DNA Concerned over Haiti President's Visit
by The Official Democratic National Alliance
The Democratic National Alliance (DNA) is gravely concerned that the present administration would allow a presidential visit from a foreign country during a heightened political season.
While the DNA believes that Haiti president, Michel Martelly should be welcomed to The Bahamas and it offers an opportunity to strengthen international relations, this was too sensitive of a time to do so.
As to President Martelly’s comments, the DNA find them to be inappropriate, not only because of the political season, but it also seemed to be a shameful political ploy by the Free National Movement to manipulate the process.
DNA leader, Branville McCartney said this unfortunate political tactic is a direct attack on Bahamian democracy, the victims being all Bahamians—those of foreign decent or otherwise, who uphold the ideals of the nation and their right to vote for whichever political party they see fit.
“As the DNA recognizes, moreso now after this disturbing visit, that the country’s leadership is in dire need of reform; we also recognize that Haiti’s president should respect the sovereignty of our democracy,” Mr. McCartney said.
The DNA found President Martelly’s careless use of the word “riot” as inflammatory and to insinuate that Bahamians of Haitian decent are being abused is misleading.
Mr. McCartney noted that The Bahamas has always been accommodating to our Haitian neighbours, so when he speaks of forming a pact, he should have been mindful that all voters are Bahamian. In other words, if one is eligible to vote, their vote should reflect Bahamian interests and not that of another country.
“Haiti’s president has a mammoth task of redeveloping his country and that does not begin in The Bahamas,” he said.
9 February 2012
Bahamas Blog International
An International Caribbean Online Log about the news and opinions in the Americas and World. This Caribbean Blog of global reach and appeal is maintained by Bahamian Blogger - Dennis Dames with all readers and subscribers in mind.
Thursday, February 9, 2012
Jamaica: Michael Manley, Garveyism and Matalon
Manley, Garveyism and Matalon
By MICHAEL BURKE
Forty-three years ago today Michael Manley was elected president of the People's National Party. Twenty-three years ago today, the PNP returned to power and Michael Manley once again got a chance to be prime minister. In this 50th anniversary jubilee of our political Independence, perhaps the man with the greatest impact over the last 50 years was Michael Manley. Whether he was the most effective prime minister or he did the most for Jamaica, was the greatest negotiator or was the worst thing to ever happen to Jamaica are all debatable topics. But not even Michael Manley's detractors can successfully challenge the impact that he had.
I call myself a Norman Manleyist, in that I recognise Norman Manley (Michael Manley's father) as the person as "the man with the plan". Indeed, Michael Manley, for the most part implemented his father's ideas. While I am not in favour of Michael Manley being made a national hero unless another 50 years have passed when there can be a proper evaluation of both the way he lived his life and contributed to the growth of Jamaica, it has nothing to do with the massive impact that he had on Jamaica, the Caribbean and the World.
In 1969 when he was Opposition leader, Michael Manley visited Ethiopia and returned to Jamaica with a rod purportedly from Emperor Haile Selassie. That fact alone inspired Rastafarians to participate in the Jamaican democratic process from which they had hitherto stayed aloof as they awaited a return passage to our African motherland.
From the 1960s there were Rastafarians and Pan Africanists campaigning for Garveyism to be taught in schools. During the Social Services debate in 1992, then education Minister Burchell Whiteman announced that as of September that year, Garveyism would be taught in schools. I had advocated the teaching of Garveyism in my columns in the now defunct Jamaica Record, so I celebrated. But it was not to be.
The teachers said that they were not trained to teach Garveyism and that there was no Marcus Garvey textbook. To my mind, their stance was nothing but delaying tactics and I wrote as much. Now we hear that as of September Garveyism is to be taught in schools and a textbook has been provided. Is this another announcement which will be followed by delaying tactics for another 20 years? If it is not, then it will be ironic that it took a white man (education minister, Deacon Ronnie Thwaites) to implement the teaching of Garveyism in schools.
Children who were born out of wedlock could not inherit property until Michael Manley piloted the act to abolish the illegitimacy law in 1975, so that "no bastard no deh again". There was no minimum wage in Jamaica before 1975, some 84 years after Pope Leo XIII encouraged it in his encyclical Rerum Novarum in 1891. There was the adjustment of the land tax law in such a way that the rich paid more land tax. The establishment of the National Housing Trust so that ordinary people could access housing has done a lot to empower the poor. This was done under Michael Manley's watch in the 1970s.
And this brings me to the subject of the late Mayer Matalon, former chairman of West Indies Home Contractors who recently passed away. By the way, Mayer Matalon was chairman of the Jamaica College board of directors (1967-71) while at the same time his brother, Eli Matalon, was chairman of the Kingston College board of directors. Had it not been for the Matalons, who invested heavily in housing, we would have serious housing problems today.
As an aside, no one might know that housing in Jamaica also contributed to the ecumenical movement, where churches of different denominations come together for prayer and action. The Church of Reconciliation in Bridgeport, Portmore, St Catherine, was opened in September 1977. It is a church that is jointly used by the Roman Catholic and Anglican churches.
For its 20th anniversary in 1997, I was asked to prepare a history of the Church of Reconciliation. I approached the late Archbishop Samuel Carter (already retired from 1995), and asked him whose idea it was to have the joint church: was it his, or was it Bishop Herbert Edmondson's, then the Anglican Lord Bishop of Jamaica. "Neither," Archbishop Carter answered. "So whose idea was it then?" I asked. After a pause, the archbishop said "Matalon". However, he did not say which of the Matalon brothers.
Yes, it took a Matalon (who is of Jewish religion) who evidently wanted more space to build more houses to earn more money, when the Roman Catholic and Anglican churches applied for land within the Bridgeport Housing Scheme to build churches, to say, "Why don't you two bishops just build one church?" The truth is stranger than fiction.
I am not aware of any move by the powers that be to include in our celebrations a way of teaching our young people about the achievements of the last 50 years so that they understand that we truly have something to celebrate this year.
ekrubm765@yahoo.com
February 09, 2012
jamaicaobserver
By MICHAEL BURKE
I call myself a Norman Manleyist, in that I recognise Norman Manley (Michael Manley's father) as the person as "the man with the plan". Indeed, Michael Manley, for the most part implemented his father's ideas. While I am not in favour of Michael Manley being made a national hero unless another 50 years have passed when there can be a proper evaluation of both the way he lived his life and contributed to the growth of Jamaica, it has nothing to do with the massive impact that he had on Jamaica, the Caribbean and the World.
In 1969 when he was Opposition leader, Michael Manley visited Ethiopia and returned to Jamaica with a rod purportedly from Emperor Haile Selassie. That fact alone inspired Rastafarians to participate in the Jamaican democratic process from which they had hitherto stayed aloof as they awaited a return passage to our African motherland.
From the 1960s there were Rastafarians and Pan Africanists campaigning for Garveyism to be taught in schools. During the Social Services debate in 1992, then education Minister Burchell Whiteman announced that as of September that year, Garveyism would be taught in schools. I had advocated the teaching of Garveyism in my columns in the now defunct Jamaica Record, so I celebrated. But it was not to be.
