23 April 2014
22 April 2014
(Reuters) - Petroleos de Venezuela (PDVSA), which urgently needs space in the Caribbean to store its oil, has emerged as the renter of tanks owned by NuStar Energy (NS.N) on the island of Saint Eustatius, where the Venezuelan state-run company will blend crudes, sources close to the transaction told Reuters.
NuStar, a San Antonio, Texas-based pipeline and terminals company, said last month it signed a long-term agreement to lease parts of its facility on the Caribbean island to a national oil company, but did not disclose the name of its client.
"The company renting the tanks in Saint Eustatius is PDVSA. They will use the facility as a mixing hub to produce blends that can then be exported," one of the sources said.
After selling terminals to raise cash, PDVSA now must rent space in the Caribbean to store its oil, produce a wider portfolio of blends, and handle trading as it imports more fuels. It also needs the facilities to load large tankers to be sent to Asia, which has become its main market.
In a global market oversupplied with oil, the NuStar facility is one of several PDVSA has leased in recent years, particularly since fires damaged its domestic storage network in 2012. In at least one case, it pays rent with oil because of its well-known cash flow problems.
READ FULL ARTICLE HERE
20 April 2014
"We are tired of being a Colony of Colombia and of her bad treatment, we are taking back our Land and our Freedom".
The ancestors of the Raizal People voluntarily adhered to Colombia in 1822 ("according to Colombian historians"), thinking it would be a safe relationship; but today, the Raizal People are on their way to extinction under the ethnocidal and genocidal Colombian regime by:
(1) Losing more than 50% of their ancestral land titles. (2) The capital island being intentionallyoverpopulated, today with a density of more than 3.000 inhabitants per km2 causing multiple problems, making it unsustainable environmental, social, economically, giving deaf ears to the pleas by Raizals (3) Being outnumbered by immigrants and becoming a minority on their ancestral Territory. (4) Being discriminated in their own land. (5) Having their Territory ceded to other countries through unconsulted treaties. (6) Having their traditional peace and welfare affected by Colombia's tolerating and encouraging drug trafficking, money laundering and violence through its corrupted forces and its corrupted political system.
17 April 2014
A.C. (Tony) Brown | Isle of Man Courier
According to scientists from Duke University, North Carolina, USA, the seabed is about to experience industrial scale mining for mineral deposits and rare earth metals.
These are required in the production of things like PCs, smartphones, etc – but the extraction is set to be on a scale which could transform the environment for generations to come.
Giant underwater cutters and robotic submarines would be involved in what is essentially strip-mining, where vast areas of the ocean bed are removed and brought to the surface as slurry.
The valuable minerals are then siphoned out, and the ‘waste’ – which may contain a variety of toxins and heavy metals from processing – are dumped back into the water.
Another equally destructive method, vacuum mining, involves the seabed being sucked up by machines and similarly dealt with.
Scientists from Duke told the annual general meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science that these processes have the potential to irrevocably destroy the seabed, along with the unique wildlife it supports. Sensitive species will be smothered by sediment and noise will have a detrimental impact on whales and other marine life, Meanwhile, fishing communities could suffer the loss of their livelihood.
There is great concern that rapidly dwindling resources may impact on our increasingly unsustainable economic system. But nonetheless, already some 19 leases have been granted over international waters for prospecting of this type – with more pending.
Hearteningly, however, there are some signs that sanity might prevail.
As an example, Namibia’s National Marine information and Research Centre has expressed such concern over the cumulative effects of seabed mining that its country’s government has imposed a moratorium until further assessments can be made about the long-term effects of these activities.
This has, thankfully, halted at least one mining company’s plans to remove between 1 and 5 metres of depth of silt, so as to extract the phosphate deposits therein, before dumping the waste slurry back into the sea.
The Research Centre insists – and it’s hard to disagree – that long-term research is needed on the impact on fish stocks and the health of the sea-bed ecology, before more of this damaging activity is undertaken.
The team adds that there is at present no real understanding or experience of this type of mining.
Surely, enough is enough: at the rate we’re going, we continue to pursue unrealistic long-term material aspirations from which only a minority of the world’s population can benefit to any real extent. It can’t be long before the inevitable decline of our short-lived industrialised ‘civilisation’.
In 2012, the United Nations’ report Global Environmental Outlook concluded that growing economies are pushing environmental systems to destabilising extremes.
Over the past three decades:
All of this is taking place in the name of a highly blinkered vision of ‘human progress’.
Economists and politicians are fond of proclaiming that current systems have lifted billions out of poverty over the last 150 years– and that the human race has, so to speak, ‘never had it so good’.
But the fact remains, however, that the number of hungry people has risen in recent years to more than 1 billion. Further, 1.4 billion people live on less than $1,25 a day, and 2.5 billion don’t even have the most basic sanitation.
