 |
| 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 |
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
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment