by Martin Khor, Executive Director, South Centre

Presentation made in Bonn on 4 June 2009, at the Technical Briefing on Historical Responsibility, during the 6th meeting of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long Term Cooperative Action, under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change; and at the Joint South Centre–G77 and China Workshop on the Climate Change Negotiations, Palais des Nations, Geneva, July 28, 2009. Martin Khor is Executive Director of the South Centre, an Inter-governmental ‘Think Tank’ of the South based in Geneva.

Click here for presentation (PDF file)

by Mark Weisbrot

Mark Weisbrot is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, in Washington, D.C. This column was published by The Guardian Unlimited on July 30, 2009. If anyone wants to reprint it, please include a link to the original.

A pro-coup faction in the Obama administration

by Justin Raimondo

July 27, 2009
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2009/07/26/the-honduran-coup-and-the-clinton-connection/
If you’re a Honduran general and you’re chafing at the bit to depose the duly elected president – as your predecessors have done repeatedly over the years – you don’t just go for it. That would be impolitic and eminently impractical: after all, the United States is not only your country’s number one trading partner, it is also the chief source of funding that keeps the Honduran military flush with so much cash that it is the fifth largest economic power in the nation. A cutoff of that all-important lifeline, not to mention trade sanctions, could put the squeeze on your finances.

So, before you make your move and call the troops out of the barracks, you let Washington know what you’re up to – you feel them out and get some idea of how they might react. There are plenty of indications that this is indeed what occurred, including talk of “negotiations” between the coup plotters and the State Department that failed to avert the “crisis.” So while the administration of U.S. President Barack Obama has officially taken the position that the coup is illegitimate and President Manuel “Mel” Zelaya must be restored to office, there are hints that the U.S. is playing both sides of the fence – and even tilting toward the coup leaders. When Zelaya announced that he would cross the border between Honduras and Nicaragua on foot and called on his supporters to gather, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton denounced him as “reckless.” Which led Zelaya to ask, in effect, which side is she on?

Good question, and the answer is she’s on Lanny Davis’ side. Davis, you’ll recall, was her chief attack dog during the presidential primary campaign, and now he’s sold his services to the Honduran branch of CEAL, the Central American business alliance, which supports the coup. He has always been very close to Hillary, and he was her priapic husband’s defense counsel during the impeachment hearings. This time he’s taken on a similarly indefensible client and is working his public relations skills prettifying a brazen coup d’etat as a valiant attempt to “preserve” the Honduran constitution and “the rule of law.”

Is it really too fantastic to assume he’s been on the phone with his old friend Hillary, lobbying hard for the coup leaders and the interests of his corporate paymasters?

Davis, who will do anything for money – he once signed on as a lobbyist for the government of Kazakhstan, one of the most repressive and corrupt governments in the world – is aided by another Clintonista, as the New York Times reports:

“Last week, Mr. Micheletti brought the adviser from another firm with Clinton ties to the talks in Costa Rica. The adviser, Bennett Ratcliff of San Diego, refused to give details about his role at the talks. ‘Every proposal that Micheletti’s group presented was written or approved by the American,’ said another official close to the talks, referring to Mr. Ratcliff.”

The locus of the pro-coup faction in high Democratic Party councils seems to be the powerful Washington law firm of Covington and Burling, which is paid a large retainer by Chiquita, formerly known as United Fruit Company. Current U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder is a Covington alumnus. He defended Chiquita against charges of bribery and dealing with a known terrorist entity when it was accused (and convicted) of funding right-wing paramilitaries throughout Central America.

So what we have is this: a powerful group within the Democratic Party, clustered around Hillary Clinton, actively pushing for the legitimization of the Honduran coup on behalf of their corporate clients – Chiquita, which has a long and dishonorable history in the region, and the Honduran association of big businessmen, who have long used the state as their personal instrument.

This corporatist alliance is a logical ally of the Clintonistas, who – along with the neocons – have stepped up to the plate as the coup leaders’ leading apologists in Washington. After all, the corporatist model – in which the state acts on behalf of its big business backers, privileging their interests and subsidizing their projects at taxpayers’ expense – reached new heights of corruption under Bill Clinton.

Big U.S. business interests are threatened by Zelaya’s attempts at social reform and his pursuit of an independent foreign policy that puts Honduras first – not the Honduras business council and the U.S. government. Even Lanny Davis is saying it might not have been such a good idea – but, according to him, we have to let bygones be bygones and “move on.” Now where have we heard that line before?

