DAY OF SHAME: Progressives Gather at Teachers’ Hall Today

Osayefo Dr Kwame Nkrumah

By Ekow Mensah

At 4: 30pm today, progressives from all walks of life will gather at the Teachers’ Hall in Accra to observe the 51st anniversary of the overthrow of the Nkrumah Government on February 24, 1966.

The event will be held under the broad theme “Ghana’s Day of Shame- the Role of Socialists in the Struggle for Democracy”.

It will be chaired by Comrade Kyeretwie Opoku, Convener of the Socialist Forum of Ghana (SFG), the organisers of the event.

Those billed to speak are, Comrade Albie Walls of the All Africa People’s Revolutionary Party (AAPRP), Comrade Barzini Tandoh of the International Socialist Organisation (ISO) and Dr Yao Graham, Co-ordinator of the Third World Network (TWN).

Organisers say that they have invited all progressive organisations, including political parties, embassies of progressive countries, youth and student movements, trade unions and professional groups to participate in the event.

Ghana’s Day of Shame was first declared 15 years ago by the Socialist Forum of Ghana (SFG).

Historical evidence points to the fact that the coup was master-minded by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) of the United States of America in collaboration with other western intelligence agencies.

10 years ago the SFG published the declassified documents of the CIA on the coup with commentary.

It is expected that hundreds of people will troop to the Teachers’ Hall today to reaffirm their commitment to the Nkrumaist path to development.

Editorial

DAY OF SHAME

The Socialist Forum of Ghana (SFG) will mark the 51st anniversary of the overthrow of the Nkrumah Government today as “Ghana’s Day of Shame”.

The event will take place at Teachers’ Hall in Accra from 4:30pm and is expected to bring together progressive forces from all walks of life.

The Insight associates itself fully with the observance of the Day of Shame and urges all progressive forces to participate in the event.

We mark this day to reflect on the events of February 24, 1966 and to make a solemn commitment that we will not allow the forces of imperialism and their local stooges to determine our future again.

Our participation in this event must be a loud statement to the effect that we will continue to resist all imperialists’ machinations.

The Teachers’ Hall in Accra must be the destination of all progressives today.

Kusanaba High School calls for Support

Matthew Opoku Prempeh, Education Minister

By Jerry Azanduna

The Kusanaba Senior High School in the Bawku West District is battling infrastructure deficit and needs immediate government and donor Agency intervention to survive as a second cycle educational institution.

Since its inception as a Senior High School in 1991, it has not received any significant infrastructural development to enhance teaching and learning.

Mr Anthony Nkumfo, Headmaster of the school who disclosed this in an interview with the Ghana News Agency (GNA) at kusanaba said the school has a student population of about 1,408 made up of 766 boys and 642 girls with 31 teaching staff.

The Headmaster said the school was confronted with challenges such as; classrooms, students and staff accommodations, transportation, administration block, and laboratories for science and Information Communication Technology (ICT).

Mr Nkumfo mentioned other ones as; a library block to enhance research and promote teaching and learning and emphasized that the study of ICT was prime because it had become an indispensable discipline that was moving the world.

He indicated that the school had six teachers’ bungalows that housed only eleven teachers, while the rest of the staff lived outside the school, thereby making enforcement of discipline difficult in the school.

He explained that due to inadequate accommodation to house all the students, those who lived in the community and nearby villages were made day students.

This he indicated was a challenge to the school authorities to check the movement of students in the school as it was difficult to identify them as result of their numbers.

The Headmaster lamented the lack of a science laboratory in the school and said students were moved from one school to the other to access science laboratories for science practical during the West African School Certificate Examination (WASSCE) examination and said it affected the performance of the students because they could not undergo periodic science practical lessons before major examinations were conducted.

He noted that because of the unavailability of transportation in the school, it could not undertake many official duties and participate in extracurricular activities in the district.

Mr Nkumfo said the Parent Teacher Association (PTA) had secured land for future development of the school and called on philanthropists, Old Students Association, and Non-Governmental Organizations to assist the school to grow.

He noted that in the midst of these challenges, the school was performing well academically and in extracurricular activities including cultural performance in which it represented the region at the national cultural festival in Sunyani, in the Brong Ahafo Region and emerged the best for the integrated science in the 2015 WASSCE examination in the Upper East Region.

He said due to the deprived nature of the school, government under the Secondary Education Improvement Project (SEIP) assisted some of the students with money to buy learning materials such as books and other needs to aid them in their studies for the three years they spent in school.

GNA

Prevention of Diseases through Primary Health Care

Kwaku Agyemang Manu, Minister of Health

Feature by Lydia Asamoah

Preventable communicable, or infectious, diseases like cholera, malaria and HIV and AIDS account for millions of deaths in the world each year, especially in low-income countries like Ghana.

Non-communicable, or chronic, diseases like heart attacks, hypertension and diabetes are having an increasing effect across the globe.

In whatever forms it comes, both communicable and non-communicable diseases could well be prevented through many concerted actions and efforts by individuals and collectively by communities and even by the State through exercising, good rest and eating well and putting up interventions that could prevent diseases from striking.

All these could be achieved through the promotion of Primary Health Care (PHC) by stakeholders alike.

The International Conference on Primary Health Care at Alma Ata in 1978 in Kazakhstan (formerly Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic), defined PHC as “essential health care based on practical, scientifically sound and socially acceptable methods and technology made universally accessible to individuals and families in the communities.

