CUITO CUANAVALE 25TH ANNIVERSARY: The battle which put an end to apartheid

Piero Gleijeses (*)

We do not fight for glory or honors,
but for ideas we consider just.

—Fidel Castro Ruz

THIS year marks the 20th anniversary (written in 2007) of the opening of the battle of Cuito Cuanavale, in south-eastern Angola, which pitted the armed forces of apartheid South Africa against the Cuban army and Angolan forces.

General Magnus Malan writes in his memoirs that this campaign marked a great victory for the South African Defense Force (SADF). But Nelson Mandela could not disagree more: Cuito Cuanavale, he asserted, "was the turning point for the liberation of our continent—and of my people—from the scourge of apartheid".

Debate over the significance of Cuito Cuanavale has been intense, partly because the relevant South African documents remain classified. I have, however, been able to study files from the closed Cuban archives as well as many US documents. Despite the ideological divide that separates Havana and Washington, their records tell a remarkably similar story.

Let me review the facts briefly. In July 1987, the Angolan army (Fapla) launched a major offensive in south-eastern Angola against Jonas Savimbi’s forces. When the offensive started to succeed, the SADF, which controlled the lower reaches of south-western Angola, intervened in the south-east. By early November, the SADF had cornered elite Angolan units in Cuito Cuanavale and was poised to destroy them.

The United Nations Security Council demanded that the SADF unconditionally withdraw from Angola, but the Reagan administration ensured that this demand had no teeth.

US Assistant Secretary for Africa Chester Crocker reassured Pretoria’s ambassador: "The resolution did not contain a call for comprehensive sanctions, and did not provide for any assistance to Angola. That was no accident, but a consequence of our own efforts to keep the resolution within bounds." [1] This gave the SADF time to annihilate Fapla’s best units.

By early 1988, South African military sources and Western diplomats were confident that the fall of Cuito was imminent. This would have dealt a devastating blow to the Angolan government. But on November 15 1987, Cuban President Fidel Castro had decided to send more troops and weapons to Angola—his best planes with his best pilots, his most sophisticated anti-aircraft weapons and his most modern tanks. Castro’s goal was not merely to defend Cuito, it was to force the SADF out of Angola once and for all. He later described this strategy to South African Communist Party leader Joe Slovo: Cuba would halt the South African onslaught and then attack from another direction, "like a boxer who with his left hand blocks the blow and with his right—strikes". [2]

Cuban planes and 1,500 Cuban solders reinforced the Angolans, and Cuito did not fall.

On March 23 1988, the SADF launched its last major attack on the town. As Colonel Jan Breytenbach writes, the South African assault "was brought to a grinding and definite halt" by the combined Cuban and Angolan forces.

Now Havana’s right hand prepared to strike. Powerful Cuban columns were marching through south-western Angola toward the Namibian border. The documents telling us what the South African leaders thought about this threat are still classified. But we know what the SADF did: it gave ground. US intelligence explained that the South Africans withdrew because they were impressed by the suddenness and scale of the Cuban advance and because they believed that a major battle "involved serious risks". [3]

As a child in Italy, I heard my father talk about the hope he and his friends had felt in December 1941, as they listened to radio reports of German troops vacating Rostov on the Don—the first time in two years of war that the German "superman" had been forced to retreat. I remembered his words—and the profound sense of relief they conveyed—as I read South African and Namibian press reports from these months in early 1988.

On May 26 1988, the chief of the SADF announced that "heavily armed Cuban and Swapo [South West Africa People’s Organization] forces, integrated for the first time, have moved south within 60km of the Namibian border". The South African administrator general in Namibia acknowledged on June 26 that Cuban MIG-23s were flying over Namibia, a dramatic reversal from earlier times when the skies had belonged to the SADF. He added that "the presence of the Cubans had caused a flutter of anxiety" in South Africa.

Such sentiments were however not shared by black South Africans, who saw the retreat of the South African forces as a beacon of hope.

While Castro’s troops advanced toward Namibia, Cubans, Angolans, South Africans and Americans were sparring at the negotiating table. Two issues were paramount: whether South Africa would finally accept implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 435, which prescribed Namibia’s independence, and whether the parties could agree on a timetable for the withdrawal of the Cuban troops from Angola.

The South Africans arrived with high hopes: Foreign Minister Pik Botha expected that Resolution 435 would be modified; Defense Minister Malan and President PW Botha asserted that South Africa would withdraw from Angola only "if Russia and its proxies did the same." They did not mention withdrawing from Namibia. On March 16 1988, Business Day reported that Pretoria was "offering to withdraw into Namibia—not from Namibia—in return for the withdrawal of Cuban forces from Angola. The implication is that South Africa has no real intention of giving up the territory any time soon."

