GLOBEALERT
Sign in

Feed

Open sources, classified and cross-checked. 22+ stories.

AllConflictMilitaryPoliticsBusinessSci & TechCyberDisasterHealthWorld
24h3 days7 days30 daysAll·All regionsNorth AmericaSouth AmericaWestern EuropeEastern EuropeBalticsMiddle EastNorth AfricaSub-Saharan AfricaSouth AsiaEast AsiaOceania
POLITICS13h ago‘An Abominable Betrayal’: Patterson blasts Jamaica’s abstention on CubaFormer Prime Minister PJ Patterson has slammed the Holness administration's decision to abstain from voting on the United Nations resolution calling for an end to the embargo against Cuba as "an abominable betrayal which history will never forget". The vote marked a shift in policy by Jamaica as historically the island has voted “yes” in favour of ending the United States economic, commercial and financial embargo against Cuba for over 30 years since the annual UN resolution began. In a scathing rebuke of the decision by Jamaica, Patterson said “It was a day of shame for the land of Marcus Garvey, and a stain on the record of a nation which, before we had even raised our own flag, closed its ports to trade with apartheid South Africa.” Patterson recalled that in December 1972, he accompanied then Prime Minister Michael Manley to the meeting at which four newly independent Caribbean states resolved to establish diplomatic relations with Cuba, “defying the isolation others sought to impose.” He said, “We took that decision not because it was easy, but because it was right, and because we understood that the sovereignty we had so recently won would mean little if we allowed others to choose our friends, least of all a friend that is our closest neighbour.” Noting that he is the last surviving participant in that decision, Patterson said: “I write with a sense of agony and seething outrage that Jamaica could so suddenly abandon the fundamental tenets on which it rested: the sovereign equality of states, non-interference in their domestic jurisdiction, and the right of every people to self-determination free from external threat or coercion.” Patterson was among 11 former Heads of Government of the Caribbean Community who, four days before the UN vote, issued statements urging global support for an end to the US embargo against Cuba. “We said then, and I repeat now, that the embargo is contrary to international law, that it violates Cuba's sovereignty and the most elemental rights of its people, and that the pressures being deployed to defeat the resolution must be resisted,” Patterson said. “Former Prime Minister Bruce Golding signed that letter alongside me. On this crucial matter, Jamaica's former leaders spoke with one voice. The present Government has chosen silence.” Patterson challenged Foreign Affairs Minister Senator Kamina Johnson Smith’s explanation that the “Government had been reflecting on the matter for some time, that the abstention represents a shift in policy, and that the resolution left no scope to reflect the broader context the Government wished to see.” READ: Shift in policy According to the former prime minister, “That explanation does not withstand scrutiny. “If there was no external pressure, as the Government insists, then it must explain how a fundamental reversal of a policy pursued by every Administration since 1992 serves Jamaica's best interest. It must also explain why it was never brought to parliament if this reflection had been under way for some time,” he said. Patterson also accused the government of flouting Parliament's constitutional authority, noting that the vote came less than 24 hours after the House of Representatives passed, without dissent, a resolution on the economic and humanitarian situation in Cuba. “It was the Government's own resolution, brought to the House by the minister of state in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs,” Patterson said. “In moving it, he declared that Jamaica could not support a unilaterally imposed blockade against Cuba. The resolution called for efforts to reduce the economic restrictions on Cuba and to facilitate its progressive integration into the international economic system, rather than its isolation under a blockade.” Patterson argued, “Our abstention violated the unanimous decision of the Legislature. It was a deplorable flouting of Parliament's constitutional authority, the highest expression of the will of the people in our democracy. “Members on both sides of the House were led to believe one thing on Tuesday and confronted with its opposite on Wednesday. This is no mere discourtesy. It was an act of deception and a grave parliamentary offence,” the former prime minister continued in his rebuke. “In any Parliament modelled on Westminster, what took place between Tuesday and Wednesday would have resulted in censure and ministerial resignations. The Parliament of Jamaica is entitled to no less. It was an abominable betrayal which history will never forget.” See full statement by PJ Patterson below. On Wednesday, 28 October 2026, Jamaica abstained when the United Nations General Assembly voted on the resolution calling for an end to the economic, commercial and financial embargo imposed by the United States against Cuba. For more than three decades, under every Administration since the resolution was first tabled in 1992, Jamaica voted yes. We did so under governments of both parties, because the yes vote was never partisan. It was a matter of principle. It was a day of shame for the land of Marcus Garvey, and a stain on the record of a nation which, before we had even raised our own flag, closed its ports to trade with apartheid South Africa. That was an unequivocal declaration that the Jamaican people, though a small nation, would not support the oppression of others. On