Google Ads

Friday, August 3, 2012

Jamaica: ... History, shame and emancipendence

By Michael Burke


WHAT has shame or embarrassment to do with communicating history? And what has this to do with our emancipendence celebrations, particularly in a year when we are celebrating the 50th anniversary of our Independence? One of the unfortunate legacies of certain types of government and economic models is the class system. It has created the misleading belief that some people are better than others.

The Roman Catholic Church teaches that the notion of superiority and inferiority based on class and colour is a sin against the great commandment of "Love thy neighbour as thyself". The said church further teaches that with regard to race it cannot be proved either in scripture or in a science laboratory that any race is superior to the other.

But like any other religious institution, not all Roman Catholics have the same level of understanding. So even within a church that abhors class prejudice, in its doctrine it exists within its borders. And wherever it exists, there is usually a sense of shame on the part of the victims of such prejudice.

Many young people do not appreciate how far we have come since Independence, let alone slavery, because they were not taught what it was like before. Many times their parents do not want to tell them what Jamaica was like as they are ashamed to admit the conditions under which they lived because they were looked down upon and ridiculed by others.

Fifty-two years ago in 1960 when I was six years old, my parents left me and my siblings in the care of our maternal grandmother while they went on tour of New York, USA, England and the European continent. My father heard the following story in England and told us on his return.

A Jamaican living in England where he was courting an English girl (white-skinned, I believe), showed her a picture of Hope Gardens and told her that it was his backyard. After the wedding she wanted to take a trip to Jamaica to see the place. The man was ashamed to tell his wife the truth. But how would his children learn to appreciate his efforts to improve their lives if he was ashamed to tell them where he grew up, even if on Spanish Town Road or Back-o-Wall?

In 1967 when I was 13 years old, I saw a photograph in the Star of a Jamaica Omnibus Service (JOS) bus driver who had received an award for good driving. A cloth badge was sewn to his right shirt sleeve. On several occasions while taking a JOS bus, I recognised him as the driver who won the award. Fourteen years later in 1981, I saw him in Papine. By this time he walked with a limp.

The JOS awardee told me that he was retired. He sat on the stone wall by the Hope Aqueduct next to what was then CAST (now UTech) and told me of his struggles to give all his children a good education by sending them to some of Jamaica's best high schools. He also spoke about attaining the award from JOS.

During the conversation I learnt that the retired bus driver was a Roman Catholic like me and that he had seen me at church. He surprised me by telling the names of his sons because I knew some of them from Roman Catholic circles of which he was very much aware and was the reason for telling me that he was Roman Catholic. He was extremely proud of his eldest son, who by that time had become a senior accountant at a large company in Jamaica and who, I believe, became a chartered accountant.

That top-level accountant today is himself retired from the company where he was employed, although his youngest children are still of high school age. He holds a prominent position in the Roman Catholic Church, particularly in the Archdiocese of Kingston. His father, the retired bus driver, died some years ago.

Less than three weeks ago, I was at a Roman Catholic Church and saw one of the sons of the top-level accountant and grandson of the late retired bus driver. In discussion with him, I told him that I knew his grandfather who had won an award as a JOS bus driver. The boy, about 15 years old, looked at me and asked in a tone of disbelief, "A bus driver, Sir?"

The boy's father had clearly not told him that his grandfather had been a bus driver, which I suspect was for reasons of shame, although I would not say that to the boy. I "polished it off" by telling him the teachings of our church on the dignity of labour.

I will not stand in judgement of this top-level accountant who has not revealed his humble beginnings as the son of a bus driver to his children. How much ridicule - if any - did he endure from upper-class students at the prominent high school he attended? I do not know, although I am aware that no one enjoys being ridiculed.

But how can the young people appreciate the struggles of the last 50 years of Independence, let alone the struggles before emancipation if we do not get over the shame that is totally unwarranted? The only thing that anyone should be ashamed of is sin.

ekrubm765@yahoo.com

August 02, 2012


Wednesday, August 1, 2012

Crime in the Caribbean: What must the region do?