It is through their full participation and at a cost that the community and country can afford to maintain at every stage of their development in the spirit of self-reliance and self- determination”.

Eight components of PHC have been identified by experts as; Education concerning prevailing health problems and the methods of preventing and controlling them; the Promotion of food supply and proper nutrition; an adequate supply of safe water and basic sanitation; and maternal and child health care.

The rest are family planning; immunisation against the major infectious diseases; appropriate treatment of common diseases and injuries; and the provision of essential drugs.

Before the advent of PHC, various health paradigms were introduced and practiced by countries globally, among which was the traditional medical paradigm which views health in terms of the presence or absence of signs and symptoms of disease in individuals and therefore treatment was directed at removing the immediate causes of the signs and symptoms of the disease in the individual in a fixed health facility such as hospitals with the hope that the individual would be healthy.

Unfortunately Ghana is still stuck to this traditional medical paradigm of providing health care at a stationary place even in this 21st century although other paradigms of reaching out to communities with health care services like the Onuador Mobile medicare health vans and the Community based Health Planning and Services (CHPS) were being practiced in some of the communities.

Dr George Amofah

Dr George Amofah, a private Health Consultant, says this model of health was highly curative oriented, and drug and facility dependent and that any work in the community was thought to be a waste of time and certainly not befitting the medical practitioner.

However, a new social paradigm expanded the medical model by recognising that diseases have a social dimension and therefore placing a lot of emphasis on improving the environment especially the physical, biological and social environment.

Programmes undertaken under the social health paradigm may include water treatment, sanitation improvement, vector control and control of industrial pollution.

“The hope is that when these environmental determinants of health are controlled then people will be healthy,” Dr Amofa who is also a former Deputy Director General of Ghana Health Service has stated.

In the late 1960s and early 1970s, a socialist paradigm was proposed to improve upon the social paradigm.

This paradigm recognises that the determinants of health and ill-health were primarily to be found in the socio-economic and political environment in which people live.

There was therefore a focus on broad socio-economic development to improve upon the health status of the people in the community.

Health was therefore determined by a complex interaction between individual characteristics, lifestyle and the physical, social and economic environment.

Most experts agree that these 'broader determinants of health' are more important than health care or treatment in ensuring a healthy population.

Therefore the call by Dr Amofah, on stakeholders to pursue proven interventions that could prevent diseases as a better option to finding curative remedy for diseases when they strike is rightly in order.

“We must investigate and look for what is leading to an outbreak of a disease like cholera and find a holistic approach of addressing it to prevent it re-occurrence in a particular area or region”, Dr Amofah explained.

Speaking at a health training workshop organised by the Alliance for Reproductive Health Rights (ARHR) and Curious Minds, a media based youth organisation for journalists in Accra recently, Dr Amofah said the totality of health care provisions depended largely on many factors and not only the provision of health facilities and health care professionals.

“What needs to be done is to become champions of the fact that health does not only depend on hospitals and health professionals but it depends on the integrated actions of a number of multiplicity actors.

“It’s more on the focus of prevention of diseases and promotion of health and then as a last result, no matter what happens, you will fall sick and then the hospital will manage that,” Dr Amofah said.

Dr Amofah explained that primary health care became a bigger issue before the late 1970s after it was observed that there was inequality in the health status of the people leading to deterioration in the health of Ghanaians and that necessitated the mobilisation of integrated approaches adopted at the time to improving the health of people.

He said although that intervention really helped at the time, the focus had now shifted more into provision of mainly health facilities, which most politicians pride themselves in, leaving the core actions of preventing diseases and health promotion that would lead to behavioural change in the life styles of the people at the background.   

He said the introduction of the National Health Insurance Scheme was also still related to curative health services and not the preventive that would allow people to just walk into a facility to check their health status to help prevent diseases like hypertension and diabetes which continue to increase.

Role of Journalists in PHC

Dr Amofa called on journalists to learn to become “medical journalists” who would strive to understand the issues of health holistically and help in efforts at informing and educating the public on health promotion.

He said since the media had a critical role to play in championing the tenets of primary health care, it would be important to partner practitioners in creating the needed awareness among the citizenry.

The Media could also be involved in the mobilisation of funds to bridge the resource gap and monitor events for accountability and evaluation purposes.

Dr Robert K. Mensah, a Consultant on Reproductive Health at the UNFPA, who also spoke at the training, said, in the provision of primary health care, community engagement was key in achieving higher results.

“People should be part of finding solutions to their health needs.

“Attitudes of people and communities must be influenced by leadership. We need to make communities and individuals be aware of what is wrong with them, what they are doing right or wrong and not only to sensationalise issues,” Dr Mensah told the journalists.

He said journalists needed to build their capacities in Medical journalism, which involves the dissemination of health-related information through mainstream media outlets.

He said when medical issues were widely reported, these reports influence physicians, the public, and the government as well.

“And therefore for journalists to avoid being criticised for being misleading, inaccurate, or speculative, personnel needed to be professional and precise.”

Dr Mensah, however, admitted that the availability of health information through accurate journalistic reportage was steadily increasing every year and had led to a variety of effects in the behaviours of recipients.

He said most inaccuracies and speculations in news coverage could be attributed to a number of barriers between the scientific community and the public that include: lack of knowledge by reporters, lack of time to prepare a proper report, and lack of space in the publication.

