Category: Commentary

To OAS or not to OAS: That is the question

By Sir Ronald Sanders

(The writer is a Consultant and former Caribbean diplomat)

At a meeting of leaders of Latin America and the Caribbean on February 23, Caribbean Community (CARICOM) governments supported a joint “Declaration on (the) Falklands Islands Issue”.

The Declaration “confirmed their support of Argentina’s legitimate rights in the sovereignty dispute with the United Kingdom over the Falkland Islands Issue”, and recalled “regional interest in having the governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom resume negotiations to find a fair, peaceful and definitive solution to the dispute over the sovereignty” of the Falklands/Malvinas islands. They went further to call on the European Union (EU) countries to amend their charter to remove the Falkland Islands from the list of overseas territories associated with the EU.

The support of Latin American countries for Argentina in this matter is quite understandable. They have links of language, culture, history and proximity that go back centuries.

But the support of CARICOM countries for Argentina’s “legitimate rights” is puzzling. Both the UK and Argentina have claimed the Falklands/Malvinas for almost two hundred years. So what now makes Argentina’s rights more “legitimate” than Britain’s? And, why call for “negotiations” between Argentina and Britain to find “a fair peaceful and definitive solution” to the dispute if it has already been decided that Argentina’s rights are “legitimate”?

Unless there is something they have not made public, this position by Caribbean governments appears on the surface to run counter to their own national interests.

The Caribbean has always strongly supported a people’s right to self-determination. It is in fulfillment of their own right to self-determination that Caribbean Community (CARICOM) countries are independent states. In this regard, since the people of the Falklands/Malvinas have consistently and overwhelmingly chosen to be British, Caribbean governments would certainly not argue that the manifest wish of the people of the Falklands/Malvinas should be ignored, particularly since Britain has exercised de facto sovereignty over the islands continuously since 1833.

The national interests of twelve of the fourteen independent CARICOM countries are much more bound-up with Britain than they are with Argentina. CARICOM’s trade with Britain far exceeds trade with Argentina; investment in CARICOM countries from Britain is much greater than any investment from Argentina; official development assistance from Britain to CARICOM countries directly and indirectly (through the European Union and the Commonwealth for instance) is much larger than any assistance from Argentina; the number of tourists from Britain to CARICOM countries is considerably greater than from Argentina; and far more CARICOM nationals live, work and study in Britain than in Argentina.

What appears to have triggered this discussion at the 33-nations Cancun meeting is the fact that a British oil exploration company, Desire Petroleum Plc, announced that it had started drilling for oil 60 miles (100 kilometers) north of the Falklands/Malvinas. Argentina objects to this development.

In giving support to Argentina, CARICOM countries run the risk of compromising their own interest. For instance, where would they stand if Venezuela objected to oil exploration off part of Guyana, despite long-standing international arbitrations and agreements confirming Guyana’s title? Also, where would these countries stand if Venezuela objected to oil explorations that might be granted by some of them near Aves Island/Bird Rock to which Venezuela lays a claim? In the case of Belize where Guatemala claims the entire country, the same argument applies.

Then we come to the matter of the creation of a grouping of these 33 countries that excludes Canada and the United States. Some of the Latin American leaders – in particular those with a strong anti-American position – proclaimed to the media that this new grouping should replace the Organization of American States (OAS).

Well, replacing the OAS is simply in no country’s interest – not even those with the most rabid anti-American governments. There has to be a forum in the Hemisphere where all its countries are represented and where discussions can take place at all levels of government and on all issues. And that organization is clearly the already well-established OAS. In this regard, Cuba should return to the Organization and the exclusion of the present elected government of Honduras should cease.

In any event, I suspect that only a very few governments touted the idea of an “alternative” organization to the OAS and even fewer would have supported it. Certainly for CARICOM countries, there is no other organization in which they can engage the US government on a regular and sustained basis at all levels. That alone makes the OAS worthwhile for them.

Further, CARICOM governments greatly value their relations with Canada which has been an ally and partner for generations in the Hemisphere and in the Commonwealth. They would want deeper not distant relations with Canada.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with Latin American and Caribbean countries establishing a grouping that is not an alternative to the OAS, but is additional to it.

