FEATURES

FEATURES

Editorial

Guyana made it

By GODFREY WRAY

The euphoria and pride clearly evident at the gala opening of ICC Cricket World Cup in Jamaica two weeks ago seem to be slowly evaporating in the wake of a series of events that continue to unfold in the region.

Who would have thought that minnows, and rank outsiders, Ireland would put on the performance of their lives to orchestrate an early exit for the Asian juggernauts Pakistan?

And who could dream up a farewell scenario that would include the suspicious death of Englishman Bob Woolmer, the well-respected coach of the Pakistan team?

On to Antigua and Guyana for the Super 8 legs of the competition where the crowds have been disappointing and must be proving a financial nightmare for the organizers. This lack of home support has prompted West Indies captain to vent his frustration.

A contest between Australia and the Caribbean side at the spanking new Sir Vivian Richards Stadium in Antigua should have pulled a full house but instead there was a pitiful crowd in attendance. Lara summed it up. "It’s very disappointing."

And over at the brand new Guyana National Stadium at Providence the story was the same for the Sri Lanka-South Africa tussle which turned out to be a scorcher with Lankan Lasith Malinga shooting out four batsmen with four balls.

It is at this point that one wonders if the high costs of tickets and the new culture of purchasing online could have had a deleterious effect on the poor attendance.

Then there was another twist in the regional saga.

ICC-CWC seemed to have lost confidence in Guyana’s Local Organizing Committee and promptly appointed its own management team to conclude works at the new stadium, having previously expressed concerns about preparedness within and without the venue.

But if we are to believe Guyanese Colin Croft, former West Indies speed ace, the stadium has passed the test with flying colors. From a standpoint of being functional his award is 8.5 out of 10.

Some pessimists may suggest that there is an ill wind blowing somewhere but we hope that the expected kinks in all host venues will be worked out long before the world’s best cricketers and some of the staunchest followers of the game, leave our beloved Caribbean.

And while there will definitely be many things to ponder in the weeks and months to come we applaud Guyanese for completing the stadium. Maybe the hapless West Indies team can learn a similar lesson of how to overcome improbable odds.

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Creating An Impact

Learning From The Madness

[insert pix p04-AL SHARPTON]

I have frequently advanced that one (1) of the underlying reasons for the articles that I write in the CARIBBEAN IMPACT is to provide motivation and stimulation to readers to pursue various goals and objectives in this life.

We can mainly obtain this motivation and stimulation by reading expensive and lengthy texts; or listening to lectures from professors or professionals — either way, many of us do not have the time or the money to take those routes.

I have however found that a cheaper and quicker way to gain rapid managerial data and guidance, is to read the variety of quotes that emanates from coaches, players and commentators before, during and after amateur and professional competitions and play-offs.

The popular play-off phases that are currently going on, are college and high school basketball tournaments, with the college segment being popularly labeled "MARCH MADNESS."

— Once more, I have been keeping notes of comments and advice from the several coaches and players who have, or are participating in the present college and high school basketball tournaments, so that I can reproduce some of the ones that could be most helpful to us in our private lives — be it at work, business or sport.

Obviously, time and space will naturally place limitations on how much I can write, hence, I might consider doing a second piece on these motivation/stimulation themes, since there are so many to go around during these competitive phases.

I am commencing this article on the importance of indoor sporting activities to comparisons with endeavors in our daily lives.

CBS Sports commentator, Gus Johnson said " . . . I think sports teaches us a valuable lesson, that things don’t always go our way . . ." Johnson added " . . . We all want more, but sometimes we have to realize that what we have is enough, and that we have a blessed life . . ."

Our own B. L. Crombie had a favorite bit of advice which he offered during his sportscasts. He used to say " . . . It is not whether you win or lose, but how you play the game that matters . . ."

I am hopeful that the themes and quotes will help you to make meaningful pursuits in your private and public lives.

u UNSELFISHNESS — After Vandervilt’s three (3) point win over George Washington on Thursday, 3-15-07, Vandervilt’s Shan Foster praised his colleagues in the following manner. " . . . We have a lot of unselfish guys that make plays for other people . . ."

u WANTING TO WIN — After sophomore Eric Maynor took a two (2)-point shot to put Virginia Commonwealth past Duke and create one (1) of the major upsets on the opening day of this year’s MARCH MADNESS competition, he declared " . . . What I knew, was that I wanted a chance to win, to win this game, hence I wanted the ball in my hand and I got it . . ."

u PROPER MINDSET — After Pittsburgh defeated Wright State 79-58, Pitt coach Jamie Dixon noted " . . . I knew that we had the proper mindset coming to this game, we have things that we want to accomplish, and we did exactly that . . ."

u THE POINT-GUARD’S ROLE — I have heard several debates about what a point guard has to do, especially the ones who seem too anxious to take shots, instead of passing the ball, well Florida player Lee Humphrey offered some clarification when he spoke about his teammate, point guard Taurean Green. Humphrey said " . . . Green is real important, he’s our point guard, he’s our leader on the floor; he directs the offense, he runs the team; when he’s playing well, it makes us real tough to beat."

u DON’T FALL BEHIND — After Ohio State defeated Central Connecticut State 78-57, Central Connecticut’s coach Howie Dickman admitted " . . . The game came down to our biggest fear, our biggest fear reared its head — that we would fall behind early, we did not play a good first half, it was close to an embarrassing half . . ."

u STUDYING THE OPPOSITION, after Louisville defeated Stanford 78-58, Louisville senior guard disclosed " . . . Coach Rick Pitino told us right before the game that Stanford averages 14.4 turnovers a game, and that’s without being pressured; he thus advised us to turn up the pressure and we could have some easy steals . . ." (Those easy steals gave Louisville a run of thirty (30) fast-break points.)

u GIVING ONE’S ALL — After Maryland defeated Davidson 82-70, Davidson’s coach Bob McKillop commented " . . . I’m incredibly proud of our guys, they emptied their tanks and that’s something they’ve done all year long . . . we will head home, with our heads held high . . ."

u PLAYING HARD — After Boys and Girls High school defeated Wings 59-50, senior guard Kendall Gutler disclosed " . . . We were down after losses to another High School, but we worked hard to get back and get a chance to play for a title.

u HELPING TO BUILD — When Wykeemia Gray, a 6’ 2" forward from Grand Street campus in Brooklyn, announced her decision to play her college basketball at Winthrop, she stated " . . . I wanted to go to Winthrop, because I could still be a star, and I would be helping out a team that wants to get better, not going to a team that has already made it . . ."

u ASSISTANCE — Twenty-one-year-old Jason Ray who served as mascot for the UNC during the current MARCH MADNESS tournament, died after being struck by an SUV last week Friday night, while walking alongside Route 4 in Fort Lee.

When coach Roy Williams first set eyes on 6’ 5" Jason, he thought he might have himself a good wing layer, but when he asked Jason to join the team, he replied " . . . I’m too slow and I can’t jump, but I can be of assistance in other ways . . ." (Jason opted to become the team mascot ) . . . Jason’s brother Allen said of him " . . . He was a wonderful son, brother and friend; he leaves a legacy of friendship, laughter, excitement for life and a genuine love for all the people he touched during his all too short life . . ."

u TOUGHNESS — After Georgetown won its game against UNC last Sunday, its coach John Thompson remarked " . . . We have not allowed others to define us, we are tough and resilient, our team is a group of tough-minded kids; their toughness comes from competing every day, and from believing in each other . . ."

— UNC forward Tyler Hansborough who had 26 points and 11 rebounds in that game commented " . . . I think it takes a tough team to get to the final eight, toughness is being down and sticking to your plan . . ."

POLITICAL INTERCOURSE

IN SUMMARY — With so many concerns being raised and aired about the effects and influences that money and riches are having on politics, I was rather intrigued about a description that the Rev. Al Sharpton gave on POLITICAL INTERCOURSE. Asked about which Presidential candidate, he is going to support during the Democratic Primaries, the Reverend thundered " . . . I tell all the candidates — Ain’t no sex before marriage; don’t be running through New York on no booty-call; I ain’t no political tramp . . . on a first date, you ain’t going to ask for some political intercourse . . . I am fed-up with folks thinking that I’m going to jump into bed with them and I don’t know who they are . . ."

* * * * * * *

Looking at athletic competition

Provides its own motivation

Reading comments and quotations

could give us stimulation.