The latest news from Honduras is that the military is beginning to relent and has basically endorsed the “Arias Accord,” the compromise worked out by Costa Rican President Oscar Arias. The deal involves Zelaya’s restoration, but at a price: he’ll be shorn of a good deal of his presidential powers, in effect reduced to a caretaker-figurehead until new elections are held. Arias wants new elections quickly, but with the country deeply polarized, a presidential campaign could well devolve into open civil war.

The accord, which has Washington’s backing, is just a soft coup. It rewards the generals and their corporate backers and slaps down the populist surge represented by Zelaya, who had challenged the status quo in ways that are not conventionally leftist. Indeed, it is hard to see why Reason magazine, which bangs away at the drug legalization issue with obsessive regularity, hasn’t hailed Zelaya’s call to decriminalize – and why the Cato Institute, which noted this a while back, seems to have forgotten it while denouncing him as an aspiring “dictator.”

The public relations crew that is being paid mega-bucks to prettify the Honduran military regime is certainly earning its fee: every single “news” account of the events leading up to the coup avers that the referendum Zelaya wanted to hold would have extended his term as president. This is a flat-out lie. Read the translation of the question that was to be on the ballot, and see for yourself.

This has nothing to do with term limits and everything to do with the unlimited greed of the Honduran oligarchy and its American corporate partners, who, acting in tandem with the U.S. government, have looted Honduras for decades. They feared Zelaya would put an end to their racket, so the U.S.-trained-and-supported army put an end to his presidency. In the end, the coup leaders will get their way, Zelaya’s supporters will have been put in their place, and the alleged threat represented by Hugo Chavez, the left-populist “Bolivarian,” will have been turned back.

But not really. By supporting corporatist oligarchs, who have as good a reason to fear a true free market as they do a Chavista revolution, the U.S. does itself no favors – though Lanny Davis and his clients are doing quite well, thank you. The essential issue in Central America is the all-important land question. The oligarchs, who monopolize scarce land based on feudal land grants, profit by and owe their status to a system of state intervention that amounts to a spoils system. They invariably resort to the army – to coercion – when all else fails, and that is precisely what happened in this instance. They have always gotten away with it, due to U.S. complicity, and if the Clinton State Department has anything to say about it, the much-vaunted “change” promised by Obama won’t show its face in Honduras any time soon.

Term limits apply when governments benefit people

(This essay was written on July 19, before any agreement was reached as to the conditions of Zelaya’s return to Honduras.)

“Why haven’t there been attempted coups in Washington DC? Because there’s no U.S. Embassy there.” (Joke told by Chilean journalist to President Obama during President Michelle Bachelet’s White House visit.)

In 1954, conservative Dwight Eisenhower authorized the CIA to overthrow Guatemala’s government, a coup modeled on a 1953 “regime change” in Iran. In 1964-65, liberal Lyndon Johnson authorized coup d’états in Brazil and the Dominican Republic. When Dominicans revolted, Johnson sent in troops.

In mid September 1970, conservative National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger and President Richard Nixon concluded Chileans had elected the wrong government; so they decided to alter Chilean destiny by replacing Dr. Salvador Allende’s democratic government with 17 years of military fascism, 1973-90.

In the post-Cold War world, such flummery became laughable. Washington could direct policy toward law and human rights or continue collaborating with military thugs. This apparent dilemma got finessed with a blueprint to perpetuate Latin American oligarchs and satisfy U.S. corporations and banks linked to local elites.

In 2002, the U.S. government tested the new plan. U.S.-backed military officers kidnapped Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. But unforeseen opposition arose inside the Venezuelan military; masses of Venezuelans took to the streets. The coup failed.

Washington continued ranting against the “undemocratic” Chavez without mentioning his five successive victories — since 1998 — in internationally supervised elections. Chavez’ government directed its energy toward meeting basic needs, despite middle and upper class opposition.

In 2004, in test two, the State Department “to protect” Haitian President Jean Bertrand Aristide, helped his kidnappers. Following the Venezuela model, the Haitian plotters fabricated a “resignation letter.”

