The Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) calls for the protection of migrants’ rights

CELAC calls for protection of migrants’ rights

QUITO.— With a call to protect the rights of migrant workers the Third Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) Meeting on Migration began in the city of Azogues, southern Ecuador.

"Migrant workers can no longer be viewed solely as labor, we must ensure their rights," stated Ecuadorian deputy minister for Human Mobility, María Landázuri, at the opening of the two-day event.

According to the deputy minister, the search for safe migration facilities for citizens must involve both the governments of the origin and destination countries and the people in general.

Landázuri commented that the CELAC meeting - in which representatives from 33 member countries of the regional bloc are participating - aims to share experience and find points of agreement.

"There are more similarities than differences, and our ultimate aim is to create spaces of peace," she stated, adding that the agreements established in the meeting will be presented to the UN and CELAC leadership, reported PL.

According to the Ecuadorian minister, one of the main challenges CELAC experts will face will be developing a action plan to protect migrants and provide them with greater resources, in addition to addressing the issues of unaccompanied minors and reuniting families.

According to the agenda, they will also analyze sub-regional protection and response mechanisms, migration and development, and the advances and prospects in this area between the European Union and CELAC. (PL)

October 23, 2014

Granma.cu

Venezuela's deadly pact with Latin American and Caribbean states

By Rebecca Theodore


Beware! The manipulative game of bartering oil for social welfare and aid to solve the economic woes of many Latin American and Caribbean states by Venezuela’s despot Hugo Chavez lingers.

Despite original predictions of its unsustainability, the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas (ALBA) is quickly spreading throughout the region like wildfire, leaving in its wake a voice that cries out loud against reason and a political movement that tears the commercial veil of the Caribbean, Latin America, and the US asunder, being pulled and tossed in directions unknown by ideologically contrasting powers.

As games rely on the technical representation of an idea that either player can manipulate to victory, the allure for cheap oil for many Latin American and Caribbean countries now see them turning their backs on the US, choosing instead to associate themselves with governments overtly committed to building socialism. Faced with serious balance-of-payment problems, the bait entangled in a form of economic integration is appealing.

Thus, in their bold attempts for economic recovery and in choosing to align with Chavez, Latin American and Caribbean states are also lamenting the fact that Washington only supports democracy if and only if it contributes to their strategic and economic interests.

While assenting factors advocate that ALBA focuses on social cooperation and the use of economic growth to solve the people's problems, including unemployment and illiteracy, opponents on the other hand argue that this leftist trade bloc, funded by Venezuelan oil money and Cuban and Bolivarian ideology is nothing but a front for a broader socialist and anti-American agenda in Latin America and the Caribbean.

Deemed a destabilizing effect on the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) by Jamaica’s Prime Minister Bruce Golding from its infancy, the socialist movement (ALBA) is spreading across the region like a deadly epidemic, with countries such as Nicaragua, Ecuador, Honduras, St Vincent and the Grenadines, Haiti, Dominica, Antigua and Barbuda, Guatemala, Mexico, Belize, and the Dominican Republic signing up as innocent lambs to the slaughter.

There is no doubt that this move yields ominous concerns, as dependence on foreign direct investment and tourism as a major propellant of development is curtailed. Concerns that the old order of power in Latin America and the Caribbean may also be permanently threatened.

As a lion disguised in sheep’s clothing, it must be seen that ALBA’s repute as an economic alliance for Latin American and Caribbean solidarity is only based on Chavez’s ideological hallucination -- an ideology that is not only masked in vengeance and hatred against the US to undermine the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) but also one that transgresses the practice of international law and bestows on Chavez the attention which he no doubt desperately craves in world politics.

Proposal for a joint ALBA military force by Venezuela and Nicaragua to replace the Inter-American Defense Board joint military aid, as well as intelligence and counterintelligence cooperation to combat the illusive terrorism and permanent aggression threat by the United States continues to be the theme of Chavez’s inflated rhetoric.

As more and more Latin American and Caribbean countries are depositing agreed amounts of their respective national currencies into a special SUCRE (Single Regional Compensation System) fund, it seems the SUCRE is rapidly replacing the US dollar as a medium of exchange with a Regional Monetary Council, and a Central Clearing House, hence decreasing US control of Latin American and Caribbean economies and fortifying Chavez’s long time insane ambition of the SUCRE becoming an international reserve currency much like the euro.

While the US sits idly by, choosing instead to label it an ‘oil conspiracy’, ignoring the Monroe Doctrine approach, which regarded the Caribbean as its backyard, emboldening its neighbours and internal groups to challenge its sovereignty, a new form of 21st century socialism now governs the economic and political policies of Latin America and the Caribbean.

It is a dramatic development, a difficult encounter and a concern of gigantic historical and commercial proportions.

