How 'Dudus'lost Tivoli
Sunday | May 30, 2010


The shattering and deadly assault on terrorist elements in Tivoli Gardens, which has dislodged one of Jamaica's most nefarious criminal networks, are years overdue. But better under a Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) administration.

For years the People's National Party (PNP) was intimidated to confront the Tivoli threat for justifiable fear that it would be construed as political malice and victimisation. There were aggressive and loud-mouthed politicians who would defend Tivoli's 'honour',

always shutting down any rational assessment of that republic's status with emotional invectives of the history of aggression against that state.

And the fact is, as has been well-attested by Obika Gray's 'Demeaned But Empowered: The Social Power of the Urban Poor in Jamaica' and Amanda Sives' 'Elections, Violence and democratic process in Jamaica: 1944-2007', Tivoli has, indeed, faced violent attacks from surrounding PNP forces. Had Tivoli been 'soft', the JLP dominance in West Kingston would have been long extinguished.

The July 2001 operation by the security forces, which claimed 27 lives, had such an emotional impact on the nation that it guaranteed that Tivoli would be sacrosanct for years to come. The PNP dared not attempt any such incursion into sacred territory. Subsequently, any discussion about the fact that Tivoli housed dangerous criminal elements was dismissed vehemently as "demonisation of Tivoli Gardens"; "the prejudice and malice against the good people of Tivoli" and "PNP propaganda". But now we know!

deep links

We now know that it is not PNP propaganda and demonisation of the good name of Tivoli that its criminal forces have deep links with gangs and terrorists across a number of communities, and that with direction from central command it can unleash terror across a number of areas. I don't think we have seen their full force: very likely central command called in some outlying troops to defend the president and his territory.

Such is the command of vast resources from narco trafficking, extortion and local contract that the criminals could reportedly even enlist "money ova party" PNP gunmen in their war against the Jamaican state. We have for too long been in denial about Tivoli Gardens.

The sight of bodies being buried, the high death toll and charges of genocide have swung the emotional pendulum away from the state and have led to angry voices charging prejudice against Tivoli Gardens. But I remind them that it was these cold-bloodied and heartless criminals who sacrificed the lives of so many in Tivoli Gardens last week; it was they who endangered the lives of innocent, defenceless children and babies; frightened and terrified old women and old men and who exposed their women to the kind of pounding the military had to engage in to liberate Tivoli from the criminal underworld.

Charges of excesses should be investigated thoroughly and punished. Abuses of human rights cannot be tolerated in a just society - even one at war with terrorists. But some of those who were supposedly calling from Tivoli Gardens cursing the security forces, their member of Parliament and everyone else but the terrorists who had held them captive and exposed them to fatalities had simply fallen victim to the Stockholm Syndrome: Falling in love with their captors and seeing them, in their delusion, as benevolent and caring. We must beware emotional manipulation.

When barricades were set up, some were still fooling themselves that they were erected by innocent, frightened citizens scared about July 2001 and knowing how the rest of us - particularly the security forces - "hate Tivoli". But others, not sharing the collective delusion, knew that the criminal underworld was a sending message: We dare you to come into our territory! The tactic had worked flawlessly in the past, aided by sections of the naive media and civil society who don't understand the runnings in inner-city Jamaica. But this time it was different. This time the criminal overlords were to encounter a perfect storm.

They foolishly and tactlessly pushed their luck too far this time, not understanding how the ground had shifted under their feet. By attacking four police stations on Sunday and torching to the ground the one in Hannah Town; by killing two policemen and injuring others while brazenly displaying their firepower, they unwittingly galvanised and coalesced elements traditionally at conflict with one another.

On that day Jamaicans for Justice, Families Against State Terrorism and long-time tough policing advocates were lovingly in the same bed! Earlier the Jamaican Bar Association, the Jamaica Chamber of Commerce, the Private Sector Organisation of Jamaica and the wide-ranging Council of the Presidents of private sector organisations combined to a crescendo call on the state to take control.