The teachers said that they were not trained to teach Garveyism and that there was no Marcus Garvey textbook. To my mind, their stance was nothing but delaying tactics and I wrote as much. Now we hear that as of September Garveyism is to be taught in schools and a textbook has been provided. Is this another announcement which will be followed by delaying tactics for another 20 years? If it is not, then it will be ironic that it took a white man (education minister, Deacon Ronnie Thwaites) to implement the teaching of Garveyism in schools.
Children who were born out of wedlock could not inherit property until Michael Manley piloted the act to abolish the illegitimacy law in 1975, so that "no bastard no deh again". There was no minimum wage in Jamaica before 1975, some 84 years after Pope Leo XIII encouraged it in his encyclical Rerum Novarum in 1891. There was the adjustment of the land tax law in such a way that the rich paid more land tax. The establishment of the National Housing Trust so that ordinary people could access housing has done a lot to empower the poor. This was done under Michael Manley's watch in the 1970s.
And this brings me to the subject of the late Mayer Matalon, former chairman of West Indies Home Contractors who recently passed away. By the way, Mayer Matalon was chairman of the Jamaica College board of directors (1967-71) while at the same time his brother, Eli Matalon, was chairman of the Kingston College board of directors. Had it not been for the Matalons, who invested heavily in housing, we would have serious housing problems today.
As an aside, no one might know that housing in Jamaica also contributed to the ecumenical movement, where churches of different denominations come together for prayer and action. The Church of Reconciliation in Bridgeport, Portmore, St Catherine, was opened in September 1977. It is a church that is jointly used by the Roman Catholic and Anglican churches.
For its 20th anniversary in 1997, I was asked to prepare a history of the Church of Reconciliation. I approached the late Archbishop Samuel Carter (already retired from 1995), and asked him whose idea it was to have the joint church: was it his, or was it Bishop Herbert Edmondson's, then the Anglican Lord Bishop of Jamaica. "Neither," Archbishop Carter answered. "So whose idea was it then?" I asked. After a pause, the archbishop said "Matalon". However, he did not say which of the Matalon brothers.
Yes, it took a Matalon (who is of Jewish religion) who evidently wanted more space to build more houses to earn more money, when the Roman Catholic and Anglican churches applied for land within the Bridgeport Housing Scheme to build churches, to say, "Why don't you two bishops just build one church?" The truth is stranger than fiction.
I am not aware of any move by the powers that be to include in our celebrations a way of teaching our young people about the achievements of the last 50 years so that they understand that we truly have something to celebrate this year.
ekrubm765@yahoo.com
February 09, 2012
jamaicaobserver
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Britain and Bolivarian Alternative for Latin America and the Caribbean (ALBA): Another Falklands War?
Britain and ALBA: Another Falklands War?
By Rebecca Theodore
Lights! Camera! Action! Yes! A new light is shining on the oil-bearing geological formations in the Falkland Islands’ waters. Light is immediately understood as ‘the true source of all things and the base on which the physicality of the material world is built.’
However, the new light that is shining on British energy companies Rockhopper Exploration, Falkland Oil & Gas, Borders & Southern, Argos Resources and Arcadia et al, flickers rising tension between Britain and Argentina. It is not the light that saturates the living radiance of nature. It is the light of war.
It is a different light that illumines borders and margins when three decades ago, then British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher dispatched the first warships to the Falklands after Argentina’s ruling military government invasion. Argentina surrendered to Britain, but the importance of the Falklands to both Britain and Argentina now echo heated discussions because of the discovery of ‘black gold’ in the surrounding waters.
The Falkland Islands are a British overseas territory in the south-west Atlantic Ocean, where fishing and sheep farming are the main economic activities. Isolated and meagerly populated, it is the subject of a sovereignty dispute between Britain and Argentina. Despite being soundly beaten in 1982 by the British, Argentina maintains that the Falklands and the surrounding waters are theirs, even including them in the Argentine constitution.
The episode seems strange for the Falkland islanders themselves, who have freely chosen, through self-determination, to be an overseas territory of the UK and not a colony of Argentina. With British exploration set to begin in full swing, environmentalists also worry of the challenge it poses to the Falkland Islands government to protect the eco-system since the islands are a breeding ground for millions of penguins.
Now that the Falkland Islands are said to have one of the world's largest reserves of oil, mainly in the north, south and east basin and with British geological surveys estimating the oil at about 60 billion barrels; oil, money and drama not only excite the appetites of the British but that of a leading multitude as well.
Argentine President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner’s aggressive speech style has invoked the power of the Peróns on the issue, created a rift in Argentinian politics, and continues to fuel the patriotic ambitions of her people to reclaim the island archipelago. The EU, Venezuela's Hugo Chávez, Brazil, Nicaragua's Daniel Ortega and the rest of Latin America have all been seemingly supportive in the duel as well.
With Chavez loudly proclaiming that ‘the time for empire is over,’ he demands the UK hand back the Falklands to Buenos Aires, and condemns Britain for flouting international law by permitting drilling in the surrounding waters.
While Argentina simmers with anger at the possibility of the Falklands becoming an energy source for Britain, on the other side of the dubious coin, an attack by Argentina on the Falklands, would also be considered an attack on the EU, because Britain is part of the EU. This means that France and Germany would have to support a British effort to defend the Falklands in the event of war because Europeans would not accept to lose the Falklands and the oil to the Argentinians.
In fact, as proponents lament, the islands may eventually fall, either directly or indirectly, under the influence of Europe, especially if they emerge as a source for energy. This move would completely erode the monopoly of OPEC (The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries) in determining the price and the growing demand for oil and instill optimism in traders buying shares in Rockhopper Exploration.
Despite Britain’s close coalition with the US, the Obama Administration is determined not to be drawn into the conflict. It has also declined to back Britain’s claim that oil exploration near the islands is sanctioned by international law, saying that the dispute is strictly a bilateral issue choosing instead to back Argentina’s calls for negotiation at the United Nations.
The cause of the commotion is not the islands themselves, but the oil reserves within the Falklands’ territorial waters. This makes the islands a very big deal because whoever owns them would own one of the world’s largest oil reserves. With the rise in oil prices and the worldwide search for new oil and gas services, it has now become more than commercially viable for drilling to begin.
Britain’s large-scale drilling of oil in the Falklands, and its establishment of a military fortress in the south Atlantic provokes a dramatic response from Argentina. Argentina on the other hand, is flying the Argentine flag over Government House in the Falkland Islands' capital, Port Stanley, claiming territorial stake to the islands, which it calls the Malvinas, because it inherited them from the Spanish crown in the early 1800s.
Whether the light shines as a unifying cause in South America, or fans the flames of war into a major political conflict between Britain and Argentina, the outcome is well worth watching. In the meantime, the action for the British is: “Drill, baby, drill.”
