Caribbean Blog International

GUANTANAMO: A ghost from the Bush era pursues Obama

2013-05-23T15:24:00.000-07:00

By Dalia González Delgado:

GUANTANAMO is robbing Obama of sleep. Ten years after the opening of the prison, on illegally occupied territory in Cuba, the issue had been forgotten by many until a hunger strike by hundreds of prisoners returned it to the public consciousness.

The illegal U.S. Navy Base in Guantánamo
(Photo: Reuters)

Referring to Guantánamo, The New York Times wrote in an editorial that the detention center "became the embodiment of his [Bush’s] dangerous expansion of executive power and the lawless detentions, secret prisons and torture that went along with them."

Obama, hoping to indicate that he had not forgotten his campaign promise, recently said, "I continue to believe that we've got to close Guantanamo. I think it is critical for us to understand that Guantanamo is not necessary to keep America safe. It is expensive. It is inefficient. It hurts us in terms of our international standing…

"The idea that we would still maintain, forever, a group of individuals who have not been tried - that is contrary to who we are."

Not everyone agrees with the President. Washington Post journalist Benjamin declared, "Even if Guantanamo itself miraculously closes, we’ll have to build it again somewhere else."

"Guantanamo Bay prison does not serve American security interests," according to Ken Gude, from the Center for American Progress (CAP), a Washington think tank.

But his reasoning, like Obama’s, is pragmatic, not humanitarian. Even BBC Mundo stated that there was no need to keep the prisoners in Guantánamo, commenting that the site would inevitably be closed at some point.

The reality is that no steps have been taken in the direction suggested by Obama. In fact University of California professor Raúl Hinojosa commented to Russia Today that the hunger strike has made clear that the U.S. is not in control of the situation, given that the administration "has no answer at this time."

According to General John Kelly, of the U.S. Army Southern Command and the commanding officer at the prison, the detainees had hope that Obama would close the facility and "were devastated... when the president backed off."

The prison was opened after the September 11, 2011 attacks, to house those suspected of terrorism, although no evidence existed against them. The indefinite detentions, and testimony given by those released, have earned the detention center an appropriate reputation as a concentration camp. Different forms of torture are practiced there, including isolation within cells at extreme temperatures and waterboarding.

Guantánamo is one of the worst legacies of George W. Bush, who showing no sign of remorse, recently stated that he felt fine about the "hard decisions" he had made "to protect America."

The legal limbo in which 166 prisoners live – there had been more than 700 – has generated criticism internationally, from countries as well as human rights organizations.

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-California), president of the Senate Intelligence Committee, has requested that the administration re-start the process of transferring and releasing 86 prisoners who, three years ago, were granted permission to return to their countries of origin.

Although Obama may not have the political will to close the prison, he could at least exert pressure to reinitiate this process halted two years ago.

May 23, 2013

Granma.cu

Bahamas Blog International

...a sub-set of Bahamians who do not have the technical skills to be employable ...due to the absence of job skills ...or being “scarred for life” by previous criminal convictions

2013-05-22T05:16:00.001-07:00

Mp: 'Sub-Set Of Bahamians Are Unemployable'

By NEIL HARTNELL

Tribune Business Editor

nhartnell@tribunemedia.net

Nassau, The Bahamas

An MP has admitted there is “a sub-set of Bahamians” who are unemployable, due to the absence of job skills or being “scarred for life” by previous criminal convictions.

Emphasising that he was not speaking in his Cabinet position, Ryan Pinder, minister of financial services, conceded that he was confronted with this reality every day in his Elizabeth constituency.

Responding to a question at a Bahamas Chamber of Commerce and Employers Confederation (BCCEC) luncheon, Mr Pinder described his constituency as arguably the most diverse in this nation when it came to the economic backgrounds of residents.

Agreeing that the Bahamas had to be realistic, and “confront reality”, the Minister candidly conceded: “We have a sub-set of Bahamians who do not have the technical skills to be employable. I can tell you as an MP that is the case.”

While some in this “sub-set” lacked the necessary skills, and workplace ethic and attitude, Mr Pinder said others were hampered by previous criminal convictions. Unable to produce a clean police certificate, they were immediately rejected by Bahamian employers.

“I know of a strapping young man who can’t get a job because he was convicted years ago for forging bank cheques,” Mr Pinder said. “One error, and he’s scarred for life.”

Emphasising that he was not excusing or condoning such behaviour, Mr Pinder said the inability of young Bahamian men to get a job due to their past mistakes inevitably meant many - proud, yet unable to feed their families legitimately - turned to crime to do so.

This was exacerbated by the Bahamas’ clogged court system. Mr Pinder said many were “more willing to [turn to crime] as they know the justice system never runs its course in a timely fashion, and they will get out and be OK. They won’t turn to crime if they know the justice system works”.

The Minister’s comments illuminate the other side of the Immigration/work permit debate, namely that a significant (albeit a minority) section of Bahamian society is effectively planning itself out of their economy.

Entrepreneurial and employment opportunities are passing them by, and their lack of suitability for the workplace is another factor behind employers looking overseas to fill key positions.

An Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) report recently revealed almost two-thirds of employee firings in the Bahamas stem from ‘behaviour problems’, finding that “the lack of skills” among workers is the main barrier to their hiring.

The report, ‘In Pursuit of Employable Skills: Understanding Employer’s Demands’, found that 62 per cent of the Bahamian companies it surveyed had either dismissed or seen employees resign in 2010-2011.

Noting that the ‘mean’, or average, was for companies to see five dismissals and three resignations, the IDB study added: “The most commonly cited reason for staff dismissals was ‘problems with behaviour’ (65 per cent).”

Mr Pinder told BCCEC members that the Bahamas had to “recognise reality and cause the proper technical development of our young people, particularly our young men”, to take place.

Apart from training, Mr Pinder said the solution also required economic growth. With 5,000 students graduating from high school every year, even assuming 50 per cent (probably a generous number) go on to tertiary education, the Bahamian workforce swells by at least 2,500-3,000 each summer.

Their numbers add to the existing 13.7 per cent unemployment rate, with 41,000 Bahamians either already jobless or not actively seeking work.

“They can only get jobs if the economy grows,” Mr Pinder said. “The economy has been stagnant for 10 years, and the population is growing every year.”

The Minister also called for improved mentorship of young Bahamians. He recalled a recent conversation with someone who had obtained an overseas posting with a bank, and her asking him how she could show the institution that she was “a woman of substance”.

“It tells you about the level of mentorship and bringing along young people in the country,” Mr Pinder said. “We need the buy-in of the entire community of the Commonwealth of the Bahamas.”

May 21, 2012

Tribune 242

Bahamas Blog International

Kick CARICOM to the kerb (Part 2)

2013-05-19T07:18:00.000-07:00

By Ronald Mason, Jamaica Gleaner Contributor:

It would be foolhardy at the commencement of any trial for attorneys to believe they will be persuasive with only an opening statement. I dare not believe that, and as such I welcome the dialogue triggered by the response to my column on May 5.

I do not fear globalisation because this country can rival others on the world stage in the areas of our competitive advantage. Think coffee, bauxite, ginger, cocoa, tourism, music, aggregate, track and field, and the history of sugar. However, let me advance the argument for our withdrawal from CARICOM on the cold, hard realities.

FACT 1: There is a geographic, cultural, interpersonal relationship among people in the Eastern Caribbean. The distance between Antigua & Barbuda in the north and Trinidad & Tobago in the south is 445 miles. The distance between Jamaica and Trinidad is 1,151 miles. The constant flow of commerce and people in the Eastern Caribbean is undisputed. Farmers in Dominica help to feed Antigua. Trinidad and Barbados have disputes born out of territorial proximity. The Leeward and Windward Islands each present teams in Caribbean cricket.

The population in each member state of CARICOM, not counting Jamaica and Haiti, ranges from 6,000 in Montserrat to 1.34 million in Trinidad. There is a forum of seven member states and two associated states with a total population of 636,000 persons. Schooners and ferries bridge the islands in the east. They have a basis for this creature called CARICOM.

FACT 2: In recognition of how much the states in the Eastern Caribbean are interdependent, they created, from as far as back as 1981, the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States. It is an intergovernmental organisation dedicated to economic harmonisation and integration, and protection of human and legal rights. They are all virtually contiguous in their boundaries.

On August 13, 2008, the leaders of Trinidad & Tobago, Grenada, St Lucia, and St Vincent & the Grenadines announced their intention to pursue a subregional 'political union'. A 2013 target date was set for full political union for these countries. (CANA, October 24, 2008) Notice, they did not invite Jamaica. Note also that on June 21, 2010, they signed the treaty that established their countries as a single economic and financial space.

The promise of "joint action" and "joint policies" within areas such as the judiciary and administration of justice, external relations, including overseas representation, international trade agreements, education, telecommunications, intellectual property rights, external transportation, and connections and public administrations and management.

This is a single space without common external boundaries. A country in every respect. No Jamaica. If it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck, quacks like duck, it is a duck. They only associate with Jamaica because we represent the easier trade destination that satisfies their economies of scale. Jamaica is half the market of CARICOM, without Haiti.

A decline in trade deficit

FACT 3: Jamaica has had, for years, a large trade deficit with CARICOM, not factoring Haiti, and a trade surplus with Haiti. Jamaica's trade deficit with CARICOM for January-November 2012 (latest figures available) is US$743.5m, a decline of US$157m recorded the previous year, largely caused by reduced spending on fuel. Jamaica, for the same period, exported US$76.8m. Most of the inbound trade is with Trinidad and Tobago. The peanuts, biscuits, candy, etc.

FACT 4: Chapter 5, Part 3 of the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas addresses the issue of subsidies by one member of CARICOM to the detriment of the other. Trinidad owns Caribbean Airlines. Ask Grenada's prime minister why he recently had to comment on the impact Trinidad's full subsidy is having on LIAT, part owned by Grenada.

Remember when we were dumb enough to believe that integration included Jamaica and proposed an aluminium smelter with its demand for lots of aluminium ingots to be located in Trinidad and Tobago using Jamaican bauxite to improve value added for aluminium? Never materialised.

FACT 5: Remember how the Dominican Republic accessed CARIFORUM for the European Union Economic Partnership Agreement? There is your blueprint, as the Dominican Republic is not a member of CARICOM.

FACT 6: The language of Article 45 of the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas references the movement of nationals across the region. Here is the direct quote: "Member states commit themselves to the GOAL [emphasis mine] of free movement of their nationals within the Community." A goal, that's all. Yet Jamaica allows Eastern Caribbean people to come here without reservation, while reciprocity, at the same rate and without discriminatory barbs, is often denied Jamaicans.

Last week, there was news of the dispute between Trinidad & Tobago and Jamaica regarding lube oil. This arose between private interests in Jamaica and entities that are publicly owned by T&T. Yes, governments do not trade, but they are players in field of international commerce. This action, by design or neglect, results in a breach of trade protocols. Some members of the Jamaican business community have long complained about the lax CARICOM conditionalities. I provided an airing of the oft-whispered sentiments.

I never suggested that Jamaica should go it alone. We have multiple trade agreements, and currently Costa Rica is under consideration. The United States is our largest trading partner. O for the distinction and awareness of reading and comprehension!

That we should deal with the world as it is and forge our way therein as best we can has been misinterpreted as supportive of Jamaica's isolation. Far from being isolationist, we should forge links with the larger markets of Haiti, Cuba, Dominican Republic, North America and Latin America where the business community of traders can enjoy economies of scale.

GraceKennedy and other Jamaican corporate entities are making their entry into Ghana. They can continue to set up entities and trade with whomever, and they should. But do not presume it can only be done by integration, commercial or political.

Ronald Mason is an immigration attorney/mediator. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com and nationsagenda@gmail.com.

May 19, 2013

Kick CARICOM to the kerb (Part 1)

Jamaica Gleaner

Bahamas Blog International

Can The Youth Save Africa From Neo-Colonialism?

2013-05-18T06:07:00.000-07:00

AFRICANGLOBE – In his book, “Neo-Colonialism : The Last Stage of Imperialism”, (page11) Kwame Nkrumah cautioned:

‘So long as Africa remains divided, it will therefore be the wealthy consumer countries who will dictate the price of its resources’.

I told you so! This appears to be the bitterness boiling up in the hearts of many Pan-African revolutionaries across the world as Africa gradually sinks into the pit of poverty while its resources are being fleeced for peanuts on a daily basis.

Today, the dangers of Neo-colonialism have become so evident in Africa to the point where no further explanation is necessary. Africa, a continent which claims to be independent has allowed herself to be ordered around, always dancing to the tune of foreign “aid”. This is despite the fact that Dambisa Moyo, a renown Zambian economist and author of the book ‘Dead Aid: Why Aid Is Not Working and How There Is a Better Way for Africa‘, has clearly demonstrated to our leaders that ‘No nation has ever attained economic development by aid.”

African leaders have over the years obeyed every instruction from the West, yet Africa and its people are no better for it. We’re still indebted to the World Bank and the IMF more than it was 20 year ago. In spite of this, African leaders are not ready to change the old ways of doing things.

To allow a foreign country, especially one which is loaded with economic interests in our continent, to tell us what political courses to follow, is indeed for us to hand back our independence to the oppressor on a silver platter, (Kwame Nkrumah, ‘Consciencism’ pg.102).

The fact is, our founding fathers foresaw the dangers that come with our resolve to rely on the non-Africans to solve all our problems for us. This problem has been compounded by the lack of unity among the African nations.

After 50 years, this statement has become the sad truth. There is not a single African raw material that is traded on the international market which price is determined by Africans. It is now evidently clear that many of our African leaders don’t care whether the solutions to our economic challenges have been well-documented by our founding fathers or not.

It is therefore time for the African youth to step aside these traitors for failing to act in our collective interest as African people.

A new generation of leadership is needed to rise up from among the youth with a determination to save mother Africa from the firm grip of neo-colonialism, political incompetence and corruption which is currently becoming the hallmark of modern African leadership.

Action Plan One: The Role Of the Youth

Earlier in life, I had discovered that if you want something, you had better made some noise. - Malcolm X

It is clear that Africa still remains under-developed because many of the youthful talents that can transform the continent have been ignored for far too long. Nevertheless, this is not a reason for them to give up. It is time for the youth to start making some noise else the status quo will never change. Gather yourselves in front of the parliament buildings and in front of the various African embassies. March in your numbers towards the the stations of the various TV networks.

Whiles you’re there, continue to make noise and Rest Not until their voices are heard and your concerns addressed.

Finally, I therefore put forward an action plan which must be followed in order to ensure that our search for a new generation of incorruptible leaders for the continent becomes a reality within the shortest possible time for the benefit of Mother Africa.

The African youth must first organise in small groups and create the platforms for dialogue and exchange of ideas.
The groups must identify and nominate highly incorruptible members as their leaders.
The groups must have power to remove from office, leaders identified to be corrupt.
Leaders of the various youth groups must coalesce and draw up a common agenda for the Youth Liberation Movement. All such agenda must focus on youth empowerment including a protest to remove the age-restricted political portfolios from our constitutions.
The Youth Liberation Movement must remain vocal in their communities, highlighting the challenges of the youth on any given platform.
It is ideal that the Youth Movement forms a political party solely dedicated to the needs of the youth.
Leaders of the Youth Movement can thus venture into the political terrain and stand up for the right of the youth. We need more young ones in parliament.
Where possible, no youth must vote for the old men but rather a candidate nominated from the political parties formed by the youth and dedicated to the youth.

If this is done, the youth can begin to make impact in African leadership and help wrestle power from the old men. It is time for the youth to begin ignoring the old men in elections and rather concentrate on such leaders born out of the Youth Revolutionary Movement who truly have the welfare of the youth at heart. This process if well implemented can help send a strong signal to the world that Africa is now ready for a new generation of revolutionary leaders dedicated to end corruption once and for all.

By: Honourable Saka

The writer is a Pan-African analyst and the founder of the Project Pan-Africa, an organisation established with the sole purpose of unlocking the minds of the African youth to take Africa’s destiny into their hands. He can be reached on e-mail:honourablesaka@yahoo.co.uk.

May 16, 2013

African Globe

Bahamas Blog International

Shanty towns are a major problem in The Bahamas

2013-05-15T14:52:00.002-07:00

Getting serious about shanty towns

The Nassau Guardian Editorial
Nassau, The Bahamas

As we have repeatedly pointed out, shanty towns are a major problem in The Bahamas.

In 2009, then Minister of State for Immigration Branville McCartney said that 37 shanty towns had been identified in New Providence alone.

The government has commissioned various studies on the shanty town problem.

The most recent report on shanty towns obtained by The Nassau Guardian was completed a few weeks ago by a team of researchers from the Department of Environmental Health, but has not yet been made public by the minister responsible (Kenred Dorsett) or ministry officials.

What those researchers have unearthed should be of concern to every Bahamian.

There has been ‘a marked increase’ in the number of new shanty towns on New Providence over the last two years and the populations have increased “exponentially”.

The report said, “There is little to no government water systems, no garbage collection services, and very little human waste disposal, which can range from satisfactory to the other extreme of placing human feces in plastic shopping bags, and dumping waste in nearby bushes and naturally occurring sink holes.”

In New Providence alone, the team documented at least 15 shanty towns at various locations, but primarily in the south west and eastern areas of the island.

With houses having been built too close together, with some homes being powered by stolen electricity connected by low hanging wires, and with large communities with inadequate or no sewerage systems, these shanty towns are public health hazards.