However, no one should believe that it will be anything more than an opportunity for dialogue at the level of leaders. It will have no secretariat and therefore little means of implementing decisions; decisions will have to be made by consensus, therefore no binding decisions will be made; and, in truth, the grouping is so amorphous and made up of countries at such different levels of development and with such differing interests and ambitions, that its meetings will be largely obligatory and its decisions only declaratory.

The Summit “Declaration of Cancun” does have as one of its objectives “the coordination of regional positions ahead of meetings and conferences of global reach… to project the region and increase its influence”. This is to be welcomed provided that the view of smaller Caribbean islands are seriously considered and reflected by the larger Latin American states.

This brings us to the OAS itself. The US government should regard this move by Latin American and Caribbean countries to set up a Hemispheric grouping, which deliberately excludes it, as a firm warning that its neglect of Latin America and the Caribbean’s development needs and issues, and its oftentimes casual dismissal of their positions is not in the interest of the United States. The authorities in Washington need to engage Latin American and Caribbean countries as genuine partners and neighbours and a strengthened and revitalized OAS is the place to do so.

In this connection, CARICOM countries should indicate their support for the re-election on March 23 of the incumbent Secretary-General, Jose Miguel Insulza. His task over the last five years in a fractious organisation, which also relies on consensus for decision-making, has not been easy. But, he has tried to introduce reforms and he has been the most forceful Secretary-General the OAS has seen for a long time. Additionally, he has been very mindful of his obligations to his Caribbean member states.

He has also taken on Hugo Chavez over violations of media freedom in Venezuela and he has not been afraid to point out shortcomings by the US government. To have offended both these adversaries, he must have done something right for the rest.

Over the next five and final years as Secretary-General, Insulza can be bold in giving the OAS real direction in reforming its mandate and establishing it as a meaningful forum for settling hemispheric issues and advancing democracy, development and human rights.

France in Haiti: A fresh start by Sarkozy? By Sir Ronald Sanders

(The writer is a Consultant and former Caribbean Diplomat)

At last a French President visited Haiti – a country that contributed greatly to France’s accumulation of wealth in the 18th Century and which France impoverished for a century after that.

Nicolas Sarkozy arrived in devastated Haiti on February 17, a month and five days after a massive earthquake ravaged the Capital, Port-au-Prince killing more than 200,000 people; maiming tens of thousands of others, and wreaking billions of dollars in damage.

The extent of the damage and loss of life in Haiti were undoubtedly due to the country’s lack of physical infrastructure and its poor building standards, neither of which could be accomplished in a situation where 70 percent of its gross domestic product was paid over to France for over a century.

This is not to ignore the excesses of Haitian governments, particularly under the Duvaliers, which also deprived the country of monies that should have been pumped into constructing infrastructure, providing education and health facilities, and establishing regulatory bodies to ensure higher standards across a range of activity including the construction of buildings.

The harsh imposition by France of a levy of 90 million gold francs, which Haiti did not finish repaying until 1947, also does not excuse recent Haitian governments and political parties for failing to spend aid funds on an agreed and country-wide development programme instead of on narrow political interests.

Indeed, on any programme for constructing a new Haiti – both in a physical and societal sense – Haitian governments should be mindful that not only the Haitian people but the entire international community will want guaranteed machinery to ensure that aid money is spent on sustainable development.

The challenge is huge. Taking Haiti off the world’s “sick man” list is not a short-term or cheap affair. The Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) has calculated that the rebuilding programme will cost US$14 billion and will take at least 10 years.

And, while there have been mountainous pledges of assistance from many governments as television images riveted the eyes of the world on Haiti, experience of previous disasters elsewhere in the world teaches that pledges often fall by the way side as soon as the cameras move on.

Acknowledging “the wounds of colonization” and saying that he knows well “the story of our countries on the question of debt”, President Sarkozy , in addition to cancelling all of Haiti’s US$77 million debt to France, also promised to provide aid of US$400 million over the next two years. Included in the aid package is US$40 million in support of the Haitian government’s budget.