March 17, 2011

caribbeannewsnow

Bahamas Blog International

The EU and the Caribbean - An engagement of political discourse

By Rebecca Theodore


As the Cold War languishes in the mausoleum of time, and twitching agonies of ghosts resonate in the void, reminding us of the long lived bi-polar days of the US and the Soviet Union, the European Union proves that it is a force to be reckoned with on the global international stage. Although not a nation state, the long-awaited Lisbon Treaty elevated its ranks to legally binding status and strengthened its foreign, security and defence policy even though the General Assembly recently sought to weaken its role in the UN. Hence, these developments come as guaranteed provisions, with political and diplomatic status to match the EU’s undoubted economic and commercial clout in the world at large. And now, the post-Cold War period, when the US was the only undisputed superpower, is over.

The EU is not only the biggest donor of aid to the developing world, and the leader in the Kyoto drive to reduce air pollution that causes global warming, but also leads the way in the struggle to safer food and a greener environment, better living standards in poorer regions, joint action on crime and terror, cheaper phone calls, and elimination of border controls facilitating freedom of movement thereby enhancing its reputation as a community of democratic values and liberal market economies.

Seeing that the EU’s influence in world affairs is on the increase, it becomes necessary to redefine political discourse with Caribbean states not only with France’s overseas regions of Martinique, Guadeloupe, St Martin, and French Guiana, which share cultural affinities with the Caribbean and use the euro as their common monetary unit, but the entire Caribbean at large, since the perceived distinctiveness of Caribbean states emerges from their shared historical experiences.

Critics have argued that political discourse with the EU means being bound by European Union law, as agreed in the European Parliament, and administered by the European Court of Justice and its various branches; but we cannot allow the quality of our thoughts to be polluted by ideology, as the EU and most of the Caribbean's political systems are based on pluralist democracy, fundamental rights and the rule of law.

Herein lies the predicament. If the Caribbean is to effectively tackle its socio-economic and environmental problems, the cost of energy, and communications, then the proposed solution for CARICOM and CARIFORUM to ensure a smooth integration of the region into the world economy is through partnership with the EU. On the other hand, if CARICOM’s main objective is the promotion of the assimilation of its member states through the integration of a single market economy, co-ordination and functional co-operation of foreign policies of its independent states; then the establishment of a more stable and transparent framework for the growth of businesses, and the security of investments in the Caribbean can be achieved through political co-operation in the diversification of political, economic and trade relations with the EU, as the EU supports the creation of a regional unit in the Caribbean.

The Caribbean faces a number of challenges, and political discourse with the EU will emphasize how these challenges can be transformed into opportunities. A decisive political partnership based on shared values, addressing economic and environmental vulnerabilities, promoting social cohesion, and combating poverty will see the birth of good and effective governance, respect for human rights, and improvements in gender equality in the Caribbean.

The presence of the EU in the Caribbean evokes a study in political discourse. The Caribbean can soar to heights unknown and anchor its zenith of economic freedom through political discourse with the EU. Therefore, CARICOM and CARIFORUM states should begin formulations and advising on conciliation strategies with the EU to enhance political, economic and social co-operation for a better and safer world.

November 10, 2010

caribbeannewsnow

Bahamas Blog International

The UN and the Caribbean - A hope misplaced

by Rebecca Theodore

Eradicating poverty is the greatest global challenge facing the world today. The statistical surge of pictures of poverty around the world is not only manifested as a gross form of over representation by the media and other crusading organizations, but also shows the way in which poverty acts as a stigmata for entertainment and the way in which realism govern images in the capitalist press.

According to UNICEF and World Health Organization statistics, every 3 seconds a child dies from hunger and preventable disease. Yet, while we revel in the repute of a scientific and technological age, with tremendous advances in modern medicine and billion of dollars spent on nuclear armaments, the UN under the umbrella of the MDG fuels the flame by internationally declaring that 2010 is a defining moment in their fight against poverty.

It is clear that not only is this an insult to one’s intelligence but in accepting a daylight saving time mentality by pushing the date forward to an additional five years to further give a distinct character to poverty, the UN defeats its purpose of serving as a forum to set a global agenda, far less a pursuit of a vigorous development agenda, or the deliverance of humanitarian assistance to improve living conditions and alleviate poverty to those in need.

It follows that if Millennium Development Goals are supposed to be a solid, visual depiction between the world’s major economic players, i.e. poor countries’ improvement of policies and governance and rich countries’ provision of resources; then this is nothing more that an inflated statement of intent because it is rhetoric such as this that continues to muster and produce the poor among us.

Examples are clearly seen in the activities of the World Bank, and United Nations Development Program (UNDP), whose material operations are a consequence of the venality of poor people in the world at large.

In the same way that rhetoric did not fill stomachs in Nazi Germany’s day because the only goal of persuasive speech was to conquer the masses -- any means to that end was good and any means that did not serve that end was bad -- overcoming this delusion and developing a human development program through education, health, water, sanitation and job creation to eradicate poverty, to lift the poorest out of their isolation so that they can prosper and their talents and productivity can be unleashed will generate diverse return in terms of economic growth and social stability.