In June, the third test began when military thugs kidnapped President Manuel Zelaya. Then, civilian plotters penned a fake letter of resignation. The legal “reason”: the Honduran Supreme Court ordered Zelaya’s arrest for violating the Constitution. However, the letter postdated the kidnapping. The State Department’s 2009 Human Rights Report had already characterized that Court as issuing “politicized rulings” and contributing “to corruption in public and private institutions.” (U.S. Department of State, 2008 Human Rights Report: Honduras. February 25, 2009.http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2008/wha/119164.htm)

Initially, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton feigned concern about what looked like a coup. She couldn’t quite call it a coup. After all, she cooed, Zelaya — whom she still recognized as President — might have violated the Constitution. No U.S. official or mainstream reporter questioned the “logic” of the Honduran Supreme Court’s postdated ruling that attempting an open and non-binding consultation with the people violated supreme law. In fact, Article 80 of Honduras’ constitution specifies that “All persons or association of people have the right of presenting petitions to the authorities whether they are for reasons of particular or general interest and of obtaining a quick answer on the legal term.”

Coup d’etat “interim President” Roberto Micheletti also raged. How dare Zelaya consult the people about changing the document they had little voice in passing! In 1985, however, Micheletti led just such a constitutional change to re-elect then President Roberto Suazo.

http://www.elfaro.net/secciones/Noticias/20090706/noticias10_20090706.asp

Re-election becomes constitutional when aspiring Latin American candidates serve local ruling class and Washington interests. Otherwise, Constitutions stand as sacred, no matter what they actually say about participatory democracy.

Senators John McCain (R-AZ), Connie Mack (R-FL) and other Republicans indignantly defended the kidnapping of Zelaya as “protecting the Constitution and democracy.” They cited the Honduran Constitution, but did not refer to any clause allowing military goons to kidnap the elected President in pajamas at dawn, and fly him to Costa Rica in a military plane.

The mind-numbing discussion of “legally authorized behavior” has omitted reference to conditions in Honduras. In 2006, the United Nations Development Program described Honduras as suffering “profound social inequalities, with very high levels of poverty, and with an insufficient economic growth where the population had a relative dissatisfaction with the results of democracy.” The Report claimed 15% of rural Hondurans have a 40 years or less life expectancy and 20.4% of the adult population remain illiterate. The UNDP concluded that “the time for change is now. (http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/nationalreports/latinamericathecaribbean/honduras/2006_Honduras_web.pdf, p. 5, 21)

A 2003 report showed the richest 10 percent still netted 50 times more than the poorest 10th: 86.3% of the Honduran rural population lived in poverty; 71.3% of urban dwellers qualified as poverty-stricken; 67.2% of the children under the age of 5 were malnourished. (J. MacDonald, Expresión de la pobreza en la ciudad, Reunión Grupo de Expertos sobre Pobreza Urbana en America Latina y el Caribe, 27-28 de Enero 2003, p 4-5, http://www.eclac.cl/dmaah/noticias/paginas/5/11915/j_macdonald.pdf)

In 2006, Manuel Zelaya won the presidency. He made the UNDP Report a central part of his agenda for change. His social program, not an ambiguous Constitutional interpretation, became the root of his “issue” with the governing oligarchy — a dozen families who control economics and social, cultural and political institutions. They also dominate the media. A 2008 State Department Human Rights Report acknowledged: “A small number of powerful business magnates with intersecting commercial, political, and family ties owned most of the country’s news media. Powerful magnates strongly influenced the news agenda and thereby elections and political decisions.”

(U.S. Department of State, 2008 Human Rights Report: Honduras. February 25, 2009. http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2008/wha/119164.htm)

Until Zelaya tried to bring real democracy into the governing equation, Honduras’ elite, with U.S. banking and corporate backing, had found a seemingly perfect recipe: people vote but don’t change anything. Congress and Courts belong to the educated (rich and powerful) who also control the military in cooperation with the U.S. government. Washington provided aid; the School of the Americas trains Honduran officers in proper conduct — torturing enemies and making coups. “Since the 1980s, the Honduran army breathes through the noses of its U.S. advisers.” (ALAI AMLATINA, July 10, 2009)

For Zelaya, the UNDP Report coincided with a brutal fact. Switzerland and Honduras each have 7 million people. Swiss yearly average income is $53,000; Hondurans $2,000. This upper class President saw an obligation to meet peoples’ needs. Uttering such a subversive thought provoked panic among the rich in Tegucigalpa and the powerful of Washington. They reverted to a historical pattern.

In the 1980s, the CIA and U.S. military used Honduras to attack Nicaragua’s leftist government. The CIA had Honduran officers selling drugs — to support the surrogate Contras, which Congress forbade. In 1988, Rev. Joe Eldridge, the husband of Maria Otero, Obama’s Undersecretary of State for Democracy, wrote about this drug link; then the Honduran military issued death threats against the family. The Honduran army also repressed internal opposition. The local elite supplied officers with perks and status, but Central American armies have spent little time defending their country and much time attacking their citizens.

