|
|
|
 September 29, 2008: A few hundred miles from the southern
tip of Florida, the people of Haiti are suffering, and primarily
from circumstances outside of their control. Poverty, hunger
and homelessness are widespread. Jobs are scarce and access to
even the most basic medical care is rare.But on top of these day-to-day challenges, the people of Haiti spent almost the entire month of August battling storm after storm after storm. Hurricanes Gustav, Hanna, and Ike as well as tropical storm Fay waged an unrelenting fury of wind and rain on this calm, tropical island. The wreckage of these storms is undeniable and absolutely human. More than 150,000 Haitians have been displaced from their homes and communities. More than 100,000 are living in shelters. Acres of rice, the primary staple of the country, have been flooded; farming and construction equipment has been destroyed; bridges and roads wiped out. In all approximately 850,000 Haitians had their lives uprooted by these storms. And more than 400 people have died. And these are just initial numbers. The United States has a political, economic, and, most importantly, a moral obligation to step forward and help the people of Haiti not only in the short term, but into the future. In the short term, we need to help Haitians without food, medical care, housing, and basic supplies. I strongly support the $200 million in aid the United States government has provided thus far. These are resources that will go directly to feeding the hungry, caring for the sick, and housing the homeless. I also want to praise the individuals and countries who stepped up in a time of need to contribute millions of dollars to ease this humanitarian crisis. But as we feed and clothe and house, we also need to think beyond this crisis. Now is the time to invest resources to help stabilize Haitian economic and political structure, protect its farms, and employ its people. I proudly join my colleagues in supporting an emergency appropriation of $100 million for disaster assistance. These resources will help the Western hemisphere's poorest country rebuild roads, bridges, and other critical infrastructure. These projects will provide jobs and stability to a region that has been devastated. This is a smart investment. But more importantly, it is the right thing to do. Together, we can help Haitian people overcome these challenging times.
His written Opinion arose from the controversy surrounding the EPA and increasing alarm in Africa, the Caribbean, the Pacific and the EU over the adverse effects the agreement would have on the development and autonomy of developing countries.  The international
Christian organisation, Christian Aid, has declared that "far
from being a key concern" development "actually appears
to have been, at the very least, a marginal issue for negotiators
on both sides. What is this going to mean for farmers? What is
this going to mean for women and children? What is this going
to mean for the poorest sectors in Caribbean society? The fact
that there are no clear development benchmarks integrated into
the agreements seems to indicate that the powerful partner in
this relationship is much less concerned with development than
with furthering its own interests. It is the relationship of
the bully to the bullied - not that of equal partners in a responsible
and fruitful relationship". Guyana and Haiti, two of the Caribbean countries on whose behalf the EPA was initialled, have indicated their reluctance to sign the agreement in its present form which covers not only trade in goods, but also trade in services as well as the "Singapore issues" government procurement, trade facilitation, investment and competition policy which have not been agreed in global trade talks and which all Caribbean countries had joined other nations in resisting at the WTO. After a national consultation in Guyana involving political parties, trade unions, the private sector and religious bodies, Guyana's President Bharat Jagdeo was mandated to try to convince Caribbean governments to sign a "goods only" agreement. The participants in the consultation were mindful that the EU has threatened that, unless Caribbean governments signed the agreement, GSP treatment would be applied to the region's crucial exports such as sugar, rice and rum, and tariffs would be imposed on Caribbean bananas that would make all these goods uncompetitive. Experts from various fields have made it clear that the EPA would be compatible with WTO rules as long as it covered trade in goods. WTO compatibility does not require an agreement on trade in services or the "Singapore issues". The fact that the EPA was initialled by the Regional Negotiating Machinery (RNM) on behalf of the Caribbean states was not a commitment to sign it in its present form, nor was it an obligation under international law, treaty law or WTO rules. And, as Sir Shridath Ramphal has argued and EU representatives have agreed, Caribbean countries "are not precluded by international law, by treaty law (or WTO rules), from renegotiating that initialled agreement. This much is clear from general international law and more specifically from the 1970 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties". Now Dr Bartels states unequivocally that it is legally possible to sign a "good only" agreement. He gives three options, two of which are unproblematic legally. The two are: * amendment of the EPA (by Protocol) to provide that for some Cariforum States non-goods parts of the EPA do not apply This option is the most conventional, both in terms of treaty practice (c.f., the EU opt-outs on the Schengen area and the Euro) and in terms of WTO compatibility. This option depends on the agreement on all EPA parties (i.e., the EU, the EU Member States, and all Cariforum States). * separate agreement providing for partial (i.e., goods-only) provisional application of the EPA by some CF States It depends on the agreement of the EU but not of the other CF States (or the EU Member States). Dr Bartels identifies some difficulties in adjusting the overall EPA text to cater for countries that might opt for a "goods only" agreement, but they are difficulties that could be overcome by drafting. For instance with respect to development cooperation, he argues: "To the extent that these Chapters are not applied, these provisions on development cooperation will also not be applied. Even so, this does not prevent the EU from continuing to provide development cooperation in these areas on an autonomous (or otherwise agreed) basis". The WTO compatibility of a "goods only" agreement is known and acknowledged by the EU whatever its representatives may say to the Caribbean. Evidence of this is that the Pacific countries in a letter dated June 11th 2008 from their lead spokesman to EU trade Commissioner, Peter Mandelson, proposed that the EPA negotiations "focus on finalizing outstanding issues related to the trade in goods component and development, with services and most trade related areas deferred for future consideration". In his reply of July 19th 2008, Mandelson stated, "We are open to the idea that some Pacific countries may decide not to make commitments in certain areas due to their specific circumstances". So, it is possible to sign a "goods only" agreement that is perfectly compatible with WTO rules. As Professors Norman Girvan and Vaughan Lewis and Ambassador Havelock Brewster have said signing a "goods only" agreement "will remove whatever legal justification there may for the threat by the EU to impose tariffs on Cariforum exports". They have also rightly noted that deferring negotiations on services and the Singapore issues would eliminate "several contentious features of the EPA" including "areas of incompatibility with the Caricom Single Market and Economy (CSME)". The problem is that some Caribbean countries have been persuaded that breaking ranks with other developing countries on services and the Singapore issues is in their interest, and the fallacy or otherwise of that belief will only be proven by irreversible experience. Editor's Note: Sir Ronald Sanders is a business executive and former Caribbean diplomat who publishes widely on small states in the global community. Reponses to: ronaldsanders29@hotmail.com
However with the recent economic boom in India, more and more Indians from the country itself are migrating outwards towards bigger and better opportunities for them and their families, and some are realizing they were not the first generations to have left the land of the Ganga and Yamuna on a massive scale. There were descendents of people from India long labouring in countries far away creating their own identity of being an Indian. For over 170 years Indo-Caribbean people along with those who went to Africa and elsewhere under British dominated India have been taking Indian culture to the next level and sometimes fusing their cultural passions with the other local and immigrant peoples adding to the diversity of the land. A non-resident Indian (NRI) is an Indian citizen who has migrated to another country, a person of Indian origin who resides=2 0outside India. They are also known as the overseas or expatriate Indian. In the most common terms this means people born in India or who've taken citizenship of other countries along with their families. A person of Indian Origin (PIO) is usually a person who is not a citizen of India. The NRI and the PIO, these are the two types of Indians you can find y ourself between in the Western world. These are two groups of Indians barely spoken about and whose presence are only whispered amongst those who count themselves apart of the 'Copper-coloured race.' The NRI define being Indian by your birthplace or jussole while the PIO or diasporic Indian define being Indian by blood, sweat and ancestry, known in Latin as jussangria. But what defines a person as Indian? Is it our colour? Is it a passport legally binding you to the country of India or is it a shared cultural background that not only surpasses all of recorded civilization but includes the blood, sweat and tears we shed together so that one day we can call our history our heritage. According to some of the NRI or B Indians this is not so, we Indians in the West are a watered down, washed up, thoroughly mixed, morally, spiritually and culturally confused group of beings who are by their standards not Indian enough that20they must quickly take their children back to India to be married to a 'Real Indian.' Anyone laughing yet? Well as absurd and hysterical to the non-Indian-origi nating peoples who are reading this, it's true. When people from India visit our shores, us 'lower class,' Indians immediately rush with such ecstasy to greet them. We garland them with great honours and treat them with the very best we can offer all in exchange for stories and experiences from those who walked on the grounds of the Gods. After all our holy scriptures say we must treat our guests like God. However, what usually happens is that most of them accept our hospitality, enjoy the provisions we've made as an Indian community in the Caribbean and then snigger and turn up their faces at the very thought of having to share any kind of heritage with us. At this I must wonder, is it really because as Indo-Caribbean people we no longer speak Hindi on the streets or is it because we can't seem to muster up the courage to put these people in their place. In fact in India where Hindi is on ly one of 325 languages, the Indians there look down at those who cannot speak English as illiterate and unworthy while we in the West are building schools and importing gurus to teach our children the language we call our own, now tell me who's really Indian? Who really knows what it means to be Indian? Those who count themselves lucky to be able to speak the=2 0language of their former rulers or those who feel a sense of pride in hearing their children utter even a few words in the tongue of their ancestors. The NRI'S concept of Indian is limited to their nationality and Indian citizenship but diasporic sangria Indians base their designation of Indian by one who has paid a heavy price to maintain his Indian-hood. The demographics of India is astounding, it has a population of over 1.13 billon people and comprises nearly one-sixth the world's population. India has more than two thousand ethnic groups and almost every major religion is represented. Only the entire continent of Africa exceeds the linguistic, cultural and genetic diversity of the single nation of India. As the Indian government own Singhvi commission notes, "the sun never sets on the Indian Diaspora." However, in India people see themselves as more belonging to certain re gions than being Indian. If a person of Indian ethnicity was asked if he was from India he might say yes and then quickly identify with his region as Gujurati, Punjabi, Bengali, Kashmiri, Rajput or Goan. Not too long ago, during the 70's and 60's, communal tensions arose between Sikhs and Hindus as the Sikhs fought for their own Sikh majority state in what is known as the Punjab region of India. They wanted to create a homeland called Khalistan. In recent times there are Indians in the region of Kashmir who would rather see the land in the hands of Pakistan as with the well-known case of the Kashmir conflict between both nuclear-armed countries. There are so-called Indians fighting for Independence from India herself and yet the diasporic Indian stands with eyes lowered when these Indian nationals question us about our "Indianity." Off course this in no way means Indians from India are not patriotic to India as a country. In fact tell that to the 21 Sikh soldiers who held out against 10 000 Afghan militants because there was no one else to help stave off an attack on the Indian border. A feat compared only to the Spartans at the battle of Thermopylae. To put it in the simplest terms, the PIO Indians know that as descendents of Bharat Mata we are as attached and patriotic to the land that we see as our spiritual home as the people who left it yesterday. T he PIO's do not need indecisive nationals to come to our countries and tell us what it means to be called Indian. In our countries the streets define us as Indian because of our struggle to survive in the West against racism and prejudices; politically, socially, culturally and economically. Among the many countries we live in, socially we are grouped as Indians through our celebrations, organizations, culture, religions, economic aspirations and the colour of our skin. In the West, being Indian is not identified by regional and linguistic loyalties but by the legacy we share as sons and daughters of Mother India. However when the legal citizens of India migrate to countries where people of Indian origin have been living and struggling under the banner of "Indian," defining and shaping the landscape around them to the distant echoes of the land of the Vindhyas and Himalayas, they chastise and abuse us for not being able to speak Hindi or because we prefer to cook curry duck and dhal instead of chicken tikka masala then I must ask them... When they came to our shores, did they feel welcome to see Indians who built temples, Indians who burnt their backs in the sun to keep their culture flourishing worlds away? Did they feel at ease knowing that the essence of India was there to welcome them with open arms? Did they think their certain inalienable rights to participate in society fully recognized as one of the people who contributed to its culture sprang out of nowhere? Do these people fully understand what it took to leave the land of amrit and moksha and travel to a foreign land and build a strong foundation for Indian culture enduring harsh British dominance and then African hegemony? These NRI's actually have the audacity to look down on us because we don't have the same passports. I guess maybe it's because they haven't the faintest idea how many of our grandparents refused schooling from missionaries who blatantly asked them to chose between a proper English Education or their religions. After all that's said and done, I only want to ask, "Would the real Indian please stand up?" In conclusion, there is a law that governs most of India; in fact the Indians believe it to be universal and eternal. This law is karma and one day karma will have the last laugh. Why? Because the very Indians who are recently migrating out of India are now raisi ng families in the West and future generations of NRI's will be growing up to become PIO's. In the Caribbean we have an amazing heritage that lasted for almost two centuries and will continue to prosper with the PIO descendents who have been given the torch of Indian heritage. I fear the fate is not the same for our NRI brothers; some of the NRI first generation children in the United States and Canada are already trying desperately to drop what they consider, third world traditions for more hip and cool standards. There are a billion people in India yet; years from now when the then NRI Indians approach these descendents in America and Canada and they question their indianhood, spiritual connection and ties to the motherland they will understand our pain. We PIO's are not begging for any kind of recognition in being Indian. While people in India are still struggling to bring together an Indian identity, we have already done that but, after20170 years of toiling and etching our legacy in stone how dare any foreigner walk into our lands and question our right to call ourselves Indian! Editor's Note: Vassan Ramracha is an educator and community activist who splits his time between the US and Trinidad & Tobago.