Statistics indicate that as many as 100 million people have fallen below the poverty line since the financial crisis began. Therefore a worldwide demand of civil society of the commitment to increase official development assistance is an economically solid and morally sound proposition.

In this regard, Caribbean states are also vulnerable in the face of poverty as economic and political problems that one state faces individually are common to all Caribbean states.

It is clear that Caribbean islands are experiencing climate change more quickly and visibly than other nations. Compressed with the malady of food security, marine and coastal resources, dependence on foreign aid and markets for financial growth -- a problem that sees fluctuation on global markets at an alarming rate, and dependence on imports for food and energy, then it is evident that Caribbean nations will have high debt burdens, which leave them vulnerable to economic problems, sinking deeper into the abyss of poverty and dehumanizing living and working conditions.

Hence, it is time to consider our vulnerabilities as leveraged strength and seek diasporic unity in the battle against poverty because the UN is no longer an immediate saviour.

It must be seen that UN conferences as MDG produces nothing but strife and bickering in its pledge to solve the sufferings of humanity, for if its purpose is to help countries build and share their own solutions to challenge urgent development needs, supporting coalitions for change and connecting individuals and institutions so they can share knowledge, experience and resources, then considering the UN’s deplorable track record in Rwanda, Darfur and Congo, committing hundreds of sex crimes against the people they were sent to protect; and until recently in Haiti where incompetence and corruption reigns supreme with its entrustment of billions of dollars to stabilize the lives of the Haitian people allotted to the salary and luxurious upkeep of its own workers, the question lingers -- Is there cause for optimism in its reconstruction of the Caribbean and its environs in the fight to eradicate poverty?

caribbeannewsnow

Bahamas Blog International

Caribbean globally uncompetitive: Time to get serious

By Sir Ronald Sanders:


Only one Caribbean Community (CARICOM) country made the top 50 countries in the World Economic Forum’s “Global Competitiveness Report 2010-2011”. Barbados is rated at 43 of 139 countries that were surveyed. Trinidad and Tobago, Jamaica, and Guyana were rated 84, 95, and 110 respectively.

No other CARICOM country was rated because of a lack of survey data.

This is not good news for the CARICOM area already beset by severe economic problems including high debt to GDP ratios, increasing unemployment, and contracting economies.

Barbados’ higher ranking over the three other CARICOM countries surveyed is due, according to the Report, to its better health and education facilities and technological readiness, but it got poor marks for inefficient government bureaucracy, access to financing, a poor work ethic among the labour force and foreign currency regulations.

Crime is rated highest among the problems that beset Trinidad and Tobago followed by an inefficient government bureaucracy and, surprisingly, access to financing. None of its rankings – not for basic requirements, efficiency enhancers or business sophistication and innovation - matched Barbados.

However, Barbados’ ranking in the specific areas of business sophistication and innovation at 52, suggests that there is need for the business community to improve its performance if Barbados is to continue to be a leader for the region in maintaining global competiveness.

The Report highlights University-Industry collaboration in Research and Development as a strong point for Barbados. With a ranking of 40, this is an area that Barbados could further develop, and that other CARICOM countries should emulate across a broad area of economic activity.

Like Trinidad and Tobago, crime was identified as the biggest problem facing Jamaica’s competitiveness. An inefficient government bureaucracy, access to financing and an inadequately educated work force were also identified among its major setbacks.

High tax rates headed the list of Guyana’s problems, followed by crime, and inadequately educated work force and access to funding. The enrolment rate for secondary education and hiring and firing practices were Guyana’s two most notable competitive advantages with rankings of 16 and 20 respectively.

So, who are the top ten most competitive countries in the world for business? In order of priority, they are: Switzerland, Sweden, Singapore, United States, Germany, Japan, Finland, Netherlands, Denmark, and Canada.

The inclusion of Singapore, a small island state, is significant. It shows that small size is not a barrier to being competitiveness in business. Singapore, incidentally, was the top recipient last year of investment of every country in the world.

And, what distinguishes these top ten countries from the other 129 nations in terms of their ability to be competitive globally and attract businesses? The World Economic Forum identifies 12 interrelated pillars for competitiveness, among them are: the strength of institutions and laws, political stability, the quality of infrastructure, public health, and education, and levels of technology and innovation. The Forum makes the point that “the pillars are not independent; they tend to reinforce each other and a weakness in one area often has a negative impact on other areas”.

In the case of Singapore, a physically small island state, it is ranked “number one for government efficiency; second for its financial market sophistication ensuring the proper allocation of these factors to its best use”. It is also ranked fifth for its world-class infrastructure with excellent roads, ports, and air transport facilities. In addition, it has a strong focus on education, providing individuals with the skills needed for a rapidly changing economy.

