Consensus, not conflict, is the key for Rafael Correa

By David Roberts




Following last week's attempted "coup" in Ecuador (we use the speech marks because it is far from clear if the protest over bonuses by some disgruntled sections of the military and police ever seriously threatened, or was even intended to bring down the government, and President Rafael Correa's claim that he was "kidnapped" in a hospital and threatened with death seems dubious to say the least) some fear the left-leaning leader may be inclined to clamp down on the opposition and impose a more radical and/or authoritarian form of government similar to what Hugo Chavez did in Venezuela after the coup attempt there in 2002.



The initial signs are not so positive, with Ecuador's foreign minister Ricardo Patiño saying "what we can expect after an episode like this is the radicalization, the strengthening of the revolution." If Correa does take that path, using the coup attempt as a pretext, it would be a big mistake. Although considered a close ally of Chavez, along with Evo Morales in Bolivia and Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua, the Ecuadorian president has to date governed in a much less confrontational manner than the Venezuelan leader. What Latin America needs less of is the kind of polarization of society seen in Venezuela, and one thing the region needs more of is stronger democratic institutions, the need for which is evidenced by the eroding of certain democratic freedoms in Venezuela (for example the closure of opposition TV channels), and events like last year's coup in Honduras and last week's unrest in Ecuador.



Leaders such as Chavez, Morales, Ortega and to a certain extent Correa - who has actually overseen a fair degree of stability in what is a notoriously volatile country - need to realize that once in office, a government has to be the government of all the people, and not just those who voted that government into power, or the factions who support it. Consensus, not confrontation, is the key to good government. As Brazil's outgoing President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva told Morales last year in explaining his own success:



"Evo, the political lesson and the lesson for life here is important. I don't govern only for the poor or the workers. They're my priority, but I govern for all the people."



But given the history of political instability in Ecuador, and realizing how fragile his own situation is, hopefully Correa will be wise enough to tread carefully and avoid excessive confrontation, despite his own inclinations. Since the protests, his government has announced pay rises for the police and military, albeit claiming the move was not related to last week's incidents.



Which brings us conveniently to Brazil, where Dilma Rousseff looks set to continue along a similar road to that taken by Lula in his two terms in office, assuming she wins the presidential run-off vote at the end of October. Whether she will enjoy the success that Lula has had, both in terms of the domestic economy and positioning Brazil on the world stage, obviously remains to be seen. The odds, however, must weigh heavily in Rousseff's favor given the solid base that Lula - once considered a leftist hothead himself - has laid and the positive forecasts for Brazil's economy, buoyed further by the healthy majority she is expected to enjoy in congress.



But Rousseff's Brazil will, of course, face massive challenges, such as in the areas of infrastructure (especially with the World Cup and Olympics coming up), in tackling corruption, in reducing further the unacceptably high poverty rate and in improving wealth distribution.

bnamericas

Bahamas Blog Internaional

Piedad Córdoba and her battle for peace

Reflections of Fidel

(Taken from CubaDebate)

THREE days ago the news was made public that the Attorney General of Colombia, Alejandro Ordóñez Maldonado, had removed the eminent Colombian Senator Piedad Córdoba from her post and barred her from political office for 18 years, because of her alleged promotion of and collaboration with the FARC (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia). Faced with such an unusual and drastic measure against the holder of an elected post in the highest institution of the state, she has no alternative other than to have recourse to the very attorney general who engendered the measure.

It was logical that such an arbitrary act would provoke strong condemnation, expressed by the most diverse political figures, among them, ex-prisoners of the FARC and relatives of those liberated on account of the senator’s efforts, former presidential candidates, people who held that high office, and others who were, or are, senators or members of the legislative power.

Piedad Córdoba is an intelligent and courageous person, a brilliant speaker, whose thinking is well articulated. A few weeks ago she visited us in the company of other outstanding figures, among them a Jesuit priest of notable honesty. They came inspired by a profound desire to seek peace for their country and asked for the cooperation of Cuba, recalling that, for years, and at the request of the Colombian government itself, we offered our territory and our cooperation for meetings between representatives of the Colombian government and the ELN that took place in the capital of our country.

However, the decision taken by the attorney general, which obeys the official policy of that country virtually occupied by yanki troops, does not surprise me.

I do not like to beat around the bush, and I will say what I think. Just one week ago, the general debates of the 65th Session of the United Nations General Assembly were about to begin. For three days, the painful objectives of the Millennium Development Goals had been discussed, and on Thursday, September 23, the General Assembly session opened, with the participation of heads of state or high-ranking representatives from each member country. The first to speak, as customary, would be the UN Secretary General and, immediately after, the president of the United States, the host country of the organization and apparent master of the world. The session began at 9:00 a.m. Logically, I was interested in what the illustrious Barack Obama, Nobel Peace Prize winner, would have to say, as soon as Ban Ki-moon had concluded. I ingenuously imagined that CNN en español or in English would broadcast Obama’s generally brief speech. It was in that way that I heard the debates among aspirants to that office two years ago in Las Vegas.