Wednesday, Jamaica's Government trampled that tradition. It was an abominable betrayal which history will never forget. In December 1972, I accompanied Prime Minister Michael Manley to the meeting at which four newly independent Caribbean states resolved to establish diplomatic relations with Cuba, defying the isolation others sought to impose. We took that decision not because it was easy, but because it was right, and because we understood that the sovereignty we had so recently won would mean little if we allowed others to choose our friends, least of all a friend that is our closest neighbour. I am the last surviving participant in that decision, and I write with a sense of agony and seething outrage that Jamaica could so suddenly abandon the fundamental tenets on which it rested: the sovereign equality of states, non-interference in their domestic jurisdiction, and the right of every people to self-determination free from external threat or coercion. Four days before the UN vote, eleven of my fellow former Heads of Government of the Caribbean Community and I wrote to all the nations of the world urging support for the resolution. We said then, and I repeat now, that the embargo is contrary to international law, that it violates Cuba's sovereignty and the most elemental rights of its people, and that the pressures being deployed to defeat the resolution must be resisted. Former Prime Minister Bruce Golding signed that letter alongside me. On this crucial matter, Jamaica's former leaders spoke with one voice. The present Government has chosen silence. The Minister of Foreign Affairs tells us that the Government had been reflecting on this matter for some time, that the abstention represents a shift in policy, and that the resolution left no scope to reflect the broader context the Government wished to see. That explanation does not withstand scrutiny. If there was no external pressure, as the Government insists, then it must explain how a fundamental reversal of a policy pursued by every Administration since 1992 serves Jamaica's best interest. It must also explain why it was never brought to parliament if this reflection had been under way for some time. On Tuesday, 27 October, the House of Representatives passed, without dissent, a resolution on the economic and humanitarian situation in Cuba. It was the Government's own resolution, brought to the House by the Minister of State in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. In moving it, he declared that Jamaica could not support a unilaterally imposed blockade against Cuba. The resolution called for efforts to reduce the economic restrictions on Cuba and to facilitate its progressive integration into the international economic system, rather than its isolation under a blockade. Within twenty-four hours, Jamaica abstained. Our abstention violated the unanimous decision of the Legislature. It was a deplorable flouting of Parliament's constitutional authority, the highest expression of the will of the people in our democracy. Members on both sides of the House were led to believe one thing on Tuesday and confronted with its opposite on Wednesday. This is no mere discourtesy. It was an act of deception and a grave parliamentary offence. In any Parliament modelled on Westminster, what took place between Tuesday and Wednesday would have resulted in censure and ministerial resignations. The Parliament of Jamaica is entitled to no less. It was an abominable betrayal which history will never forget. The Minister of State's own words explain precisely why we should have voted yes. Small states have no mighty army to defend us, and insufficient economic weight to shield us against the exercise of military might and power. Our security rests on the international rule of law and on a credible multilateral system with the Charter of the United Nations at its centre. When a powerful nation imposes its will unilaterally on a small neighbour, and we do not object, we weaken the very shield on which our own sovereignty depends. Foreign policy must rest on each nation's enlightened determination of its own sovereign interests. It is a considered judgment, drawn from a nation's history, its values and the commitments it has freely made to others. It must be guided by principle, not expediency. If ever Cuba needed our support, it is now. Our Caribbean neighbour faces the threat of extinction from a hegemon that denies energy, food, medicine, water and sanitation to human beings whose only sin is to be Cuban. International law cannot be selectively applied. Inhumane measures of this kind are not imposed upon great powers whose political systems differ from that of the United States. They are imposed upon Cuba because Cuba is small and adjacent. Jamaica cannot afford to look away. The Government speaks of encouraging dialogue between Washington and Havana and reform within Cuba, and the Minister reminds us that the Prime Minister raised these matters with his CARICOM colleagues in St Kitts and Nevis. If dialogue between Washington and Havana is indeed the Government's objective, the Jamaican people are entitled to know what initiatives have been taken since the St Kitts and Nevis meeting, and what role CARICOM has been invited to play. Absent such an account, the language of dialogue cannot justify a drastic change of policy. The people of Cuba stood with us whenever we needed support, and asked nothing in return. Their doctors and nurses served in our rural clinics and hospitals. Through Operation Miracle, nearly 25,000 Jamaicans have had their sight restored or improved, free of charge. Cuba's scholarships trained our young people. Cuba donated and built schools that have benefited generations of teachers and