For some reason, especially in New Providence, the agencies of the government responsible for policing this problem have failed.

More aggressive action on this problem is needed for the sake of the Haitians living in shanty towns and for the Bahamians who live nearby.

When proper sanitation and safety protocols are not followed, mass tragedy could ensue from fire or disease.

For the Bahamians who live near shanty towns, their property values are reduced because of the unsanitary communities next door. This is unfair to hardworking, honest citizens of the country.

The problem is, in part, that governments of The Bahamas have been unable to regulate effectively the flow of people from the failed Haitian state. Those looking for a better life have just set up communities on any vacant land.

Once the illegal structures are built, for humanitarian reasons, it is hard to destroy them. Where do you send the poor and stateless once their homes are removed?

We must not let genuine concern for our brothers and sisters from the south overrule common sense, however. Illegally built shanty towns need to be removed.

Those migrating to The Bahamas must find legal and safe accommodation. We cannot continue to ignore this problem. It is a matter of law, order and public safety.

No one in this country should be allowed to ignore public health and town planning regulations. The laws exist to keep us safe and to protect property rights.

The government should next move to rigorously enforce the public health and property laws being violated by many who reside in shanty towns across the country.

Hopefully Dorsett was sincere when he said this administration intends to.

May 13, 2013

The Nassau Guardian Editorial

Bahamas Blog International

Latin America’s Radical Left in Power: Complexities and Challenges in the Twenty-First Century

2013-05-13T19:24:00.001-07:00

By Steve Ellner - Latin American Perspectives:

The democratic, peaceful road to socialism, which has been pursued by the governments of Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador and serves as an inspiration for much of the Latin American left, hardly represents a new approach. Social democratic movements worldwide grouped in the Socialist International were the foremost advocates of socialism by pacific means throughout the second half of the twentieth century. Nevertheless, while the three Latin American nations have been subject to intense political conflict and class and political polarization, the social democrats favored moderate policies designed to avoid discord and achieve broad consensuses. In this sense, the three leftist regimes in Latin America resemble Communist experiences in the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, China and Cuba characterized by head-on confrontations with the opponents of far-reaching change as well as with institutions representing the old order. In contrast to Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador, however, the official discourse of the Communist Parties in power discarded the possibility of the peaceful democratic transition to socialism in accordance with orthodox Marxist thinking on the inevitability of class warfare (Regalado, 2007: 232). (1)

The term “twenty-first century Latin American radical left” (hereafter TFCLARL) is largely defined by the strategies followed in Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador and excludes more moderate movements both in power (as in the case of Brazil) and out of power. The positions of the TFCLARL contrast with those of the moderates in several basic respects. The governments of Hugo Chávez (Venezuela), Evo Morales (Bolivia) and Rafael Correa (Ecuador) are staunch critics of the capitalist system, if not advocates of socialism, unlike the moderate governments of Brazil, Uruguay and Paraguay (Boron, 2008: 28-42). In addition, they took advantage of their advent to power and subsequent political victories by moving quickly against adversaries and deepening the process of change. This steady radicalization contrasts with Brazil’s Luiz Inácio “Lula” da Silva, who upon assuming the presidency designed more conservative macroeconomic policies than those called for by international lending agencies. Along similar lines, the TFCLARL, unlike the moderate left, has been reluctant to negotiate and reach agreements with, or grant significant concessions to, their adversaries. Thus in Mexico, social democrats and other moderates associated with the Partido de la Revolución Democrática (PRD) favored alliances with the conservative Partido Acción Nacional (PAN) both in 2000 and subsequent years, while leaders to their left such as Cuauhtémoc Cárdenas and Andrés Manuel López Obrador promoted leftist candidacies. Similarly, President Chávez broke with the tradition of creating tripartite commissions of peak business and labor organizations to resolve pressing problems and disputes.

Other shared characteristics set the three TFCLARL governments off from the moderate leftist ones. In the first place, all three presidents won elections, referendums and recall elections with sizeable majorities, sometimes exceeding 60 percent of the vote. These triumphs provided them with mandates and greater maneuverability than was the case with moderate leftist presidents who received lower voting percentages. In the second place, Chávez, Morales and Correa initiated their presidencies with a call for a constituent assembly, which ended up overhauling the existing political structure. In the third place, the momentum generated by TFCLARL victories and the radicalization of positions invigorated the movement’s rank and file. This zeal at the grass roots level accounted for the ongoing mobilization that on different occasions proved essential to the government’s political survival. On foreign policy, TFCLARL governments were harsh critics of Washington, and through the Alianza Bolivariana para los Pueblos de Nuestra América (ALBA) acted as a bloc at international gatherings (Ellner, 2012a: 10). Finally, The three presidents headed relatively weak political parties, which, unlike in the case of Brazil and elsewhere, failed to establish solid links with the popular sectors outside of the electoral arena (Ellner, 2012b).

Not surprisingly, this radicalization met with hardened resistance on the part of defenders of the status quo and set off an intense polarization, which was another distinguishing feature of the TFCLARL in power. Indeed, the political, social and economic groups opposed to TFCLARL governments represented a “disloyal opposition.” Not only did they condemn virtually all government policies and actions, but accused it of totalitarian intentions and at times resorted to violence in an attempt to set off a military coup.

Finally, the TFCLARL has refrained from “red bating” or accepting the accusations of dubious veracity formulated by the right against leftists. Chávez, for instance, publicly declared that he was neither a communist nor an anti-communist, at the same time that his followers call one another “comrades” as a rebuke to McCarthyist-type stereotypes. Moderate leftist presidents in Brazil, Argentina and elsewhere have acted in a similar fashion. Not only do they reject the “good left”-“bad left” thesis promoted by Washington, but they have maintained exceptionally cordial relations with the TFCLARL in power. Nevertheless, there were exceptions to this principled behavior among moderate leftists. Thus, for instance, Gustavo Petro, the presidential candidate of the leftist Polo Democrático Alternativo in Colombia (and subsequently mayor of Bogota) called on his party to defend national interests by closing ranks behind right-wing President Alvaro Uribe in his attacks on Chávez for aiding the nation’s guerrilla movement (Informe 21.com, 2009). Occasional remarks by Salvadoran president Mauricio Funes against Chávez also appeared to serve as a statement of his government’s commitment to avoid radical change.

Radicalization was not a linear process, notwithstanding the commitment of TFCLARL movements to far-reaching change and their marked differences with moderate leftist ones. As Héctor Perla and Héctor Cruz-Feliciano discuss in their chapter, the Sandinista government after 2006 joined ALBA and resembled the TFCLARL in Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador in other respects, but at the same time attempted to mollify the right. Having reached power with only 38 percent of the vote, the Sandinistas were intent on neutralizing and reining in diverse sectors. Not the least important of their concession was the government’s ban on abortion, a position which represented a complete reversal for President Daniel Ortega. In his chapter, Marc Becker describes how Rafael Correa appeared to turn his back on the principles of participatory democracy and ecological prioritization, which are embodied in the constitution of 2008, when he clashed with indigenous activists belonging to social movements that had been instrumental in his rise to power.

The TFCLARL experiences in office also contrast with those of democratic leftists such as the Allende government and the Sandinistas in the 1980s, who reached power in Latin America in the heat of the Cold War and were similarly committed to a radical break with the past. While less secure in power than Communists in the Soviet Union and China, the TFCLARL in Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador exercises greater control of different state sphere, including the legislative and judiciary branches and the armed forces, than was the case of radical democratic leftists in the previous century. Consequently, the TFCLARL has been forced to grapple with thorny issues related to consolidation in the context of an extended transition to socialism. Neither Allende nor the Sandinistas in the 1980s faced a situation similar to Chávez in 2007 (and perhaps 2013), Correa in 2009 and Morales in 2010 after being reelected by wide margins, results which demoralized the opposition. During these periods of relative stability, the burden of demonstrating the viability of the new model they advocated was clearly placed on TFCLARL leaders.In contrast, the less secure grip on power of twentieth-century radical left governments due to ongoing disruptions including violence and sabotage and the wider support for U.S. interventionism during the Cold War years ruled out their consolidation and led to their overthrow. Allende, for instance, reached power with only 36 percent of the vote and was overthrown after just three years, while the Sandinistas in the 1980s focused much of their attention and resources on the U.S.-promoted armed resistance to their rule.

The TFCLARL faces complex theoretical and practical challenges that are in fundamental ways distinct from those confronting social democratic and orthodox Marxist movements of the twentieth century. Indeed, TFCLARL theoretician Marta Harnecker has stated that “the situation facing our ‘left’ governments is even more complex than that which faced the Soviet government” (Harnecker, 2010:32). The outstanding characteristics of the continent’s twenty-first century left help explain this complexity. Most important, the electoral and gradual path to far-reaching change in the absence of a policy of compromise and concessions to the enemy involves an array of variables that complicates the process. The strategy opens space and provides opportunities for adversaries who in the context of sharp polarization are able to employ legal and extra-legal tactics to undermine government authority and impede the implementation of its economic policies. An example of this low-intensity warfare was the case of Venezuelan business resistance to price controls which, as Ellner shows in his article in this issue, produced a veritable tug of war between the Chávez government and the private sector, eventually leading to widespread expropriations. This type of face-off presents the left with the ongoing dilemma of whether to move forward with further radicalization or emphasize consolidation. At the same time, the gradual, peaceful road to socialism creates spaces for those on the left end of the political spectrum, some outside of the ruling coalition (particularly in the case of Bolivia and Ecuador) and others within it (as in Venezuela) who clamor for a more accelerated pace of change.

These challenges are of a different nature and in some cases greater complexity than those confronting social democratic and Communist movements in power in the past.Social democratic thinking (as defended by the Socialist International) was underpinned by positivist assumptions regarding the inevitability of change in the absence of struggle (a fundamental theoretical difference between the father of positivism, Auguste Comte, and Marx). The social democratic strategy that attempts to minimize confrontation and achieve harmonious changecontrasts with the complex dynamic of radical policies followed by resistance from hegemonic forces and sharp political polarization within a democratic setting that characterizes the TFCLARL in power.

The case of Communists who seized power in the twentieth century was also distinct in that all forms of opposition to the government were repressed and socialism was imposed without a long drawn-out struggle. This process was antithetical to the war of position of the TFCLARL in power in which hegemonic traditional forces have retained the upper hand in institutions such as the church, the media and even parts of the state sphere. Furthermore, in contrast to the rigid Marxist doctrine and formulas of Communist rule, the TFCLARL is admittedly eclectic and embraces and even celebrates a trial-and-error approach to socialism lacking in ideological clarity, which it views as a corrective to dogmatism (Acosta, 2007: 25-27). It thus lacks the ideological common denominators that characterized the Marxism underpinning twentieth-century leftist governments.

The post-Cold War setting contributes to the complexity of the phenomenon of the twenty-first century left. The Cold War was conducive to simplistic conceptualization and strategies in that it pitted the pro-U.S. camp identified as democratic against the movements and governments favoring socialism, which was perceived to be a well-defined system. Pressure from both poles limited options and discouraged originality (as occurred in the case of Cuba in the course of the 1960s). The collapse of the Soviet bloc gave impetus to the equally simplistic, monolithic notions of neoliberalism and the related doctrine of the “end of history,” which labeled all alternatives to U.S.-style democracy and capitalism as obsolete.

By the turn of the first century, the widespread protests against neoliberalism in Latin America encouraged greater political diversity including nationalist leftist movements which firmly opposed U.S. policies. These leftists rejected the policy of concessions to powerful economic groups implicit in the strategy of center-left alliances advocated by Castañeda during the heyday of neoliberalism in the 1990s (for a discussion of the center-left approach, see Ellner , 2004: 12-21).The emerging anti-neoliberal model associated with the TFCLARL combines representative democracy and radical democracy based on the Rousseaunian tradition of direct input in decision making. The two are not entirely compatible and have created internal strains due to paradigmatic differences, thus adding to the complexity of the challenges facing twenty-first century leftist movements (Smilde, 2011: 7-11).

The TFCLARL in power faced two imperatives for which distinct and at times conflicting strategies were employed. On the one hand, pragmatic policies that promoted institutionalization were designed to foster efficiency at the same time that they prioritized economic over social objectives. On the other hand, widespread mobilization and social programs promoting participation in accordance with the TFCLARL’s goal of participatory democracy engendered popular enthusiasm, which was an essential element in advancing toward socialism and confronting adversaries on the right. The two sets of objectives were equally compelling. Dogmatic or simplistic formulas and ideological formulations favoring one and ruling out the other were unlikely to be successful (Ellner, 2011b: 439-440, 445). The resultant path designed to achieve a synthesis – as opposed to more dogmatic recipes – was fraught with complexity.

THE SOCIAL HETEROGENEITY OF THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY LATIN AMERICAN LEFT

The social base and strategy of twenty-first century leftist movements diverge from traditional Marxist practice and thinking and are at the root of the complexity described above. Marx’s focus on production as the essential component of society’s “structure” (as opposed to the more superficial entity of the “superstructure”) led him to posit the proletariat as the key agent for change. Subsequently, orthodox Marxism minimized the role of other non-hegemonic classes and largely passed over their conflicting interests, a tendency sometimes called “workerism.” Marx questioned the revolutionary potential of the peasantry because of its property ownership aspirations. Lenin initially shared this distrust but then went on to call for a “worker-peasant alliance” without expressing concern over divergent interests or visions (a convergence represented by the symbol of the hammer and sickle). Similarly, orthodox Marxism denied the revolutionary character and political importance of the “petty bourgeoisie” in accordance with Marx's prediction of social polarization, in which a majority of the middle class would sink into the ranks of the working class. Finally, Marx's pejorative term “lumpen proletariat” has sometimes been conflated with the non-proletarian component of the urban lower classes that in Latin America largely consists of members of the informal economy.

In a different vein, Mao Zedong recognized the multiplicity and complexity of internal contradictions (both old and new ones) under socialism as well as the “fairly long period of time” that it will take to resolve them (Mao, 1971b: 444, 464). The same contradictions also manifested themselves within and among the different sectors that support the revolutionary movement, as well as within the socialist state. Nevertheless, Mao characterized these contradictions as essentially “non-antagonistic” (Mao, 1971a: 127) and believed that the correct way to settle them was by “the democratic method, the method of discussion, of criticism, of persuasion and education” and by engaging in “self-criticism” (Mao, 1971b: 438-439, 442). He also considered the contradictions within the Communist party as a clash between “correct thinking” and “fallacious thinking,” which were themselves a reflection of class differences (Mao, 1971a: 126-127). These comments on contradictions would seem to fall short of the degree to which heterogeneity poses a complex challenge to twenty-first century socialism. (2)

In contrast to orthodox Marxism, writers over the years coming from different traditions have pointed to the transformational or revolutionary qualities of non-proletariat classes in the third world while arguing against the vanguard role of the working class. In the 1920s, Víctor Raúl Haya de la Torre posited the middle class as the most revolutionary social group in underdeveloped countries since their members “are the first victims of imperialism’s economic offensive,” unlike the working class and rural work force that, at least in the short run, stand to benefit from foreign investments (Haya, 1976: 255).

Similarly, Frantz Fanon emphasized the combative potential of the peasantry, which he contrasted with the self-serving political behavior of most of the urban population including the working class. He also recognized the revolutionary potential of the “lumpen proletariat,” which like the peasantry was further removed from, and therefore less corrupted by, the system of colonial rule (Fanon, 1963: 129-130). Fanon’s differentiation between the working class and the non-proletarian urban poor has become particularly compelling in the age of globalization (Laclau, 2005: 146-150, 231). Kurt Weyland and other scholars writing on neopopulism in the 1990s pointed to the conflicting interests between workers in the formal economy and those of the informal economy, the latter of whom – unlike the former – were adversely affected by the existing model of import substitution (Weyland, 1999: 182-184; Oxhorn, 1998: 200, 215-216). (3)

Writers sometimes identified as postmodernists have also focused attention on the heterogeneity of non-hegemonic groups. Most of them have distanced themselves from Marxist thinking by not only rejecting the revolutionary role of the working class due to its widespread acceptance of bourgeois values and chauvinism, but also writing off class itself as a useful category. In its place they celebrate group “identity” largely based on political and cultural convictions and behavior, a focus that amounts to, in the words of theoretician Nancy Fraser, the “recognition of difference” (quoted by Burgmann, 2005: 2). Post-Marxist Ernesto Laclau goes beyond this line of thinking by centering his analysis of politics and political strategy on the irreconcilability of differences among subaltern groups. Laclau’s concept of the “empty signifier” attempts to demonstrate the profundity of the cleavages. According to Laclau, the successful leader (who he calls a “populist”) is one who ingeniously unites disparate underprivileged sectors by coining slogans (empty signifiers) which are interpreted differently by each group according to their own world vision and needs. In spite of their unifying role, the populist leaders at no time are able to bridge completely the gap between these different interpretations.