We should make notes

from the short and many quotes

Throughout the sports sections

In order to help with life’s directions

The bits of managerial guidance

offer us ready reliance

through quick ways to learn

that encourages us to earn

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

THINGS THAT BOTHER ME

By HANDEL ANDREWS

[insert pix p05-Carol Lam]

BLIND MOUTHED CHICKEN LIVERS

The US attorneys’ scandal highlights the arrogance of the Executive branch, its disdain for Congress, and the extent to which it would go to carry out its agenda. Since President Bush took office he and his vice-President have been working hard at "restoring the powers of the Executive lost by the Nixon resignation." This article will discuss the scandal, focusing on its chief players, as well as describing what Congress is doing to get to the bottom of the matter.

THE SCANDAL

In late 2006, most on December 7, eight US attorneys were fired by the Justice Department. They included John McKay, Seattle; H.E. Cummins, Arkansas; David Iglesias, New Mexico; and Carol Lam, San Diego. Democrats and some Republicans argue that the firings were political. If so, they would violate one of the fundamental principles of US justice – independence of prosecutors. It is alleged to two of the attorneys were fired because they did not bring charges that might have helped Republican candidates in the last Federal election. Although each case points to interference by the Justice Department, under pressure from Republicans and, possibly, the White House, Carol Lam’s is the one that merits scrutiny. Republican Congressman, Randy "Duke" Cunningham was put behind bars by her for accepting bribes. He was a powerful California Republican; and her aggressiveness in the case made her a "problem" to her bosses.

There are those who say that at the time of her firing she was on the trail of other big fish, possibly the vice-President. Of course, the Justice Department has its own spin. It argues that she was let go, because she was not aggressive enough in prosecuting immigration and gun cases. However, a performance review conducted the previous year had concluded that she was "an aggressive manager and respected leader." At the time of submitting this article many signs show political interference at the bottom of this scandal. On 3/27/07 Monica Gooding, the Justice Department’s liaison to the White House, announced that she would take the Fifth Amendment rather than testify in the matter. Why would she take the Fifth if she had nothing to hide? Although she might have solid reasons for such a decision, she will not necessarily get off the hook. Under the federal False Statements statute, 18 USC 1001, it is a felony to cause another person to make a false statement to Congress. Since Paul J. McNulty, deputy Attorney General, told Senator Chuck Schumer that he made a false statement to Congress based on information she had provided, she could be prosecuted for a violation of the aforementioned statute.

ALBERTO GONZALES

There is reason to believe that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Karl Rove, chief advisor to the President, were personally involved in the firings. Mr. Gonzales has been all over the plate. Two weeks ago he said, on TV, that he knew nothing about the attorneys’ firing. At that time he argued that as much of his work is delegated, he is not briefed on many matters. He dismissed the firings as "an overblown personnel matter."

However, it turns out that he approved the firings during an hour-long meeting with Justice Department officials. According to Dan Eggan (Washington Post 3/24/07) a November 26, 2006 meeting, held in his office, included deputy Attorney General Paul J. McNulty and four other senior Justice officials, including his aide, who co-coordinated the firings. E-mails also revealed that his chief-of-staff had worked closely with the White House in developing the list of attorneys to be fired. It doesn’t seem as if the White House is making the usual round of calls to Republicans to support him. As a result, he said 3/27/07 that he is disappointed with the support he is receiving from Republicans. He has become an albatross around their neck. His days are numbered.

KARL ROVE

Karl Christian Rove, White House deputy Chief-of-Staff, commonly known as the President’s brain, was responsible for the President’s gubernatorial victory in Texas and his two terms in office as President of these United States. It is, therefore, not surprising that when the Judiciary Committee asked the President to allow him to testify under oath, he declined. He warned that he would fight any subpoena to the Supreme Court. A recent CNN-Gallup poll showed that 68% of Americans believe that both Rove and Harriet Myers, former chief counsel, should testify under oath.

Senator Patrick Leahay said on 3/20/06, "After telling a bunch of different stories about why they fired the U.S. attorneys, the Bush administration is not entitled to the benefit of the doubt. The American people deserve a straight answer. If Karl Rove plans to tell the truth, he has nothing to fear from being under oath like any other witness. Time and again, members of the Bush administration have failed to level with its people on the events surrounding dismissal of eight U.S. Attorneys." He pointed out that, "Testimony should be given on the record and under oath. That’s the formula for true accountability."

The Congress’s duty is to provide oversight of the people’s business. If it thinks that officials at the White House might provide valuable information on the Attorneys’ dismissals, the President should co-operate. He is so full of the "unitary executive" line, that he feels the Executive is superior to the two other branches of government. He says that he would co-operate with Congress on condition that his officials are not put under oath, and that no notes should be taken. He even wants to set the tone of the questioning.

He told a Washington press conference, "We will not go along with a partisan fishing expedition aimed at honorable public servants." How can the Chief Executive of these United States refer to hearings aimed at getting to the bottom of a very sensitive and important matter as a fishing expedition? He calls Karl Rove an honorable man. Yes, Mr. President, so are they all, honorable persons!

NO PRECEDENT

Tony Snow, White House press secretary, told reporters that it "has been traditional in all White Houses not to have staffers testify on Capitol Hill. I would agree that White Houses have not always allowed its officials to testify before congress. However, such refusal is not "traditional." Numerous Presidential top aides, including 47 from the Clinton administrations, have testified before Congress. According to the Congressional Research service, under Bill Clinton, 31 of his top aides testified on 47 different occasions on Capitol Hill. Included are: Harold Ickes, assistant to the President and deputy chief of staff on 7/26/94, George Stephanopoulos, senior aide to the president on 8/4/94; John Podesta, assistant to the President and staff secretary on 8/5/94; and Samuel Berger, assistant to the President on 9/11/97/. Mr. President, were these not also honorable public servants? Throughout his entire first term, the President allowed only one (1) of his closest advisors to testify – Tom Ridge, then his assistant for homeland security.

Another argument making the Sunday talk shows’ rounds is that much is being made of the eight attorneys’ firings and overlooking the 85 that Bill Clinton fired. This argument is flawed. When a new administration takes office all U.S. attorneys tender their resignations. The President decides which to accept. Bill Clinton accepted, not fired, 98 of those tendered.

CONGRESS

For seven years Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney, and their lackeys got everything they coveted. I thought that the new Democratic majority in Congress would demand full accountability from the Executive, as provided in the constitution. However, their leadership is chicken livered and is squandering the trust given them last November. The President is prepared to fight. They are not. An example of their hypocrisy is the passing of the Budget Bill. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, gloated after passage a bill, which provides billions of dollars to keep the war going until ’09. If that is an indication of their resolve in the Karl Rove-Harriet Myers matter, there will be no fight.

CONCLUSION

Perhaps the courage displayed by Senator Chuck Hagel, a staunch Republican, in voting for a deadline for troop pullout, will inspire a blind-mouthed, hopelessly divided Democratic party. Perhaps the party will put duty above personal gain. Perhaps they will recognize that the people are reviewing their stewardship towards 2008.

That’s how I see it this week. Think your own thoughts. Onward ever, forever, fellow comrades. God bless America.

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

THE BASIL SPRINGER COLUMN

[insert pix p06-map of Barbados]

BARBADOS IN FOCUS

"Enter into His gates with thanksgiving, and into His courts with praise.  Be thankful to Him and bless His name.  For the Lord is good and his mercy is everlasting, and His truth endures to all generations" – Psalm 100: 4-5.

We hear tell that Barbados is aspiring to be a first world Nation. How do we know when we have achieved this status? What are our targets, what are our performance indicators, and what strategies are we going to use to get us there? The answers to these questions may be found in the recently released first National Strategic Plan for Barbados. 

The Vision for Barbados is stated as "A fully developed society that is prosperous, socially just and globally competitive." The six strategic goals are:  "Unleashing the Spirit of the Nation"; "New Governance for New Times"; Building Social Capital"; Strengthening the Physical Infrastructure and Preserving the Environment"; Enhancing Barbados’ Prosperity and Competitiveness"; and "Branding Barbados Globally".

Our challenge is to move expeditiously forward as we strive for global excellence while preserving Barbadian traditions. We now have to diligently execute this plan. Can we learn from other countries which have exhibited phenomenal growth? Let us look briefly at Ireland, Dubai and Singapore.