students. That solidarity was freely given. And how have we repaid it? By sending the Cuban doctors and nurses home, terminating a medical cooperation programme that had served our people for half a century. By concluding an arrangement to receive from the United States deportees who have no connection to Jamaica, the so-called third-country nationals (TCN) deal, entered into without consultation with Parliament or the people, and still kept secret. And now, by this abstention. Nor is Cuba the only cause on which this Government has lost its voice. Last year, on a crucial vote pertaining to Palestine and its people, Jamaica chose to be absent from the chamber. That was not neutrality. It was cowardice. One hundred and forty-five countries voted in favour. Taken together, these egregious errors form a pattern: absence from the vote in support of the Palestinian people; the sending home of the Cubans; the secret TCN deal; and now the UN vote on Cuba. Each step has been taken quietly; each has been explained away; and each carries Jamaica further from the principled ground on which we have always stood. Jamaica has a long and honourable record in the councils of the world. That record was not built by abstaining when principle was on the line. It was built by a small nation that proved, time and again, what it means to say: we likkle but we tallawah. On apartheid, and in the struggles of the developing world for a just international order, our voice carried a weight far beyond our size, because the world knew we could not be bought or bent. We are now in mortal danger of losing the universal respect we once enjoyed, and respect squandered is not easily regained. The harm is not confined to our internal reputation and standing abroad. It is felt in every Jamaican household, at home and across the Diaspora. Jamaicans in Toronto and London, in New York and Miami, who have carried our name with pride and defended our nation wherever they have gone, are offended, hurt, angry and ashamed that their Government has chosen to shatter our nation's reputation in this way. They did not help to build that reputation so that it could be traded away in a single vote. The entire nation and the Diaspora are entitled to a full and truthful account of how this decision was taken, by whom, and on whose advice. They are entitled to know whether pressure was applied, from what quarter, and what, if anything, was promised or threatened. They are entitled to a Parliament whose unanimous resolutions are honoured, not set aside overnight in New York. And they are entitled to see Jamaica restored to the position which successive Administrations of both parties have proudly held. We are a people who came through the holds of slave ships, the brutality of the plantation and the long humiliation of colonial rule. We did not win our freedom in order to bend the knee. Our good name was earned after centuries of profound oppression, and a proud people is rightly jealous of it. Those who lead such a people act in its name. They must never mortgage its good name for favour, nor trade its principles for the promise of reward or the avoidance of displeasure. They must never mistake silence for prudence, or submission for statecraft. What they must do is speak, as Jamaica has always spoken, for the right of the small to stand unafraid before the strong. The time has come to repudiate, once and for all, the habits of genuflection. We live in no one's backyard. Jamaica must never accept the doctrine that might makes right. When the annals of this era are written, they will record that on 28 October 2026 a Government of Jamaica resiled from our finest traditions of standing for law, justice, and sovereign equality but that the people of Jamaica did not.jamaicaobserver · jamaica
POLITICSOct 19Jamaica Continent , Role and Alliances in 2026 GuideThe article provides a guide to Jamaica's continental role and international alliances projected for 2026. This focuses on future geopolitical positioning and partnerships.riotimesonline.com · Brazil
POLITICSOct 14Jamaica accepts first flight of third-country deportations from USOpposition leaders in Jamaica question why the deportation deal with the Trump White House has not been made public.Al Jazeera [en]
POLITICSOct 14Jamaica begins receiving third-country deportees under controversial U.S. agreementThe first flight transporting third-country nationals from the United States arrived in Jamaica on Tuesday, marking the commencement of a highly scrutinized bilateral agreement that utilizes the Caribbean…Japan Today
POLITICSSep 23Jamaica hails King’s decision to refer slavery reparations petition to privy council as ‘really big deal’The move comes after Jamaica’s culture minister Olivia Grange travelled to the UK earlier this month to lodge the historic petitionKing Charles has referred a landmark slavery reparations petition from Jamaica to a high-level UK appeals court for legal advice, Jamaica’s culture minister announced in parliament on Tuesday.Referring to the move as a “really big deal”, Olivia Grange told Jamaica’s MPs the monarch had confirmed that their legal questions have been passed on to the London-based privy council – the final court of appeal for UK overseas territories and some Commonwealth countries. CoGuardian World
POLITICSSep 19Anger in Jamaica over agreement to accept migrants expelled from USJamaica signed an agreement with the US to receive expelled migrants, sparking protests from the main opposition party and civil groups. The pact, which requires parliamentary approval, raises concerns about security and costs, despite assurances that the US will cover expenses.Clarín