And while it may be tempting for some political advisors to "score one and thump his chest" for their own selfish reasons and personal aggrandisement, it was inappropriate for Barbados' Prime Minister to show such bias and favour on a political stage where the benefits are zero and the costs may be incalculable. The irony of Thompson's action is that it is diametrically opposed to the profound and everlasting words of Barbados' most revered Prime Minister Errol Barrow himself a Democrat that we should be "friends of all and satellites of none". This was the dictum upon which not only Barbados but apparently all CARICOM countries rested their foreign policy positions. Unacceptable To practise such partisan politics outside of our own geographical boundaries is downright unacceptable; but it has crept into our regional politics with prime ministers maliciously interfering by direct, unabashed action or more covert action designed to influence the outcome of an election in another CARICOM country. "We are not getting involved in the domestic politics of the United States," Thompson said, by way of explaining his presence in Denver. "We could not influence the outcome of the United States elections even if we wanted to." A malodorous red herring most foul, Sir! Having said that such display of bias or favour to another political party in the region is unacceptable, I must also recall that the journeys of several political parties are historically linked, and that in some instances, eventual prime ministers met while studying in Britain during the mid-years of the last century. In such circumstances, lasting bonds were formed and consequent cooperation was but a natural extension of such affection. There can be no good reason, however, for Prime Minister Thompson to have attended the convention of a political party in the United States unless he attended both. The historical significance of what Barack Obama has so far achieved is not lost on us as a people or as a nation; but it should not be celebrated in any political corridor in the United States at midnight or at any other time. No evidence Beyond the emotion, there is no evidence that Obama's foreign policy positions are favourable to Barbados and other countries in the region with respect to international trade or international business. On the contrary, Obama opposes American firms creating jobs offshore, and opposes businesses establishing offshore in the pursuit of paying lower taxes. The stark reality is that a Democrat in the White House is no guarantee that the region's geopolitical position will be more respected or rewarded. Prime Minister Thompson is only too aware of the bigger picture and should not have been sucked into such a personal public political display with respect to the United States.  It is often said
that a picture is worth a thousand words, and so it was telling
when the local Press carried the images of three powerful black
American political figures, along with Barbados' Prime Minister
at the Democratic Convention. The irony is that one of those powerful black political figures known to Barbadians, is Robert (Bob) Johnson, the BET founder and the world's first self-made black billionaire, who openly and heavily supported Hillary Clinton in the primaries against Obama. It is this same Johnson who early in June launched a campaign to persuade Obama to offer the vice-presidential slot on the Democratic ticket to Clinton. According to CNN, a day after the final two primaries, Johnson sent a letter to House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn (also in the Press pix) to lobby the Congressional Black Caucus to endorse Clinton as Obama's running mate "for the sake of party unity". This is the same Johnson, the network noted, who created a stir and drew wide criticism for comments he made at a Clinton campaign stop in Columbia, South Carolina, that some interpreted as a reference to Obama's acknowledged drug use as a teenager. In defending the Clintons' record on civil rights, Johnson said: "To me, as an African American, I am frankly insulted that the Obama campaign would imply that we are so stupid that we would think Hillary and Bill Clinton, who have been deeply and emotionally involved in black issues since Barack Obama was doing something in the neighbourhood and I won't say what he was doing, but he said it in the book when they have been involved." "Many people believe Johnson was referring to Obama's drug use," CNN noted, "which the senator publicly wrote about in his memoirs, though Johnson later said he was not." Johnson's backpedal? Nature of politics. "My comments today were referring to Barack Obama's time spent as a community organiser, and nothing else. Any other suggestion is simply irresponsible and incorrect." Right. It may be said that such is the nature of politics, in that notwithstanding the historical significance of a black man rising to be nominated by a major political party for the presidency of the United States a mere 40 years after the death of Dr Martin Luther King Bob Johnson still supported Clinton. It certainly is his right to choose, but for him to be left on the wrong side of this issue was itself instructive if not historic. Perhaps Thompson's visit to Denver had more to do with meeting the likes of Bob Johnson than it had to do with showing open support for Obama, and therein may lie the political benefits of the trip. In his own words: "I am not one to gloat and beat my chest, but Barbados could not have paid for the exposure it received, not only to American and international media, but more importantly at this time, the access that it has to some of the most powerful lobbyists and decision-makers in America. He also said that "more and more countries such as Barbados and the islands in the Caribbean are going to have to turn to influential lobbyists, including networking on Capitol Hill, to have our concerns raised and interests represented". Political judgement, like all other areas of life that require decision-making, is enhanced with experience; but it does not always require experience to know right from wrong, especially when the consequences can be far-reaching. It is not enough to be calculating in every political action sometimes even politics demand commonsense to be put above common interest. Maybe the penalty for Thompson's obvious lack of judgement may not be severe this time around, even if the Republicans retake the White House . Private positions But a lesson has to be learnt: the holder of a public office, especially a Prime Minister, is not always free to let his private positions reflect a public preference, particularly when it can be interpreted to be the collective will of the people. The desire of political figures to posture is fraught with danger, and that danger multiplies in direct proportion to the power of the office. In the local arena, there is none more powerful than a Prime Minister, and it behooves the holder of that office to bring good judgement to bear, which recognises, at one at the same time, the potency of the power and the privileges of the post. The danger is best averted in balancing the power and the privileges.
No doubt you recall the sensational allegation of rape an American woman filed against Premier Misick last March. And, no doubt, few people believed him when he issued the following denial: I strongly and categorically deny these false and outrageous allegations... I am confident that I will be completely and fully exonerated." However, the signed statement of another woman -- whom I shall refer to only by her first name, Vanessa -- tends to corroborate the Premier's denial. Not least because she claims to have not only witnessed but also participated in the sexual acts that gave rise to the allegations.  Specifically, Vanessa
states that she and the Premier began a sexual relationship in
Paris sometime in February. Further, that she was a houseguest
at his residence in TCI on March 28 when the alleged rape occurred.
She confirms that the Premier's wife, First Lady LisaRaye, was
traveling at the time. Vanessa states that the Premier threw a party at which "everyone was having a good time drinking and singing and going into the pool." And that at some point, just she and the Premier's accuser whom I shall refer to only by her first name, Cynthia - ended up in the pool together. Vanessa states that after a little girl talk, Cynthia suggested they get naked. She notes here that fellow partiers "Mike Pernod and Andrew Ashcroft walked by the pool at one point and saw them but left after saying hello." Vanessa states that Cynthia then "surprised" her with a kiss on the lips. And that they then proceeded to engage in lesbian sex acts that "went on for a long time." Vanessa states that at some point the Premier arrived and saw them in flagrante delicto. Further, that she invited him to join in the fun and that he took off his clothes and jumped right in. At this point, she claims that their ménage-a-trois involved her having "sexual contact even while Cynthia was having sexual intercourse with the Premier." Vanessa states, more to the point, that: "...at no time during their sexual encounter did she hear any complaints from Cynthia...." Vanessa then states that after a while, they "all agreed to continue inside the guesthouse," but soon they all fell asleep. Vanessa states that she heard the Premier get up and leave the next morning. And that when Cynthia finally got up Vanessa "asked how she was feeling and started to talk about all the sex with her and the Premier." Vanessa states that she was "very hurt" when Cynthia became "uptight and agitated"; especially when Cynthia insisted that: "...she didn't remember anything about that and she has a boyfriend and... she doesn't do that..." Vanessa ends her statement by noting that "the Premier along with Ashcroft came to the guesthouse" later that morning. And that after pleasantries, during which "Cynthia didn't say anything" to the Premier about being raped, Ashcroft drove her to her hotel at Nikki Beach. And that's the material thrust of her statement! (Incidentally, I have omitted the more pornographic parts of her statement in the interest of public decency.) Of course, acquaintance rape (or date rape) is notoriously difficult to prosecute as the prosecutor in the William Kennedy Smith case can readily attest. But this is because such "she said, he said" cases rarely have eyewitness testimony that can corroborate either the allegation of the accuser or the denial of the accused. In this case, I can't imagine any prosecutor filing charges, let alone winning a conviction, against the Premier given Vanessa's statement. Moreover, it renders waiting for FBI forensic evidence a complete waste of time since any finding would be entirely consistent with consensual sex. Which brings me to TCI Attorney General Kurt Defreitas; because TCIanders have been waiting anxiously for over five months for AG Defreitas to either charge the Premier or announce that there is insufficient evidence to do so. Moreover, I believe there is not only compelling public interest in putting this matter to rest, but also a categorical imperative to remove the cloud of suspicion from our Premier if prosecuting him has virtually no prospect of success. That said, I am acutely mindful of widespread suspicion that the Premier paid off Cynthia (with either millions of US dollars or acres of Crown land) to recant her allegations. And I appreciate that many will immediately suspect that he paid Vanessa to provide this exculpatory statement as well. However, the problem with these suspicions is that, even if true, the alleged payoffs would expose the Premier only to charges for witness tampering and obstruction of justice. Because they would also fatally compromise any indictment against him for rape since Cynthia's credibility as a victim, having accepted the payoff, would be irremediably impeached. Accordingly, I urge AG Defeitas to quell the fury of speculation over this rape case by issuing an immediate statement either assuring the public that there is just cause to continue the investigation, or conceding that there is not. In addition, it behooves him to indicate if Vanessa's statement has already been factored into the investigation, or if it constitutes newly discovered evidence which might finally compel him to drop the allegations against the Premier - as I believe justice now demands. That said, I also feel obliged to urge AG Defreitas to re-examine his decision not to prosecute the Premier on assault and obstruction of justice charges stemming from his alleged assault of Mr. Arthur Robinson MP last year. Because I believe there is (was?) sufficient (direct and circumstantial) evidence in that case to convict him. Not to mention that, arguably, there is more compelling public interest in holding the Premier to account for his alleged assault of Robinson than for his alleged rape of Cynthia. NOTE: I am reliably informed that members of the Commission of Inquiry into government corruption in the TCI are currently conducting extensive forensic investigations into the business and banking activities of government officials and other suspect individuals. Furthermore, that this phase of the Inquiry will continue for several more weeks -- at which time select individuals will be invited to give oral testimony. But bear in mind that this Commission will have access to all of the evidence TCIslanders submitted to the UK Foreign Affairs Committee a few months ago. Editor's Note: Anthony L. Hall is a descendant of the Turks & Caicos Islands, international lawyer and political consultant - headquartered in Washington DC - who publishes his own weblog, The iPINIONS Journal, at http://ipjn.com offering commentaries on current events from a Caribbean perspective.