When you consider that at the end of the 18th Century, the world was burdened with barely a billion humans – and far from all of them in poverty – it’s hard not to argue that any ‘progress’ on this front is illusory.
Can we really claim progress when a billion souls die prematurely from starvation and many hundreds of millions of the world’s population are also dying before their time or being kept alive through reliance on increasingly over-stretched health and welfare systems from diseases associated with over-eating and obesity?
The irony is sickening.
A new report by the World Health Organisation recently warned that a ‘deadly’ epidemic combining physical inactivity with diets high in fats, salts and sugars has led to obesity becoming the ‘new normal throughout Europe.
Officials said, ahead of an EU Summit in Greece, that up to 27 per cent of Europe’s 13-year-olds and 33 per cent of 11-year-olds are overweight – and the US has yet a worse record, with a new generation of sedentary, unhealthy youngsters growing up.
Ah well – but that’s ‘progress’.
16 April 2014
LONDON, United Kingdom – The UK’s Foreign Affairs Committee has released a report where it was revealed that members of the Committee are “disappointed” with the United States over the latter’s stance on the self-determination right of the islands’ inhabitants.
In a 67-page report, the Foreign Affairs Committee reserved a specially titled 2-page section, “Case Study: The Falklands,” where it delved into Britain’s ‘special relationship’ that it enjoys with the United States through the prism of the political situation on the islands.
In an otherwise very positive report documenting the close political ties the two nations share, the Committee did mention that they are “disappointed that the US administration fails to give priority to the principle of self-determination in its position on sovereignty of the Falkland Islands.”
The 11-member Foreign Affairs Committee, composed of five Conservative, five Labour and one Liberal Democrat Members of Parliament, noted their lament that “the United States has taken no position on the claims of sovereignty by the islands.”
The Malvinas/Falklands have been under British control since 1833, save for the two-and-a-half-month period when Argentina invaded and subsequently lost the 1982 war.
Argentina maintains that the islands were taken illegally as they were a part of Colonial Spain’s Viceroyalty of the River Plate to which it belonged, meaning that upon the loss of Spain’s South American colonies in the early 1800s, the islands in question were transferred to the newly independent Argentina.
Argentina has repeatedly attempted to bring up the issue at the United Nations, but the UK has replied by saying there is no need for discussion as the inhabitants of the islands clearly want to remain under British rule. Indeed, a referendum held last year on the islands resulted in well over 99% of the population voting to stay a part of the UK.
Argentina claims that in 1833, British forces displaced an Argentine settlement and have since occupied the islands colonially and implanted a British population there with no legal or historic rights and thus, rejects the referendum.
Instead, Buenos Aires has repeatedly called for bilateral dialogue while Britain says they will only participate in such talks if representatives from the islands, clearly in favor of the British stance, are allowed to have a seat at the table.
In its report, the Foreign Affairs Committee brought up the referendum, highlighting that the islands wished to remain a British Overseas Territory “with an overwhelming vote of 99.8 per cent.” The United States, meanwhile, did not recognize the results of the referendum as binding and officially remained ‘neutral.’
In addition, the US has consistently said that its government supports direct negotiations between the United Kingom and Argentina to resolve the issue. However, this will likely not happen any time soon due to the UK’s insistence on an islander presence at any possible talks while Argentina rejects the notion because it will ‘legitimize’ the islands politically.
Due to the position of the United States in its calling for dialogue and negotiation, many British political figures and organizations have expressed their opinion that the US is not truly ‘neutral’ in the conflict, as Argentina itself calls for dialogue.
Luke Coffey, a former advisor to a British Defense Secretary and now a member of the conservative Heritage Foundation thinktank in the US capital, told the Committee that Washington had “clearly abandoned its position of neutrality” in the dispute.
Coffey said that “Argentina’s official position over the status of the Falkland Islands is negotiations,” and by President Obama’s backing of calls for negotiations by Buenos Aires instead of remaining quiet (neutral), “this is a change from previous administrations and a departure from neutrality.”
Obama was further criticized by the Committee for “trying to play both sides” of the issue, wishing to keep the close ties with London intact while simultaneously trying to “maintain its role as master of its own house” in the Western Hemisphere. The US, meanwhile, has said that it has been attempting to improve relations with various Latin American nations, including Argentina, who is supported by its neighbors in its claims to the Malvinas/Falklands.
Another important figure, Sir Nigel Elton Sheinwald, Her Majesty’s Ambassador to the United States from 2007 to 2012, shared his opinion with the Committee and told the panel that the “US position on the Falkland Islands had been uncomfortable and not what we wanted.”
The report further expressed disappointment with the US and its position on the islands given that “among UK Overseas Territories other than the Falkland Islands, two-Ascencion Island and the British Indian Ocean Territory (Diego Garcia)-host substantial and long-standing US military bases.”
“These arrangements that we have constitute an important UK contribution to the bilateral defense relationship with the US, and that partly as a consequence, the UK’s Overseas Territories overall constitute an important asset in the UK’s strategic partnership with the United States,” the statement says.
Ironically enough given the situation with sovereignty in the islands in the South Pacific, the second territory mentioned, Diego Garcia, has a self-determination past of its own. In 1966, the UK expelled over 2,000 of the island native inhabitants, the Chagossians, in order to establish the territory as a US regional military base with a 50-year agreement. The Chagossians are still attempting to return and establish sovereignty on the island.
Regardless of the apparent differences between the US and UK views on the islands and their sovereignty, the report does state that the links between the two government remain very strong and that “in the spirit of realism,” the single issue “simply must take its place among the many other international questions on which the US and UK are engaged.”
15 April 2014
Aana Alofi No. 3 M.P., Toeolesulusulu Cedric Schuster, has become the first Samoan Member of Parliament to join a global group of parliamentarians calling for self-determination for West Papua.
In doing so, Toeolesulusulu is the 86th member to join the International Parliamentarians for West Papua, and only the seventh from the entire Pacific Islands region.
The group was launched in the Houses of Parliament, London, in 2008, following decades of reports about human rights abuses by Indonesian security forces in West Papua.
The West Papua Declaration signed by the M.P.s reads,
“We the undersigned recognise the inalienable right of the indigenous people of West Papua to self-determination, which was violated in the 1969 “Act of Free Choice”,
AND call upon our governments through the United Nations to put in place arrangements for the free exercise of that right SO that the indigenous people of West Papua can decide democratically their own future in accordance with international standards of human rights, the principles of international law and the Charter of the United Nations.”
Toeolesulusulu is no recent convert to the cause, having first learnt about West Papua over a decade ago when he was working in Fiji for the World Wide Fund for Nature (W.W.F.).
One of the other groups also working there was the P.C.R.C., the Pacific Centre for Resource Concerns, which had long focused on making the region nuclear free, as well as supporting independence efforts.
People from West Papua were campaigning in Fiji at the time, and they, along with most other non- governmental organisations there at the time, got to hear about their concerns.
However, since then, that interest and support for West Papua is actually “waning”, said Toeolesulusulu, “in the 80s and 90s, there was strong lobbying, there was more active work going on.”
This is partly because Pacific states have moved on from their founding years, when international issues of independence have region. turned to domestic issues of sustainability and economic growth.
He also blames a lack of leadership from western countries like the United States and the United Kingdom, but also closer partners like New Zealand and Australia – all with their own interests in West Papua.
“New Zealand and Australia are tied to Indonesia with trade and military connections,” said Toeolesulusulu.
He agreed that trade links had had a corrupting influence on regional politics, but indicated the problem was wider than just the region.
“It’s a global phenomenon, you look at Africa, South America, and how the United States, for example, pushes its global agendas to get their way. Also New Zealand and Australia, they also have interest to push, to put their own people first.”
However, he did not agree with criticism that the Melanesian Spearhead Group had ‘sold out’ when it recently signed trade and sovereignty agreements with Indonesia.
“That’s a strong statement.
“As I’ve said, the relationships now are more directed towards trade and development assistance, and a lot of countries are looking more to their local needs.”
As Indonesia continues to pour thousands of its own migrants into West Papua, getting self-determination for West Papua gets harder, he says.
“They should have done the right thing at that time. “It’s even harder now with still more Indonesians coming into the region.”
But he says it’s an important area of human rights, “that we should be doing more to make a stand.
“Especially when you look at how the Pacific Islands came about, when you look at Samoa, Vanuatu, Papua New Guinea, all these countries had colonial powers.”
Toeolesulusulu praises the role taken up by Vanuatu. “Countries like Vanuatu are starting to take a strong interest.”
Earlier this month, Vanuatu Prime Minister Moana Kalosil Carcasses, a founding member of the IPWP, speaking at the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva, called for international action on West Papua.
"Why are we not discussing it in this Council, why are we turning a blind eye to them and closing our ears to the lone voices of the Papuan people, many of whom have shed innocent blood because they want justice and freedom."
Mr. Carcasses said roughly 10 percent of the indigenous population have been killed by Indonesian security forces since 1963.
More recently, between October 2011 and March 2013, 25 Papuans were murdered but nothing has been done to bring the perpetrators to justice.
He urged the Council to consider adopting a resolution to establish a country mandate on the situation in West Papua, which would include an investigation of alleged human rights violations, and provide recommendations on a peaceful political solution.
14 April 2014
El informe de la Oficina General de Contabilidad (GAO, por sus siglas en inglés) sobre cuánto le costaría a Estados Unidos la estadidad para Puerto Rico lo que hace es tensar el debate en el Congreso de ese país sobre la posibilidad de la estadidad para la Isla. En lugar de que el Partido Nuevo Progresista (PNP) reclame vítores de que la estadidad traería un aumento de fondos federales a Puerto Rico, debería preocuparse en cómo atender esas tensiones y cómo la Isla puede enfrentar la debacle económica que la estadidad conlleva.
El Dr. Javier Colón Morera apuntó en entrevista que en el Congreso de Estados Unidos siempre ha habido una especie de tensión respecto a los argumentos que se usan en Puerto Rico a favor de la estadidad que se centran en el aumento en los fondos federales. Este argumento genera poca receptividad, resaltó. El estudioso de la política estadounidense trajo a la atención el que ahora mismo en la Cámara de Representantes el sector importante que lidera la opinión de ese cuerpo le da mucha atención a la disciplina fiscal. No descartó que en las próximas elecciones de noviembre esa ala derecha también controle el Senado por lo que “en ese sentido el informe recrudece la tensión que existe entre argumentar en Puerto Rico de que la estadidad es buena porque permite más fondos federales y por otro lado los sectores en el Congreso que están buscando formas de reducir el déficit de su presupuesto y la deuda pública de Estados Unidos. Ahí hay un choque con los sectores conservadores desde una perspectiva fiscal”.
Colón Morera, quien es profesor del Departamento de Ciencia Política de la Facultad de Ciencias Sociales de la Universidad de Puerto Rico (UPR), Recinto de Río Piedras, agregó que el otro tema importante del informe del GAO es el de los impuestos y la posibilidad de que las empresas que tienen tratamiento fiscal como empresas foráneas (CFC) se vayan de la Isla al tener que imponerles el impuesto federal.
Al cuestionarle si cree que en términos políticos es correcta la prédica del PNP a favor de la estadidad cimentada en los beneficios económicos que ello supone, apuntó, “creo francamente que el PNP, como todo partido grande, es una coalición de fuerzas. Puede haber un sector que quiera la estadidad porque considera que Estados Unidos es su nación y hay otros sectores que no, que van a estar más preocupados por cómo aumentan los fondos federales. En Estados Unidos pasa lo mismo, puede haber unos sectores liberales que digan ‘nosotros queremos liberarnos de la acusación de colonialismo en Puerto Rico, así que vamos a aumentar los fondos federales, vamos a tratar de forma más igualitaria’. Incluso se plantean la estadidad como forma de liberarse de la herencia del colonialismo”.
A juicio de Colón Morera, con este informe del GAO, por primera vez se ha estado considerando en el Congreso exclusivamente la alternativa de la estadidad. Anotó que el último proceso donde se discutió seriamente el asunto del estatus de Puerto Rico fue de 1989 a 1991, en el cual participaron los tres partidos políticos. “El informe ofrece la oportunidad para que el Congreso examine la única opción de cambio que se le está planteando, que es la estadidad. Creo que es un debate importante y que está incluyendo aspectos económicos, pero que en cualquier momento puede moverse a incluir aspectos de otros temas. Definitivamente hay que seguirlo”.
Aunque en este momento es una interrogante saber si la Cámara le va a dar vistas o no al proyecto del comisionado residente Pedro Pierluisi, la fraseología al final del informe del GAO, que alude al impacto fiscal tan grande en términos negativos que tendría la estadidad sobre Puerto Rico, provoca que la cita a vistas públicas y la discusión del tema es una decisión que el Congreso no puede tomar livianamente, consideró Colón Morera.
El efecto sobre la clase media
Por su parte, el profesor Raúl Cotto Serrano destacó las lagunas que deja el informe del GAO respecto a la clase media en la Isla, que considera que prácticamente desaparecería con la anexión.
Bajo la estadidad, la clase media sería la que tendría que pagar los impuestos federales y los de Puerto Rico y frente al hecho de que los ingresos no van a aumentar porque la Isla sea estado, los impuestos del ELA tendrían que bajar para dar lugar a que se puedan cobrar los impuestos federales. Reparó en que éstos tienen prioridad bajo la estadidad y no se van a reducir porque Estados Unidos tiene unas escalas para todos los estados.
“Eso quiere decir que la clase media aportaría menos al erario puertorriqueño, los ingresos del gobierno estatal se reducirían”. A juicio de Cotto Serrano, aun cuando eso confirma algo que los anexionistas siempre han dicho, el problema es el efecto que tiene la estadidad sobre el sistema entero de la economía y el gobierno puertorriqueño.
El también profesor de Ciencia Política del Recinto de Río Piedras de la UPR adelantó que un cambio de estatus hacia la estadidad como presenta el informe provocaría un disloque social muy grande, porque ante la reducción notable del mercado laboral aquí, habría un sector importante de la población que podría llegar a la conclusión de que el sistema laboral no tiene nada que ofrecerles y que no vale la pena estar tratando de conseguir trabajo y educarse para conseguir trabajo.
