|
Venezuela's Chavez says "gringos go to hell" Sun Jan 21, 2007 12:47pm ET CARACAS (Reuters) - Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez on Sunday told the U.S. government to "go to hell" after it questioned his plan to seek special powers to legislate by decree as part of his self-styled socialist revolution. Chavez, a Cuba ally re-elected by a landslide in December, this month launched a broad campaign to consolidate power by nationalizing key industries, seeking expanded executive powers and pushing for unlimited presidential re-election. A State Department spokesman on Friday said Chavez's reform plans have caused "some concern," describing the proposal allowing presidents to rule by decree as "a bit odd" in a democracy. "That is a sacrosanct legal authority of Venezuela, go to hell gringos! Go home! Go home!" Chavez said during his weekly Sunday broadcast. "We're free here, and every day we'll be more free." Venezuela's legislature this week is expected to fully approve the Enabling Law that would give Chavez 18 months to decree legislation. The former soldier has said he would use the expanded powers to end the autonomy of the nation's central bank, create a national police force and boost state control over the nation's oil industry, which provides around 11 percent of U.S. oil imports. State Department spokesman Tom Casey on Friday said the legislation by decree proposal was "a sovereign right of Venezuela but certainly ... a bit odd in terms of a democratic system." Chavez also plans to reform the nation's constitution, rewritten in 1999 on a campaign Chavez himself led, to boost state control over the economy and remove a two-term limit for presidents. Chavez in 2001 decreed a package of 40 laws that paved the way for a sweeping land reform initiative and higher taxes for oil companies. The move galvanized the country's fledgling opposition, which accused Chavez of authoritarianism and staged a botched coup six months later. The government says previous Venezuelan administrations also used the Enabling Law, though opposition leaders say they reserved the law for emergency measures rather than controversial reforms. Chavez, who last year called President Bush "the devil" during a U.N. speech, frequently lambastes U.S. government officials and describes the United States as a decadent empire. The United States has called him a negative force for the region and criticized his close relationship with U.S. foes including Cuba, Iran and Syria. |
|
The Pattern May Change, if ...
POSSIBILITIES Some political analysts say they think the country may accept a woman as president. But they are less sure about an African-American, even one as popular as Barack Obama. AFTER a 217-year march of major presidential nominees who were, without exception, white and male, the 2008 campaign may offer voters a novel choice. But as Barack Obama, the senator from Illinois whose father is from Kenya, spends this weekend exploring a presidential bid in New Hampshire, and Hillary Rodham Clinton, the first woman to represent New York in the Senate, calls potential supporters in Iowa, the question remains: are Americans prepared to elect an African-American or a woman as president? Or, to look at it from the view of Democrats hungry for victory in 2008, is the nation more likely to vote for a woman or an African-American for president? Without question, women and blacks have made significant progress in winning office. The new Congress will include 71 women — one of whom will be the first female speaker of the House — compared with 25 when Representative Geraldine Ferraro, a Queens Democrat, became the first woman to run as a major-party vice presidential candidate in 1984. There will be 43 blacks in the new Congress, compared with 13 when the Congressional Black Caucus was formed in 1969. A Gallup Poll in September showed a steady rise in the number of people who expect the nation to elect a woman or an African-American as president one day: Americans, it seems, are much more open to these choices than, say, someone who is an atheist or who is gay. Times are indeed changing. But how much? Over the past of the past eight years, in the view of analysts from both parties, the country has shifted markedly on the issue of gender, to the point where they say voters could very well be open to electing a woman in 2008. That is reflected, they say, in polling data and in the continued success of women running for office, in red and blue states alike. “The country is ready,” said Senator Elizabeth Dole, the North Carolina Republican, who ran unsuccessfully for president in 2000. “I’m not saying it’s going to happen in ’08. But the country is ready.” By contrast, for all the excitement stirred by Mr. Obama, it is much less certain that an African-American could win a presidential election. Not as many blacks have been elected to prominent positions as women. Some high-profile black candidates — Harold Ford Jr., a Democrat running for the Senate in Tennessee, and Michael Steele, a Republican Senate candidate in Maryland — lost in November. And demographics might be an obstacle as well: black Americans are concentrated in about 25 states — typically blue ones, like New York and California. While black candidates cannot assume automatic support from black voters, they would at least provide a base. In states without big black populations, the candidate’s crossover appeal must be huge. “All evidence is that a white female has an advantage over a black male — for reasons of our cultural heritage,” said the Rev. Jesse L. Jackson, the civil rights leader who ran for president in 1984 and 1988. Still, he said, for African-American and female candidates, “It’s easier — emphatically so.” Ms. Ferraro offered a similar sentiment. “I think it’s more realistic for a woman than it is for an African-American,” said Ms. Ferraro. “There is a certain amount of racism that exists in the United States — whether it’s conscious or not it’s true.” “Women are 51 percent of the population,” she added. Many analysts suggested that changing voter attitudes can best be measured in choices for governors, since they, like presidents, are judged as chief executives, rather than legislators. There will be one black governor next year — Deval L. Patrick in Massachusetts, the second in the nation since Reconstruction. By contrast, women will be governors of nine states, including Washington, Arizona and Michigan, all potential battleground states in 2008, a fact that is no doubt viewed favorably by advisers to Mrs. Clinton. “Voters are getting more comfortable with seeing governors as C.E.O.’s of states,” said Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, a Kansas Democrat. Gov. Jennifer M. Granholm, a Michigan Democrat who won a second term last month, said in an interview that when she first ran, she had to work harder. “Not this time,” she said in an interview. “They are used to a woman being governor.” Of course, governors don’t have to handle national security. And Mrs. Clinton has used her six years in the Senate to try to counter the stereotype that women would not be as strong on the issue, especially with the nation at war. Mrs. Clinton won a seat on the Armed Services Committee, and was an early supporter of the war in Iraq. Mr. Obama is in many ways an unusual African-American politician, and that is why many Democrats, and Republicans, view him as so viable. Mr. Obama is a member of a post-civil-rights generation of black politicians and is not identified with leaders like Mr. Jackson and the Rev. Al Sharpton of New York, who are polarizing to many white voters. He has a warm and commanding campaign presence that, as he showed in Illinois, cut across color lines. Donna Brazile, a prominent Democratic strategist who is black, said that she had been deluged with e-mail messages from people looking to volunteer for Mr. Obama — and that most of the requests were from white voters. Moreover, there is abundant evidence that attitudes toward black candidates are changing among white voters. In Tennessee, Mr. Ford lost his bid to become the state’s first black senator since Reconstruction, but by only three percentage points. Surveys of voters leaving the polls showed that 40 percent of white voters supported Mr. Ford, compared with 95 percent of black voters. More intriguing, the final result was the same as what the exit polls had suggested. Before this, in many races involving black candidates, the polls predicted that they would do better than they actually did — presumably because voters were reluctant to tell questioners they did not support the African-American. That said, Mr. Ford lost his race after Republicans aired an advertisement that Democrats said was explicitly racist. Many Democrats said a lesson of the loss was that racial appeals still have force, particularly in the South. Race and gender are big issues in American politics, but they are not the only ones, particularly in the coming race. Mr. Obama, should he run, may find his lack of experience will be far more troublesome to voters than his color. He is 45 and serving his first term as senator. Mr. Obama said that many black voters he spoke with have serious questions about whether America is ready to elect an African-American president. “I think there is a protectiveness and a skepticism within the African-American community that is grounded in their experiences,” Mr. Obama said in an interview. “But the skepticism doesn’t mean there’s a lack of support.” David A. Bositis, senior political analyst with the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, a nonpartisan Washington group that studies black issues, said that it would certainly be hard, but not impossible for an African-American candidate to win. “I certainly felt in the ’90s that if Colin Powell had been nominated on a major party ticket, he would have had a very good chance to win,” Mr. Bositis said. “If it’s the right black candidate, I do think there is propensity to elect a black. But it has to be the right black candidate.” Jeff Zeleny contributed reporting. |
|
Jamaican-born Canadian soldier latest casualty in war-torn Kandahar TORONTO, Canada, Weds. Sept. 6, 2006:
|
|
CARICOM Finally Speaks Up On Mid-East Crisis GEORGETOWN, Guyana, Thurs. Aug. 10, 2006: Member states of the Caribbean Community finally broke their silence on the escalating conflict in Lebanon and Israel yesterday, expressing “grave concern” and deploring the loss of life. The statement came over 20 days since the launch of the July 12 hostilities, just two days after a popular Grenada opposition member of Parliament called on regional leaders to speak out about the violence and as one popular Caribbean website questioned whether the group had “laryngitis” on the issue. Yesterday, in a statement, CARICOM officials said, “The ongoing and intensifying conflict in an already volatile region poses a threat to international peace and security.” And they stressed support for the call by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, for an immediate cessation of hostilities. “This would bring an end to further human suffering as well as create the conditions for the necessary negotiations for a lasting peace,’ the statement added. The CARICOM statement, issued by the Georgetown headquarters, came on a day when France presented peace plans to Lebanon that calls for Lebanese troops assisted by UN peacekeepers to start deploying in south Lebanon as the Israeli army starts withdrawing. The dialogue on a solution for both sides continues even as Israeli troops battled Hizbollah deep into south Lebanon yesterday under heavy fire. Since July 12, the war has cost the lives of about 1,005 people in Lebanon and more than 100 Israelis. Thousands more Lebanese are displaced and dozens injured. – Hardbeatnews.com |
|
The De-Zionization Of The American Mind By JEAN BRICMONT Americans are constantly told that they have to defend themselves against people who "hate them", but without understanding why they are hated. Is the cause our secular democracy? Our appetite for oil? There are lots of democracies in the world that are far more secular than the United States (Sweden, France...) and lots of places that want to buy oil at the best possible price (China) without arousing any noticeable hatred in the Middle East. Of course, it is true that, throughout the Third World, Americans and Europeans are often considered arrogant and are not particularly liked. But the level of hatred that leads a large number of people to applaud an event like September 11 is peculiar to the Middle East. Indeed, the main political significance of September 11 did not derive from the number of people killed or even the spectacular achievement of the attackers, but from the fact that the attack was popular in large parts of the Middle East. That much was understood by Americans leaders and infuriated them. Such a level of hatred calls for explanation. And there can be only one explanation: United States support for Israel. It is indeed Israel that is the main object of hatred, for reasons we shall describe, but since the United States uncritically supports Israel on almost every issue, constantly praises it as "the only democracy in the Middle East" and provides its main financial backing, the result is a "transfer" of hatred. Why is Israel so hated? The constant stalling of "peace plans" in favor of more settlements and more war aggravates that hatred, but the basic cause lies in the very principles on which that state is build. There are basically two arguments that have justified establishing the State of Israel in Palestine: one is that God gave that land to the Jews, and the other is the Holocaust. The first one is deeply insulting to people who are profoundly religious, like most Arabs, but of another creed. And, for the second, it amounts to making people pay for a crime that they did not commit. Both arguments are deeply racist, with their claim that it is right for Jews, and only Jews, to set up a state in a land that would obviously be Arab, like Jordan or Lebanon, if not for the slow Zionist invasion. This is illustrated by the "law of return": any Jew, anywhere, having no connection with Palestine whatsoever, and not suffering from the slightest persecution, can, if he so wishes, emigrate to Israel and easily become a citizen, while the inhabitants who fled in 1948, or their children, cannot. Add to that the fact that a city claimed to be Holy by three religions has become the "eternal capital of the Jewish people" (and only them) and one should start to understand the rage that all this provokes throughout the Arab and Muslim world. It is precisely this racist aspect that infuriates most Arabs, even if they do not have any personal connection to Palestine (if they live, say, in the French banlieues). This situation delegitimizes the Arab regimes that are impotent in the face of the Zionist enemy and, after the defeat of the region's two main secular leaders, Nasser and Saddam Hussein (the latter thanks to the US), leads to the rise of religious fundamentalism. Now, people often find racism far more unacceptable than "mere" economic exploitation or poverty. Consider South Africa: under apartheid, the living conditions of the Blacks were bad but not necessarily much worse than in other parts of Africa (or even than in South Africa now). But the system was intrinsically racist, and that was felt as an outrage to Blacks everywhere, including in the United States. This is why the conflict over Palestine goes beyond the second class status of Israeli Arabs or even the treatment of the Occupied Territories. Even if a Palestinian state were established on the latter, and even if full equality were granted to Israeli Arabs, the wounds of 1948 would not heal quickly. Arab leaders, even religious ones, can of course sign peace agreements with Israel, but they are fragile so long as the Arab population considers them unjust and does not accept them wholeheartedly. Palestine is the Alsace-Lorraine or the Taiwan of the Arab world and the fact that it is impossible to take it back does not mean that it can be forgotten . (I am not arguing here in favour of « wiping Israel off the map », or in favor of a « one state solution » but simply underlining what seems to me to be the root and the depth of the problem. In fact, I am not arguing for any solution partly because none seems to me to be attainable in the short term, but, more fundamentally, because I do not think that outsiders to the Middle East should propose such solutions.) There is no sign that any of this is understood in Israel by more than a few individuals; if Arabs hate them, this is just another instance of the fact that everybody hates Jews and it only proves that they have to "defend themselves" (i.e. attack others pre-emptively) by any means necessary. That is bad enough, but why isn't this understood in the United States either? There are traditionally two answers to that: one is that the population is manipulated into supporting Israel by the government, the arms merchants or the oil industry, because Israel is a strategic U.S. ally; the other answer is that the United States is manipulated by the Israel lobby. The idea that Israel is a strategic ally, if by that one means a useful ally (useful to, say, the oil interests, broadly understood), although widely accepted, specially in the Left, does not survive a critical examination. That may have been the case in 1967 or even during the Cold War period, although one could argue that, even then, the Arab states were attracted by the Soviet Union only because it might support them in their struggle against Israel, albeit ineffectively. But both in 1991 and in 2003, the United States attacked Iraq without any help from Israel, even begging Israel not to intervene in 1991, in order for its Arab coalition not to collapse. Or consider the post-2003 occupation of Iraq, and suppose that the goal of that occupation is control over oil. In what sense does Israel help in that respect? Everything it does (the currents attacks on Gaza and Lebanon for example) further alienates the Arabs, and U.S. support for Israel makes the control of oil harder, not easier. Even the Iraqi parliament, Malaki and Sistani, who are the closest to allies that the United States can find there, condemn Israel's actions. Finally, just imagine that the United States would make a 180 turn and suddenly side with the Palestinians, as they did with the Kosovars against the Serbs--who, by the way, were, like the Israelis, richer and more "Western" than their Albanian adversaries . Such a change of policies is by no means impossible : when Indonesia invaded East Timor in 1975, the US supported the invasion by providing most of Indonesia's weapons. Yet, 25 years later, the US supported, or at least did not oppose, East Timor's accession to independence. What effect would that have? Can anyone doubt that such a change of policy would facilitate U.S. access to oil fields and help it gain strategic allies (if any were still needed) throughout the Muslim world? In the Middle East, the main charge against the United States is that it is pro-Israel, because it lets itself be "manipulated by the Jews". Therefore, if Washington switched sides, there would be no more basis for hostility to U.S. presence, including its control over oil. Thus the notion of Israel as "strategic ally" makes no sense. This leads us to the "Israel lobby" answer, which is closer to the truth, but not the whole truth. To get a complete picture, one has to understand why the lobby works as effectively as it does, and that depends on factors lying outside the actions of the lobby itself. After all, the militant Zionists constituting the lobby are a minority among Jews, who themselves form a small minority of the American population. The Israel lobby does not work like other lobbies, for example, the arms and the oil industry lobbies (which is one of the reasons why it is easy to dismiss it as irrelevant, as long as one does not understand how it really exerts its influence). Of course, like the latter, the Israel lobby does fund electoral campaigns and its power derives in part from its ability to target people in Congress who deviate from its "line". But if that was all, it could easily be