The Honduran invented a “reason” to oust Zelaya: his unconstitutional intent to consult the people in a non-binding vote. Yet, the Constitution allows for referenda and plebiscites. Washington representatives now claim they advised against a coup. But, reasoned the oligarchs and officers, encouraged by some well-known anti-Castro Cuban Americans, how could Washington abandon its friends and clients? So, they kidnapped Zelaya, and flew him to Costa Rica under a justification thinner than the most undernourished model.

One hundred and ninety two countries rejected this equivalent of a political “Brooklyn Bridge for sale.” The coup’s defenders, Canada’s conservative government, the U.S. mass media, the Honduran Catholic and Protestant hierarchy and right wing anti-Castroites of Miami, approved of previous Latin American coups, in the name of democracy, anti-communism, or whatever. This time the coup makers were “rescuing Honduras from the claws of Chavism.”

The drama descended toward farce, however, when Zelaya’s abductors ditched him in Costa Rica. President Oscar Arias received him — and the snatchers. No high official or mainstream reporter has suggested Arias aided and abetted a kidnapping and coup. Shouldn’t he have arrested the kidnappers, impounded their plane and demanded the illegitimate thugs in Tegucigalpa surrender?

Instead, collaborator Arias became mediator Arias. Twenty years ago, Arias refused to allow U.S. bases in Costa Rica for its illicit war against Nicaragua. Today, he stars in the good cop bad cop show. His one act of “disobedience” won him a Nobel Prize. Since then, he has shown loyalty to Washington’s economic consensus, meaning free trade and corporate well being.

After Arias served as President (1986-1990), he changed the constitution in order to run for a second term (2006-2010). In June, another U.S. ally, Colombian President Alvaro Uribe changed his Constitution to allow for his third re-election. Neither Washington nor the mass media objected. Anti-Castro Miami moguls hailed this “democratic” move.

Double standard? No. Arias and Uribe followed U.S. dictates: don’t befriend Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro or any serious “change” talker. Zelaya’s disobedience — to his own class and to Washington — got him kidnapped.

In Washington, the response was “new elections.” U.S. presidents hail democratic elections — when they benefit the United States. When elected governments help the poor and reduce U.S. interests, however, Washington officials plot coups, insist on term limits and enforcement of Constitutions they have not read.

Wednesday, 22 July 2009

Saul Landau is an Institute for Policy Studies fellow whose films are on DVD (roundworldproductions@gmailcom). Nelson Valdés is Emeritus Professor, Sociology, University of New Mexico.

By Dr. Wim Dierckxsens (Holland).- Dr. Antonio Jarquin T (Nicaragua).- Dr Paulo Nakatani (Brazil) Dr. Paulo Campanario (Brazil).- Dr. Reinaldo Carcanholo (Brazil).- Dr. Remy Herrera (France)

It is unthinkable that the U.S. military and intelligence community had no prior knowledge of the Honduras coup. If this information was known to President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton, then statements made by both during the Vth Summit of the Americas were merely a cynical maneouvre to deceive regional opinion. If  President Obama did not know about it, this means that there was illegal intervention within the USA of sinister forces in the political, military or intelligence apparatus, usurping or commanding the powers and privileges of the U.S. President with respect to the conduct of U.S. foreign policy, by attacking another democratic state such as Honduras, a friend of USA, without the approval of the president. Worse still, this would imply the presence in the official state apparatus of the U.S. of subalterns –civil, military diplomatic or in intelligence– insubordination to the President of the United States.

Click here to read this commentary

“Reporters Without Borders” Easily Unveiled

From Salim Lamrani’s ZSpace Page.July 20, 2009

Salim Lamrani is a French 5esearcher Denis-Diderot University in París, specialising Cuba-U.S. relations.