Shortly after elements in Tivoli had demonstrated their now-customary contempt for law and order with their erection of barricades, people were asking, why is the police kowtowing to these lawless elements. But there seemed to be strategy: Knowing the emotional fallout from 1997 and 2001, as well as the strong anti-security forces sentiments in the media and general society, the security forces allowed the society itself to become outraged.

brazen disregard

By allowing this brazen disregard for Jamaica's law, with regular television and newspaper images of the barricades wearing on Jamaicans' patience; by forcing people to be calling on the police to "do something" to "take action" and to "show who is in charge", the strategy had worked brilliantly: It was plain psychological warfare and the brainless criminals had been outfoxed.

Even before they lost their strategic nerve by attacking the police stations and killing the lawmen - not knowing when to shrink back from force to show psychological force - their barricades had built a barrier to ward off any sympathy from Jamaicans.

Human rights activists, powerful media voices normally with an anti-security forces bias, influential civil society groups and the Opposition PNP were all united against the terrorists. Their emboldenment through our wrangling over issues of human rights could not at that point be exploited for emotional advantage. We were all repulsed and revolted by them and everyone, including human rights activists, was talking about "an attack on then state" and the need for the state to act decisively and firmly.

I have the highest commendation for the Observer and my own paper, the Gleaner, whose unequivocal and trenchant editorial positions for firm state action against the terrorists could only encourage the security forces. The Observer's page one editorials on Monday and Tuesday were particularly poignant.

united stand

In its editorial the day after the daring attacks on the police stations ('A Vile Attack on the State') the Observer referred to "these riff-raffs" against whom we need to make a "united stand" against their terrorism. In its editorial the next day it inveighed: "For no decent country can allow the rule of the rabble." It was not the decent people of Tivoli - the vast majority - who were so being described, so forget the usual canards used to hijack the discussion.

The Gleaner in its editorial on Wednesday ('Good Work, So Far') says: "Whatever the final tally from the fighting, this battle had to be engaged. And it must end in a clear victory for the state. There must be no ambiguity about the inviolability of the Jamaican state." It went on: "The likes of Christopher Coke, the alleged drug kingpin, must be clear about this. Never again must any 'don' be allowed such purchase in any area, that, like Mr Coke, they can with support of residents and gunmen and human shields barricade themselves in a community to engage law enforcement officers in pitched battle."

Opposition spokesman on security Peter Bunting has given some choice quotes on this issue and has impressed me considerably with his forthrightness and even-handedness. You would have thought this operation was carried out by his government and with him as security minister. Bunting has been very responsible in this crisis. His defence of the security forces and their actions (up to time of this writing) was even more potent than some Government spokespersons.

Opposition leader Portia Simpson Miller also has shown good leadership in this crisis and has demonstrated her stateliness and patriotism. A true leader in this time of national crisis, not seeking to exploit emotions to gain cheap political support.

Some in media have abandoned the normal canon of scepticism and incredulity, sopping up every wailing phone call from Tivoli without asking serious questions. Betty Ann Blaine and Carol Narcisse have shone brilliantly with their hard-hitting questions to callers and with comments. Narcisse educated many listeners about the character of garrison communities which could result in some of the calls which inundated television and radio. Political Ombudsman Herro Blair showed that some of the claims of those supposedly calling from Tivoli (burning bodies, bombs being dropped, were not true up to his first visit.)

Our journalists must be far less gullible and more searching, even when handling emotional calls. In war, innocents always suffer, some die and all are inconvenienced. This is why war is always regrettable. As Carol Narcisse said, to hear some residents you would think they feel they should be on the road, having their Passa Passa and putting out clothes on the lines just the same as before the invasion. It's absurd. It's war. And it was brought on by an indescribably selfish and heartless 'strongman' who was willing to sacrifice any number of lives for his.