Coincidió en que el ambiente en la Isla puede provocar que más personas de la clase media continúen emigrando hacia estados en el continente que les ofrecen ventajas económicas, laborales y sociales más cómodas, por lo que acusó que el informe lo que hace en alguna medida es alentar el interés de una clase media a irse de Puerto Rico. “Si un número importante de la clase pobre se ve desalentado para el trabajo y numerosos de la clase media se ven incentivados para emigrar, ¿qué es lo que va a quedar?”, lanzó con tono de incertidumbre.
Según Cotto Serrano, dentro del movimiento estadista ha habido una paradoja durante mucho tiempo, que se agudiza de manera profunda ante esta situación, y es que los estadistas han cultivado y defendido la dependencia económica de Puerto Rico con respecto a EE UU como un incentivo para atraer votos.
Ahora el informe muestra el lado débil de esa estrategia. Punto seguido destacó que la “ayuda” que ofrece EE UU no está diseñada para sacar a la gente de la pobreza sino mantener a la gente en la pobreza, como tampoco el dinero recibido está dirigido a actividades productivas sino para el consumo, lo que resulta en fuga de capital.
Cotto Serrano recalcó que los estadistas deberían estar más preocupados por el informe porque cada vez pone a la estadidad en una posición más incómoda para el comprador, EE UU, lo que provoca a su vez que si el informe del GAO es el mecanismo para atraer a los pobres hacia la estadidad, es también el mecanismo para distanciar a los estadounidenses. Por parte de EE UU tiene ante sí la situación de una población cuyo vínculo con EE UU no es social, ni patriótico.
Aludiendo a la euforia en que se encuentra el movimiento estadista reclamando que haya un plebiscito de estadidad sí o no para que se demuestre el apoyo que hay de los pobres a lo que presenta el GAO, apuntó en su lugar que el movimiento estadista tiene la responsabilidad de contestar no sólo al pueblo puertorriqueño, sino también al pueblo estadounidense cómo se va a sostener el estado de Puerto Rico ya que no hay ninguna justificación racional para que el pueblo estadounidense acepte un nuevo estado que de su faz se ve que es inviable.
Respecto al estadolibrismo, indicó que por lo menos a corto plazo el informe puede reducirle su base de apoyo entre los pobres además de que han sido muy poco efectivos al tratar de contrarrestar el mensaje de la estadidad.
Acotó que el independentismo tampoco debe quedarse fuera de la discusión y debe reaccionar porque tiene la responsabilidad ante el país de exigir que los estadistas presenten un plan que haga a Puerto Rico viable bajo la estadidad y no debe permitir que se proclame la estadidad aunque a Puerto Rico no le convenga. Apuntó que ese tipo de planteamiento tiene un efecto sobre el poder de convocatoria del independentismo porque en la medida en que se dirija a la clase pobre y trate de recabar su apoyo entonces va a encontrar que hay la resistencia por la idea de que es en la estadidad donde la persona va a tener mas ingresos a corto plazo.
El profesor Cotto Serrano recordó que ninguno de los territorios antes de ser estados ha tenido los vínculos de dependencia que tiene Puerto Rico, sino que eran entidades viables que se hicieron estados de EE UU. Por el contrario, muchos territorios fueron hechos estados porque llegó un momento en que el Gobierno Federal había decidido que para el desarrollo de la nación era necesario dominar todo el territorio hasta el Pacífico.
En el caso de la Isla, destacó que no hay un proyecto nacional de Estados Unidos que requiera que se le incorpore como estado para cumplir sus metas, porque tiene todo lo que quiere de Puerto Rico sin hacernos estado y gastar todo ese dinero.
En lo que respecta al independentismo advirtió, “los independentistas les están dejando el problema a los Populares como si fuera un problema de los Populares, pero si los Populares pierden esa batalla la receptividad al mensaje independentista va a ser más baja”.
11 April 2014
Alexander F. Gittens
APRIL 10, 2014 - 4:52 AM
1804caribvoices joins the international community in mourning the passing of two of CARICOM’s most distinguished sons. The region has lost two great minds and patriots. We mourn the passing yet celebrate the life and legacy of former Trinidad and Tobago Prime Minister and President, Arthur Napoleon Raymond (ANR) Robinson and distinguished scholar, thinker and integrationist, Professor Emeritus Norman Girvan. Their contributions to the regional and international communities will have a lasting impact.
Arthur N.R. Robinson will be remembered for, among other things his courageous position in the face of grave personal danger when the country and seat of power were threatened. The phrase “murderous scoundrels… attack with full force” – his command to the military, in response to demands to surrender the country and democracy to insurgents, has become part of his epithet and continues to inspire citizens of Trinidad and Tobago.