defeated indeed, there are other sources of electoral funding, the big industrial lobbies for example, and if the pro-Israel candidates could be shown to be paid to serve the interests of another State, their opponents could denounce the people who receive money from the lobby as some sort of agents of a foreign power. Just imagine a pro-French, pro-Chinese or pro-Japanese lobby that would try to significantly influence the US Congress. Certainly, money alone cannot suffice. What protects the Israel lobby is the fact that anyone who would denounce an opponent funded by the Lobby as a quasi-agent of a foreign power would immediately be accused of anti-Semitism. In fact, imagine that Big Business is unhappy with the current U.S. policies (as it well may be) and wants to change them--how could they do it? Any criticism of Lobby influence on U.S. policy would immediately trigger the anti-Zionism-is-anti-Semitism accusation. So the strength of the Israel lobby resides in part in this second line of defense, which itself is linked to its influence on the media. But even that could easily be defeated -- not all the media are under the lobby's influence, and, more importantly, the media is not all-powerful: in Venezuela, it is anti-Chavez, but Chavez regularly wins elections. In France, the media were overwhelmingly in favour if the "yes" vote to the referendum on the European Constitution, yet the "no" won. The problem, and that is why the Israel lobby is so effective, is that it expresses a world view that is accepted too easily by too many Americans. After all, nothing could be more ridiculous than accusing someone of anti-Semitism because he wants or claims to put America's interests above those of Israel. Yet, the accusation is likely to be effective, but only because years of ideological brainwashing have predisposed people to consider U.S. and Israeli interests as identical -- although instead of "interests" one speaks of "values". Associated with this identification comes a systematically hostile view of the Arab and Muslim world, which both increases the lobby's effectiveness and is in part the result of its propaganda. Despite all the talk about anti-racism and "political correctness", there is an almost total lack of understanding of the Arab viewpoint on Palestine, and, in particular, of the racist nature of the problem. It is this triple layer of control (selective funding, the anti-Semitism card, or rather canard, and the interiorization) that gives the lobby its peculiar strength. (And that is also why it is easy to dismiss its strength by saying, for instance, that, obviously, Jews don't control America. Sure, but direct control is not the way it works.) People who think that it is the arms or the oil industry that are running the show in Washington as far as foreign policy is concerned, should at least answer the following question: how does it work? There is no evidence whatsoever that the oil industry, for example, pushed for the Iraq war, the threats against Iran or the attack on Lebanon . (There is a lot of evidence that the Israel lobby pushed for the Iraq war; see Jeff Blankfort, A War for Israel.They are supposed to act secretly, of course, but where is the evidence that they do? And if there is no evidence, even no indirect evidence, how does one know? Profits from the war, at least for major corporations, haven't materialized yet, and there are many indications that the U.S. economy will suffer a lot from war-related expenses and the associated deficits. On the other hand, it is enough to open any mainstream U.S. newspaper or TV and read or hear opinions expressed by Zionists calling for more war. War needs war propaganda and a supporting ideology, and the Zionists provide it, while none of this is offered by Big Business in general or the oil industry in particular. One may also think of historical precedents, like the China lobby (made of post-1949 Chinese exiles and ex-missionaries, supported by their domestic churches) in the 1950's and 1960's. That lobby led the United States to maintain the ridiculous claim that a billion people were represented by a government (Taiwan) that had no control over them whatsoever. It was also very influential in bringing on the Vietnam war. Whose interests were they serving? The ones of the American capitalists? But the latter make huge profits in post-Nixon recognized China. And the same is true in Vietnam. In fact both countries, as well as most of Asia, were anti-colonialist and anti-imperialist, as well as anti-feudal (partly because the feudal structures did not allow them to resist foreign invasions). But they were anti-capitalist (in the rhetoric, since capitalism barely existed there) mostly because their aggressors --the West--were capitalist. So that the main lesson to be drawn from the tragic history of the China lobby is that it held, during decades, the US policies hostage to revanchist feudal and clerical forces that were alien to mainstream America, and actually harmful to capitalist America. But they worked to the extent that their ideology-- mixing fear with racist contempt for the "Asian mind" -- was in sync with Western prejudices. Replace the China lobby by the Israel one and the Asian mind by the Arab one and you get a fair picture of what is going on right now in the U.S.-Middle East relation. What should the Left do? Well, simple: treat Israel as it did South Africa and attack the Lobby. The reason Israel acts as it does is that it feels strong and that, in turn, is for two reasons: one is its "all-powerful army" (currently being tested in Lebanon, not conclusively yet); the other is the almost complete control over Washington policy-making, specially the Congress. Peace in the Middle East can only come when this feeling of Israeli superiority is shattered, and Americans have a great responsibility is doing half of the job, the one concerning kneejerk U.S. support. Now, there are, in principle, two ways to do that: one is to appeal to American generosity, the other is to appeal to their self-interest. Both ways should be pursued, but the latter is not enough emphasized by the Left . (See Michael Neumann, What is to be said ?, for a discussion of the ethical aspects of that choice.) That's probably because self-interest does not appear to be "noble" and because the pursuit of the "U.S. national interest" has all too often been interpreted as overthrowing progressive governments, buying elections etc. But, if the alternative to self-interest is a form of religious fanaticism, then self-interest is far preferable: if the Germans had followed self-interested policies in the 1930's, even imperialist policies, but rational ones, World War II could have been avoided. Also, if the United States were to distance itself from Israel, it would pursue policies opposed to the traditional ones, and far more humane. The other problem is that a large part of the Right (from Buchanan to Brzezinski) correctly sees American interests as being opposed of those of Israel, and the Left (understandably) does not like to make common cause with such people. But if a cause is just (and, in this case, urgent) it does not become less just because unsavory people endorse it (the same argument applies to genuine anti-Semitic hostility to Israel). The worst thing that the Left can do is to leave the monopoly of a just cause to the Right. The Left cannot expect the American people to change radically overnight, abandon religious fundamentalism, give up oil addiction or embrace socialism. But a change of perspective in the Middle East is possible: the strength of the lobby is also its weakness, namely the naked king effect-everybody fears it, but the only reason to fear it is that everybody around us fears it. Left alone, it is powerless. To change that, one should systematically defend every politician, every columnist, every teacher, who is targeted by the lobby for his or her views or statements, irrespective of their general political outlook (to take an analogy, act as civil libertarians do with respect to free speech). When people in the antiwar movement divert attention from Israel by blaming Big Oil or Big Business for the wars (specially the one in Lebanon, or the threats against Iran) one should demand that they provide some evidence for their claims. Challenge all the apologists or excuse makers for Israel or its lobby within progressive circles. When politicians and journalists claim that Israel and the United States have common interests, ask what services exactly has Israel rendered to the United States recently. Of course one can always point to some (minor) services; but, then, ask them what a cold-blooded cost-benefit analysis would reveal and why such an analysis is impossible to undertake publicly. If they speak of common values (the fallback position), provide a list of discriminatory Israeli laws for non-Jews. Rolling back the lobby would necessitate a change of the American mentality with respect to the people of the Middle East, and to Islam, like ending the Vietnam war required a change in the way Asians were looked at. But that alone would have a greatly humanizing effect on American culture. It is true that a change in the U.S. policy with respect to the Israel-Palestine conflict would change nothing about traditional imperialism-- the United States would still support traditional elites everywhere, and press countries to provide a "favorable investment climate". But the conflict in the Middle East, involving Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Syria, Palestine, has all the aspects of a religious war-with Islam on one side and Zionism as a secular Western religion on the other. And wars of religion tend to be the most brutal and uncontrollable of all wars. What is at stake in the de-Zionization of the American mind is not only the fate of the unfortunate inhabitants of Palestine but also unspeakable miseries for the people of that region and maybe of the rest of the world. The ultimate irony in all this is that the fate of much of the world depends of the American people exercizing their right to self-determination, which, of course, they should.