Although Cash Gifting Programs seem to have taken the Internet by storm recently, cash gifting itself has been doing "good" for many, many years. The Hispanic, Asian and Jewish communities, among others, have been practicing the custom of cash gifting as a form of charitable assistance to help other members of their communities in paying bills, or even starting a new business. They do this based on the simple concept of "Charity Begins At Home." Compared to the cash gifting websites that only boast of how much money they have earned or rather, have been gifted, this spiritual concept of charitable cash gifting is certainly, and deservingly, more authentic. Many people the world over, have been aided by cash gifting and have been able to pay off their debts, send their children to schools and universities, pay medical bills and start new lives for themselves. True prosperity and abundance can be felt only by a generous being. In Judaism, tzedakah refers to the religious obligation to perform charity which Judaism emphasizes is an important part of living a spiritual life; Jewish tradition argues that the second highest form of tzedakah is to anonymously give donations to unknown recipients. In the Asian Community, the emphasis of cash gifting has always been on helping family members first and then the community at large. Asians typically give because of their understanding that benevolence, compassion, interdependence, and basic respect for humankind are necessary ingredients to living, first in their families, then in their own ethnic communities, and then in the greater society." The Hispanic community holds dear many of the principles as both Jewish and Asian communities in that it is believed that cash gifting provides benefits to both donor and to the recipient. The donor receives a sense of comfort in knowing that his or her cash gifts may actually make up for past misdeeds, and the feeling of being right with the world (or with God). The recipients of cash gifting are said to benefit from improved health, a productive livelihood, richer cultural experiences, and even greater opportunities to improve themselves. Variations of this decidedly generous spirit can be found in both English and Spanish-speaking Caribbean groups through the "Su-Su" or "Socie," meaning social circle. Typically in this type of social circle, individual members in small or large groups come together to contribute to a collective pot on a weekly/monthly basis. At the week/monthly deadline, one person in the circle is selected, either scheduled or random, to receive the entire grant to fulfill a business or household need. The gifting cycle then begins anew until every member in the group has received his/her amount of the collective pot. These circles can be short-term or long-term depending upon the specific or ongoing needs of the group. In New York, where more than 40% of the population is foreign born, the "socie" is alive and well. Recently, a group of car service drivers created a socie in which each member contributed toward the rotating pool from which individual members could purchase his own used 2004-2006 Lincoln Town Car within eighteen months. This generous act, albeit not entirely altruistic, transformed an entire hodgepodge fleet of worn Chevys, Oldsmobiles and Dodges into a consistent and professional image that resulted in generating more income for the proud drivers and their families both in New York and The Dominican Republic. "In the end, a significant transaction occurs between donor and donee, and vice versa," said Charles Rodriguez, executive director for development and public affairs at the University of Texas Health Science Center in San Antonio (Berry, Chao, Newman, Ramos, Winters, 1999; p. 58). The gift givers "gain emotional, psychic, and social satisfaction (and perhaps even financial satisfaction in the form of a tax benefit from the IRS), where donees have their personal situations and aptitudes enhanced, perhaps for the rest of their lives." We only have a limited amount of time on this wonderful earth, and there are almost countless people around the globe who have far fewer opportunities for a pleasant life than we have in the United States. Thus, it's natural for most people to eventually come to the conclusion that it's quite important to share the wealth we've earned by sharing the resources we have with those that are less privileged in life. This is done by cash gifting to those who are less fortunate than we are. If we have an excess of resources while another person doesn't have enough resources, it makes sense to share those resources, right? Maya Angelou once said: "When we cast our bread upon the waters, we can presume that someone downstream whose face we will never know will benefit from our action, as we who are downstream from another will profit from that grantor's gift." In conclusion, cash gifting is the ultimate way of making both your money and your soul eternal: "My personal vision of the meaning of philanthropy is that life is larger than we are," wrote Olga Villa Parra (Berry, Chao, Newman, Ramos, Winters, 1999, p. 77), a consultant and former executive director of the Midwest Council of La Raza. "Life will go on long after we are gone. Life is a gift from God. Life does not owe us anything. On the contrary, we owe it much, because it is an opportunity to do something larger than ourselves; that is, do deeds, help our families, offer whatever we can pass on for the benefit of others."
They say it's long-overdue because, even though he predicated his campaign on opposition to the war in Iraq, this is the first time Obama is visiting
that country in over two years. In addition, they note that Obama is chairman of the Senate subcommittee that has oversight responsibility for the war in Afghanistan. And they exclaim indignantly that, even worse than the fact that he has never visited Afghanistan, Obama has never even held a hearing on the conduct of this war. If he was so concerned about Afghanistan and the threat there and the need to send troops, don't you think he should have gone there?" [John McCain] Indeed, I'm obliged to admit that, even as a die-hard Obama supporter, I think these criticisms are legitimate - especially regarding Afghanistan. After all, Obama maintains that Afghanistan, not Iraq, is the most critical front in the war on terrorism. Moreover, he insists that al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters are resurgent on this front because too many US resources have been misused in quelling a de facto civil war between Sunni and Shia factions in Iraq. Of course, this is not to say that Obama cannot offer an informed strategy for getting US forces out of Iraq (or for fighting the war in Afghanistan) from the campaign trail in America. After all, he has military advisers who can brief him thoroughly in this regard. Instead, his failure to visit these countries has made him vulnerable to political attacks about making up his mind before going on his fact-finding mission and about being all talk and no action. It is noteworthy, however, that, despite this criticism, it's Obama's plan for a phased withdrawal from Iraq over 16 months, not McCain's for a 100-year occupation, that has been endorsed by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki: ...US presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal... [Nouri al-Maliki in a recent interview with German magazine SPIEGEL] They say Obama's trip is misguided because he's planning stops in Israel and Europe that seem more worthy of a US president than a mere presidential candidate. Never mind that the media are covering his every move as if he were already president of the United States: and there's the rub. Because much of the criticism in this respect stems either from McCain's political envy or from reporters' access envy. I don't know that people in Missouri are going to like seeing tens of thousands of Europeans screaming for The One. [John McCain] Given this criticism, one can be forgiven for not recalling that McCain himself has taken detours from the campaign trail to give speeches in foreign countries. The difference is that people in those countries couldn't care any less about his visit; whereas, they're singing hosannas for Obama as if he were, well, the black Messiah. Incidentally, every reporter (or pundit) you hear criticizing Obama's trip is probably one who resents not being invited along for this historic ride... Finally, they say his trip is inappropriate because he planned to emulate former presidents Reagan and Kennedy by giving a major "campaign" speech on US-EU relations at the Brandenburg Gate in Germany. Indeed, just imagine the criticism (from Frenchmen and Americans) if, while campaigning for the French presidency, Nicolas Sarkozy had come to Washington, DC to give a speech at the Lincoln Memorial...? In fact, if Obama went ahead with his speech at this hallowed venue, this criticism would have had merit. Not least because no less a person than German Chancellor Angela Merkel was opposed to it. As it happened, however, the criticism became so acute that Obama's handler's were forced to stage it at the Victory Column, which may actually prove a more appropriate venue in more ways than one... In Europe, the view that America is part of what has gone wrong in our world, rather than a force to help make it right, has become all too common. In America, there are voices that deride and deny the importance of Europe's role in our security and our future... But the burdens of global citizenship continue to bind us together. [Barack Obama speaking to over 200,000 people in Berlin yesterday] Therefore, no matter how belated or misguided, Obama's trip has given him a world stage upon which to strut his stuff as (putative) commander-in-chief. And it has given him an opportunity to demonstrate why he more than McCain is more likely to improve America's image and goodwill around the world. Meanwhile, TV networks are giving pundits an inordinate amount of airtime just to expound on the myriad ways they think Obama might say or do something that undermines his campaign back home. Yet all any of them has to say is that Obama could not possibly say or do anything that is more damaging than continually mixing up who the Sunni and Shia are in Iraq as McCain did during his most recent trip there. Frankly, given Maliki's endorsement and his presidential bearing, Obama has already passed the commander-in-chief test. And nothing confirmed this quite like the Trumanesque authority he displayed when he reminded the press in Jordan that it doesn't matter what the generals want because, as president, he will be the one setting America's military agenda. Finally, it seems the political atmospherics, which had leaders in the Middle East treating Obama like the presumptive president of the United States and Berliners greeting him like a rock star, were designed to make President Bush and John McCain jealous and seem irrelevant. And the courting of Obama seems poised to reach a climax in France today where President Sarkozy has been anxiously awaiting his arrival like a high-school nerd who scored a date with the homecoming queen. Alas, British PM Gordon Brown will have to settle for a quickie as a thoroughly exhausted Obama pays a courtesy call at No. 10 in London on Saturday... on his way back to America. Overall though, no matter their affectation of diplomatic neutrality, I suspect almost all of the leaders Obama met with during his world tour will be even more disappointed than some of his die-hard supporters back home if he is not elected president in November. Clearly Obama is promising change [they] can believe in! Editor's Note: Anthony L. Hall is a descendant of the Turks & Caicos Islands, international lawyer and political consultant - headquartered in Washington DC - who publishes his own weblog, The iPINIONS Journal, at http://ipjn.com offering commentaries on current events from a Caribbean perspective.