February 7, 2012
caribbeannewsnow
By Rebecca Theodore
Lights! Camera! Action! Yes! A new light is shining on the oil-bearing geological formations in the Falkland Islands’ waters. Light is immediately understood as ‘the true source of all things and the base on which the physicality of the material world is built.’
However, the new light that is shining on British energy companies Rockhopper Exploration, Falkland Oil & Gas, Borders & Southern, Argos Resources and Arcadia et al, flickers rising tension between Britain and Argentina. It is not the light that saturates the living radiance of nature. It is the light of war.
It is a different light that illumines borders and margins when three decades ago, then British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher dispatched the first warships to the Falklands after Argentina’s ruling military government invasion. Argentina surrendered to Britain, but the importance of the Falklands to both Britain and Argentina now echo heated discussions because of the discovery of ‘black gold’ in the surrounding waters.The Falkland Islands are a British overseas territory in the south-west Atlantic Ocean, where fishing and sheep farming are the main economic activities. Isolated and meagerly populated, it is the subject of a sovereignty dispute between Britain and Argentina. Despite being soundly beaten in 1982 by the British, Argentina maintains that the Falklands and the surrounding waters are theirs, even including them in the Argentine constitution.
The episode seems strange for the Falkland islanders themselves, who have freely chosen, through self-determination, to be an overseas territory of the UK and not a colony of Argentina. With British exploration set to begin in full swing, environmentalists also worry of the challenge it poses to the Falkland Islands government to protect the eco-system since the islands are a breeding ground for millions of penguins.
Now that the Falkland Islands are said to have one of the world's largest reserves of oil, mainly in the north, south and east basin and with British geological surveys estimating the oil at about 60 billion barrels; oil, money and drama not only excite the appetites of the British but that of a leading multitude as well.
Argentine President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner’s aggressive speech style has invoked the power of the Peróns on the issue, created a rift in Argentinian politics, and continues to fuel the patriotic ambitions of her people to reclaim the island archipelago. The EU, Venezuela's Hugo Chávez, Brazil, Nicaragua's Daniel Ortega and the rest of Latin America have all been seemingly supportive in the duel as well.
With Chavez loudly proclaiming that ‘the time for empire is over,’ he demands the UK hand back the Falklands to Buenos Aires, and condemns Britain for flouting international law by permitting drilling in the surrounding waters.
While Argentina simmers with anger at the possibility of the Falklands becoming an energy source for Britain, on the other side of the dubious coin, an attack by Argentina on the Falklands, would also be considered an attack on the EU, because Britain is part of the EU. This means that France and Germany would have to support a British effort to defend the Falklands in the event of war because Europeans would not accept to lose the Falklands and the oil to the Argentinians.
In fact, as proponents lament, the islands may eventually fall, either directly or indirectly, under the influence of Europe, especially if they emerge as a source for energy. This move would completely erode the monopoly of OPEC (The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries) in determining the price and the growing demand for oil and instill optimism in traders buying shares in Rockhopper Exploration.
Despite Britain’s close coalition with the US, the Obama Administration is determined not to be drawn into the conflict. It has also declined to back Britain’s claim that oil exploration near the islands is sanctioned by international law, saying that the dispute is strictly a bilateral issue choosing instead to back Argentina’s calls for negotiation at the United Nations.
The cause of the commotion is not the islands themselves, but the oil reserves within the Falklands’ territorial waters. This makes the islands a very big deal because whoever owns them would own one of the world’s largest oil reserves. With the rise in oil prices and the worldwide search for new oil and gas services, it has now become more than commercially viable for drilling to begin.
Britain’s large-scale drilling of oil in the Falklands, and its establishment of a military fortress in the south Atlantic provokes a dramatic response from Argentina. Argentina on the other hand, is flying the Argentine flag over Government House in the Falkland Islands' capital, Port Stanley, claiming territorial stake to the islands, which it calls the Malvinas, because it inherited them from the Spanish crown in the early 1800s.
Whether the light shines as a unifying cause in South America, or fans the flames of war into a major political conflict between Britain and Argentina, the outcome is well worth watching. In the meantime, the action for the British is: “Drill, baby, drill.”
February 7, 2012
caribbeannewsnow
Sunday, February 5, 2012
Europe’s problems are now America’s headache... ...So as Washington scrambles to cope with the economic consequences of the euro zone crisis, it must also reassess how much it will be able to depend on Europe as a strategic partner in the future
Why the Euro Crisis Matters
By Bruce Stokes
The euro zone crisis is not simply an economic issue. It is a political problem, one that poses a grave challenge to the foreign policy and security interests of the United States. And its fallout could affect U.S. strategic interests for years to come.
The trans-Atlantic alliance, long the cornerstone of America’s engagement with the world, was already eroding before Europe’s sovereign debt problems came into view, thanks to the alliance’s lack of a clear future mission and the lure of Asia. As the continent’s economic problems accelerate, they accentuate the alliance’s underlying problems, complicating Washington’s ability to deal with its myriad foreign challenges.
Sovereign debt defaults by one or more euro zone countries and the subsequent potential breakup of the euro zone could well lead to stagnant economic growth, debilitating introspection and self-preoccupation in Europe.
“A Europe that is not united,” warns Simon Serfaty, a scholar at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C., “is, by definition, less strong. And a Europe that is less strong will become increasingly less vital to the United States in the 2010s, when American power will need to rely on allies that are not only willing, but capable.”
The U.S.-European partnership and U.S. foreign policy have weathered potentially debilitating challenges in the past, to be sure: France’s withdrawal from NATO in 1966, the Vietnam War of the late 1960s and early 1970s, the basing of American intermediate-range nuclear missiles in the early 1980s, the wars in the Balkans in the 1990s and, most recently, the Iraq War.
Thanks to U.S. strategic leadership, the trans-Atlantic alliance remains solid, suggesting America can weather this storm, too. But past performance is no guarantee of future results. And it would be shortsighted to underestimate the challenges that lie ahead.
The Inconceivable Becomes Possible
The possibility that the euro zone could ever break up was once considered inconceivable, for several reasons. First, the economic cost of such an unraveling was just too high. Moreover, the treaty creating the euro made no provision for a nation leaving. Finally, the political commitment of the continent’s leaders to the project was so strong that it was widely assumed they would never let the euro fail.
But as the crisis has metastasized, the inconceivable has become possible. Last November, a credit rating firm, Moody’s, told its clients: “The probability of multiple defaults by euro area countries is no longer negligible. A series of defaults would also significantly increase the likelihood of one or more members not simply defaulting, but also leaving the euro area.”
This is true even though it has become increasingly clear that if any nation leaves the euro zone, it will probably have to leave the European Union, as well. In the wake of a default on its government debt and the effective devaluation that would accompany a reversion to its former currency, bank deposits, people without jobs and goods would all flee.
In turn, other European governments would likely feel the need to limit those flows to protect their own economies. This would effectively terminate a country’s participation in the European Union.
A Lost Decade?