Dudus could not overcome the combined power of the United States, a global crisis which weakened his party's Government; powerful and irreverent local and international press; a strong civil society and a vigilant and forceful Opposition. He (Dudus) calculated he would be safe in his garrison. But he miscalculated badly. Don't threaten Jamaicans' visas - that's one thing which unites uptown and downtown; business moguls and handcart man. It's not the Cold War era when Jamaica had strategic significance and could negotiate with the United States, citing security considerations (as we are witnessing) for not handing over Dudus.

Jamaica has no strategic significance or clout with the US. That is why the JLP desperately sought lobbying assistance from Manatt, Phelps & Phillips. In Afghanistan Ahmed Wali Karzi, brother of the president, is connected to drug traffickers and yet he is on the Central Intelligence Agency's payroll because Afghanistan has geopolitical significance. Jamaica has none.

Ian Boyne is a veteran journalist. Feedback may be sent to ianboyne1@yahoo.com or columns@gleanerjm.com

just like the Bible said my people are lost not because they are PNP., JLP., but for a lack of knowledge.

Bruce Golding: Lest we forget

DELANO FRANKLYN
Sunday, May 30, 2010

Even if Bruce Golding does not resign, he has lost the moral authority to continue as Jamaica's prime minister. This is underscored by the unprecedented number of national organisations either calling for his resignation or expressing disappointment in the handling of the Christopher Coke extradition and the Manatt, Phelps & Phillips issue. Never in the history of Jamaica's parliamentary democracy, since it was first introduced in 1944, has a prime minister ever been called upon by so many national organisations and a wide cross section of civil society to tender his resignation.

The call for Mr Golding's resignation is even more pronounced given the fact that 15 years ago when he formed the National Democratic Movement (NDM) Mr Golding spoke about a new approach to governance. When he explained in 2002 his reasons for going back to the JLP, he was at pains to point out that if given the opportunity, he would lead the process of transforming Jamaica's party political landscape and the system and nature of Government. As a result of these pronouncements he was able to sway many of the persons and institutions now calling on him to resign.

Promises made

In 1995 he said that there must be a severance of the link between political representatives and those who do not uphold the rule of law. Yet, by 2010 he is being perceived by many inside and outside of the country as preventing the extradition of a person wanted for gun- and drug-running.

In 1995 he said that what Jamaica needed was a Cabinet of no more than 14 persons. Yet, by 2007 when he became prime minister, he formed a Cabinet consisting of 18 persons.

In 1995 he spoke about the importance of a non-partisan and effective civil service bureaucracy. Yet, by 2008, having disagreed with the proposal for the appointment of Stephen Vasciannie as solicitor general by the Public Services Commission (PSC), he caused the dismissal of all members of the said PSC. He forgot that at the launch of the NDM on October 29, 1995 he lashed out against the central feature of Government when he said: "The central feature of the Westminster system is the enormous concentration of power in the Executive and more particularly in the hands of the prime minister which undermines the real purpose of Parliament and deprives the people of effective representation.'

In 1995 he spoke about the importance of dialogue and openness with public bodies, particularly those critical to the operation of a successful government, the teachers, nurses, and the security forces. Yet, by 2010 he unilaterally broke off bargaining and negotiation with the said organisations, resulting in a standoff between these organisations and his Government.

In 1995 he said, which he repeated in 1997, that nominations to the position of ambassadors and directors of statutory boards and public corporations should be made by the prime minister and approved by the members of each House of Parliament. Thus far, Mr Golding has ignored this promise.

Role of the judiciary

The most earth-shattering about-turn by Mr Golding, however, is how he has dealt with the Coke extradition affair.

In October 1995 Mr Golding said: "We (NDM) are committed to the effective separation of powers between the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary... The prime minister should be responsible for the control and direction of policy which would include the executive management of the State services as well as Budget preparation and implementation... The judiciary should be responsible for adjudicating questions of law and interpreting the provisions of the Constitution."