The Republic of Haiti, that enjoyed its independence in 1804 after the American Revolution in 1776 and the French Revolution in 1789, was instrumental in helping the United States became what it is today, a vast, rich and beautiful land from sea to shining sea. The Louisiana Purchase, a by-product of the Haitian Revolution, was possible because the Haitian Titans defeated the mighty Napoleon armada sent to that country (with the tacit support of Thomas Jefferson) to re-establish slavery in Hispaniola. Disgusted by the new development, Napoleon offered Louisiana to the United States for almost a peanut by acre of land. Haiti during its first 150 years of history, was shunned, insulted and exploited by the rest of the world including: - Latin America countries that received funds and ammunition to fight their own independence; - France that extracted billion of dollars to accept the independence that Haiti conquered and won with the gallant genius and military strategy of its heroes. - Holland and Germany that armed several Haitian factions to exploit better the country natural resources and - The United States that refused to accept Haiti independence until some sixty years later and finally invaded the country in 1915 leaving very few roots of nation building, setting the stage for the failed state status of Haiti some fifty years later. I used to laugh at those who advocate about a suspicious international conspiracy against Haiti for daring to strike the first blow to the world order of slavery, a detailed analysis of the last 50 years of Haiti's life as an independent country would certainly give credence to the rumor.  Haiti was ruled by
national dictators (from the right and from the left) imposed
upon and maintained by the United States. I remember as a youngster
when, after two decades of brutal and demoniac dictatorship of
Francois Duvalier, the United States, through the sinister hand
of Ambassador Knox, arranged for a swift transfer of power to
Baby Doc Duvalier (then 18 years old) insuring the prolonged
life of the filthy dictatorship for another seventeen years.
When the people of Haiti on February 7, 1986, took their courage into their hands to butt out Jean Claude Duvalier and his arrogant wife, Michelle; the United States was again in the front line arranging the transfer of power to a military junta against the will of the people who favored a champion of human rights (Gerard Gourgue) Jean Bertrand Aristide who succeeded the military junta (in that case Mr. Grunner is right) was a creature of the Northeast white liberal cum leftist ideology. I remember again in 1991, those white women from and around New York University raising funds to help the non-declared candidature of the fiery leftist priest who denounced capitalism as an original sin. When Aristide, on the left, became as violent a dictator as the military junta, on the right, he was butted out of the country. The Democrat Party in bed with the Lavalas organization arranged for his return to Haiti under the auspices of 20.000 US military forces. Four years later (2004) the people of Haiti chased Aristide again because his policies of dividing the Haitian family were too much for the country to endure. In the meantime, Aristide had opened the door for the Friends of Haiti (France, United States, Canada, Argentine, Brazil and Venezuela) to establish the presence of the United Nations into the country. It was supposed to be a blessing; it has been a curse since the first mission in 1991. - There was first the MICIVIH solicited by Aristide, February 1993 - May 1998 - Then UNMIH a military mission from September 1993 to June 1996 - Rene Preval, Aristide former Prime Minister, actual Haiti President requested a mission UNSMIH from July 1996 to July 1997 - Another mission was again requested (UNTMIH) August 1997 November 1997 by President Preval. - It was followed by MIPONUH another UN mission from December 1997 to March 2000. - President Preval requested the UNSMIH mission from March 2000 to February 2001 - Finally Jean Bertrand Aristide demanded the present UN- MINUSTAH mission that started in April 2004 and is still in the country today, a force of some 9,000 military and 3,000 civilians. This long, almost twenty years of UN direct involvement should have put Haiti on the track of development and nation building. I will rest my case and let the reader be the jury on the first count. On the second count, the Haitian Diaspora as all Diaspora is a reflection of the state of the country of origin and also a mirror of the reception mat received in the host country. When refugees from Cuba are received with a welcoming arm and those from Haiti are led into jail en route to be sent back to Haiti, the starting point is already discriminatory. I have visited the social service agencies dedicated to the Jewish Diaspora from Russia. They are met at the airport with a ticket, to college (City College) to food stamps, to temporary housing and a complete network to resources and information. In spite of the fact that there are now, very few refugees from Russia, you would expect that vast structure redirecting its mission to the immigrants from the Caribbean in general, Haiti in particular. The door is not yet open for the people with black skin. The Haitian Diaspora started with the United Nations sending a contingent of Haitian professionals (doctors, lawyers, and teachers) to Congo Brazzaville to initiate nation building in that country. The same group of technicians migrated to the United States to the United States at the peak of the dictatorial regime of the Duvalier. The Congo experience did not lasted long. Most of the Haitian professionals did not return to Haiti but settled in Quebec, Canada where they have contributed to create a vibrant province. To the point of being labeled an iconoclast, I dare to argue that the discriminated group of Jews, gay, artists and Haitians constitute a ferment that transform any decaying urban setting into a vibrant neighborhood with or without the support of local government. Whether in housing, education or work ethics, the Haitian Diaspora has led the black experience into a level of excellence that was not there before. In New York, the neighborhood of Cambria- Heights, Rosedale, Laurelton, Canarsie have become strong and vibrant communities in spite of the hasty white flight from those neighborhoods. The New York hospital system is sustainable in terms of manpower because of the labor and the expertise of the thousand of Haitian doctors and nurses that man the system day and night. The colleges and the universities are filled with young Haitian males and females that are setting the tone that scholarship and leadership are not only the province of the white students. The astute Jamaican mothers are keen to snap up those well polished Haitian male graduates for their daughters. The silent revolution of the Haitian Diaspora is spread all over the land,(New York, New Jersey, Boston, Florida, Atlanta) transforming America for the better every day. The State of the Haitian Diaspora is a mirror of the state of the black experience in the United States, an unfulfilled agenda. The United States might be the best country in the world for a black immigrant or for a black man, period. Yet it remains a racist country where the most innovative initiatives in civil rights took place some twenty five years ago under the administration of Richard Nixon. (COLA cost of living adjustments for Social Security recipients; self determination without termination for the Indian tribes; SSI Supplementary Security Income; guaranteed annual income for the aged, blind and disabled; National Student Loan Association; National Endowment for the Humanities; set aside for minority contracts putting civil rights on par with affirmative action; revenue sharing programs facilitating urban renewal) We have not seen better since. Mr Gunnar, creating an aura of hospitality for the citizens of the land and for those who want to belong has nothing to do with being a Republican or being a Democrat, hopefully, Mr Obama or Mr McCain will both understand that principle and built on the legacy of President Lyndon Johnson (a Democrat) and President Richard Nixon (a Republican) to create an America that is hospitable to all. Editor's Note: Jean H Charles MSW, JD is Executive Director of AINDOH Inc a non profit organization dedicated to build a kinder and gentle Caribbean zone for all. He can be reached at: jeanhcharles@aol.com
For many Guyanese this might be a surprise, because, after all, we are all West Indians, and on top of that, Barbados has this image as an Island Paradise. Political violence is not supposed to happen there. Barbados is supposed to be the Singapore of the Caribbean highly globalized, high per capita GDP, and outranked only by the OECD countries in the UNDP's Human Development Index. But something ominous and enormously complicated is occurring in Barbados. There is an unbelievable level of hatred against Guyanese in general and Indo-Guyanese in particular. The magnitude and depth of hatred against the Guyanese is now bordering on neo-fascism. In this short article I am arguing that the developments in Barbados have direct linkages to the campaign to construct the Government of Guyana as racist. By 'construct' I mean that in contradistinction to objective reality, a platoon of opposition elements have been using various media (TV, daily columns, letters to the editor, blogs etc) to give the impression that the PPP government is deliberately victimizing the Afro-Guyanese population. This particular racialized construction of the political in Guyana, I submit, is linked to the vitriol against Guyanese in Barbados. I am also suggesting that the murder of Christopher Griffith and the wounding of Seelochnie Samuels are linked to the said campaign. Now let me develop the arguments with evidence. Several months ago I happened upon an internet news source call "Barbados Underground" (hereafter, BU). I was shocked by the contents. Writers openly called for mass deportation of all Guyanese. Others called for the annihilation of Indians. Yet another commentator suggested that only Guyanese who had proven themselves should remain in the country. In this commentator's view only one Guyanese met the qualification Dr. Kean Gibson. It so happens that Kean Gibson is the lead writer on the BU blog dealing with a topic labeled "Indian Racism Against Afro Guyanese in Guyana." Sister Gibson, as she is lovingly called by some of her followers, penned the opening act under the title "Racism and the degeneration of Guyana". She promised to follow that up with Part II in which she stated "I will look at the response of the people to the violence that is being inflicted on them by the state." I am confident when she does, it will be a defense of the insurgents who have been destroying innocent lives in Guyana. Prove me wrong. Gibson's views are well known, and her BU article is a simple continuation of the predictable. Here are some quotations from her: (1) "If the word "discrimination" is a poor choice for the experiences of African-Guyanese since racism is not legal in Guyana, then a more apt word is "victimization" where a group of people are singled out for cruel and unjust treatment"; (2) "...African are victims of what is in the hearts of East Indians..."; (3) The racism, and thus inequality, that is promoted in the Hindu sacred texts is a valuable resource which bestows benefits, rights and duties to a group of people and thus must be maintained at all costs and by any means necessary"; and finally (4) "We see that one set of laws and behaviors that apply to a particular group, do not apply to another. Young African men and the poor in the society are summarily executed while surrendering, or killed without firing at police..." Gibson goes on to say that white collar crimes go unpunished, in part because the state has "been reconstituted to become a criminal enterprise." Now here are some commentaries inspired by "Sister Gibson" followers. A blogger who goes by the name Anonymous writes "I hope after this article by a respected researcher from the UWI Dr. Kean Gibson that I don't hear no damn foolishness from those seeking to push their evil agenda under disguise..." The writer is admonishing someone who is calling for calm and reason. He continues "Bajans deserve everything that could happen to them here in Barbados with this influx of these indians..." (sic). Once he found his length and line, Anonymous became nagging. "Barbados will become like Guyana or Trinidad UNLESS DAVID THOMPSON TAKES A BOLD STAND AND START REPATRIATING THESE PEOPLE BACK TO GUYANA" (emphasis in the original). He continues "It is like a homeowner given a small pitbull puppy as a pet, it seems all fluffy and nice for the first 6 months because after all it depends on you to feed it and protect it since it is unable to fend for itself in this strange new environment. However as soon as this puppy becomes a dog and is confident enough, well then, the fangs come out, and you see the real viciousness of the animal." He closes off this particular installment with "Remember Dr. Kean Gibson instructed us that this mindset has been laid down for them (i.e. Guyanese Indians) in their teachings. Another writer hiding under the name Bimbro is even more fascistic that his other Sister Gibson follower. Here he is: "Doan give them nuh exotic name...That'll only make the bastards feel more important than they should be!! Call the shits what they are and let's hurry and bring them to justice". "As far as Im concerned, ANYBODY who attempts to highjack our democracy, deserves just one solution!! The Final One" "Get my drift?!!!!" Another person writing under the name Analyst praises Kean Gibson's research and then states the following "The pit bull analogy given by Anonymous hits right home. East Indians became a real problem in Guyana only after DDT cut malaria and reduced their infant mortality in the 1940's and 1950's and their population increased exponentially. Then the PPP asserted itself...now there is a democratic dictatorship in Guyana that controls every facet of life." The Kaieteur News (Guyanese newspaper) columnist Frederick Kissoon name also pops up on the website. The just mentioned Analyst circulated Mr. Kissoon's February 2 article "War of the Flea" and stated that the article "...gives insight as to WHY the bloody massacres in Guyana underly (sic) a guerrilla war..." (emphasis in the original). I want to be fair to Kissoon here. I am not linking him with Gibson. Kissoon, after all, has been critical of her. I point to the circulation of the Flea article because it has in fact been used by the nativist elements in BU to bolster their xenophobia against Guyanese in Barbados. I am confident Mr. Kissoon would not be happy that his work is being used to justify vitriol against fellow Guyanese overseas. I urge him to write to the BU editor and clarify his position. Rickford Burke, the New York based writer who consistently characterizes the PPP as a race-based party is also quoted by Gibson's followers as an