A splintering Europe would be disastrous for the continent’s economy as a whole. The euro zone, which the European Commission thought would grow by 1.8 percent in 2012, is now expected to increase by no more than 0.5 per cent.
Individual nations could fare even worse: growth for Italy is forecast at just 0.1 per cent, while Portugal’s economy should shrink by 3 percent and Greece’s by 2.8 percent. And even these estimates may prove optimistic.
Accordingly, Europe risks a “lost decade,” not unlike that experienced by Japan in the 1990s — but with far graver consequences for the rest of the world. After all, Tokyo had a deep pool of national savings to draw on. Europe does not. The most immediate strategic problem for the United States created by the euro crisis will be the erosion of Europe’s capacity to share the burden of paying for global public goods. Debt-strapped countries are already tightening their belts, with even greater austerity in their futures. Flatlining growth will also mean decreased revenues, compounding their budgetary woes.
The Impact on Defense
The first casualty of the crisis is likely to be military spending. In 2010, the United States devoted 4.8 percent of its GDP to defense, while the United Kingdom spent 2.7 percent and Germany just 1.3 percent. So a burden-sharing gap already exists — and is growing.
“In Europe, defense spending has dropped almost 2 percent annually for a decade,” noted U.S. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, in a speech in Brussels in early October. And since the financial crisis began in 2008, European nations have cut military spending by an amount equivalent to the entire annual defense budget of Germany.
This translates into real reductions in military capacity. Over the next several years, the United Kingdom plans to curtail defense spending in real terms by 7.5 percent by phasing out its troop deployment in Germany, scrapping the Nimrod reconnaissance aircraft, mothballing one planned aircraft carrier and leaving the other carrier with no planes to land on it for several years.
For its part, Berlin had already announced plans to trim €8.4 billion from its €31.5 billion annual defense budget. It also plans to suspend conscription, reducing armed forces personnel from 250,000 to 185,000. The Luftwaffe will curtail its planned acquisition of Eurofighters and reduce its contingent of Tornado aircraft, and the air force’s fleet of military transport aircraft will be cut back.
All of these measures will reduce Germany’s airlift potential and expeditionary capability. And since all of these cuts had already been announced before the euro crisis hit with full force, more reductions in defense spending can be expected.
The cost of shortchanging defense was already evident during the Libyan conflict, in which Britain and France would not have been able to carry out their successful mission without U.S. munitions. Factoring in America’s own budgetary constraints, with the Pentagon facing tens FOCUS The U.S.-European partnership has weathered potentially debilitating challenges in the past. But future success can’t be taken for granted. 25 of billions of dollars in mandated spending cuts, longstanding American resentment about Europe’s lack of defense burden-sharing is only likely to grow, poisoning future trans-Atlantic military collaboration.
... And on Climate Change Cooperation
European nations are on track to meet their share of the $30 billion goal, but that assessment is based solely on 2010 outlays. Europe will need to pony up equal amounts in 2011 and 2012, and more in later years. If the continent’s economy does not grow, cash-strapped governments may find it difficult to meet that commitment. And with America also facing budgetary and political constraints on such outlays, the West has little hope of leading the international effort to stop global warmEurope’s budget woes are also likely to weaken its commitments to help curb global warming. In December 2009, at the Copenhagen climate change summit, rich nations promised to give poor countries $30 billion in “new and additional” resources by 2012 to cope with climate change. That sum would be a down payment on a pledge to provide $100 billion annually in climate finance by 2020.
A Less Attractive Role Model?
More broadly, the euro crisis is undermining Europe’s pivotal position as a democratic, free-market role model for its immediate neighbors.
“The idea of the E.U. and the euro was that affluence would be created and shared,” notes Charles Kupchan, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. “Now, that is fading. Instead of delivering affluence, the E.U. now delivers austerity and pain.”
Nowhere is this more evident than in Greece. One of the main reasons Athens was admitted to the European Union in 1981 was to cement democratic governance in the land where democracy itself first blossomed — but which was ruled by a military dictatorship from 1967 to 1974.
“For the Greeks,” says Serfaty, “getting into the E.U. was a way to end political instability and an undemocratic threat that defined Greece in the past. Being forced out of Europe would resurrect those things. Moreover, it would define an easy way out for other states with potential populist leadership.”
If the technocratic government installed in Athens last November fails, the temptation will be for the Greek electorate to turn to populist politicians who promise less pain. A country where the standard of living declines sharply could also face a growing public backlash in the form of rising nationalism. History teaches that an effective way to distract a disgruntled electorate is to foment external threats. A Greek politician intent on doing so would have ample opportunities to fan latent anti-Turkey sentiment in Cyprus or in the Aegean.
At the same time, association with the European economy is likely to look less and less attractive to Turkey. Already, fewer than half of Turks (48 percent) think joining the European Union would be a good thing for their country, according to the German Marshall Fund’s 2011 Transatlantic Trends survey. And given Europe’s current troubles, such support is likely to shrink over time. In addition, a Turkey that no longer aspires to join the European Union and whose behavior is no longer constrained by the need to meet conditions for admission could well become a more unpredictable, unhelpful free agent in the Middle East.
As the E.U. looks less successful economically and less politically functional, it will also hold less appeal for the former nations of the Soviet Union, which are likely to slip further back into Moscow’s orbit. For that matter, the idea of a united Europe has less allure for the Russians themselves. “Russian liberals used to present the European project as a model for Russia,” notes Dimitri Simes, president of the Center for the National Interest. “Now they cannot say this with a straight face.”
With the future of North Africa up for grabs and the Balkans still unsettled, the last thing Washington should want is for the European Union to become a centrifugal rather than a centripetal force in its own corner of the world.
Compounding the problem, European weakness and self-preoccupation could dash all American hopes for trans-Atlantic cooperation in dealing with the China challenge.
An Opening for China
Beijing is already flexing its muscles in the South China Sea and the Indian Ocean, and extending its influence in Pakistan, Africa and Latin America. In addition, its brand of state capitalism looks more attractive to many governments around the world than the form being practiced in Europe or even in the United States.
Hard-pressed to counter this influence on its own, Washington could find itself without an effective European partner. Already, European governments hoping to sell Beijing their sovereign debt have come under pressure to back off anti-dumping cases aimed at Chinese firms. If Beijing ever contributes to a euro bailout fund, as some in Europe hope, the foreign policy price for its cooperation could be steep. “The downside risk,” said Kupchan, “is that the U.S. will find itself navigating a new East Asia map very much on its own.
Left without an effective strategic partner, America’s drift toward an Asia-centric foreign policy will only accelerate. Already, a majority of Americans (51 percent), including seven in 10 Americans born after the end of the Vietnam War, thinks Asia is more important than Europe to U.S. national interests, according to the German Marshall Fund survey. And as Europe appears more and more dysfunctional, that sentiment is only likely to grow — a development that is in neither America’s nor Europe’s interest.e in Europe hope, the foreign policy price for its cooperation could be steep. “The downside risk,” said Kupchan, “is that the U.S. will find itself navigating a new East Asia map very much on its own.”