The hour arrived, the minutes passed and CNN was presenting apparently spectacular news of the death of a Colombian guerrilla chief. This was important, but not of special significance. I remained interested to find out what Obama was saying about the extremely grave problems that the world is confronting.

Is the situation of the planet one that both of them are taking us for fools and making the Assembly wait? I asked for CNN in English to be put on the other television and, not a word about the Assembly. So, what was CNN talking about? A news roundup was on and I waited until what it was broadcasting about Colombia was over. But 10, 20, 30 minutes went by and it continued with the same thing. It reported incidents of a colossal battle being waged, or that had been waged, in Colombia, the future of the continent was going to depend on it, according to what one could deduce from the words and style of the newscaster’s story. Full-color footage of the death of Víctor Julio Suárez Rojas, alias Jorge Briceño Suárez o "Mono Jojoy." It is the fiercest blow received by the FARC, the speaker confirmed, exceeding the death of Manuel Marulanda and of Raúl Reyes put together. A devastating action, he affirmed. What could be deduced was that a spectacular battle had taken place involving 30 fighter planes, 27 helicopters, and complete battalions of select troops engaged in fierce fighting.

Really, something more than the battles of Carabobo, Pichincha and Ayacucho rolled together. With my old experience in these kinds of combat, I could not imagine such a battle in a forested and remote region of Colombia. The out-of-the-ordinary action was spiced up with images of all kinds, old and new, of the rebel comandante. For the CNN newscaster, Alfonso Cano, who replaced Marulanda, was a university intellectual who did not enjoy the support of the combatants; the real chief had died. The FARC would have to surrender.

Let’s speak clearly. The news referring to the famous battle that resulted in the death of the comandante of the FARC – a Colombian revolutionary movement that emerged more than 50 years ago after the death of Jorge Eliécer Gaitán, assassinated by the oligarchy – and the removal from office of Piedad Córdoba, are very far from bringing peace to Colombia; on the contrary, they could accelerate revolutionary changes in that country.

I imagine that more than a few Colombian soldiers are embarrassed about the grotesque versions of the alleged battle in which Comandante Jorge Briceño Suárez died. In the first place, there was no fighting whatsoever. It was a crude and disgraceful assassination. Admiral Edgar Cely, perhaps embarrassed at the war report with which the official authority announced the news and other obscure versions, stated: "Jorge Briceño, alias ‘Mono Jojoy’, died from being crushed when… the building in which he was hidden in the selva fell in on him." "’What we know is that he died from being crushed, his bunker fell in on him,’ […] ‘it is not true that he was shot in the head.’" That is what he informed the Caracol Radio station, according to the U.S. AP news agency.

The operation was given the biblical name "Sodom," one of the two cities castigated because of its sinners, a deluge of fire and sulfur rained down on it.

The most serious part is what has not been told, and which everyone already knows, because the yankis themselves have made it public.

The government of the United States supplied its ally with more than 30 smart bombs. A GPS was installed in the boots that they gave the guerrilla chief. Guided by that instrument, the programmed bombs exploded in the camp where Jorge Briceño was located.

Why not explain the truth to the world? Why did they suggest a battle that never took place?

I have observed other shameful events via television. The president of the United States gave Uribe an effusive welcome in Washington, and supported him by offering classes on "democracy" in a U.S. university.

Uribe was one of the principal creators of the paramilitary structure, whose members are responsible for the increase in drug trafficking and the death of tens of thousands of people. It was with Barack Obama that Uribe signed the handover of seven military bases and, virtually, in any part of Colombian territory, for the installation of the men and equipment of the yanki armed forces. The country is full of clandestine cemeteries. Through Ban Ki-Moon, Obama granted Uribe immunity by appointing him no less than vice president of the commission investigating the attack on the flotilla transporting aid to the blockaded Palestinians in Gaza.

In the final days of his presidency, the operation utilizing the GPS in the new boots that the Colombian guerrilla needed was already prepared.

When the new president of Colombia traveled to the United States to speak in the General Assembly, he knew that the operation was underway, and when Obama heard of the news of the guerrilla’s assassination, he effusively embraced Santos.

I ask myself if, on that occasion, something was said about the implementation of the decision by the Colombian Senate to declare illegal Uribe’s authorization for establishing yanki military bases there. The gross assassination was supported by them.