authoritative source. His work is also used to justify assaults against Guyanese immigrants in general, and Indians in particular. Last month, while in Colombia for the Caribbean Studies Association Annual Convention I had the good fortune of watching the film On the Map produced and directed by Annalee Davis, a Barbadian. The film depicts the despicable treatment of Guyanese in the once lovely Caribbean island. I sat beside Dr. David Hinds and we were both moved by what our fellow Guyanese are enduring in Barbados. Annalee Davis told us that, of recent, there has been a surge of resentment against all Guyanese, but especially Indians. She mentioned that she has reports of Guyanese being forced into the back of buses, just like old times in the Southern United States. On other occasions, Guyanese have to get up and give their seats to Bajans, all through which they are verbally assaulted. The point of this article should not be lost. I claim here that the hatred of, and creeping violence against Guyanese has two central elements. Firstly, there is a form of generalized resentment against all Guyanese. This aspect of the anti-immigrant outbursts is actually (believe it or not) quite 'normal' in societies that go through rapid demographic, social and cultural change associated with immigration. I argue that the second element, namely, the anti-Indian dimension, has links to the ways in which opposition elements have been painting Guyana as a bastion of victimization against Africans. In closing I should let you know that about three months ago, I wrote to BU and pleaded with them not to allow it pages to be used as a site for anti-immigrants hatred. I hope the descent into physical violence will now force them to think about this. To date, BU's official position is that they have found nothing offensive on their site. Kean Gibson's article is still there as the lead off piece. I know that President Jagdeo and the Guyanese Ambassador to Barbados have been trying to help Guyanese in Barbados in what ever way they can. That effort must both be applauded and re-doubled. I also urge the President Jagdeo to send a special team to investigate and document the treatment of Guyanese immigrants to Barbados. If On the Map has not been aired in Guyana yet, it should be.
Now many Haitians believe Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, if he becomes the first black US president, could open a new chapter and help their unstable and impoverished Caribbean homeland. Obama's candidacy has awakened a greater interest than any previous US presidential race in Haiti, where rebel slaves defeated Napoleon Bonaparte's French army to claim independence in 1804 as the world's first black-ruled independent republic. Many Haitians say they view Obama as an inspiration and a source of pride for black people around the world, and many view him as a kindred spirit. "At least I know that Obama and we Haitians have one thing in common," said economist Amos Dorcelus, 34. "We have no hang-ups when dealing with white people because we see them as people just like us and we don't feel any sort of inferiority. "We are poor, but we are proud and we can stand up and look at them in the eye knowing we can do or can be whatever they can," he said. Haiti is low on the list of foreign policy priorities for Obama, an Illinois senator, and his Republican rival for the White House,  Arizona Sen. John
McCain.But Armel Mozart, 28, believes Obama is interested in Haiti because of his relationship with Haitian-Americans like Patrick Gaspard, a campaign director, and Kwame Raoul, who replaced him in the Illinois state senate. "I believe Obama has an eye on Haiti even though he has not really been talking about Haiti," said Mozart, a political science student. "As a black leader, he must have read a lot about Haitian history and his decision to appoint Gaspard to such a key position in his campaign is very telling," he said. Haitians have long looked with hope and also some trepidation to their superpower neighbor. It took Washington 58 years to grant Haiti diplomatic recognition after it threw off the yoke of slavery. Historians attribute the delay to misgivings among U.S. leaders about the impact a free Haiti might have on their own slaves. After decades of political turbulence, the United States sent troops to occupy Haiti in 1915. They stayed 19 years. More recently, powerful US politicians have been blamed for destabilizing Haiti and blocking international aid because of their opposition to Haiti's first democratically elected president, former priest Jean-Bertrand Aristide, regarded by many in Washington as an authoritarian socialist. Former President Bill Clinton helped restore Aristide to the presidency after he was ousted by the military shortly after taking power in 1991. But under President George W. Bush, Washington did little to help Aristide stay in office when his second term was cut short in 2004 by an armed revolt. Many Haitians believe Obama's candidacy has already contributed to the advancement of minorities and black people around the world and its positive consequences will go beyond the outcome of the US election in November. "I'm very proud of Obama. It is a dream and it is history in the making," said Marjorie Laporte, a 36-year-old teacher. Obama also enjoys star status in parts of Africa, especially in his late father's native Kenya, where newborn babies are named after him and people sip "Senator" beer in his honor. They literally sing his praise in some Caribbean islands. In Trinidad, the legendary Calypsonian known as the Mighty Sparrow hails Obama as a "man of splendid vision" in a song titled "Barack the Magnificent." Jamaican reggae singers Cocoa Tea and Damian Marley -- son of Bob Marley -- have separately recorded songs lauding Obama. Part of the allure in Haiti is self-interest. Democrats are viewed as more likely to treat kindly Haitian boat people trying to make it into the United States than Republicans. "If I were to vote, I would vote for Obama not for (John) McCain, because Haitians and other minorities are usually better off with Democrats in the White House," said Marcel Pierre-Louis, 47, who lived in the United States for 15 years.
The NBC poll, which just a month ago had projected a 200-200 tie in the electoral college, was now skewing to Obama 210 to 189 (with 11 states, representing 139 electoral votes, considered toss-ups). Indeed if, as several commentators (including this writer) have been projecting, Obama is heading for a blowout, 30-state victory in November, the dawning lineaments of that emphatic outcome became clearly visible for the first time last week. Additionally, and almost gratuitously, events went Obama's way as well last week. For starters, the Iraqi government demanded a timeline from the Bush Administration for the withdrawal of American troops. That startling turn played, of course, right into the hands of a campaign based, as Obama's has been all along (at least, until he talked about 'refining' his position recently) on a promise to withdraw from Iraq. It also left the White House somewhat desperately trying to spin the Iraqis' demand as a rhetorical ploy intended purely for domestic consumption. McCain is a Bush surrogate on Iraq, as in many things, and clearly intends as president to establish permanent US military bases there. He has therefore been trumpeting the goal of 'victory' in Iraq (whatever that means); and so the Iraqis' demand last week put him in an untenable position. In 2004, McCain had rather carelessly agreed with an interviewer that 'If the Iraqis ask us to leave then of course we'll leave'; now it became necessary for him to abandon that moderate line and be seen for what he is: a neocon, bent on the long-term occupation of Iraq, against the wishes of 72 percent of the American electorate. Next, retired Republican
ex-senator Phil Gramm, McCain's close friend and chief economic
advisor, airily explained to the media that Americans were merely
going through a 'mental' recession; America, Gramm opined, had
become 'a nation of whiners'. In a time when millions of Americans
have lost their jobs and/or homes, the remark was likely to elicit
real fury. And while McCain wasted no time in cutting Gramm loose,
Gramm has been as close to McCain, and for nearly as long, as
the Reverend Wright was to Obama. It's unlikely some of his fat-cat's
blissful uncaring for the tragic plight of many Americans won't
stick to McCain. Finally there was Jesse Jackson, who, when he thought the mike was off, first whispered to a black Fox TV interviewer (naively trusting the 'black' and not reckoning with the 'Fox' part) his condemnation of Obama's call for African-American men to take responsibility for their children. Then Jackson added, with crass machismo: 'I wanna cut his nuts off.' Fox of course played the tape, and so Jackson ended up inadvertently doing Obama almost as much good with white working-class American voters as Jeremiah Wright had done him harm. Apologising afterwards, Jackson cut a genuinely tragic figure. He had fought in the civil rights' movement, as he reminded viewers, for 54 years; yet now, here he was, having (as Trinidadians would say) to 'crawl' before an upstart brown kid who overnight had become arguably the most powerful man in America. It's seldom one sees the torch being passed to a new generation in a way so humiliating to the retrenched old guard. Granted, he brought it on himself, but the Reverend Jesse Jackson deserved a better exit into the autumnal pines. Such poll results and unexpected gifts to Obama had the effect of muting the continuing anguish of those who felt, and feel, betrayed by Obama's recent swerves to the right. Bob Herbert's New York Times column, 'Lurching with Abandon' (which echoed point by point this column last Sunday) chided the 'man who first turned voters on by presenting himself as someone who wouldn't engage in the terminal emptiness of politics as usual', and ended, with real sorrow: 'Time flies and the Iowa caucuses seem a very long time ago.' Twenty-two thousand Obama supporters flooded Obama's website to protest his breaking of his promise to filibuster a FISA bill giving retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that participated in the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping program. In 'Barack W. Bush', RealClear columnist Victor Hanson itemized the extent to which Obama had gone recently to follow in the footsteps of 'the worst president in American history' (Jimmy Carter). And a columnist on the right wrote: 'Obama seems to have lumped the wonks [for 'wonks' read Obama's base support: WB] in with the bouncing kids for whom he need only be young and cool. He no doubt calculates that, happy or not, the left has nowhere else to go. But the speed with which he chucked his promises suggests that he also regarded the intellectuals as an easier sell than they thought themselves.' It was a two-edged jeer, but it was also undeniable. In Obama, America is getting to know an immensely smart, charismatic and brilliant orator, who both is black and happens to be black, and who has made it clear he has no intention of being another idealistic Democrat loser ('like George McGovern'). If he has hurt and angered his core supporters, it's because he's calculated he can live with their punishment-which is 'to vote for him but not work for him', as one Obama blogger put it, with unintended pathos, last week. In a mere two weeks, Obama has shed much of his endangering 'liberal' label. And his road to the presidency now looks clear
The release of the June 19th death on video, a week later - stunned the world rightly and outraged many, including in the Caribbean community. So much so that many of the so called leaders within - who did not know Esmin Green or her troubles while she was alive - are all now boldly stepping up to the cameras and grabbing their 15 seconds of fame. There are quotes all around, suddenly, from many of the politicians, Jamaican government representatives and community leaders, posturing for the spotlight. And lawyers from outside of our communities are suddenly better able to represent the family than any within our community.  The hypocrisy is
astounding as poor Ms. Green would not have been able to meet
or even get a phone call directly to many of those now speaking
such great prose about her, had she been alive today.Still the reality is that while many of our leaders posture for the press, there are thousands more `Ms. Green`s` in this city alone, who are desperately in need of help right now. As columnist of Immigration Korner, the letters and stories I get told is heart wrenching and sadly, Ms. Green is just one of those cases that can be magnified many times over. Let`s get the facts straight here - Ms. Green was a poor, undocumented migrant, who lived all alone, struggling to make ends meet while trying to work two jobs to send money back home to take care of six children in Jamaica. Alone and poor, she tried hard to cling to her faith but depression took over and her mental health started eroding. Hence her trip to King`s County several times recently. But why alone we ask? Where were the church leaders and `sisters` who now tell such great stories about Ms. Green? Why did they not go with her to the hospital? And where are our leaders really in the fight for immigrants such as Ms. Green? These are the same migrants who are ignored by and large and seen as not classy enough to be bothered with. These are the same migrants who are desperately in need of help but whose plight continues to be ignored also by our many Caribbean leaders, who visit here often, including recently at the disastrous Diaspora conference, meeting also with President Bush and the U.S. Secretary of State. Yet, none have ever bothered to speak up for immigration reform for the millions like Esmin Green, who are in need. The reality of this situation is staring them right in the face. For beyond the horrific health care issue in this country - whether for mental health or all other patients - the issue of Green`s immigration woes and the struggles she faced because of it in this city - issues that no doubt led to her mental breakdown - cannot be ignored. An uncle of mine always told us, `Give me my flowers when I am alive.` Our many leaders who now posture for the cameras on Esmin Green`s behalf would be wise to remember this and most of all look at the many more migrants, like Ms. Green, who desperately need help in this city and are on the brink of falling through the cracks. If you actually care about Ms. Green, don't continue to turn a blind eye or zip by in your air-conditioned car and ignore that person sleeping on the street or on a park bench. Walk your district and see what is going on, pop into the emergency rooms of these hospitals and clinics and see the reality. Lend a hand and perhaps you would have more credibility, the next time you actually speak up for a poor, depressed, undocumented person - whether dead or alive. EDITOR`S NOTE: The writer is the founder of the Caribbean World News Network and CEO of Hard Beat Communications.