But the Cubans had reversed the situation on the ground, and when Pik Botha voiced the South African demands, Jorge Risquet, who headed the Cuban delegation, fell on him like a ton of bricks: "The time for your military adventures, for the acts of aggression that you have pursued with impunity, for your massacres of refugees ... is over." South Africa, he said, was acting as though it was "a victorious army, rather than what it really is: a defeated aggressor that is withdrawing ... South Africa must face the fact that it will not obtain at the negotiating table what it could not achieve on the battlefield."[4]

As the talks ended, Crocker cabled Secretary of State George Shultz that they had taken place "against the backdrop of increasing military tension surrounding the large build-up of heavily armed Cuban troops in south-west Angola in close proximity to the Namibian border ... The Cuban build-up in southwest Angola has created an unpredictable military dynamic."[5]

The burning question was: Would the Cubans stop at the border? To answer this question, Crocker sought out Risquet: "Does Cuba intend to halt its troops at the border between Namibia and Angola?" Risquet replied, "If I told you that the troops will not stop, it would be a threat. If I told you that they will stop, I would be giving you a Meprobamato [a Cuban tranquillizer]. ... and I want to neither threaten nor reassure you ... What I can say is that the only way to guarantee [that our troops stop at the border] would be to reach an agreement [on Namibia’s independence]."[6]

The next day, June 27 1988, Cuban MIGs attacked SADF positions near the Calueque dam, 11km north of the Namibian border. The CIA reported that "Cuba’s successful use of air power and the apparent weakness of Pretoria’s air defenses" highlighted the fact that Havana had achieved air superiority in southern Angola and northern Namibia. A few hours after the Cubans’ successful strike, the SADF destroyed a nearby bridge over the Cunene River. They did so, the CIA surmised, "to deny Cuban and Angolan ground forces easy passage to the Namibia border and to reduce the number of positions they must defend." [7] Never had the danger of a Cuban advance into Namibia seemed more real.

The last South African soldiers left Angola on August 30, before the negotiators had even begun to discuss the timetable of the Cuban withdrawal from Angola.

Despite Washington’s best efforts to stop it, Cuba changed the course of Southern African history. Even Crocker acknowledged Cuba’s role when he cabled Shultz, on August 25 1988: "Reading the Cubans is yet another art form. They are prepared for both war and peace. We witness considerable tactical finesse and genuinely creative moves at the table. This occurs against the backdrop of Castro’s grandiose bluster and his army’s unprecedented projection of power on the ground."[8]

The Cubans’ battlefield prowess and negotiating skills were instrumental in forcing South Africa to accept Namibia’s independence. Their successful defense of Cuito was the prelude for a campaign that forced the SADF out of Angola. This victory reverberated beyond Namibia.

Many authors—Malan is just the most recent example—have sought to rewrite this history, but the US and Cuban documents tell another story. It was expressed eloquently by Thenjiwe Mtintso, South Africa’s ambassador to Cuba, in December 2005: "Today South Africa has many newly found friends. Yesterday these friends referred to our leaders and our combatants as terrorists and hounded us from their countries while supporting apartheid ... These very friends today want us to denounce and isolate Cuba. Our answer is very simple: it is the blood of Cuban martyrs—and not of these friends—that runs deep in the African soil and nurtures the tree of freedom in our country."

1) SecState to American embassy, Pretoria, Dec. 5 1987, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)

2) Transcripción sobre la reunión del Comandante en Jefe con la delegación de políticos de Africa del Sur (Comp. Slovo), "Centro de Información de las Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias (CIFAR)", Havana

3) Abramowitz (Bureau of Intelligence and Research, US Department of State) to SecState, May 13 1988, FOIA

4) "Actas das Conversaciones Quadripartidas entre a RPA, Cuba, Estados Unidos de América e a Africa do Sul realizadas no Cairo de 24-26.06.988", Archives of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Cuba, Havana

5) Crocker to SecState, June 26, 1988, FOIA

6) "Entrevista de Risquet con Chester Crocker, 26/6/88", ACC

7) CIA, "South Africa-Angola-Cuba", June 29, 1988, FOIA; CIA, "South Africa-Angola-Namibia", July 1, 1988, FOIA

8) Crocker to SecState, Aug. 25, 1988, FOIA

(*) Italian political scientist and historian, professor of U.S. Foreign Policy at Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies, in Washington, D.C.