I have criticized the FARC. In a Reflection I publicly stated my disagreement with the holding of prisoners of war and the sacrifice for them implied by the harsh conditions of life in the selva. I explained the reasons and the experience acquired in our struggle.

I was critical of the strategic concepts of the Colombian guerrilla movement. But I never refuted the revolutionary nature of the FARC.

I considered and consider that Marulanda was one of the most outstanding Colombian and Latin American guerrillas. When the names of many mediocre politicians have been forgotten, the name of Marulanda will be acknowledged as one of the most dignified and worthy fighters for the wellbeing of the campesinos, the workers and the poor of Latin America.

The prestige and moral authority of Piedad Córdoba has multiplied.



Fidel Castro Ruz

September 30, 2010

11:36 a.m.

granma.cu

Bahamas Blog International

Behind the Coup in Ecuador: The Attack on ALBA

The latest coup attempt against one of the countries in the Bolivarian Alliance For The People of Our America (ALBA) is an attempt to impede Latin American integration and the advance of revolutionary democratic processes. The rightwing is on the attack in Latin America. Its success in 2009 in Honduras against the government of Manuel Zelaya energized it and gave it the strength and confidence to strike again against the people and revolutionary governments in Latin America.

The elections of Sunday, September 26th in Venezuela, while victorious for the Venezuelan United Socialist Party (PSUV), also ceded space to the most reactionary and dangerous destabilizing forces at the service of imperial interests. The United States managed to situate key elements in the Venezuelan National Assembly, giving them a platform to move forward with their conspiratorial schemes to undermine Venezuelan democracy.

The day after the elections in Venezuela, the main advocate for peace in Colombia, Piedad Córdoba, was dismissed as a Senator in the Republic of Colombia, by Colombia’s Inspector General, on the basis of falsified evidence and accusations. But the attack against Senator Córdoba is a symbol of the attack against progressive forces in Colombia who seek true and peaceful solutions to the war in which they have been living for more than 60 years.

And now, Thursday, September 30th, was the dawn of a coup d’etat in Ecuador. Insubordinate police took over a number of facilities in the capital of Quito, creating chaos and panic in the country. Supposedly, they were protesting against a new law approved by the National Assembly on Wednesday, which according to them reduced labor benefits.

In an attempt to resolve the situation, President Rafael Correa went to meet with the rebellious police but was attacked with heavy objects and teargas, causing a wound on his leg and teargas asphyxiation. He was taken to a military hospital in Quito, where he was later kidnapped and held against his will, prevented from leaving.

Meanwhile, popular movements took to the streets of Quito, demanding the liberation of their President, democratically re-elected the previous year by a huge majority. Thousands of Ecuadorans raised their voices in support of President Correa, trying to rescue their democracy from the hands of coup-plotters who were looking to provoke the forced resignation of the national government.

In a dramatic development, President Correa was rescued in an operation by Special Forces from the Ecuadoran military in the late evening hours. Correa denounced his kidnapping by the coup-plotting police and laid responsibility for the coup d’etat directly upon former President, Lucio Gutiérrez. Gutiérrez was a presidential candidate in 2009 against President Correa, and lost in a landslide when more than 55% voted for Correa.

During today’s events, Lucio Gutiérrez declared in an interview, “The end of Correa’s tyranny is at hand,” also asking for the “dissolution of Parliament and a call for early presidential elections.”

But beyond the key role played by Gutiérrez, there are external factors involved in this attempted coup d’etat that are moving their pieces once again.

Infiltration of the Police

According to journalist Jean-Guy Allard, an official report from Ecuador’s Defense Minister, Javier Ponce, distributed in October of 2008 revealed “how US diplomats dedicated themselves to corrupting the police and the Armed Forces.”

The report confirmed that police units “maintain an informal economic dependence on the United States, for the payment of informants, training, equipment and operations.”

In response to the report, US Ambassador in Ecuador, Heather Hodges, justified the collaboration, saying “We work with the government of Ecuador, with the military and with the police, on objectives that are very important for security.” According to Hodges, the work with Ecuador’s security forces is related to the “fight against drug trafficking.”

The Ambassador

Ambassador Hodges was sent to Ecuador in 2008 by then President George W. Bush. Previously she successfully headed up the embassy in Moldova, a socialist country formerly part of the Soviet Union. She left Moldova sowing the seeds for a “colored revolution” that took place, unsuccessfully, in April of 2009 against the majority communist party elected to parliament.

Hodges headed the Office of Cuban Affairs within the US State Department in 1991, as its Deputy Director. The department was dedicated to the promotion of destabilization in Cuba. Two years later she was sent to Nicaragua in order to consolidate the administration of Violeta Chamorro, the president selected by the United States following the dirty war against the Sandinista government, which led to its exit from power in 1989.