This latter commitment was warmly welcomed by Haiti’s Prime Minister, Jean-Max Bellerive who described it as “crucial” and added: It means we are going to use it the way we want”. The Prime Minister’s statement is understandable given that the government has to try to provide some basic services, such as policing, to the country in circumstances where government revenues must be very little.

But the question still arises as to whether the French government’s pledge to Haiti is enough.

Haiti’s exiled former President Jean Bertrand Aristide had calculated the sum that France extracted from Haiti, as the price for recognising its participation in the international community in 1825, as US$21 billion in today’s values.

As Sarkozy was entering Haiti, Professor Norman Girvan of the University of the West Indies, and former Secretary-General of the Association of Caribbean States, in an invited comment to the Associated Press was pretty clear about France’s obligation to Haiti and what Sarkozy should do.

He declared: “If President Sarkozy were to make restitution in the name of all the decent people of the French Republic for the historic wrong; and support the efforts of the Haitian people to rebuild their shattered lives and their economy with the resources thereby provided, he would undoubtedly gain the respect of the entire world and be a prime candidate for the award of the Nobel Prize for 2010”.

Somehow, I don’t believe that President Sarkozy will make be a Nobel Prize recipient for returning to Haiti what was so callously extracted from it, and which is the underlying basis for its persistent poverty and underdevelopment. And, it is instructive that the Haitian government is not pushing it. Millien Romage, a legislator for Aristide’s party also told the Associated Press: “This is not a time to be making loud demands. We don’t want to fight. But perhaps the French could recognize their debt by helping us to get out of poverty. They can help build roads, houses, schools.”

Sarkozy has at least made a start and it is to be hoped that when France joins other nations at a high-level international donors’ conference for Haiti, which will be held in New York next month, the French government will open its cheque book more generously to a country that it exploited and impoverished.

Canada, which has no history of exploitation of Haiti (or any other country for that matter) has been far more generous than France. Even before the calamitous January earthquake, Canada had pledged more than US$500 million to Haiti over the next five years.

And, in a visit that preceded Sarkozy’s, Canadian Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, discussed with the Haitian President, Rene Preval, the creation of a common fund for Haiti’s recovery to be managed jointly by the Haitian government and donors.

A partnership between the Haitian government and the international community is crucial to the successful construction of Haiti and to the restoration of its society.

Calls for the Haitian government to be “masters of their own development”, should be tempered with realism. Governance in Haiti was fractious before the Earthquake, the government is now in tatters, and many who were leaders in Haitian society were victims of the earthquake. In this connection, Haiti needs a lot of help including help in the governance of the country over the next few years.

The representative of the 14 governments of the Caribbean Community, former Jamaican Prime Minister, P J Patterson, put the task ahead in clear terms at the Ministerial Conference on Haiti held in Canada on January 25 when he said: “Reconstructing Haiti needs to encompass more than replacing destroyed buildings and infrastructure and eviscerated institutions and must include a developmental dimension. Rebuilding should therefore also include the empowerment of the Haitians by the teaching of new skills”.

CARIBBEAN PEOPLE A MUST READ: Commentary by my friend Sir Ronald Sanders

By: GFBC Staff: We will be posting weekly commentaries from respected and proven authors of Caribbean politics, economics, and history. It gives me great pleasure to post this commentary by Sir Ronald Sanders.

Caribbean Diplomacy: An Endangered Species
By Sir Ronald Sanders
(The writer is a Consultant and former Caribbean Diplomat)