March 28, 2013

Granma.cu

Bahamas Blog International

Gay marriage and the natural law

BY BROTHER HAYDEN AUGUSTINE

 

GAY marriage has become a hot topic, a burning issue. Some time ago, on the front pages of our dailies, two women are captioned in matrimonial embrace. As we continue perusing the news, more captions, more divergent opinions and viewpoints, columns and letters are expressed on this most elemental of traditions. One journalist even feared for her life in the firestorm of opinions.

Is sexual expression a human right? Could opposition to homosexuality be considered a hate crime? Would homophobia be one day declared a mental sickness? These are some of the thoughts that run through my mind as I reflect on this ongoing impassioned debate about same-sex marriage.

Marriage has been a noble institution that virtually all cultures have embraced. It is the substratum of civilisation, the most fundamental unit of human society. By definition, it is the state of union between a man and a woman, a permanent and affective relationship of a husband and his wife that generates and educates its offspring.

 

All religions, not just Christianity, have denounced homosexuality and see no reason for it in marriage. That is to say, it is part of natural law. Christianity, which is Jamaica's bedrock religion, has pronounced unequivocally on the nature of marriage as the exchange of vows between a man and a woman, equally made in the image and likeness of God, and joined together in harmonious unity to "be fruitful and multiply, and (to) fill the earth and subdue it".

 

Thus, marriage is part of the natural order of the universe, the pristine and constitutive ingredient uniting man and woman in their joint stewardship of creation and as progenitors of the human race. Marriage is thus a primordial commandment, a natural law.

 

Is it now God's will that two women marry each other? Would the Creator unite two men in marriage? And to what end? We cannot now throw out the natural laws of God uniting man and woman, laws which have made possible the posterity of the race, the creation of family life and the guarantee of social cohesion, for this anomalous situation.

 

It is irrational and against natural law for two men or two women to marry each other. If they fall into sexual relationship, it is sinful and they can be forgiven. But they must control their passions and transform their relationship into friendship.

 

Indeed, its foundation is noble. It is friendship, but friendship which does not require marriage.  Friendship oftentimes grows deeper than marriage. Friendship is created for the sake of brotherhood or sisterhood, people get united to achieve one purpose or common cause. Companionship and fellowship are time-honoured joys of civilisation.

 

These must continue, be nurtured and allowed to flourish. Friendship is found in the myriad ways in which man relates with his fellow man in all the aspects of his life. Oftentimes it leads to heroic expressions of love and commitment far surpassing that of marriage, such as happened between Jonathan and King David: "They loved each other more than husband and wife......even unto death."

 

In the Christian dispensation, friendship without Eros is the highest form of love. Jesus said that "a man can have no greater love than to lay down his life for his friend." For the Christian, friendship is one of the foundation stones that builds the kingdom of God.

 

Friendship is also based on feelings. Feelings are beautiful and give power to our actions. They are part of the expression of our humanity, our personality, and they flavour our interpersonal relationships. But often they go awry unless we rein them in.

 

Feelings can be like an unbridled horse. If we don't control them, they will control us. Sometimes we must reject them, otherwise they create irreparable damage.

 

If we love God, we will obey His commandments, no matter how difficult. Life and love are difficult, requiring risk, trust in another, constant self-sacrifice, a veritable dying on the cross with Christ, so that something honourable and noble and beautiful is birthed in all our relationships -- with our friends, with our wives and husbands, our children, and our neighbours, without carnality, but in the love of God.

 

— Brother Hayden Augustine is a member of Missionaries of the Poor

March 26, 2013

Jamaica Observer

Bahamas Blog International

...The Bahamas had done an “ass backwards” job in negotiations with the Bahamas Petroleum Company (BPC)... ...the country should receive “no less than 60 per cent” of the proceeds ...if commercial quantities of oil were discovered

Bahamas 'Ass Backwards' Over Oil Negotiations

By NEIL HARTNELL

Tribune Business Editor

nhartnell@tribunemedia.net

Nassau, The Bahamas

 

 

 

A well-known attorney yesterday said the Bahamas had done an “ass backwards” job in negotiations with the Bahamas Petroleum Company (BPC), arguing that the country should receive “no less than 60 per cent” of the proceeds if commercial quantities of oil were discovered.

 

Craig Butler, head of the C. F. Butler & Associates law firm, told Tribune Business that the 12.5-25 per cent ‘sliding scale’ royalties agreement negotiated with BPC was similar to arrangements “Third World” states had reached with oil explorers.