By Anton E. Edmunds


Caribbean governments’ focus on crime has recently taken on increased urgency. Pressures at home from previously silent populations, and visitors and investors alike noting crime as a factor in deciding where they go makes the issue one that can no longer be ignored. While many try to blame crime levels on the deportation of criminals from North America and the UK, the reality is probably closer to home -- the vaunted social fabric of Caribbean countries is frayed.

Anton Edmunds is the President of The Edmunds Group International, LLC. (TEG) - a Washington, DC headquartered boutique consulting firm with affiliated offices in Miami and the Caribbean. More information on the group can be found at www.theedmundsgroup.com
Urbanization and the loss of social and familial community linkages, it is argued by some, is the problem. This combined with underemployment among the youth and a lack of programs that provide skills training for the jobs that are available is also a factor, leaving many increasingly dependent on an informal job market that offers little in terms of a sustainable future.

Weak legal systems, which encourage a sense of impunity by bad actors, are not helpful, and weak border controls that facilitate the inter-island movement of drugs and small arms allow for negative inputs. The use of the region as a hub for illicit traffic of drugs to the US further strains efforts of governments to protect themselves and their vulnerable populations.

In terms of solutions, an increased focus on community development and outreach programs from both the political and corporate elite can help mitigate against losing a generation exposed to limited options for a productive and legal future. That said, corporate social responsibility programming is not yet a fully understood and developed concept in the Caribbean. Finally, adaptation of the traditional school curricula to one that focuses attention on programs that correspond to current needs can be positive.

The above, combined with community policing initiatives that position trained and trusted law enforcement personnel in host communities can serve to ensure that fringe populations feel less divorced from upscale and often enclave centres. An improved and efficient legal system that can leverage social initiatives to train and assist first time offenders can also address recidivism concerns. Introduction of a restorative justice system (successfully implemented in some countries) where it does not exist in the Caribbean may be helpful in this regard.

An interconnected Caribbean region means increased movement of people and goods. The effective sharing of information on crime; persons linked to crime; and the movement of guns and drugs is fundamental for any regional success. A sharing of best practices in this arena and the support of these efforts by donor countries such as the United States is critical. Further to the US-Caribbean partnership on addressing crime, a focus by both partners on the development of modular programs that build on past successes is key; as is the ability of initiatives to survive changes in administrations.

In closing, the Caribbean must become a stronger advocate for its interests and needs, articulating plans for implementation rather than wait for the delivery of fully formed solutions from the US.

The above was a response to recent statements on crime and regional dysfunction in addressing the issue by Trinidad & Tobago Minister of National Security Jack Warner.

July 31, 2012

Caribbeannewsnow 

Monday, July 30, 2012

Jamaica: ...Time to break the link between politics and criminality

By Alando Terrelonge, Jamaica Gleaner Guest Columnist:



Claudie Massop, Bucky Marshall, Jim Brown, 'Bulbie' Bennett and 'Dudus' Coke represent but a few of the names and faces of the Jamaican political landscape over the decades. Their reputed allegiance to either of the two major political parties symbolised the somewhat symbiotic relationship between politics and power on the one hand, and crime and corruption on the other.


The level of crime and corruption often used to win political power, as well as to carve out fiefdoms to be ruled by the self-styled gods, has left many Jamaicans dead, others homeless and has caused some to flee our beloved nation.

In this our 50th year of political Independence, it is important that as a nation, we never forget that while some of these individuals were used as pawns by politicians in their quest to amass and safeguard power, others rose above their political fathers to take their place in the pantheon of our political history as gods among men.

As a people, we should, however, never accept the marriage between politics and crime, and the level of violence that is birthed by the style of politicking practised in Jamaica. Following the death of Bulbie in October 2005, Superintendent Wade, commanding officer for St Catherine North, stated unequivocally that there were "persons who are fully elected members" of the PNP who supported his criminal activities, and those of his gang in Spanish Town.

