verifiably bona fide post-colonial sovereignty of these countries is whether or not those Latin American states ultimately do genuinely favor decriminalization and whether or not their leaders were bold enough to raise the issue at the Summit of the Americas this April, at which the United States was represented by its Diplomat-in-Chief, President Obama and not Joe Biden as was the case in early March.
Whatever be the case, it is time to stop throwing away the baby with the bathwater and to put heads together in order to put a halt to the menace that has plagued, and continues to undermine the fundamental and systemic national security of the entire Central American region. The time has come for the United States to allow the region to start seriously looking at less costly policy alternatives to the war on drugs, in order to remove this deepening stain on the conscience in order to move the society that we live in from one that we have cause to be ashamed of living in to one that future generations can be proud to be a part of.
The Council on Hemispheric Affairs, founded in 1975, is an independent, non-profit, non-partisan, tax-exempt research and information organization. It has been described on the Senate floor as being "one of the nation's most respected bodies of scholars and policy makers." For more information, visit: http://www.coha.org/ or email coha@coha.org
April 19, 2012
caribbeannewsnow
Thursday, April 19, 2012
Bahamas Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham ...says that there would be no oil drilling in Bahamian waters if his party - the Free National Movement (FNM) is re-elected to office
The Bahamas PM: FNM government won’t drill for oil
By Taneka Thompson
Guardian Senior Reporter
taneka@nasguard.com
Nassau, The Bahamas
Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham said yesterday - there would be no oil drilling in Bahamian waters if his party is re-elected to office.
Asked if his administration would allow drilling if returned to power, he said ‘no’.
Ingraham added that Bahamas Petroleum Company Plc. (BPC) — the company licensed to explore for oil in Bahamian waters — has direct ties to Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) Leader Perry Christie and other senior members of the party.
In 2005, BPC began its negotiations with the Christie administration for its various permits and licenses to look for oil in the country’s territorial waters.
Since then the company has only done 2-D and 3-D underwater seismic testing to figure out the best areas to drill for oil and get a better handle on the country’s oil potential.
However, in 2010 the Ingraham administration placed a moratorium on new oil exploration or drilling licenses. The moratorium came after the disastrous Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
“We are undertaking studies and after that we will see, but we don’t have any plans to drill for oil in The Bahamas,” Ingraham said.
He was responding to questions put to him by The Nassau Guardian after he completed a tour of Bains Town and Grants Town yesterday.
“They (BPC) are very much tied to Perry Christie and those,” Ingraham said.
“In fact, I think he may be a consultant for them. He is certainly involved with them.”
Ingraham also suggested that attorney Sean McWeeney, a former PLP attorney general, is also tied to BPC.
On its website, under company advisors, BPC lists the law firm Davis & Co., run by PLP Deputy Leader Philip Brave Davis, as part of its Bahamian legal team.
McWeeney’s law firm Graham Thompson & Co. is listed as the second firm representing BPC in The Bahamas. McWeeney is a partner in the firm.
A press release posted on BPC’s website and published in Offshore magazine, said the company “now looks forward to the outcome of the Bahamian elections.
“Whatever the result, it anticipates a refreshed mandate to support exploration,” the press release said.
Ingraham said yesterday The Bahamas’ waters are too pristine and important for the country’s tourism product to risk drilling for oil.
“We’ve seen what happened in Louisiana with oil drilling,” Ingraham said, referring to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.
BPC’s CEO Simon Potter recently told Guardian Business that drilling an oil well by April 26, 2013 was an important benchmark for the company. However, BPC’s current oil drilling license is set to expire this month.
Potter said he was confident that the company would receive an extension from the government; the renewal is subject to the company meeting certain obligations, terms and conditions.
Last September, the company began compiling its 3-D seismic data.
There is reportedly a 25 to 33 percent chance of oil being found under The Bahamas’ territorial ocean floor.
The company has also submitted its environmental impact assessment to the Bahamas Environment, Science and Technology Commission (BEST).
Apr 19, 2012