When Bush sent her to Ecuador, it was with the intention of sowing destabilization against Correa, in case the Ecuadoran president refused to subordinate himself to Washington’s agenda. Hodges managed to increase the budget for USAID and the NED [National Endowment for Democracy] directed toward social organizations and political groups that promote US interests, including within the indigenous sector.

In the face of President Correa’s re-election in 2009, based on a new constitution approved in 2008 by a resounding majority of men and women in Ecuador, the Ambassador began to foment destabilization.

USAID

Certain progressive social groups have expressed their discontent with the policies of the Correa government. There is no doubt that legitimate complaints and grievances against his government exist. Not all groups and organizations in opposition to Correa’s policies are imperial agents. But a sector among them does exist which receives financing and guidelines in order to provoke destabilizing situations in the country that go beyond the natural expressions of criticism and opposition to a government.

In 2010, the State Department increased USAID’s budget in Ecuador to more than $38 million dollars. In the most recent years, a total of $5,640,000 in funds were invested in the work of “decentralization” in the country. One of the main executors of USAID’s programs in Ecuador is the same enterprise that operates with the rightwing in Bolivia: Chemonics, Inc. At the same time, NED issued a grant of $125,806 to the Center for Private Enterprise (CIPE) to promote free trade treaties, globalization, and regional autonomy through Ecuadoran radio, television and newspapers, along with the Ecuadoran Institute of Economic Policy.

Organizations in Ecuador such as Participación Ciudadana and Pro-justicia [Citizen Participation and Pro-Justice], as well as members and sectors of CODEMPE, Pachakutik, CONAIE, the Corporación Empresarial Indígena del Ecuador [Indigenous Enterprise Corporation of Ecuador] and Fundación Qellkaj [Qellkaj Foundation] have had USAID and NED funds at their disposal.

During the events of September 30 in Ecuador, one of the groups receiving USAID and NED financing, Pachakutik, sent out a press release backing the coup-plotting police and demanding the resignation of President Correa, holding him responsible for what was taking place. The group even went so far as to accuse him of a “dictatorial attitude.” Pachakutik entered into a political alliance with Lucio Gutiérrez in 2002 and its links with the former president are well known:

“PACHAKUTIK ASKS PRESIDENT CORREA TO RESIGN AND CALLS FOR THE FORMING OF A SINGLE NATIONAL FRONT

Press Release 141

In the face of the serious political turmoil and internal crisis generated by the dictatorial attitude of President Rafael Correa, who has violated the rights of public servants as well as society, the head of the Pachakutik Movement, Cléver Jiménez, called on the indigenous movement, social movements and democratic political organizations to form a single national front to demand the exit of President Correa, under the guidelines established by Article 130, Number 2 of the Constitution, which says: “The National Assembly will dismiss the President of the Republic in the following cases: 2) For serious political crisis and domestic turmoil.”

Jiménez backed the struggle of the country’s public servants, including the police troops who have mobilized against the regime’s authoritarian policies which are an attempt to eliminate acquired labor rights. The situation of the police and members of the Armed Forces should be understood as a just action by public servants, whose rights have been made vulnerable.

This afternoon, Pachakutik is calling on all organizations within the indigenous movement, workers, democratic men and women to build unity and prepare new actions to reject Correa’s authoritarianism, in defense of the rights and guarantees of all Ecuadorans.

Press Secretary

PACHAKUTIK BLOQUE”

The script used in Venezuela and Honduras repeats itself. They try to hold the President and the government responsible for the “coup,” later forcing their exit from power. The coup against Ecuador is the next phase in the permanent aggression against ALBA and revolutionary movements in the region.

The Ecuadoran people remain mobilized in their rejection of the coup attempt, while progressive forces in the region have come together to express their solidarity and support of President Correa and his government.

Source: Chavez Code

October 6th 2010

venezuelanalysis

Bahamas Blog International

Wyclef Jean: A campaign in retrospect

by Joseph Crupi, COHA Research Associate


After prolonging his failed campaign for a month after Haiti’s Provisional Electoral Council (CEP) ruled him ineligible to run for the presidency, Wyclef Jean has finally dropped his appeal, officially terminating his presidential bid on September 21st. Jean’s recent involvement in Haitian politics was a source of controversy from the outset; many had cast him as an unqualified meddler, while others embraced his now defunct candidacy as a move to empower the youth and deepen democracy.