Singapore’s accomplishments are greatly to be admired particularly when it is considered that both Guyana and Jamaica at the time of their independence in 1962 and 1966 respectively were more prosperous than Singapore.

Clearly there are lessons to be learned by Caribbean states from Singapore’s success. Not all of them will be transferable because of the different work culture that exists between Singapore and the Caribbean, but there are other basic experiences and knowledge that Singapore could offer, among them: how to make government more efficient and institutions stronger.

Lessons might also be learned from Malaysia, which, like 13 of the 15 CARICOM states and Singapore, is a member of the 54-nation Commonwealth. Apart from Taiwan, China, and a few oil-rich Arab states, Malaysia is the highest ranked developing country in the competitive index at number 26. In business sophistication and innovation, it is ranked at 25 and 24 respectively of the 139 surveyed countries. Were it not for its security situation, Malaysia would have been higher up the list.

CARICOM countries have to do much better if they are to emerge from their present economic morass and rise up to claim a significant share of the world’s opportunities for investment and business.

Bringing crime under control has to be a top priority for CARICOM countries and they can best do so together. The sooner governments explore the establishment of regional machinery for collectively tackling crime within each country, the better.

Establishing the Caribbean Single Market also should be accelerated with mergers and acquisitions between Caribbean countries being facilitated by legislation. This will improve business sophistication, enhance efficiencies, and strengthen institutions. Taxation levels in many countries also have to be reviewed to make them more competitive globally. Importantly, access to financing should be a high priority that should be tackled by governments and the private sector collectively devising ways to do it.

The government bureaucracy that slows down investment also has to be overhauled rapidly. Inordinate delays and red tape that slow investment cost Investors money. They don’t hang around; not with a world eager to lure them.

A series of meaningful consultations between governments and the University of the West Indies; between governments and the regional private sector organizations; and the creation of task forces drawn from all three could offer implementable solutions to the problems of competitiveness that beset the Caribbean region.

It is time to get serious, or get left behind.

September 10, 2010

caribbeannewsnow

Bahamas Blog International

Regionalism: The Caribbean prospective - Part 3

D. Markie Spring
Turks and Caicos Islands:

Ideally, education plays an important role in the development of the mind, character and the physical ability of an individual. This philosophy is a fundamental need within Caribbean states; therefore much focus should be directed toward developing education within the region. From my observation, the Caribbean region also has an obligation to unite all its resources to develop and implement a standard educational and research program.

The Dominican Republic, Jamaica and Haiti are at the bottom of the literacy list despite the enormous schooling facilities present in those states. It is heart-breaking to know that Haiti has a literacy rate of 53 percent, which means that this country has more than four million people who are termed as illiterate. In the Dominican Republic there is an average of three million illiterate people and around 840,000 illiterate citizens live in Jamaica. These numbers should be staggering and stunning enough to engage our Caribbeab leaders to correct this issue before it escalates further.

First, let me address our education standard and status to other parts of the world. In Canada and the United States, well qualified and experienced Caribbean citizens who migrate to those parts of the globe have to be re-trained and be placed back into the classrooms -- for the reason that our system, according to their beliefs, is below their educational standards.

To address this issue, the region has to first integrate its education system, coupled with a focus on scientific research. There is a need to combine all of our resources and set one standard. Again the OCES member-states have always facilitated regionalism. This time it is good to see that the More Developed States -- Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago, Guyana and Barbados -- have joined this regional effort. We have created CXC at the secondary level, and the University of the West Indies and the University of Guyana at the tertiary level. This is indeed a good start; however, there is a greater need to develop more programs and policy to finance and guide our education system.

Hitherto, it is important also that our education system focuses on programs, which would support exchanges and mobility -- a university program, which would support international exchange opportunities for many university and college students.

Similarly, programs to facilitate teachers from other countries into our system, which will be designed to encourage diversity, promote and spread good practices in education across the region. In so doing, the region would support comparable standards and compatible degrees throughout the Caribbean.

Conversely, the Caribbean must move ahead and start competing with the rest of the world through its education system. Efforts must be made to establish policy in this area to stimulate and coordinate research. The Caribbean must seek to allocate funds to finance Caribbean and national projects. Some areas that the Caribbean needs to diversify are geography, geology, oceanography, anthropology, archeology and other scientific research areas, including renewable energy to reduce our region’s dependence on foreign oil; taking into consideration our environment. As a matter of fact, our region should and can become the leader in this research area.

Throughout the Caribbean, education should be funded and made free to all citizens at the primary and secondary level. In this capacity, I do not support free education at the tertiary level; however, it should be affordable, while special programs facilitate scholarship for outstanding students and for students that do not meet the financial requirements. The reason for such opinion is that many students tend to perform less well when education is free of cost-- people value hard work over things, which are readily available. More so, the leaders of the region must sustain a regional fee at the tertiary level.

It is time for the Caribbean to produce doctors, physicians and surgeons, geographers, geologists, mathematicians, and astronauts that would lead missions into space. When are we going to have Caribbean representatives on an oceanography missions? When are we going to be on a geographic expedition?