Ireland’s recent economic history is characterized by what is now the cliché of the ‘Celtic Tiger’. The statistics of Ireland’s remarkable development are average GDP growth between seven and 10 per cent since the mid-1990s. Fuelled by EU membership and effective investment promotion policies, the Irish economy has been transformed over a period of two decades from a European backwater into the fastest-growing economy in the EU.

Hitherto Ireland had not been industrialized to the same degree as the rest of Europe, and only recently has agriculture been overtaken as the largest single contributor to the national product. It remains a key sector, and the Government is seeking to consolidate its role within the economy by modernization and expansion of food-processing industries. Most of Ireland’s economic development in the 1990s, however, was in the services sector. Banking and finance have grown to the extent that Dublin now supports a sizeable international financial centre, while tourism has become a substantial foreign exchange earner. 

Dubai is experiencing a growth rate of 7% and rising. Oil was discovered in 1966. In the year 1969 Dubai exported its first barrel of oil. Ever since then there has been no looking back. Dubai’s history records a consistent development in this field. The development in the production of oil not just contributed vastly to the income of Dubai but also helped it to develop its infrastructure in terms of its economy and society, like hospitals, schools, tourism and other provisions that characterize a developed society. The direct hydrocarbon contribution to GDP is now less than 20%. Singapore has maintained an economic growth rate of 8%.  Singapore has a highly developed market-based economy, which historically revolves around an extended re-export trade because of its geographical location. The economy depends heavily on exports, refining imported goods, especially in manufacturing. Manufacturing constitutes 28% of Singapore's GDP. The manufacturing industry is well-diversified into electronics, petroleum refining, chemicals, mechanical engineering and biomedical sciences manufacturing.  Singapore is the world's fourth largest foreign exchange trading centre after London, New York City and Tokyo. Singapore has been rated as the most business-friendly economy in the world. The city-state employs thousands of foreign workers from around the world.

In summary, Ireland has had a boost from its membership of the EU; Dubai discovered oil in 1966; Singapore has developed its human capital to the fullest and focused on service exports and high tech manufacturing; they have all leveraged their competitive advantages.

Singapore, like Barbados, is a small island state. When Lee Kwan Yew took over its reins in 1959, Singapore was behind Barbados (based on all macro-economic indicators). Singapore gained its Independence in 1965 and took off.  Barbados gained its Independence in 1966 and has trundled along. With reference to our recent history and the National Heroes of Barbados, only now are we enquiring (as stated in the National Strategic Plan 2005-2025) "Can we invoke the courage and wisdom that inspired and guided our forefathers in order to undertake the most unprecedented and historic transformation in our economic, social and physical landscape since independence in 1966?"

How can we strive for global excellence and still preserve our Barbadian traditions? Next week I shall venture to address this. How can Barbados learn from Singapore’s model of development which was very articulately presented at a meeting at the Economic Development Board during my recent visit to Singapore? The recent introduction of InvestBarbados, a public sector entity, like the EDB in Singapore, has a key role to play in the context of the sustained economic success of Barbados.

I submit that the key element of success is a heightened spirituality of our people recognizing that His truth endures to all generations. The supporting elements are forthright and fearless leadership, enhanced discipline, a land use policy that protects our agricultural production base for food security reasons and a continuous improvement in human capital. Negative influences in our society such as the "minibus" culture, which is quickly destroying the fabric of our youth, must be quickly eradicated.

(Dr. Basil Springer GCM is Change-Engine Consultant, Caribbean Business Enterprise Trust Inc.)

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

THE GEORGETOWN DIARY

[insert pix p10-crowqd at cricket with caption: Part of the crowd enjoying the game in Guyana]

Fever and Pain

The Super 8 match between South Africa and Sri Lanka was a gripping and intriguing affair. It was One-Day cricket at its best as a late burst of intelligent fast bowling almost reversed the balance between the two sides. But, as it was, South Africa sneaked home. Sri Lanka, prodigal with its batting talent, scored only 210 runs. The batsmen like spendthrift sailors let loose after a long voyage squandered every opportunity by playing reckless strokes. South Africa started badly losing A.B. de Villiers in the first over but Kallis and Smith steadied the ship and virtually put South Africa in an unassailable position. Or so it appeared. Then that little magician Muralitharan deceived Smith with his flight and had him stumped. Again Kallis and Gibbs restored South Africa dominance until Smith himself was fooled by the "doosra" and was caught and bowled. Malinga, already very popular in the Caribbean with his mop of dyed hair and fast bowler antics, ripped the heart out of the South African middle order and left the batting hanging by a thread. In so doing he became the first bowler to do the helmet trick in an ODI. I watched it with my friends and colleagues at another friend’s shop and enjoyed the spectacle immensely.

Yet my enjoyment was tempered by the events surrounding the holding of this historic match in Guyana. What do I mean? By now almost everyone in North America knows that the International Cricket Council (ICC) had to intervene almost a week before the hosting of the game to ensure that important works were completed on time. The intervention came in the form of a letter from the Senior Legal Counsel of CWC 2007, Derek Jones, in which he detailed the incompetence and the inability of the Local Organising Committee (LOC) in meeting stated goals. Jones boldly stated "Your failure to deal adequately with these and other areas has resulted in CWC 2007 being unable to have confidence in your ability". He went on that CWC 2007 no longer believed that Guyana could produce a "fully functional, operating Super 8 venue". It was a stinging rebuke which was given regional and international disclosure. But I differ from the position of CWC 2007. That body, having dealt with the LOC for a period of approximately three years, must have known that that organisation was micro-managed by the Government. If any entity in Guyana was responsible for the failure to complete the stadium and related works on time it was indubitably the Government of Guyana. To understand how deeply involved the President and the Government were in the preparations for the World Cup, one only has to pass in review the structures through which it exercise ultimate power.

Very few people realised that apart from the LOC there was an Oversight Committee on which the Indian High Commissioner and the Minister of Culture, Youth and Sports were represented along with several individuals, who were considered to be close to the Government. The Oversight Committee met on a regular basis and received regular reports from the Site Engineer and the Indian Construction Firm, Sharpooji Poolonji. The decisions and recommendations of the Oversight Committee then informed the approach and considerations of the Government as it prepared for the World Cup. Below the Oversight Committee was the LOC which was also tightly controlled by the Government. One example will suffice. In the very early days of the existence of the LOC a decision had to be made on who would be the Chief Executive Officer (CEO). Initially, it was decided that the position would be advertised regionally and locally. But before this could be done the President intervened and imposed the current CEO. As the date for the hosting of matches neared another Committee was formed, which for the want of any official title could be termed "the Preparations Committee". This was headed by the Prime Minister and included the Minister of Works and Communications and representatives of the PPP. In other words at all material times the Government was decisively in charge.

But even as it was in control, the Government’s management of the preparatory period was bedeviled by internal politicking. It has not been a secret throughout this period this time that Freedom House was not exactly enamored of the final selection of the person as the CEO. His power was therefore hedged around by appointments which eventually drained away his authority. For example, while Karran Singh was the CEO for the LOC he was not in charge of the works going on at the stadium. This responsibility was solely that of Walter Willis, who was both Site Engineer and advisor to the President. So it was that while the LOC did most of the administrative work the Ministry of Works, for which organisation Willis is an employee, was in total control of the works around the stadium. I cannot believe that Dehring and company and Derek Jones did not know this was the case. I am more inclined to accept the view that they were reluctant to enter into any kind of confrontation with the Government of Guyana. This was not the first time. The records show that on more than one occasion the ICC wrote the Government of Guyana threatening to remove games from this territory for reasons as various as accommodation and other short comings only to back away at the last moment.

The opposition also raised concerns about the background to the building of Buddy’s Hotel directly with CWC 2007 only to be told through a third party that this was a matter that has to be thrashed out locally. In fact it was almost impossible to get CWC 2007, immured in its splendid isolation in Kingston, Jamaica, to pay attention to the manifest short comings incompetence and inefficiency of the Government. They did not want to hear it. As a foot note to this whole matter, I have to remind readers that even after Derek Jones had issued the letter already described, Chris Dehring, the CEO of CWC 2007, sought to defang its contents by suggesting that the Government of Guyana and CWC were working on a cooperative basis. At all material times this CEO seemed more than inclined to come to the rescue of the Guyana Administration.