ANR Robinson’s legal and intellectual contribution to the formation of the International Criminal Court places him in the pantheon of exceptional Caribbean and international leaders. 1804caribvoices remembers Arthur Napoleon Raymond Robinson.
1804caribvoices also remembers its founder, Professor Emeritus Norman Girvan. “Prof” as he was fondly called by his students, colleagues and comrades, leaves a great legacy. His contribution to the regional integration project will not go unnoticed. He was an integrationist to the core. Norman was an intellectual giant yet remained humble and simple. In the coming weeks, months and years, his name will be mentioned in the same breath as CLR James, W. Arthur Lewis, Lloyd Best and Walter Rodney, to mention a few.
Professor Girvan’s contribution to the Caribbean, the Global South and indeed the international community goes back decades. He was the second Secretary General of the Association of Caribbean States; Senior Lecturer in Economics at the University of the West Indies in Jamaica; Senior Research Fellow at the United Nations African Institute for Development and Planning in Dakar; Regional Coordinator of the Caribbean Technology Policy Studies Project of the University of the West Indies/University of Guyana; Chief Technical Director of the National Planning Agency of the Government of Jamaica; Director of the Sir Arthur Lewis Institute of Social and Economic Studies; Visiting Fellow at the Universities of Chile, McGill, Northwestern, Sussex and Yale; and visiting consultant to the South Center. In all of this he remained just Norman.
I am sure many who knew Norman better than I do and will offer personal stories about him. 1804caribvoices will give them the opportunity so to do.
Today we remember and celebrate the life, contributions and achievements of two of the Caribbean’s finest. 1804caribvoices especially feels the loss of Professor Girvan whose vision for a united Caribbean and confidence in future generations to achieve that dream, joined with colleagues and his former students, to unselfishly form 1804caribvoices: Pan-Caribbean voices for Integration and Social Justice. His confidence was not ill placed.
In what must be fate, Norman passed in Cuba, a country he held dearly.
1804caribvoices knows that a brief statement on these two illustrious sons will not suffice so we dedicate at least the next two weeks to reflect and honour them and to give expression to the many voices which will certainly want an opportunity to pay homage to our brothers and comrades. We extend sincerest condolences to the families of Arthur N.R. Robinson and Norman Girvan. Your loss is shared by us all.
To ANR Robinson and Norman Girvan, your labours have not been in vain. You fought a good fight. You finished the course. You kept the faith. You have inspired generations and we will continue the work, as you indeed continued from those who went before. We will houour you and your legacy. A luta continua, Vitoria e certa!
PAPEETE, le 8 avril 2014 – En commission parlementaire du sénat sur le projet de loi d'avenir pour l'agriculture, l'alimentation et la forêt, le sénateur polynésien Richard Tuheiava a co-déposé cinq amendements vendredi 4 avril, dont plusieurs sont destinés à mieux protéger les ressources agricoles outre-mer. Par exemple pour lutter contre le phénomène de mitage, le sénateur et cinq collègues socialistes des DOM-TOM ont proposé l’amendement 473 rectifié. Le mitage (ou grignotage) est ce phénomène qui voit une maison s’installer en zone rurale, puis une autre, et encore une, jusqu’à ce que les anciens champs soient transformés en quartiers résidentiels. Un grave problème pour l’agriculture, en particulier à la Réunion. Les sénateurs veulent donner aux SAFER (des sociétés publiques chargées de dynamiser l’agriculture) plus de pouvoir pour racheter des terres agricoles disputées par l’urbanisation. Des propositions de ce genre ont déjà été bloquées 26 fois par la commission des finances. Un bras de fer parlementaire est donc en cours.
Deux autres amendements défendus par les six sénateurs ultramarins ont plus de chances de passer. L’un veut adapter la réglementation sur les projets d'intérêt général (PIG) aux spécificités de l’Outre-mer. Ces PIG permettent entre autres de faciliter des projets d’aménagement ou de protection de l’espace naturel. L’autre proposition veut mieux protéger l'accès aux ressources génétiques et aux savoirs traditionnels de nos territoires.
Une dernière proposition, qui a cette fois rassemblé d'autres sénateurs socialistes et de droite à l’intérêt plus métropolitain, vise à combler les « dents creuses » dans les villages du littoral. Les terres en bord de mer sont en effet protégées en métropole, mais certains hameaux ont des espaces non construits au milieu de parcelles bâties (les fameuses « dents creuses »). Les populations se plaignaient que de nouveaux hameaux soient autorisés à être construits alors qu’il reste de la place dans les villages existant. Cet amendement a de fortes chances de passer.
10 April 2014
BY PETER RICHARDS
GIRVAN… was in Havana for medical treatment
PORT OF SPAIN, Trinidad (CMC) — Prominent Caribbean academic, Professor Norman Girvan, died in Cuba yesterday, three months after he became paralysed following a fall while hiking on the Caribbean island of Dominica. He was 72.Girvan, the former secretary general of the Association of Caribbean States (ACS), was also Professor Emeritus of the University of the West Indies (UWI).