The trend shows that the Caribbean is not making an effort to transform the education standards of the region-- an education standard that is compatible and comparable to the rest of the world. In this sense, I personally urge our leader to start investing in education and make our educational system a regional one. It is time for us to stop our dependence on developed countries and find a way forward for ourselves with their help.

Ideally, some citizens across our regions may find this article to be absurd – ridiculously unreasonable, unsound, or incongruous in nature. However, I strongly believe in these ideologies. The leaders must put their heads together to make this a reality. There are too many individual talents in the Caribbean that are going unnoticed, and some of which are adopted by developed countries.

I urge fellow West Indians to work hard toward this goal. The only way we could define hard work is through focus, determination and confidence.

August 9, 2010

Regionalism: The Caribbean prospective - Part 2

caribbeannewsnow

Careless with CARICOM - Part 1

Sir Shridath Ramphal:


As ‘West Indians’, as ‘Caribbean people’, we face a basic contradiction of oneness and otherness, a basic paradox of kinship and alienation. Much of our history is the interplay of these contrarieties. But they are not of equal weight. The very notion of being West Indian speaks of identity, of oneness. That identity is the product of centuries of living together and is itself a triumph over the divisive geography of an archipelago which speaks to otherness. Today, CARICOM and all it connotes, is the hallmark of that triumph, and it is well to remember the processes which forged it – lest we forget, and lose it.

Throughout history our geo-political region has known that it is a kinship in and around an enclosing Sea. But, through most of that time it suited local elites – from white planters, through successor merchant groups, to establishment colonials - to keep the Sea as a convenient boundary against encroachment on their ‘local control’. Political aspirants in our region jostled for their Governor’s ear, not each other’s arm.

Times changed in the nineteen twenties and thirties – between the ‘world wars’. The external economic and political environments changed; and the internal environments changed – social, political and most of all demographic. Local control began to pass to the hands of local creoles, mainly professionals, later trade unionists, and for a while the new political class saw value in a strategy of regional unity. Maryshaw’s slogan ‘the West Indies must be West Indian’ carried at the masthead of his crusading newspaper was evocative. For two generations, West Indian ‘unity’ was a progressive political credo.

It was a strategy that was to reach its apogee in the Federation of The West Indies: due to become Independent in mid-1962. It is often forgotten that the ‘the’ in the name of the new nation was consciously spelt with a capital ‘T’ – The West Indies - an insistence on the oneness of the federated region. But, by then, that was verbal insistence against a contrary reality, already re-emerging. The new political elites for whom ‘unity’ offered a pathway to political power through ‘independence’ had found by the 1960s that that pathway was opening up regardless.

Regional unity was no longer a pre-condition to ‘local control’. Hence, the referendum in Jamaica; and Trinidad’s arithmetic that ‘1’ from ‘10’ left ‘0’; even ‘the agony of the eight’. The century old impulse for ‘local control’ had prevailed, and the separatist instincts of a dividing sea had resumed ascendancy.

But, as in the nineteen twenties and thirties, so in the sixties and seventies – the environment changed against separatism. Independence on a separate basis had secured ‘local control’; but the old nemesis of colonialism was replaced by the new suzerainty of globalization. Independence, particularly for Caribbean micro states, was not enough to deliver Elysium. ‘Unity’ no sooner discarded was back in vogue; but less a matter of the heart than of the head.

In an interdependent world which in the name of liberalization made no distinctions between rich and poor, big and small, regional unity was compulsive. Caribbean states needed each other for survival; ‘unity’ was the only protective kit they could afford. Only three years after the rending ‘referendum’ came the first tentative steps to ‘unity’ in 1965 with CARIFTA; ‘tentative’, because the old obsession with ‘local control’ continued to trump oneness – certainly in Cabinet Rooms; but in drawing rooms too; though less so at street corners.

Despite the new external compulsions the pursuit of even economic unity, which publics largely accepted, has been a passage of attrition. It has taken us from 1965 to 2010 - 45 years – to crawl through CARIFTA and CARICOM, through the fractured promises of Chaguaramas and Grand Anse, and through innumerable Declarations and Affirmations and Commitments Not surprisingly, we have reached a moment of widespread public disbelief that our professed goal of a ‘Single Market and Economy’ will ever be attained.

In the acknowledged quest for survival, the old urge for ‘local control’ has not matured to provide real space for the ‘unity’ we say we need. Like 19th century colonists we still struggle to keep our rocks in our pockets – despite the enhanced logic of pooling our resources and the enlarged danger of ‘state capture’ by unelected groups and external forces if we do not.

In the 21st century, despite all we know in our minds of the brutality of the global environment and the need for collective action to survive it, the isolationist claims of ‘local control’ still smother the demands of unity of purpose and action. It is puzzling that it should be so; for we have assuredly made large gains in what ‘unity’ most demands – ‘identity’.