For all these reasons, Europe’s problems are now America’s headache, too. So as Washington scrambles to cope with the economic consequences of the euro zone crisis, it must also reassess how much it will be able to depend on Europe as a strategic partner in the future.
Bruce Stokes is a senior transatlantic fellow at the German Marshall Fund in Washington, DC.
February 01, 2012
gmfus
By Bruce Stokes
The euro zone crisis is not simply an economic issue. It is a political problem, one that poses a grave challenge to the foreign policy and security interests of the United States. And its fallout could affect U.S. strategic interests for years to come.
The trans-Atlantic alliance, long the cornerstone of America’s engagement with the world, was already eroding before Europe’s sovereign debt problems came into view, thanks to the alliance’s lack of a clear future mission and the lure of Asia. As the continent’s economic problems accelerate, they accentuate the alliance’s underlying problems, complicating Washington’s ability to deal with its myriad foreign challenges.
Sovereign debt defaults by one or more euro zone countries and the subsequent potential breakup of the euro zone could well lead to stagnant economic growth, debilitating introspection and self-preoccupation in Europe.
“A Europe that is not united,” warns Simon Serfaty, a scholar at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C., “is, by definition, less strong. And a Europe that is less strong will become increasingly less vital to the United States in the 2010s, when American power will need to rely on allies that are not only willing, but capable.”
The U.S.-European partnership and U.S. foreign policy have weathered potentially debilitating challenges in the past, to be sure: France’s withdrawal from NATO in 1966, the Vietnam War of the late 1960s and early 1970s, the basing of American intermediate-range nuclear missiles in the early 1980s, the wars in the Balkans in the 1990s and, most recently, the Iraq War.
Thanks to U.S. strategic leadership, the trans-Atlantic alliance remains solid, suggesting America can weather this storm, too. But past performance is no guarantee of future results. And it would be shortsighted to underestimate the challenges that lie ahead.
The Inconceivable Becomes Possible
The possibility that the euro zone could ever break up was once considered inconceivable, for several reasons. First, the economic cost of such an unraveling was just too high. Moreover, the treaty creating the euro made no provision for a nation leaving. Finally, the political commitment of the continent’s leaders to the project was so strong that it was widely assumed they would never let the euro fail.
But as the crisis has metastasized, the inconceivable has become possible. Last November, a credit rating firm, Moody’s, told its clients: “The probability of multiple defaults by euro area countries is no longer negligible. A series of defaults would also significantly increase the likelihood of one or more members not simply defaulting, but also leaving the euro area.”
This is true even though it has become increasingly clear that if any nation leaves the euro zone, it will probably have to leave the European Union, as well. In the wake of a default on its government debt and the effective devaluation that would accompany a reversion to its former currency, bank deposits, people without jobs and goods would all flee.
In turn, other European governments would likely feel the need to limit those flows to protect their own economies. This would effectively terminate a country’s participation in the European Union.
A Lost Decade?
A splintering Europe would be disastrous for the continent’s economy as a whole. The euro zone, which the European Commission thought would grow by 1.8 percent in 2012, is now expected to increase by no more than 0.5 per cent.
Individual nations could fare even worse: growth for Italy is forecast at just 0.1 per cent, while Portugal’s economy should shrink by 3 percent and Greece’s by 2.8 percent. And even these estimates may prove optimistic.
Accordingly, Europe risks a “lost decade,” not unlike that experienced by Japan in the 1990s — but with far graver consequences for the rest of the world. After all, Tokyo had a deep pool of national savings to draw on. Europe does not. The most immediate strategic problem for the United States created by the euro crisis will be the erosion of Europe’s capacity to share the burden of paying for global public goods. Debt-strapped countries are already tightening their belts, with even greater austerity in their futures. Flatlining growth will also mean decreased revenues, compounding their budgetary woes.
The Impact on Defense
The first casualty of the crisis is likely to be military spending. In 2010, the United States devoted 4.8 percent of its GDP to defense, while the United Kingdom spent 2.7 percent and Germany just 1.3 percent. So a burden-sharing gap already exists — and is growing.
“In Europe, defense spending has dropped almost 2 percent annually for a decade,” noted U.S. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, in a speech in Brussels in early October. And since the financial crisis began in 2008, European nations have cut military spending by an amount equivalent to the entire annual defense budget of Germany.
This translates into real reductions in military capacity. Over the next several years, the United Kingdom plans to curtail defense spending in real terms by 7.5 percent by phasing out its troop deployment in Germany, scrapping the Nimrod reconnaissance aircraft, mothballing one planned aircraft carrier and leaving the other carrier with no planes to land on it for several years.
For its part, Berlin had already announced plans to trim €8.4 billion from its €31.5 billion annual defense budget. It also plans to suspend conscription, reducing armed forces personnel from 250,000 to 185,000. The Luftwaffe will curtail its planned acquisition of Eurofighters and reduce its contingent of Tornado aircraft, and the air force’s fleet of military transport aircraft will be cut back.
All of these measures will reduce Germany’s airlift potential and expeditionary capability. And since all of these cuts had already been announced before the euro crisis hit with full force, more reductions in defense spending can be expected.
The cost of shortchanging defense was already evident during the Libyan conflict, in which Britain and France would not have been able to carry out their successful mission without U.S. munitions. Factoring in America’s own budgetary constraints, with the Pentagon facing tens FOCUS The U.S.-European partnership has weathered potentially debilitating challenges in the past. But future success can’t be taken for granted. 25 of billions of dollars in mandated spending cuts, longstanding American resentment about Europe’s lack of defense burden-sharing is only likely to grow, poisoning future trans-Atlantic military collaboration.
... And on Climate Change Cooperation
European nations are on track to meet their share of the $30 billion goal, but that assessment is based solely on 2010 outlays. Europe will need to pony up equal amounts in 2011 and 2012, and more in later years. If the continent’s economy does not grow, cash-strapped governments may find it difficult to meet that commitment. And with America also facing budgetary and political constraints on such outlays, the West has little hope of leading the international effort to stop global warmEurope’s budget woes are also likely to weaken its commitments to help curb global warming. In December 2009, at the Copenhagen climate change summit, rich nations promised to give poor countries $30 billion in “new and additional” resources by 2012 to cope with climate change. That sum would be a down payment on a pledge to provide $100 billion annually in climate finance by 2020.
A Less Attractive Role Model?
More broadly, the euro crisis is undermining Europe’s pivotal position as a democratic, free-market role model for its immediate neighbors.
“The idea of the E.U. and the euro was that affluence would be created and shared,” notes Charles Kupchan, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. “Now, that is fading. Instead of delivering affluence, the E.U. now delivers austerity and pain.”
Nowhere is this more evident than in Greece. One of the main reasons Athens was admitted to the European Union in 1981 was to cement democratic governance in the land where democracy itself first blossomed — but which was ruled by a military dictatorship from 1967 to 1974.