Director of the International Relations Institute at the St Augustine campus of the UWI, Andy Knight, told the Caribbean Media Corporation (CMC) that Girvan had been flown to Havana for medical treatment and was due to have undergone an operation to ease the pain on his spine.
"We were still hopeful that perhaps at some point he would have been strong enough to get the operation done and that would release the pressure on his spine," he said, adding that the "vertebrae was crushing the spinal cord...and brought back some of the movement in his body.
"From his neck down he was paralysed and today we heard he passed away. We are very heavy-hearted because we felt Norman still had a lot to give to the region," he said.
Girvan, said Knight, wrote a chapter in the recently released Mapping the Americas. "We were just saying we hope this is not his final academic piece because he still has so much more to give to the region, in terms of ideas he had and the ideas he had for the integration of the region and so on. We were hoping that he would get released so he could actually make more contributions, but unfortunately he did not make it," he said.
In 2010, Girvan was appointed as the personal representative of the United Nations secretary general on the Guyana-Venezuela border dispute. He had also served as a board member of the South Centre, and since 2009 was a member of the United Nations Committee on Development Policy.
Girvan served as professor of development studies and director of the Sir Arthur Lewis Institute of Social and Economic Studies at the University of the West Indies, and head of the National Planning Agency of the Government of Jamaica.
He has published extensively on the political economy of development in the Caribbean and the Global South and was the recipient of several honours and awards.
Girvan was in the forefront of the efforts to get the Dominican Republic reverse a Constitutional Court ruling that stripped more than 210,000 Haitians born in Dominica of their citizenship.
In December last year, he co-signed a letter to the Caribbean Community, on behalf of the International Relations Institute at UWI, saying the new law had the potential to de-nationalise hundreds of thousands
Girvan is survived by his wife and two children.
PACIFIC ISLANDS FORUM SECRETARIAT
SECRETARIAT OF THE PACIFIC COMMUNITY
PACIFIC ACP TRADE AND FISHERIES MINISTERS MEETING
10-11 April 2014
Level 9 Conference Room, Suvavou House
ANDIE FONG TOY
DEPUTY SECRETARY GENERAL
DEPUTY SECRETARY GENERAL
PACIFIC ISLANDS FORUM SECRETARIAT
Hon. Fonotoe Nuafesili Pierre Lauofo, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade, Commerce, Industry andLabour for Samoa;
Hon. Edward Nipake Natapei, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs, International Cooperation and External Trade for Vanuatu;
Hon. Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum, Attorney General and Minister for Industry and Trade for Fiji;
Your excellencies Ambassadors from Brussels and Fiji;
Ms Fekitamoeloa Katoa ‘Utoikamau, Deputy Director General of the Secretariat of the Pacific Community;
Senior Trade and Fisheries Officials from the region; and
Distinguished Ladies and Gentlemen
The Trade and Fisheries Officials have recommended negotiating options for your deliberation to resolve the fisheries issues. However, the road ahead is not an easy one. There are many obstacles and none more greater than the European Commission’s resistance to the earlier proposals submitted by the Pacific ACP States to resolve these issues.
Welcome to Fiji, and may I commence by extending our deepest gratitude to the Government of Fiji and its people for their generous hospitality in hosting this very important meeting for our region. This meeting would not have been possible without the combined effort of a team of agencies who have been working tirelessly behind the scenes to facilitate this important gathering of Ministers. I wish to acknowledge in particular the untiring efforts of Fiji’s Ministry of Industry and Trade for organising the logistics and protocol arrangements.
May I also acknowledge with appreciation our collaboration with the Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC) in convening this meeting. May I also at the outset express the Secretary General’s sincere apologies that he is not able to be with Honorable Ministers over the next two days.
On behalf of the Pacific ACP region, may I take a moment to also extend to the people and Government of Solomon Islands our deepest sympathies for the tragic loss of life and the dislocation of thousands of people as a result of the recent flooding in Honiara. We understand that there has been significant damage to infrastructure and that disaster relief and recovery efforts are underway.
Honourable Ministers, this meeting is of immense strategic importance. I wish to reaffirm the message from the Honourable Attorney General and Minister for Industry and Trade. As the Pacific ACP Trade and Fisheries Ministers you will be requested to provide the Pacific ACP region with clear directions on how you wish to see the Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) with the European Union (EU) conclude.
2. Last year was a very challenging year for the Pacific ACP –EU EPA negotiations as we made intense efforts to progress the conclusion of the negotiations. Let me acknowledge the enormous efforts of our Senior Officials and also the Staff of the Forum Secretariat. There were a record number of EPA-related meetings held in 2013 at the Officials and Ministerial level.