He advised journalists to ensure that they do evidence based reporting and get their terminologies right to enable them have a positive effects of the public.

In summary the major concepts that underlie the principles and philosophy of the original PHC Declaration are: Equity of access, Emphasis on prevention of Diseases and Promotion of Health, Integrated Quality Health Service Delivery, Appropriate technology, Holistic health, Social acceptability and community participation, Cost-effectiveness and affordability, Socio-economic development and health, Intersectional collaboration and team-approach as well as Political support.

“Under such a scenario it behoves governments and ministries of health, especially in developing countries, not to forget the principles and philosophies underlying the original PHC concept. Otherwise the mistakes of the past are bound to be repeated,” Dr Amofa noted.

GNA

Haiti Mafia families: A failed Private Sector

By Joel Leon

The amalgamation of a failed private sector with kidnapping, drug trafficking, and bad government constitutes the most important reason that explains Haiti’s failure in its quest to build a nation-state. Unfortunately, the United States government, symbol of nation building, is often on the wrong side of history in Haiti.

I read on the NBC website about how the private sector in the United States had created 216.000 jobs for the month of November, 2016, the expectation was 165.000. For the last 8 years during the Obama administration 15.6 million jobs have been created by the US private sector. That’s so revealing!

I am not comparing the US economy to Haiti’s considering this country’s long business tradition, and the vast amount of wealth created for the past two centuries. However, I want to stress the responsibility of the private sector in America versus the one operating in Haiti. Sometimes, people straightforwardly ask if there is a private sector in Haiti because there is no evidence that suggests otherwise.

The private sector is “the part of the economy that is not under the government’s control.” It is protected by a bunch of laws that guarantees its growing existence to maturity with only one goal: making profits. In Haiti, there is a concoction of roles. It seems that the private sector, the public sector, and the charities are working together in an evil way to crush the people.

I remember right after the earthquake that destroyed Port-Au-Prince, the capital of Haiti, in January 12th, 2010, I witnessed the rich people intertwining with the poor for a long period of time to benefit from the humanitarian aid. In some other countries, one would see something different. The rich would provide aid to the vulnerable souls. The most disgusting part remains: after a euphoric poor people-rich people interaction, the economic class, at first, monopolized the free international aid distribution. Later, it sold at an expensive price to the poor the same goods that the latter individuals were morally and legally entitled to.

In addition to profit-making, the private sector is morally obligated to create jobs. Without purchasing power, the potential customers won’t be able to consume and pay their bills. Hence, the consequences will be automatically disastrous even for those who own the means of production. Why? Because there is no consummation! -- Production will be hurt. No profit. This unbalanced equation is contrary to capitalism whose reality, among others, consists of employers making profits at the expense of employees’ labor. One may thusly summarize this reciprocal relationship:  no jobs, no profits!

I believe that the Haitian private sector doesn’t get it. Right after the Duvalier dynasty’s departure in February 1986, international financial institutions such as the IMF, the World Bank, IDB (Inter-American Development Bank) …tried to impose their view on how to run Haitian finances. In fact, they expected to develop capitalism in Haiti to definitely put an end to feudalism. The only problem is, and continues to be, that the Haitian economic class has never been ready for such an adventure. Under pressure from the aforementioned institutions, the local government sold the cement and flour companies to the private sector. Just one year after the deal, both businesses closed their doors. Then, there followed a shortage of cement and flour. Subsequently, many hundreds of people lost their jobs. Unemployment was rampant. Social unrest created a chronic instability. Worse yet, there is no unemployment benefit in Haiti which could have alleviated the jobless individuals’ burden.

Haiti is a poor country, among others, with 41% unemployment rate, 48% illiteracy rate, and 60% of people living below the poverty line. At the same time, a handful of 5 families controls the entire wealth. I remember talking to an American professor about how many billionaires we have in Haiti. At the beginning, he started to laugh at me. The paradox is that we have several Haitian billionaires. The US government has seemingly tried, on many occasions, to stimulate the private sector in Haiti through many programs such as the Haitian Hemispheric Opportunity through Partnership Encouragement Act of 2006 (HOPE); the Food Conservation and Energy Act (HOPE II) in 2008; and, in 2010, the Haiti Economic Lift Program (HELP). All of these initiatives have been put in place to stimulate foreign investment in Haiti, and to rally the private sector to redeem itself by profiting from those programs of those open doors via “Eligibility for duty-free treatment under the Caribbean Basin trade partnership Act (CBTPA)”. The main goal was to create jobs; the Haitian private sector didn’t seize the opportunity. 

The Haitian Diaspora which is sending more than 2 billion dollars to Haiti each year is not welcome to participate actively in the economic and political process. Those 5 families in command of the economy are hostile to the Diaspora who is trying to invest in Haiti. Yet, “Haitian-Americans are among the most successful immigrant groups in the United States”. Last year, Haiti’s GNP showed a deficit of 2.5 billion dollars because we exported for 1.029 billion dollars, while we imported for 3.445 billion dollars.

Haitian businessmen operate as a mafia organization. They burn businesses, kidnap family members and shoot people like dogs in the streets if you are not one of them…They monopolize all vital aspects of the economy: from tourism, textile, production, government and private institutions. At the same time, they are not taking any serious measures to develop the economy to create jobs for the people. They are fiercely against all sorts of competition. They favor monopoly. Customers are totally screwed up.