Dr Peter Phillips, a vice-president of the ruling PNP and then minister of national security, indicated that it was undesirable for any member of any political party to be connected with criminals.

SIMILAR CONCERNS

The Dudus saga heralded similar concerns about the link between political parties and the underworld. The perceived protection offered to Dudus by the JLP Government against extradition to the USA was the precursor of a diplomatic impasse between Jamaica and the US, the deaths of at least 73 residents of West Kingston, an enquiry that cost taxpayers millions of dollars, the resignation of a prime minister, and, some would say, the ultimate defeat of the JLP at the polls in December 2011.

The examples of the unfortunately enriching relationship between politics and criminality are numerous. One might even posit the view that behind the political ascendancy of many of our politicians over the last 50 years, there have been a plethora of political activists and donors with questionable characters. For some donors, though not associated with violence, are themselves kingpins of their own white-collar criminal enterprises. The recent donations of David Smith to both political parties is but one example of businessmen with dubious business practices who align themselves to either or both political parties.

More fatal to our political system are the occasions when those elected to hold political office are themselves adjudged criminals and herded to prison. The arrests of Michael Troupe and Sylvan Reid and the allegations of their involvement in transnational crimes cannot narrowly be viewed as causing major embarrassment to the PNP. Rather, the overarching effect is that it shames the entire nation and has dire implications on our international commitments to cull corruption and move towards greater transparency.

In 2011, Jamaica was ranked 86 out of 183 countries by Transparency International with a score of 3.3 out of 10 on their global corruption perceptions index. It was also the year of the Manatt enquiry and the conviction and sentencing of David Smith on charges of wire fraud and money laundering.

PARTIES flip-flopping

So far, 2012 has seen both major political parties flip-flopping as to whether they received political funding from Smith, or the amount of any such donations; and Troupe's and Reid's arrest and alleged involvement in an international lottery scam; and more delays in the Kern Spencer trial. These incidences have marred our political landscape and it remains to be seen how much of an adverse effect they will have on Jamaica's future corruption ratings.

For Jamaica to truly be on a mission to separate the link between politics and crime, it is imperative that we chart a course towards greater transparency. It cannot be business as usual and it behoves the future of our political institutions over the next 50 years that we change the way politicking is practised.

For us to rid ourselves of the international perceptions that Jamaica is a politically corrupt nation, we must put an end to the usual rhetoric and finally legislate campaign financing. Not only should the names of donors be made public, but the amounts and source of their funds must also be disclosed. Additionally, their ties to government and party members, both in their private and professional capacity must also be divulged to guard against potential conflicts of interest and maintain a high level of integrity in our political process.

Further, this new mission should also see the formation of a non-partisan National Political Integrity Committee, similar to the PNP's internal integrity committee but with far greater powers. The primary function of this body would be to investigate the business practices and possible criminal associations of those who offer themselves to public service.

Alando Terrelonge is an attorney-at-law. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com and alando.terrelonge@btalawjm.com.

July 29, 2012 

Jamaica Gleaner 

Sunday, July 29, 2012

...there is no one in Bahamian politics quite like Hubert Ingraham

Why The Plp Is Still Afraid Of Hubert Ingraham





By PACO NUNEZ
Tribune News Editor

Nassau, The Bahamas

Hubert Ingraham

LOVE or hate him, honest people have to admit there is no one in Bahamian politics quite like Hubert Ingraham.

Mr Ingraham has been called a polarising figure, portrayed by his supporters as the country’s saviour, by his opponents as its destroyer.

But leaving the value judgments for another day, one thing is for certain – in terms of sheer ability to capture the public imagination and seize control of the national debate, the former Prime Minister remains unmatched.

True enough, his predecessor Sir Lynden Pindling had this quality in abundance, and well understood its political value.

But Mr Ingraham stands alone in this regard today, as he proved yet again last Thursday following his official resignation from the House of Assembly.