There may be exceptions; but does not every citizen of every CARICOM country regard himself or herself as a Caribbean person – not first and foremost, of course, but after his or her national ’ identity - a member of the society we call ‘West Indian’. There may be grouses, even anger, at not being treated ‘properly’ – especially at immigration counters – but that is because as ‘West Indians’ we expect to be treated better. Our anger hinges not on the absence of identity but on its assumed reality; on the conviction that our common identity is not a garb we wear outside but shed when we come home.

Just recently, we lost one of the Caribbean’s most illustrious sons – an ‘incandescent eagle’ I called him. The whole Caribbean mourned him. And West Indian diasporas – not just Jamaican – mourned Rex Nettleford as a Caribbean person. We groan together when West Indian cricket grovels; and jump together when it triumphs. What is all this but identity?

It is not an identity crisis that we face. We know we are a family. But our family values are less sturdy than they should be – those values that should move regional unity from rhetoric to reality; should make integration an intuitive process and the CSME a natural bonding. Until we live by these values so that all the family prospers, we degrade that identity.

We are also failing to fulfill the promise we once held out of being a light in the darkness of the developing world. Our regionalism inspired many in the South who also aspired to strength through unity. We have all but withdrawn from these roles, and in some areas like the EPA with Europe we have forsaken our brothers in the South.

Recently, the former President of Tanzania, Ben Mkapa, who was our brother in arms in the North-South arena, was warning Africa against the same EPA of which we have made Europe such a gift. We have lost solidarity not only with ourselves, but collectively with our brothers in the developing world.

And, perhaps, therein lies the ‘rub’. Were we making a reality of our own regional unity we would not be false to ourselves and to others who look to us for a vision of the future. Instead, we are losing our way both at home and abroad.

(Part 2 to follow)

(Sir Shridath has held the positions of Commonwealth Secretary-General, Chancellor of the University of the West Indies, Chairman of the West Indian Commission and Chief Negotiator in the Caribbean Regional Negotiating Machinery)

May 4, 2010

Careless with CARICOM - Part 2

caribbeannetnews

Bahamas Blog International

After a year of the Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) with Europe: What benefits for the Caribbean?

After a year of the EPA with Europe: What benefits for the Caribbean?

By Sir Ronald Sanders:


The European Commission (EC) will be holding a symposium on April 22 and 23 on the year-old Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) between the European Union (EU) collectively and 15 Caribbean countries individually.

There is, as yet, no indication that Caribbean governments or the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) Secretariat will be holding a similar exercise.

It has to be assumed that each of the governments that signed the EPA has long established units both to implement its terms and to monitor its effects on individual economies.

Therefore, relevant authorities in each of the Caribbean states as well as the Secretariat of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) should be able to provide a list of the benefits that have been secured from the EU under the EPA. Our publics had been told that we would benefit not only from the exports of new goods and commodities to the EU but also from the provision of a wide range of services. Additionally, Caribbean companies would have the right of establishment in the EU.

Against this background, it should be fairly easy for the competent authority in each country to provide information related to just a few matters such as: what preparations and actions have been taken by exporters of goods and especially services to access the EU market; what are the investment plans by companies to establish in the EU market; and how easy or difficult are their plans looking for access to Europe.

There is a very important clause in the EPA which allows for a review of it within 5 years of its coming into force. That clause was hard fought for, and came about only because Guyana’s President Bharat Jagdeo had the courage to insist upon it even after other Caribbean governments had agreed to sign the EPA without such a review mechanism.

In defence of several Caribbean heads of government, it should be noted that they were reluctant to sign and many did so only after their crucial exports of bananas and sugar and some manufactured goods (from Trinidad and Tobago for instance) were threatened by the EC with a higher tariff in the EU market.

But, if the EPA is to be properly reviewed – and it should be subject to such a review on an annual basis – it is essential to monitor its implementation and to gather information that will inform an examination

However, informed sources in the region say that some governments have done very little about implementation and others have done nothing at all.

What is known for certain is that even though Caribbean countries and the EU are supposed to be ‘partners’ under the EPA, the EC has denounced the Sugar Protocol causing Caribbean countries to lose their preferential price for sugar; the EC has agreed a new trade regime for bananas with exports from non African, Caribbean and Pacific countries that will decimate what is left of the banana industry in the Caribbean; and come June 20, the EC will renege on an undertaking to the Caribbean rum industry to help finance restructuring and marketing while at the same time reducing tariffs on competing rum from several Latin American countries.

Not surprisingly several Caribbean businesses have lamented the benefits to them of the EPA so far. For example, Ramesh Dookooh, President of the Guyana Manufacturing and Services Association, observes that “Guyana earns much of its revenue on traditional exports, including rice and sugar, both of which are not covered by the EPA’s duty- and quota-free. Thus, the private sector in our country has its reservations about the economic opportunities available under the EPA”. Nonetheless, he is hopeful. He says: “Wider consultation with stakeholders and a stronger focus on the developmental dimension of the agreements could make the EPAs even more effective.”