POLITICSSep 17Jamaica will soon receive migrants from third countries after finalizing agreement with the U.S.Jamaica implementará un acuerdo para recibir 25 migrantes cada dos semanas desde EE.UU., bajo estrictas condiciones de capacidad y gestión.La OIM brindará servicios esenciales a los migrantes, mientras que el acuerdo se suspenderá si diez de ellos solicitan asilo.Clarín
POLITICSSep 11Jamaica Asks U . K . for Slavery ReparationsJamaica has requested reparations from the U.K. for slavery, addressing a long-standing historical injustice. This highlights ongoing discussions about colonial legacies and their contemporary implications.foreignpolicy.com · United States
POLITICSSep 11Jamaica’s Reparations PushThe country is asking the U.K. to consider compensation for the harms of slavery.Foreign Policy
POLITICSSep 9Why Jamaicas petition to King Charles is rattling Western capitalsJamaica's petition to King Charles is causing concern in Western capitals. This indicates a significant diplomatic or political development with international implications.trinidadtimes.com · Trinidad and Tobago
POLITICSSep 9Knocking on the king door : Jamaica demands answers on slaveryJamaica is reportedly seeking answers from the King regarding historical slavery. This represents a demand for accountability and historical justice.theuknews.com · United Kingdom
POLITICSSep 8Jamaica takes slavery reparations campaign to King CharlesBritain abolished the slave trade in 1807 and slavery in 1834, but successive governments have rejected calls for reparations or a formal apology.Africanews [en]
POLITICSSep 7UK government refuses slavery reparations as Jamaica urges king to actBritain expresses sorrow over slavery, but rejects financial compensation.Al Jazeera [en]
POLITICSSep 7Why Jamaica is seeking $10bn in reparations from the UKHundreds of thousands of enslaved Africans toiled in Jamaica under more than 300 years of British rule.Al Jazeera [en]
POLITICSSep 7Jamaica to petition King Charles over slavery reparationsJamaica will ask King Charles III to refer questions about the legality of slavery and Britain's potential obligation to provide reparations.DW News [en]
POLITICSSep 7Jamaica to file slavery reparations petition during UK visitPetition to King Charles questions the legality of slavery under English law and UK’s responsibility for reparations.Al Jazeera [en]
POLITICSSep 6Jamaican minister to file slavery reparations petition to King Charles during UK visitA Jamaican government delegation visiting Britain is set to file a petition addressed to King Charles on Monday, raising the question of slavery reparations, Kingston’s culture ministry said. Culture Minister Olivia Grange will lead the delegation “to advance Jamaica’s push for reparations for the African ancestors who suffered under hundreds of years of enslavement”, the ministry said in a statement. The petition asks the king, who is Jamaica’s head of state, to refer three questions on the...South China Morning Post
POLITICSAug 9Byron Blake | An independence gift for western Jamaica ? This article explores the concept of an "independence gift" for western Jamaica, as discussed by Byron Blake. It considers potential regional developments and their significance.jamaica-gleaner.com · Jamaica
POLITICSJul 3Water investments key to Jamaica’s resilience–SamudaST JAMES, Jamaica—Minister of Water, Environment and Climate Change Matthew Samuda, says ongoing investments in wastewater and water-supply infrastructure are vital to strengthening Jamaica’s environmental resilience and safeguarding the nation’s coastal assets. Speaking during the Jamaica Hotel and Tourist Association (JHTA) 65th Annual Awards Luncheon, held recently at Sandals Dunn’s River in Ocho Rios, St Ann, Samuda noted that the Government is undertaking capital investments in the water and sewage sector “at a rate that has never been done... certainly in my lifetime”. He highlighted several wastewater management projects now under way, including the relocation and construction of a new sewage treatment facility for Negril, engineering work on a comprehensive wastewater system in Falmouth, upgrades from secondary to tertiary treatment systems, improvements to wastewater infrastructure in Port Antonio, and assessments of additional requirements in Portmore. The minister further informed that the Government has authorised the National Water Commission (NWC) to relocate and construct a brand-new sewage treatment facility to serve Negril. He stressed that wastewater management and environmental protection must go hand in hand, underscoring that healthy coastal ecosystems are essential to preserving Jamaica’s natural resources. Samuda noted that the Government remains committed to modernising Jamaica’s water and environmental infrastructure, while collaborating with stakeholders to build resilience against climate change and other emerging challenges. In the meantime, he pointed to increased capital investment in the water sector and major infrastructure projects currently underway across western Jamaica. These include the Western Resilience Water Project, which entails upgrades to transmission mains from the Martha Brae Water Treatment Plant to Montego Bay, and from the Great River Water Treatment Plant to western Westmoreland. Samuda advised that the first phase of the project will concentrate on improving water distribution and enhancing supply stability across western Jamaica. He added that the Government is upgrading the Martha Brae and Great River treatment plants, while constructing new water treatment facilities in Rio Bueno and Westmoreland to strengthen national water resilience. -JISjamaicaobserver · jamaica