In the 1980s, the celebration of “new social movements,” which were defined as those emphasizing identity and direct participation and which were associated at the theoretical level with Laclau (1985) and other post-Marxists and postmodernists, gained acceptance among some Latin American writers and activists. During these years social organizations and movements played a major role in democratization, and some of them facilitated the participation of previously excluded sectors on a massive scale including women and the indigenous population. The predominant role played by women activists in many of these activities (from soup kitchens to the Madres de Plaza de Mayo) spilled over to cultural fronts as gender equality in and out of the home rose to the fore leading to “discursive changes” from the originally expressed motives for participation (Feijoo and Gogna, 1990: 100; Jelin, 1990: 190; Ellner, 1994: 75-76). One prime example of the expression of identity politics was the Katarista movement in Bolivia which within the nation’s peasant movement formulated slogans related to ethnic oppression, a situation largely ignored by the 1952 revolution. One of the Kataristas, Alvaro García Linera, was jailed for his participation in the Tupac Katari Guerrilla Army and went on to become vice-president under Morales and a foremost TFCLARL theoretician. García Linera has labeled the Morales administration the “government of social movements” and has embraced the “vivir bien” model based on anti-capitalist tenets of indigenous culture, but at the same time he defends the overriding importance of economic developmental goals (as discussed by Lorenza Fontana in her essay). In another example of incorporation of excluded sectors by the TFCLARL, women have constituted the vast majority of the “spokespeople” of the estimated 30,000 community councils which are concentrated in the barrios and represent a major pillar of the Chávez government’s political model.

The experiences of the TFCLARL in power and the class analysis of its defenders accord with the post-Marxist emphasis on heterogeneity and the irreconcilability of interests among those supporting the process of change (Harnecker, 2010: 65-66; Sader, 2008: 77-78). Some TFCLARL thinkers such as García Linera view the resultant tensions as conducive to “creative” outcomes (García Linera, 2011: 23-72). The cases of Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador demonstrate the deepness of the strains among non-elite social sectors as well as among internal political currents, and the relationship that exists between the two. Not only are their interests different, but in some cases have entered into conflict.

The TFCLARL, in contrast to traditional leftist parties, reject the orthodox Marxist prioritization of the working class and the preference of twentieth-century Communist governments for heavy industry (Harnecker, 2007: paragraphs 115-116; Alvarez, 2010: 114-116; Boron, 2008: 122-130). Some Latin American leftist theoreticians point out that the “incredibly fragmented society” in the age of globalization even affects the working class, which has become “extremely heterogeneous” due in large part to the practice of flexibilization (Harnecker, 2010: 66). Such prominent twenty-first century leftist as Chávez and García Linera have argued that over recent decades the organized working class has failed to live up to the revolutionary expectations inherent in traditional Marxism (Blanco Muñoz, 1998: 392, 397; García Linera, 2010: 38-39; Boron, 2008: 123). As an alternative to proletarian workerism, the TFCLARL places all workers on an equal footing including the members of the informal economy, the rural work force, and employees in small business units (Goldfrank, 2011: 6).

The slogans “inclusion” and “incorporation” embraced by the twenty-first century left is directed more at the members of the informal economy, who are largely excluded from labor legislation and lack organizational representation, than the organized working class. One leading twenty-first century leftist philosopher and theoretician, Enrique Dussel, underscores the “liberation” and the rights of the excluded by arguing that ethics implies empathy for “the other” or for the “victim”. He goes on to state that “the affirmation of their dignity and freedom... of their labor, outside of the system is the source of the very mobility of the dialectic (they affirm what is ‘unproductive labor’ for capital, but real in its own terms... the system considers them ‘nothing, non-being; and it is out of this nothingness that new systems are built)” (Dussel, 2003: 143; 2008: 78; 2012). (4)

Twenty-first century radical leftist theoreticians and political actors, while discarding the workerism characteristic of orthodox Marxist groups, do not reject class-based analysis. Argentine leftist Atilio Boron, for instance, argues that “the proliferation of social actors does not decree the abolition of the laws of motion of a society of classes: it only signifies that the social and political scene has become more complex” (Boron, 2008: 126).Furthermore, the twenty-first century left has placed a premium on demands and programs at the point of production, a focus which represents the essence of Marxism. Examples of these types of demands favoring non-proletarian sectors of the work force include support for the right of informal economy workers to choose the locations of their sales stands and of community councils to hire local residents for public works undertakings in their communities, legalization of the activity of small-scale coca growers (particularly in Bolivia), and government preference for worker cooperatives in the awarding of contracts, even though they may be less cost-effective. These issues involving the livelihood of workers outside large-scale industry produced controversy among leftists, some of whom favored a strategy based on economies of scale (Ellner, 2011b: 440-445; Ciccariello-Maher, to be published: Chapter 9). Some twenty-first century radical leftists posit production units and geographical locations (such as communities) as equally important sources of struggle and as the seeds for the construction of a new society (Harnecker, 2008: 66-67; Silva, 2009: 269-272).

The decision of the TFCLARL to embrace social heterogeneity rather than prioritize a specific class or set of struggles presents it with special challenges. Most important, sharp social and political differences within leftist movements put to test the left’s commitment to internal democracy as vertical structures are seen by many as a corrective to acute internal discord. Historically, Latin American leftist leaders of multi-class parties, influenced by the Marxist principle of the inevitability of class conflict, confronted the predicament of conflicting internal interests by promoting centralism and tight organizational control. (5) Similarly, the main justification for the all-encompassing power of the national executive and the líder máximo in Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador and Nicaragua is that it guarantees political party unity essential to face powerful and aggressive adversaries.

Twenty-first century radical left writers have embraced two models which deal with the problem of heterogeneity in different ways and presuppose different levels of political consciousness among the general population. Radical or “participatory” democracy, which was embodied in the new constitutions of twenty-first century leftist governments, celebrates participation and guarantees direct popular input in decision making. In doing so, radical democracy encourages the creation of a wide range of social movements and organizations that reflect a multiplicity of concerns and interests (Harnecker, 2010: 7). An example of direct democracy is the government-promoted community councils in Venezuela, Bolivia (specifically, the ayllus) and Nicaragua. Rather than supporting mechanisms to achieve class harmony, some of the advocates of radical democracy envision ongoing social conflict and political differences as natural and healthy, as long as they do not degenerate into head-on clashes (Mouffe, 2005: 120-121; Garzón Rogé and Perelman, 2010: 69-72, 82-83). Their view of the proliferation of sources of conflict in the course of the twentieth century lends itself to the “deepening of democracy” and participatory democracy in that ever larger numbers of people have been incorporated into the political arena (Laclau and Mouffe, 1985: 163). The optimism of these writers regarding the democratic capacity of the general population leads them to take issue with those who are apprehensive of popular energy and participation (Laclau and Mouffe, 1985: 171-175; Esteva, 2009: 48-53). Radical democracy under governments committed to far-reaching change presupposes advanced political consciousness in that organizational and political maturity is a prerequisite for direct participation in decision-making. In addition, a high level of consciousness helps combat economicism whereby the excessive corporatist demands of a given non-privileged sector blocks the achievement of long-term objectives in the interest of the entire population. Political maturity is thus an antidote to secondary contradictions or what Mao Zedong called “contradictions among the people” (García Linera, 2011: 24).

A second model focuses on the “dialectical” relationship between the rank and file of movements on the left and charismatic leftist leaders, who are able to achieve the unity of a highly fragmented bloc of the non-elite. Diana Raby, influenced by Laclau’s writing on populism, points to the “internal contradictions” of “broad, popular and democratic movement(s)” that leaders such as Chávez attempt to overcome (Raby, 2006: 19, 189). Raby paraphrases Laclau by stating that the followers of the leftist populist leader become a “political subject” and develop “a political consciousness and identity,” but at the same time they assume the role of participants and not spectators (Raby, 2006: 240, 115). In contrast to the defenders of “crowd theory” and much of the original writing on populism in the 1950s (Germani: 1962), Laclau sees the populist leader as meeting his followers “only halfway” as he [or she] “will be only accepted if he presents in a particularly marked fashion, features that he shares with those he is supposed to lead," a bonding process described as “investiture” (Laclau, 2005: 59-60). Many TFCLARL activists and sympathizers describe this ongoing exchange as a “magical relationship” that facilitates democratic governance (as quoted in Ellner, 2011b: 435). In short, the non-privileged sectors of the population are highly divided but at the same time are far from impotent as they effectively assert their world vision, goals and specific demands.

Nevertheless, those twenty-first century leftists who place the radical populist leader at center stage are less optimistic than the radical democratic model about existing subjective conditions, and specifically the capacity of popular sectors to act autonomously on an ongoing basis within an organizational framework (see Laclau, 2006: 119-120). Indeed, some of the writers who identify with the TFCLARL point to the concentration of power in hands of the lider máximo as a sign of backwardness and an impediment to open debate and popular input in decision making (Monedero, 2009: 190-192; Javier Biardeau, 2009: 66; Acosta, 2009: 12-13).

The issue of social heterogeneity holds an important strategic implication for the Latin American left. If no one social group is the key agent of revolutionary change or receives priority treatment, and if political differences have a social base, then leftist governments need to reconcile different internal positions rather than follow a monolithic line in favor of a given political current or social group. A broad-based strategy of this type would even attempt to win over sectors of the middle class, specifically less privileged ones that support structural transformation, and would refrain from deriding their proposals on grounds of being “petty bourgeois.” Nevertheless, even with a well-balanced, flexible approach that attempts to achieve reconciliation, the government will not be able to (as Mao had hoped would happen) put an end to internal tensions which, as Laclau points out, are inevitable. The alternative for leftists is a movement rooted in the revolutionary hegemony of a given class or a tight-knit political vanguard, a dogmatic strategy that ignores the complexity of the challenges facing the twenty-first century left, much as the “two-left thesis” thesis does coming from the right. (6)

EXPOSING THE SIMPLICITY OF THE “TWO-LEFT” THESIS AND GOING BEYOND THE CURRENT DEBATE

The focus on the complexity of the twenty-first century left and the heterogeneity of its following is diametrically opposed to the simplistic concept of populism embodied in the “two-left thesis” formulated by intellectuals such as Jorge Castañeda and Mario Vargas Llosa. Their arguments are used by the U.S. State Department as part of the effort to isolate Latin American governments perceived to be “anti-American.” The two-left thesis classifies the TFCLARL as the “bad left” or “populist left,” which it contrasts with the allegedly responsible policies of the “good left,” namely moderates such as Lula. The bad left is distinguished by its radical rhetoric, intransigence and confrontational tactics. Examples include López Obrador, who created a shadow cabinet to protest the alleged fraud of the 2006 presidential elections, and Ollanta Humala (at the time of his first presidential bid in 2006), who, according to Castañeda, attempted to “invade” Chile in what was really a peaceful symbolic protest in April 2007 to draw attention to Peru’s border claims (Castañeda, 2008: 232). The two-left thesis emphasizes personal ambition, style and discourse and in doing so completely passes over the complex array of groups that form part of the twenty-first century left and the difficult decisions that have been thrust upon it as a result of its commitment to the pacific road to power.

The “two-left thesis” points to the areas of convergence between TFCLARL movements and classical radical populist ones of a half century before, but in doing so simplifies both phenomena (Ellner, 2011a: 422). Undoubtedly the TFCLARL in some ways resembles classical radical populism of the 1930s and 1940s (Dussel, 2008: 76-77), whose salient features included charismatic leadership, organizational weakness, ill-defined long-term goals, nationalist foreign policy, socio-economic reforms favoring popular sectors, a tendency to bypass existing political institutions and a discourse that contributed to sharp political and social polarization. The complexity of radical classical populism (in contrast to pro-neoliberal neopopulism associated with Alberto Fujimori in the 1990s) stemmed from its far-reaching transformational potential which clashed with the intentions and interests of many of its original supporters (Laclau: 1979: 175, 190-191).

TFCLARL movements, due to their pronounced internal diversity and contradictions, are even more complex, as is repeatedly recognized by Latin American leftist theoreticians (Boron, 2008: 126; Dussel, 2008: 72). Thus, for instance, they are committed (and have taken steps) to overcoming their organizational shortcoming and promoting participatory democracy while in many cases retaining the strong executive powers of an all-powerful líder máximo. Furthermore, while lacking the blueprints for long-term change of orthodox Marxism, twenty-first century leftists have defined themselves as socialists and have debated different socialist options, unlike the more ideologically vague classical populism of the 1930s and 1940s. Indeed, their ideological vagueness may be a logical response to the vacuum created by the collapse of the Soviet Union, or in the words of Laclau “a precondition to constructing relevant political meaning” (Laclau, 2005: 17-18). In short the political agenda that lies behind the two-left thesis rules out a nuanced analysis of non-Communist transformational movements in Latin America both in the twentieth century and the present and is at odds with rich scholarly writing that demonstrates their complex and dynamic nature.

Since the publication of Leftovers in 2008, the debate over the two-left thesis has centered on the degree to which the category of both the good and the bad left can be considered homogeneous. Several important books explicitly characterize Leftovers as simplistic for failing to recognize the diversity among governments in both camps. Thus, for instance, the essays by Juan Pablo Luna (2010: 30-31), Maxwell Cameron and Kenneth Sharpe (2010), Jennifer McCoy (2010: 99 ft.7) and Santiago Anria (2010:121-123) in Latin America’s Left Turn contrast the top-down decision-making flow of Chávez with Morales, who as a labor and social movement leader has allegedly been more in tune and willing to negotiate with his rank and file and the population in general. In the same volume Luna (2010: 28) proposes to unpack “the social-democratic type” to demonstrate fundamental differences among “good left” governments. Along similar lines, Steven Levitsky and Kenneth Roberts conclude their The Resurgence of the Latin American Left by stating “the Latin American Left is marked by considerable diversity” in that between Brazil and Chile with its “macroeconomic orthodoxy” and Venezuela with “openly statist policies and increasingly authoritarian mode of governance” there is a “wide range of intermediate cases” (Levitsky and Roberts: 2011: 399). (7)

The debate over the “good left”-“bad left” thesis needs to be framed along different lines. Even if the premise of the two-left thesis regarding the basic similarities of “bad left” governments is accepted, the theory is fundamentally flawed. Regardless of the degree of diversity within the TFCLARL, the two-left thesis is simplistic because it ignores the complexity of the challenges they face. The complexity stems from three factors: the social and political heterogeneity of leftist government supporters, the spaces that democratic strategies open for critics both to the left and the right of leftist governments and the relative novelty of the approaches that are being followed. For this reason, the application of the framework of populism by Castañeda and others that highlights semi-authoritarian features and the weakening of institutions is misleading. Similarly, the two-left thesis’ assertion that TFCLARL policies are not sustainable simplifies the process of change underway in the continent and ignores the unmistakable inroads (Weyland, 2010: 11-12; 2011: 75-82; see also discussion in Levitsky and Roberts, 2011: 413-415; and Oxhorn, 2009: 228-230).

In short, the relatively novel and complex dimensions of the TFCLARL experiences in power, in addition to contradicting the simplistic two-left thesis, have major implications particularly for leftist strategy. The trial-and-error approach embraced by the TFCLARL, for instance, is conducive to the rejection of dogmatic positions based on preconceived blueprints. In addition, the TFCLARL’s acceptance of heterogeneity in the absence of both vanguardism and the prioritization of one social agent over others points in the direction of a strategy that synthesizes different and at times conflicting interests and visions. Finally, the TFCLARL’s tendency ofrejection of dogmatism, celebration of diversity and eclecticism are ingredients that lend themselves to rich debate on the left as well as rewarding scholarly inquiry.

FOOTNOTES

1. Marx and Engels argued against the possibility of the peaceful transition to socialism. In the closing paragraph of the Communist Manifesto, they wrote: “Communists… openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions.”

2. The extent to which Mao’s theory of contradictions conforms to “orthodox” Marxism has been heavily debated, with a variety of favorable and unfavorable implications with regard to the impact of his thinking (Knight, 1997: 105-107). Liu Kang (1997) points to Mao’s concepts of specificity, the decisive role of ideological struggle and the multiplicity of contradictions at all levels as having informed the writing of Louis Althusser (often considered a precursor of post-Marxism). Althusser’s rejection of reductionism and his theory on the mutual dependence of the elements of the structure and the resultant relative autonomy of the superstructure (a principle he called “overdetermination”) underpin the complex nature of social relations and revolutionary politics in the twentieth century. As this introductory essay attempts to demonstrate, the complexity of the process of change, as Mao acknowledged and Althusser emphasized, is fundamental to understanding the twenty-first century Latin American left. Significantly, one of the main theoreticians of the TFCLARL, Marta Harnecker, was a student of Althusser. Harnecker has acknowledged that Althusser’s refutation of dogmatic Marxism and his arguments regarding the complexity of the process of change left a profound impact on her thinking. Along these lines, she claims that Marx was still grappling with the definition of social classes when he died (Harnecker, personal email to the author, February 20, 2012).

3. The literature on the informal economy differs on the extent to which its members represent an underclass with little upward mobility. Hernando de Soto’s celebrated book The Other Path focused on their potential to become prosperous businesspeople (Soto, 1989). Other writers attribute the growth of the informal economy of recent decades to capitalism’s outsourcing strategies in the age of globalization, which imply a less marginalized status for many of its members including a relatively comfortable living standards for some of them (Castells and Portes, 12-13). In contrast, Weyland and Fanon, by emphasizing the downtrodden conditions of those belonging to the informal sectors and their interests which conflict with those of the more privileged working class, imply a more crystalized status of exclusion. This essay, which characterizes large numbers of members of the informal economy as marginalized and unincorporated, also focuses attention on the differences in interests and visions between them and the working class of the formal economy.

4. Postmodernism shares this concern for the plight of the historically “excluded.” In addition, the TFCLARL’s glorification of the originality of Latin American thinkers, ranging from Simón Bolívar and Simón Rodríguez to the Aymara people, imply a rejection of Eurocentrism, as does postmodern writing.