 

Recalling the research he conducted on the matter in the run-up to the May 2012 general election, Mr Butler said most countries had negotiated terms where they received between 25 per cent to 90 per cent of the proceeds from any oil exploration/production.

 

He added that BPC was being “disingenuous” and seeking to recover all its development and exploration costs upfront, the moment commercial oil quantities were found, whereas most such deals allowed exploration firms to recover such costs over the lifetime of their leases.

 

And Mr Butler called for the Bahamas to create a non-political National Commission to re-negotiate the deal with BPC, and introduce more “transparency” into the process.

 

“All the countries that aren’t good at negotiating deals got the thin end of the stick,” Mr Butler said of the findings produced by his research. “The more developed countries tend to take a larger part of the pie in terms of the profits.”

 

Simon Potter, BPC’s chief executive, told Tribune Business yesterday that the financial agreement was effectively a 50/50 split between the company and the Government.

 

Based on oil selling at $80 per barrel, BPC presentations have shown that while half that revenue sum - $40 - would cover costs, with the remaining 50 per cent or $20 each going to the company and the Government respectively.

 

Yet Mr Butler argued: “BPC is being disingenuous, making it seem as if they are taking an amazing risk. They are, but that is what business is all about. They’re looking to recoup their costs right away.”

 

He suggested that typical oil exploration deals allowed companies to indeed recover their costs, but over the lifetime of their lease agreements.

 

Mr Butler said that if BPC’s development costs worked out to be $20 billion, it seemed to want to recover that “off the bat” if commercial oil quantities were found, based on its agreement with the Government.

 

As a result, the Bahamas would not see any benefits for three-four years.

 

“With the greatest respect to these negotiators, we are still enamoured that we possibly have oil, natural gas, and this money is coming in,” Mr Butler said.

 

“We’re looking at it as if the country is benefiting by $10 billion, $20 billion, and we’re salivating. We’re not thinking long-term, thinking this is the Bahamas’ last opportunity to become the first world country it wants to be.”

 

He added that Trinidad & Tobago had also squandered its oil and natural gas inheritance, with the financial terms benefiting the explorers, and proceeds concentrated in the hands of a few.

 

“If this is a national resource, if we are putting our tourism industry at risk, the Bahamas as a whole needs to benefit from this,” Mr Butler told Tribune Business.

 

“My research has shown that generally, the initial financing is paid back over a period of time, 10-20 years at a reasonable interest rate. Profits are then split. Going rates are anywhere from 25 to 90 per cent. Clearly, the better your negotiating team, the better the country’s deal.

 

“In other places, companies pay a large fee to come in and prospect. All the burden is theirs. And their licenses have determinable periods,” he added.

 

“It appears as though in the Bahamas we’re always ass backwards. We should be receiving no less than 60 per cent, and all infrastructural and economic costs should be paid back over 20 years at 3 per cent. Take it or leave it. If it were put that way, they’d [BPC] jump to take it.”

 

Describing 25 per cent and 90 per cent as the respective low and high ‘ends of the scale’ in terms of what sovereign countries received, Mr Butler said the Scandinavian nations received the latter.

 

“Twenty-five per cent tends to be the Third World places like Belize that have no idea how to negotiate a contract,” he added. “Nigeria has 70 per cent. If Nigeria has 70 per cent, why can’t the Bahamas negotiate 60 per cent?”

 

Asked about the way ahead, Mr Butler told Tribune Business: “What I would like to see is a National Commission appointed, not just PLPs but a cross-section of respected people in society, 15-20 of them, who can go in and negotiate these contracts on our behalf.

 

“It’s the only way we can go to have any transparency. It it’s completely political appointees, we’re doomed.”

 

He urged that ‘new faces’ be appointed to this Commission, along with several experts on the international oil industry.

 

March 22, 2013

 

Tribune 242

 

Bahamas Blog International

Hugo Chavez' legacy in Haiti and Latin America

By Kim Ives - Haiti Liberte:





Tens of thousands of Haitians spontaneously poured into the streets of Port-au-Prince on the morning of Mar. 12, 2007. President Hugo Chavez had just arrived in Haiti all but unannounced, and a multitude, shrieking and singing with glee, joined him in jogging alongside the motorcade of Haiti’s then President René Préval on its way to the National Palace (later destroyed in the 2010 earthquake).

There, Chavez announced that Venezuela would help Haiti by building power stations, expanding electricity networks, improving airports, supplying garbage trucks, and supporting widely-deployed Cuban medical teams. But the centerpiece of the gifts Chavez brought Haiti was 14,000 barrels of oil a day, a Godsend in a country that has been plagued by blackouts and power shortages for decades.