POLITICSJul 2‘Trouble’ for JamaicaCONSTITUTIONAL law expert Dr Lloyd Barnett has posed five questions he says the Jamaican Government must answer to satisfy the country about its decision to enter into a third-country national s(TCN) agreement with the United States. Under the agreement, which the Jamaican Government has maintained was initiated by the United States (US), up to 25 asylum seekers who have unresolved migration cases will temporarily transit through Jamaica en route to their home countries every two weeks. The memorandum of understanding (MOU) was supposedly inked amidst US efforts to manage regional structured migration. According to National Security Minister Dr Horace Chang, the people covered under the MOU are not being permanently settled in Jamaica and would only remain on the island while arrangements are made for their onward movement. Dr Barnett, in a letter to the editor of the Jamaica Observer on Monday, said while government ministers have stated that Jamaica is assisting in the transit of the asylum seekers to their home country, citizens here should be told what countries are those home countries. The Government, he said, must also say “if they had entered the US as asylum seekers, [and] is Jamaica assisting in their return to a country where they will be subject to torture, victimisation or inhumane treatment”. According to Dr Barnett, the Andrew Holness-led Jamaica Labour Party Administration must also explain, since the US “has far greater resources than Jamaica”, the reason Jamaica is being used as “a transition station”. Furthermore, he said the Government must also explain why transit through Jamaica is necessary or logistical given that the US has the greatest facilities for air travel. In addition, he said Jamaica must declare its position in the event the country to which they are to be eventually returned refuses to take them. Speaking during an interview on Nationwide News on June 22, Holness insisted that while the Government has signed the MOU for the programme, it has not yet been implemented. On Tuesday, Audrey Morrison Lawson, proprietor of Midas Immigration Services, a full-service immigration firm based in Miami, Florida, speaking with the Observer about the issue, said the impending arrangement “spells trouble” for Jamaica. “From what I understand, those who are being detained have an immigration hold, meaning they have broken some immigration law in the United States and are being detained, but a lot of people who are being detained are not being processed. Those who are not being processed, they are being sent to another country to stay for a period of time while their cases are being processed. It is a way to get them out of the United States because even at the end of their processing they will not be able to re-enter the US because they will not win the cases,” Morrison Lawson said. “If when they are in a third country, they cannot get representation to fight for them, they will end up being unable to re-enter the United States. In the event that their own country does not want them and they cannot re-enter the United States they will become illegals where they are,” she stated. She said the indication by the Jamaican Government that the individuals will be able to apply for citizenship here is untenable. “The Jamaican Government is offering citizenship or asylum to these third country nationals but we have social issues too and I just hope that offering them asylum will give them maybe a new lease on life but we know that we are struggling even with our qualified workforce that we have in Jamaica, we still have great struggles and a lot of social issues just dealing with our own population, so bringing these third country nationals might not be in our best interest,” Morrison Lawson reasoned. She further noted that the individuals to be deported will have a struggle adjusting to life in Jamaica. “Majority of the people who are illegal in this country, studies will show you that up to about 80 per cent are Hispanic, and you also have another high per cent who come from the continent of Africa, so most of these third-country nationals would be from a totally different culture. Some of them can speak English but I don’t think any of them are relatively close in culture to us. I don’t foresee them having an easy time [being acclimatised],” Morrison Lawson theorised. “I believe Jamaica might have moved a little too fast on this with deciding to accept third-country nationals because we do have our social issues that need to be worked on and then to take in another set of people who may not be able to fit in, they spell trouble for us and it’s very concerning,” she said further. Added Morrison Lawson: “Many of them will not be able to re-enter the US because once you break an immigration law or any law for that matter and you are outside of the US you need a waiver to come back and a waiver can only be filed by certain family members immediately. Many of them will not be able to get that waiver because they do not have a qualifying relative to do it. The dilemma from the beginning is that their home country is not accepting them readily, so if they cannot re-enter the US and their home country is not accepting them, then we have bigger problems than we foresee.”jamaicaobserver · jamaica
POLITICSJun 30No time for fence - sitting , top Florida lawyer tells Jamaicans in DiasporaA leading Florida lawyer has advised Jamaicans in the diaspora against indecision, urging them to take a stand. This commentary encourages active engagement on specific issues.jamaicaobserver.com · Jamaica
POLITICSJun 16Canada govt sued over climate inaction - Jamaica ObserverThe Canadian government is being sued over its alleged inaction on climate change. This signals a legal challenge regarding environmental policy and governmental responsibility.jamaicaobserver.com · Jamaica