Instead, he's in the dock for mortgage fraud. Something is wrong with this picture. U.S. government documents obtained in the mid-1990s by the Center for Constitutional Rights confirm Constant's shocking record of human rights abuses - crimes committed when, as head of the paramilitary group FRAPH (Front for the Advancement and Progress of Haiti), he orchestrated a campaign of terror against supporters of then-President Jean-Bertrand Aristide. Yet remarkably, for more than a decade until 2006, Constant has been living in relative comfort in Queens, thanks in part to intervention by our own federal government. The twists and turns of Constant's road from paramilitary leader to defendant awaiting trial for mortgage fraud tell us volumes about the last decade of Haiti's difficult history - and the twisted U.S. policy toward the poorest country in our hemisphere.  Constant arrived
in the United States in December 1994, after the Aristide government
issued a warrant for his arrest for human rights violations.
In September 1995, Constant was about to be deported from the
U.S. - when he revealed his role as a CIA asset. Suddenly, deportation
was off the table and he was allowed to stay.The Aristide government continued to press for Constant's extradition. Haitians, Haitian-Americans and their supporters demonstrated outside of Constant's home. City Council members demanded justice. Members of Congress lodged protests with the State Department. Newspapers like this one joined the chorus of outrage. The U.S. government still would not budge. In 2000, Constant was convicted in abstentia in Haiti for his role in a 1994 massacre in Raboteau. He was sentenced to prison and ordered to pay damages to the families of the victims. But yet again, justice was thwarted. On February 29, 2004, a military coup forced judges off the bench and undermined efforts to punish past human rights abusers. In what was known as "the midnight trial" in August 2004, a number of Constant's fellow FRAPH and military leaders, convicted for their role in the Raboteau massacre, were released. In December 2004, the Center for Constitutional Rights and the Center for Justice and Accountability sued Constant in New York on behalf of three women, two of whom had been gang-raped in front of their families. After two years without any response from Constant, the court held a public hearing and found him liable for $19 million in compensatory and punitive damages for the crimes against the women. But somehow, still, Constant lived comfortably in Queens. And, not only that, he apparently found a new way to victimize innocent people. In 2006, Constant was indicted for mortgage fraud. According to police, he and co-conspirators would locate a property for sale and generate an artificially high appraisal, ultimately pocketing the profits from the sale. That led to a final outrage: Constant was set to take a plea bargain in the case - and get off with relative ease - when human rights groups called the court's attention to his terrible crimes. Once again, the U.S. government stepped in on his behalf, with Homeland Security Department lawyers now urging that Constant be immediately deported to Haiti. Given the instability in Haiti today, there is little doubt that if that were to happen, he would evade justice for his crimes. One day, Emmanuel Constant must be returned to Haiti and stand trial there. First, he must face trial for what he has done to the people of New York. In the meantime, we must fight to ensure that in the future, our government does not allow our country to be a haven for war criminals. Editor's Note: Glover is an actor and human rights activist.
Another point to understand is that markets know far more than any mere economist. Inevitably, the next bull market in stocks will be born and economic activity will improve, even while economists, with our foggy crystal balls, continue issuing dismal prognostications. That being said, it seems to me that the piper now needs to be paid for decades of economic mistakes and that painful economic corrections and adjustments will continue for the foreseeable future. Here are some of the economic chickens now coming home to roost: 1) The housing bubble bust may weigh on us for years. While housing prices rose from 1998 through 2005, between 1.25 percent and 3.25 percent of GDP consisted of spending financed by homeowners withdrawing equity from their houses. This debt-financed spending splurge was painless as long as prices of houses continued to soar. However, now that home prices are deflating, home equity credit has contracted. It was 3.125 percent of GDP in 2005, 2 percent in 2006 (the most recent year for which I have figures) but certainly far  lower
today. Housing prices, on average, have fallen 15 percent from
their peak already, but in spite of lower prices, the inventory
of unsold new homes has continued to rise, now standing at an
11-month inventory. The mortgage delinquency rate rose to 6.35
percent in the first quarter of this year, the foreclosure rate
doubled in one year to almost 2.5 percent, and according to the
Census Bureau, approximately 10 percent of houses built since
2000 remain unoccupied.To give some historical perspective on the size of the housing bubble, residential property in the United States hovered around the same real value for the century spanning 1890 to 1990. After 1990, however, housing prices doubled in real terms. If those prices return to anywhere near their historical average, then the 15-percent decline so far is just the beginning. One enormous effect of the shaky housing market is that the mortgage-backed securities derivative crisis in the financial industry (archives, 12/27/07 (part 1), 12/27/07 (part 2), 3/17/08) continues unabated. In fact, the financial crisis has gotten worse. Investment analyst Porter Stansberry asserts that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two giant federal mortgage agencies, already have negative equity (i.e, are technically bankrupt) and that their stocks will fall to zero. 2) Decades of Congress obstructing the development of domestic energy resources has produced $4 per-gallon gasoline. Among the casualties: Ford and General Motors may be mortally wounded, and prices of many products are rising to cover increased transportation costs. These higher costs are likely to eat into corporate profits and lead to lower stock prices. Thus, Americans have been put in the uncomfortable position of watching the prices of their primary assets (homes and stocks) fall while the prices of the things they need to buy (food, fuel, miscellaneous consumer products) rise. 3) The cost of the Iraq war. This isn't a comment about the ethics or geopolitics of the war. The economic fact is that the huge spending on this war has weakened and will continue to weaken the dollar, just as previous wars had inflationary consequences. The stock market, which tends to discount (anticipate) the future, is floundering now. Besides the economic conditions just described (none of which, alas, is amenable to a quick fix), the market may be foreshadowing political problems. Monetary policy is paralyzed. The Fed has been checkmated. It can't raise interest rates to defend the dollar, because higher rates would aggravate the housing decline and related financial crisis. Nor can it lower rates to stimulate activity, thereby weakening the dollar and causing the dollar-denominated prices of oil and other essential commodities to rise. The outlook for fiscal policy is also discouraging. The next Congress may be controlled by a veto-proof majority of radical anticapitalist redistributionists. Neither presidential candidate has a plan to rein in the rapid growth of federal spending, which has been cannibalizing the private sector. Both candidates pay homage to global-warming mythology and advocate imposing cap-and-trade ceilings on fossil-fuel consumption-a folly that can only raise energy prices even higher. Neither candidate seems willing to let free markets make the painful adjustments needed to correct past mistakes. In sum, the economic outlook for the coming months is dicey. Appropriate advice for most Americans would be Warren Buffett's two rules of investing: 1) don't lose the money; and 2) pay special attention to rule #1. Editor's Note: Dr. Mark W. Hendrickson is a faculty member, economist, and contributing scholar with the Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College.