Now, let’s talk about the dilemma private sector vs. the public sector.  Everywhere in the world, nations are developing a public/private partnership to better serve the people and themselves. In Haiti, businessmen own the public sector. The rich maintain their grip on governmental institutions. All of them! There is no balance of power, meaning no accountability for any mischief caused by economically powerful individuals. That’s why they have always supported, financed and corrupted presidential candidates in each election.

The last known took place on November 20th, 2016. The big business supported the “statu quo” represented by Jovenel Moïse. He is a businessman who is being investigated for money laundering, racketeering, and drug connection by the country’s highest financial court (Cour Supérieure des Comptes known by its acronym CSC). He was handpicked by Michel Martelly himself, the former Haitian president.

Let me tell a true story that happened last year in Haiti. There is a powerful guy named Jacques Kétant. He was arrested in 2003 because his bodyguard went inside of a school attended by US embassy personnel’s children to murder in broad daylight a government official. Jacqueline Charles, from Miami Herald, delivered her opinion about Mr. Ketant as follow: “Considered the Pablo Escobar of Haiti, Ketant lived a lavish lifestyle in Haiti, where he was an untouchable kingpin until Aristide gave in to U.S. pressure in 2003 and expelled him. He was soon sentenced to 27 years in prison after pleading guilty to smuggling 30 tons of cocaine from Haiti to the United States.”

Michel Martelly

On August 18th, 2015, the US judicial system decided to deport him back to Haiti after serving half of his sentence because the court found him to be cooperative. Many drug dealers have been arrested and sentenced to long prison terms. Upon his return to Haiti, Mr. Kétant was greeted and picked up at the airport by Roro Nelson and Gracia Delva. Mr. Nelson is among former president Michel Martelly’s closest friends for years; some people believe that he was there to welcome Mr. Kétant under Mr. Martelly’s express demand. Similarly, Mr. Gracia Delva, a member of parliament, is a deportee from the United States. Delva is about to be a senator very soon. Among other Martelly allies known for their criminal activities are:  Guy Philippe (pursued by DEA as a fugitive for drug trafficking); Youri Latortue, also senator, has been involved in drug activities, according to Wikileaks; Joseph Lambert, freshly reelected to senate, also has a drug connection; Willot Joseph, newly elected senator, has been implicated in drug trafficking. The Haitian senate is going to be filled up with a bunch of “drug dealers”.

Additionally, it is noteworthy to highlight the case of Clifford Brandt, a well-known businessman. He is also the son of one of the richest families in Haiti. Arrested for kidnapping in 2012, he was sentenced this year to spend 18 years in prison, after a long trial that lasted 4 years. He was identified as the closest friend of Olivier Martelly, former president Joseph Martelly’s son.

Former US ambassador to Haiti, Mr. Brian Dean Curran, in his farewell speech before leaving the country, addressed the chamber of commerce in Haiti by saying: “Yes, well-known drug traffickers. They buy from your stores; you sell houses to them or build new ones. You take their deposits to your banks. You educate their children, and you elect them to positions in chambers of commerce.”

In front of many businessmen of the country, Mr. Dean Curran denounced how they have no respect for themselves by using “dirty money” to make profits. Here is a short prospect about the Haitian bourgeoisie: all deviant actions are welcome to make money including placing corrupted leaders to power.

When Jean B. Aristide got elected to power in 1991, his program was essentially to fight inequality in Haiti. His government published a list of hundreds of businessmen who owed a lot of money to the state. Instead of starting to pay or make payment arrangements, they instead financed a multi-million-dollar military coup against the elected and legitimate president (of course with CIA/State Department’s help). The consequences were catastrophic: 5,000 deaths and 100,000 refugees. Therefore, the private sector in Haiti is against progress and is indirectly fighting social stability. The business sector spent 13 years fighting each attempt to normalize the social and political situation.

The last successful attempt, supported by the Clintons, was to parachute Joseph Martelly into power--a man who admitted that he had been a drug addict/dealer; he was denounced as a spy for “FRAPPH”, a defunct terrorist organization known for its misogyny, brutality, and political assassinations.  While in power, Martelly conceded a contract to Tony Rodham, Hillary Clinton’s brother, to exploit Haitian gold estimated at 25 billion dollars. That is a typical case of the so-called “Pay to play” game.

For five straight years, the former head of state looted public funds, “legalized drug trafficking”, promoted prostitution, domesticated public institutions at the highest level via bribes and huge kickbacks. Here we are enduring Martelly’s dire economic heritage: 3 billion dollars debt, 300 million dollars budget deficit.  Let it be reminded that when Martelly got to the power in 2011, he found 1.9 billion dollars in the public treasure. Furthermore, the country had zero debt. Do the math!

MAFIA, GUNS AND CLANS: THE BIG LIBYAN OIL HEIST

Libya’s oil production problems extend far beyond whether the forces of Tripoli or Benghazi secure ultimate control over the country: Clan-based militias are running their own smuggling operations, and their mafia reach is said to extend as far as the Coast Guard - and even into Europe.

This smuggled oil is making its way into Europe, and Libya authorities say it has cost the state $360 million so far, at a time when the country is producing only 715,000 barrels per day, down from its Ghaddafi heydays of 1.6 million bpd.

The post-Ghaddafi chaos has created some great business opportunities in both human trafficking and oil smuggling.