The oil was part of a PetroCaribe deal which Venezuela had signed with Haiti a year before. Haiti had only to pay 60% for the oil it received, while the remaining 40% could be paid over the course of 25 years at 1% interest. Under similar PetroCaribe deals, Venezuela now provides more than 250,000 barrels a day at sharply discounted prices to 17 Central American and Caribbean countries, including Haiti, Guatemala, Honduras, Jamaica, Cuba, Nicaragua, and the Dominican Republic.

The cost of the program is estimated at some $5 billion annually. But the benefits to, and gratitude from, PetroCaribe recipients are huge, particularly during the on-going global economic crisis. In short, Caracas is underwriting the stability and energy security of most economies in the Caribbean and Central America, at the same time challenging, for the first time in over a century, U.S. hegemony in its own “backyard.”

Washington’s alarm over and hostility to PetroCaribe is layed bare in secret diplomatic cables obtained by the media organization WikiLeaks. Then U.S. Ambassador to Haiti Janet Sanderson rebuked Préval for “giving Chavez a platform to spout anti-American slogans” during his 2007 visit, said one cable cited in an article which debuted in June 2011 a WikiLeaks-based series produced by Haïti Liberté and The Nation.

Reviewing all 250,000 secret U.S. diplomatic cables which were later released, one realizes that Sanderson wasn’t the only U.S. diplomat wringing her hands about PetroCaribe.

“It is remarkable that in this current contest we are being outspent by two impoverished countries: Cuba and Venezuela,” noted U.S. Ambassador to Uruguay Frank Baxter in a 2007 cable released by Wikileaks. “We offer a small Fulbright program; they offer a thousand medical scholarships. We offer a half dozen brief IV programs to ‘future leaders’; they offer thousands of eye operations to poor people. We offer complex free trade agreements someday; they offer oil at favorable rates today. Perhaps we should not be surprised that Chavez is winning friends and influencing people at our expense.”

We can now expect the Washington’s “contest” with Venezuela to escalate dramatically as it attempts to take advantage of the Bolivarian regime’s vulnerability during the transition of power. Already Vice President Nicolas Maduro, whom Chavez asked Venezuelans to make his successor, has sounded the alarm. "We have no doubt that commander Chavez was attacked with this illness," Maduro said on Mar. 5, repeating a suspicion voiced by Chavez himself that Washington was somehow responsible for the fatal cancer he contracted. "The old enemies of our fatherland looked for a way to harm his health."

Maduro also announced on national television on Mar. 5 “that a U.S. Embassy attache was being expelled for meeting with military officers and planning to destabilize the country,” the AP reported. A U.S. Air Force attaché was also expelled.

In short, just as the imperative to secure oil has driven the U.S. to multiple wars, coups, and intrigues in the Mideast over the past 60 years, it is now driving the U.S. toward a major new confrontation in Latin America. With Chavez’s death, Washington sees a long awaited opportunity to roll back the Bolivarian Revolution and programs like PetroCaribe. In recent years, Chavez has led Venezuela to nationalize dozens of foreign-owned undertakings, including oil projects run by Exxon Mobil, Texaco Chevron, and other large North American corporations. The future of the hydrocarbon resources in Venezuela’s Maracaibo Basin and Orinoco Belt, recently declared to be the world’s largest, will soon reveal itself to be the central economic and political issue, and hottest flashpoint, in the hemisphere.

In the case of Haiti, Hugo Chavez often said that PetroCaribe and other aid was given “to repay the historic debt that Venezuela owes the Haitian people.” Haiti was the first nation of Latin America, gaining its independence in 1804. In the 19^th century’s first example of international solidarity, Haitian revolutionary leaders like Jean-Jacques Dessalines and Alexandre Pétion provided Francisco de Miranda and Simon Bolivar, South America’s “Great Liberator,” with guns, ships, and printing presses to carry out the anti-colonial struggle on the continent.

And this was the dream that inspired Hugo Chavez: a modern Bolivarian revolution sweeping South America, spreading independence from Washington and growing “21^stcentury socialism.” PetroCaribe was Chavez’s flagship in that “contest,” as Ambassador Baxter called it.