Those of us in the Caribbean Diaspora media in New York were quite expectant by news of a Caribbean Heads of Government conference in the Big Apple. Surely those who often come, hat in hand, for Diaspora dollars to fund political campaigns; who are very much aware of the significance of Diaspora remittances - cash and in kind - to the regional economies; who recognize the role of the Diaspora in mobilizing massive resources every time there is a natural disaster in the region, would now use this opportunity to initiate a meaningful dialogue with the Diaspora as a first step towards systematically harnessing the Diaspora for nation building? Indeed what better a forum than a Heads of State conference to do so! And that during the month of June, designated Caribbean heritage Month by the US legislature after a hard fought and well coordinated campaign by Caribbeans in the Diaspora, some years ago. Then wishful expectations came up against the stumbling block of outmoded practice. And the Diaspora was dissed.again! Firstly there was a decision to retain the services of a "mainstream" public relations firm to publicize the conference (interestingly a question about why Caribbean governments chose to disburse millions of dollars to Madison Avenue public relations firms, instead of retaining the services of competent public relations firms from the Diaspora was ignored by the heads). Secondly there was the absence of the Diaspora in conference planning and organization. Thirdly there was lack of any direct Diaspora involvement in the conference business proper. Finally there was only one single public forum for the Diaspora and that was more a talking to rather a talking with an audience that numbered about 300 people out of a Diaspora population that is estimated to be over one million in the Big Apple. Small wonder Diasporans went about their everyday business, more or less unaware of the presence of regional leaders in their midst! Small wonder that the mainstream media ignored the conference! Small wonder that nothing viable was inked! Small wonder that the regional leaders departed home empty handed! In fact, the leaders admitted that no concrete initiatives were adopted but hoped that the dialogue could spur regional economic growth (sic!). Diaspora community activist and journalist, Guyanese, Colin Moore reflected the views of the Diaspora: "The significant stakeholders in the Diaspora family are the Caribbean heads of state, Caricom, the New York consular corps, the Caribbean hometown associations, the Caribbean press and the Caribbean public. What the conference organizers did during the recent conference was to dismember the Caribbean family by separating the heads of state, Caricom, and the consular corps from the other significant members of the Caribbean family, such as, the hometown associations, the Caribbean press and the Caribbean public". Now, the Diaspora is left to wonder just how serious were the heads of state and their host about this conference. And Caribbeans in the region must certainly wonder about the cost benefit to the region. For starters the leaders of Jamaica, Grenada, Haiti and St. Vincent and the Grenadines, skipped the entire conference. Among those absent from the sparsely attended town hall meeting was Trinidad & Tobago's Patrick Manning. Only four heads attended a private dinner hosted by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. And missing for most of the conference was host, Congressman Charles Rangel. So what should have been done? To begin with, a Caribbean Diaspora PR agency should have contracted to publicize the conference. Such an agency would have reached all media within the Big Apple and beyond. It would have reached out to contacts (Caribbeans and those who cover and/or write about the Caribbean community) in the mainstream media (print and broadcast) to ensure that mainstream coverage was available for the conference. It would have sought the assistance of other Caribbean PR personnel and organizations (hundreds of which exist in the Big Apple, each with its own list of contacts) in further disseminating information about the conference. It would have arranged for various pre-conference media talk and possibly some pro-bono advertising. And the grapevine would have ensured that every Caribbean household became aware of the conference. Secondly, the involvement of Diaspora representatives in conference outreach, planning and implementation would have ensured that all open conference events were packed, that issues of common interest to the region and the Diaspora were ventilated and that all discussions with New York political leaders and entities would have resulted in concrete initiatives. Thirdly, involvement of Diaspora expertise in direct discussions with third parties would have enhanced such discussions. For example when they met with officials of Goldman Sachs and the New York Stock Exchange, regional leaders could have included some of the many Caribbeans nationals who hold significant positions on Wall Street and who have expertise knowledge of and tremendous experience with, stock underwriting, banking, investments, regulatory framework and so on. Some of these experts would probably have had personal contacts with executives of Goldman Sachs and the New York Stock Exchange. Same deal when the regional leaders met with Empire State Development Corporation, (trade and investment arm of New York State) and representatives of the Governor of New York, David Paterson, who incidentally is of Caribbean parentage. The inclusion of some Diaspora leaders who are close to the Governor and of technocrats who have had extensive experience with the Empire State Development Corporation would have added substance to the dialogue. Once such person could have been the Hon. Una Clarke, immediate past head of the Empire State Development Corporation. Also there should have been more interaction and viable discussions with the Diaspora. Instead of having ten of the seventeen conference related events designated `closed-door` sessions, closed-door sessions should only have been organized where confidentiality was necessary. As Colin Moore pointed out, "A `closed-door` session is appropriate when the two principal parties are about to sign a contract or a memorandum of understanding. At this stage of the proceedings, confidentiality is important and the session should be closed to the principals -- the party of the first part, and the party of the second part. However, when the negotiations are still in the preliminary stage, the sessions should be open to the public, so as to solicit a wide cross-section of opinion and perspectives and to arrive at the best possible policy formulation". And as another Guyanese, labor leader and community activist, Chuck Mohan pointed out, there should have been sessions in all the boroughs dealing with issues that are of interest to both the Diaspora and the region - immigration, remittances, investment regulations and facilitation, crime, drugs, travel, international lobbying on behalf of the Caribbean, inventorizing and harnessing Diaspora skills and resources Finally the wrap-up session should not have been cancelled since this is where a post-mortem on the conference could have led to recommendations to strengthen and improve it for next year and beyond. So what now? Colin Moore puts in succinctly. "The Caribbean heads of state, Caricom, and the New York counselor corps need to do a serious re-evaluation of this concept. They need to create a Caribbean secretariat or coordinator with the sole and exclusive mission to plan and implement these annual conferences. They need to develop a mission statement, an overarching theme for the conference, a set of relevant topics to be discussed, and a panel of experts with specific expertise on Caribbean affairs. They need to preserve an archive of all the concept papers and presentations made at these sessions, and they ought to organize a wrap-up session to enable the participants to conduct a post-mortem of the conference, and to make recommendations of future conferences". Included on the agenda for next year should be at least one session aimed at exploring the setting up of a Caribbean Diaspora Coordinating Council to map Diaspora skills and capacities and to work closely with regional leaders and organizations to ensure maximal capitalization of such skills and capacities. At the same time other Caribbean nations must follow the lead of Jamaica in not only setting up a cabinet level position with direct responsibility for the Diaspora, but also in establishing a Diaspora wide entity to work directly with the national government and to plan regular periodic Diaspora strategizing conferences back 'home'. Speaking at a recent Diaspora conference in Jamaica, Prime Minister Bruce Golding is reported to have said that often when the country needed an expert to solve a problem the tendency was to look everywhere except among "our Jamaican people." He said more needed to be done in order to open a line so that the government can know who is overseas, and who is "here in Jamaica" that has an interest in helping, as well as the ability to help. He said the Diaspora has a spirit of goodwill that is powerful, on which a value could not be placed and was something that Jamaica should take advantage of. Mr. Golding's words should apply to all Caribbean nations. Caribbean leaders must start looking for expertise among our people. They must recognize the spirit of goodwill and the interest in helping that do not characterize mainstream entities. They must understand that not only will the Diaspora always strive to achieve more by using less scarce Caribbean resources but also that we will go above and beyond because of our emotive attachments and personal connections back 'home' as well as our understanding of the unique norms and needs of the Caribbean region, none of which inform non-Diaspora expertise. In short, as Diaspora media practitioner, Barbadian born, Bevan Springer puts it, Caribbean "leaders and organizations should no longer remain attracted to the Madison Avenue mindset which rewards companies, some of which burn more energy and resources on pitching clients and on overhead expenditure than they do on meeting client needs once the lucrative contracts have been inked".
The point I am making in this position paper is to reflect and to deepen the conversation and to give another side to this so-called "Obama craze" that is driving so many to believe that his election is a done deal and it is the Democrats all the way, come November. Making the point  on
behalf an Obama and the seemingly unassailable Democrats is conventional,
and so it is easy to write and gossip about such a common phenomenon.
However, it would prove much more challenging to take the unpopular
position and argue that Caribbean people and especially those
of the Indo-Caribbean persuasion should not be taken for granted
so as to indeed anchor into one party or the other as in this
situation being entrenched in the Democratic Party. Perhaps if
I was still residing in the Caribbean I too would have touted
around with the wishful thinking that Obama is good for the world
and therefore is good for America. But I do live in the United
States and I therefore, have to consider other factors as a Caribbean
national and more parochially a Caribbean man with Indian roots.
More profoundly, critique of a conventional paradigm must be
done exogenously to that paradigm because I would seek to postulate
that the Caribbean vote and indeed the Indo-Caribbean vote should
be up for grabs. Taking such a critical and independent position
leaves us to support a candidate irrespective the party's banner
that a pro-Indo-Caribbean political candidate seeks to compete
under. Recalling that Albert Baldeo and Taj Rajkumar run on Democratic
tickets whereas Michael Duvalle and Governor Bobby Jindal compete
under Republican tickets we could at best, and similar to the
American-Jews, be found on all sides of an issue. My postulation
is clear, economics trump politics any time and anywhere and
on this construction is where I do part company with my Afro-Caribbean
compatriots. My position is, rather that being caught in the
fad of "change yes we can," I want to suggest
some other factors to include in the conversation as we seek
to create a path for ourselves, the Indo-Caribbean people, residing
here in the United States. The mere character and industriousness of Indo-Caribbean people suggests a close affinity between what they stand for and the philosophy of the Republican Party. It is no surprise that there is strong support for Republican candidates from among a good majority of the IndianAmerican immigrants according to reliable polling data. This is perhaps so because Indians from the Asian subcontinent are economically centrists and fiscally conservatives. We need to be aware that the Indo-American Governor of Louisiana is touted as a possible Republican Vice-Presidential candidate for John McCain. Additionally, most Indo-Caribbean people, like their Indian-American counterparts, do believe in individualism and hard work where economic prosperity originates from individual enterprise and not from government programs entwined in an insipient threat to the souls of a people bound in dependence. Handouts and entitlements are to be used sparingly if at all so far as Indo-Americans are concerned and so subjecting oneself to state-run welfare system in not embedded in the psyche of an Indo-Caribbean man's mind. The Republicans Party stood more so at the fortification of freedom to choose, a defense of individual against the domineering state valuing individual choices in education, health care, and child care, where governmental control is the enemy of personal initiative and self-reliance. The Republicans also promulgate a belief in individual empowerment for the attainment of home ownership and free men and women with faith in God as they work to better themselves and their families. So, as the family goes so goes the nation and therefore the root of a strong America and vibrant communities lie in the basic structure of the family. 'Don't spare the rod to spoil the child' is the influencing metaphor for guiding people of Indian origin (PIO) as far as growing up the child in the away of the parents vision of the world to come. And about children suing parents or calling in the Cops when mom tries to discipline a child? This has no place for a government input. Of course well defined families and strong communities make a strong America, but children should be able to sue their parents over decisions about schooling, cosmetic surgery, employment, and other family matters? Oh no, these are not the Indian dharmic mythology! Furthermore, Republicans are against abuses of any kind and those parents who abuse their children in certain situation should be dealt with accordingly, but by and large usurping parental authority and responsibility run counter to the causes of a strong family. Caribbean people and indeed Indo-Caribbean people are against any semblance of fracturing the family into isolated individuals and diffused, confused, and helpless family units. Welfare is the enemy of opportunity and stable family life. One may recall the Republican push to workfare instead of welfare, which was one reason that the majority of Indian-Americans supported Guliani for Mayor in 1992. Sure, people of Indian origin do not believe in leaving any poor people behind and so feeding and clothing the poor is the dharmic duty of every PIO family, but this must ostensibly be only a short term fix for able-bodied and mentally-stable individuals. In the end, a long term solution toward pro-work, pro-marriage, and disentitlements must be found. In justifying economic inequality one could support the idea of meritocracy where people could supposedly move up the hierarchical ladder owing to hard work and varying levels of performance. If we as PIO do have a belief system that inequalities could be explained and could be justified from a subjective standpoint then we are less prone to blame other people for our lacking upward mobility. And this construction should also be embedded in the minds of all people everywhere. And so, as we prepare to support one candidate over another keep in mind also that the Democrats were the ones who giving stiffer opposition to the Bush Administration's promotion of the strategic partnership plan with the USA and India. In addition, it was the Democrats who were fighting tooth and nail to reverse the contracts of outsourcing jobs to India by American business corporations. Trinidadian nationals would recall in 1990 that it was the Republican Government headed by the senior Bush, who threatened the Muslimeen for almost overthrowing the constitutionally elected government of Trinidad & Tobago. We must be aware also that Republicans are more prone to be even-handed in the Caribbean where political party conflicts are concerned as opposed to the Democrats who would heed the call of their Caribbean lobbyists. My construction is that we should not unreservedly shut out one political persuasion over the other and indeed, as is evident by the fact, our PIO candidates could be found on different sides of many issues and different political persuasion. I am afraid if we are insidiously caught up in that old paradigm of "from each according to his ability to each according to his needs," then in such a visualizing neo-socialism world order people would no longer be held accountable for their misfortunes. Instead, those who have worked hard and have been successful will be guilty of the great injustice of causing a disparity between the rich and the poor. Lawfully industrious people will have to give up their wealth, as is the case in Trinidad & Tobago by virtue of that country's high crime rate against a gullible hard-working and law-abiding industrious class, to correct this perceived and misguided injustice. My suggestions in this article should not preclude the fact that political wisdom dictates we flow with the current when it is convenient to do so. Far from it, I am suggestion that that diving headlong into a political current and unquestioning loyalty should be trumped by parochial and entrepreneurial interests.