On May 20, 2009, Reporters Without Borders (RWB) published a statement on Cuba declaring that “anyone can browse the internet…unless they are Cuban.” To support its    claim, RWB offered a videotaped scene filmed in a hotel with a hidden camera in which a Cuban is denied internet access. The organization goes on to assert that “in Cuba an internet user can be sentenced to 20 years in jail if s/he publishes a counterrevolutionary article on a website (article 91), and 5 years if s/he connects to the web illegally.” Lastly, RWB points out that “Cuba is the second largest prison in the world for journalists, after China,” reminding readers that there are “19 detained … under the false pretext that they are ‘mercenaries paid by the United States.’” 1

Confronting RWB with its own contradictions is easy. In reality, at the same time the organization asserts that no Cuban can connect to the web, it provides a link to the blog of Yoani Sanchez, who lives in Cuba and who openly uses the internet to oppose the government in Havana. How is it that Sanchez manages to express herself if not via access to the internet? Her last blog post is dated May 27, 2009. In addition, she posted on May 25, 23, 22, 19, 18, 16, 15, 13, 10, 9, 7, 6, 4, and 2 as well as on April 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 23, and 21. Thus, during the month preceding the publication of RWB’s statement about internet access in Cuba, Yoani Sanchez was able to connect to the web - from Cuba - at least 18 times. 2

In publication after publication, RWB continually contradicts itself. Thus, in a March 2008 report about independent journalists in Cuba, the Paris-based organization emphasized that “Yoani Sanchez’s blog is on the website DesdeCuba.com, which includes five bloggers and has a six-person editorial committee. Its objective is simply to comment on the country’s political situation. In February 2009 after its first anniversary, the site claims to have exceeded 1.5 million hits, 800,000 of which were on the Generation Y blog. Even more impressive, 26% of the site’s visitors live in Cuba, in third position behind the United States and Spain.” 3 How can the “26% of readers who are Cuban” visit Sanchez’s blog if their access to the internet is prohibited? 4

At the same time, RWB used the isolated case of a hidden camera in a Cuban hotel to generalize about a prohibition on internet access on the entire island as well as to denigrate the Cuban authorities. Ironically, in her post on May 23, 2009, Yoani Sanchez wrote that with “a dozen bloggers we did a study of more than 40 hotels in Havana. With the exception of the Miramar West, all said that they were unaware of a regulation prohibiting Cubans from accessing the internet”. Thus, the western media’s preferred Cuban blogger dramatically contradicted RWB’s allegations. 5

RWB claims that any person who publishes an article critical of the Cuban government risks 20 years of imprisonment, citing as evidence article 91, without further elaboration on the matter. So what does article 91 of the Cuban Penal Code say? Here it is in its entirety: “Anyone who, in the interest of a foreign State, carries out an act with the intention of damaging the independence of the Cuban State or its territorial integrity will incur a penalty of imprisonment for ten to twenty years or by death.” As is evident, RWB does not hesitate in the least to blatantly lie. The section of Cuban law in question does not prohibit in any way internet publication of heterodox analysis. Nor does it limit in any way freedom of expression. It does penalize acts of treason against the state. 6

This would be equivalent to accusing the government of Nicholas Sarkosy of repression of web surfers in France by applying article 411-2 of the French Penal Code (”handing over troops belonging to the French armed forces, or all or part of the national territory, to a foreign power, to a foreign organization or to an organization under foreign control, or to their agents is punishable by life imprisonment and a fine of 750,000 euros.”) or article 411-4 (”The act of sharing intelligence with a foreign power, an enterprise or organization that is foreign or under foreign control or with its agents, with the aim of provoking hostilities or acts of aggression against France, shall be punished with thirty years of criminal detention and a fine of 450,000 euros. The same penalties shall apply to the act of providing to a foreign power, an enterprise or organization that is foreign or under foreign control or its agents, the means to undertake hostilities or realize acts of aggression against France.”) 7

That said, it is evident upon viewing Yoani Sanchez’s blog, which is extremely critical of the Cuban authorities, or reading the writings of other government opponents, that the Paris-based organization’s accusation is unsupported. RWB also states that Cubans risk up to “five years if they illegally connect to the web.” Here the French organization limits itself to making a flat statement without even bothering to refer to a section of the law which, as it turns out, does not exist. Once again, RWB resorts to a lie.