Jean Bricmont teaches physics in Belgium. He is a member of the Brussells Tribunal. His new book, Humanitarian Imperialism, will be published by Monthly Review Press. He can be reached at : bricmont@fyma.ucl.ac.be |
|
Israel Expected To Approve Broader Ground Offensive KARIN LAUB, Associated Press JERUSALEM — Israel's Security Cabinet convened Wednesday to likely approve a broader ground offensive in Lebanon, with key ministers arguing that the military must deal more blows to Hezbollah and score quick battlefield victories before a Mideast cease-fire is imposed. However, a decision to send troops deeper into Lebanon is fraught with considerable risk. Israel would set itself up for new criticism that it is sabotaging diplomatic efforts, particularly after Lebanon offered to deploy its own troops in the border area. Also, a wider ground offensive might do little to stop Hezbollah rocket fire on Israel, while sharply increasing the number of casualties among Israeli troops. An Israeli security official told Cabinet members the offensive could mean 100 to 200 more military casualties, a participant said on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk about the closed-door meeting. So far, 67 Israeli soldiers have been killed. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in principle supports a wider offensive, but is hedging because of concern about rising Israeli casualties, his aides have said. However, stepping up the military campaign appeared to have strong support in the 12-member Security Cabinet. The ministers met a day after the commander of Israeli forces in Lebanon was sidelined in an unusual mid-war shake-up — another sign of the growing dissatisfaction with the military, which has been unable to stop Hezbollah's daily rocket barrages. The army denied it was dissatisfied with Maj. Gen. Udi Adam, but military commentators said the commander was seen as too slow and cautious. The deputy chief of staff, Maj. Gen. Moshe Kaplinski, was appointed to oversee the Lebanon fighting. Under the army's proposal for a wider offensive, troops would push to and in some cases beyond Lebanon's Litani River, about 18 miles from the Israel-Lebanon border. With Cabinet approval, troops could move forward immediately, defence officials said. More than 10,000 Israeli soldiers have been fighting several hundred Hezbollah guerrillas in a four-mile stretch north of the border, but have faced fierce resistance. Earlier this week, the Israeli military declared a no-drive zone south of the Litani and threatened to blast any moving vehicles as guerrilla targets. Country roads and highways were deserted throughout the area on Wednesday. In the Lebanese coastal city of Tyre, only pedestrians ventured into the streets. In attacks Wednesday, Israel's military struck Lebanon's largest Palestinian refugee camp, killing at least one person and wounding three others. Lebanese and Palestinian officials said an Israeli gunship shelled the Ein el-Hilweh camp, but Israel's military said the attack was an airstrike that targeted a house used by Hezbollah guerrillas. The camp is home to about 75,000 Palestinian refugees and their descendants who were displaced by the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. Israeli airstrikes also levelled a building in the Bekaa Valley town of Mashghara, trapping seven people from the same family under the rubble. Security officials said all were feared dead. On Tuesday, at least 19 Lebanese civilians were killed in Israeli airstrikes. Rescuers pulled 28 additional corpses from the wreckage of attacks the day before, raising the death toll to 77 Lebanese killed Monday, the highest since the war began. Israel reported five soldiers killed Tuesday but no civilians. Diplomatic efforts were moving slowly, and Israeli Cabinet ministers pushing for a wider offensive said there's no guarantee a cease-fire deal would, in fact, neutralize Hezbollah. Israel is particularly skeptical of a Lebanese proposal to dispatch 15,000 soldiers to south Lebanon after a cease-fire and the withdrawal of Israeli forces. “We will not agree to a situation in which the diplomatic solution will not promise us stability and quiet for many years,” Israeli Defence Minister Amir Peretz told visiting German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier. Hezbollah has fired more than 3,100 rockets at Israeli towns in a month of fighting. Even the most dovish member of the Security Cabinet, Ofir Pines-Paz, agreed with Mr. Peretz. “The relentless firing (of rockets) has to be stopped, and we have to take military measures to do this, if the diplomatic efforts are not working,” he told Israel Army Radio before Wednesday's meeting. Diplomatic efforts to end the war have been stop-and-go, and Lebanon's proposal to deploy troops on the border appeared to have taken Israel by surprise. Israel has long demanded a deployment of Lebanese forces in the border area, but only coupled with a serious effort by the Lebanese government to disarm Hezbollah. Israel believes Lebanese forces are not strong or determined enough to do the job alone, and would like to see a multinational force in the area, as well. Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Saniora praised Hezbollah's resistance, but said it was time for Lebanon to “impose its full control, authority and presence” nationwide — as directed in previous UN resolutions that also called for the government to disarm Hezbollah. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said the proposal was significant, but U.S. President George W. Bush warned against leaving a vacuum into which Hezbollah and its sponsors are able to move more weapons. While Mr. Bush said a UN Security Council resolution was needed quickly, the council put off for at least one day voting on a U.S.-French cease-fire proposal. The delay was to allow three leading Arab officials to present arguments that the resolution was heavily tilted in favour of Israel and did not “take Lebanon's interest and stability into account.” Both the U.S. and French envoys to the UN indicated there might be room for limited compromise. “Obviously we want to hear from the Arab League ... and then we'll decide where to go from there,” U.S. Ambassador John Bolton said. French UN Ambassador Jean-Marc de La Sabliere promised to take Lebanon's stance into account. Since the fighting began, at least 689 people have died on the Lebanese side of the conflict. The total number of Lebanese civilian deaths rose by 47 Tuesday as rescue workers pulled 14 more bodies from the wreckage of two buildings in south Beirut that were hit by Israeli missiles the night before. The toll in that attack now stands at 30. One of the most tragic stories was that of Ali Rmeity. He was badly wounded and winced with pain in the Mount Lebanon hospital near Beirut. Three of his children were dead and his only surviving son was in intensive care. He hadn't been told because doctors said they feared the 45-year-old could not stand the shock. The Israeli toll stood at 103 killed — 36 civilians and 67 soldiers. Fifteen Israeli soldiers were wounded in fierce nighttime battles in south Lebanon, the army said. Ten of the soldiers were lightly hurt. |
|
Second Generation Caribbean National Seeks French Presidency