Caribbean governments are in danger of weakening still further their diplomatic capacity endangering its effectiveness, and imperiling their countries’ maneuverability in a harsh world.
Industrialized nations have several instruments on which to draw in their relations with other countries. Among these are military might, economic clout and diplomatic capacity.
If their security is threatened by other states or non-state actors, such as drug traffickers and terrorists, they are able to deploy their military; on the economic front, they can apply trade sanctions withdraw financial assistance or institute measures to halt cross-border transactions; in diplomacy, they have well-staffed, well trained and well informed foreign ministries and missions abroad who bargain for their interests. When diplomacy fails, big countries have economic clout and military might on which to fall back.
For small states, such as those in the Caribbean, diplomacy is the only instrument they have to advance their cause and defend their interests in the international community.
In this connection, Caribbean governments should place enormous emphasis on making their diplomatic capacity as strong as possible.
But, there is a growing tendency in many countries of the region to focus diplomacy in the Head of Government. Many Heads of government, already bogged down with urgent and pressing domestic problems have assigned the foreign affairs portfolio to themselves. In doing so, they either do not attend crucial meetings that impact their countries, or they attend without the full understanding of complex issues that only exclusive ministerial responsibility backed by expert analysis allows. In each case, their country’s interest is not well served.
Beyond this, even where governments have appointed foreign ministers, foreign ministries are not seen as vital – or even on par – with ministries concerned with domestic issues. Therefore, the financial and other resources that they get in annual budgets are inadequate to the extremely important job they have to do on behalf of their nations.
Worse yet, little attention appears to be paid to where and why overseas missions should be located, and who would be best to man them. In many cases, governments have followed the traditional road establishing missions where they are now least needed and neglecting capitals and international organizations, such as the World Trade Organization (WTO), where they are most required.
It cannot be in the best interest of any country for its diplomatic missions to be regarded as a pasture to send unwanted nuisances or reward political friends. Diplomacy, as has been pointed out, is a vital tool for small countries and its best brains should be appointed to its service.
There is a most important role for Heads of Government in a nation’s diplomacy. But, it is a role best played after the most careful diplomatic preparation that lays the groundwork for success. Otherwise, what should be the tool that clinches a deal in a blaze of glory will fail like a damp squib. Occasional successful forays by Heads of Government in international and bilateral negotiations should not be mistaken as a prescription for how accomplishment is to be achieved. Often, in these circumstances, the apparent success simply happens to serve the interests of the other government or institution involved.
When the European Union (EU), a grouping of 27 large nations, recently brought their new Constitution into effect, they appointed a Foreign Minister in addition to a President. In effect, what the EU nations did was to strengthen their global diplomatic outreach in trade, economic cooperation and investment. In addition to their own national foreign ministries, they now have the additional services of EU missions around the world, most of which have been beefed-up with additional expert staff.
In this connection, while the recently initialed Economic Union Treaty of the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS) is to be welcomed as the right step forward, it is disappointing that it failed to advance the diplomatic capacity of six small independent states who would most benefit from strengthened and unified diplomacy.
The draft Treaty, which is to be ratified by the parliaments of each country before formal signature and implementation, reads as follows in relation to foreign policy:
“The organisation shall seek to achieve the fullest possible harmonisation of foreign policy among the Member States, to seek to adopt, as far as possible, common positions on international issues, and to establish and maintain, wherever possible, arrangements for joint overseas representation and/or common services”.
Words such as “fullest possible”, “as far as possible” and “wherever possible” are usually inserted in Treaties of this kind where the governments intend to make the least change to the existing situation and where the real intention is to carry on business as usual. The signal that this sends is unfortunate, for the six independent members of the OECS would benefit enormously from a fully joined-up diplomatic service particularly in the present precarious conditions that confront their economies.
They least, of all, can afford layer upon layer of government. Already their tax payers are paying contributions to upkeep both the Caribbean Community and Common Market (CARICOM) Secretariat and the OECS Secretariat. Arguably, they maintain the OECS Secretariat because they believe that participation in it brings them greater strength than they have individually. If that is the case, then surely establishing and strengthening joint diplomatic capacity is not only in their bargaining interest, it would also reduce their individual expenditure on foreign affairs or more effectively focus their spending.
Of course, a major difficulty the OECS faces is their neglect of the requirement of the existing Treaty to harmonize their foreign policies “as far as possible”. Thus, three of the six independent states are members of the Venezuelan-initiated organization, ALBA, and three are not, and three of them have diplomatic relations with China while three maintain formal relations with Taiwan. Only a serious and visionary dialogue, supported by rigorous analysis of their long-term interests, will create a rational policy.
The global political economy is not friendly to small states of even tolerant of them. In a world being remorselessly driven by the interests of the larger and more economically powerful states – in which China and Brazil must now be included with the US, the EU and Japan – Caribbean countries need better and stronger diplomatic capacity to advance their causes and protect their interests.