According to a stellar and rare (these days) piece of investigative reporting by Italian journalist Frecesca Mannocchi, the western coastal strip of Libya running from Zawya to Sabratha is a smuggler’s paradise, with the local police and coast guard complicit in lucrative oil smuggling activities.

Police told Mannocchi that oil is smuggled by ship from Sabratha to Malta and Sicily, en route to the Italian mainland.

The clans and their militias that control this strip of smuggling are said by locals to be the Hneesh and Dabbashi, who are allies when business is good, but can quickly become enemies in armed conflict.

Where these clans and their smuggling enter the bigger political chaos of Libya is through the Petroleum Facilities Guard (PFG), which was - as its name might suggest - established to protect oil facilities.

Where its gets even bigger is that these clans, locals claim, are working under agreements with the Sicilian Mafia.

In early January, the PFG withdrew from the western Zawiya refinery after the Chairman of Libya’s National Oil Company (NOC), Mustafa Sanalla, accused the group Nasr brigade of using the refinery to run smuggling operations.

That the PFG removed itself from this part of the equation demonstrates the power that General Haftar and the Libyan National Army (LNA) are gaining rather quickly. Controlling Libya means controlling its oil wealth—and controlling its oil wealth means controlling the clan-style mafia from which the PFG is deriving part of its power.

It’s easier said than done—and there are fears that General Haftar, as he reins in the chaos, could turn into another Ghaddafi. There will be a price to pay for ‘stability’.

But we’re not there yet - and we won’t be until Libya can return to its pre-conflict production, which it cannot do until the same people who control the oilfields control the oil revenues.

This is where it gets tricky. While the LNA is in control of the oilfields right now and has wrested the ports that were being hijacked by the PFG, the oil money goes to the Central Bank of Libya, which is not on the same ‘side’ as the LNA.

Instead, the Central Bank is supported by the failed - or failing - Government of National Accord (GNA) in Tripoli, which has been backed by the UN. As the PFG is a rival to the LNA, so too could be a new group that the GNA is toying with in the form of a Presidential Guard.

The oil won’t flow if the LNA thinks the money is being used to prop up an armed group that will fight against it.

But this situation is extremely dynamic, and this past week alone has seen some major developments. Tripoli is as intense as it gets right now, and the game is to see who can create the most fearful “guards” corps to ostensibly ‘protect’ the country’s assets from corruption.

On Thursday, forces aligned with Khalifa Gwell announced the creation of yet another guard - the Libyan National Guard (LNG), to “protect” institutions. Though they say they are not aligned with any tribe or political party, these are militia from Misrata, and they are already engaging in armed clashes with militias that support the GNA. In effect, they are trying to build a new army. This, in turn, seems to be pushing the GNA towards its rival, General Haftar.

Indeed, the GNA just announced that it and the Presidential Council - unable to assert control - would make some key changes to include Haftar among their ranks.

This is a game of alliances that shift faster than the news can keep up. As soon as one alliance is solidified, another militia ‘guard’ pops up to force a change. It’s definitely not the right time to try to get into Libyan oil. Nor is there any chance that Libyan oil is going to upset the global balance of supply and demand and scupper the OPEC/non-OPEC deal on production cuts.

It is against this backdrop that oil smuggling thrives, and will continue to thrive, and supermajor oil companies will have no choice but to pull up stakes or play the game, which means indirectly enabling smuggling activities. In these areas, it’s either ‘hire’ the clans for ‘protection’, or suffer the consequences, including kidnapping workers.

Washington’s Intent is Economic Destabilization and “Regime Change” In Venezuela

Venezuelan President Nocolas Maduro at rally

By Stephen Lendman

Venezuela’s oil-dependent economy suffers greatly from low crude oil prices and US economic warfare – waged to destabilize the country, create enormous hardships, mobilize majority opposition to President Nicolas Maduro’s leadership, and end nearly 18 years of economic and social progress. The collapse in the price of crude oil was the result of a carefully designed speculative operation. 

Neocons in Washington want control over Venezuela’s vast oil reserves, among the world’s largest. With full US support and encouragement, the right wing opposition which controls the National Assembly want Maduros ousted – its latest tactic by recall referendum as constitutionally permitted.

On October 18, Venezuela’s Supreme Court ruled valid signatures of 20% of voters in each of the nation’s 24 states must be collected to proceed with a process against Maduro.

“(F)ailure…will render the call for the presidential recall referendum as nullified,” the High Court said in its ruling.

On October 21, Venezuela’s National Electoral Council (CNE) suspended the referendum until further notice, following Supreme Court allegations of fraud. Over 30% of signatures collected had irregularities – including listing over 10,000 deceased persons.

A previous article explained how Venezuela’s recall referendum works. Article 72 of Venezuela’s Constitution states “(a)ll magistrates and other offices (including the president) filled by popular vote are subject to revocation.”

“Once half (their) term of office…has elapsed, 20% of (registered) voters (by petition may call for) a referendum to revoke such official’s mandate.”

“When a number of voters equal to or greater than the number of those who elected the official vote in favor of revocation (provided the total is 20% or more of registered voters), the official’s mandate shall be deemed revoked…”

Signatures collected must be verified for authenticity before proceeding further with the recall process. If achieved, it’ll be organized within 90 days. Removing Maduro requires support from more than the 50.6% of voters supporting his 2013 election.

Timing is important. If held by January 10, 2017, a new election will be called if Maduro loses. If things go against him after this date, Vice President Aristobulo Isturiz will serve as president until January 2019, when his term expires.

In response to CNE’s suspending the recall process, the factions controlling the National Assembly barely stopped short of urging coup d’etat action to remove Maduro forcefully.

Last Sunday, they said they’ll impeach him for “violating democracy.” The body has no legal standing after ignoring the Supreme Court’s October 18 ruling.

United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) leader Hector Rodriguez mocked them, saying parties violating the “rules of the game come and talk about democracy…There will be no recall referendum in 2016 because of fraudulent signatures collected.”

Violent demonstrations may follow, similar to what occurred in 2014 – perhaps another US coup attempt.

On October 24, WaPo editors disgracefully headlined “How to derail Venezuela’s new dictatorship.” What followed was a disgraceful litany of misinformation, exaggeration and Big Lies.

WaPo: Maduro “made clear (he and his government are) prepared to shred what remained of the country’s constitutional order…(They) stripped the opposition-controlled national assembly of its powers, imprisoned several top leaders and tried to slow” the recall process.

Fact: Maduro and Venezuela’s CNE observe the letter of constitutional law. No opposition powers were “stripped.” Their imprisoned officials plotted to remove Maduro by coup d’etat.

Collecting fraudulent signatures “slow(ed)” the recall process, not administration officials.

WaPo: Opposition National Assembly members “issued a declaration saying Mr. Maduro had staged a coup. That is accurate – and it ought to provoke a consequential reaction from the United States and Venezuela’s Latin American neighbors.”

Fact: No Maduro “coup” occurred, nor is one in prospect. WaPo calling for “consequential” action sounds ominously like urging Washington to oust him forcefully.

WaPo: “The recall referendum the opposition was pursuing offered a democratic way out of what has become one of the worst political and humanitarian crises in Latin America’s modern history.”

Fact: US dirty tricks and economic manipulation leading to disruptions in the distribution of food, bear much responsibility for hard times in Venezuela. Real problems exist. Hunger isn’t one of them. WaPo lied claiming “(t)he vast majority of low-income families say they are having trouble obtaining food.”

Support grows for Nicolas Maduro

Venezuelans changed their dietary practices because of the scarcity of commonly eaten foods, at times consuming less than earlier. Profiteers hoarding and diverting foodstuffs for resale are responsible, along with high inflation resulting economic manipulation.

WaPo: “(T)he United States should be coordinating tough international action.”

Fact: Neocon WaPo editors want Maduro toppled and replaced. Do they mean by coup d’etat by calling for “tough international action?”

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.” http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

The original source of this article is Global Research

The Long Road To The Normalization Of Migratory Relations

By Elier Ramírez Cañedo

Migratory relations between the United States and Cuba changed abruptly after 1959, becoming distorted when Washington decided to turn its immigration policy toward the island into another instrument of war against the Cuban revolutionary process.

All Cubans who emigrated to the United States, regardless of the route and their background, were granted the status of “political refugees”, under the McCarran-Walter Act of 1952, which was designed to encourage emigration from Eastern European socialist countries; thus offering similar treatment to that received by immigrants from the socialist camp, in accordance with the intention to frame the confrontation with Cuba in the context of the Cold War. From that moment on - for the U.S. government - Cubans did not emigrate like Dominicans, Mexicans, and Puerto Ricans, but “fled the regime”, an expression of the politicization of the issue.

The first thing the Eisenhower administration did was welcome with open arms the criminals and thieves of the Fulgencio Batista dictatorship, fleeing revolutionary justice. Meanwhile, special projects and programs of assistance exclusive to Cuban immigrants were elaborated, with the aim of attracting the most qualified sectors of the workforce, thus depriving the Cuban Revolution of these valuable human resources. In December 1960, the Cuban Refugee Emergency Center was created in Miami. In those early years of the sixties, the migratory issue became one of the most crucial points in relations between the two countries.

It was not until November 6, 1965, after the so-called Camarioca migration crisis, that the United States and Cuba reached their first migration agreement, signed by Cuban Foreign Minister Raúl Roa García and the Swiss Ambassador to Havana, Emil A. Stadelhofer, representing U.S. interests on the island.

This crisis was the result of the constant United States encouragement of illegal emigration from Cuba, the granting of “refugee” status to Cubans who arrived directly to U.S. soil, including kidnappers and those who had committed other crimes, while hindering the entry of Cubans from third countries, who were subject to the same regulations as other immigrants. The possibility of a safe, legal, and orderly departure for Cubans had also been diminishing since the Kennedy administration had put an end to all flights to and from Cuba during the October 1962 Crisis. This led to several violent incidents and the hijacking of vessels.

Faced with this situation, the leader of the Cuban Revolution, Fidel Castro, announced in a speech on September 28, 1965, that the port of Camarioca, in the province of Matanzas, would be set up so that Cubans who wished to leave the country for the United States could be collected on boats by relatives already residing in the U.S. who traveled to the island from that country. In this way 28,000 people left between October 10 and November 3 of that year.

The Lyndon B. Johnson administration first sought to exploit the situation through propaganda, but later, due to the difficulties that this abnormal situation created for the United States Coast Guard, proposed negotiations with the Cuban government through the Swiss Embassy in Havana. The negotiations concluded with the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding that allowed the establishment of an “air bridge” between Cuba and the United States. Two flights a day, five days a week, departed from Varadero to Miami. The United States government promised to transfer between 3,000 and 4,000 Cubans a month. The Cuban government only objected to the departure of professionals and youths between 15 and 26 years of age, who were required to complete military service, as well as the U.S. proposal to allow the release of counterrevolutionary prisoners.