LONDON, England, Weds. July 26, 2006: A 34-year-old second generation Caribbean national and former rap singer has set his sights on becoming France’s first black president. Stéphane Pocrain, born in Paris to migrants from Guadeloupe, says he’s running on the issue of race despite knowing that he has no real chance of actually winning next May’s general election. “In the media and in politics, you see mainly cliques of old, white males. It is my civic duty to alert the national community about the situation of blacks, too often considered as second-class citizens,” Pocrain, an independent candidate, told the Times of London recently. Many compare him to Jesse Jackson and even call him “the Reverend” for his stance on civil rights. And he feels optimistic about his campaign to crate more opportunities for minority groups in France. Pocrain is the founder member of the Council Representative Of Black Associations Of France. Pocrain’s campaign comes months after riots erupted in many of France’s poor, immigrant neighborhoods due largely to frustration over high unemployment rates and discrimination. |
|
Brooklyn Group Urges Guyana Govt. To Quit Defending Khan
BROOKLYN, N.Y., Weds. July 19, 2006: A Brooklyn-based community organization is urging the Guyana government to stop what they claim is the defense of alleged drug-baron Shaheed Roger Khan. The Caribbean Guyana Institute for Democracy says the government’s recent “defense” of Khan’s arrest by U.S. agents sounds like "desperate pandering to an alleged criminal financier so as to dissuade him from naming accomplices and beneficiaries in the government." Khan is currently in the United States awaiting trial on conspiracy and drug exportation charges. He was arrested in Suriname two weeks ago but was deported to Guyana via Trinidad & Tobago where he was arrested by US DEA agents. On Saturday, July 15, Guyana's President Bharrat Jagdeo suggested to an audience in New York that Khan was a victim of US rendition and said he is entitled to due process. Last week, Guyana 's Cabinet Secretary, Dr. Roger Luncheon and former Guyanese President, Janet Jagan, both questioned the legitimacy of Khan’s arrest. CGID President, Rickford Burke commented, “While I would not comment on the legality of the action taken by US law enforcement, I certainly support the rationale to bring him to justice. President Jagdeo and others must stop defending the Guyana drug cartel. If they have a grievance or feel an injustice was committed against them or Khan, they should take up the matter with the Inter-American Commission for Human Rights.” He added that "it is hypocritical and reprehensible for President Jagdeo and the PPP to attempt to lecture other governments about due process,” when they continue to hold journalist Mark Benschop in jail without a trial. Benschop is facing a treason charge for an attack on the Presidential Palace following a demonstration in July 2002. He faces a death sentence if convicted. |
|
FIFA Cup in Germany…The Ghana Team
Click to View Articles |
|
Nortel Cuts Jobs, Revamps Benefits CATHERINE MCLEAN, Globe and Mail Update Nortel Networks Corp. is slicing jobs once again and overhauling retirement benefits as chief executive officer Mike Zafirovski tries to reverse the company's fortunes, but observers say those measures won't resolve its larger issues. Two days before its annual shareholders meeting, the struggling communications equipment maker said it will trim a net 1,100 positions worldwide, and shift employees on traditional defined benefit pension plans to defined contribution programs. Together, those steps are expected to generate more than $575-million (U.S.) in savings by 2012. While the measures should help the Brampton, Ont., company keep costs in check, analysts are waiting for Nortel to make difficult decisions about its future strategy. It needs to figure out whether to slim down and focus on a few products, or join forces with a rival and sell a wide range of communications equipment, analysts say. “I think we're all still waiting for the grand pronouncement of what Nortel is going to look like,” said Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. LLC analyst Paul Sagawa. Analysts said the work force reduction wasn't a surprise considering Mr. Zafirovski has pledged to expand the company's operating margin by $1.5-billion through 2008. Mr. Zafirovski, who took over in November, aims to generate those savings through a wide variety of measures, including improving research and development and procurement processes. “Today's announcements continue our efforts to increase competitiveness, better manage our costs, and secure the resources to fuel Nortel's innovation,” Mr. Zafirovski said as he updated his turnaround plan. Nortel has already reduced its work force to 35,000 currently, from a high of 95,000 just five years ago. Nortel now plans to pare another 1,200 jobs worldwide as it shutters some of its more than 100 operating hubs. Another 350 jobs will be eliminated through “business unit efficiencies,” while 350 middle managers will lose their jobs. Nortel will save $175-million by 2008 through the cuts, which will cost $100-million over the next two years, including a $35-million charge in the current quarter. At the same time, the company plans to add 800 jobs as it builds so-called operations centres of excellence, which provide engineering, product and technical support, in Mexico and Turkey. The cuts were necessary as Nortel comes under pressure as rivals merge and lower-cost Asian competitors gain ground, analysts believe. More cuts could be ahead. “You could see some fallout of additional cuts if they potentially decide to exit certain business units,” explained Dominion Bond Rating Service Ltd. analyst Rory Buchalter. Job cuts aren't the only changes in store for Nortel employees, as the company aims to save money by revamping its retirement program in Canada and the United States. Starting next month, the company will stop paying postretirement health care benefits for employees who are younger than 50 with less than 5 years of service. Moreover, employees who are currently in defined benefit pension plans, with guaranteed monthly payments upon retirement based on salaries and years of service, will move to defined contribution plans as of Jan. 1, 2008. With the move to defined contribution plans, employees typically take on more risk, said Anil Verma, an industrial relations professor at the University of Toronto's Rotman School of Management. However, they also receive a fixed contribution from the employer each year, he said. Nortel will contribute the equivalent of up to 5 per cent of employees' eligible wages. Nortel had defined benefit plan obligations of $8.95-billion in 2005, though the unfunded status of the program was $2.496-billion. Nortel said the pension changes will save it $400-million by 2012, reducing its unfunded pension liability deficit. |
|
The State of the World's Mothers Saturday, May 14th 2006 Children in most countries in the world are today honing their preparations for Mother's Day tomorrow. Despite the grumbling that Mother's Day, like almost every other 'day' has become over-commercialised over the years, few people opt out of the gift-giving and Mom-pampering. After all no one wants to be seen as not in favour of honouring their mothers. Those not celebrating tomorrow would be children in the UK where Mother's Day or Mothering Sunday was already celebrated in a big way in March and those in the poorest of poor or war-torn countries in the world, where getting a meal or clean water to drink takes precedence over everything else. In this milieu, Save the Children, a US-based independent global humanitarian organization, on Tuesday released its State of the World's Mothers 2006 report to coincide with Mother's Day celebrations. Contained in the report is the organisation's annual Mothers' Index, which rates the best and worst places in the world to be a mother and a child. Not all of the countries in the world are listed as there was too little or no information at all for some of them.