The letter by Derek Jones which was publicly revealed on March 17, 2007 was surprising if not unexpected at that late hour. This brings me to the modus operandi of the ICC. Its attitude and conduct has been less than reassuring and suggest that the organisation might be divided in its internal councils or unsure of its responsibilities and power. That is why I could not understand the role it was playing in this important exercise or that of its Caribbean arm, CWC 2007. We all watched and were appalled by the fact that not only the ICC reluctant to enforce its own decisions and regulations but also to go at any length to mitigate the consequences of the inefficiencies of any one of the test playing venues.

But after a while the penny dropped. It dawned on most of us that having invested over US$500m in the Caribbean to host the 9th World Cricket Cup the ICC was prepared to have cricket played under sub-optimal conditions even if it meant taking the games to the beaches of Antigua or the streets of Barbados. On Wednesday last as spectators made their way they could not help but noticed the incomplete roadway or the ugly site of loam surrounding the stadium. In the words of Mike Atherton, the former England captain, who is currently one of the commentators, the stadium is beautiful inside but shabby outside. I could not put it better myself.

I am glad that I was afforded the privilege of reading what is called classical history. It was while doing so that I learnt that the Roman Emperors actually paid an individual to whisper in their ears before conducting Government business the following words: "Remember you are human." They said so especially with regard to the human capacity for hubris. In this context I always squirmed when Chris Dehring and his merry men kept repeating that this World Cup would be one of the best ever. The murder of Bob Woolmer in rather gruesome circumstances in Jamaica has already taken the gloss off the event. Rather than hosting the best games ever the well-dressed CEO will be hard pressed to make sure that we do not host the worst. The stands are empty in many of the venues. Prices for food and entertainment are beyond the means of the average Caribbean person. Caribbean pitches have been a source of concern to many commentators and it seems most unlikely that the Caribbean Governments and people will recover the monies expended on this event.

So I do not emote as some of my compatriots have done over the stadium and the hosting of the games. I am proud at this moment as a West Indian that we have done so but my pride comes in very quiet terms. We have done well in undertaking this massive and complex event but if truth be told we have not produce optimum conditions and circumstances. We have not produced in the final analysis a 21st Century event. There are lessons to be learnt.

[insert pix p11-Gairy; p11-malcolm X and p11-Maurice Bishop]

ROBERTS COLUMN

The Grenada Revolution – 28 Years Later

March 13, 2007 marked the 28th Anniversary of the Grenada Revolution. Of course, Grenada, Carriacou and Petite Martinique under the leadership of the New National Party (NNP) still like to pretend that this seminal event in this CARICOM nation’s history did not happen. Such self-induced amnesia is all the more amusing since the legacy of the Revolution and its impact, both on the psyche of the Grenadian people, and the wider Caribbean working class, cannot be doubted or denied. But such is the banal hangover of ingrained colonialism and its contamination of the body politic in the region that political denial is but one manifestation of a pervasive political immaturity that helps to keep small island-nations, veritable "mini-states," in a state of perpetual denial and a "we against them" syndrome. O, for the glory days of "The Revo!"

And as we remember, not celebrate, this important historical event in Grenada’s history perhaps its is time to remember that without question the Grenada Revolution of 1979 was a NATIONAL event and in a pure political sense must be characterized as a "Popular People’s Revolution." To those who would cast cold water and other aspersions on the Revolution, verbally or in writing, there is a political truism that applies here – no amount of revisionism can hide the truth. Nor can the jaundiced antics of any ruling political clique change the facts that have on their side the overwhelming superior weight of history.

Yet there are some important lessons that are still applicable today as Grenada enters an historical cycle of rabid individualism, political impotence, consumerism as the by-product of cultural imperialism, and an entire generation of youth attracted to the worst aspects of American pop culture. For its brief life the Grenada Revolution stands out in Grenada’s history as a period of increased and heightened national pride. Coming on the heels of the quixotic years of Sir Eric Gairy and his embarrassing and grandiloquent flirtations with Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs) and other "astral world" events, the Grenada Revolution, led by the charismatic Grenadian patriot Maurice Bishop, preached and practiced a culture of Grenadian nationalism and mass inclusion.

While many have chided the Revolution and its vanguard party, the New Jewel Movement (NJM), as preaching a "foreign ideology" the truth of the matter is that the Grenadian ideology was "Grenadian Nationalism." To be sure, the ideology of the NJM was Marxism-Leninism which is simply another world outlook and a tool, a mechanism if you will, for achieving a more equitable form of social and political development that is based on the deep, organized participation of the Grenadian people. Of course, there are those ignorant ones and others who deliberately sought to obfuscate the facts for their own narrow class interests who pounced upon this as proof positive that Maurice Bishop and the New Jewel Movement was "Communist."

28 years after the Grenada Revolution this reasoning must be placed where it belongs – on the garbage heap of history.

Indeed, it was this national pride and heightened patriotism that enabled the Grenada Revolution to usher in the most intense, sustained and proactive growth period in Grenada’s history – something that has not been equaled since the demise of the process in 1983. There can be absolutely no doubt, despite attempts to revise the Revolution’s history, that the progress achieved in four years was extraordinary and unheard of in the annals of Caribbean or Third World history. And that achievement was the direct result of three (3) things: the involvement of the vast majority of the people in the democratic process, the existence of a superior form of the political party, and a political team with a clear vision that inspired the people to work hard and achievement.

But even as the Revolution achieved great strides in the economic and political areas its human rights record was spotty. Without any apologies I submit that such is the NATURE OF REVOLUTIONS. It was the late great Malcolm X who concluded that there is no revolution that achieved its ends without violence and bloodshed. The American Revolution claimed the lives of millions, so did the Russian Revolution as did revolutions across Europe. By contrast, the Grenada Revolution was a Sunday School outing. Still, many make their case that "we’re not accustomed to this" and "he who lives by the gun, dies by the gun." The question should therefore be asked: what should Grenadians be accustomed to? Confusing renditions of "God Save The Queen" and a concurrent national "independence" anthem? And how did we get to the stage that others owned us? By the gun, of course! The English, Spanish and French came to the Caribbean with Bible in one hand, gun and sword in the other. I don’t see England, the Queen or the great powers of Europe who "lived by the gun" far longer than Grenadians did between 1979 and 1983, "dying by the gun" anytime soon.

It is time that we start "liberating ourselves from mental slavery" as Bob Marley said and begin to think. Politics is never smooth, orderly or without pain or tragedy. That is the nature of the beast. The Grenada Revolution made some mistakes – that is a fact. The incarceration of elements of the old, overthrown regime was a natural political process common to all revolutions. In Grenada’s case it was incarceration; in the case of the French Revolution it was the guillotine. I make this blunt analysis and distinction to say that while one has to recognize the coercive, and yes, undemocratic aspect of the Grenada Revolution it was the suppression of a minority that hitherto ruled undemocratically in the interest of the broad majority whose democratic rights were historically denied. It was the same thing that happened after the United States invasion of 1983 – the leaders of NJM, the People’s Revolutionary Government and the People’s Revolutionary Army were all arrested and incarcerated. You don’t hear any member of these branches of the revolution acting like so many cry babies and whining about being locked up without charge or trial, so you? Was anybody taking notice?

Let me now turn to the issue of voting as a measure of democracy. For countries that now elect governments by the ballot the process was often long, hard and bloody. The American Revolution only allowed voting after many, many years and only people who owned property were eligible. Women were not allowed to vote as were Black people. The same is true in England and across Europe. Yet, the clamor for general elections after March 1979 and the NJM’s refusal is today one of the hilarious hindsight arguments used to prove what the revolution failed. Amazingly, today nobody expects an elected government like the NNP or NDC to demit office before 4 years – the time that a government must remain in office as set by the Grenada Constitution. So that while the revolution was still in its infancy there were elements that sought to undermine it by shouting loudly that "we need to have elections" and if "Maurice has called elections, he would be in office today."

That, of course is so much poppycock since the enemies of the Grenada Revolution would have found some other pretext to prove its illegitimacy. Big world powers cuddle political leaders who come to power by bloody coups, assassinations and other violent means and who hold rigged and sporadic elections to legitimize their despotic rule. The problem for those big powers was not the military or ideological threat of the Grenada Revolution but the fear that what the Grenada working class had achieved would be replicated across the Caribbean – what a United States Secretary of state called "the virus." So they could not let the virus spread – period. It was the example of the Grenada Revolution that had to be destroyed at all costs.