“For the Greeks,” says Serfaty, “getting into the E.U. was a way to end political instability and an undemocratic threat that defined Greece in the past. Being forced out of Europe would resurrect those things. Moreover, it would define an easy way out for other states with potential populist leadership.”
If the technocratic government installed in Athens last November fails, the temptation will be for the Greek electorate to turn to populist politicians who promise less pain. A country where the standard of living declines sharply could also face a growing public backlash in the form of rising nationalism. History teaches that an effective way to distract a disgruntled electorate is to foment external threats. A Greek politician intent on doing so would have ample opportunities to fan latent anti-Turkey sentiment in Cyprus or in the Aegean.
At the same time, association with the European economy is likely to look less and less attractive to Turkey. Already, fewer than half of Turks (48 percent) think joining the European Union would be a good thing for their country, according to the German Marshall Fund’s 2011 Transatlantic Trends survey. And given Europe’s current troubles, such support is likely to shrink over time. In addition, a Turkey that no longer aspires to join the European Union and whose behavior is no longer constrained by the need to meet conditions for admission could well become a more unpredictable, unhelpful free agent in the Middle East.
As the E.U. looks less successful economically and less politically functional, it will also hold less appeal for the former nations of the Soviet Union, which are likely to slip further back into Moscow’s orbit. For that matter, the idea of a united Europe has less allure for the Russians themselves. “Russian liberals used to present the European project as a model for Russia,” notes Dimitri Simes, president of the Center for the National Interest. “Now they cannot say this with a straight face.”
With the future of North Africa up for grabs and the Balkans still unsettled, the last thing Washington should want is for the European Union to become a centrifugal rather than a centripetal force in its own corner of the world.
Compounding the problem, European weakness and self-preoccupation could dash all American hopes for trans-Atlantic cooperation in dealing with the China challenge.
An Opening for China
Beijing is already flexing its muscles in the South China Sea and the Indian Ocean, and extending its influence in Pakistan, Africa and Latin America. In addition, its brand of state capitalism looks more attractive to many governments around the world than the form being practiced in Europe or even in the United States.
Hard-pressed to counter this influence on its own, Washington could find itself without an effective European partner. Already, European governments hoping to sell Beijing their sovereign debt have come under pressure to back off anti-dumping cases aimed at Chinese firms. If Beijing ever contributes to a euro bailout fund, as some in Europe hope, the foreign policy price for its cooperation could be steep. “The downside risk,” said Kupchan, “is that the U.S. will find itself navigating a new East Asia map very much on its own.
Left without an effective strategic partner, America’s drift toward an Asia-centric foreign policy will only accelerate. Already, a majority of Americans (51 percent), including seven in 10 Americans born after the end of the Vietnam War, thinks Asia is more important than Europe to U.S. national interests, according to the German Marshall Fund survey. And as Europe appears more and more dysfunctional, that sentiment is only likely to grow — a development that is in neither America’s nor Europe’s interest.e in Europe hope, the foreign policy price for its cooperation could be steep. “The downside risk,” said Kupchan, “is that the U.S. will find itself navigating a new East Asia map very much on its own.”
For all these reasons, Europe’s problems are now America’s headache, too. So as Washington scrambles to cope with the economic consequences of the euro zone crisis, it must also reassess how much it will be able to depend on Europe as a strategic partner in the future.
Bruce Stokes is a senior transatlantic fellow at the German Marshall Fund in Washington, DC.
February 01, 2012
gmfus
Thursday, February 2, 2012
Amnesty International slams Haitian judiciary for dropping Duvalier case
Amnesty slams Haitian judiciary for dropping Duvalier case
LONDON, England -- Haiti’s judicial authorities have dealt yet another blow to the victims of former leader Jean-Claude Duvalier, Amnesty International said this week after the criminal case against the former “president-for-life” for grave human rights violations was dropped.
An investigating judge in Port-au-Prince on Monday announced that Jean-Claude “Baby Doc” Duvalier will not stand trial for alleged crimes against humanity – including torture, disappearances and extrajudicial executions – but only for embezzlement of public funds committed during his rule between 1971 and 1986. The text of the judge’s decision has not been made public.
Duvalier has been under investigation in Haiti since he returned from exile in France in January 2011, after a group of victims filed complaints accusing him of crimes against humanity as well as corruption and theft.
The victims can appeal the judge’s decision and Amnesty International has vowed to continue supporting their search for justice.
“The conclusion of the sham investigation into Duvalier is a disgrace and will further entrench impunity in Haiti. No serious effort was made to determine the truth despite the multiple complaints and abundant evidence about the crimes committed and the victims,” said Javier Zúñiga, special adviser at Amnesty International, who researched the crimes of Jean-Claude Duvalier in the 1980s.
“The handful of victims that have been interviewed had been subjected to intimidation by Duvalier supporters and his lawyers. It is clear that the investigating judge left out invaluable evidence and decided not to interview all the victims that filed complaints. This is a dark day for Haiti and for justice.
“Duvalier benefited from a safe haven in France for 25 years until he returned to Haiti, where the authorities have failed to hold him to account for the crimes under international law perpetrated by his subordinates while he was in power.”
In January 2011, Amnesty International submitted extensive documentation on the grave human rights violations committed under Duvalier, none of which was considered by the magistrate.
Under international law, torture, enforced disappearances, extrajudicial executions and arbitrary arrests are considered crimes against humanity when committed as part of a systematic or widespread attack against the civilian population.
No statute of limitations may apply to crimes against humanity and the alleged perpetrators cannot benefit from amnesties, even in the case of former heads of state.
Amnesty International has expressed concern that the current Haitian government lacks the will to bring Duvalier to justice.
“Recent public statements from President Martelly hinted at pardoning Duvalier. This could amount to unacceptable pressure and interference with the investigation. Inviting Jean-Claude Duvalier to take part in public official ceremonies clearly showed that the government wanted to rehabilitate Duvalier instead of holding him to account,” said Zúñiga.
“Haiti has failed to live up to its international obligations to investigate all allegations of crimes against humanity and bring their perpetrators to justice. Victims have been awaiting justice for more than 25 years, and today’s decision is a major setback to them and all Haitians. But this is not the end of the road – we will continue to support the victims at the appeal stage and in international instances if necessary.”
February 2, 2012
caribbeannewsnow
LONDON, England -- Haiti’s judicial authorities have dealt yet another blow to the victims of former leader Jean-Claude Duvalier, Amnesty International said this week after the criminal case against the former “president-for-life” for grave human rights violations was dropped.
An investigating judge in Port-au-Prince on Monday announced that Jean-Claude “Baby Doc” Duvalier will not stand trial for alleged crimes against humanity – including torture, disappearances and extrajudicial executions – but only for embezzlement of public funds committed during his rule between 1971 and 1986. The text of the judge’s decision has not been made public.Duvalier has been under investigation in Haiti since he returned from exile in France in January 2011, after a group of victims filed complaints accusing him of crimes against humanity as well as corruption and theft.
The victims can appeal the judge’s decision and Amnesty International has vowed to continue supporting their search for justice.