A total of 268,000 people left the country on these flights up until 1973, when President Nixon suspended the agreement, claiming that Congress had challenged the high cost of the Cuban Refugee Program ($727 million dollars between 1961 and 1972). Of course, the U.S. government and Cuban counterrevolutionaries exploited these migratory movements through propaganda, referring to them as “Freedom Flights.”

On November 2, 1966, President Johnson signed the Cuban Adjustment Act, which thereafter guaranteed preferential treatment to Cuban immigrants, becoming a permanent and powerful stimulus to illegal emigration from Cuba to the United States over the following years. Among other causes, this Act was passed in the interests of the United States government, in order to reduce the costs of the Cuban Refugee Program - the largest and most costly program ever implemented in the United States - and to regularize the preferential treatment and legal status of Cuban immigrants.

This law - still in force - overruled the immigration agreement reached with the island and states that: “...the status of any alien who is a native or citizen of Cuba and who has been inspected and admitted or paroled into the United States subsequent to January 1, 1959 and has been physically present in the United States for at least two years, may be adjusted by the Attorney General, in his discretion and under such regulations as he may prescribe, to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence if the alien makes an application for such adjustment, and the alien is eligible to receive an immigrant visa and is admissible to the United States for permanent residence.”

The Cuban Adjustment Act continued to provide immediate access to Cuban immigrants, and was exempt from the quota restrictions established by the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, which applied to immigrants from other countries. Having remained in the United States for a year, Cuban immigrants could request residency without having to leave the country, as was established for all other immigrants. However, a little known fact is that many Cubans who emigrated to the United States in those years showed little interest in the Adjustment Act while the Cuban Refugee Program was in place, as this offered economic advantages that even U.S. citizens did not enjoy, such as an exemption from paying taxes. Once the Program was suspended in 1975, the accelerated naturalization of Cuban immigrants began, together with their incorporation into U.S. political life.

Beginning in 1973, a new phase of greater tensions between the two countries over the migration issue would start, coming to a head in a new migratory crisis in 1980, the last year of Democratic James Carter’s Presidential term.

From the end of 1979 until early 1980, the United States continued to implement its indiscriminate policy of stimulating illegal migration from Cuba, and receiving those who committed such acts as heroes, while increasingly denying visas to those Cubans who wished to leave the country legally.

This situation gradually intensified, creating the stage for a new migration crisis between the United States and Cuba, in the wake of several violent boat hijackings.

Faced with this situation of imminent danger to the security of Cuba and its legal and regulated migration policy, the Cuban government advised Washington on several occasions to take the necessary measures and change its policy of encouraging illegal emigration and receiving hijackers as heroes, or it would be forced to repeat the Camarioca experience. But the U.S. government continued with its actions and ignored Cuba’s warnings.

Since 1979, Cuba had also faced irregular events that took place in the embassies of Venezuela and Peru with extreme patience; when antisocial elements forced their way into these diplomatic sites seeking supposed “political asylum” and were received as heroes, while, paradoxically, Cubans were denied visas from these same countries when they requested them through normal and peaceful means.

The irrational U.S. immigration policy toward Cuba and the White House’s limited concern regarding provocations against the island from U.S. territory and acts of sabotage, as demonstrated in the lack of a response to Cuban diplomatic forewarnings, encouraged an antisocial group of Cubans who, on April 1, 1980, hijacked a bus and forcibly entered the Embassy of Peru in Havana, killing the Cuban security guard, Pedro Ortiz Cabrera, in the process.

This led to a statement by the Cuban government on April 4, which explained that the attitude adopted by both embassies, in “sheltering these violators of diplomatic immunity instead of rejecting such a practice,” presented risks to the security of diplomatic officials themselves, and encouraged acts of violence against other diplomatic missions in Cuba. At the same time, the statement resolutely warned that no individual who entered a foreign embassy by force would be granted safe-conduct to leave the country. The statement also emphasized that on no occasion had those individuals who had forcibly entered the embassies been implicated in political problems, and thus they had no claim to diplomatic asylum.

As a consequence of these events, and given the tolerance of the Peruvian government, the Cuban government decided to remove its guards from this diplomatic mission. Within a few hours, a large crowd had surrounded the site and U.S. media were quick to use the occurrence against Cuba.

An editorial published in Granma on April 21, 1980, made public the decision of the Cuban government that boats arriving from the United States to transport those who wanted to emigrate to that country would not be prevented from doing so by Cuban authorities. In this way, the port of Mariel was left open to those wishing to emigrate. Some 125,000 Cubans would leave Cuba from this site, while another 5,000 traveled to Peru and Panama by air following the incident at the Peruvian embassy.

Once this crisis was resolved, through various secret contacts, the first official talks between representatives of the two countries on the migratory issue took place in December 1980 and January 1981, but did not result in any concrete agreements, largely due to the uncertainty that existed given the Presidential election victory of Republican Ronald Reagan.