5. As far back as the early 1930s, Rómulo Betancourt addressed the challenge of how to construct a multi-class party that took in the petty bourgeoisie and did not privilege the proletariat. He recognized the difficulty of achieving organizational unity among “individuals with disparate tendencies or ideologies that are… at times completely antagonistic representing antagonistic and irreconcilable class interests in order to bring them together in the struggle against a common enemy” (El Libro Rojo, 1985: 264). Betancourt’s answer to the predicament was the creation of tight-knit central leadership. He pointed out that “parties regardless of how doctrinaire and mass-based they may be, always move in the direction where their leaders take them” (El Libro Rojo: 1985: 143).

6. The TFCLARL’s acceptance of political diversity and pluralism manifested itself in Venezuela with Chávez’s failed effort to create the PSUV as “the Sole Party of the Left” (Partido Unico de la Izquierda) in 2007. Due to resistance from various sources, Chávez ended up backing down by creating the alliance “Gran Polo Patriótico” for the 2012 presidential elections. The Polo took in not only the Communist Party (the PCV) and the Patria Para Todos (PPT), both of which had refused to dissolve itself, but also social organizations that endorsed the Chávez candidacy with their own ticket. One Venezuelan leftist thinker applauded the decision on grounds that it “would generate greater richness of discussion,” whereas the existence of one hegemonic leftist party “would generate arrogance” (Acosta, 2009: 13-14).

7. In contrast, Kurt Weyland, Wendy Hunter and Raúl Madrid defend the two-left framework in their edited The Performance of Leftist Governments in Latin America. They justify their binary focus by contrasting the “contestatory left” represented by Chávez and Morales with the moderate left, which “has chartered a more promising, sustainable course which over time can produce greater economic and social progress in a well-functioning democracy” (Madrid, Hunter and Weyland, 2010: 180) (see Marc Becker’s book review essay in this issue).

REFERENCES

Acosta, Vladimir

2007 “El socialismo del siglo XXI y la revolución bolivariana: una reflexión inicial,” in Margarita López Maya (Coordinator) Ideas para debatir el socialismo del siglo XXI. Caracas: Editorial Alfa.

2009 “Perder el temor a hacer la crítica.” Comuna: Pensamiento Crítico en la Revolución: Intelectuales Democracia y Socialismo 1: 11-19.

Alvarez R., Victor

2010. Del estado burocrático al estado comunal: la transición al socialismo de la revolución bolivariana. Caracas: Centro Internacional Miranda.

Anria Santiago

2010 “Bolivia’s MAS: Between Party and Movement,” in Maxwell A. Cameron and Eric Hershberg (eds.), Latin America’s Left Turns: Politics, Policies and Trajectories of Change. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.

Biardeau, Javier

2009 “Es necesario replantear la relación entre socialismo y democracia.” Comuna: Pensamiento Crítico en la Revolución: Intelectuales Democracia y Socialismo 1: 63-71.

Blanco Muñoz, Agustín

1998 Habla el comandante. Caracas: UCV.

Boron, Atilio A.

2008 Socialismo siglo XXI: Hay vida después del neoliberalismo?Buenos Aires: Ediciones Luxemburg.
Burgmann, Verity

2005 “From Syndicalism to Seattle: Class and the Politics of Identity.” International Labor and Working-Class History 67: 1-21.

Cameron, Maxwell A. and Kenneth E. Sharpe

2010 “Andean Left Turns: Constituent Power and Constitution Making,” in Cameron and Eric Hershberg (eds.), Latin America’s Left Turns: Politics, Policies and Trajectories of Change. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.

Castañeda, Jorge G.

2008 “Where Do We Go From Here?” in Castañeda and Marco A. Morales (eds.), Leftovers: Tales of the Latin American Left. New York: Routledge.

Castells, Manuel and Alejandro Portes

1989 “World Underneath: The Origins, Dynamics, and Effects of the Informal Economy,” in Portes, Castells and Lauren A. Benton (eds.), The Informal Economy: Studies in Advanced and Less Developed Countries. Baltimore: JohnsHopkinsUniversity Press.

Ciccariello-Maher, George

To be published “We Created Him: A People’s History of the Bolivarian Revolution.” Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Dusssel, Enrique D.

2003 Beyond Philosophy: Ethics, History, Marxism, and Liberation Theology. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

2008 Twenty Theses on Politics. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

2012 Ethics of Liberation in the Age of Globalization and Exclusion. Durham: Duke University Press.

El Libro Rojo del General López Contreras, 1936: Documentos robados por espías de la policía política (sixth edition)

1985 Caracas: Ediciones Centauro.

Ellner, Steve

1994 “Two Conceptual Approaches to Latin American Social Movements.” Studies in Comparative International Development 29 (3): 70-80.

2004 “Leftist Goals and Debate over Antii-Neoliberal Strategy in Latin America. Science and Society 68 (1): 10-32.

2011a “The Rightward Drift of a Latin American Social Democrat.” Science and Society 75 (3): 419-428.

2011b “Venezuela’s Social-Based Democratic Model: Innovations and Limitations.” Journal of Latin American Studies 43 (3): 421-449.

2012a “Latin American Unity Takes Center Stage at Cartagena Summit.” NACLA: Report on the Americas 45 (2): 9-11.

2012b “The Distinguishing Features of Latin America’s New Left in Power: The Chávez, Morales, and Correa Governments.” Latin American Perspectives 39 (1): 96-114.

Esteva, Gustavo

2009 “Another Perspective, Another Democracy.” Socialism and Democracy 23 (3): 45-60.

Fanon, Frantz

1963 The Wretched of the Earth. New York: Grove.

Feijoo, Maria del Carmen and Monica Gogna

1990 “Women in the Transition to Democracy,” in Elizabeth Jelin (ed.), Women and Social Change in Latin America. London: Zed Books.

García Linera, Alvaro

2010 “The State in Transition: Power Bloc and Point of Bifurcation.” Latin American Perspectives 37 (4): 34-47.

2011 Las tensiones creativas de la revolución: La quinta fase del proceso de cambio. La Paz: Vicepresidencia del Estado.

Garzón Rogé, Mariana and MarianoPerelman

2010 “Consenus or Conflict? The Problem of an Anti-Political Imagery of Democracy in Contemporary Argentina,” in Brendan Howe, Vesselin Popovski and Mark Notaras (eds.), Democracy in the South: Participation, the State and the People. Tokyo: United Nations University Press.

Germani, Gino

1962. Política y sociedad en una época de transición: de la sociedad tradicional a la sociedad de masas. Buenos Aires: Paidós.

Goldfrank, Benjamin

2011 Deepening Local Democracy in Latin America: Participation, Decentralization, and the Left. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.

Harnecker, Marta

2007 Rebuilding the Left. New York: Zed Books.

2008 “The Communal Councils and Popular Power,” in Jim Mcllroy and Coral Wynter (eds.), Voices from Venezuela: Behind the Bolivarian Revolution. Chippendale, Australia: Resistance Books.

2010 “Latin America and Twenty-First Century Socialism: Inventing to Avoid Mistakes.” Monthly Review [special issue “Twenty-First Century Socialism – the Latin American Challenge”] 62 (3): 3-83.

Haya de la Torre, Victor Raúl

1976 [1928] El Antimperialismo y el APRA. Caracas: Ediciones Centauro.

Informe 21.com

2009 “Precandidato presidencial Gustavo Petro pide a Chávez que deje de agredir a Uribe” http://informe21.com/hugo-chavez/precandidato-presidencial-gustavo-petro-pide-chavez-deje-agredir-uribe.

Jelin, Elizabeth

1990 “Introduction,” in Jelin (ed.), Women and Social Change in Latin America. London: Zed Books.

Kang, Liu

1997 “The Legacy of Mao and Althusser: Problematics of Dialectics, Alternative Modernity, and Cultural Revolution,” in Arif Dirlik, Paul Healy and Nick Knight (eds.), Critical Perspectives on Mao Zedong’s Thought. Atlantic Highlands, N.J.: Humanities Press.

Knight, Nick

1997 “The Laws of Dialectical Materialism in Mao Zedong’s Thought: The Question of ‘Orthodoxy,” in Arif Dirlik, Paul Healy and Knight (eds.), Critical Perspectives on Mao Zedong’s Thought. Atlantic Highlands, N.J.: Humanities Press.

Laclau, Ernesto

1979 [1977] Politics and Ideology in Marxist Theory: Capitalism, Fascism, Populism. London: Verso.

1985 “New Social Movements and the Plurality of the Social,” in David Slater (ed.), New Social Movements and the State in Latin America. Amsterdam: FORIS Publications.

2005 On Populist Reason. London: Verso.

2006 "Consideraciones sobre el populismo latinoamericano." Cuadernos del CENDES 23 (62): 115-120.

Laclau, Ernesto and Chantal Mouffe

1985 Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics. London: Verso.

Levitsky, Steven and Kenneth M. Roberts

2011 “Conclusion: Democracy, Development, and the Left,” in Levitsky and Roberts (eds.), The Resurgence of the Latin American Left. Baltimore: JohnsHopkinsUniversity Press.

Luna, Juan Pablo

2010 “The Left Turns: Why They Happened and How They Compare,” in Maxwell A. Cameron and Eric Hershberg (eds.), Latin America’s Left Turns: Politics, Policies and Trajectories of Change. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.

Madrid, Raúl L, Wendy Hunter and Kurt Weyland

2010 The Policies and Performance of the Contestatory and Moderate Left,” in Weyland, Madrid and Hunter (eds.), The Performance of Leftist Governments in Latin America: Successes and Shortcomings, Cambridge, Great Britain: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Mao Tsetung

1971a [1937] “On Contradiction.” Selected Readings from the Works of Mao Tsetung. Peking: Foreign Languages Press.

1971b [1957] “On the Correct Handling of Contradictions among the People.” Selected Readings from the Works of Mao Tsetung. Peking: Foreign Languages Press.

McCoy, Jennifer

2010 “Venezuela under Chávez: Beyond Liberalism,” in Maxwell A. Cameron and Eric Hershberg (eds.), Latin America’s Left Turns: Politics, Policies and Trajectories of Change. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.

Monedero, Juan Carlos

2009 “La reinvención de Venezuela revolucionaria y los fantasmas del pasado.” Comuna: Pensamiento Crítico en la Revolución: Intelectuales Democracia y Socialismo 1: 187-195.

Mouffe, Chantal

2005 On the Political. London: Routledge.

Oxhorn, Philp D

1998 “Is the Century of Corporatism Over? Neoliberalism and the Rise of Neopluralism,” in Oxhorn and Graciela Ducatenzeiler (eds.), What Kind of Democracy? What Kind of Market? Latin America in the Age of Neoliberalism.University Park, PA: PennStateUniversity Press.

2009 “Beyond Neoliberalism? Latin America’s New Crossroads,” in John Burdick, Kenneth M. Roberts and Oxhorn (eds), Beyond Neoliberalism in Latin America: Society and Politics at the Crossroads. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Raby, D.L.

2006 Democracy and Revolution: Latin America and Socialism Today. London: Pluto Press.

Regalado, Roberto

2007 Latin America at the Crossroads: Domination, Crisis, Popular Movements, and Political Alternatives. Melbourne, Australia: Ocean Press.

Sader, Emir

2008 Refundar el estado: Posneoliberalismo en América Latina. Buenos Aires, Instituto de Estudios y Formación de la CTA.

Silva, Eduardo

2009 Challenging Neoliberalism in Latin America. Cambridge, Great Britain: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Smilde, David

2011 “Introduction: Participation, Politics, and Culture: Emerging Fragments of Venezulea’s Bolivarian Democracy,” in Smilde and Daniel Hellinger (eds.), Venezuela’s Bolivarian Democracy: Participation, Politics, and Culture under Chávez. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press.

Soto, Hernando de

1989 The Other Path: The Invisible Revolution in the Third World. New York: Harper & Row.

Trinkunas, Harold A.

2011 “The Logic of Venezuelan Foreign Policy during the Chávez Period,” in Ralph S. Clem and Anthony P. Maingot (eds.), Venezuela’s Petro-Diplomacy: Hugo Chávez’s Foreign Policy. Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida.

Weyland, Kurt

1999 “Populism in the Age of Neoliberalism,” in Michael L. Conniff (ed.), Populism in Latin America. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.

2010 “The Performance of Leftist Governments in Latin America: Conceputal and Theoretical Issues,” in Weyland, Madrid and Hunter (eds.), The Performance of Leftist Governments in Latin America: Successes and Shortcomings, Cambridge, Great Britain: CambridgeUniversity Press.

2011 “The Left: Destroyer or Savior of the Market Model?” in Steven Levitsky and Kenneth M. Roberts (eds.), The Resurgence of the Latin American Left. Baltimore: JohnsHopkinsUniversity Press.

Source: Latin American PerspectivesVol. 40, No. 3; May-June issue

May 13, 2013

Venezeulanalysis

Bahamas Blog International

Petrocaribe has stood the test of time ... ...thanks to the legacy left by Hugo Chávez

2013-05-11T14:27:00.000-07:00

Maduro: Petrocaribe has stood the test of time

DURING the 7th PETROCARIBE Summit of Heads of State and Government, held in Caracas after the 9th Ministerial Council, Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro said that the organization had stood the test of time, thanks to the legacy left by Hugo Chávez.

The President proposed the idea of designating a number of currencies, such as the SUCRE (the Unitary System of Regional Compensation), or other formulas, to facilitate trade among PETROCARIBE members.

The Summit approved the full membership of Honduras and Guatemala, in line with the goal of strengthening regional integration in the energy sector, according to Prensa Latina. Also agreed upon was the scheduling of a Summit in Nicaragua this coming June 29, on the eve of the organization’s eighth anniversary.

The Summit was preceded by an Energy and Finances Ministerial Council meeting. Venezuelan Minister of Oil and Mining, Rafael Ramírez, reported that the necessary conditions were in place for the functioning of the PETROCARIBE Economic Zone, another tool to promote ongoing sustainable, harmonious development in the region.

PETROCARIBE’s energy agreement, with 18 countries participating, has facilitated social progress, going beyond the supplying of oil on the basis of flexible financial terms. For example, its ALBA-Caribe Fund has provided more than $179 million for the execution of 85 projects in 12 nations. Through this fund, finances have been made available to advance access to healthcare, education and housing, as well as promoting economic development.

PETROCARIBE was founded in 2005 and includes Antigua & Barbuda, the Bahamas, Belize, Cuba, Dominica, the Dominican Republic, Grenada, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Nicaragua, St Kitts & Nevis, St Lucia, St Vincent & the Grenadines, Suriname and Venezuela.

Leaders attending the 7th PETROCARIBE Summit paid tribute to Chávez, visiting the Montaña Garrison, on the two month anniversary of his death.

CUBA EMPHASIZES PETROCARIBE’S IMPORTANCE TO DEVELOPMENT

The creation of PETROCARIBE represents an integrationist response to mitigate the asymmetry generated by neocolonialism in the Caribbean, said Ricardo Cabrisas, Vice President of Cuba’s Council of Ministers, in his remarks to the Summit, according to PL.

Under the leadership of Chávez, PETROCARIBE was an "original and audacious idea" which, from the beginning, sought to go beyond merely distributing oil, to promote collaborative energy policies.

According to Cabrisas, Chávez foresaw a comprehensive project, which would support cooperation in programs of social impact, in addition to facilitating access to oil supplies.

Cabrisas further commented, "It is our responsibility to guarantee the continuity of this collaboration between sister peoples facing the crisis of the world economy, of energy, food, the environment and ideas."

May 09, 2013

Granma.cu

Bahamas Blog International

...will The Bahamas government allow Bahamas Petroleum Company (BPC) to drill for oil willy-nilly in Bahamian waters ...and risk the destruction of the Bahamian bread and butter industry - tourism?

2013-05-08T14:46:00.001-07:00

Young Man's View: The Oil Industry

By ADRIAN GIBSON
ajbahama@hotmail.com
Nassau, The Bahamas

...

I continue to believe that Bahamas Petroleum Company is a bit player in the oil industry and, having been told of the overly emotional online attacks on me by so-called shareholders/investors after my first column, I am now even more interested in piercing the veil and looking into any and all drilling agreements that this company—and any other company— has with our government.

For some reason, every time I think about the giving away of our national patrimony, I hear Beavis and Butthead sarcastically snickering in the background. The licensing agreement between BPC and the government states that the oil royalties would be disbursed on a sliding scale, i.e. if 75,000 barrels of oil are produced daily, the royalty rate would be 12.5 per cent; if it’s in excess of 75,000 and up to 150,000, it would be 15 per cent; 150,000 to 200,000 daily barrels would yield a royalty rate of 17.5 per cent; 250,000 to 350,000 would result in a 20 per cent rate and any daily production in excess of 350,000 barrels would incur a royalty rate of 25 per cent.

The Bahamas has no Environmental Protection Act and the trite regulatory practices (Environmental Impact Assessment reports) overseen by groups like the BEST Commission—a toothless bulldog— is laughable at best.

I totally agree with a recent article written by attorney Fred Smith (Queen’s Counsel) when he said: “As the Bahamas broadens its industrial investment profile; encourages large scale urban development; promotes all inclusive anchor projects by Bahamians and foreigners and continues its growth and development, it becomes more and more urgent for an independent regulatory body with teeth, to protect our often pristine, and always fragile environment.”