Yet, in March 2010, in defence of a person whose extradition is being sought by the United States Government under an extradition treaty between the USA and Jamaica, Mr Golding has sought to use the Executive to usurp the functions of the Judiciary by saying that the evidence against the person was 'illegally obtained' and therefore inadmissible in a court of law. Mr Golding was wrong in law because illegally obtained evidence is admissible in court so long as the evidence is relevant to the point or points at issue. If Mr Golding had sought to uphold his views expressed 15 years ago, he would not have found himself in his current predicament.

Politics and crime

The extradition affair as well as the way in which Mr Golding has sought to deal with the Manatt, Phelps & Phillips issue raise the fundamental issue of the relationship between our political parties and political leaders with alleged criminals and criminality. It was on this point that Mr Golding was most strident between 1995 and 1997, when he called upon the people of the country to rally behind him in his effort to sever the link between politics and crime.

In November 1995 he said that, "this custom" must be rooted out of Jamaican politics and that he would be doing everything if given the opportunity to dismantle garrison politics in Jamaica.

At the time, Mr Golding had a great deal of support for what was termed his 'principled position'. He had the support of well-known persons, for whom I have a lot of respect, such as Bishop Herro Blair, Tony Hart, Howard Mitchell, Reverend Ralston Nembhard, Peter Thwaites, David Wong Ken, Robert Russell, Dr André Foote, Wayne Leahong and Wayne Chen.

Today, Mr Golding has apparently turned his back on his former principled position and by extension those who were with him in 1995 to 1997. Not only did he grab the garrisonised West Kingston constituency with both hands, but he used his position as prime minister to lead the defence of a man who was described as a gang leader by former prime minister and member of parliament for West Kingston Edward Seaga.

On September 29, 1994 Seaga was reported to have given the then commissioner of police certain information on Coke. Seaga was also reported as saying: "He is a gang leader (and) none of what is happening in West Kingston (violence) could have happened without his vesting."

Mr Seaga continued:

"I have no control over these fellows -- I have no control over these 13 men who have a pattern of brutality that I will not tolerate... They have blown off the leg of a young girl who at 20 years old has to walk with crutches, they have killed two sons of one lady within three days, they have killed a seven-year-old, and nine-year-old boy. They sent 15-year-old boys with guns into the Rema community in order to chastise, in order to mete out what they call justice."

If this is the case, how can Mr Golding exercise any moral authority in the fight against crime and violence stalking the land? How can Mr Golding speak with convincing authority about breaking the link between politics and crime? How can he successfully wage a battle against Jamaica being perceived, unfortunately and embarrassingly, as a 'narco state'?

Source of funds

The extradition of Mr Coke is being sought by the US for gun- and drug-running. Mr Golding at first denied knowledge of the law firm Manatt, Phelps & Phillips being hired either by the Government to lobby members of the US Government on behalf of Coke. Mr Golding, thereafter, under pressure from the Opposition and national organisations, admitted that as leader of the JLP he had sanctioned the deal. He also stated that the funds to retain Manatt, Phelps & Phillips were paid by the JLP. It would be interesting to find out who were some of the donors to such a cause. Of course, Mr Golding ought not to have a difficulty with this as in regards to funds raised by political parties, he said in 1995, albeit speaking about campaign financing, that:

"Political parties should be required to disclose to the Electoral Commission the source of financial contributions or the monetary value of contributions in kind which, in any one year exceeds $25,000 in the case of individuals or $250,000 in the case of organisations or corporate entities."

Mr Golding's recent back-pedalling on the Manatt, Phelps & Phillips affair has mortally wounded his position as prime minister. Such conduct is unbecoming of a person who had pledged that he would do everything, if given the opportunity, to break the link between politics and alleged criminals. Now is the time for all of those who believe in this 'principled position' to speak up and speak out, including those who rallied around Mr Golding between 1995 and 1997, when he was 'new and different'.

-- Delano Franklyn is an attorney and a member of the Opposition People's National Party

http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/columns/Bruce-Golding--Lest-we-forget_7657619