“The conclusion of the sham investigation into Duvalier is a disgrace and will further entrench impunity in Haiti. No serious effort was made to determine the truth despite the multiple complaints and abundant evidence about the crimes committed and the victims,” said Javier Zúñiga, special adviser at Amnesty International, who researched the crimes of Jean-Claude Duvalier in the 1980s.
“The handful of victims that have been interviewed had been subjected to intimidation by Duvalier supporters and his lawyers. It is clear that the investigating judge left out invaluable evidence and decided not to interview all the victims that filed complaints. This is a dark day for Haiti and for justice.
“Duvalier benefited from a safe haven in France for 25 years until he returned to Haiti, where the authorities have failed to hold him to account for the crimes under international law perpetrated by his subordinates while he was in power.”
In January 2011, Amnesty International submitted extensive documentation on the grave human rights violations committed under Duvalier, none of which was considered by the magistrate.
Under international law, torture, enforced disappearances, extrajudicial executions and arbitrary arrests are considered crimes against humanity when committed as part of a systematic or widespread attack against the civilian population.
No statute of limitations may apply to crimes against humanity and the alleged perpetrators cannot benefit from amnesties, even in the case of former heads of state.
Amnesty International has expressed concern that the current Haitian government lacks the will to bring Duvalier to justice.
“Recent public statements from President Martelly hinted at pardoning Duvalier. This could amount to unacceptable pressure and interference with the investigation. Inviting Jean-Claude Duvalier to take part in public official ceremonies clearly showed that the government wanted to rehabilitate Duvalier instead of holding him to account,” said Zúñiga.
“Haiti has failed to live up to its international obligations to investigate all allegations of crimes against humanity and bring their perpetrators to justice. Victims have been awaiting justice for more than 25 years, and today’s decision is a major setback to them and all Haitians. But this is not the end of the road – we will continue to support the victims at the appeal stage and in international instances if necessary.”
February 2, 2012
caribbeannewsnow
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
The number of Bahamian households surviving on less than $5,000 per year has increased by an "alarming" 83 per cent in the past four years in The Bahamas... ...indicating that the recession has most impacted those who "could least afford to be affected"
FAMILIES EARNING UNDER $5K YEARLY INCREASE BY 83%
By NEIL HARTNELL
Tribune Business Editor
Nassau, The Bahamas
THE NUMBER of Bahamian households surviving on less than $5,000 per year has increased by an "alarming" 83 per cent in the past four years, Department of Statistics data shows, indicating the recession has most impacted those who "could least afford to be affected".
Figures taken from the Department's 2007 and 2011 Labour Force surveys, and supplied to Tribune Business yesterday by a private sector contact, show that at all income brackets - from $100,000-plus to between $0-$5,000 - there had been a steady fall of Bahamian families into a lower earning category, further evidence of the recession's toll on pay and earnings.
By far the most striking comparison between the years 2007 and 2011, the former representing the recession's start, is the 3,620 jump in the number of Bahamian families surviving on less than $5,000 per year. This jump - from 4,355 in 2007 to 7,975 in 2011 - represents a startling increase.
"By any reasonable measure, that is poverty," Tribune Business's source said of those earning less than $5,000 per annum. Winston Rolle, the Bahamas Chamber of Commerce and Employers Confederation's (BCCEC) chairman, also described this as "very alarming" when contacted by this newspaper.
Agreeing that the data comparisons showed the impact of the recession, and the rise in unemployment and reduced incomes, on Bahamian society and the family unit, Mr Rolle added: "A lot of those households are driven by a single income for the most part, so any loss of income for that bread winner has a drastic effect on the income of the household, which is a big issue.
"It also goes to show the persons most affected by the recession were those who could most ill-afford to be affected.... The persons at the bottom end are feeling it the most, because there's nowhere else to go to."
When it came to the number of Bahamian households earning $20,000 or less, comparisons between 2007 and 2011 showed they had increased from 24,780 to 33,015 - a increase of one-third or 33 per cent.
Suggesting this was further evidence of the squeeze being imposed on the Bahamian middle class, the Tribune Business contact who provided the data said: "This is hardly a level of income which can support a middle class standard of living. This would appear to be evidence of a significant reversal in the upward movement of households towards the middle class, and away from abject poverty."
The income bracket that has been the most stable during the recession was the largest, the $20,000-$40,000 per annum income category. Populated by 30,305 families in the 2007 Labour Force survey, their numbers had only dropped to 29,110 by 2011.
This suggests, based on the data seen and corroborated by Tribune Business, that while many Bahamian families may have dropped out of the middle class, their ranks have been replenished by falling higher income earners.
The number of families earning incomes higher than $40,000 fell from 48,370 to 38,305 between 2007 and 2011, a decrease of some 21 per cent, the Department of Statistics data shows.
Mr Rolle told Tribune Business that the household income declines showed the vicious circle that held the Bahamian business community squarely in its grip. Consumers, because they had less disposable income, were spending less with Bahamian firms. In turn, those firms were earning less, forcing them to cut working hours and lay-off more employees.
"This has a direct impact on consumers' ability to spend and support businesses that are locally based," the BCCEC chairman told Tribune Business. "The very few monies or reduced income they have has to be spent on basic needs. It obviously impacts the overall business community as a whole.
"It also goes to show the widespread impact of the whole recession. It's evident that persons from all walks of life appear to have been affected by it."
Mr Rolle said there was little sign of "a significant reversal" in the economic climate taking place currently. But he added that all other countries, not just the Bahamas, were being impacted by the global economic climate.
January 31, 2012
tribune242
By NEIL HARTNELL
Tribune Business Editor
Nassau, The Bahamas
THE NUMBER of Bahamian households surviving on less than $5,000 per year has increased by an "alarming" 83 per cent in the past four years, Department of Statistics data shows, indicating the recession has most impacted those who "could least afford to be affected".
Figures taken from the Department's 2007 and 2011 Labour Force surveys, and supplied to Tribune Business yesterday by a private sector contact, show that at all income brackets - from $100,000-plus to between $0-$5,000 - there had been a steady fall of Bahamian families into a lower earning category, further evidence of the recession's toll on pay and earnings.
By far the most striking comparison between the years 2007 and 2011, the former representing the recession's start, is the 3,620 jump in the number of Bahamian families surviving on less than $5,000 per year. This jump - from 4,355 in 2007 to 7,975 in 2011 - represents a startling increase.
"By any reasonable measure, that is poverty," Tribune Business's source said of those earning less than $5,000 per annum. Winston Rolle, the Bahamas Chamber of Commerce and Employers Confederation's (BCCEC) chairman, also described this as "very alarming" when contacted by this newspaper.
Agreeing that the data comparisons showed the impact of the recession, and the rise in unemployment and reduced incomes, on Bahamian society and the family unit, Mr Rolle added: "A lot of those households are driven by a single income for the most part, so any loss of income for that bread winner has a drastic effect on the income of the household, which is a big issue.