He went on to say: “The Bahamas, as a Small Island Nation, must make protecting the environment a priority. It is also important that stakeholders and interested parties who may be affected by industrial and/or other urban developments have an opportunity to be properly consulted. This has been repeatedly affirmed by our Supreme Court, Court of Appeal and Privy Council in the Guana Cay and Abaco Wilson City Power Plant litigation. The BEST Commission has been established for years but it is not a statutory body and needs to be institutionally created by legislation to make it effective and relevant.”

Yes, our sluggish, relatively rebounding economy could do with an injection of oil money—but it must be on the best, most nationally-sound terms and not be a hurried, tactless and superficial attempt to redesign our economy overnight. The Nigerian experience should teach us, as a nation, the shortfalls of unregulated drilling, of allowing foreign companies to buy off prominent members of government and of an oil rich country having a poverty stricken population due to corruption, greed and overtly scandalous behaviour.

Now, while Bahamians are discussing oil from the perspective of a countrywide get-rich-quick-scheme, many of them haven’t considered the environmental ramifications, how BPC will likely go about getting it and/or a thorough examining of the peripheral issues related to oil drilling.

In a published Facebook post forwarded to me by economist and lawyer Dr Gilbert Morris, he said:

“Let’s forget about the risk premiums to protect our waters and let’s forget about the relative costs of both drilling and pumping. If there are 3 billion barrels undersea in the Bahamas, what would you think when you learn that the US consumes 19 million barrels per day? This means, if we have 3 billion barrels, our total store of oil is 150 days of US consumption.”

He went on: “So therefore, here is what is likely to happen: The lead firm will confirm its find and say to the government we will pay you a royalty. Let’s suppose the royalty is 90% of profits, just to be overly optimistic. The government would never see a dime. Why? Because the firm with the rights in the Bahamas, will sell the rights to the proven reserves to a larger company. That company will determine what it costs to pump the oil from the depths. The government will only gain income, even if its on the gross, from oil that passes the Relief Valve. But nothing will. Because when the large Company buys the rights, they will Cap the Wells immediately. That is because, oil prices would need to be over $200 per barrel to make its economically feasible to pump it. So Caping is like storage until the market price makes pumping feasible.”

“A final point: if the oil has a high sulfur content, (Sour), then that adds refining costs too. There are lots of oil finds all over the world. The question is, is it financially feasible to pump it. If the find in the Bahamas was a “monster find” (and it could become that), the question will be the cost of pumping – including environmental protection costs – relative to the profit yield based on the market price over time,” the economist concluded.

An October 2012 report in The Economist stated that oil is stolen in Nigeria at a record pace, with the government inflating output figures by using a discombobulating assortment of statistics. According to that report, Nigeria announced that its oil production had increased to 2.7 million barrels per day; however, due to a corrupt culture, that figure is nearly impossible to verify.

According to a former senior World Banker—Oby Ezekwesili (a Nigerian)—some $400 billion of that country’s oil revenue has been squandered or pilfered since 1960. Nigeria, home of the world’s ninth largest gas reserves, also has an unregulated petroleum industry where a Petroleum Industry Bill has been stalled for 15 years. The Bill was drafted with the intent to heighten transparency, proffer a regulatory regime and govern every aspect of the nation’s oil industry. However, glad-handing politicians have managed to bar the formulation of any effective regulatory regime as that would curb their corrupt practices and proscribe deterring—even penal—sanctions. Could there be similar reasons why no such Bill has been considered in the Bahamas—why even Environmental Protection legislation hasn’t been brought to the Parliament?

Indeed, a joint report by Transparency International and the Revenue Watch Institute revealed that Nigeria’s government-run National Petroleum Corporation is “accountable to no one” and is a “slush fund for the government,” which makes it the worst of 44 national and foreign companies included in their study. When one thinks of how locally government-run corporations have been mismanaged over the years—e.g. Bahamasair, the Bahamas Electricity Corporation and even the Bahamas Telecommunications Company (before the sale)—there’s much to desire and the thought of our governments running an oil slush fund is a no-no!

What’s more, Nigeria’s oil producing delta region has suffered environmental devastation that would eternally damage our pristine environment (beaches, mangroves, etc) and, as it relates to the environs and our tourism industry, set us back into the Ice Ages. Whilst the United Nations have chided the Nigerian government for their unchecked environmental degradation, there has been little to no attempt by that government to take legislative initiatives to curb indiscriminate drilling—just as there has been no attempt by the government of the Bahamas thus far! After a rig explosion (Chevron) in January, 2012, local Nigerian environmental groups have placed a $3 billion price tag on losses accrued over 46 days due to fires, a gas leak and environmental degradation. Even more, in December 2011, an oil spill at one of Royal Dutch Shell’s offshore oil operations was estimated to have cost a record $5 billion in damages. Apparently, the farmlands of Nigeria—particularly in the Niger delta—are progressively being destroyed. It remains to be seen what penalties or compensation will be rendered by both companies to the Nigerian people, considering the predilection of corrupt government officials and the likelihood that it would merely be swept under the rug. The Nigerian response, in these instances, could hardly be compared to the United States response to British Petroleum’s oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico!

According to a Green Peace International article titled ‘Shell Shocked’: “We witnessed the slow poisoning of the waters of this country and the destruction of vegetation and agricultural land by oil spills which occur during petroleum operations. But since the inception of the oil industry in Nigeria, more than twenty-five years ago, there has been no concerned and effective effort on the part of the government, let alone the oil operators, to control environmental problems associated with the industry.”

A 2010 Newsweek article entitled ‘Oil’s Shame in Africa’ further stated that: “Oil spills in Nigeria are a common occurrence; it has been estimated that between 9 million to 13 million barrels have been spilled since oil drilling started in 1958.”

Due to a lack of regulation and political patronage, more than 1000 people lose their lives to oil-related deaths in Nigeria every year, 70 per cent of that nation’s population live below the poverty line (less than $1 dollar per day), clean potable water is hardly accessible and—even whilst it is a major oil exporter having racked up more than $340 billion over the last few decades—Nigeria still imports most of its gasoline. Is it possible that we could be an oil producing nation that exports our crude but then—as is the case with salt—must buy back and import our own oil (in its now refined state)?

Considering the corruption, dodgy practices and dysfunction of some of our elected representatives and public officers, should we too be worried about gas price-fixing scams (which cost Nigeria $29 billion in the last 10 years), oil theft (which cost the Nigerian treasury $6 billion per year), fuel subsidy scams (which cost the Nigerians $6.8 billion) and an overall proclivity by some officials to “tief” and misuse public funds like it was going out of style (which has cost the Nigerian’s nearly $400 billion since their Independence in 1960)?

So, will the government allow BPC to drill willy-nilly and risk the destruction of our bread and butter industry (tourism)? Will they risk the contamination of our groundwater and our soil, of the destruction of our coastal environment, of our local fishing industry being ruined by oil spills and of oil sheen spreading to fishing habitats with the government still being handicapped in its capacity to even conduct clean-ups at Clifton Pier (from BEC’s spills)? And, what about gas flaring—which is the release of unusable or unwanted raw natural gas and associated gases—into the atmosphere? Look, if we’re going to drill, let’s do it the right way, let’s put any and all related legislation and regulations in place beforehand. The government must remember that we the people—and those who make up the government—all live in the Bahamas and, unlike some of the principals of BPC, have nowhere else to go and call “home” (in the truest sense of the word).

I urge the government to get on with the people’s business, to stop talking foolishness in our Parliament or resign and get the hell out!

...

May 06, 2013

Tribune 242

Bahamas Blog International

Kick CARICOM to the kerb

2013-05-05T07:26:00.000-07:00

Ronald Mason, Jamaica Gleaner Contributor:

There comes a time when the only thing to do is make clear, definitive, unambiguous statements about things of importance. Here goes. I am a Jamaican, I am NOT a Caribbean man. I want no part of the totally useless creation we label CARICOM. The peoples who populate those islands 1,000 miles away from my home are not brothers and sisters. There has been some cross-breeding, but it's statistically insignificant to warrant the familial term 'brothers'.

I do not ascribe to the notion that because we are primarily and predominantly of the same racial composition, that makes us brothers. The same could be said of the people of Papua New Guinea. They were also former colonies of the same empire, but I do not hear this claim for integration with those good people.

I have visited countries in this Eastern Caribbean. On arrival, one is not imbued, as a Jamaican, with the feeling of belonging. One is met with the quizzical, "What do you want now?"

I have had a period of enforced residence with some of them at a particular North American university and here in Jamaica. This has not created any pleasant memories, and I would have been better off not to have had those interpersonal experiences.

NOT THE SAME

We are different. Mauby, blood pudding, bake, monkeys unfettered, major racial divide are all daily features of life in those islands. The fact that the West Indies cricket team is offered up as a source of bonding strikes me as overreaching. The team, when it was great, had individuals who proved to be extraordinary. They were immensely, individually talented.

They had a singular purpose - to win. They did win, but the team was created initially out of British colonies. The development of independent countries with their own attendant nationalism has significantly diluted this experience. One is hard-pressed to foresee a return to glory on the field, and even if they did, what would differentiate them from other cricket entities? Just look at the Indian T20 spectacle. Love cricket - watch, recognising the multiple nationalities playing as a unit.

The Trinidadians have this over-bearing, suffocating attitude. The Bajans have this bombastic self-importance. Both of these nations waste no time in displaying these traits towards Jamaicans. Remember Kamla Persad-Bissessar and the ATM being out of bounds? The Bajans and Shanique Myrie?

NO LONGER SUFFER IN SILENCE

As an aside, until these most recent incidents, I was prepared to listen to Sir Ronald Sanders and suffer in silence. No more. We need to give the six-month notice and leave CARICOM. Keep your oil, money, flying fish and population. We will deal with the world as it is and forge our way therein as best we can.

We have the resourcefulness, aptitude and personnel to make our mark. Let us use what we have and be inspired by George Headley, up to Shelly-Ann Fraser-Pryce, Usain Bolt, the Nobel laureate in our midst and those high achievers in the diaspora.

Have you noticed which two countries are usually responsible for put-downs of Jamaica and Guyana? I, for one, am no longer prepared, on the national level, to engage those who patronise my country and my countrymen. I would support the repatriation of CARICOM nationals who work in Jamaica. Parochial, yes. More jobs for Jamaicans.

The matter of commerce between the countries is predicated on mutual benefit. Is this the case with Jamaica and CARICOM? Hell, no. They see Jamaica as the market to be exploited, not where fair trade exists. No to Jamaican patties. Yes to tissue high in bacteria. Play the fool regarding natural gas. Pull the plug. Get the brand name Air Jamaica, then curtail service to Jamaica.

We do not have to buy the biscuits, chocolate, peanuts, tissue and the multitude of other consumables from Trinidad. There are Jamaican products of similar or superior quality than. And our local purchases will boost jobs at home. As for me and my house, we will not buy CARICOM products.

OTHER OPTION

As a member of the legal fraternity, I have given great thought to the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ). I understand the need for a final appellate court. I do have a longing to sever the ties with the colonial power. Let me suggest that we look at another option. There is a country in our part of the world that is developed, shares our judicial heritage and philosophy, does not have the baggage of colonial domination, and has proven itself to be a worthy ally of Jamaica. I have no knowledge that they would be receptive to affording us assent for our final court.

However, we need to cut the ties to CARICOM. Leaving the treaty will mean exiting the CCJ. We would be diminished as a court of original jurisdiction for CARICOM trade matters. Can we give thought to looking to Canada as our final court of appeal?

This may well mean a diminished court. It may further be reduced if we could recoup the 26 per cent contribution we made to the trust which funds the court. This totalled US$100 million.

Federation was a bad idea. It was laid to rest. CARICOM cannot hope to be viable without some states ceding to the whole some political power. God forbid that Jamaica should do that. Political decision-making, however limited? No way!

The current experiment has to be laid to rest. For me and my household, we will be at the vanguard of seeing to the dismantling of CARICOM. I am a proud Jamaican. I am not a Caribbean man.

Ronald Mason is an immigration attorney-at-law/mediator. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com.

May 05, 2013

Kick CARICOM to the kerb (Part 2)

Jamaica Gleaner

Bahamas Blog International

...the House of Bishops and Standing Committee of the Church in the Province of the West Indies urge Caribbean governments to turn a deaf ear to the international community which encourages same sex marriage

2013-05-04T07:51:00.001-07:00

Anglican Bishops Take Strong Stance Against Gay Marriage

Jones Bahamas:

West Indian Anglican Bishops have officially taken a firm stance against same-sex marriage.

During a meeting this past Thursday, the House of Bishops and Standing Committee of the Church in the Province of the West Indies released a draft provincial statement urging Caribbean governments to turn a deaf ear to the international community that encourages same sex marriage.

The body, which is the body of leadership in the West Indian Anglican community, said that they were aware that Caribbean political leaders were being subjected to pressures from nations and institutions from outside the region.

“Frequently they are pressured to conform to the changes being undertaken in their redefinition of human sexuality and same-sex unions, under threat of economic sanctions and the loss of humanitarian aid,” they said.

“We urge our leaders of government and of civil society, as well as the people of our nations, to resist any attempt to compromise our cultural and religious principles regarding these matters.”

The collection of bishops in the region described the international pressure as the ‘dangling of a carrot’ to bring economic assistance to faltering economies, but added that Caribbean governments should not give in.

The bishops also noted that during their deliberations they paid note to the fact that during numerous international forums, the same-sex issue is being pushed as a promotion of human rights, one that must be accepted in a developed nation.

“Frequently, failure to conform by developing nations, like our own, results in the threat of various sanctions, including the withholding of economic aid,” they said.

“More specifically, there is a redefinition of gender to accommodate gay, lesbian and transgendered people, and the creation of a plurality of definitions which leaves the issue of gender to self-definition, thereby dismissing traditional definition of male and female.”

“Additionally, there is the passage of legislation among a number of metropolitan nations whereby marriage is defined as a human right in which any two persons may be joined, inclusive of persons of the same sex,” they added.

The bishops used as a point of reference the Pastoral Statement from the House of Bishops of the Church of England in 2005 which defines marriage as “a creation ordinance, a gift of God in creation and a means of his grace.”

The statement also defined marriage as a faithful, committed, permanent and legally sanctioned relationship between a man and a woman and said it is central to the stability and health of human society.

They also spoke of the cultural and theoretical grounding of Caribbean family life as being between a man and a woman and said the idea of marriage being between two persons of the same sex is “totally unacceptable.”

“While we recognise that the church’s mandate is informed by pastoral and doctrinal concerns and in drawing the attention of the faithful to the source and purpose of marriage, and in solemnising such unions, we accept that governments have the responsibility of providing the kind of legal framework for protecting, but not defining, this most basic social institution on which the stability of society and the socialisation of its members rest,” they said.

“However, the threat and use of economic sanctions are not new experiences to the region’s people, neither is the claim to a superior morality convincing for people who have known the experience of chattel slavery in our past.”

Back in January Archbishop Laish Boyd came under heavy scrutiny after his address to the Constitutional Commission was taken out of context and he was accused of supporting gay marriage.

The archbishop has since dismissed those claims and said that he supports the human rights of all individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation, but believes that marriage should remain a union between a man and a woman.

April 29, 2013

The Bahama Journal

Bahamas Blog International

...poverty and the number of homeless continue to increase in the United States of America (USA)

2013-04-29T06:32:00.000-07:00

Thousands of homeless living in tunnels

In the principal cities of the United States, one of the most prosperous countries in the world, thousands of people live beneath the streets, in underground tunnels.

Underneath Kansas City, police discovered last week a group of homeless persons living in tents, in deep underground tunnels. They were removed because of the "insecure environment."

Authorities reported that these individuals lived in misery surrounded by piles of garbage.

It is not clear exactly who these homeless people are or how they dug the tunnels. This is not the only report of this type. In 2010 a story emerged about some 1,000 people who lived in 320 kilometers of tunnels located under the streets of Las Vegas. Improvised furnishings filled the rooms, some had beds, closets and small libraries of books discarded by others.

Journalist Matthew O’Brien reports that these are normal people from all age groups who have lost their way, generally after some traumatic event. He came across the ‘tunnel people’ while investigating a murder, founded an organization to help then and wrote a book about their existence, Beneath the Neon.

He writes that many are war veterans suffering post-traumatic stress syndrome and additionally noted evidence – toys and stuffed animals – that children lived in the tunnels.

Authorities in New York City are constantly evicting persons living in the many tunnels under that city, known as ‘mole people.’ Their attempts to locate all such individuals have, however, failed.

In addition to the thousands of homeless who live in tunnels, there are many living in tents. This is the case of some 80 indigent persons in the New Jersey city of Lakewood, who erected a tent city complete with chickens, a church and piano.

Early in April, residents of the camp reached an agreement with authorities on details of a plan to clear the area, "after the residents have found homes."

Despite all U.S. government declarations that the recession is over and the economy improving, these families are a clear demonstration of the reality that poverty and the number of homeless continue to increase. (Russia Today)

Havana. April 25, 2013

Granma.cu

Bahamas Blog International

...The Bahamas offers no protection against discrimination for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) persons

2013-04-25T21:15:00.000-07:00

Report Highlights Gay Man's Murder

By RUPERT MISSICK Jr

A NEW human rights report prepared by the US State Department sites the unsolved 2011 murder of a gay man while pointing out that the Bahamas offers no protection against discrimination for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) persons.

According to the report, members of the Bahamian LGBT community believe that the June 2011 murder of photographer Sharvado Simmons occurred at the hands of a group of men seeking retribution for a previous incident where Simmons solicited and deceived one of the men while dressed “in drag.”