The United States and its allies could rely on the Caribbean political class because of its supine nature and the fact that almost all of its members were taught and schooled by the same colonial masters who just 10 years or so has been the direct rulers and oppressors. Unable to mentally liberate themselves up to today they still thought in terms of "Rule Britannia rule," embraced an outmoded and foreign political system (Westminster democracy) as the only one for the region, and aped their former masters in dress, speech and mannerisms. Obviously, such men and women lacked the kinds of patriotism that Prime Minister Maurice Bishop and the New Jewel Movement had in abundance.

On the 28th Anniversary of the Grenada Revolution the youth face an uncertain and difficult future. The country is ruled by a kakistocracy that thrives on cronyism and the political buddy system that is a feature of all politics in the Caribbean region. While I understand that politics is about power and who watches your back this system naturally spawns corruption and greed. These are the things that kill patriotism but promote a culture of national selfishness, avarice and individualism that ultimately create voter apathy which in turn allows a government of largely incompetent and limited people to remain in office.

The Grenada Revolution was about performance, performance and performance. It put people first, second and third. It worked for the common, national good. The Revolution’s many programs were all to the benefit of the people – from education to health and everything in between. Those are undisputed facts. But the Revolution was not perfect – not by a long shot. Some elements were arrogant and sought to "pay back" those who hitherto oppressed them. That is a natural human instinct. Coupled with levels of immaturity the Revolution stumbled and ultimately imploded by fragmenting within itself. Again these are facts.

For me the good parts of the Grenada Revolution far outweighed the bad. Naturally, some people from a purely personal perspective would disagree and they are entitled to their opinions. But I do not have to agree or respect them.

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

TO BE RICH AND POOR IN AMERICA

An Analysis by MICHAEL D. ROBERTS

PART I of II

To Be Rich And Poor In America

An Analysis By Michael D. Roberts

For sometime now leading community activists have been saying that the gap between the super rich and super poor in America is widening. However, the mainstream media has turned a deaf ear to this growing socio-economic problem and keeps highlighting the interests of the very rich by its incessant harping on stock market prices and other investments trivia. Even as the Inland Revenue Service (IRS) lags behind in current data for incomes and the like it concluded that in "2004 incomes were way below the 2000 level." Income for 2004 was $7.004 trillion as compared to 2000 with $7.143 trillion.

As a matter of fact, extreme poverty in the United States has reached its highest level in three decades according to the United States Census Bureau. It therefore does not take a rocket scientist to deduce that this is a direct result of declining living standards, wage stagnation, and the rising cost of living essentials like fuel and food. Correspondingly, such a disparity between rich and poor also suggests that successive US Administrations have effectively cut the "social wage" – entitlement programs like welfare – that served as a safety net for the poor to pay for the tax breaks and cuts for the rich.

In 2005, individuals earning less than $5,080 a year were considered severely poor; a family of four with two children was severely poor if they lived on less than $9,903. The data review found that nearly 16 million Americans in 2005 were living in severe poverty, or below half the federally designated poverty threshold.

This figure represents nearly half of the total poverty population, the highest proportion of the poverty population in dire straits since at least 1975. Between 2000 and 2005 alone, this group grew by 26 percent, even as the economy recovered from recession. The picture becomes bleaker when once looks at the total wage and income increases for 2004.

Incomes rose by 6.8 percent with the bulk going to the richest one-tenth or 1 percent of all Americans living in approximately 139,500 households with an average income of $4.9 million. For them the income rise of 28 percent was a financial bonanza while for the poorest of the poor an estimated 60 million people their incomes rose by only 1.8 percent. Such income disparity is now threatening to wipe out the American middle class that has long been seen as the buffer class between rich and poor.

The disparities in wealth are obscene. The sums that the very wealthy have at their disposal in the US are almost unimaginable: Oil executive Lee Raymond received about $400 million in a retirement package; the 2005 compensation of bank chairman Richard Fairbank totaling some $280 million; Omid Korestani, head of Google’s global sales, exercising stock options providing him with $288 million last year.

So just how did the fabulously wealthy obtain such staggering wealth in the midst of such endemic and systemic poverty?

Well, first of all the super rich is a privileged group that has access to banking capital and insider trading secrets that the ordinary American does not have. This tiny handful of people has derived this wealth not by hard work or some innate genius but by their very juxtaposition to political power that they control. By consistently keeping the living standards and earning power of the vast majority of Americans low the super rich continues the process of unbridled exploitation that is at the very core of the accumulation of their riches.

Some of this wealth has come from so-called "old money," inheritances, the stock market, the real estate industry, speculation and American wars. This tiny group of people is not startling or outstanding in any fashion, except perhaps in the depth of its greed and shortsightedness. Indeed, the richest one-tenth of 1 percent of Americans took in 9.5 percent of all pretax income, or about $679 billion in 2004, excluding unreported income. This was due in large measure to the Bush administration’s cuts in capital gains taxes, corporate profit rates not seen in nearly 40 years, and the recovery of the stock market.

So we learn from the gloating of US television that Microsoft’s Paul Allen owns a $250-million, 414-foot "gigayacht," with seven decks, two helicopter landing pads, a swimming pool, a basketball court, an infirmary, a garage for Land Rovers, a movie theater, a concert space for 260 and a recording studio. Not to be outdone, Larry Ellison of software giant Oracle had his giant yacht built 452 feet long. Ellison’s vessel has five stories, 82 rooms, "a wine cellar the size of most beach bungalows, a dozen yacht-length tenders, and a generator capable of providing enough electricity for a small town in Idaho or Maine... Final cost: $377 million." (Associated Press)

The wealthy elite are also purchasing their own wide-body airplanes, reports Business Week—Airbus A340s and Boeing 777s, which list for over $100 million—as "airborne penthouses." Customized outfitting may add $25 to $30 million to the cost.

At the other end of the spectrum is the vast majority of America’s poor. For them in places like New York City, California and Chicago the cost of rent consumes over one-quarter of their weekly salaries. In Brooklyn, the average cost of rent for a two-bedroom apartment is $1,200 and in some neighborhoods is as high as $2,500. The median income for a family of four in Brooklyn is about $34,000 annually while the cost of a home averages about $400,000. New York is "home" to approximately 40,000 homeless people including over 12,000 children. About 1 million of New York’s children go to bed hungry each and every night.

This disparity has created an increasingly impoverished working class, including some 25 percent of all workers who labor for poverty wages. In fact, the bottom fifth of all taxpayers earned below $11,166 and their average reported income was only $5,743 each. Because the IRS includes a single individual or a married couple in its definition of a "taxpayer" the poorest 26 million taxpayers account for the equivalent nearly 48 million adults and about 12 million dependent children. What this means is that the poorest 60 million Americans have reported incomes of less than $7 a day.

Astounding you say? In America today, you say?

Consider this: In 2004 the IRS guidelines for income and poverty was that the official poverty line was $27 a day for an adult under retirement age and $42 a day for a household with one child. And over the years federal entitlement programs that acted as a safety net for the poor – food stamps, welfare assistance and other family services have been severely cut back as both the Clinton and Bush Administrations used these cuts to pay for the huge tax breaks for the rich in the hope that Ronald Reagan’s failed "trickle down" voodoo economic theory would one day work.

But these levels of social stratification and alienation between the haves and the have nots is bound to come to a head. Such acute inequalities are not in the least compatible with democracy. Over 3 billion people in the world exist on less than US$2 a day. For the over 60 million Americans who subsist on $7 a day this is not a life. And that number will continue to grow as long as corporate crooks and pirates like those who ran Enron and Worldcom continue to steal and pillage the life savings of their employees.

Indeed, these disparities in wealth, health and living standards, and the apparent collusion of the United States Administration with these parasites is a serious indictment on the much touted free market system. For it is only the truly super rich who can "shop in this market" comfortable in the fact that in the pursuit of ever greater levels of personal wealth political protection will come from those that it put in office.

The index between extreme wealth and extreme poverty is a damning social indicator. It not only tells the tale of "Two Americas" but such impoverishment explains a sure realization of social and economic inequality.