3. At the PACP meeting in December 2013 with the EU Trade Commissioner, Mr Karel De Gucht, the Pacific ACP States highlighted the importance of concluding the negotiations as a single region. Consequently, the PACP region and the EC agreed to a joint roadmap that would achieve the conclusion of the EPA negotiations this year.
4. The EU Trade Commissioner also acknowledged that it was impractical for the EU not to extend the benefits from the interim EPA into the comprehensive EPA. Since then, the Commissioner has written directly to Papua New Guinea on 30 January 2014 reiterating his views from the Honiara meeting. The region welcomes the assurances by the EU Trade Commissioner to resolve these issues.
5. I would like to acknowledge the presence of Papua New Guinea at this meeting which signifies your commitment to regional solidarity and promoting regional economic integration. I am sure that the Pacific ACP States will stand together with Papua New Guinea in ensuring that our concerns are addressed by the European Commission.
6. Honourable Ministers, at this stage of the negotiations, we must focus on concluding the EPA negotiations as a single unified region. The current EU Trade Commissioner is now acquainted with the issues of importance to Pacific ACP states in these negotiations. There are a number of developments pointing to the importance of concluding the negotiations within the next few months including the deadline for the amendment to market access regulation 1528/2009 that will come into effect on 1 October 2013, as well as the expiry of the Trade Commissioner’s term in office in September/October this year.
7. Fisheries is a key issue in the EPA negotiations which is of importance to both parties. The European Commission is continuing to insist that Pacific ACP States undertake commitments on conservation and management measures while the Pacific ACP States have a primary offensive interest in securing an extension to global sourcing provisions for fresh, frozen, chilled, smoked and dried fisheries products (HS 0304/0305).
8. The Trade and Fisheries Officials have recommended negotiating options for your deliberation to resolve the fisheries issues. However, the road ahead is not an easy one. There are many obstacles and none more greater than the European Commission’s resistance to the earlier proposals submitted by the Pacific ACP States to resolve these issues.
9. There are other contentious issues in the EPA negotiations, which are mostly redline issues for the Pacific in the area of trade in goods such as export taxes, most favoured nation, non-discrimination and development cooperation, as well as, the specific commitments the European Commission is requesting on fisheries conservation and management, particularly changes to the Vessel Day Scheme, which the region is proposing to address in a 3 year independent review.
10. Honourable Ministers, the stakes are high and your role over the next two days is to deliberate on the negotiating options that we as a region can take to Brussels for the forthcoming negotiations with the European Commission. We have reached a point in the negotiations where tough decisions need to be made and for Pacific ACP States to discuss seriously the commitments we can make to try to conclude the EPA negotiations. The expeditious conclusion of the EPA negotiations should not, however, compromise development benefits that the PACP region wishes to achieve through the EPA.
11. We must also have a broader forward looking perspective when considering the conclusion of the EPA. We must recognise that the EPA as a trade agreement may be more valuable for certain countries than others in the region. However, of mutual importance to all Pacific ACP States is our relation with the EU. At this stage we are unsure of what the nature, shape and form of a new agreement with the EU will be after the expiry of the Cotonou Agreement in 2020. Apart from being a trade agreement, the EPA is also an institutional and legal framework that can continue our engagement with the EU post-2020.
12. The region has been negotiating an EPA for 10 long years and we are stretched for time and resources. Focused discussions on the key issues over the next two days will deliver the necessary negotiating mandates and guidance with appropriate flexibility to see the negotiations through to a conclusion. At the same time, we must not lose sight of the importance of safeguarding countries’ sovereignty as well as the preservation of policy space for the future.
13. The EPA will be an agreement with an indefinite lifespan. The agreement cannot burden our future generations with the obligations from the potentially harmful provisions in the draft agreement, but instead must provide economic opportunities to achieve sustainable growth and development.
14. Honourable Ministers, apart from the EPA-related issues, you will also be receiving an update on the Aid for Trade work that has been undertaken in the region, in particular consideration of the Pacific Aid for Trade Strategy. We will also have the opportunity to discuss an update on activities related to enhancing our engagement with important trading partners such as China and the United States of America. This will be followed by an update on the developments concerning the European Union funded Pacific Integration and Technical Assistance Project (PITAP), and the Hub and Spokes Programme.
15. May I take this opportunity to extend the region’s appreciation to the European Union for the funding provided under PITAP as well as through the Commonwealth Secretariat managed Hub and Spokes Programme. These facilities have been instrumental in supporting the Pacific ACP region’s engagement in the EPA negotiations.
16. Before I close, let me very sincerely thank the Chair of the Officials meeting, Mr Shaheen Ali and all Senior Officials of the region for their hard work over the past three days in engaging in extensive discussions to develop recommendations for your consideration.
17. I wish Honourable Ministers every success in your deliberations.