RACE AND CLASS IN CUBA

WHEN I first returned to the United States in 1982, after living for a year and a half in Cuba, I was eager to share with my ´comrades´ on the left the extent to which racism and class divisions were still a glaring reality in ´Revolutionary Cuba´.
I had visited Cuba for the first time in 1976, when I travelled there with a group of Jamaicans interested in the legal and penal system. As it turned out, we never got even a glimpse of the prison system, but it was a great opportunity to get a first-hand view of other aspects of Cuban society. One of the first things that made an impression on me was the way in which white and mulato Cubans stared at a couple in our group — composed of a very beautiful part Chinese, part Indian and part African girl and a very handsome, very black gentleman.

During this period in my life, I was influenced by the Black Power movement, Marxism-Leninism, Pan-Africanism and Rastafarianism. I was totally enamoured with the Cuban Revolution. I devoured books like Tania, about an East German girl who had been an integral part of the process, works by Che Guevara, and anything I could get my hands on about Cuba. I naively assumed that, since it called itself revolutionary, the government would have incorporated aspects of the international black consciousness movement into both its theory and praxis.
So, as I stayed longer in Cuba, I was very disappointed to find that attitudes towards race and ethnicity were similar to those in the English-speaking Caribbean in the 1950s. I soon realised that the reason the “inter-racial couple” from the Jamaican legal tourism group had been stared at so much, was that their relationship violated the norms of ‘blanqueamiento´, which literally means whitening. It was expected that a girl with the characteristics which I described above would yearn to ´whiten´ herself, or more precisely her progeny, by finding a lighter-hued as opposed to a more negroid sexual partner.
White Cubans prided themselves on having eradicated racism. However, racism to them meant legalised segregation, lynching and other manifestations of the ideology of white supremacy in pre-Civil Rights United States. The fact that there was no longer legalised discrimination in public places was touted to mean that there was no longer racism.
Cuban Racism from a Double Perspective
Marxism-Leninism has often been criticised by those concerned with issues of racial inequality for only emphasising class differences and not examining the ways in which different economic systems have created and perpetuated differences based on phenotype. I soon realised that Cuba was not really a socialist state anyway; that is, one based on true Marxist-Leninist principles. But even if we are to accept that the government was really based on these principles, no serious attempt had been made to root out the true ideological bases of racial injustice.
As an anthropologist, I base my conclusions on techniques of participant observation, which simply means immersing oneself to the greatest degree possible into the society and learning about attitudes, behaviours and practices from the inside. As a woman of mixed racial descent, who is fluent in Spanish, I was in a unique position to capture the ideas and beliefs, ie, the ideology, of Cubans of all different racial classifications. According to popular perceptions, Cubans are usually divided into the following phenotypical groups:
* prieto, which means very black;
* negro, which means black;
* mulato, which means more or less half black, half white;
* moreno, which is a little lighter than mulato, with whiter features;
* jabao, which means with light skin but negroid features;
* indio, which means that one appears to be like an Amerindian, but is actually a light-skinned mulato or darker white;
* trigueno, which is almost the same as moreno or indio, but literally means wheat-coloured;
* blanco, which means white in appearance; and rubio, which is blond.
It is important to emphasise that these categories are not carved in stone. They often overlap, and different individuals will consider the same person to belong to a different category. Also, as the aim of the racial hierarchy in Cuba, and in most of the Hispanic Caribbean and Latin America, is for everyone to gradually whiten themselves or ´mejorar la raza´ — literally improve the race — persons will be ascribed a ´higher´ position in the racial hierarchy if the observer likes them or wants to ingratiate him or herself with the observed individual.
During my first trip to Cuba, I also observed that those of similar phenotype tended to date each other, almost without exception. That is, a mulato claro would be seen with a mulata clara, a rubio with a rubia, a prieto with a prieta, etc. I found this strange, expecting that, in a society moving towards colour blindness, one would not find people sticking to their own precise category in their choice of a partner. When someone of a darker complexion did go out with someone lighter, they were generally considered to have really ‘improved’ themselves (adelantar la raza- to improve the race).
I was also disappointed to see that there were absolutely no contemporary books on blacks in Cuba, or under the topic of Afro-Cuba, in bookstores. The exception was books by Fernando Ortiz, a pre-Revolutionary ethnologist and folklorist. Whites claimed that there were virtually no blacks in higher government positions because blacks had not really participated in the Revolution. I determined that I would find an opportunity to return to Cuba and to really assess the situation methodically.
As luck would have it, my home in Kingston, Jamaica, was right next to the Cuban embassy, so I went there often. When I informed them excitedly that I wanted to study blacks in Cuba, I was told that I should go to Oriente, the Eastern part of the country, as that was where all of the blacks were. I would come to learn that this was an expression of the white Cuban tendency to claim that all blacks were descendants of Jamaican and other West Indian immigrants to Oriente. When I would protest that the Spanish had lots of slaves and that all of the blacks could not possibly be descendants of West Indian immigrants, known derogatorily as pichones (literally blackbirds), I was told that all of the ones who had come as slaves had inter-married, as the Spanish were so much less racist than the British. White Cubans expressed sympathy for the Jamaicans who were under the British, who did not mix with them, supposedly, and so the black population there was not able to dilute itself and move up the racial hierarchy.