Jean’s decision to run for the presidency was greeted with optimism and hope by much of Haiti’s politically discontented populace. However, there were early signs that Jean was not the progressive candidate he initially professed to be. In an interview with MTV published on February 25, 2004, Jean had expressed support for the coup that ousted democratically-elected president Jean-Bertrand Aristide. In reference to the militants who overthrew the former president, Jean said, “I don’t consider those people rebels. It’s people standing up for their rights. It’s not like these people just appeared out of nowhere and said, ‘Let’s cause some trouble.’ I think it’s just built up frustration, anger, hunger, depression.” Jean originally made these comments to MTV right as the events began to unfold in Haiti, before the involvement of the United States and other international powers had come to light. Therefore, Jean may have been able to excuse his politically improvident comments on the grounds of ignorance, but he removed any doubt about his political stance when he produced the 2006 documentary, The Ghosts of Cité Soleil. While the film received generally positive reviews, Jean’s depiction of the 2004 coup was historically inaccurate and politically biased. In the film, Jean paints sweatshop owners and neo-Duvalierists in a positive light, while implying that Aristide stepped down of his own free will.

Jean has also come under investigation for the mismanagement of his charitable organization, Yele Haiti. According to a tax document published by The Smoking Gun, Jean used funds from Yele Haiti for personal purposes, a claim Jean vehemently denied. However, the organization’s president admitted that Yele Haiti does have unusually high administrative costs, but he attributed the anomaly to the organization’s inexperience. An August 16 New York Times article details the dismal quality of service that Yele Haiti has provided to tent camps under its responsibility. According to residents of the communities, Jean’s organization has failed to provide them with food or water, ignoring pleas from the camps’ leaders.

Jean’s supporters advanced two primary arguments during his campaign. First, they claimed Jean’s celebrity status would draw much needed investment to Haiti. However, the reasoning behind this argument is not clear. Multinational corporations do not respond to celebrity, but rather profitability and investment security. In light of Jean’s mismanagement of Yele Haiti and his lack of economic knowledge, it is difficult to see how any corporation could view a Haiti under Wyclef Jean as an attractive business environment. Second, Jean’s supporters argued that his election would demonstrate that a Haitian could command the world stage. Jean certainly could command attention, but it is not the type of attention Haiti wants or needs. During his bid for the presidency, Jean was more of an embarrassment than a source of national pride. Had he been elected, it is likely that he would have been viewed as a novelty rather than as a serious spokesperson for a new, autonomous Haiti.

In late August, the CEP ruled that Jean, along with 14 other candidates, was ineligible to run in the presidential election. Although the CEP did not explain its decision, it is believed that Jean was ruled ineligible because he failed to satisfy the five-year residency requirement. After initially stating that he would comply with the CEP’s ruling, Jean appealed the decision, claiming he had been acting as a roving ambassador and was therefore exempt from the residency statute.

Through his subsequent appeal of the disqualification, Jean may have inadvertently reinforced the political corruption already entrenched in Haiti’s electoral process. The CEP is notorious for its politically motivated decisions, lack of transparency, and ardent opposition of former president Aristide’s political party, Lavalas. The media coverage of Jean’s candidacy, though, painted a far different picture of the CEP. In Jean’s case, there was a rational legal basis for his exclusion from the election, and many media sources phrased their reports as if the CEP had definitively and specifically ruled Jean ineligible under the residency requirement. The wording of a number of news articles gave the impression that the CEP had declared a reason for excluding Jean, which it had not, thus creating an illusion of transparency. Jean’s statements immediately following his decision to accept the ruling granted the CEP even more legitimacy in the public eye. Although he later appealed and claimed the CEP had used trickery to block his candidacy, Jean attempted to appeal within the structure of Haitian political law, which has no appeal mechanism. His decision to protest the election through official channels validated the authority of the CEP and bolstered Haiti’s corrupt political system.

After dropping his bid, Jean claimed that his “ultimate goal in continuing the appeal was to further the people’s opportunity to freely participate in a free and fair democratic process.” However, Jean has hardly been an advocate of democracy in Haiti’s past elections. Indeed, he failed to speak out when Lavalas presidential candidate Gerard Jean-Juste was jailed under false pretenses and barred from running in the 2006 presidential election. Jean was again silent in 2009, when the Lavalas party was barred from the legislative elections for failing to produce a document signed by its party leader, the exiled President Aristide. In 2010, the Lavalas party fulfilled all the necessary requirements to register for elections, yet they were excluded for their failure to produce proper documentation in the previous election. The ruling was upheld despite condemnation from the UN, the OAS, and members of the US Senate; predictably, Jean remained silent. Jean’s failure to speak out on behalf of Lavalas may be attributable to his roots in Haiti’s elite class, which has traditionally opposed the progressive reforms of the Lavalas party. However, his failure to plead the case of the 14 other candidates ruled out of the 2010 presidential election, many of whom had legitimate claims to candidacy, suggests his appeal was motivated more by a desire for personal advancement than by genuine democratic conviction.