Clever, pithy, trenchant as ever, he delivered a masterful performance of the kind that had been conspicuous by its absence over the last three months.

Mr Ingraham took the government to task on a number of issues – the claims of victimisation, the attempt to buy back BTC, the exclusion of casinos from the gambling referendum – all of which made headlines the next morning.

The content was not necessarily new, the FNM having already having touched on most of these points – the difference was who it was coming from, and how it was delivered.

Even in the act of departing from the limelight, Mr Ingraham stole the show.

After watching the press conference, a foreigner not long in the Bahamas told me Mr Ingraham “made it seem obvious he is still running the FNM.”

He added: “Actually, it gave the impression that he is still running the country.”

The first observation is not new. For years it has been remarked that whenever Mr Ingraham decided to retire, the FNM would struggle to emerge from beneath his formidable shadow.

Judging from the PLP’s response to Thursday, the second observation seems equally astute.

Mr Ingraham had hardly ceased speaking before the governing party went in to all-out defence mode.

They immediately issued a scathing response.

Then Financial Services Minister Ryan Pinder accused Mr Ingraham of “manipulating” the system to take advantage of the Bahamian people.

Minister of State for National Security Keith Bell was “deeply shocked” by Mr Ingraham’s comments.

Meanwhile, party operatives trolled the internet, searching for Ingraham press conference stories so they could add the official PLP spin to the “comments” section.

The public even heard from PLP chairman Bradley Roberts, who from his hospital bed, issued a statement decrying Mr Ingraham’s “nerve” and urging him to go “quietly into the sunset.”

The question is, why?

Why does the governing party of the Bahamas, which came to office by virtue of a landslide victory, feel the need to respond with such vehemence and force to a man who not only has ceased to be in charge, but is on the way out of front-line politics altogether?

Surely they realise that his stealing the show last week reflected poorly on their current opponents, the post-Ingraham FNM. Why not let him continue to speak?

I believe the PLP react as they do to Mr Ingraham by pure reflex, because deep down they know he has something which, try as they might, they cannot seem to match.

As one commentator on www.tribune242.com pointed out: If Mr Ingraham “says boo, all you PLPs run to The Tribune to comment” – whereas Prime

Minister Christie “could be on the news every night and be in the paper every day, and not a peep...”

The PLP is fond of accusing everyone in the media of being in love with Mr Ingraham, but this is most unfair.

For a journalist, there is perhaps no one more daunting, intimidating even down-right unpleasant to deal with than the former prime minister. No one is more ruthless in the face of a carelessly formulated question, no one more impatient.

No, Mr Ingraham gets media attention, simply because he sells. Because like him or not, everyone wants to hear what he has to say.

Even in defeat, Hubert Ingraham remains a “must-read” – something no one in the PLP can boast of, even in victory.

This quite obviously rankles governing party members no end, and they cannot resist rising to the bait every time, despite the deep insecurity it betrays.

The PLP is no doubt well aware of this state of affairs, which is why they want Mr Ingraham to go away so badly.

They may have beaten him, but they did so without matching him in terms of personal celebrity, and it obviously hurts.

Many senior PLPs have called Mr Ingraham’s brand of “Big Man” politics and the cult of personality which surrounds him unhealthy for the Bahamas.

They say mature democracies need a government comprised of equals, the Prime Minister merely the first among them.

But one can’t help getting the feeling some of them are just jealous, secretly wishing they could do that.

Be that as it may, the question for the rest of us is: What does it mean for Bahamian society that for the first time ever, no larger-than-life political figure remains on the scene?

Will another such character emerge, or will Mr Ingraham’s straight talking, “whether you like it or not” style, to be replaced by a confederacy of wafflers and excuse makers?

Is the only alternative to a cult of personality, the tyranny of the mediocre?

Thus far, it would seem so.

As discussed in an earlier Insight, the PLP’s approach to governance to date would best be described as the “We’ll do exactly what we criticised others for doing, and justify it by pointing out they did it first” method.