Lastly, RWB continues in the same vein, assuring us that the “19 detained” journalists are jailed “under the false pretext of being ‘mercenaries paid by the United States.’” The organization is incapable of coherence and rigor in its own publications. In reality, the French language version of the same article refers to “24 media professionals.”8 But the numbers matter little. Once again, there is a double deception. On the one hand, only one of the “19 detainees” that RWB referred to, actually has a journalistic background: Oscar Elías Biscet. The 18 others had never practiced the profession before joining the world of the dissidents. On the other hand, these individuals were never penalized for distributing subversive intellectual material, but rather for accepting the financial inducements offered by Washington, and, as a result, went from being opponents of the government to being paid agents of a foreign power, thereby committing a serious crime punished not only by Cuban law but also by the Penal Code of every country in the world. The evidence is abundant. The United States admits that it finances Cuba’s internal opposition and its own official documents prove it. The dissidents admit to receiving monetary aid from Washington and even Amnesty International admits that the jailed individuals were sentenced “for having received funds or materials from the U.S. government to carry out activities that the authorities consider subversive and detrimental to Cuba.” 9
RWB lacks credibility given that its agenda is first and foremost political and ideological. The contradictions and manipulations of the Paris-based organization are readily uncovered and proven. Moreover, RWB can make no claim to legitimacy given that it acknowledges receiving funds from the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), which, according to a 1997 New York Times report, is a CIA front “created 15 years ago to carry out publicly what the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) did clandestinely for decades.” 10

Translated by David Brookbank

Notes

1 Reporteros Sin Fronteras, «‘Cualquiera puede navegar por Internet…salvo los cubanos’», 20 de mayo de 2009. http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=31383 (sitio consultado el 20 de mayo de 2009).

2 Yoani Sánchez, Generación Y. http://www.desdecuba.com/generaciony/ (sitio consultado el 24 de mayo de 2009).

3 Claire Vœux, Cuba. Cuba. Cinco años después de la “Primavera negra”, los periodistas independientes resisten, Reporteros Sin Fronteras, marzo de 2008. http://www.rsf.org/IMG/pdf/Informe_Cuba.pdf (sitio consultado el 20 de mayo de 2009).

4 Reporteros Sin Fronteras, «Cuba: informe 2008», http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=26080 (sitio consultado el 20 de mayo de 2009).

5 Yoani Sánchez, «‘Sentada’ blogger», Generación Y, 23 de mayo de 2009. http://www.desdecuba.com/generaciony/ (sitio consultado el 27 de mayo de 2009).

6 Ley n° 62, Código Penal de Cuba, Libro II, Artículo 91, 29 de diciembre de 1987. http://www.acnur.org/biblioteca/pdf/4417.pdf (sitio consultado el 24 mayo de 2009).

7 Code Pénal Français, Partie législative, Livre IV, Titre 1er, Chapitre 1er, Sections 1 & 2.

8 Reporteros Sin Fronteras, «‘N’importe qui peut naviguer sur Internet… sauf s’il est cubain’», 20 mai 2009. http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=31379 (sitio consultado el 26 de mayo de 2009).

9 Amnesty International, «Cuba. Cinq années de trop, le nouveau gouvernement doit libérer les dissidents emprisonnés», 18 de marzo de 2008. http://www.amnesty.org/fr/for-media/press-releases/cuba-cinq-ann%C3%A9es-de-trop-le-nouveau-gouvernement-doit-lib%C3%A9rer-les-dissid(sitio consultado el 23 de abril de 2008).

10 Salim Lamrani, Cuba. Ce que les médias ne vous diront jamais (Paris: Editions Estrella, 2009), próxima publicación.

Salim Lamrani is a professor at Universidad París Descartes and at Universidad Paris-Est Marne-la-Vallée, as well as a French journalist, specializing in relations between Cuba and the United States. He has published, among other works, Double Standard: Cuba, the European Union, and Human Rights (Hondarriaba: Editorial Hiru, 2008). His new book is entitled Cuba: Ce que les médias ne vous diront jamais (París: Editions Estrella, 2009) with a prologue by Nelson Mandela. Contact: lamranisalim@yahoo.fr ; salim.lamrani@parisdescartes.fr