[Next week – explaining poverty]

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

PLUG INTO ENERGY

The Allison Skeete column

Manning and Chavez, the struggle for Regional Energy Supply

By Allison Skeete

Emerging economies of the Caribbean continue to feel the need for energy security.As it is the twin island nation of Trinidad and Tobago is awaiting updates and information on bilateral meetings recently held with Venezuela on their specific roles as primary oil and gas suppliers of their region.

There is also some concern because of the 2005 Venezuela PetroCaribe Initiative which gave the Chavez government more than a dozen signatory nations as clients. So this recent meeting of Chavez and Prime Minister Patrick Manning is interesting and would be observed closely by Barbados which, like Trinidad and Tobago, did not sign on to the PetroCaribe project.

February’s 18th Intercessional Meeting of CARICOM Heads of Government in Kingstown, St Vincent, boasted a sentiment that the Manning-Chavez meeting would reflect a general interest of community partners in energy security according to the spirit of a "Draft CARICOM Energy Policy". This "draft policy" addresses a range of issues like security of supply, development and diversification of energy sources; renewable energy; the electricity sector; energy conservation and efficiency; energy investment; intra-community trade in energy and energy and poverty alleviation.

PetroCaribe, launched in Caracas on June 29, 2005, goes beyond providing oil and natural gas under preferential payment terms. It also has components for economic development assistance, including oil exploration, refining and distribution.

The Trinidad and Tobago government criticized its CARICOM partners signing on to PetroCaribe, but now there seems to be keen interests in joint natural gas exploration and oil refining with Venezuela. Obviously Prime Minister Manning accepts that Venezuela has now emerged as the major player in energy supply to emerging economies of the region. Just as Trinis are watching and waiting to see what’s next so is the rest of the region. Manning is expected to update CARICOM colleagues on energy security and related issues, a process that could avoid misunderstandings and generate confidence building in the context of CARICOM's draft energy policy.

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[insert pix p15-Senator Kevin Parker]

An op-ed
By State Senator Kevin Parker
21st Senate District

HARSH LESSONS FROM THE CIVIL CONFINEMENT BILL

The State Senate's recent vote on civil confinement legislation was a harsh lesson in leadership and the controversial bill, though it passed by an overwhelming majority, is still sending ripples throughout communities of color.  Before I explain why I believe this bill is flawed, let me make it clear that I am not in defense of the indefensible. I am not interested in protecting sexual predators, pedophiles or otherwise. Rather, as an elected official, I am doing everything possible to protect our children from violent criminals who commit these heinous crimes and strongly support tough measures to keep violent sexual offenders behind bars.

As such, my decision to vote against this bill was not an easy one. In fact, I entered the state legislature that day prepared to vote for the bill just like I had done in the past. But on careful review, I could not do so in good conscience. A "yea" vote on this bill which holds dire consequences for the communities I represent and also puts an unbearable burden on tax payers because I am afraid of detractors would have been a cowardly act.

Much like the death penalty and the Rockefeller Drug Laws which we have had to keep revisiting, I believe that we will see that in practice, this bill is hopelessly flawed. In its current form, the bill has the potential to undermine a host of constitutional rights, while empowering our criminal justice system with an open-ended and ill-defined process. With the Rockefeller Drug Laws we said that it was going to end illegal drugs. It hasn’t. Neither has the death penalty reduced violent crimes in any state including New York. But in fact, the disparities with both these systems where Black and Latino people are disproportionately affected is well documented

Yet for the past five years that I have been in the Senate all we have done is raise penalties. This, though we are now seeing a light at the end of a long tunnel that has been the Campaign For Fiscal Equity lawsuit. Now that Governor Spitzer seems ready to deal with CFE in this year’s budget, I am hoping that it will receive the same kind of overwhelming support as the Civil Confinement Bill. With the same voice that we have trumpeted increased penalties, we should be talking about protecting our children by giving more monies to their schools. I will like to see our efforts concentrated on voting monies for youth programs and the reintroduction of music, dance, art and athletics into the regular curriculum. Let’s talk about protecting our communities by increasing our police workforce and giving them the salaries, equipment, information technology and training they need to fight crimes in our communities.

According to the estimated figures outlined in the Civil Confinement Bill, it will cost $200,000 to keep one person civilly confined for a year. The cost to civilly commit 100 sexual offers per year is $100 million. I can think of a million ways that this kind of monies can be better utilized in prevention programs. Not to mention, that by comparison, studies show that providing in-prison therapy to sex offenders cut the rate of recidivism by 40 - 60 percent.
I want sexual predators off the streets like any body else. But I am not convinced that this bill does that. In contrast, this bill looks more like economic development for upstate New York and support of the prison industrial complex. I would have been happy to vote for this bill if it was clear cut and directly targeted to sexual predators and pedophiles. But it does not. We have a government that is predicated on the idea of protecting individual rights. That is the base of a just system that says, better a hundred guilty people go free than one innocent  person goes to jail. This bill says the opposite. We are saying: put a hundred innocent people in jail just to ensure that we get the one guilty person.

Finally, let me engage your readers into my mind-set as I entered the Senate floor to vote on this bill. I was reminded of a book by Professor Martin Linsky, of the Kennedy School of Government. He wrote in "Leadership on the Line" that leadership, by definition is dangerous. That in fact, when you are doing what everybody else wants you to do, you are not providing leadership but simply servicing people. I was elected to provide leadership for the people of the 21st Senate District and of this State.

As a lawmaker I want to protect our communities, especially from sexual predators. So I say yes, let's do whatever it takes to get sex offenders off our streets. But let’s do a civil confinement bill that protects our children and our constitutional rights. However, not this particular bill, which is so broad that it leaves far too many questions unanswered and concerns unaddressed.

And at the same time, let’s be more vigilant about preventive measures. Quality education for our children, programs to help adults cope with economic hardship or the challenges of parenthood, mentoring opportunities that teach kids about the dangers of drug use -- these are the kinds of preventive, quality-of-life measures that not only give individuals a sense of hope, but also offer healthy alternatives to criminal behavior.

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

In Depth

[insert pix of Vivian Williams from file]

[insert pix p16-People at turnstile with caption: Fans entering the stadium at Providence]

CRICKET WORLD CUP 2007: THE SPORTLIGHT IS UPON US

By: Vivian M. Williams, Esq. LL.M

The world has thrown its spotlight and satellite on the Caribbean Region, as a result of successful regional initiatives to woo World Cup Cricket to the West Indies. As a great cricketing nation that has never staged the World Cup tournament, even after being the champions twice and narrowly failing to take home the Cup three consecutives times, the West Indies presented a strong case why it should host the 2007 Cricket World Cup.

Like the Olympic Games and World Cup Soccer, where every major City fights for the right to be host, selection of the host country for Cricket World Cup is a competitive process. Hosting the games is one of the most valuable franchises a host city may have because it puts the City under the spotlight of the World, for a few weeks allowing the host to market itself to the world. The benefit is derived not so much from immediate returns but rather from long-term economic activities.

For countries like Guyana that are seeking to jump start their tourism industry, and market skills and services as President Jagdeo had proclaimed last year, Cricket World Cup presented the opportunity of a lifetime. Make no mistake. From a nationalist standpoint host countries cannot measure their success merely by flurries of excitement on the field of play (those are benefits to cricket). Success has be measured by the impressions of the host city that are left printed on the minds of visitors and the world at large after the last ball is bowled.

PATRIOTISM AND INCOMPETENCE

At the end of the games a patriotic people must ask whether their government failed them and squandered opportunity and resources. In the case of Guyana, it appears that patriotism is being used as a gloss over incompetence, lack of foresight, and laziness, as the glare of the World Cup spreads bad press upon Georgetown.

The first blow to the region was struck when Pakistan’s Coach Bob Woolmer was murdered in his hotel room in Jamaica the day after his team was kicked out of the tournament. While locals might have had no involvement in Woolmer’s death, it is the single story of the World Cup that is receiving the most international attention, even in countries that have very little or no interest in cricket. It was a tragic end to the life of a prominent international figure that deepened security fears, and magnified the crime situation in Jamaica.

While Jamaica has given the world a sweet taste of its reggae to remember, all of the region must ensure that Woolmer’s death is not the lingering memory of the 2007 World Cup.