This, and a blatantly obvious rewards for supporters scheme, including the giving of jobs and paid board appointments to friends, family members and associates, regardless of their qualifications.

Urban Renewal may well turn out to be a great idea – I sincerely hope it does – but the scheme is already surrounded by such an impenetrable fog of gratuitous PR and vague, wish-fulfilment type promises, that it’s impossible to determine what the thing is really about.

And while it is still early days, the New FNM is hardly emerging as an original and powerful force in its own right.

Desirable as it may be in the abstract, is our political culture even mature enough to leave Big Man Politics behind?

A mature democracy, it should be pointed out, also requires an educated, informed and critical populace, capable of seeing through political charlatans. Yet it is painfully obvious how far from this mark we’ve fallen.

The answer, of course, is the Big Man model must be left behind. For one thing, it is inherently dangerous – you never know what kind of Big Man you’re going to get, and power will eventually decay the integrity of even the most upright.

In any case, with Mr Ingraham’s departure, it doesn’t seem as if we have a choice.

What do you think?

Saturday, July 28, 2012

The dangers of the hemisphere operating without the Inter-America Commission on Human Rights' (IACHR's) guidance

By Catie Duckworth
Research Associate at Council on Hemispheric Affairs



In recent months, members of the Organization of American States (OAS) have intensified their criticisms of the Inter-America Commission on Human Rights (IACHR). The IACHR is an independent body established in 1959 by the OAS to create a Pan-American framework for dealing with human rights violations.

Heavily based upon the 1948 American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, it was the Americas’ first universal human rights document, which was adopted at the same meeting that the region chartered the OAS.[1] However, strong opposition from OAS members throughout the years has heavily compromised the independent nature of the IACHR. Critics of the organization, such as Bolivian President Evo Morales, have called for its elimination.

The 42nd OAS General Assembly that convened from June 3 to 5 in Cochabamba, Bolivia, where it found fault with the IACHR’s proceedings and rulings, claiming that the Commission has acted as a tool for modern US imperialism and thereby further fueling Morales’ discontent.[2] Calls to terminate the organization were problematic before the IACHR had even been effective in holding past administrations accountable for human rights violations and setting a higher standard for the treatment of people by the state in Latin America. There is a possibility that OAS-proposed reforms will cause concern, because the OAS will most likely put limitations on the Commission’s independence.

However, this was not the first time a member state has expressed discontent with the organization. In April, President Hugo Chavez announced that Venezuela would withdraw from the IACHR. This announcement was initially dismissed at the time when OAS Secretary-General José Miguel Insulza pointed out that in order for Venezuela to remove itself from Commission jurisdiction, Chavez must withdraw from the OAS all together.[3] Claiming the Commission acts as a US contrivance, recalcitrant leaders from Ecuador and Nicaragua have joined Evo Morales and Hugo Chavez in their calls for reform in order to decisively bring an end to US imperialism in the region. All four of these nations’ leaders have threatened to withdraw from the IACHR if reforms are not set.[4]

Ecuador’s President Rafael Correa asserted, “We cannot accept the double morals and inconsistencies. We need to focus on the priorities of our America -- neocolonialism is over.”[5] Although all 34 countries represented at the Assembly have expressed their concern regarding recent proceedings carried out by the IACHR, most only call for reform, not dissolution like their more emphatic ideological neighbors. As a result, the Assembly decided to draft a reform plan and meet again in six months to approve the changes. If sanctioned, the reform will mark the first jurisdictional changes initiated outside the Commission since its founding over fifty years ago.[6]

At the June assembly of the OAS, IACHR Chair José de Jesús Orozco defended the organization and argued that the Commission is among the world’s most successful supranational organizations working to protect human rights. Stressing the necessity of the IACHR, he asserted, “This is about regional guarantees and effective mechanisms to ensure that nobody in the Americas feels defenseless when it comes to his or her most basic rights, and that the States -- through their current and future governments -- see themselves as bound to respect those values that… they embraced and made an international commitment to safeguard.”