In addition to his weak record of support for democratic elections, the notion that Jean would have been committed to cultivating a democratic society had he been elected is equally dubious. Indeed, democracy consists of far more than the freedom to vote. Broadly understood, democracy is the right of the people to govern themselves in pursuit of a just society. If elected president, Jean would have had neither the capability nor the intent to secure this end. Having lived outside Haiti for most of his life, Jean can hardly claim to be attuned to the burdens and desires shared by much of the country’s impoverished citizenry. Furthermore, while Jean provided a vague vision of reducing poverty and attracting foreign investment, he has not demonstrated the expertise to translate such a vision into practical policies that would further democracy. Moreover, the Haitian people have spoken clearly in favor of the reforms introduced by the Lavalas party under Aristide, yet Jean remains unequivocally opposed to the Lavalas platform, preferring instead to retain the neo-liberal policies of Haiti’s elite class.

In recent weeks, Jean has begun to show signs of stress. In response to allegations from Sean Penn that Jean had not had a visible presence in Haiti, Jean lashed out and accused Penn of using drugs. Shortly thereafter, Jean was hospitalized for stress related illness. According to his publicist, Jean had been “suffering from stress and fatigue based on the grueling eight weeks he’s had.” Jean’s inability to handle the demands of a short campaign demonstrated that he was certainly not ready to assume leadership of a country, and fortunately, he was never given the chance.

For months, Jean’s candidacy has dominated headlines in Haiti and elsewhere, overshadowing the efforts of the Haitian people to rebuild their country, fight corruption, and achieve a true democracy. Unfortunately, Jean did not offer a solution to these problems, only a temporary distraction. Perhaps now the world can turn its focus back to the real needs of the Haitian people, and Jean can return to writing music.

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

October 6, 2010

caribbeannewsnow

Bahamas Blog International

Bahamas: Youth gangs up by '58%'

Youth gangs up by '58%'
By NOELLE NICOLLS
Tribune Staff Reporter
nnicolls@tribunemedia.net


THE number of youth gangs in the Bahamas rose by 58 per cent over the past eight years, according to data released by Youth Against Violence.

The total number of gangs in the Bahamas is now 79, and schools have become a "breeding ground." It is not just public schools being affected, said Minister Keith Gray, a presenter at the Conflict Resolution and Anger Management Seminar on Friday.

"No school is impervious to gang penetration," he said. "We say this not to create pandemonium, but to create a network of support to address the plight of our youth," he said.

Earlier this week, Pastor Carlos Reid, a director at Youth Against Violence (YAV), said over 20,000 Bahamian youth are involved in gang activity. Since then, some Bahamians have accused the group of having exaggerated figures.

But Pastor Reid said he is not phased.

"Let's do the math," he said, referring to 1991 statistics that placed the number at 9,000. He said the reference was a consultative report on youth development produced by a government steering committee.

The problem is real and it is affecting Bahamians as young as eight and nine. At that age they serve as recruits. "It could start out as washing a car for $5 for a known gang member," he said.

Minor chores end up being major crimes, like transporting drugs, ammunition and weapons by order of gang leaders, he said.

The problem sufficiently warrants the creation of a multi-departmental gang unit, according to Pastor Reid. The idea has caught steam with the Royal Bahamas Police Force.

The top brass were in attendance at the YAV workshop. Commissioner Elliston Greenslade confirmed that a gang unit has been a part of continuing discussions among his executive management team.

He said they are open to the idea of establishing a gang unit as another strategy for youth intervention.

The gang unit would fit into the police's over all youth strategy that includes "involvement, interaction and intervention," said Mr Greenslade. It would not be based on the "limited lock them up" mentality held by some people.

"I spoke to the boys and they are just ordinary kids. These are little fellas who need mentorship. They asked me questions like if I have ever stolen something," said Mr Greenslade. "They are just trying to test you."

He explained to a group of boys, suspended from H.O. Nash Junior School, that he once stole a bicycle when he was a boy in Bain Town. He said his grandmother made him take it back.

"We have been calling for this gang unit from thy kingdom come. The authorities are either clueless, don't care or they don't live in the Bahamas. All of the different agencies should come together and form that unit," said Pastor Reid, speaking of the ministry of youth and education, the department of social services, the police, and other stakeholders.

Minister Grey said gang membership is broken down into several categories. Wannabes, he said, are individuals who imitate the behaviour of "hardcore gangsters." This activity is primarily seen at the primary school and junior high school level.

Periphery members are individuals who are part in and part out, or may be interested in seeking membership. Primarily seen at the junior high school level, these members are not fully entrenched in the gang, but they deal in some level of intimidation and harassment.

"Affiliates are the real gang bangers", said Minister Grey. This activity is seen primarily at the senior high school level. Participants at this level are believed to be "committed to deviant behaviour" and other criminal activity such as carrying weapons and selling drugs.