I returned to Cuba on several occasions between 1976 and 1981, to pursue a Master’s degree in Public Health. I was part of a delegation of persons of American-Indian descent who visited the island in 1980. We met with Fidel´s personal physician who told us about an International Health Master’s programme, which was open to foreigners. I applied and got accepted. Now I felt that I would really get a chance to see what it was like to live as a mulata in revolutionary Cuba, and I was correct.
While waiting for the course to begin, I lived with a white woman who was a militante (militant) in the Communist party and who lived in the elite Miramar area of Havana. She prided herself on being very liberal as she had mulato friends. However, she warned me not to go to see the Conjunto Foklorico Nacional, as ‘esta gente tiene enfermedades’ — those people have illnesses. I realised that she assumed that I would be doing more with the members of the Conjunto than just participating in their cultural events, as she was clearly referring to sexually transmitted diseases. When I did go to the performances of the Conjunto, there was hardly anyone in the audience. As I stayed longer in Cuba, I realised that no one, except for a very small group of people, was the slightest bit interested in this vital expression of national culture, particularly Afro-Cuban culture.
When I actually began the course, I moved into the Instituto de Desarollo de la Salud — the Institute of Health Development — in Arroyo Naranjo, near to Parque Lenin, on the outskirts of Havana. The very first night that I was there, I was thrilled to hear drums in the distance. I asked my fellow Cuban students, who were, with the exception of two mulato students, all white, if I could go and hear this expression of Afro-Cuban culture. I was told that what I was hearing was part of Afro-Cuban religious ceremonies, to which only anti-sociales (those who were against the Revolution) accrued.
A Marxist view of Race and Culture
It did not take me long to realise that ´culture´ in Cuba meant European culture. This perception was not only a result of a history of European colonialisation and slavery, but was also a reflection of the tenets of Marxism-Leninism, as promoted under the Cuban so-called socialist system. The text by Constantinov, used in all educational institutions on the island, and called Fundamentos de Marxismo-Leninismo (Fundamentals of Marxism-Leninism), supported a Darwinist view of social evolution, under which societies progressed from primitive communism, through feudalism and capitalism, and on to socialism and communism. The problem with this approach, as far as perpetuating erroneous views of human history, is that it places all of African traditional societies at the lower rungs of evolution and the European societies near the top.
Fidel Castro himself when he speaks about ´cultura´ in his interminable speeches, uses the term as synonymous with education, as opposed to using it in the way that we use culture in English. Throughout the years, he has often referred to how the Revolution improved the lot of ´gente de baja cultura´ — which can be taken to mean either people of a low educational level or people who are lacking in culture, which anthropologists will tell you do not exist, as all people have some kind of culture and it is ethnocentric to arrange these cultures, conceptually speaking, in a hierarchical fashion.
Part of the reason for the Eurocentric concept of culture which is so pervasive in Cuba is that the Cuban Revolution occurred in 1959, and has remained relatively isolated from world intellectual currents since then. Only information that the government wants to enter the island does so. So all of the changes in mentality and practices that occurred in the United States, Brazil and throughout the region, during the 1960s until the present, have only recently filtered into the island and into the cultural framework of inhabitants. Despite the indisputable limitations of the Black Power movement in the United States, and the more recent growth of a similar phenomenon in Brazil and in other parts of Latin America, the transformation of Eurocentric views of history, culture and aesthetics has been invaluable in successfully attacking manifestations of cultural imperialism. Black began to be seen as something beautiful and not something that needed to be diluted in order to be acceptable. Numerous studies revealed the richness of African culture and the important contributions of African history to world culture and social development. Yet in Cuba, when manifestations of this new consciousness timidly emerged, they were brutally repressed, despite current government claims that concepts of negritude — a movement with roots in the Francophone world, which promoted black civilisation and culture — were encouraged.
Young idealistic black militants from the United States, who fled racism in their homeland, looking for a more racially just society in Cuba, were treated in a hostile fashion by immigration and other government authorities on the island. These militants, many of whom were hijackers, were firmly immersed in ideas of socialism and world revolution, so it is not as if the government could, in all fairness, categorise them as counter-revolutionaries. However, when I lived in Cuba, and even today, anyone who does not agree with the regime´s policies is branded counter-revolutionary and a danger to national security. I met several of these black Americans while I was living in Cuba and was deeply disturbed by the way in which their spirits had been wounded and their idealism challenged by their treatment at the hands of the Cuban government.