Over in Guyana the published thoughts of international journalists covering the World Cup raise concerns as to whether the attention Guyana is getting from hosting the World Cup is doing more harm than good to the country. On Tuesday, March 27th, UK Guardian correspondent David Hopps reported to the World that just one week ago, CWC "charged into Guyana to find that a sightscreen, identified two months ago as three feet short, was still vertically challenged."

Late last week the Stabroek News in Guyana reported that Guyana’s Local Organizing Committee was fired by World Cup organizers after a no-confidence vote stemming from failures to meet certain requirements within the stipulated time. A stinging attack came from Hopps who wrote with sarcasm: "As power was handed over to World Cup employees, Guyana 's sports minister Frank Anthony castigated the local organizing committee for its failings, which was a bit of a liberty as guess who was the chairman of the local organizing committee ? [Frank Anthony] Perhaps he had forgotten."

But even more damning was Hopps’ revelation of service at Guyana’s first four-star hotel, Buddy’s International. "On Sunday its Chinese restaurant opened for the first time. Meals took up to two hours to arrive because only one of the Chinese employees in the kitchen could read English and no one else could understand the orders. The waiting staff smiled their way through it. The World Cup needs to smile with them" Hopps wrote.

Just as large volumes of visitors streamed into the country and the international media turn their lenses on Georgetown, the city was hit by water and electricity woes. The water utility tried to make light of the situation with the explanation that the cricket would not be affected because hotels and bed and breakfast providers were told to install overhead tanks. This kind of rationalization reveals two problems. First, the authorities fail to recognize that water woes have a ripple effect on the whole city not just premises without overhead tanks. Secondly, the problem is not whether visitors will be able to have water where they are staying but what impression of the city they would take away.

With bad press in full circulation, commentators are drawing on strong nationalist sentiments as a response. The general response is that journalists from developed countries have descended upon a developing country to bad mouth it with indiscretion. The bad press has even fired up a debate among the country’s journalists as to what role the media should play in presenting a rosy picture to the world, and downplay the existing problems.

NO CENSURESHIP

As agents of a free and independent press journalists are sworn to the public interest as trustee of the governed not public relations agents of the government. This kind of service to the governed is built on commitment to truth, regardless how harsh and disturbing the truth is. It is not the role of the media to censor the truth to present what they consider to be the impressions people should have, but rather to provide the information and let the people form their own impression.

Patriotism compels the media to tell it as it is. Guyanese need to know whether local organizers of the World Cup failed to perform their duties and the officials ought to give full account to the people. It is foolish to think that a local media could become part of a scheme to cover up the truth in this information age, just as it is pathetic to expect the international media to overlook glitches, and glaring problems.

Too often the media in developing countries believe that patriotism requires them to temper their pens to serve as public relations agents of their governments. In doing so they fail to hold their governments accountable and undermine the national interest. Far too often the media in developing countries are complicit in the perpetuation of bad governance.

To some extent, if the West Indian nations fail to reap the benefits that should flow from hosting the World Cup, those very media houses that think they were serving the national interest by failing to probe issues, reveal shortcomings and keep the fire at the government’s feet, may share blame. Why did an international journalist had to travel to Guyana for us to know that a sight-screen that was condemned months ago had not been replaced, that the people in the front office of the four-star hotel we heard only glowing tributes of can hardly speak Guyana’s native language?

Maybe, if the Guyanese media that is now filled with nationalist sentiments had done enough probing before the visitors came, many problems that caused embarrassment might have been detected and fixed ahead of time. That’s what an independent and free press is supposed to do, not join arms with government in distorting reality. While heaping tribute on Buddy’s International Hotel, no one took time to examine the preparedness of the hotel for a major national event. Maybe if someone with true love for the country had done enough work, English-speaking visitors would not have had problems communicating with a hotel staff that speak Chinese.

It seems that government misled or was negligent in pitching the World Cup to investors. There was a deliberate approach to encourage investors to make huge investments into the hotel industry to prepare for World Cup visitors. I was always amazed that no one asked how a few weeks of increased bookings would compensate for the investment if no deliberate effort is made to use the event to stimulate sustained tourist activities in the country.

The government marketed World Cup to investors as an event that they will make money, so many investors went to the bank and borrowed money to invest with great expectation of a quick turnover. It seems the private sector did not ask sufficient questions, the media did not ask questions, and the reality on the ground now is enough visitors have not even arrived to fill the hotels for the period of the World Cup, and many investors are no doubt screaming and losing sleep.

If huge capitol investment into this industry does not yield returns in a hurry, the sector will collapse with severe consequences for the ailing economy. That’s why a free and independent media pursues truth not paint pictures of a distorted reality in the name of patriotism. It is irresponsible for the media to cover up the truth or be complicit merely to give a good impression, and this kind of irresponsible conduct is unpatriotic - though not in intent, in effect.

In today’s world, countries as well as industries and individuals must market themselves. To do this, the burden is upon us to inform the world of positive things about ourselves. For this reason, every country has an information department or ministry that crafts strategies and policy to upstage the negative with the positive.

When West Indian nations signed on to hosting the World Cup, each ought to have crafted a strategy to project itself to the world when the lights are turned on. Perfect opportunities for this came at the opening ceremony that Guyana refused to send a contingent. Jamaica made excellent use of the opportunity to sell it’s reggae to the world.

No host country will derive benefits merely by hosting incident-free games, or exciting matches, but rather from the extent to which it uses the event to market itself to the world so that the expenditure on infrastructure would be recovered from sustained business activities. All the World Cup did was provide a platform, how well it was used by host countries will be revealed in time, and really there is still some time for host countries to make a lasting impression.

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I CALL IT AS I SEE IT

Testing the Tightrope
FROM IAN WILLIAMS IN NEW YORK
As Winston Churchill said of his successor Clement Attlee, Ban Ki-Moon is a very modest man. It remains to be seen whether the United Nations Secretary-General also has ‘much to be modest about’. As the traditional 100-day deadline for assessing new office-holders approaches, there is a quite remarkable lack of information on which to base any assessment. Ban shows no sign of rushing. With unprecedented time to effect a transition, he could have started running with a full team – unless he was waiting for former United States Ambassador John Bolton to go.

Ban Ki-moon brought a team of Koreans with him to the United Nations, seven according to most reports, regardless of his official nominations to office. Most notable is Kim Won-soo who was the mastermind of Ban’s election campaign to become Secretary-General. Now officially the assistant to newly appointed chef de cabinet Vijay Nambiar, UN staff report that Kim is no eminence grise, but is indeed very openly assertive in his authority.

But neither he nor his compatriots at UN headquarters are open about much else. Neither Ban nor his team has taken any great pains to explain themselves to senior staff, let alone to the media and the public.

Consequently, no one can be sure how deeply in debt Ban feels to the Americans for their electoral support, or indeed whether the nature of any such obligation has changed with the removal of Ambassador John Bolton and the change of control in Congress.
Spoils System
Ban’s appointment of B. Lynn Pascoe, a veteran United States diplomat, to head the Department of Political Affairs sent one sign. But his retreat from plans to put the substantive part of the peacekeeping department under the American, and his refinement of original proposals to downgrade disarmament affairs could be a joint product of a change of emphasis in Washington, or resistance from other member states.