Ironically, it was former Haitian president Jean-Bertrand Aristide who first foiled U.S. election engineering in Latin America in December 1990, but his electoral victory was cut short by a September 1991 coup. Hugo Chavez was the next Latin American leader to successfully carry out a political revolution at the polls in 1998. His people defeated the U.S.-backed coup that tried to unseat him in April 2002. Due to his strategic acumen, his popular support, and the goodwill created with PetroCaribe, Chavez’s prestige grew in Venezuela and around the world during his 14 years in power up until his death today, which will bring a huge tide of mourning across Latin America.

The eulogies will be many, but former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark, who personally knew and worked with Chavez, made a prescient observation in January that stands out: “In my opinion, history will judge the contributions of Hugo Chavez to Latin American as greater than those of Bolivar.”

March 17, 2013

Source: Canada Haiti Action Network

Venezuelanalysis

Bahamas Blog International

Should Mr. Louis Farrakhan again visit The Bahamas ...we would appreciate it if he would refrain from meddling in the affairs of our islands ...particularly as he seems to be so ill-informed about our history and way of life

Louis Farrakhan Makes Misinformed Observations

Tribune242 Editorial
Nassau, The Bahamas




LOUIS Farrakhan, controversial Nation of Islam leader, was here for a few days last week, saw a narrow section of Nassau life, and departed, leaving behind his usual racially devisive comments.

 

“I was in a place last night,” said Mr Farrakhan, “that was magnificently beautiful and there were all these black people that came past the gate because Mr Nygard wanted them there on that piece of ground that most black people just keep driving by, they make it a gated community. And they don’t want no riff-raff. You come, you do your work and get out. When night time come, go. And there is always somebody to ask you what you doing here? In your land. Did you hear me.”

 

Yes, Mr Farrakhan, we all heard you. If you lived in a crime-ridden land as Bahamians now do, you too would be happy to be behind gates in a secure community. But to refer to staff who work behind those gates as “riff-raff” is not only demeaning, but untrue. Most staff — unless they are live-in staff, as many of them are — usually leave a premises, gated or not, when their work is done.

 

Anyone arriving after those hours — unless they inform the security at the gate that they have been invited by an owner within those gates — are not allowed in. And, for Mr Farrakhan’s information, the colour of one’s skin has nothing to do with who goes past those gates once they have an invitation.

 

Apparently, Mr Farrakhan was invited to make the trip to Nassau by Mr Peter Nygard’s lawyer, Keod Smith. And, according, to Mr Farrakhan, he was flown here from Miami in Mr Nygard’s aircraft.

 

While here — particularly as he was not interested in the glitter and entertainment on the Nygard estate — it is a pity that Mr Smith did not make more of an effort to show Mr Farrakhan the true Lyford Cay. Was Mr Nygard told that many successful black Bahamians live behind those gates in the relatively secure comfort of Lyford Cay? If he would have visited in the early morning, he would have seen black and white neighbours taking their morning walks, or playing a game of golf or tennis, or relaxing around the pool together.

 

There are property owners — both black and white — who live behind the Lyford Cay gates. There are also Lyford Cay members, who do not necessarily live at Lyford Cay, but have full access to all of the amenities of the club as would those members who live on the property. Some of them are even honorary members. They are lawyers, doctors, businessmen, politicians — all successful black and white Bahamians.

 

Not one of them wants “riff-raff” hanging around — just as ordinary citizens who cannot afford life at Lyford Cay want “riff-raff” around their premises. In the context of today’s Bahamas, “riff-raff” means trouble. Usually it results in a crime story on the next day’s front page of the newspaper. We are certain that if Mr Farrakhan lived here, he too would be behind a high gate.

 

And then Mr Farrakhan challenged — presumably those to whom he referred as the ”riff-raff” Bahamian — with these words: “Now either this is your land or you’re not the owner anymore of this. But you paid a price and the land is being sold right out from under your foot.”

 

Obviously, Mr Farrakhan does not know the history of this land. The Lucayans were the indigenous peoples of the Bahamas, not the Europeans or the Africans. The Lucayans were wiped from the face of the earth when they were transported in Spanish slave ships to work the fields of Hispaniola.

 

On July 9, 1647, in the 23rd year of “the reign of King Charles, King of England, France, and Ireland”, the island of Eleuthera and adjacent islands were ceded to the Eleutheran Adventurers to work as plantations for the Crown. Eventually, these islands were populated by the white man bringing with him his black slaves. So — with the Lucayans wiped out — we really do not know what indigenous owners Mr Farrakhan refers to.

 

The Bahamas belongs to Bahamians — black, white and brown. Throughout history, they all made sacrifices to make the islands what they are today. No one group can claim ownership. However, once our elected government gives an outsider permission to make the Bahamas his home, whatever piece of property he purchases and gets clear title to is his. However, should he break our laws, he puts himself in the category of the undesirable.