See Part 2 next week.
Dr Gayle McGarrity is a professor at the University of South Florida.

A Model for Haiti

As if disasters aren’t bad enough on their own, they often precede an even more chilling aftermath, argues Canadian journalist Naomi Klein. In The Shock Doctrine , published in 2007, Klein contends that disasters leave populations vulnerable to carefully calculated policy changes that would never pass muster under normal democratic circumstances. The following is an excerpt from the conclusion of The Shock Doctrine, outlining steps other groups have taken to prevent “disaster capitalism” from prevailing post-crisis.

espite all the successful attempts to exploit the 2004 tsunami, memory also proved to be an effective tool of resistance in some areas where it struck, particularly in Thailand. Dozens of coastal villages were flattened by the wave, but unlike in Sri Lanka, many Thai settlements were successfully rebuilt within months. The difference did not come from the government. Thailand’s politicians were just as eager as those elsewhere to use the storm as an excuse to evict fishing people and hand over land tenure to large resorts. Yet what set Thailand apart was that villagers approached all government promises with intense skepticism and refused to wait patiently in camps for an official reconstruction plan. Instead, within weeks, hundreds of villagers engaged in what they called land “reinvasions.”

They marched past the armed guards on the payroll of developers, tools in hand, and began marking off the sites where their old houses had been. In some cases, reconstruction began immediately. “I am willing to bet my life on this land, because it is ours,” said Ratree Kongwatmai, who lost most of her family in the tsunami.

The most daring reinvasions were performed by Thailand’s indigenous fishing peoples called the Moken, or “sea gypsies.” After centuries of disenfranchisement, the Moken had no illusions that a benevolent state would give them a decent piece of land in exchange for the coastal properties that had been seized. So, in one dramatic case, the residents of the Ban Tung Wah Village in the Phang Nga province “gathered themselves together and marched right back home, where they encircled their wrecked village with rope, in a symbolic gesture to mark their land ownership,” explained a report by a Thai NGO. “With the entire community camping out there, it became difficult for the authorities to chase them away, especially given the intense media attention being focused on tsunami rehabilitation.” In the end, the villagers negotiated a deal with the government to give up part of their oceanfront property in exchange for legal security on the rest of their ancestral land. Today, the rebuilt village is a showcase of Moken culture, complete with museum, community centre, school and market. “Now, officials from the sub-district come to Ban Tung Wah to learn about ‘people-managed tsunami rehabilitation’ while researchers and university students turn up there by the bus-full to study ‘indigenous people’s wisdom.’”