The report further stated that societal discrimination against gay men and lesbians occurred, with some persons reporting job and housing discrimination based upon sexual orientation.

Although same-sex sexual activity between consenting adults is legal, no domestic legislation addresses the human rights concerns of lesbian, LGBT persons and the 2006 Constitutional Review Commission found that sexual orientation did not deserve protection against discrimination.

The report did admit however, that LGBT NGOs operated openly in the country.

April 25, 2013

Tribune242

Bahamas Blog International

Is Dr. Hubert Minnis simply the Interim Leader of the Official Opposition - Free National Movement (FNM) party in The Bahamas?

2013-04-23T04:51:00.003-07:00

Interim leader?

Minnis struggles to establish formidable opposition

BY CANDIA DAMES
Guardian News Editor
candia@nasguard.com
Nassau, The Bahamas

Nearly a year after voters delivered a wholesale rejection of the Free National Movement (FNM), the opposition party finds itself in a familiar place — lacking strong, convincing leadership and struggling to stay effective and relevant even with a government that has so far failed to deliver on key near-term promises made on a grueling campaign trail.

The 2012 general election was bitterly fought with high stakes for both the FNM and the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP).

Although it made a commendable showing, the Democratic National Alliance (DNA) was never really a major force to contend with.

In some circles, Branville McCartney’s name still comes up when discussions take place about a possible leader for the FNM closer to the next election.

But McCartney, the charismatic head of the DNA, has not in my view proven himself an impressive enough leader, though many applaud him for being brave enough to stand up to Hubert Ingraham and resign from his Cabinet, and tenacious enough to go head to head with Ingraham and Perry Christie at the polls.

The PLP and FNM both headed into the 2012 general election with the same problem: What to do about leadership in the event of a loss.

Neither party had a clearly defined succession plan.

With a win at the polls, the PLP was able to kick the can down the road, but for the FNM, the leadership question became an immediate issue and the party needed a quick solution.

The resignation of Hubert Ingraham from the FNM on the night of the election defeat left many supporters reeling, and some have yet to get over his departure from frontline politics.

The wipeout of most of the former Cabinet put the party in a difficult position as it turned its focus toward identifying new leadership.

The Free National Movement was left fractured and bloodied by the May 7, 2012 defeat, and in shambles by Ingraham’s exit from the political stage, and it had very little options.

For nearly a year now, Dr. Hubert Minnis, the popular Killarney MP, has been doing his best to keep the FNM afloat, but he lacks what is needed to re-energize the party.

It does not help that he still has to work against a very strong pro-Ingraham group within the FNM.

It is likely that Minnis was caught totally off-guard by the task placed before him in May 2012.

He has shown great focus in attempting to put the pieces back together, but he comes on the tail of a formidable force, a towering personality, and it might not be possible for him to provide supporters with the kind of comfort, assurance or strong leadership of an Ingraham.

While Minnis must be respected for his leadership style, and it will take time for the party to adjust, it does not now appear likely that the FNM will go into the next general election with Minnis as leader.

For now, he is playing an important role of attempting to keep all the marbles in the circle until the party is able to identify someone who is able to display the kind of leadership and charisma needed to do battle with the PLP once again.

During the last term, FNMs and PLPs alike acknowledged that Minnis was a strong, hard working and likeable MP. Today, he remains that.

He uses social media and other technologies to communicate with constituents and is deeply engaged in his constituency.

Minnis lucked out though from having a safe seat, and some observers acknowledged that it would have been very difficult for any FNM to lose Killarney, no matter how unpopular Ingraham and the FNM had become in the lead up to the last general election.

While a good MP, Minnis is not a career politician and was not known during the last term as a standout minister.

His communications in Parliament then, and his contributions to debates now are not engaging or particularly informative.

He does not command attention, and even with all the obvious slip ups of the Christie administration, he struggles to use them to his advantage.

There is evidence that he does try, though.

Last week, the FNM leader called for the government and the police to close down web shop gaming after the chief justice lifted an order that had provided the web shops with temporary legal protection.

But it was hard for Minnis to come off as convincing given his early position that he supported the legalization of web shop gaming in The Bahamas.

One issue Minnis has not gotten credit for though is that he asked pertinent questions about the National Insurance Board on the floor of the House of Assembly long before the matter was on the radar of the media or anyone else publicly.

United

Minnis has had a tough first year as leader of the FNM.

He was forced to prop up an obviously bad candidate (Greg Gomez) in the October 2012 North Abaco by-election.

And he angered some supporters when he declared, “The Ingraham era is over.”

North Abaco was the third consecutive election lost by the FNM and some party supporters still struggle from the hurt and disappointments of those defeats.

While some seem to have gotten a recent boost from growing anti-PLP sentiment in social media, over the airwaves and elsewhere, the road to 2017 will be long.

While it has already been publicly revealed that FNM Chairman Darron Cash had been at odds with Minnis, the two in recent months have been careful enough to display a united approach to opposition politics.

They at least seem to have patched things up.

This is a positive sign.

Opposition parties, of course, turn themselves around all the time. That is how they win elections.

Following the 2007 defeat, the PLP was a weakened bunch with a leader who had been severely wounded by the defeat.

Christie was identified as the key reason the party lost at the polls, and was advised by experts to effect key reforms if the party was to have any real chance at a 2012 win.

In opposition, the PLP never stopped pounding and it never stopped campaigning.

It benefited from a strong group of former ministers who took their blows from the governing party and never took their eyes off of 2012 and the chance it represented.

Only three members of Ingraham’s last Cabinet held on to seats in Parliament: Minnis; Neko Grant (Central Grand Bahama) and FNM Deputy Loretta Butler-Turner (Long Island), whose best approach to opposition politics appears to be boisterous and disruptive behavior in Parliament.

The other FNM members are Edison Key (the MP for Central and South Abaco who also sat in the previous Parliament), and newcomers Richard Lightbourn (Montagu); Peter Turnquest (East Grand Bahama); Hubert Chipman (St. Anne’s) and Theo Neilly (North Eleuthera).

The FNM of today is reminiscent of the FNM that existed for most of the first term of the Christie administration.

Between 2002 and 2005, the party was led by Tommy Turnquest, who sat in the Senate after he lost the Mount Moriah seat.

The FNM under Turnquest was lackluster and fractured, though Turnquest, like Minnis took the leadership job seriously.

In 2005, Turnquest appointed an advisory council of the party headed by former Deputy Prime Minister Frank Watson to advise on what the party needed to do to win the 2007 election.

The council advised Turnquest that there are many FNMs who want him out and Ingraham back in as leader.

Even today, some FNMs think Ingraham could still successfully return to frontline politics.

For them, there is that nostalgic longing for ‘Papa’.

Hiatus

Earlier this year, Ingraham used a familiar word when he told reporters that he was on “hiatus”.

But when asked the context in which he was speaking, he assured that it was not a suggestion that he planned one day to return to frontline politics.

It was a throwback to his word choice during a public event in 2004.

While addressing a group of administrative professions in Freeport, Grand Bahama, Ingraham referred to his departure from frontline politics as a “hiatus” and said it could stay that way as long as those who were in office advanced The Bahamas and its people.

Following Ingraham’s dramatic return as leader of the FNM in 2005, I recall asking an ever-confident Prime Minister Christie to react to the move.

Christie said Ingraham’s legacy was “on the line” and he vowed to politically cremate him in the next general election.

“I’m really sad that he came back,” Christie said.

“He has placed his legacy on the line and when you place your legacy on the line in a battle with the Progressive Liberal Party – Hubert Ingraham, Perry Christie, however one would wish to look at it – he will lose.”

It turned out that Christie’s prediction was wrong — as least as it related to 2007.

Christie had to wait five more years for the political cremation he foreshadowed.

Strange things do happen in politics.

Five years is a long time for the government to show the electorate what it can and cannot do and for the opposition to show its strength or lack thereof.

We would hope though that the FNM does not this time around feel it’s only real hope is to drag Ingraham out of retirement back into frontline politics.

Ingraham has taken the party far over the nearly 20 years he led it. He has won three general elections and left in place a legacy of which to be proud.

Minnis is right that the Ingraham era is over.

For the FNM, the decision will eventually need to be made on how long the Minnis era could realistically last.

April 22, 2013

thenassauguardian

Bahamas Blog International

UN criticizes U.S. detention camp on Guantánamo Naval Base

2013-04-21T07:03:00.000-07:00

UNITED NATIONS.— The United Nations has criticized the U.S. government for maintaining its detention center in the illegally occupied Guantánamo Naval Base, despite assurances it would be closed.

In addition, it called on Washington to allow a UN Human Rights Commission delegation to visit the prison, with free and open access and the possibility of speaking in private with the prisoners.

These issues were raised in Geneva on April 5, by Navi Pillay, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, who condemned the indefinite incarceration of many of the prisoners, which she stated amounted to arbitrary detention.

The official highlighted the cases of prisoners detained indefinitely, some of them for more than 10 years. This practice contradicts the United States' stance as an upholder of human rights and weakens its position in terms of such violations taking place elsewhere, she added.

The Human Rights Commissioner referred to the prisoners on hunger strike as victims of uncertainty and anxiety caused by prolonged detention.

Similarly, she recalled promises made by U.S. President Barack Obama four years ago regarding the closure of this prison, commenting that systematic abuses of the human rights of individuals continue year after year. (PL)

April 11, 2013

Granma.cu

Bahamas Blog International

Venezuela's dilemma

2013-04-20T13:06:00.000-07:00

By Lawrence Powell

In a closer-than-expected Venezuelan presidential election held last Sunday to replace the late Hugo Chávez, opposition candidate Henrique Capriles has refused to recognise the result, calling it "illegitimate" and fuelling violent protests.

Nicolas Maduro, Chávez's preferred successor, received 50.8 per cent of the votes to Capriles' 49 per cent. Voter turnout was high, at 79 per cent, just short of the 80 per cent reached in last October's Chávez-Capriles matchup.

As election results were announced in central Caracas, there were jubilant celebrations by Chavistas, with fireworks and honking car horns. But in the suburbs, Capriles supporters were in an angry protest mood, banging pots and pans loudly in the streets, and lighting fires.

Pointing to what he claimed were voting irregularities, Capriles promptly accused the ruling party of election fraud, and said he will not accept Maduro's victory until a full audit of the results is carried out by the National Electoral Council (CNE). "I don't make pacts with those who are corrupt or illegitimate," said Capriles, who is demanding a manual recount of every single vote cast.

As of Sunday night, Maduro initially said he would gladly accept a full recount. "If they want to do an audit, then do an audit. We have complete trust in our electoral body." Vicente Diaz, one of the members of the electoral council, also publicly expressed support for an audit.

But, by Monday, the narrative had changed, leaving the impression that the government was reneging on its promise. Tibisay Lucena, president of the CNE, announced to the media that all of the proper auditing checks had already been undertaken as part of Venezuela's elaborate standard process of verification, and that a manual recount was, therefore, unnecessary.

Venezuela uses electronic machines to tabulate votes, rather than handwritten ballots. When each vote is cast, the machine automatically issues a printed receipt that confirms, and serves as a record of, that vote. This is more reliable, and less susceptible to tampering, than, say, the machines used in the US, where absence of a printed receipt means one never knows whether the vote was, in fact, registered as you cast it.

As part of CNE's standard protocol, 14 audits had already been conducted before and during the voting process, to ensure correct functioning of the system. CNE had audited a sampling of 54 per cent of the vote, with observers from all parties present - which Lucena explained is "a statistical proportion that in any part of the world is considered excessive".

Citing the importance of maintaining rule of law, she then added that "candidate Capriles ... has refused to recognise the results announced by this body. That is his decision, but in Venezuela a state of law exists which must be respected."

Carlos Alvarez, head of the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) observer mission which was present throughout Sunday's voting, also chimed in with assurances that UNASUR had observed "wide exercise of citizenship and freedom" during the election, and that, therefore, "results emitted by the National Electoral Council should be respected, as the competent authority on this matter".

Satisfied with the results of a thorough electronic voting system widely regarded as "the best in the world", Venezuela's five-member electoral commission then smugly announced that the results were "irreversible", and proceeded to declare Maduro the president-elect, with the formal swearing-in ceremony to be held April 19.

This, in turn, further outraged opposition supporters, leading to more protests. There have been at least seven confirmed deaths and 61 injuries so far throughout the country, in the aftermath of the elections.

For Jamaica, what's at stake in all of this post-election haggling is that Maduro is the candidate most devoted to continuing Chávez's generous PetroCaribe arrangements, which provide discounted oil through concessionary loans. To date, Jamaica has benefited to the tune of US$2.4 billion from those arrangements. Even though, as PetroCaribe Development Fund head Dr Wesley Hughes recently indicated, Venezuela may at some point have to review its terms, a favourable arrangement for Jamaica is clearly more likely to survive under a Maduro administration.

Maduro has also agreed to honour Chávez-inspired regional alliances like ALBA (Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America), and to continue pursuing the close relationship and economic exchanges with Cuba. Capriles, in contrast, lacks the Bolivarian ideological commitments that led to all of those regional arrangements in the first place, so would likely consider discontinuing or replacing them.

With such a narrow mandate, and a split nation, Maduro will have a tough time governing during the next six years. The razor-thin margin leaves his political legitimacy less firmly anchored than Chávez's was. That perceived weakness, in turn, provides encouragement for further destabilisation attempts by opponents in concert with the US - something that was constant during the Chávez years and included an unsuccessful 2002 attempted coup.

And there are mounting problems to be solved in Venezuela that have accumulated during the Chávez years - including escalating crime and murder rates, corruption, periodic shortages of food staples, and nearly 30 per cent annual inflation.

In particular, the country's heavy economic dependence on oil - with 95 per cent of export earnings deriving from oil and roughly 45 per cent of government revenues - means that if oil prices should dip on the international market with countries like the US producing more of their own, there will be less in Venezuela's national coffers with which to continue the expensive 'social missions' that ensure votes.

Will a less charismatic, less commanding former bus driver like Maduro be able to overcome all of those challenges, and unify the country's resolve to continue its progressive Bolivarian reforms? As memories of Chávez fade, Maduro will have to develop his own persona, beyond the overworked campaign slogan that he's 'the son of Chávez'.

Lawrence Powell is honorary research fellow at the Centre of Methods and Policy Application in the Social Sciences at the University of Auckland, New Zealand, and a former senior lecturer at UWI, Mona. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com and lapowell.auckland@ymail.com.
April 20, 2013

Jamaica Gleaner

Bahamas Blog International

Children with autism ... ...A parent's experiences in dealing with an autism spectrum diagnosis for two of their three children

2013-04-18T09:25:00.000-07:00

What I have learned about autism

By John Dinkelman

“Your child has autism.” Words that no parent could ever fully be prepared to hear. Yet for millions of parents each year, they are the unwelcome introduction into a dramatically different world of permanently altered hopes and expectations.

I am one of those parents.

As I take the opportunity during Autism Awareness Month to look back at my experiences in dealing with an autism spectrum diagnosis for two of my three children, I recall that one of the most difficult parts of my experience has been all of the confusing, and often conflicting, information available about the causes of autism. Additionally, the legion of well-meaning (and sometimes not so well-meaning) people with possible treatments and promised cures – each invariably very expensive and unproven, did little to lessen the pain, or the burden that a diagnosis of autism places on a family.

What we do know is that autism is a spectrum of closely related disorders with a shared core of symptoms. Autism spectrum disorders appear in infancy and early childhood, causing delays in many basic areas of development such as speech, play, and interaction with others. The signs and symptoms of autism vary widely, as do the effects. Some autistic children have only mild impairments, while others have greater obstacles to overcome.

While there are no definitive figures on the number of people affected by autism here in The Bahamas; we do know that the government of the United States monitors such things and that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) identify approximately one in 88 American children as being on the autism spectrum. This is a 10-fold increase in prevalence in the past 40 years. Studies also show that autism is four to five times more common among boys than girls, with an estimated one out of 54 boys and one in 252 girls diagnosed with the condition in the United States.

To be sure, I am by no means an expert on autism. But as the father of two children with autism and the husband of a wife who has devoted the last 12 years to learning as much as she can about the disorder, I feel it is my duty to share what I have learned, parent-to-parent, in the hope that others will benefit from my experience. With this in mind, I offer the following suggestions.

Become an expert on your own child

My wife and I learned through our experience that signs of autism can develop as early as the first year of a child’s life. As a parent, you alone see and interact with your child each and every day. So you are in the best position to spot the earliest warning signs of any developmental delay or regression. All children develop at their own special pace and it is very important for parents to learn what the common milestones are for a child, with the understanding that there can often be a wide range in the timeline for healthy development. If your child is not meeting the milestones for his or her age, or if you suspect a problem, share your concerns with your doctor or ask for a referral to a child development specialist. When it comes to any issue related to the development of your child, I recommend listening to your “gut feeling” and do not be afraid to be persistent.

Don’t wait

I have learned that the best thing that a family can do is to seek early treatment with the goal of reducing the disorder’s effects and helping children learn, grow and thrive. Every parent should seek out reliable sources of information about the treatment options, such as the United States National Institute of Mental Health. Do not be afraid to ask questions. Above all, if your child has been diagnosed with autism or a developmental delay, do not risk losing valuable time when your child has the best chance for improvement. Find a way to get the extra help that your child needs through targeted treatment.

Get support

Oftentimes parents of newly diagnosed children feel as if they are the only ones experiencing the heartbreak of a diagnosis. Joining an autism support group is a great way to meet other families dealing with the same challenges you are. Parents can share information, get advice and lean on each other for emotional support.

That is why my wife and I were so pleased to meet other families like ours through the local autism support and advocacy group, R.E.A.C.H. (Resources & Education for Autism and Related Challenges). Over the last year alone, R.E.A.C.H. has sponsored a series of workshops specifically for families affected by autism, has opened a chapter for families on Grand Bahama, and, through a partnership with Rotary and the Ministry of Education, opened the region’s first preschool classroom equipped to meet the needs of autistic children at Willard Patton Preschool. The successes through R.E.A.C.H. show the power that we have as families when we work together on behalf of our children.

Enjoy your child’s unique qualities

It was only after my children were diagnosed with autism that I truly began to learn about their unique God-given talents and abilities. It was also only then that I became sensitive to the entire community of the disabled and began to work to build a more compassionate and understanding community for them. My wife and I have learned not to focus on how our children are different from other children but, rather, to focus on how important it is to practice love, patience and acceptance. We make an effort everyday to embrace all our children’s unique talents, to celebrate successes (both big and small), and above all to make sure that they feel unconditionally loved and accepted. In the end, we are better people because we are the parents of children with autism.

I encourage all parents throughout The Bahamas to take the time to realistically assess their children’s development and, if something seems amiss, to act immediately and decisively to obtain all the assistance their child needs. In the end, it will make all the difference in the world.

• John Dinkelman is the chargé d’affaires at the United States Embassy in The Bahamas.

April 17, 2013

thenassauguardian

Bahamas Blog International

Martin Luther King, from Dallas to Memphis

2013-04-13T00:24:00.000-07:00

By Gabriel Molina Franchossi

THE assassination of Afro-American leader Martin Luther King, April 4, 1968 in Memphis, Tennessee 45 years ago, is considered by many researchers as part of a sinister plot which included the assassinations of Malcolm X, John F. and Robert Kennedy. (1)

In the stormy decade of the 1960’s, the radicalization of those in favor of civil rights, peace and other popular causes had the United States in flames. Two months after MLK’s death, Senator Robert Kennedy was shot. The world had been shocked previously by the November 22, 1963 assassination of President Kennedy and that of Malcolm X on February 21, 1965.

King and Malcolm had challenged the racial segregation which replaced slavery in the United States, abolished by Lincoln during the Civil War. The country’s founding fathers had protected the enslavement of Blacks with a strict legal system of racial separation.

Blacks were crowded into impoverished ghettos and denied access to public facilities reserved for whites, such as transportation, bathrooms, commercial establishments and schools. They were destined to work in the most difficult, low-paying jobs. Afro-Americans’ very limited right to vote guaranteed the stability of the system.

An example of the racism faced by Blacks in southern states occurred on October 19, 1960, when Reverend King was arrested in Atlanta, Georgia, for refusing to leave a department store where he was denied service. A few months earlier in Dekalb County, he had been convicted of a minor traffic offense and given a suspended sentence. The local judge ruled that his arrest in Atlanta provided just cause to revoke this suspension and sentence King to four months of hard labor.

The sentence aroused fear for the Reverend’s life, given what such a punishment meant for Blacks in Atlanta. King was brusquely awakened in his county jail cell, at 4:30 am. With his hands cuffed and legs restrained, he was transported over dark rural roads to a penitentiary deep within Georgia’s countryside. (2)

Georgia Governor Ernest Vandiver received a request to revoke the sentence from John F. Kennedy, a Presidential candidate at the time. His response was that such a move would be politically disastrous in the South, just a month before the elections, asserting that it would mean the loss of at least three states. Robert Kennedy called the judge, who at first criticized the intervention, but the next day, after considering the younger Kennedy’s indignant reaction to the sentence, freed Dr. King.

Committed Black leaders took the lead in the movement against segregation, which employed a variety of resistance tactics, such as sit-ins in public White Only facilities and buses, as well as boycotts of stores and theaters. With new laws supported by the Kennedy’s in place, the struggle intensified. The federal government sent in the National Guard and Federal Marshals to protect King, James Meredith and other leaders when the civil rights movement’s peaceful activists were threatened and beaten by police in states where change was violently opposed.

King and Malcolm X, in particular, became targets, not only of racists but of the national military-industrial complex when the Black and trade union struggle began to radicalize and organize against the war in Vietnam, as was made evident by the 250,000 strong march in Washington where King gave his famous ‘I have a dream’ speech.

This process also had an effect on the Kennedy brothers, whose support for civil rights legislation distanced them from the powerful elite established within the CIA and FBI. J. Edgar Hoover, director of the FBI, told Atlanta Police Chief Herbert Jenkins that two of the three enemies he most hated were Kennedy and King (3). Robert Kennedy considered Hoover a threat to democracy in the country.

Allen Dulles, head of the Central Intelligence Agency, was so intent on organizing interventions in Cuba and throughout the Third World that Kennedy decided to replace him.

The close surveillance of the four leaders – King, Malcolm X and the two Kennedy brothers – expanded to include persecution and threats which make Dulles and Hoover prime suspects in the four assassinations. They had a motive, the opportunity and the means.

(1) James W. Douglass. JFK and the Unspeakable. Simon and Shuster, p. XVII

(2) Arthur Schlesinger. Robert Kennedy and his Times. Random House 1978, p. 233

(3) Ibid, p.280

April 10, 2013

Granma.cu

Bahamas Blog International

Bahamas Government Immigration Policy

2013-04-12T22:03:00.000-07:00

A Guest Editorial On Government's Immigration Policy

Tribune242
Nassau, The Bahamas

IN OUR e–mail yesterday, we received “some thoughts for an editorial” from an influential foreign resident, who has spent many years in the Bahamas and has always been most concerned for this small nation’s welfare.

Instead of “highjacking” his ideas — as Immigration Minister Fred Mitchell yesterday accused us of doing in the work permit debate — we are going to let this gentleman express his own ideas in this column. After reading this article, Mr Mitchell should realise that we are not the only ones who believe that if the immigration policy — as enunciated by Mr Mitchell— is not softened, then this country is in for a rough ride.

We now turn you over to our guest writer:

AS the debate about the government’s new immigration policy intensifies, it is worth stepping back from the detail and looking at the bigger picture insofar as this contentious issue – if not fully debated and the government held to account – may have a serious effect on the long-term development of The Bahamas.

It is already widely accepted in this small country that foreign interests should not be allowed to dominate the local jobs market without adequate protection of the rights of the indigenous work force. Bahamians with the required qualifications and abilities should be afforded opportunities to secure employment in their own country in preference to equally well qualified foreigners; and it is right that government should put in place sensible immigration policies to help to secure this objective.

It is a truism, however, that politicians worth their salt should be aware that their approach to any particular issue at the national level, important though that issue may be, must be balanced against other no less important demands, so that judgments are made which are in the best interests of the country as a whole.

In this column on April 8, you quoted the FNM shadow immigration minister’s remarks that the government should not adopt immigration policies that might disrupt the way of life of ordinary Bahamians or interfere with the country’s conduct of business. But the government appears hell-bent on doing just that.

If it persists in pursuing its new restrictive policy, this will inevitably have a negative effect not only on commerce, industry and economic development but also on countless individual employers. Unreasonable restrictions on the right of a company to determine the nature of its own workforce will scare away foreign investors and affect the profitability of local businesses. This will lead, in time, to fewer job opportunities and more unemployment – a classic case of the law of unintended consequences.

This is not just carping by the opposition FNM. It is the view of a wide range of people in this country and it is baffling that leading politicians seem unable to grasp the bigger picture. Can they not see that, while it is their responsibility to protect the rights of Bahamians, this should be done in a careful and proportionate manner and measured against, for example, the continuing need to attract foreign investment?

They should face up to two important truths which the population as a whole understands only too well – first, the average Bahamian will not do so-called “dirty jobs” but aspires to something better with the result that foreigners have to be brought in at that level; and, secondly, until the education system is fixed so that young people come out of school with the requisite knowledge and skills to enable them to handle a job at a higher level, employers have to look elsewhere if their business is going to flourish.

We cannot escape the conclusion that the new immigration policy has not been thought through properly. It seems that the government is harking back to the Pindling years when the PLP sought the professional and economic empowerment of black Bahamians. This was overtly racist, though in many ways it was the right policy for the times and it succeeded. One has only to look at the range of senior positions that such Bahamians now hold in the financial, insurance and business sectors. But these represented the untapped cream of well-educated people who were equipped to aspire to such positions. Applying the same policies in relation to more menial labour is unrealistic.

By and large, intelligent and well-meaning Bahamians across the political and social spectrum want their leaders to show the maturity and self-confidence to accept that, in order to succeed in a globalised world, this nation must move away from parochialism and protectionism. Impending membership of the WTO will create new mandatory obligations and is a step in the right direction, but the country needs to open up more generally.

At this point in its development, The Bahamas has to diversify and expand its economy in order to prosper. Our political class should work out a sensible and effective means of utilising foreign know-how and labour – when there is a need to do so and it is to our advantage – while at the same time protecting the aspirations of the country’s own people.

There must surely be a better way of working towards this than making crude remarks about turning down work permits “cold turkey”.

April 12, 2013

Tribune242

Bahamas Blog International

Continuity and Change in the post-EPA Caribbean

2013-04-12T08:51:00.000-07:00

What is required to ensure regional survival in a new world

BY KESTON K PERRY
Jamaica Observer

THE ensuing debate and what some might call tabanca, related to the CARIFORUM-EU Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA), are very worrying.

It would seem that observers and analysts have adopted the position that the European Union (EU) and its agents are evil, and should be called out for their malicious and iniquitous transgressions against puny counterparts in the Caribbean, who have little chance of engaging the former colonial masters on equal terms. Ironically, in the same breath, many have praised the recent fortune of Antigua and Barbuda in securing an unprecedented victory against Goliath-- the all-powerful United States. The discussion on being assertive and enhancing internal capacity seem to missing from many recent commentaries. Instead, it would seem the age-old dependency and% vulnerability rhetoric have taken centre stage, diminishing and obscuring important resolve to stimulate the necessary dynamism to ensure some modicum of competitive adaptation to the situation that has now befallen the Caribbean.

Within the context of globalised trade reciprocity, it is foolhardy to persist in a mode of requesting concessionary measures from either the EU or other trading partners. Unfortunately, any beggar-thy-neighbour principle cannot be enforced or resurrected within the present global political economy in which Caribbean small island states do not possess internal dynamic or geo-economic clout.

In this ongoing saga of finger-pointing we need to ask ourselves what has truly brought the region to this point and how we should actually be responding.

Prior to 2008, the English-speaking nations within Caricom had enjoyed exceptional preferential treatment for more than 30 years, first from Britain, as ex- colonial polities, and latterly the European Union through market access and guaranteed price levels for their goods. Belal Ahmed, in a 2001 report, highlighted that Caribbean sugar and banana industries — the mainstay of many of the Windward islands — suffered from a number of challenges, inter alia, a lack of technologically intensive production methods and resultantly improved productivity, labour issues, limited crop diversification, little research and development support and downstream activity. Though globalised markets and liberalisation affected regional producers, it could be argued the solutions to many of these issues could have been controlled by and were within the reach of the territories themselves.

Despite being challenged by WTO rulings and possessing concessionary market access, the evidence shows the required quotas for bananas or sugar to Europe had, on several occasions, not been sufficiently met. Perhaps the attendant capacity was not put in place, which resulted in significant revenue losses. Cotonou (1975-2000) and Lomé (2000-2008) come to their inevitable end. However, why did we not put the necessary mechanisms in place while regional producers benefited from concessions? It may be argued, as Sonjaya Lall and others have suggested, that trade preferences tend to retard dynamic capability and result in uncompetitive, sheltered industries. Perhaps, in the case of the EPA negotiations, the strategies may have faltered, negotiators outwitted or the bluster of civil society actors ignored. Alternatively, perhaps, the negotiators were overconfident that the regional private sector policymakers would get their act together in time to ensure competition on an even keel. But what are the reasons for our failure in achieving economic targets over the years and effectively implementing our industrial policy regimes to diversify exports? Though the main sectors have shifted to services, very little has been done to reduce dependence on a single industry, seek niche areas with high potential returns, or to proactively adapt to global developments by moving into higher value-added manufacturing linked to improved technology based on cumulative learning.

We need to examine other perspectives and seize opportunities with respect to indigenous technological capability and learning. To date, the anti- EPA camp has marginally considered areas of innovation, learning and cumulative capacity building in their arguments. Scholars like Carlota Perez argue that the windows of opportunity for development are constantly shifting along with the techno-economic paradigm or technological revolutions. In what ways have Caribbean private sector companies taken advantage of the Internet age in innovating and differentiating their products? The issue of market access would certainly be relevant once there are goods and services of a high calibre to trade, and are constituted with technological inputs that would attract the demand to render them competitive in the EU market and elsewhere.

In this regard, greater access to technological and supply networks could be negotiated through well-placed members of our diaspora. Could it be that complacency become entrenched as a result of meagre economic growth spurts over the years? Moreover, the failure of our regional academic institutions to inculcate broad-based and integrative thinking in their charges, and consequently inspire context-specific and region-wide action cannot be overlooked. In addition, the efforts at building relevant research and action-driven capacity to leverage and take advantage of the information revolution in meaningful ways, based on failed policies, can certainly have some sway.

Sadly, many learned observers, despite their experience and knowledge, remain blinkered by outdated perspectives. As a young researcher, I am bemused and remain uninspired by the course of the debate to date. The Washington-based institutions may have kicked away the ladder, but the East Asian tigers (South Korea, Singapore, Taiwan, and to a lesser extent Malaysia and Hong Kong) doggedly continued their campaign to develop market-ready microelectronics, software, ICTs, manufacturing, and other service-oriented sectors. Despite their initial teethong problems, they learnt over time and ensured that the lessons learnt were part of their subsequent economic strategy. Are we afraid that this new episode in our economic history will expose the inadequacies of our analyses and development prescriptions? That, in fact, our present situation may be a consequence of the frailties driven by academic and policy insularism, perpetrated at our highest regional institutions?

This EPA exposé related to ill-prepared Caribbean states and private sector stakeholders has constrained regional actors from taking on the world and adapting to the demands of globalisation, even though leading analysts have acknowledged the Caribbean region as part of the global economy for the last 500 years. Why then have we not got our act together or learnt lessons during the post-independence era? It is rather simple to blame the politicians, the political system, the structural deficiencies of the global economy which disadvantage small states, the EU, the negotiators, the negotiating machinery, the regional institutions, and all and sundry, than to take a serious introspective look at the discrepancies and short-sightedness of our analyses and policy prescriptions, and even our own efforts to take action in our own time and sphere of influence. Which academic or writer will ever admit fault or retrospectively state that their analyses were inadequate for fear of being relegated to irrelevance, especially in a small-island context? But, as Plato suggests: "The learning and knowledge that we have, is, at the most, but little compared with that of which we are ignorant." The shameless blame game and the weeping and gnashing of teeth surrounding the EPA must come to an end. Those who do not wish to get their hands dirty need no longer speak from their soap boxes. We need to break ourselves out of the mould of victimhood and re-assert our God-given character of resilience and capacity for "creative" agency. Our actions must be well considered and evidence-based, and the net must be cast wide enough to capture ideas and knowledge that will do justice to the cause. It is high time we cut our losses from this saga and take that brave step forward to engage the world.

Keston K Perry is a student at Newcastle University Business School (NUBS) in the UK pursuing an MSc in Innovation, Creativity and Entrepreneurship. His research involves the potential catalytic role of Caribbean diasporic entrepreneurs in terms of transnational learning, entrepreneurial activities and technological resourcing capabilities and their implications on innovation and public policy in Trinidad and Tobago.

innovation.tt50@gmail.com

@kestontnt

http://kestontnt.tumblr.com

Jamaica Observer

April 10, 2013

Bahamas Blog International

Conchservation in The Bahamas... ...the Sustainability and Preservation of the Bahamian Conch Population

2013-04-09T05:08:00.000-07:00

'Conchservation' Campaign Set For Full Launch

By NATARIO McKENZIE

Tribune Business Reporter
nmckenzie@tribunemedia.net

A “CONCHSERVATION campaign” is set to be fully launched nearing the end of this month according to Bahamas National Trust (BNT) executive director Eric Carey, who said that there would a national dialogue on the sustainability and preservation of the Bahamian conch population.

Speaking at a press conference to announce the upcoming inaugural Abaco Business Outlook, Mr Carey said: “The conchservation campaign is up and running. We are going to have a full launch of that programme on April 27 working with Ms Elaine Pinder, Frankie Gone Bananas, the Bamboo Shack franchise, Kalik etc. The objective is sustainability whether your talking businesses and economy, conch or grouper, the objective is to ensure that Bahamians can always enjoy these things. We are fortunately not in a position we ever have to sound crazy alarms about conch. We believe that we can continue to eat conch as a important food, culinary icon and part of tourism culinary picture. We still have enough conch to continue to enjoy which is why we want to act very quickly to ensure that we don’t reach a point where we have to go to extremes that Bahamians find untenable.”