 

And so, Mr Farrakhan, each piece of property in Lyford Cay is owned by whoever has purchased it, be he white, black, Bahamian or foreign.

 

As for selling the land under the black Bahamian’s “foot”, maybe Mr Farrakhan should be informed by Mr Smith that without the foreign investor, the Bahamas would not be where it is today.

 

Daily, the Bahamian is praying for the tourist and the foreign investor. Everyone is now holding their collective breath should either or both of these turn their backs on these islands.

 

Mr Farrakhan is noted for his inflammatory language. Many Bahamians should remember the sensational headlines at the time of the murder of Malcolm X, leader of the Black Panther movement. For those interested, they will find a report on Wikipedia under the biography of Louis Farrakhan.

 

Wikipedia reports, among other things: “In a 60 Minutes interview aired in May 2000, Farrakhan stated that some of the things he said may have led to the assassination of Malcolm X. ’I may have been complicit in words that I spoke,’ he said. ‘I acknowledge that and regret that any word that I have said caused the loss of life of a human being.’ A few days later, he again acknowledged that he ‘created the atmosphere that ultimately led to Malcolm’s assassination’.”

 

Should Mr Farrakhan again visit our shores, we would appreciate it if he would refrain from meddling in the affairs of our islands — particularly as he seems to be so ill-informed about our history and way of life.

 

March 18, 2013

 

Tribune 242

 

Bahamas Blog International 

Homosexuals In Jamaica

Do Homosexuals Have A Place In Jamaica

By Jaevion Nelson:

FOR SOME strange reason we have concluded that retaining the buggery law can prevent people from being born homosexual. On top of that, we want nothing to do with homosexuality but talk about it, usually expressing disparage, at every waking moment in songs, political speeches, and sermons. In Jamaica, your (gay or lesbian) sexual orientation is an axis on which grave discrimination and even violence occurs but the commonplace homophobia is often denied.

In a contribution in the Winter 2010 edition of Americas Quarterly Magazine, entitled 'The Advocate', I highlighted that "the dominant heterosexual culture [in Jamaica] continues to breed intolerance, revealed in inadequate public policies" and laws to all sectors of society including educational and religious institutions.

Notwithstanding the antipathy which exists, more and more Jamaicans are becoming open about their sexual orientation. Many people see persons they think are homosexual - usually effeminate males and 'masculine' females - and conclude that we are not homophobic. People who are opposed to constitutional provisions for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) seemingly think their brothers and sisters who are non-heterosexual are not deserving of being called Jamaican.

Nothing could be more ludicrous. How can this be so when so many LGBT people are active participants in the development of Jamaica. As my friend Javed Jaghai, an openly gay Jamaican, said, "if every gay person working in mass media, law, government, banking and insurance, tourism and the performing arts were to take a year-long leave of absence tomorrow, their sudden departure would send tremors through the various sectors."

Regrettably, LGBT people's contribution to our national vision to make Jamaica a developed country by 2030 will never truly materialise with the distinctions which currently exist in our society about the respect for one set of people over another. The majority of a subsample of businesspeople in the 2012 National Survey on Homophobia revealed they would not readily hire a gay or lesbian person. It is my hope that all Jamaicans will recognise and appreciate that a country is enriched when it reaches out to all its citizens, enshrines the dignity of all and celebrates diversity. A contrary approach, which criminalises those who do no harm to others, makes outcasts of some and narrows the definition of who is truly Jamaican.

It is my firm belief that more must be done and can be done to achieve our national vision to ensure that the "Jamaican society is secure, cohesive and just" by promoting tolerance and respect for human rights and freedoms, regardless of sexual orientation, religion, socio-economic status, disability or health status.

Contribution to development

Importantly, despite what appears to be widespread fear of and dislike for homosexuals in Jamaica, many respondents in the National Survey of Attitudes and Perceptions to Same-sex Relationships, conducted in 2010 by Professor Ian Boxill, readily point out that persons who are homosexual make an important contribution to the society. Most Jamaicans believe that homosexuals are and can be productive members of society. They conceded, on some level, that many homosexuals are 'normal' and that they may be interacting with us every day and not know our sexual orientation.

As Jamaicans, we should all lend our support to human rights advocacy so our Government can demonstrate leadership and protect members of the LGBT community. Already, a third of Jamaicans believe they aren't doing enough in this regard. We must take important steps to make Jamaica the country for people to live, work, raise families and do business. We should ensure that the Jamaican law is based on the concepts of inclusivity and dignity, and on an appreciation of contemporary science on human sexuality, not on prejudice, fear and misinformation.