All along the Thai coast where the tsunami hit, this kind of direct-action reconstruction is the norm. The key to their success, community leaders say, is that “people negotiate for their land rights from a position of being in occupation”; some have dubbed the practice “negotiating with your hands.” Thailand’s survivors have also insisted on a different kind of aid—rather than settling for handouts, they have demanded the tools to carry out their own reconstruction. Dozens of Thai architecture students and professors, for example, volunteered to help community members design their new houses and draw their own rebuilding plans; master boat builders trained villagers to make their own, more sophisticated fishing vessels. The results are communities stronger than they were before the wave. The houses on stilts built by Thai villagers in Ban Tung Wah and Baan Nairai are beautiful and sturdy; they are also cheaper, larger and cooler than the sweltering prefab cubicles on offer there from foreign contractors. A manifesto drafted by a coalition of Thai tsunami survivor communities explains the philosophy: “The rebuilding work should be done by local communities themselves, as much as possible. Keep contractors out, let communities take responsibility for their own housing.”

Uniting all these examples of people rebuilding for themselves is a common theme: participants say they are not just repairing buildings but healing themselves. It makes perfect sense. The universal experience of living through a great shock is the feeling of being completely powerless: in the face of awesome forces, parents lose the ability to save their children, spouses are separated, homes—places of protection—become death traps. The best way to recover from helplessness turns out to be helping—having the right to be part of a communal recovery. “Reopening our school says this is a very special community, tied together by more than location but by spirituality, by bloodlines and by a desire to come home,” said the assistant principal of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Elementary School in the Lower Ninth Ward of New Orleans.

Caribbean Tourism Report Q1 2010 – New Report Published

New report provides detailed analysis of the Travel market

Published on January 21, 2010.

The Caribbean suffered from a major slowdown in tourist arrivals in 2009, bearing out our gloomy prognosis for the year. With most countries now having reported arrivals figures for H109 and some for Q309 as well, only four have experienced increased tourism arrivals: Cuba, with arrivals growth of 3.3% year-on-year (y-o-y); Curacao with 1.5% y-o-y; Guyana with 5.7% y-o-y and Jamaica with 4.1% y-o-y. Although these figures are below pre-2008 levels, they are particularly impressive given the severe declines experienced by other countries in the region. The British Virgin Islands recorded a 25.0% y-o-y drop in arrivals, followed by Anguilla (22.6%), Montserrat (17.5%), Bermuda (17.0%) and Bonaire (16.7%).

Although these figures show heavy declines, they appear to have stabilised and we believe the tourism industry is past the worst. The US and European economies are beginning to recover and this revival is likely to pick up in 2010. We expect the Caribbean tourism industry to lag this recovery by six months or more, given the amount of time required for confidence in the economic upturn to take root. As such, arrivals are likely to remain subdued in the first half of 2010 and recover more strongly towards the end of the year, particularly after the hurricane season. While this recovery will not be a return to pre-2008 levels of growth, visitor arrival figures should steadily improve from the end of 2010.

Focus On St Vincent and the Grenadines

St Vincent and the Grenadines is one of the Caribbean’s most quintessential holiday destinations. As a result, it has historically been one of the most popular destinations in the Caribbean as a second home or retirement location, and also as a high-end holiday resort. It has suffered during the tourism industry downturn, with arrivals slumping by 13.2% y-o-y in the first three quarters of the year to 55,591, While not as bad as the downturn on islands such as Anguilla and Montserrat, St Vincent and the Grenadines is heavily dependent on tourism revenues and the downturn in arrivals has restricted the government budget and increased unemployment.

British Airways Strike Threatens Caribbean Christmas Season

On December 14 2009, the cabin crew of British Airways (BA) voted to hold strikes over the Christmas holiday season, starting on December 22 and running until January 2. This will have major repercussions for the Caribbean tourist industry. BA flies non-stop to 13 destinations in the region, including in Jamaica and the Dominican Republic and operates 45 flights per week. The reduction or cancellation of these flights over Christmas one of the Caribbean’s peak holiday seasons will affect hotels, resorts, cruise operators and smaller airlines in the region. BA is a major route into the region, with smaller airlines connecting other Caribbean islands to its 13 destinations. This means that all the islands in the Caribbean will suffer tourist cancellations, not just the 13 with direct BA connections. In addtion, cruise operators will lose a number of customers who would have arrived by plane, reducing revenues and arrivals at stopoff points on the cruise itinerary.