The Commission, like all supranational organizations, requires that member nations sacrifice some measure of their sovereignty. By deeming, on some occasion, policies of member states unlawful through a Western-centric lens, critics allege that the Commission has taken on too progressive of a role in terms of a radical agenda. However, the public ought to scrutinize the motivations of Latin American leaders for advocating the dissolution of the commission.

One initiative of this was a letter written some time ago by José Miguel Vivanco, director of Human Rights Watch’s Americas Division, who wrote a letter that found itself to the OAS General Assembly, which stated, “If this organization has been so successful, why then has a campaign against it been launched? Very simple: Because it has touched the interests of important governments that possess clear autocratic tendencies or are sufficiently powerful as to believe that they are entitled to not render accounts to a supervisory regional body.”[7] In other words, many leaders advocate reform because the supranational organization has prevented them from fulfilling their political agenda.

For example, in April 2011 the IACHR provoked Brazilian authorities after ordering them to halt the construction of the Belo Monte hydroelectric dam project in order to ensure the livelihood of multiple indigenous tribes on the Xingu River, who faced the threat of displacement as a result of the project. Unhappy with the decision, Brazil recalled its delegate to the organization, suspended payment of dues to the Commission, and withheld its ambassador to the OAS in protest. Yet Brasilia quickly reembraced the Commission when it proposed to set up a Truth Commission to investigate the human rights transgressions during the Brazilian military dictatorship of 1964-1985, demonstrating how Brazil’s loyalty to the IACHR at times has been based on political expediency.[8]

The Commission has lost popularity among a number of its members by refusing to yield to governments with unsatisfactory human rights standards. Leaders of this bloc cite historic acts of US imperialism in the region as a basis for disregarding IACHR rulings that do not work in their favor. From the perspective of these critics of the Commission, the IACHR continues to kneel to US regional foreign policy interests while overlooking cases that are contrary to US national interests. Tensions tend to arise when the Commission is bold enough to condemn an administration for violating the human rights of its own citizens.

As Manuela Picq, a recent visiting professor and research fellow at Amherst College, said, “These cases demonstrate that the Commission’s decisions are supported when they are aligned with governmental agendas and attacked and discredited when the Commission’s actions are perceived as inconvenient. The challenge is not as much to reform the Commission’s proceedings as to appease the wrath of states when rulings interfere with their political agendas.”[9]

Many Latin American countries may want to see the end of the IACHR just to conceal their own self-serving and at times compromised human rights practices. In order to draw attention away from their own corrupt institutions they passionately insist that the United States at times is using the organization as a mechanism for imperial calculations. To put to rest any claims that Washington is using the organization to further its interests, Washington has decided to take a neutral role at the June OAS gathering, stating that member nations ought to work together in harmony with the Commission.[10]

As one of the most economically stable and democratically open states in the OAS, the US delegation should not take a neutral stance, but rather support the Commission. However, the United States to this day still has not signed the 1969 American Convention on Human Rights Pact of San Jose, which means that the Inter-American Court in Costa Rica does not have any jurisdiction in the United States.[11]

To avoid further allegations of imperialistic intentions, the United States should thus lead by example and must give some thought to allowing the Inter-America Court some jurisdiction to operate within its borders and offer more assertive support for human rights activism while steering clear of anti-human rights advocacy. Washington has a duty to not turn a blind eye to its southern neighbors’ human rights violations, it should, as a would-be promoter of democracy in the region, be consistent and careful not to set double standards based on its own narrow intentions.

The IACHR is a necessary body, and must be actively protected to ensure the UN Declaration of Human Rights is upheld in the region. There are few doubts that some reforms need to be made to the IACHR, which will include limits on the Commission’s independence. However, it is this independent nature of that body that makes the IACHR effective. If the Commission’s independence is taken away, it will have to conform to the narrow partisan political agendas of some of its member states, and that would mean at times acting contrary to its entirely noble purpose.