State of the World's Mothers Report 2006
For most children in the developing world, the most dangerous day of their lives is their birthday. Of more than 10 million children under the age of 5 who die each year, about 1 in 5—an estimated 2 million babies—die within the first 24 hours of life, according to the seventh annual State of the World’s Mothers report issued today by Save the Children, a global independent humanitarian organization. According to the report, an additional 1 million babies die during days 2 through 7. A total of 4 million babies die during the first month of life. “The first hours, days and weeks of a baby’s life are critical. Yet, only a tiny minority of babies in poor countries receive proper heath care during this highly vulnerable period,” said Save the Children Australia CEO, Margaret Douglas, in issuing the report. “The most simple health measures taken for granted in Australia can mean the difference between life and death for these babies. Low-cost interventions such as immunizing women against tetanus and providing a skilled attendant at birth could reduce newborn deaths by as much as 70 percent if provided universally.” The report notes that most newborn deaths are the result of preventable or treatable causes such as infections, complications at birth and low birth weight. “Newborn deaths are one of the world’s most neglected heath problems,” said Ms. Douglas. “While there has been significant progress in reducing deaths among children under age 5 over the past decade, we have made little progress in reducing mortality rates for babies during the first month of life. In fact, newborn deaths are so common in many parts of the developing world that parents put off naming their babies until they are a week to 3 months old.” Report Findings: The report found that 10 countries account for more than two-thirds of all newborn deaths worldwide, with the highest number of deaths taking place in India (more than 1 million) and China (416,000). However, because of their large populations, neither India nor China has the highest rate of newborn deaths. Overall, the region of the world with the highest newborn death rates is sub-Saharan Africa where 1 out of 5 mothers has lost at least one baby in childbirth, the report said. The industrialized world, accounts for only about 1 percent of all newborn deaths worldwide. In evaluating the well-being of mothers and newborns in 53 low-income countries, Save the Children ranked Liberia and Afghanistan at the bottom, and placed Vietnam and Nicaragua at the top. Liberia’s newborn mortality rate is more than five times that of Vietnam. The report also evaluated 23 middle-income developing countries and placed Iraq at the bottom (6 deaths per 100 births) and Colombia at the top (1 death per 100 births). Among 32 industrialized countries reviewed in the report, the United States ranked next to last, ahead of Latvia and tied with Hungary, Malta and Slovakia. The report said the U.S. newborn mortality rate is nearly three times higher than that of Finland, Iceland, Norway and Japan. Among the world’s developing countries, the report singled out Vietnam, Nicaragua, Eritrea, Tajikistan, Indonesia and Philippines as making significant strides in saving newborn lives despite limited financial resources. Vietnam, the report noted, has a per capita gross domestic product (GDP) of under AUS$4,000, but it has still kept newborn death rates relatively low by aggressively assisting mothers prior to and during childbirth. In Vietnam, more than half of the women use modern contraception and nearly all pregnant women receive prenatal care and the services of a skilled birth attendant. In contrast, Angola, with nearly the same per capita GDP as Vietnam, has a newborn death rate more than four times higher—5 deaths per 100 births. In Angola, only 5 percent of women use modern contraception, more than half of the population has no access to health care, and more than half of all babies are born without the assistance of skilled personnel. Going beyond the numbers, the report also offers dramatic accounts in developing countries of how communities are working together to reduce newborn deaths. For example, in Mali, grandmothers, who are highly respected and influential in family matters, were enlisted as agents of change. They were educated on simple actions to protect the health of mother and baby. As a result, the number of mothers who provided nothing but breast milk during the first three days increased by 27 percent, and the number of mothers whose infants received newborn care rose 17 percent in targeted areas. Recommendations
These measures include tetanus immunisations, skilled attendant at childbirth, prompt treatment of newborn infections and education about proper hygiene, warmth and breastfeeding for infants. Expand the availability of good quality health care to mothers after childbirth. The report calls on governments to increase their political and financial support for these proven solutions that save the lives of mothers and babies. The Australian public is asked to support increased international assistance for newborn, child and maternal heath that will help save lives. Ms. Douglas noted that Save the Children is committed to helping save newborn lives worldwide. Through funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation in 2000, Save the Children has been working to prevent newborn illness and death among babies most at risk of dying in Asia, Africa and Latin America. Since the project’s start, more than 20 million mothers and babies have been reached with essential health services. Save the Children, through a new Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation grant received in December 2005, is focusing on ways to identify and promote the large-scale adoption in 18 countries of proven, low-cost tools and approaches that address the three main killers of 1-week-old babies— infections, lack of oxygen supply to a baby during delivery and at birth, and low birth weight. In addition to its special focus on newborns and mothers, the report includes Save the Children’s seventh annual Mothers’ Index that identifies the best—and worst—countries to be mother and child through a comprehensive look at their well-being in 125 countries. For the seventh year in a row, Scandinavian countries dominate the top tier of the rankings with Sweden taking first place. Australia and the Netherlands tie for 7th place. Niger is in last place. |
|
In First for Africa, Woman Wins Election as President of Liberia
By LYDIA POLGREEN New
York Times
Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, a Harvard-educated economist and former World Bank official who waged a fierce presidential campaign against the soccer star George Weah, emerged victorious on Friday in her quest to lead war-torn Liberia and become the first woman elected head of state in modern African history. "Everything is on our side," said Morris Dukuly, a spokesman for Ms. Johnson-Sirleaf. "The voters have chosen a new and brighter future." With 97 percent of the runoff vote counted on Friday, Ms. Johnson- Sirleaf achieved an insurmountable lead with 59 percent, compared with Mr. Weah's 41 percent, in a nation where women make up more than half the electorate. Ms. Johnson-Sirleaf's victory propels her into an old boys' club unlike any other. From the Cape to Cairo, from Dar es Salaam to Dakar, men have dominated African politics from the earliest days of the anticolonial struggle. "There are so many capable women," said Yassine Fall, a Senegalese economist and feminist working on women's rights in Africa. "But they just don't get the chance to lead." Indeed, when supporters of Ms. Johnson-Sirleaf, 66, a onetime United Nations official and Liberian finance minister, marched through the broken streets of Monrovia in the final, frantic days of the campaign for Liberia's presidency, they shouted and waved signs that read, "Ellen - she's our man." Mr. Dukuly said Ms. Johnson-Sirleaf held off formally declaring victory because Mr. Weah, who won the first round of the election last month and enjoys broad support among Liberia's huge youth population, had alleged that the results were tainted by fraud. Mr. Weah told reporters in Monrovia that he had submitted a formal complaint to the Supreme Court, which will investigate. International observers said that while there were some minor irregularities, they were too small to change the outcome. Mr. Weah, speaking Friday to a crowd of supporters at his campaign headquarters, appealed for calm, but hundreds of supporters wielding branches marched through the streets in protest, chanting, "No Weah, no peace!" They threw stones at police officers in front of the National Elections Commission, and United Nations peacekeepers fired tear gas to keep protesters from storming the United States Embassy, according to Reuters. Mr. Weah, whose base was the young, discontented population who idolized him for his exploits on the soccer field and his rags-to-riches life story, was seen as a favorite because young voters make up 40 percent of the electorate. But the women's vote appears to have been stronger. There were slightly more women registered to vote in Liberia, and while there were no reliable surveys of voters leaving the polls, women appeared to be a strong presence. Political strategy played a role as well. In the final weeks of the campaign, Ms. Johnson-Sirleaf formed crucial alliances with parties whose candidates had lost in the first round, which winnowed the field of 22 presidential contenders to 2. The impact of her victory went well beyond Liberia, a nation still trying to recover from more than a decade of civil war. The history of the continent rings with the names of heroes like Kwame Nkrumah, Nelson Mandela and Jomo Kenyatta, fathers of the modern African states they helped form, and villains like Mobutu Sese Seko, Idi Amin and Sani Abacha, the despotic "big men" who ruled ruthlessly over their subjects, enriching themselves along the way. Despite the large role women played in many national struggles for independence, they were largely relegated to the sidelines in the post-colonial era. The most ambitious women often went abroad, and some, like Ms. Johnson-Sirleaf, rose to prominence in international organizations like the United Nations and the World Bank. But in recent years, African women have gained power and visibility. In 2004 a Kenyan environmentalist, Wangari Muta Maathai, won the Nobel Peace Prize, while Nigeria's finance minister and feared corruption fighter, Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, has emerged as one of that country's most respected officials. Women have also made gains at the ballot box. The prime minister of Mozambique, Luísa Dias Diogo, is widely seen as a likely future president. In Rwanda, there is a greater proportion of women serving in Parliament than in any other nation; they occupy nearly half the seats. Indeed, Africa leads the developing world in the percentage of women in legislative positions, at about 16 percent, according to the Inter-Parliamentary Union, an organization of parliamentary bodies worldwide. Yet having more women leaders does not necessarily bring decisions that benefit women. While women generally make decisions that favor women and children, they often gain political power as an embattled minority that feels it must follow men's lead in order to maintain power, said Geeta Rao Gupta, president of the International Center for Research on Women, a Washington-based research group. "When there is a critical mass of women leaders, they gain confidence over time and are more likely to exhibit diversity of experience as women in their decisions," Ms. Rao Gupta said. "It takes a few cycles to really sink in." Liberia's presidential election came two years after the nation emerged from a brutal civil war that claimed more than 200,000 lives and displaced a third of the population. Pushed from power by rebels, Charles Taylor, the warlord who became Liberia's president and fomented bloody wars that racked the region for more than a decade, went into exile in 2003 and is now in Nigeria. He left behind a nation shattered by war, with the entire infrastructure, from roads to electric wires to water pipes, rotted away or looted. Despite its natural wealth in gems, rubber and timber, Liberia is one of the poorest nations. Ms. Johnson-Sirleaf, who has been known as Liberia's Iron Lady since she ran against Mr. Taylor for president in 1997 and was jailed for more than a year under the former dictator Samuel Doe, will have no trouble fitting into the all-male club of African heads of state, said Ms. Fall, the economist, who has known her for years. "She is fearless," Ms. Fall said. "No men intimidate her."