Talks resumed in 1984, and resulted in the second major migration agreement between the countries, through which the United States agreed to grant up to 20,000 visas per year, especially to immediate family members of U.S. citizens and Cuban permanent residents in the U.S. - a commitment it has not fulfilled. The agreement also established that the U.S. would return, and Cuban receive, 2,746 Cuban emigrants who had left via the port of Mariel, but had been declared ineligible to legally enter the United States. In addition, the Reagan administration pledged to facilitate the admission of counterrevolutionary former prisoners who wished to emigrate to the U.S. This agreement was invalidated between 1985 and 1987 following Cuba’s condemnation of the illegal broadcasting of Radio Martí from the United States.

As a result of the U.S. acceptance of Cuba’s right to make radio broadcasts to the United States, together with the actual ineffectiveness of Radio Martí, new talks were held between the two countries in early 1988, and it was agreed to re-establish the 1984 immigration agreement and to continue the talks regarding AM radio transmissions from one country to another.

However, the “up to 20,000 visas” annually, established by the 1984 agreement, resulted in a number of interpretations on the part of the signatory parties. This meant the United States considered it had complied with the agreement by granting visas to just 11,222 Cubans between 1987 - the date when the 1984 agreement was resumed - and 1994, when the Balseros (Raft) Crisis occurred.

This, together with the disastrous effects in the Cuban economy of the collapse of the socialist camp, generated new instability in migratory relations beginning in 1991, leading to the crisis of 1994, when illegal attempts to leave increased significantly, resulting in several violent acts. The leadership of the Revolution decided to stop blocking the exit of those who wanted to leave the country - as long as no attempts were made to hijack ships and planes - and denounced the United States’ immigration policy toward Cuba. The Clinton administration, pressured by the Cuban-American mafia led by Jorge Mas Canosa, responded with more sanctions against the island: blocking remittances to Cuba, suspending flight connections and expanding TV and Radio Martí. While the economic blockade and subversion against Cuba from the United States - which increased after the fall of the socialist camp - were the main causes of the migratory crisis, the United States government responded with an intensified blockade and more subversion.

Although those attempting to reach the U.S. on rafts were intercepted by the U.S. Coast Guard, taken to the Guantánamo Naval Base, and threatened with the possibility of never being allowed to enter the United States, the exodus did not stop. Finally, the crisis itself brought the two countries back to the negotiating table, making use of secret diplomacy.

A Joint Communiqué was signed on September 9, 1994, in New York. On this occasion, the maximum of 20,000 visas to be annually granted to Cubans was changed to become the minimum amount, and the United States government committed to transferring Cuban migrants who were rescued at sea attempting to enter its territory to shelter facilities outside the U.S. In addition, the two governments pledged to cooperate to adopt timely and effective measures to prevent the illicit transportation of persons bound for the United States, and to oppose and prevent the use of violence by any person attempting to reach, or reaching the United States from Cuba, through the hijacking of aircraft and vessels. The agreement established a mechanism for biannual rounds of talks to verify compliance with the agreements, which were unilaterally suspended by President George W. Bush in January 2004 and resumed in July 2009 by President Barack Obama.

The Communiqué also noted: “The United States and the Republic of Cuba are committed to directing Cuban migration into safe, legal, and orderly channels consistent with strict implementation of the 1984 joint communiqué.” This was something that the United States government continued to violate by implementing the “wet foot, dry foot” policy and the parole program for Cuban medical professionals, established during the George W. Bush administration.

Fidel

On May 2, 1995, a Joint Statement was signed in addition to the agreement signed in 1994, establishing the gradual admission, within the 20,000 visas to be granted each year, of a group of Cubans who had been intercepted at sea in 1994, and were detained at the illegal U.S. Naval Base in Guantánamo. The statement made clear that Cuban emigrants intercepted at sea by the United States, as well as those attempting to enter U.S. territory via the Guantánamo Naval Base, would be returned to Cuba. Both countries agreed that migrants returned to Cuba as a result of their attempt to emigrate illegally would not be subject to any penalty, and that those Cuban citizens at the Guantánamo Naval Base, who U.S. authorities considered ineligible to be admitted to their country, would be returned to Cuban authorities.

Although both parties reaffirmed their commitment in this statement to take measures to prevent dangerous exits from Cuba that could pose a risk of loss of life, and to oppose acts of violence associated with illegal emigration, the United States did not fulfill its commitment once it began to apply the well-known “wet foot, dry foot” distinction. This meant that those who by sea or land managed to reach U.S. territory, without being detected by the authorities of that country, automatically enjoyed the privileges offered to Cuban emigrants under the Cuban Adjustment Act. The “wet foot, dry foot” policy, rather than a legal document, was an almost immediate practice established by the United States government after the 1994 and 1995 agreements were signed.

However, on April 19, 1999, the Commissioner of the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (then a bureau in the U.S. Department of Justice), Dorys Meissner, issued a Memorandum - which some consider the legal interpretation of the wet foot, dry foot policy - that confirmed the privileged eligibility for permanent residence under the Cuban Adjustment Act of Cuban immigrants who arrived in U.S. territory, despite not doing so by the established ports of entry.

The Cuban Adjustment Act continues to be a major incentive for Cuban emigration as it offers, for purely political reasons, benefits to Cuban immigrants in the United States that are not available to those from any other country. This politicization of the migration issue has continued ever since this Act was passed, remaining today as a vestige of the Cold War. However, the new migration agreement signed between Cuba and the United States on January 12, 2017, is an important step forward and, in practice, eliminates the most negative components of this law, by discouraging irregular migration, by any means, whether maritime or terrestrial; but also by discouraging irregular stays in U.S. territory, even when the individual has legally and safely left Cuba.