Citations:

[1] Pearlman, Alexander.“OAS rights body facing criticisms, dissolution.” InterAmerican Security Watch. IASW Jun 8, 2012.
[2] Picq, Manuela. “Is the Inter-American Comission on Human Rights too progressive?” Aljazeera. June 9, 2012.
[3] “Human Rights in the Americas: Chipping at the foundations.” InterAmerican Security Watch. June 7, 2012.
[4] “Human Rights in the Americas: Chipping at the foundations.” InterAmerican Security Watch. June 7, 2012.
[5] Pearlman, Alexander.“OAS rights body facing criticisms, dissolution.” InterAmerican Security Watch. IASW Jun 8, 2012.
[6] “Human Rights in the Americas: Chipping at the foundations.” InterAmerican Security Watch. June 7, 2012.
[7] Pearlman, Alexander.“OAS rights body facing criticisms, dissolution.” InterAmerican Security Watch. IASW Jun 8, 2012.
[8] Picq, Manuela. “Is the Inter-American Comission on Human Rights too progressive?” Aljazeera. June 9, 2012.
[9] Picq, Manuela. “Is the Inter-American Comission on Human Rights too progressive?” Aljazeera. June 9, 2012.
[10] Pearlman, Alexander.“OAS rights body facing criticisms, dissolution.” InterAmerican Security Watch. IASW Jun 8, 2012.
[11] Pearlman, Alexander.“OAS rights body facing criticisms, dissolution.” InterAmerican Security Watch. IASW Jun 8, 2012.

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

July 28, 2012

Caribbeannewsnow

Friday, July 27, 2012

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez Announces “Immediate” Withdrawal from the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACrtHR)

By Rachael Boothroyd:

Liverpool, July 26th 2012 (Venezuelanalysis.com) – Following an announcement earlier in April that his government would be withdrawing from the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights (IAHRC), Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez confirmed on Tuesday that his administration would also no longer recognise the IAHRC’s sister organisation, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACrtHR) with “immediate” effect.

Both organisations are affiliate bodies of the Organization of the American States (OAS), with the commission recommending and submitting human rights cases to the court for review.

In a televised address to the public on Tuesday evening, the Venezuelan head of state confirmed the country’s exit from the human rights tribunal after accusing the body of “political manipulation” and attacking the South American nation for “daring to liberate” itself from Washington’s influence.

Chavez’s comments follow a ruling from the IACrtHR which charged the Venezuelan government with violating the rights of Raul Diaz Pena; an anti-government terrorist who planted bombs near to the Spanish and Colombian embassies in Caracas in 2003.

Despite receiving a 9 year sentence in 2008, Pena fled to the US on conditional release in 2010, where he claimed to be a “political prisoner”. Last week the IACrtHR ruled that Pena’s prison conditions in Venezuela had been “inhumane”.

“This Inter-American Court of Human Rights is shameful; it just pronounced itself in favour of a terrorist and against the Venezuelan State. That’s why I said to [Venezuelan foreign minister Nicolas Maduro]; ‘Nicholas, let’s not wait any more,’ Venezuela is leaving the Inter-American Court of Human Rights as a matter of dignity,” said Chavez.

The Venezuelan government has had an increasingly difficult relationship with both the IACrtHR and the IACHR since 2002, when they refused to condemn a 47 hour coup against Chavez which saw around 100 people killed at the hands of the newly installed regime.

In November last year, the human rights court also tried to override a decision by Venezuela’s Supreme Court (TSJ) prohibiting opposition politician Leopoldo Lopez from holding office due to corruption charges. At the time, Chavez said the ruling meant “nothing to the left” in Venezuela.

Foreign interests

The human rights bodies’ failure to take a stance on issues such as the US embargo against Cuba, or to denounce other coups in the region, including a 2009 coup in Honduras and a recent “express coup” in Paraguay, have led many of the region’s left-leaning governments to cite the IACrtHR and IACHR as being representative of the US government’s interests on the Latin American continent.
Venezuela’s delegate to the OAS, Roy Chaderton, has frequently accused the Inter-American organisations of acting as a mouthpiece for Washington in the region, and of backing anti-government actors’ attempts to “destabilise” the Chavez administration.