"Hardcore gangsters, or OGs (original gangstas) are in for life; ready to die. They are mainly out of school young men," said Minister Grey.

Not all young people will admit to gang membership, said Minister Grey, but they are trained to look at the signs: graffiti in school books; body tattoos, particular ways of dressing; hair cuts; sounds; hand signals, for example.

"My mummy used to say stop hanging out with those bad company boys. Little did she know I was the bad company. A lot of parents they swear for their kids, but they are lost in the storm," said Minister Grey, who was one of the founding members of the Rebellion Raiders in the 1980s.

"The reality is a lot of our young people are good when they are home, but when they are out on the strips, they are terrorists. Personally, that is who I was. I had a split personality almost. Respectful at home, then out on the strip doing all kinds of crazy things. A lot of parents don't see their kids as being that," he said.

October 04, 2010

tribune242

Bahamas Blog International

The UN and the Caribbean - A hope misplaced

by Rebecca Theodore

Eradicating poverty is the greatest global challenge facing the world today. The statistical surge of pictures of poverty around the world is not only manifested as a gross form of over representation by the media and other crusading organizations, but also shows the way in which poverty acts as a stigmata for entertainment and the way in which realism govern images in the capitalist press.

According to UNICEF and World Health Organization statistics, every 3 seconds a child dies from hunger and preventable disease. Yet, while we revel in the repute of a scientific and technological age, with tremendous advances in modern medicine and billion of dollars spent on nuclear armaments, the UN under the umbrella of the MDG fuels the flame by internationally declaring that 2010 is a defining moment in their fight against poverty.

It is clear that not only is this an insult to one’s intelligence but in accepting a daylight saving time mentality by pushing the date forward to an additional five years to further give a distinct character to poverty, the UN defeats its purpose of serving as a forum to set a global agenda, far less a pursuit of a vigorous development agenda, or the deliverance of humanitarian assistance to improve living conditions and alleviate poverty to those in need.

It follows that if Millennium Development Goals are supposed to be a solid, visual depiction between the world’s major economic players, i.e. poor countries’ improvement of policies and governance and rich countries’ provision of resources; then this is nothing more that an inflated statement of intent because it is rhetoric such as this that continues to muster and produce the poor among us.

Examples are clearly seen in the activities of the World Bank, and United Nations Development Program (UNDP), whose material operations are a consequence of the venality of poor people in the world at large.

In the same way that rhetoric did not fill stomachs in Nazi Germany’s day because the only goal of persuasive speech was to conquer the masses -- any means to that end was good and any means that did not serve that end was bad -- overcoming this delusion and developing a human development program through education, health, water, sanitation and job creation to eradicate poverty, to lift the poorest out of their isolation so that they can prosper and their talents and productivity can be unleashed will generate diverse return in terms of economic growth and social stability.

Statistics indicate that as many as 100 million people have fallen below the poverty line since the financial crisis began. Therefore a worldwide demand of civil society of the commitment to increase official development assistance is an economically solid and morally sound proposition.

In this regard, Caribbean states are also vulnerable in the face of poverty as economic and political problems that one state faces individually are common to all Caribbean states.

It is clear that Caribbean islands are experiencing climate change more quickly and visibly than other nations. Compressed with the malady of food security, marine and coastal resources, dependence on foreign aid and markets for financial growth -- a problem that sees fluctuation on global markets at an alarming rate, and dependence on imports for food and energy, then it is evident that Caribbean nations will have high debt burdens, which leave them vulnerable to economic problems, sinking deeper into the abyss of poverty and dehumanizing living and working conditions.

Hence, it is time to consider our vulnerabilities as leveraged strength and seek diasporic unity in the battle against poverty because the UN is no longer an immediate saviour.

It must be seen that UN conferences as MDG produces nothing but strife and bickering in its pledge to solve the sufferings of humanity, for if its purpose is to help countries build and share their own solutions to challenge urgent development needs, supporting coalitions for change and connecting individuals and institutions so they can share knowledge, experience and resources, then considering the UN’s deplorable track record in Rwanda, Darfur and Congo, committing hundreds of sex crimes against the people they were sent to protect; and until recently in Haiti where incompetence and corruption reigns supreme with its entrustment of billions of dollars to stabilize the lives of the Haitian people allotted to the salary and luxurious upkeep of its own workers, the question lingers -- Is there cause for optimism in its reconstruction of the Caribbean and its environs in the fight to eradicate poverty?

caribbeannewsnow

Bahamas Blog International

Bishop Eddie Long's gay-sex scandal

By Anthony L. Hall


“If these politicians were not lead vocals in a chorus of moral crusaders, I would not give their sexual escapades a moment’s thought. For the unadulterated pleasure of afflicting these hypocrites, however, I don’t even mind being bedfellows with a publicity-seeking hustler like Larry Flynt.” (DC Madam outs Sen. David Vitter as a faithful “John”..., TIJ, July 17, 2007)

This quote explains why I have reveled in commenting on the sex scandals that exposed a number of politicians as self-righteous hypocrites in recent years. But I hope it goes without saying that the logic behind it applies even more to preachers. Remember gay-bashing Pastor Ted Haggard who was outed by his male prostitute? Well, this brings me to mega-church leader Bishop Eddie Long.