However, after attending the Diaspora conference at the Brooklyn Marriott a week ago, I have come to the sad and reluctant conclusion that the last conference was an unequivocal and unadulterated fiasco. After listening to the tired and pedestrian rhetoric of the Caribbean heads of state, I am convinced that these individuals are not yet ready for prime time. They are still stuck in the old colonial paradigm. The format of the conference clearly reflected the outdated colonial mentality of the conference planners. Fully ten of the seventeen events or two-third of the conference events was designated as `closed-door` session. How can you, in good faith, have a Diaspora conference, when two-third of the events are closed to members of the Diaspora family? It is like having a family reunion, which excludes family members from participating in two-third's of the family events. The significant stakeholders in the Diaspora family are the Caribbean heads of state, Caricom, the New York consular corps, the Caribbean hometown associations, the Caribbean press and the Caribbean public. What the conference organizers did during the recent conference was to dismember the Caribbean family by separating the heads of state, Caricom, and the consular corps from the other significant members of the Caribbean family, such as, the hometown associations, the Caribbean press and the Caribbean public. A `closed-door` session is appropriate when the two principal parties are about to sign a contract or a memorandum of understanding. At this stage of the proceedings, confidentiality is important and the session should be closed to the principals -- the party of the first part, and the party of the second part. However, when the negotiations are still in the preliminary stage, the sessions should be open to the public, so as to solicit a wide cross-section of opinion and perspectives and to arrive at the best possible policy formulation. When the Caribbean heads of state met with the Empire State Development Corporation, Goldman Sachs and The New York Stock Exchange they were not about to execute a contract or a memorandum of understanding with these corporate agencies. These were preliminary negotiations and discussions, and the Caribbean heads of state should have made these sessions open to the Caribbean Diaspora so as to solicit a wide cross-section of opinions and perspectives about the best policy formulations for the Caribbean. They should not cling to the old colonial assumptions that the heads of state, like the absolute monarchs of the British Empire, are the sole repositories of divine knowledge, and have an exclusive monopoly on information and policy. On Friday, June 20, 2008, the Caribbean heads of state had a `closed-door` session with Goldman Sachs pertaining to the establishment of a regional stock market in the Caribbean. There is absolutely no reason why this session should have been `closed` to the Caribbean Diaspora. There are several Caribbean nationals who hold significant positions in Wall Street brokerage houses who have knowledge of equity investment and stock underwriting. Surely the Caribbean heads should have included these individuals in the discussion as they could have contributed their expertise to the discourse on the establishment of brokerage houses, commercial banks, and regulatory agencies in the Caribbean. When the Caribbean heads of state met with the corporate brass at the New York Stock Exchange, they should have included these Caribbean technocrats who could have given the Wall Street brass some good insights on how to create financial instruments that could transform the billions of dollars in remittances from the Diaspora from consumption-oriented transfer earnings into investment capital that could be used for economic development in the Caribbean. Similarly the `closed-door` session between the Caribbean heads of state and the Empire State Development Corporation should have been open to the Diaspora, since there are several Caribbean technocrats who have had extensive experience with the Empire State Development Corporation, including the former chairman of that agency. These technocrats could have given the Empire State Development Corporation valuable information as to how that agency could be used to engage in commercial exchanges between the financial community in New York and the entrepreneurial community in the Caribbean. The session at York College could have been better organized. It was touted to be a symposium on investment in the Caribbean. There was no discourse on investment in the Caribbean. It was an open-ended BS session in which politicians were permitted to articulate their political agenda. This was a serious strategic blunder. I would have liked to hear Dr. Ivelaw Griffith, who is an expert of crime in the Caribbean present a serious paper on the `contributing factors, which have led to an upsurge of crime in the Caribbean, and the ways in which the United States government can reduce or mitigate crime in the Caribbean.` The Caribbean heads of state could have been asked to comment on the analysis and policy recommendations in the paper. Instead all we heard was the same old tired rhetoric from our local elected officials and the Caribbean heads of state. During the question and answer period, the Caribbean heads of state selectively chose to respond to those questions with which they were familiar, and to ignore those questions with which they were uncomfortable. They chose to ignore a question posed by Chuck Mohan and myself about why Caribbean governments chose to disburse millions of dollars to Madison Avenue public relations firms, instead of retaining the services of competent public relations firms from the Diaspora. The wrap-up session at the Brooklyn Marriott was inexplicably cancelled. This was the most fatal flaw of the entire conference. It would have given the Caribbean press and the Caribbean public an opportunity to conduct a post-mortem on the conference, to analyze the strengths and weaknesses of the conference, and to make recommendations about reforms that could be implemented to strengthen and improve the conference in the upcoming years. This opportunity was squandered. There was no post-mortem of the conference, and there were no proposals to improve and strengthen it. My fear is that the annual Caribbean Diaspora conference is a great visionary concept that will perish on the vine and die because of poor planning and poor management. The Caribbean heads of state, Caricom, and the New York counselor corps need to do a serious re-evaluation of this concept. They need to create a Caribbean secretariat or coordinator with the sole and exclusive mission to plan and implement these annual conferences. They need to develop a mission statement, an overarching theme for the conference, a set of relevant topics to be discussed, and a panel of experts with specific expertise on Caribbean affairs. They need to preserve an archive of all the concept papers and presentations made at these sessions, and they ought to organize a wrap-up session to enable the participants to conduct a post-mortem of the conference, and to make recommendations of future conferences. Hopefully, in this way we can save a great idea from almost certain self-strangulation, and preserve a great institution that can be used to establish a meaningful bridge between the Caribbean community at home and the Caribbean Diaspora in the United States. --Colin Moore EDITOR'S NOTE: Colin Moore is editor-in-chief of the Caribbean American Weekly. Email: colin.moore@yahoo.com.
 NEW YORK (June 21, 1008): Communication is the basis for life.
When communication fails, abnormality sets in.This principle was demonstrated this week in New York with a decision, seemingly influenced by the Caribbean diplomatic corps, to retain the services of a "mainstream" public relations firm to communicate to members of the Diaspora and the Black media. The event was the Conference on the Caribbean which attracted several Caribbean Heads of State and cabinet ministers who arrived in New York rather surprised to hear that some local media operatives were considering a boycott of the meetings engineered by the respected Harlem Congressman Charles Rangel who chairs the powerful Ways and Means Committee. The boycott suggestion attributed to Guyanese broadcaster Bobby Vieira, general manager of One Caribbean Radio, and supported by some media colleagues, alarmed several of the visiting Heads who must have been concerned about a potentially hostile response from the Diaspora for an important Diaspora-centered event that had been so poorly publicized throughout the Caribbean-American community. Thankfully, all things typically work together for good and the protests of an outraged broadcaster, published on the popular internet-based CaribbeanWorldNews.com, may have brought greater attention to the conference and energized the public relations agency in question to ramp up their communications activities, judging from the flurry of 11th hour media advisories that followed this critical article. Notably, another critical story appeared in the Miami Herald on the conference's opening day. While accompanying a delegate to the meeting on Thursday, a diplomat expressed a measure of disgust with the Caribbean World News article. As a champion for reversing the inverted prejudice from numerous Caribbean government and private sector organizations against Diaspora professionals, I had to distance myself from the boycott call, but nevertheless point out that decision makers consistently show contempt towards Black, Hispanic and Caribbean professionals in the marketplace. This is a topic about which I have extensively written and discussed on air over the years and a subject that was fully ventilated at last month's Caribbean Media Exchange on Sustainable Tourism (CMEx), held in San Juan, Puerto Rico. Admittedly some progress has been made, but too little to write about, except to say that the island of Jamaica is a shining light within CARICOM (Caribbean Community) when it comes to securing the services of the Diaspora, while still falling short of an acceptable standard. Speaking at a recent Diaspora conference in Jamaica, Prime Minister Bruce Golding is reported to have said that often when the country needed an expert to solve a problem the tendency was to look everywhere except among "our Jamaican people." He said more needed to be done in order to open a line so that the government can know who is overseas, and who is "here in Jamaica" that has an interest in helping, as well as the ability to help. He said the Diaspora has a spirit of goodwill that is powerful, on which a value could not be placed and was something that Jamaica should take advantage of. My conversation with the New York-based diplomat surprisingly revealed - or maybe not so surprisingly - that our region's representatives in Manhattan were unaware of any Caribbean public relations firms who could communicate to their own people and whose services could be retained for the Caribbean conference. What a shame, I thought, underscoring the pervasive ignorance across the region and in the marketplace about the professional skills within our expatriate communities - an ignorance that perpetuates the barrel mentality - perhaps that's what Caribbean-Americans are limited to contributing in their eyes. Sadly, those leaders and organizations who are aware of the depth of talent in the Diaspora still remain attracted to the Madison Avenue mindset which rewards companies, some of which burn more energy and resources on pitching clients and on overhead expenditure than they do on meeting client needs once the lucrative contracts have been inked. Will we ever see a change to this affront to Caribbean identity and independence? My fervent prayer is that we will sooner than later. It starts with communication. Maybe there is a silver lining in all of this. The dialogue will surely continue. -- Bevan Springer Editor's Note: Bevan Springer, the Director of Counterpart International's Caribbean Media Exchange on Sustainable Tourism (CMEx), is a journalist and communications advisor. |