The Bahamas currently exports some $3.3 million, or 600,000 pounds, worth of conch per annum. A 2011 report by Community Conch, an organisation involved in the sustainability discussions, revealed that juvenile populations in important Berry Islands nursery grounds had “declined 1,000 times to a few hundred individuals in 2009” when compared to 1980s numbers. As for Andros, of the eight historic fishing grounds surveyed, only one in 2010 had a large enough adult conch population to permit reproduction. And, in Exuma, Community Conch found that the adult conch population on Lee Stocking Island had fallen by 91 per cent between 1994 and 2011, with the bank population in the Exuma Cays Land and Sea Park off by 69 per cent over the same period.

Mr Carey said that no conclusion had been drawn on whether to ban conch exports. “We have drown no conclusion on anything. An important aspect of it is going to be a national dialogue. When we met with the Prime Minister and we spoke about conch we assured him that we would take the discussion and conchservation national to make sure that there is broad scale understanding of the issue and any measures we have to suggest to the government will have the support and buy in from fishermen,” said Mr Carey.

April 08, 2013

Tribune 242

Bahamas Blog International

Buy Ativan Online in Consultation with Your Doctor

2013-04-08T13:41:00.002-07:00

* Ativan is available online through consultation with your doctor... http://buyativanonlinenow.com

* Buy Ativan online and relieve your anxiety in effective time...

* Ativan no rx ... Yes, it is possible to purchase Ativan online without prescription to relieve your short-term anxiety.

Visit us at http://buyativanonlinenow for more details on Ativan... "The Miracle Drug".

Jamaica: Money madness - sliding dollar ... J$100 to US$1

2013-04-08T04:53:00.000-07:00

Nedburn Thaffe, Gleaner Writer

With the exchange rate expected to reach the dreaded J$100 to US$1 mark this week, consumers who have over the past few years done their fair share of belt tightening will be forced to buckle up even further and continue to hold strain.

Those consumers' dilemma results from the continued dwindling effect the sliding dollar is having on their ability to purchase goods and services.

Already the mumbling at cashier counters in supermarkets in the Corporate Area have become more pronounced.

Upset and outraged over the amount of money they have had to fork out for basic necessities, even religious zealots who scope out supermarkets to spread the 'good news' have been changing the tone of their message in keeping with the times.

"Jesus warned of condition like this. That was the reason why He said we should pray for our daily bread. It was only under the rule of (King) Solomon that everybody was satisfied," one Jehovah's Witness shared with a consumer outside one supermarket The Gleaner visited in the Corporate Area recently.

Verbal attacks directed at politicians for their management of the economy over successive decades were common on the lips of several persons who emerged from the supermarket in the early afternoon.

With plastic bags in hand, one shopper, who asked not to be named, was obviously not in a good mood after realising that she spent more than she bargained for.

"Three thousand-odd dollars and mi nuh get half a weh mi want yet," the Seaview Gardens resident lamented. "Mi did waan three sardines and a only one mi could afford. You nuh see seh the country mash up?"

The elderly woman reflected on a time when she was able to take J$40 to any supermarket and take home "one box a grocery with chicken and everything".

Those days, she recalled, were in the 1980s and during that period trading of the Jamaican currency did not escalate beyond the J$6.50 to US$1 mark, according to information gleaned from the Bank of Jamaica website which documents the history of the exchange rate.

"That time mi used to do domestic work in Havendale (St Andrew) and every weekend mi would buy grocery fi carry go give mi children dem down di country (Clarendon)," she said.

She recounted how in 1988 she bought a "five-draw, good-size dresser" for J$1,000. The record shows that year the dollar trade highest at J$5.54 to US$1.

Additionally, in 1991, with just J$1,500, the Seaview Gardens resident purchased a brand new divan bed which she possesses to this day. That year trading of the currency started showing signs that there was trouble on the horizon, with the dollar ending the year at J$21.57 to US$1.

Twenty-two years later, she would have to take no less than $18,100 to a furniture store to purchase a similar bed.

"You caan go nowhere with that kind of money now. The amount of things this J$3,500 weh mi just spend could give mi. Mi would have to call taxi and truck fi remove them," she said.

"See it deh, all now no meat kind, no flour, no sugar not in mi bag."

Rose Plummer, who lives alone, said shopping for items once every week has worked out better for her.

According to Plummer, all Jamaicans will have to learn to "cuff and curve" in this time whether they like it or not.

"I can remember paying J$100 for bread, now it's J$250," she said.

"What is going on in the country is sin why all these things happening. We, as a nation, have to go back to God. Portia Simpson cannot solve this problem; this bigger than her. Andrew Holness cannot solve our problem. The dollar flowing like it's at Caymanas Park or stadium and is only Jesus can help us. We have to turn back to Jesus," Plummer charged.

For J$1,597, with discount included, 45-year-old Samuel Wilson was able to stock up on a few snacks which he expected to be enough for his daughter who attends basic school.

"Before the end of the week, I have to come back. Ten years ago, mi could a carry home more than a trolley of grocery with di said amount of money but right now things gone way out of proportion," he said.

"Right now, when mi a buy snack for my daughter, it's no less than J$2,000. It's because mi have a discount card why I get it for this price. It's just by the mercies of God mi survive but it could be worse. God is taking care of me and my family."

nedburn.thaffe@gleanerjm.com

April 08, 2013

Jamaica Gleaner

Bahamas Blog International

The duty to avoid a war in Korea

2013-04-06T12:55:00.001-07:00

Reflections of Fidel

(Taken from (CubaDebate)

A few days ago I mentioned the great challenges humanity is currently facing. Intelligent life emerged on our planet approximately 200,000 years ago, although new discoveries demonstrate something else.

This is not to confuse intelligent life with the existence of life which, from its elemental forms in our solar system, emerged millions of years ago.

A virtually infinite number of life forms exist. In the sophisticated work of the world’s most eminent scientists the idea has already been conceived of reproducing the sounds which followed the Big Bang, the great explosion which took place more than 13.7 billion years ago.

This introduction would be too extensive if it was not to explain the gravity of an event as unbelievable and absurd as the situation created in the Korean Peninsula, within a geographic area containing close to five billion of the seven billion persons currently inhabiting the planet.

This is about one of the most serious dangers of nuclear war since the October Crisis around Cuba in 1962, 50 years ago.

In 1950, a war was unleashed there [the Korean Peninsula] which cost millions of lives. It came barely five years after two atomic bombs were exploded over the defenseless cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki which, in a matter of seconds, killed and irradiated hundreds of thousands of people.

General Douglas MacArthur wanted to utilize atomic weapons against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Not even Harry Truman allowed that.

It has been affirmed that the People’s Republic of China lost one million valiant soldiers in order to prevent the installation of an enemy army on that country’s border with its homeland. For its part, the Soviet army provided weapons, air support, technological and economic aid.

I had the honor of meeting Kim Il Sung, a historic figure, notably courageous and revolutionary.

If war breaks out there, the peoples of both parts of the Peninsula will be terribly sacrificed, without benefit to all or either of them. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was always friendly with Cuba, as Cuba has always been and will continue to be with her.

Now that the country has demonstrated its technical and scientific achievements, we remind her of her duties to the countries which have been her great friends, and it would be unjust to forget that such a war would particularly affect more than 70% of the population of the planet.

If a conflict of that nature should break out there, the government of Barack Obama in his second mandate would be buried in a deluge of images which would present him as the most sinister character in the history of the United States. The duty of avoiding war is also his and that of the people of the United States.

Fidel Castro Ruz

April 4, 2013

11:12 p.m.

Granma.cu

Bahamas Blog International

Hugo Chávez and the Bolivarian Revolution: Legacy and Challenges

2013-04-04T17:18:00.000-07:00

By Manuel Larrabure – The Bullet / Socialist Project

The death of Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez has prompted the international left to acknowledge two key features about him and Venezuela's Bolivarian Revolution. The first is Chávez's commitment to fighting for the poor and oppressed. Plenty of statistics demonstrate this. Literally millions have been lifted out of poverty and given new opportunities to improve their lives. Examples from daily life abound. I remember speaking to an upper class anti-Chavista once who was complaining about how, since Chávez came to power, it had become difficult to find maids. Many of the poor women she used to hire, she explained, had enrolled in a free education program provided by the government, one of the highly successful ‘missions.’ Another time, an empanada maker who lived with his son in the same 10-foot by six-foot stand he cooked out of told me how, since Chávez arrived, his community became emboldened to organize themselves into a cooperative with the mission of fighting the hotel and restaurant chains in the area, and create a community controlled tourist zone.

A second feature about the Bolivarian Revolution also cannot be elided: the political impasse in addressing corruption, bureaucracy, political clientalism and finding an alternate model of economic management. When workers organize to take over a factory (for example, Sidor in 2008), they have to fight not only the capitalist owners, but often also the local or provincial government (even at times Chavista ones). If they win the fight, workers then have to struggle with government supervision, which often seems more concerned with meeting technocratic goals, rather than developing a genuine participatory democracy in the workplace. And, as the latest round of currency devaluation shows, unless added measures are forthcoming, it is the poor who will bear the burden of reduced living standards (through inflation) for the problems of economic management without compensatory gains in increased workers’ power in workplaces (Lebowitz, 2013).

This top down tendency is also expressed in the area of foreign policy. When the ‘Arab Spring’ erupted, rather than supporting those struggling in the streets of Egypt and Syria, a one-dimensional anti-imperialism had Chávez aligning Venezuela with the oppressors, rather than siding with the poor and workers and against imperial interventions. There is also the alliances with the likes of Vladimir Putin and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that go beyond the necessities of finding support against Western imperialism and U.S. empire.

Socialism in the 21st Century

However, hidden within these two opposing developments is a third, potentially more vital one. As a result of the Bolivarian Revolution, we can now begin to think of what in recent decades had become unthinkable, namely a socialism in the 21st century. In the 20th century, socialist politics predominantly took two forms. The first was the path taken by social democratic parties that sought social transformation by populating the state with reform-minded officials and proceeding to attempt to manipulate the economy from above through a variety of technocratic measures. At best, this would eliminate the worst abuses of capitalist markets. ‘Cast your vote and leave it to us’ was the technocratic message to the working classes.

A second strategy was some version of Lenin's theory of dual power in which the exploited and oppressed were to build toward a counter power parallel to the capitalist state. At a decisive juncture, the old state would be ‘smashed’ and old rulers overthrown; the masses formed via a vanguard party would then replace the old state with a new one built in opposition to it, and buttressed by new organs of working-class power. A political elite in the vanguard party would then grab hold of the reins of this new state and lead the transition to a new society. Unfortunately, as the experiences of socialism across the 20th century tells us, both these paths failed. For they both insulated the masses from genuine democratic participation in the state. If the technocratic message was ‘leave it to us,’ the vanguard's message ended up being ‘do as we say.’

Venezuela's path, which has confused the majority of commentators, has been neither one of the above. It is both. Communities and workers have been organizing from below; and technocrats and bureaucrats have been passing laws from above. Each fights and cooperates with the other in an uneasy alliance. In a way, over the last decade Venezuela resembles the political theorist Nicos Poulantzas' (1978) alternative to the above two paths, what he called a “democratic road to socialism,” where struggle for a transition necessarily has to take place through, against and apart from the state. Similarly, more contemporary thinkers (such as Ciccariello-Maher, 2007) have conceptualized this path as having features of dual power through, rather, than against the state.
This is not, however, all that is happening in Venezuela. If it were, all Venezuela would demonstrate is how it is not possible to take two seemingly incompatible paths at the same time; and that the forces of bureaucracy, because of their institutionalized power, are likely to win out over time in a lengthy battle of attrition. But Venezuela is also showing that something new is being created. Venezuela's co-managed ‘socialist enterprises,’ an initiative Chávez was central in developing, perhaps best illustrate this point.

Socialist Enterprises

In these relatively new enterprises, the class relation expresses itself most forcefully in the struggles between workers and state managers. Although at first it appears that this is the same old capital-worker relationship, but with a different name, upon closer inspection, something more complex is happening. Unlike workers in unions that tend to struggle for things like higher wages or labour rights, workers in these enterprises tend to struggle for things like equal wages, genuine democratic participation, and the elimination of a rigid social division of labour within the plant.[1] In other words, this is a more developed form of the class relation, a sharper form, one that Poulantzas was able to hint at, but was not quite able to fully articulate. Thus herein lies the importance of Venezuela. As workers struggle against managers in these state-owned enterprises, we begin to see a glimpse of what 21st-century socialism might look like. In other words, we get a glimpse of the future. In this future, it is new workplace relations centered on participatory democracy that stand on the side of progress, while it is the state that, paradoxically, becomes the guarantor of the class relation, and therefore the sight of the next rupture.

There is so much more to be learned from the Bolivarian Revolution. Here, I've only been able to barely scratch the surface. The communal councils, the struggle to build the new communes and communal cities, the experiences with participatory budgeting, the Bolivarian universities; all these and the many other innovations in Venezuela represent pieces of the revolutionary puzzle. A puzzle out of which a new future can be seen right here in the present. A puzzle that, as we are reminded of with his passing, Hugo Chávez played an important role in, opening up the political space and encouraging self-organization of the poor and workers. No revolution can be built by a single person or by decrees from above, no matter how well intentioned. Yet, at his best, Chávez, from the presidential palace, was like an activist in the streets: he told the truth, he risked his life and sung a song of hope. Hope for a better world. Indeed, for another world. Chávez, presente!

Challenges Ahead

It is widely expected that Nicolás Maduro, now interim President of Venezuela, will win the upcoming Presidential elections on April 14. If elected President, he has promised to take up the five priorities set out by Chávez in his final strategic proposal, Plan de la Patria 2013-2019: multipolarity; national independence; Bolivarian socialism; environmentalism; and economic development.

What is far from clear, however, is how the contradictions evident in these five priorities can be reconciled by the existing state. For example, the priority to preserve the planet and save the human species (environmentalism), stands in sharp opposition to the government's plan to further strengthen the extractive industries in the country, including natural gas, mining and the development of the Faja del Orinoco, which contains the world's largest known reserves of heavy and extra heavy crude oil, or tar sands. The document does mention the need to develop new technology with low environmental impact, but no further details are provided.

In addition, the goal of deepening participatory democracy as the central mechanism behind ‘Bolivarian Socialism’ clashes with the goal of achieving national independence and ‘multipolarity,’ that is, a world with multiple poles of power that is free of imperialism. Although a worthy enough pursuit in theory, in practice, multipolarity has in some cases translated into open support for leaders such as Muammar Gaddafi and Bashar al-Assad, hardly models of participatory democracy and 21st-century socialism. It is worth mentioning that it was indeed Maduro, as Minister of foreign-policy, that played an important role in developing and maintaining these alliances.

In spite of these contradictions, the five priorities outlined also contain a path forward, namely that of strengthening the ‘popular economy.’ That is the building up of the constellation of organizations, such as cooperatives, co-managed enterprises and communal councils found throughout the country. It is these organizations that have the most potential for resolving the above-mentioned contradictions.

Consider Pedro Camejo, one of the co-managed ‘socialist enterprises’ located in the city of Carora. With its mission to contribute to the achievement of ‘food sovereignty’ in the country, this enterprise has been providing small and medium local farmers agricultural technology and technical assistance at below market price. As a result, agricultural production in the area has increased considerably in recent years. At the same time, workers within the enterprise have been learning new capacities, skills and values, such as collective management and solidarity, largely as the result of the practice of participatory democracy. In addition, the technology comes from PAUNY, one of Argentina's ‘recuperated enterprises’ that builds tractors. As part of an agreement, workers from PAUNY traveled to Carora to train the Venezuelan workers and share their experiences in a spirit of international solidarity.

Although far from perfect, this one example does demonstrate how the five priorities outlined can be met in a more positive way. The challenge for militants within state agencies and institutions will be figuring out how to strengthen this sector of the economy without suffocating it with bureaucracy. The challenge for workers and communities will be to figure out how to enter these spaces while retaining enough autonomy so that struggles can be launched against the state when needed, as is frequently done. Indeed, workers and communities know something the state doesn't, namely that participation within these new democratic spaces, although crucial, is only half the equation. The other half is continued organization and struggle from below.

It remains to be seen what direction a Maduro government will lean in the post-Chavez era. The impasse of the Bolivarian revolution over the last few years is about to be broken. The future is uncertain. But more than ever it is contingent on how the workers and poor that have been empowered by the Bolivarian revolution over the last decade organize and push toward the promise of a 21st century socialism. •

Manuel Larrabure is a Ph.D. candidate in the Political Science department at York University in Toronto, Canada. His research is on Latin America's “new cooperative movement” and “21st-century socialism.” During 2013, he will be conducting fieldwork in Argentina, Brazil and Venezuela.

References:

Chávez, H. (2012). Propuesta del Candidato de la Patria para la Gestion Bolivariana Socialista 2013-2019. Retrieved from: www.chavez.org.ve/programa-patria-venezuela-2013-2019 [December 12, 2012].
Ciccariello-Maher, G. (2007). “Dual power in the Venezuelan Revolution,” Monthly Review, 59(4), 42-56.
Lebowitz, M. (2013). “Working-Class Response to Devaluation Measures in Venezuela,” The Bullet No. 773, Feb. 2013.
Poulantzas, N. (1978). State, Power, Socialism. New York: Verso.

Endnotes:

1.For a more detailed analysis of this phenomenon, see my forthcoming article in Historical Materialism, “Human Development and Class Struggle in Venezuela's Popular Economy: The Paradox of 21st-century Socialism.”

Source: The Bullet

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

2013-04-01T11:07:00.000-07:00

Piero Gleijeses (*)

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

—Fidel Castro Ruz

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

March 28, 2013

Granma.cu

Bahamas Blog International