The Venezuelan government’s withdrawal from the Inter-American human rights organisation has sparked criticism in the international press, as well as renewed debate over whether US dominated institutions such as the OAS are still relevant to Latin America’s changing political dynamic; with new organisations such as the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) having been set up without US or Canadian representation.

“There are two paths (for the OAS), either it dies at the service of imperialism, or it is reborn to serve the people of America,” said Bolivian President, Evo Morales, earlier in June, adding that, “(The OAS) is just about seeing human rights problems in some countries where the president, the government, does not share the same politics as the United States”.

Venezuela has also called for organisations such as the CELAC and UNASUR (Union of South American Nations) to set up their own regional human rights institutions which reflect the "Latin American experience”.

Venezuelanalysis

Bahamian Official Opposition Leader - Dr. Hubert Minnis says that his party - the Free National Movement (FNM) - will support a referendum to end gender discrimination in The Bahamas

Minnis: FNM will back referendum on women’s rights


By Taneka Thompson
Guardian Senior Reporter
taneka@nasguard.com

Nassau, The Bahamas


Opposition Leader Dr. Hubert Minnis yesterday accused the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) of using the defeated 2002 referendum as a “political tool”, and assured that the Free National Movement will support the referendum to end gender discrimination that has been promised by the government.

Minister of Foreign Affairs and Immigration Fred Mitchell announced the planned referendum in the House of Assembly on Wednesday.   He said it will take place by the end of this term.

In February 2002, the Ingraham administration sought to eliminate discrimination against women from the constitution through a referendum.

One of the six questions on that ballot asked voters if they agreed that all forms of discrimination against women, their children and their spouses should be removed from the constitution, and that no person should be discriminated against on the grounds of gender.

Under the constitution, Bahamian women married to foreign men cannot automatically pass their citizenship to their children; however Bahamian men married to foreign women can.

At the time the PLP, then in opposition, campaigned against the constitutional changes.

“They used it as a political tool at that particular time,” Minnis said.

“They felt that they would have gained mileage in whatever they did to become government.

“I don’t think it was right to walk on the backs of women just to achieve your own goal. A woman deserves better than that. I think they deserve the complete respect in our society for what they have done and what they do today.”

The failed referendum was seen by many political observers as a referendum on the former Ingraham administration and in May 2002 the PLP won the general election.

Prime Minister Perry Christie said yesterday the PLP opposed the referendum because there was not enough public consultation on the issue.

Minnis said he did not believe the explanation.

“I don’t buy that,” he said. “He doesn’t believe that himself. I can’t buy that.”

Minnis also suggested that former Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham’s recent comments on discrimination in the constitution may have spurred the government to make the announcement.

At a press conference at the House of Assembly last week, Ingraham said there were more issues that should be put to a referendum, such as eliminating gender discrimination.

“I don’t know why it should be assumed that we should spend all this money on a referendum to deal with the question of gambling when there are some issues — like for instance, I want you as a female in this country to have the same rights I have under the constitution,” Ingraham said.

Minnis said, “They didn’t say anything about it before, so obviously that would have had some impact on them and I’m happy that we are doing it.

“I’m happy that they now see that that’s a very important issue that should have been resolved some time ago.

“I’m a strong proponent of equality for women. After all, women are the backbone of our society. They are the foundation of our society and I think equality is definitely an issue.

“It’s unfortunate that they took so long to bring it forth and they opposed it 10 years ago when we tried to bring it forth.

“I would hope that they don’t try to tie it in with the referendum for gambling.  At least allow people to deal with issues independently because you cannot use the female population [as] any form of political tool.

“I would encourage all Bahamians to vote for equality for women.”

He added: “I can assure you that the FNM will not oppose equality of women at all.”

July 27, 2012

thenassauguardian