This is achievable given that the Government has on more than one occasion committed itself to protect persons on the basis of their sexual orientation and gender identity from human-rights abuses at the regional and international levels. These commitments encourage us to condemn, and take steps to address, all areas of human rights violations on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. We have already articulated the need to address human rights violations throughout Vision 2030, the national development plan.

As J-FLAG, the Jamaica Forum for Lesbians, All-Sexuals and Gays, has said, "We must commit to rebuild this great nation on the principle of understanding ourselves and fellow men and women. Each of us should invest in promoting equality ... Gay or straight, Christian or non-Christian, JLP or PNP, let us use our talents and resources for the betterment of our country."

Jaevion Nelson is a youth development, HIV and human rights advocate. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com  and jaevion@gmail.com.

March 14, 2013

Jamaica Gleaner

Bahamas Blog International

The Bahamian Government will allow exploratory oil drilling ...to determine whether there are commercial quantities of oil in The Bahamas ...prior to any referendum

Exploratory Oil Drilling Before Any Referendum

 

By NATARIO McKENZIE

Tribune Business Reporter
nmckenzie@tribunemedia.net
Nassau, The Bahamas



THE Government will allow exploratory drilling to determine whether there are commercial quantities of oil in the Bahamas prior to any referendum, a Cabinet Minister said yesterday.

Kenred Dorsett, minister of the environment and housing, said it was unlikely that there would be any referendum on oil exploration in the Bahamas prior to the 2015 second half.

“The fact that oil exploration is being pursued so seriously and systematically in such very close proximity to the Bahamas dictates that we hasten our own decision making process as it pertains to oil exploration and environmental regulation here in the Bahamas,” Mr Dorsett said in a statement released yesterday.

“Accordingly, my Ministry, supported by the Office of the Attorney General, has prioritised the task of strengthening and modernising our Petroleum Regulations, ensuring that they reflect international best practices and standards. These regulations will combine best practices identified in a variety of leading jurisdictions, including the United Kingdom, Norway, Australia, Trinidad and Tobago, the United States (as modified after the Gulf of Mexico incident), and Greenland.

“They will reflect the most up-to-date risk management practices and mandate the use of the best technology suitable for our conditions. These new regulations will also establish appropriate oversight and monitoring protocols to ensure that offshore exploration is conducted responsibly, and with a high regard for safety and environmental vigilance, having particular regard to the need to ensure human safety and, as I stated earlier in this statement, to preserve the beauty of our waters and beaches and our marine life and eco-systems.

“The new regulations are substantially complete already and will be presented to Cabinet very shortly to preserve the beauty of our waters and beaches, and our marine life and eco-systems.”

Mr Dorsett said the Government was not going to conduct a referendum without ascertaining whether there were commercial quantities of oil in the Bahamas. “The new regulations would be in place well ahead of any oil exploration,” he added. “Exploration drilling is, of course, the only way the Bahamian people will be able to get a scientific answer to the burning question as to whether petroleum reserves even exist in commercial quantities in our waters.

“Obviously, we are not going to have a referendum on a hypothetical proposition. We are not going to ask the electorate to vote on whether they want to develop an oil industry if there is no oil to begin with. Thus, we need to find out first, through exploration drilling, whether we do indeed have oil in commercially viable quantities. If we don’t, then obviously it would be completely pointless, and a shameful waste of public funds, to have a referendum on the matter.”

Mr Dorsett said if commercial quantities of oil were discovered in the Bahamas, the Government would engage the Bahamian people in an extensive public information programme to ensure all important facts were made available before a national referendum.

“This public consultation process would take place throughout the country, and would ensure the widest possible dissemination of important information about the discoveries and their potential significance,” he added.

“As part of this public information process, the Bahamian people would also receive a timeline for production and, very importantly, there would have to be a national dialogue on all important aspects of the question, including how oil revenues should be used to develop our nation and our people in ways that would probably not be achievable under current revenue streams from tourism and other existing industries.

“Estimates suggest that exploration data, sufficient to answer the question of whether we have petroleum reserves in commercially viable quantities, would probably not be available until the latter part of 2014 or early 2015. Therefore, allowing for the public consultation process I have referred to, it is unlikely there would be any referendum on the oil development question before the second half of 2015.”

March 11, 2013

Tribune 242

Bahamas Blog International

.