Unfortunately, there has not been much evidence of consultation. The experience of sugar, rum and bananas indicate that the EC now takes the Caribbean for granted. After all, they do already have a signed full EPA from the region, so why concern themselves overly about the Caribbean.

The EC also controls the purse strings. They have knotted those strings on the purse of the 8th European Development Fund (ED) from which money for restructuring and marketing the rum industry should have come, and its daunting bureaucratic procedures halt many Caribbean countries in their tracks from getting money to implement the EPA under the 10th EDF.

An EU fund, managed by the Caribbean Development Bank (CDB), is reported to be exhausted with no sign of being replenished.

Undoubtedly, the global financial crisis – as well as the failures of regional financial institutions – has battered Caribbean governments. All CARICOM countries have been preoccupied with saving their economies from shocks including worsening terms of trade especially with the EU – even Guyana though it had 3.3 per cent growth in 2009.

But, Caribbean governments cannot afford to let attention to the EPA with the EU slip. The European Commissioner for Trade, Karel De Gucht, recently told German business people: “The economic crisis has temporarily halted the process of globalisation. But let there be no mistake: this process is very likely to pick up again with renewed vigour. The EU must put in place the conditions to benefit from it to the full”. He is looking to a “successful conclusion” of the global negotiations at the World Trade Organisation (WTO) “to boost Europe's GDP by around 45 billion Euros”.

Commissioner De Gucht will measure a “successful conclusion” very differently from the Caribbean, but the region should have its own collective plan of action and its own definition of success on which it should collaborate with like-minded countries.

The implementation of the EPA and the procuring of benefits from it have not been evident so far, and the EC has not been helpful to the Caribbean in the process.

When Caribbean leaders meet their EU counterparts for a Conference on May 17th in Spain, they should be fully briefed and prepared to tell European leaders of their dissatisfaction and propose means of making the EPA deliver on the ‘partnership’ it promised.

April 16, 2010

caribbeannetnews

Caribbean diplomacy: An endangered species

By Sir Ronald Sanders:

Caribbean governments are in danger of weakening still further their diplomatic capacity endangering its effectiveness, and imperiling their countries’ maneuverability in a harsh world.

Industrialized nations have several instruments on which to draw in their relations with other countries. Among these are military might, economic clout and diplomatic capacity.

If their security is threatened by other states or non-state actors, such as drug traffickers and terrorists, they are able to deploy their military; on the economic front, they can apply trade sanctions withdraw financial assistance or institute measures to halt cross-border transactions; in diplomacy, they have well-staffed, well trained and well informed foreign ministries and missions abroad who bargain for their interests. When diplomacy fails, big countries have economic clout and military might on which to fall back.

For small states, such as those in the Caribbean, diplomacy is the only instrument they have to advance their cause and defend their interests in the international community.

In this connection, Caribbean governments should place enormous emphasis on making their diplomatic capacity as strong as possible.

But, there is a growing tendency in many countries of the region to focus diplomacy in the Head of Government. Many Heads of government, already bogged down with urgent and pressing domestic problems have assigned the foreign affairs portfolio to themselves. In doing so, they either do not attend crucial meetings that impact their countries, or they attend without the full understanding of complex issues that only exclusive ministerial responsibility backed by expert analysis allows. In each case, their country’s interest is not well served.

Beyond this, even where governments have appointed foreign ministers, foreign ministries are not seen as vital - or even on par - with ministries concerned with domestic issues. Therefore, the financial and other resources that they get in annual budgets are inadequate to the extremely important job they have to do on behalf of their nations.

Worse yet, little attention appears to be paid to where and why overseas missions should be located, and who would be best to man them. In many cases, governments have followed the traditional road establishing missions where they are now least needed and neglecting capitals and international organizations, such as the World Trade Organization (WTO), where they are most required.

It cannot be in the best interest of any country for its diplomatic missions to be regarded as a pasture to send unwanted nuisances or reward political friends. Diplomacy, as has been pointed out, is a vital tool for small countries and its best brains should be appointed to its service.

There is a most important role for Heads of Government in a nation’s diplomacy. But, it is a role best played after the most careful diplomatic preparation that lays the groundwork for success. Otherwise, what should be the tool that clinches a deal in a blaze of glory will fail like a damp squib. Occasional successful forays by Heads of Government in international and bilateral negotiations should not be mistaken as a prescription for how accomplishment is to be achieved. Often, in these circumstances, the apparent success simply happens to serve the interests of the other government or institution involved.

When the European Union (EU), a grouping of 27 large nations, recently brought their new Constitution into effect, they appointed a Foreign Minister in addition to a President. In effect, what the EU nations did was to strengthen their global diplomatic outreach in trade, economic cooperation and investment. In addition to their own national foreign ministries, they now have the additional services of EU missions around the world, most of which have been beefed-up with additional expert staff.