From AfroCuba Web UNESCO grants medals to Cuba and to Cubans, 6/09

Ambassador Olabiyi Yai Remarks UNESCO medals - photo gallery Links

Olabiyi Babalola Joseph Yaï (left), Benin’s Ambassador to UNESCO and Chairman of the UNESCO Executive Board, arrived in Cuba on 6/16/09 and attended a number of ceremonies. At several of these, he gave out medals. We have numerous photos of the main ceremony, where the recipients are mostly people who have long been featured on AfroCubaWeb. According to the UN office in Cuba, those who received a medal include: - Alicia Alonso, Medalla Mahatma Gandhi - Dr. Rogelio Martínez Furé, Medalla Toussaint L’Ouverture - Dr. Miguel Barnet, Medalla Simón Bolívar - Dra. Nancy Morejón, Medalla Víctor Hugo - Dra. Jean Stubbs, Medalla Toussaint L’Ouverture - Pedro Pérez Sarduy, Medalla Víctor Hugo - Gloria Rolando, Medalla Federico Fellini - Familia Baró de Jovellanos, Medalla Toussaint L’Ouverture - Manuel Mendive, Medalla de la Diversidad Cultural - Dr. Tomás Robaina, Medalla Toussaint L’Ouverture - Asociación Cultural Yoruba de Cuba, Medalla de la Diversidad Cultural - Abel Prieto, Ministro de Cultura de Cuba, Medalla Víctor Hugo - Republic of Cuba, Medalla de la Diversidad Cultural Yoruba Andabo played for the guests. See our UNESCO medals - photo gallery. Ambassador Yai has been a distinguished scholar for many years, he is considered a Guillen scholar and has traced many of Nicolas Guillen’s styles back to the literary styles used in the Oyo Empire in Nigeria. Ambassador Olabiyi Yai Remarks Reception hosted by the Director of UNESCO Havana Office, Mr. Herman Van Hoof, on the occasion of the visit to Cuba of the Chairman of the Executive Board, Ambassador Olabiyi Yai. 14-19 June 2009. In his introductory remarks, he stated the following: “As Chairman of the Executive Board of UNESCO, I am pleased to honour you today with the following medals in recognition of your efforts to promote peace, equality, cultures values, and to fight all forms of discrimination and exclusion wreaked in particular on descendants of enslaved people. While Cuba has contributed significantly to the reinforcement of UNESCO’s program and goals in you country and the region, little has been done to acknowledge your significant contribution. This awarding ceremony is therefore a symbolic gesture to a selected number of you as part of UNESCO’s good intention to encourage you in your tireless efforts for peace, freedom and fundamental rights.” The following Cuban experts were honored: · Alicia Alonso received the Gandhi medal. The medal was issued at the 125th anniversary of the birth of Mahatma Gandhi, India’s “Father of the Nation” and the world’s advocate of non-violence, peace and tolerance. · Four experts were honored with Toussaint L’Ouverture medal: Rogelio Martinez Fure, Jean Stubbs, Familia Baro de Jovellanos, Tomas Robaina. The medal was designed to reward an outstanding achievement that, in keeping with the spirit and action of Toussaint L’ouverture, has made a lasting contribution to combating racism in the political, literary and artistic fields. A black divisional general, Toussaint L’ouverture is the hero of the Haitian independence, symbol of the struggle against slavery and racial discrimination. · Miguel Barnet was honored with Simon Bolivar medal, in acknowledgement of his actions and activities that contributed to the freedom, independence and dignity of peoples and to the strengthening of a new international economic, social and cultural order. · The Victor Hugo medal was given to Nancy Morejon, Pedro Perez Saduy, Abel Prieto, in acknowledgement of their writings, which contribute significantly to the protection and promotion of the rights of man/woman and the oppressed. · The Federico Fellini medal was given to Gloria Rolando in acknowledgement to her notable efforts to boost the art of film. · Manuel Mendive and Asociación Yoruba de Cuba received the World Decade for Cultural Development medal, commonly known as the cultural diversity medal in recognition of their work for the promotion of cultural diversity. These remarks were delivered in fluent Spanish, to the surprise and delight of Cuban officials who were present. Articles La visita a Cuba de Olabibi Babalola Joseph Yaï: Reconocimiento de la UNESCO a Cuba y a intelectuales y artistas cubanos 6/19/2009 ONU Cuba: ”El reconocimiento de la UNESCO y de sus países miembros a Cuba y a prestigiosos intelectuales y artistas cubanos por su infatigable labor cultural en beneficio de la humanidad expresó el Embajador Olabibi Babalola Joseph Yaï, Presidente del Consejo Ejecutivo de la Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Educación, Ciencia y Cultura y Delegado Permanente de la República de Benin ante esa organización, en una ceremonia en la sede de la UNESCO en esta capital. El encuentro fue presentado por el Representante de la UNESCO en Cuba y Director Regional de Cultura para América Latina y el Caribe, Herman van Hooff, quien resaltó la importancia de la visita oficial a Cuba del Embajador Yaï y sus conversaciones con altos dirigentes cubanos, intelectuales y artistas. Asimismo, subrayó el gran agrado con que la institución acoge la presencia en Cuba de tan distinguida personalidad.” Slave Route Museum Inaugurated in Matanzas, Cuba 6/17/2009 Juventud Rebelde: ”The Afro América exhibition was opened during the inauguration featuring 105 educational posters and 14 African sculptures donated by Cuban artist Lorenzo Padilla.” Concede la UNESCO a Cuba Medalla de la Diversidad Cultural 6/17/2009 Trabajadores: ”Olabiyi entregó a Abel Prieto, miembro del Buró Político y ministro de Cultura, la Medalla de la Diversidad Cultural de la Unesco, en reconocimiento a la posición de Cuba contra los prejuicios y estereotipos que aún prevalecen debido al estigma de la esclavitud, y a una actividad cultural encaminada a distinguir el proceso de transculturación y mestizaje en nuestros pueblos. Al agradecer el gesto, el titular cubano de Cultura reconoció que tiene un gran valor, sobre todo porque el Museo se vincula con la filosofía del Consejo Nacional de Patrimonio de que un museo no es un almacén de piezas, concebidas como algo arqueológico que pertenece al pasado, sino que esas instituciones culturales deben verse como instrumentos educativos, vivos, en manos de la comunidad, de maestros y escuelas.”