"It also goes to show the persons most affected by the recession were those who could most ill-afford to be affected.... The persons at the bottom end are feeling it the most, because there's nowhere else to go to."
When it came to the number of Bahamian households earning $20,000 or less, comparisons between 2007 and 2011 showed they had increased from 24,780 to 33,015 - a increase of one-third or 33 per cent.
Suggesting this was further evidence of the squeeze being imposed on the Bahamian middle class, the Tribune Business contact who provided the data said: "This is hardly a level of income which can support a middle class standard of living. This would appear to be evidence of a significant reversal in the upward movement of households towards the middle class, and away from abject poverty."
The income bracket that has been the most stable during the recession was the largest, the $20,000-$40,000 per annum income category. Populated by 30,305 families in the 2007 Labour Force survey, their numbers had only dropped to 29,110 by 2011.
This suggests, based on the data seen and corroborated by Tribune Business, that while many Bahamian families may have dropped out of the middle class, their ranks have been replenished by falling higher income earners.
The number of families earning incomes higher than $40,000 fell from 48,370 to 38,305 between 2007 and 2011, a decrease of some 21 per cent, the Department of Statistics data shows.
Mr Rolle told Tribune Business that the household income declines showed the vicious circle that held the Bahamian business community squarely in its grip. Consumers, because they had less disposable income, were spending less with Bahamian firms. In turn, those firms were earning less, forcing them to cut working hours and lay-off more employees.
"This has a direct impact on consumers' ability to spend and support businesses that are locally based," the BCCEC chairman told Tribune Business. "The very few monies or reduced income they have has to be spent on basic needs. It obviously impacts the overall business community as a whole.
"It also goes to show the widespread impact of the whole recession. It's evident that persons from all walks of life appear to have been affected by it."
Mr Rolle said there was little sign of "a significant reversal" in the economic climate taking place currently. But he added that all other countries, not just the Bahamas, were being impacted by the global economic climate.
January 31, 2012
tribune242
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
The political campaign season is well underway in The Islands... ...The governing Free National Movement (FNM) has officially launched its full slate of candidates for the upcoming general election... ...Its apparent messages were ‘We Deliver!” and that the FNM is, ‘Best for Bahamians and Better for The Bahamas’
Will the FNM deliver?
Erica Wells
Guardian Managing Editor
erica@nasguard.com
Nassau, The Bahamas
When Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham addressed the nation last week in his annual New Year’s address, there was something decidedly different about the tone of his presentation.
Outside of political rallies, formal communications such as an address to the nation are often relatively void of emotion.
Last Wednesday’s address was different. It sought to give Bahamians a reason to believe. At a time when many are struggling under the weight of a sluggish economy, and some are simply hopeless, it could not have been more appropriate.
Ingraham assured Bahamians that despite the tumultuous times brought on by the global economic downturn in 2008, and the impact that it has had — and continues to have — on The Bahamas, the country is headed in the right direction.
“Despite the severe economic shock of 2008 and the challenges of tomorrow, we are a fortunate country and we are moving in the right direction,” the prime minister said.
“So I say to you... that as a people, we can rightly feel a spirit of gratitude for the many blessings of our Creator. Let us build on this spirit of gratitude with a spirit of hope. Let us do so in grateful acknowledgment of the many blessings and the promise of our beautiful Bahamaland.”
This could turn out to be a hard sell for the hundreds of unemployed and underemployed Bahamians who are finding it difficult to meet the most basic of necessities. Many cannot afford to pay their utility bills and are laboring hard to buy groceries. Some have lost their homes. Others have given up any hope of finding a job after months and months of searching.
Convincing Bahamians that the country is headed in the right direction may prove to be a difficult task. Yet, as a general election looms, convincing voters that the country is headed in the right direction will be crucial to the Free National Movement’s success at the polls.
Progress
Even Ingraham’s harshest critics would have to admit that the Free National Movement in the last five years has accomplished a number of items on its ‘to do’ list.
Whether it has been enough to secure another term in office, and whether the party has been effective in communicating what it views as its major accomplishments, remains to be seen.
In his New Year’s address last week, Ingraham took the opportunity to remind Bahamians of the FNM’s accomplishments. The New Year’s address reads a lot like a progress report.
The list of accomplishments highlighted by Ingraham was extensive.
It included job preservation and creation, the re-development of Lynden Pindling International Airport, the Airport Gateway project, the New Providence Road Improvement Project, an increase in funding for the resources for formal education, an increase in youth development programs, and sports funding.
Ingraham’s list also cited transforming the country’s crime fighting and judicial legislative structure and facilities, investment in healthcare through the prescription drug benefit and the upgrade of facilities at the Princess Margaret and Rand Memorial Hospitals, improved public educational facilities, the relocation of the downtown container port, the dredging of Nassau Harbour, the construction of a new straw market, and infrastructural improvements in various Family Islands, among others.
While Ingraham has not articulated the ‘national plan’ that many have called for, the significant infrastructure projects on which he has placed a priority in this term in office provide some insight into his vision for the country.
“Investing in infrastructure is a means to achieving essential national goals and creating jobs,” said Ingraham. “Investing in infrastructure and in housing is an investment in people and communities. It is an investment in the quality of life, livelihoods and life spans. It is an investment in the future of The Bahamas.”
But some of the significant infrastructure projects, such as the New Providence Road Improvement Project, may do more harm than good when it comes to the party’s re-election prospects.
This point has not been lost on the prime minister, seen in his public apology to motorists during last week’s address. Many have been greatly angered and inconvenienced by the extensive roadworks undertaken in the troubled project.
“I again thank you for your patience and apologize on behalf of the Government of The Bahamas for the delays, inconveniences and disruptions,” said Ingraham.
“Despite these challenges, we believe that in the end it will be well worth the sacrifice.”
But by the end of the project will it be too late for some voters?
The message
The address also provided an insight into how the party plans to convince the voting public that it deserves another term in office.
It attempted to drive home a message of action, a message of an administration that “gets the job done”, in comparison to a PLP administration which the FNM has labeled as indecisive and slow to act.
Referring to what he described as a response to “urgent infrastructure requirements” in the context of the global economic crisis, Ingraham said in the address: “No responsible government could have followed the path of delay, indecision and half measures. We had to act decisively and comprehensively. Not only was a collapse (of the Bahamian economy) prevented. We are now moving forward.”
The campaign season is well underway. The Free National Movement officially launched its slate of candidates for the entire Bahamas last night. Its apparent messages were ‘We Deliver!” and that the FNM is, ‘Best for Bahamians and Better for The Bahamas’.
One is a familiar refrain from the “Delivery Boy” slogan used when Ingraham first joined the FNM as its leader. The other seems a clear strategy not to cede any ground to the PLP on which party is more committed to the interests of Bahamians.
But it remains to be seen if these messages will deliver to the FNM and Hubert Ingraham a fourth election victory.
• Log on to thenassauguardian.com and take part in our regular web poll: Do you agree with Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham that the country is headed in the right direction?
Jan 30, 2012
thenassauguardian
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)