Pascoe is an accomplished diplomat, well versed in Asian affairs, who even speaks Mandarin. If it had to be an American, then he is possibly the best for the position. Nonetheless, having an American, or for that matter, in the current state of the relationship between British Prime Minister Tony Blair and US President George Bush, a British nominee in such a crucial position, is bad for the UN and for Washington.
Despite its churlish lack of public enthusiasm, the US relies increasingly on the UN for major parts of global policing that would otherwise consume its increasingly challenged resources. And one of the advantages of the UN is that its global legitimacy gives it an appearance of neutrality that Pascoe’s presence may belie.
The Security Council permanent members’ spoils system as applied to senior UN positions has led traditionally to a reliance on a kitchen cabinet of people you can trust. However, in Ban’s case, these all seem to be Korean. Senior UN staff report that insofar as the Korean team has manifested an agenda, it is ‘reform’, which it is pursuing with singular intensity – and on which it also seems to be taking advice from the Americans, although it is certainly a personal preoccupation of Ban’s.
Reform Rhetoric
Following an American reform agenda could be very frustrating since the Humpty Dumpty principle applies, ‘When I use a word, it means just what I want it to mean, neither more nor less’. For significant constituencies in Washington, reform means that the organization will do what it is told, when it is told, by the US. In particular it would be expected to drop its traditional support for international law in the Middle East, particularly the Palestinian rights programs.
One indication of trouble ahead is indeed the Middle East. Retiring Secretary-General Kofi Annan got scant thanks for trying hard to engage Israel in the organization, without abandoning the Palestinian case in international law and the catalogue of UN decisions. There are some indications that Ban is not overly concerned about the latter, and by being somewhat over-receptive to Washington’s input, is heading for a confrontation with Arab and Islamic states and their non-aligned allies. In the UN version of Kremlinology, it was regarded as significant that Israel steered him away from going to Gaza during his March visit.
The Group of 77 developing nations are, with some justice, concerned because they know the American political agenda lurking beneath the managerial reform rhetoric. Bolton could hardly be accused of hiding it! Many would prefer an inefficient status quo in which their concerns will be addressed, to an efficient machine that excludes their agenda.
It must also be admitted that for a developing country ambassador, the prospects of a reincarnated career in the UN also looms large in the calculations. They know how to work the present system and would not welcome a slimmed down meritocracy they suspect would be under western control.
Tactical not Technocratic
Ban has tried to pre-emptively head off their opposition to his plans with senior appointments carefully spread around the global south. Many people suspect that, unless he has seen hidden depths unobserved by others in some of his appointees, a number of selections have been more tactical than technocratic.
Very late in his second term, Annan went to the long neglected root of the rot in the UN’s personnel system – and even then only after appointing Anne Veneman, the White House nominee to head the traditional American fiefdom of the UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF) to avert US opposition.

Briefly the UN advertised and conducted a passable search process for candidates for senior positions, for example choosing Kemal Dervis of Turkey for the traditional Anglo-Saxon realm of the United Nations Development Program (UNDP). And then right at the end, under heavy White House pressure, after consulting Ban, Annan appointed a Bush nominee, Josette Sheeran Shiner as head of the World Food Program. She is a former editor of the Moony-owned Washington Times.
Following that, Ban abandoned this brief burst of genuine reform and has chosen a series of candidates who appear to represent pay-offs to powers that could have, but did not, veto his candidacy. Despite a reform pledge to cycle anyone more than five years in one position, he reappointed the French candidate, Jean-Marie Guéhenno as head of peacekeeping.
Sir John Holmes, a Blair nominee, became head of the Department of Humanitarian Affairs, a task in which he may succeed, but for which he is less qualified than the political affairs job the British hoped for. And of course the reason that London had to accept a consolation prize was the most significant pay-back of all, Pascoe. It may be reform, but hardly root and branch.
Short on Substance
So what are Ban’s prospects? Any Secretary-General has to balance the aspirations of the bulk of the membership and the imperious demands of the great powers, in particular the US. Annan was extremely adept at this, for which he was rewarded with mutterings from the nonaligned that he was an American puppet and a two year campaign of vilification from US conservatives.

The Bush administration policy was ‘Bear not false witness: let the lie/Have time on its own wings to fly’. The White House did not start the slanderous campaign about the failures of the Iraq Oil for Food Program, but it certainly did nothing to rein it in, and took advantage of Annan's weakened position. Ban should learn the lesson that that American support lasts only until the first disagreement.
Some observers, unimpressed by Ban’s approach, and perhaps irritated by his own boast to the title of the ‘slippery eel’, for his avoidance of substance, have assumed he is the lacklustre product of a backroom fix. But that is no truer than of any of his predecessors.
Indeed, while last year’s voting itself had all the transparency of a papal conclave, the campaign was unprecedentedly open, and Ban acquitted himself well on the hustings. For example, when asked about the International Criminal Court, and the doctrine of Responsibility to Protect, he declared himself unequivocally in favor of both – even though one was hardly designed to woo Bolton’s vote, while the other was not exactly what Beijing may have wanted.
Like Annan, Ban is personally very affable and approachable, but quietly spoken, and has given evidence of strong ethics. No one could be foreign minister of a fulcrum state like South Korea without developing Annan-like skills at tightrope walking. In recent years South Korea has contrived to loyally disagree with Washington even though its survival has depended on American military support. Indeed, the few hints we see of his decision-making suggest some very intricate balancing acts.
Annan, more than any recent Secretary-General realized that in the absence of serious military or financial power, careful cultivation of a public persona of trustworthy moral authority provided the best substitute. Despite indifferent speaking skills, and very carefully weighing every word, he was initially very successful in this.
One way in which Annan succeeded was to open up the organization to the media in an unprecedented way. Previously, staff rules forbade talking to the press, but he reversed the position so that they were mandated to do so on areas in which they had competence. He also surrounded himself with a team that could articulately fill in the gaps in his diplomatically constrained public discussion.

It is to be hoped that Ban may begin to realize what he is missing. There is no point in having the world’s most prominent bully pulpit if he is not prepared to read the occasional sermon and deliver some ringing ex cathedra judgments. He will find that soft power is the strongest weapon in his armory.

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

IMPACT ON YOUTH

[insert pix of Tamika Forrester-Eastman]

The Value of an Education

By Timica Forrester-Eastman

In my last two articles, I discussed several issues which I deemed to be pertinent to Guyanese youth both at home and in the Diaspora. However, in my haste to address those issues of culture and morality which were the focus of my discussions, I regrettably failed to concentrate on something which seems to be the root cause of both these phenomena. I did not get into what remains the pillar of knowledge: education.

Though some might argue that one can survive perfectly well without an education (people have actually said this to me), we must take a look at the bigger picture. Is an education vital to survival? Of course not, but what are the advantages to be had by an educated individual which more often than not areunavailable to the "uneducated".

First of all I will define education. The general consensus among most dictionaries is that education is the process of acquiring general knowledge and developing the powers of reasoning and judgment so as to prepare oneself for mature life.

Hence, education does not have to occur in a school or any formal institution. In fact, before schools were accessible to the general population in Guyana and the rest of the world, people were typically educated at home. They were taught how to behave at home and in public. From a tender age boys learnt the trades of their fathers while the girls were taught to cook, clean and sew. All of these represent various forms of education which prevailed in earlier times.

However, institutionalized education has now become the norm in most parts of the world. In order to become or remain at least middle class in contemporary societies, a high school diploma is vital. Those skills which were passed down in the family are no longer enough.

In Guyana, there is a general awareness of the need for a formal education. At the root of Guyana’s educational success, however, is a highly controversial issue - corporal punishment. The population seems divided on whether or not the system should be abolished in schools. Some argue that the strict rules of conduct and the punishment that follows disobedience have been the catalyst for the country’s educational achievement.

According to the UNICEF statistical profile of Guyana, primary school enrollment reached a peak of 97 percent during 2000-2005. Additionally, the organization reports that the net secondary school enrollment for that same period was 92 percent for males and 95 percent for females. This at a time when the Public Policy and Education Fund Inc. reports that the high school drop out rate in New York alone is 76 percent.

These two sets of statistics when combined do not bode well for young Guyanese immigrants and even second generation Guyanese children. Having migrated from one situation into the other, some usually lose their reverence for education and follow their new peers in a downward spiral. The eroding of educational value in the family as a whole also seems to be one of the negative aspects of migration.

The family is usually too caught up with the distractions offered by their adopted home to continue to instill the need for educational excellence in their offspring. The end result for many is the loss of the knowledge they gained at home and the failure to learn much more here.

However, there have been many immigrants from Guyana who have used their education to their advantage and are now in positions of leadership as well as scholarship.

Judge Pam Jackman Brown is a sitting Judge in New York State. She migrated from Guyana as a child and pursued an education at the Borough of Manhattan Community College and then John Jay College before graduating from the CUNY School of Law at Queens College.

Yet another success story is that of Vanessa Brhamadat. She attests to the fact that when her family migrated to the US her parents’ high school education was not enough to guarantee them a secure future. She says they struggled to make ends meet until her mother decided to go to college. Her mother eventually graduated with a 4.0 GPA and was able to establish a high paying career after which the family was able to buy its own house and live comfortably. The younger Brhamadat says that her mother’s success has inspired her to get a college degree.

Hence, there needs to be more motivation on the part of parents who wish to see their children succeed. Motivation does not necessarily mean getting a college degree. Simply reminding your children about the importance of education is a step towards making them better able to succeed. Parents could at least try to make the youngsters understand that there is more to life than television, music and videogames.

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

]

.