Move to Arrest Ex-Dictator UNITED NATIONS, Nov. 11 (Reuters) The Security Council voted unanimously on Friday to authorize peacekeepers to arrest Charles Taylor, the former president, if he returns to Liberia and turn him over to a special tribunal in Sierra Leone. Mr. Taylor, in exile in Nigeria, was indicted in Sierra Leone in March 2003 on 17 counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity. In addition to calling for Mr. Taylor's arrest, the resolution referred to his stay in Nigeria as temporary, which rights activists said could clear the way for Nigeria to turn him over for trial in Sierra Leone. |
|
Donations Urgently Needed: disaster relief in the aftermath of Hurricane STAN - El Salvador & Guatemala Need Our Help ... info & details: lorena@changeforchildren.org / www.changeforchildren.org Dear friend / colleague: Change for Children is working with groups in El Salvador and in Guatemala on disaster relief and the provision of emergency supplies in the aftermath of Hurricane Stan. Stan, a category one hurricane, entered Mexico from the Atlantic on Tuesday, moving slowly southwest across the country and triggering heavy rains and storms in Central America. A State of Emergency has been declared in El Salvador and across the country, over 54,000 people have been evacuated, most of whom are waiting out the rain in temporary shelters. Salvadoran authorities say some 70% of the country has been damaged by the storms, with many roads blocked, including the Pan-American Highway, complicating access to remote areas. Additional worries were caused by the increased activity of the Santa Ana volcano, which erupted last weekend, damaging coffee plantations and forcing authorities to evacuate the area. In Guatemala, severe flooding in more than 88 Guatemalan communities has forced the evacuation of over 24,000 residents. Nearly all of the country's rivers overflowed their banks, while landslides and fallen trees blocked at least 300 roadways. The last few days have once again highlighted the vulnerability of people living in poverty to natural disasters. Rampant deforestation in the area has been blamed for exacerbating the disaster and the situation has shown us that the governments of Guatemala and El Salvador have few plans in place to prevent and minimize disasters. As we have been taught many times this year, recovery from disaster is a long and arduous process and NOW - the people of Central America need a hand - OURS! If you are in a position to help, please call on your friends, families, congregations, co-workers and service clubs to contribute to Change for Children's Hurricane Relief fund for El Salvador & Guatemala. Donations are tax deductible and will be immediately forwarded to organizations that Change for Children has been working in partnership with in Guatemala and in El Salvador for almost 20 years. Please mail cheques to the address below, indicating "Hurricane Stan Relief" on the memo line. You may also make donations via our website (www.changeforchildren.org) by clicking on Donate NOW and choosing Hurricane Relief for El Salvador & Guatemala. Thank you for your support. Lorraine Swift, Projects Coordinator - Change for Children #221, 9624 - 108 avenue, Edmonton, AB. CANADA T5H 1A4 Tel: (780) 448-1505 Fax: (780) 448-1507 email: lorena@changeforchildren.org / www.changeforchildren.org |
|
Billionaire Dumarsais Siméus is Running to His Own Tune. By Felicia Persaud CWNN, NY, CWNN, NEW YORK, N.Y., Weds. Oct. 12, 2005
|
|
At N.S. School, Pride is Colored Black
By JILL MAHONEY
Saturday, October 15, 2005 Saturday's Globe and Mail
North Preston, N.S. - Standing in the crisp fall breeze, their lunch break almost over, Sandrico Provo and Dyonna Simmonds figure the brick building behind them does something no other school can: It makes them feel at home. This is a place where the principal greets students in Swahili, where African drumming is part of music class and where the skin tone in children's drawings is brown. "We learn a lot about our history up here," said Sandrico, who is 11 and in Grade 6. "It's good to know where you're from." Located in North Preston, the largest and oldest indigenous black settlement in Nova Scotia, Nelson Whynder Elementary School is believed to be the only publicly funded entirely African-Canadian school in the country. Here, everything, from classroom instruction to the elephant mural in the hall, has been soaked in a rich broth of black heritage. In this isolated community, Nelson Whynder is anything but contentious. In Toronto, however, a recent push to create a trial black-focused school has been deeply divisive. "We can't have a school for kids in the Chinese community, another one in the Muslim community, another one in the black community," said David Reid, a former director of education at the Toronto District School Board who is currently seconded to the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. "The pilot project as it's proposed creates more difficulties than it solves." The idea, which is variously viewed as a remedy for the academic struggles faced by many black pupils and an alarming return to the days of segregation, gained steam last month when board official Lloyd McKell urged a program for teens considering dropping out. "[Some] have articulated for us that, 'I'm not connecting with our program or our school and I need something different.' Well, as a school system, who are we to say we would prefer to sacrifice your future by saying, 'Sorry, we have no room, no innovative practice that would address your needs?'" said Mr. McKell, who is the board's executive officer of student and community equity. Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty, among others, has expressed discomfort with the concept and questioned whether such schools actually benefit students. Some members of Toronto's black community also are opposed. At Nelson Whynder, principal Mesi Je bustles through the corridors, poking her head into colourful classrooms. She addresses pupils by name with a friendly " jambo," which means hello in Swahili. There are only 140 youngsters here, ranging from pre-primary to Grade 6. Enrolment is declining. Teacher turnover is high. One night, three years ago, someone shot a hole in one of the school's doors. North Preston, situated at the end of a remote side road about 15 kilometres northeast of Halifax, is a rundown community of about 3,500 where laundry hangs on clotheslines, men work on cars and children point at road kill. Unemployment is high. But at Nelson Whynder, which is named after a local farmer who donated land for the school, Ms. Je is trying to help her young charges with a community-driven "Afro-centric" philosophy. For the principal, who grew up in the sister village of East Preston and studied black history in university, a deep knowledge of the past holds the key to unlocking the future. "It empowers the students. It gives them a sense of who they are, where they came from and what they have to do to be successful," she said, sitting in a sparse meeting room. While teachers follow the provincial curriculum, the school's unique focus is part of nearly everything the children do. "Here," said parent Vanassa Parsons-Smith as she picked up her six-year-old son, "every day is Black History Month." The window to the principal's office is covered in yellow pieces of paper listing the Nguzo Saba - which is Swahili for seven principles - that form the heart of daily school life. These include umoja, which means unity; ujima, which is collective work and responsibility; and kujichagulia, or self-determination. (They are also the basis of the Kwanzaa celebration between Christmas and New Year's.) Every morning, after O Canada, students sing Li ft Every Voice, the black national anthem. While October is Women's History Month, at Nelson Whynder it is Black Women's History Month. Gym classes feature instruction in African dance. Teachers help little ones learn to spell Africa to the tune of B-I-N-G- O! And a guide for the split Primary-Grade 1 class states pupils should be able to, among other things, recognize the continent of Africa on a map, identify the flags of three African countries and know Swahili greetings. And in February, which is Black History Month, the school hosts a community "soul food" celebration, plays and a spelling bee. Pupils also proudly