Otorga la UNESCO a Cuba medalla de la diversidad cultural, 6/16/09

Cuba Elected to UNESCO Committee on Cultural Diversity, Cuba Now, 6/17/09

Links

Nicolás Guillén, poet (1902-1989), on AfroCubaWeb, cites Olabiyi Yai as a Guillen scholar.

Olabiyi Babalola Joseph Yai - Biography
Olabiyi Babalola Joseph Yai is Chairman of UNESCO’s Executive Board
Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters

Olabiyi Babalola Joseph Yaï elected Chairman of UNESCO Executive Board, 11/07
portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=41190&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html

Contacting AfroCubaWeb

Postal address

Box 1054, Arlington, MA 02474

Electronic mail

acw_AT_afrocubaweb.com [replace _AT_ with @]

[AfroCubaWeb][Contents] [Music] [Arts][Authors & Teachers] [Arts][Organizations][News] [Conferences][What's New][Search this site]

Copyright © 2009 AfroCubaWeb, sa
Last modified: July 19, 2009

The Caribbean lost a stalwart educator and pioneer in the regional gender movement with the passing of Kathleen Bibiana Drayton last Monday (July 6), at age 78. She joined the University of the West Indies at Cave Hill as a lecturer in the Faculty of Education in1973 and had an unbroken association with the institution until her retirement as senior lecturer in 1991.

Principal of Cave Hill campus Professor Sir Hilary Beckles described the late academic’s journey as “long and complex … with many eruptions of excellence” adding that she was one of the many matriarchs who helped to nurture the fledgling campus.He noted that for younger members of the academic community she epitomised “university service” in her efforts to advance Caribbean development and growth with justice and equality.

“She was an academic worker who stood by the worker in an environment that was not always worker supportive. In this regard, we had good cause to be impressed with her public energy which was used to engage all who were willing to participate; this she did with vigour and fairness,” noted Sir Hilary.

Click here for more

Concern has been expressed about the excessive numbers of CARICOM nationals taking up too many places in Barbadian schools. From 2006 – 2007, 2.3% of students in primary and secondary schools were CARICOM nationals, ie. out of 40,276 students, 930 are CARICOM nationals. From July to December 2007, 1,214 students received student visas (including tertiary) and 181 students renewed their visas.

Statistics all show that while some schools are under capacity, others are over capacity…Read full text here

The UN Conference on the Global Financial and Economic Crisis held on June 24-26 June 2009 was a very significant event, especially since there will be a follow-up mechanism, in a working group to be set up under the UN General Assembly. The South Centre’s Bulletin of 7 July 2009 is a special issue devoted to an analysis of the outcome and containing extracts of the proposals made by the G77 and China  at the conference.

Contents

Editorial: The Significance of the UN Conference on the Financial Crisis

Remarks on the Outcome Document of the United Nations Conference on the World Financial and Economic Crisis and Its Impact on Development, By Yilmaz Akyüz

Follow Up to Conference: UN Sets Big Agenda for Economic Crisis Action

The UN’s Role Is Established, Now the Focus Is on the Follow Up

South’s Leaders Stress the UN’s Leading Role In Economic Affairs, by Bhumika Muchhala

Six Key Issues in the UN Conference on Economic Crisis, by Martin Khor

South Centre’s Press Conference at the UN

UNCTAD and South Centre Call for Avoiding New Debt Crisis

Some Key G77 and China Proposals in the UN Conference on Financial Crisis

Click here for a copy of the Bulletin (PDF Format)

Read the Bulletin on the South Centre Website