In this connection, while the recently initialed Economic Union Treaty of the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS) is to be welcomed as the right step forward, it is disappointing that it failed to advance the diplomatic capacity of six small independent states who would most benefit from strengthened and unified diplomacy.

The draft Treaty, which is to be ratified by the parliaments of each country before formal signature and implementation, reads as follows in relation to foreign policy:

“The organisation shall seek to achieve the fullest possible harmonisation of foreign policy among the Member States, to seek to adopt, as far as possible, common positions on international issues, and to establish and maintain, wherever possible, arrangements for joint overseas representation and/or common services”.

Words such as “fullest possible”, “as far as possible” and “wherever possible” are usually inserted in Treaties of this kind where the governments intend to make the least change to the existing situation and where the real intention is to carry on business as usual. The signal that this sends is unfortunate, for the six independent members of the OECS would benefit enormously from a fully joined-up diplomatic service particularly in the present precarious conditions that confront their economies.

They least, of all, can afford layer upon layer of government. Already their tax payers are paying contributions to upkeep both the Caribbean Community and Common Market (CARICOM) Secretariat and the OECS Secretariat. Arguably, they maintain the OECS Secretariat because they believe that participation in it brings them greater strength than they have individually. If that is the case, then surely establishing and strengthening joint diplomatic capacity is not only in their bargaining interest, it would also reduce their individual expenditure on foreign affairs or more effectively focus their spending.

Of course, a major difficulty the OECS faces is their neglect of the requirement of the existing Treaty to harmonize their foreign policies “as far as possible”. Thus, three of the six independent states are members of the Venezuelan-initiated organization, ALBA, and three are not, and three of them have diplomatic relations with China while three maintain formal relations with Taiwan. Only a serious and visionary dialogue, supported by rigorous analysis of their long-term interests, will create a rational policy.

The global political economy is not friendly to small states of even tolerant of them. In a world being remorselessly driven by the interests of the larger and more economically powerful states – in which China and Brazil must now be included with the US, the EU and Japan - Caribbean countries need better and stronger diplomatic capacity to advance their causes and protect their interests.

January 29, 2010

caribbeannetnews

Bahamas Blog International

Mixed reviews for the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ)

Mark Beckford, Staff Reporter

Susan Goffe, chairperson, Jamaicans for Justice.

Despite assurances from the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) about measures put in place for the independence of the court, Susan Goffe of Jamaicans for Justice is expressing some concern about how it is administered.

Goffe noted that while there was a Regional Judicial and Legal Services Commission to oversee the selection of judges, the arrangements do not go far enough to ensure the legitimacy and security of the court.

Goffe added that more changes are needed to secure the independence and permanence of the court than the amendments already made to the Treaty of Chaguaramas. This treaty is the agreement between the Caribbean states, setting up the CCJ, among other things.

Goffe believes that any legitimisation of the court should be done by enshrining whatever changes there should be in the Jamaican Constitution. With that said, she believes serious national discourse should begin.

Judiciary independence vital

Answers to concerns about the independence of the court from manipulation are posted on the CCJ website.

"It is generally accepted in our societies that independence of the judiciary is a vital and essential ingredient of the rule of law, a basic principle of social engineering in CARICOM member states.

"To ensure independence of the members of the court, appropriate provisions have been elaborated in the agreement establishing the CCJ to provide for credible institutional arrangements," the website read.

It continued: "First, unlike the situation with the European Court of Justice, where Judges are appointed by the ministers of government, judges of the CCJ are appointed by a Regional Judicial and Legal Services Commission, whose composition should offer a reasonable degree of comfort to the court's detractors."

The funding of the court by member states of CARICOM has also raised the spectre of influence by these same states. However, the CCJ on its website said that certain steps have been put in place to ensure that this does not occur.

"In order to pre-empt this eventuality, the heads of government have mandated the ministers of finance to provide funding for the recurrent expenses of the court for the first five years of its operation."

A trust fund has been established and capitalised in the sum of US$100 million, so as to enable the recurrent expenditure of the court to be financed by income from the fund which is administered by the Caribbean Development Bank.

Former Solicitor General Michael Hylton said this provision has earned his confidence in the court.

Beyond the rules

"Political influence doesn't mean that a politician is going to call you and tell you what to do, but if a country doesn't like a judgment, it can withdraw its payment. This cannot occur under the treaty and with the trust fund that is set up," he said.

Attorney-at-law R.N.A Henriques, however, believes that independence goes beyond just putting in rules.

"We have had a history in Jamaica, where the bias of rulings are in favour of the government in cases. Therefore one is not really insulated by a Constitution. The dispensation of the rulings will be based on integrity not by what is in the constitution. Time will tell, that is why it is important that the judges are of a certain calibre."

December 7, 2009

caribdaily

Bahamas Caribbean Blog International