display their research projects on black scientists and inventors. "It instills in them a sense of pride and [the realization] that there are people out there like you that have done very, very positive things and made contributions to society," Ms. Je said. While teachers come from different racial backgrounds - this year, fewer than half were black, a ratio Ms. Je wants to see increase - their instructional methods reflect African-Canadian youngsters' unique learning styles. Black students, she says, are more visual and learn through hands-on participation. A group of resource pupils who struggle with reading, for example, easily memorized lines for a play last year. "Once we can recognize it as a cultural thing, then we can deal with it and leave the culture there intact and still bring out the best from that child." Nelson Whynder very nearly did not become the "Afro-centric" school it is today. In the early 1990s, officials considered integrating its pupils with neighbouring, mostly white, students. The move, which North Preston residents generally favoured, was scuttled because of opposition in the other community, leaving Nelson Whynder an essentially segregated school. (Last year, it had two white youngsters who were adopted into local black families. This year, all pupils are African-Canadian.) But the central issue of whether black-focused schools help their target population is unresolved. A source at the junior high attended by graduates of Nelson Whynder says many lag behind their peers, both in academics and behaviour. And experts say the experience is mixed in the United States, which has several "Afro-centric" schools. In the case of Toronto, where administrators have long noticed that higher numbers of African-Canadians underperform and drop out of school, many educators believe there is no harm in such a school - at least on an experimental basis. The idea itself is not new; it was recommended by a 1993 royal commission and shelved after meeting stiff opposition. "We've been talking about these issues for far too long and we have to try other solutions. It may not be the panacea, but at least we should give it a try," said George Dei, a professor at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education who has advocated for black-focused schools. "What do we have to lose?" Frank Peters, a professor of educational policy at the University of Alberta who has studied choice in schools, said the educational system should be flexible in responding to pupils. He noted there are many specialized schools for girls and, in Toronto, one for native Canadians. "There's a real concern about which students are dropping out of school and if we can identify certain sectors in society who are being alienated from our current system, then we have a responsibility to try to do what we can to adjust the system to meet their needs," he said. And most changes introduced to school curriculums have not been proved, Prof. Peters said, adding the lack of evidence should not be used as an argument against black-focused schools. "It hasn't been shown to not work," he said. "You can't impose these on people but when you get people who really want to make them work, they can be successful." |
|
Native women: forgotten prey - researcher finds cases of missing, slain aboriginals across Canada http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/Canada/2005/09/18/1222313-sun.html Canadian Press |
A poor Haitian-born national turned Texas billionaire
is now more confident than ever of his chances of running his homeland
next year and putting in place his plans to stamp out corruption there.
Thanks to a 5-0 Supreme Court decision in his favor, which landed him,
back on the presidential election ballot yesterday. Dumarsais Siméus,
65, in a phone interview with CWNN yesterday, … ... called the ruling a
victory for all Haitians regardless of where they may live - in Haiti or
overseas. And he attributed much of the credit to his team of lawyers at
the firm of Gary Lissade and a team of constitutional scholars and
Haiti’s most eminent legal experts, including Cabinet Lissade, Cabinet
Saint-Louis, Cabinet Gousse/Pasquet and Cabinet Légere. The court agreed
with the Siméus team that he can be included on the ballot despite his
U.S. citizenship, contrary to a electoral council decision in September
to bar him from running on the grounds that he was no longer a citizen
of Haiti. The Artibonite-born Haitian compared the ruling to the U.S.
Supreme Court decision that said George W. Bush had won the election.
Now, he’s turned his attention to winning the election and becoming the
next Democratically-elected President of Haiti, a post made vacant
following the "resignation" of Jean Bertrand Aristide last year. “We are
going to win the election,” he boldly predicted yesterday, despite being
one of 33 candidates. And like a good politician, immediately added that
his candidacy is about change. “ … change to stop corruption, put food
on the table, create schools for the needy, build roads, create jobs,
bring about tourism and create financial institutions to give access to
capital and credit, to those who want to start their own businesses,” he
said. Siméus is also not bothered over rumors that the election, set for
Nov. 20, may be delayed. “I have heard rumors but whether they take
place in November or December is not the issue,” he said. “I’d rather
have it delayed to ensure we have clean, fair and inclusive and
legitimate election,” added the former head of TLC Beatrice Foods. “At
the end of the day, the issue is are we going to give all Haitians an
opt to select the best qualified leader, with the best experience, who
has not stolen the government’s money, who has honesty, a history of
creating jobs and accountability and responsibility?” he questioned.
Asked what he would do differently, should he win, Siméus immediately
stressed that he would begin the arduous task of stamping out
corruption. “Stop corruption, stop corruption, stop corruption,” he
reiterated, before adding, “We’re about change for the Haitian people.
It’s not about Dumar Siméus.” “Corruption has been a deep cancer that
has eaten at this country,” he said. “Corruption is the cancer that has
created the poverty and misery; it is the factor that has caused the
loss of dignity for all of Haitian people all over the world; corruption
is what has kept foreign investment from coming into this country,
corruption is the major negative factor that has kept roads from being
built and health care from coming in. That’s what we’re going to
attack.” Siméus explained that he’s ready to clean house essentially and
build a team of capable women and men who know what they’re doing and
can put the country above their own personal gains. “We’re going to say
damn with corruption, damn with the people who are stealing the money,
damn with those politicians who’ve been around for 200 years and not
done anything for the country,” he added, but insisted he’ll only get
rid of those people who are only interested in maintaining the status
quo and stealing to put money in their own pockets. “We cannot tolerate
them in our government,” said Siméus. We cannot and we will not.”
Questioned about the issue of security and whether he was afraid for his
own safety, the founder and chairman of Siméus Foods International,
Inc., insisted he is “absolutely not,” but added that he does have his
own security. In a country where abductions and robbery have become the
order of the day, according to the U.S. State Department travel advisory
against Haiti, Siméus said while he does have his own security he has no
fear “… because what God has ordered for the salvation of Haiti, no man
can put up a barrier that will keep the will … from being concretized.”
The Howard University and Chicago Graduate School of Business alum,
meanwhile, asked to react to reports that three reporters were beaten by
U.S.-hired guards of interim President Alexandre Boniface last week,
condemned the acts of aggression. “Journalist and any other human beings
walking the grounds of Haiti should be totally free of intimidation,
kidnapping and acts of violence,” he said. “In our govt. We shall not
have these acts of aggression but if we do, those who commit them will
be dealt with severely.” Those appointed will be the servants of the
people not vice versa, Siméus added. - CWNN