Four young boys filed lawsuits recently accusing this 57-year-old preacher, who has hobnobbed over the years with every US president from Carter to Obama, of using his power and influence as head of the Youth Academy they attended to sexually molest them … repeatedly. And, by the way, if four of them had the courage to come forward, chances are very good that there are at least another forty boys who are either too ashamed or too afraid to do so.

The grooming these boys allege is textbook predatory behavior -- complete with Bishop Long enticing them with cash, jewelry, cars, and overnight stays in luxurious hotels (where they reportedly shared the same bed). Not surprisingly, in this age of Twitter and Facebook, there are even incriminating pictures that he sent to these boys, which are of the type that only a young stud would send to a young girl (or boy) he’s trying to seduce.

Meanwhile, anyone who knows anything about the black church, which I grew up in, knows that “Thou shall not be gay” is observed like the eleventh commandment. And no black preacher has hurled more invectives about eternal damnation at homosexuals than Bishop Long. Hell, he even led a notorious march through the streets of Atlanta in 2004 protesting the Sodomization of America.

I have often lamented that it’s not white Republicans as much as black Democrats who have blocked the passage of legislations and referendums granting equal rights to gay people. And, sadly, the historical irony, if not hypocrisy, inherent in their prejudice against our homosexual brothers and sisters seems completely lost on these black (Christian) folks.

More to the point, though, anyone who knows anything about the black church also knows that Bishop Long is hardly the only black preacher who preaches against homosexuality on Sunday morning as a perverse form of absolution for the homosexual “sins” he committed on Saturday night.

Indeed, it would not surprise me at all to learn that such closeted preachers are defiling pulpits in every state in the United States as well as in every country in the Caribbean. But I urge any young boy who is being groomed and molested in this fashion to report that so-called man of God to the police … today!

In any case, Bishop Long must derive some relief from the fact that his alleged assignations with these boys do not constitute crimes. Evidently, the boys were all above the age of consent when the alleged sexual acts were consummated. So at least the bishop does not appear to be a pedophile … as well.

Accordingly, what must matter above all else to him now is retaining the blind faith of the 25,000 members of his New Birth Missionary Baptist Church in Atlanta, Georgia. No doubt this is why he stood before them on Sunday and casted himself as David fighting against some phantom Goliath -- not for the sake of his wretched soul, but for the sake of his hedonistic life.
Vowing to fight the allegations, he intoned that:

“I’ve been accused, I’m under attack… I am not a perfect man, but this thing I’m gonna fight. I feel like David against Goliath, but I got five rocks, and I haven’t thrown one yet.” (CNN September 26, 2010)

This triggered a rousing ovation from the poor, gullible souls who have poured tens of millions into the coffers from which Bishop Long has funded his lifestyle of the rich and famous. In fact, it has always been a source of profound shame for me that blacks take such incomprehensible pride in the ostentatious ways their pastors flaunt their ill-gotten wealth. Especially since these “tithing” folks themselves are invariably struggling to make ends meet.

Anyway, far too few members of his congregation seemed to wonder why he spoke so defiantly about fighting the allegations, but never denied any of them. Not to mention that one of the deacons of his church should have admonished him by quoting this familiar proverb, which might have made the bishop think twice about casting himself as David:

“He who lives in a glass house should not throw stones.”

Of course, truth be told, the reason he hasn’t thrown any yet is that Bishop Long probably plans to quietly settle all claims and then go on preaching as if they were never filed. And his congregation will be all too willing to oblige….

But what I found particularly galling about the bishop’s statement on Sunday was his non-confession confession in which he said that “I am not a perfect man”. Indeed, when I finally saw the video of him making it, I wanted to shout at him:

“No shit, Sherlock! The problem is not that you’re not perfect; it’s that you’re a friggin’ sexual predator … and a hypocrite to boot! And one more thing, with all of the millions you’ve stolen from those poor suckers giving you a standing ovation, the least you could do is to buy yourself a better-looking toupee.”

And that’s coming from the son of a preacher man….

October 1, 2010

caribbeannewsnow

Bahamas Blog International