What did CARICOM get from Canada?

The greatest foreign affairs prank by the Caribbean Community, CARICOM on Canada

By Ian Francis:

CARICOM Press Communiqué 98/2012 of April 16, 2012 under the caption “CARICOM lobbies Canada for G20 help” has caught my interest and curiosity, which warrants a Caribbean News Now Article on this critical issue.

It is important to state that my curiosity meant reading over the press communiqué several times in order to avoid criticisms from my analysis and response. Therefore, it is incumbent upon my part to address the content of the release in a chronological manner.

Paragraph one of the release highlighted that a meeting was held between the heads of government of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) and the Right Honourable Stephen Harper, prime minister of Canada. At the meeting, CARICOM heads requested Canada to continue the lobby to the G20 nations to focus on the plight of small vulnerable economies and highly indebted middle income countries. Harper nodded and maybe there is a reason why he opted for a non-verbal response.


Paragraph two lamented that it was the second meeting with a G20 nation, citing Mexico as the previous one. Again, there are no indicators as to how Mexico responded. Given the fact of increased drug trafficking, crime and lawlessness, human rights violation and recent natural disasters, one wonders if Mexico is seen as a reliable partner within the G20 community. Given this situation, it will be interesting to see future political development in Mexico and its relations with CARICOM states.

Paragraph three highlighted four topics that apparently consumed Prime Minister Harper’s time. These were 1) economic issues; 2) the ongoing negotiations for a trade and development agreement between the two sides, which it is believed is the CARIBCAN trade agreement; 3) security cooperation; and 4) an acknowledgement of the special relationship between Canada and CARICOM, which has existed for almost a century and described the relationship as “dynamic and evolving based on mutual respect and shared interests, from which the respective nations have benefitted.”

Paragraph four is very interesting as CARICOM states expressed appreciation to Canada for its assistance in advocating CARICOM’s views in a global forum such as the G20. Canada was asked to continue its advocacy role with even greater urgency, taking into consideration the seemingly endless global economic and financial woes that continue to wreak havoc on the small, vulnerable economies in the Community.

Paragraph five outlined an information sharing mechanism aimed at increasing Prime Minister Harper’s awareness about some of CARICOM initiatives. The prime minister was advised of CARICOM’s efforts to use its collective strengths to combat the challenges and secure the future through diverse measures. They emphasized the CARICOM Single Market and Economy (CSME) although they were not able to indicate its current status; establishment of CARICOM enterprises, which fell short of details even when the prime minister sought information about future participation by Canadian entrepreneurs; and, of course, they took the opportunity to express appreciation for the support provided to the CARICOM Secretariat through the CARICOM Trade and Competitive Project, which will likely integrate Haiti into the CSME.

Post Summit Perspective on the Canada-Caribbean Meeting:

The communiqué’s synopsis gives a clear indication about the Caribbean Community and Canada meeting. Once again, Canada should be commended for affording the opportunity to meet with a group of leaders who three months ago was unable to show guts by telling Venezuela and their misguided Latin nation allies that Canada should be invited to attend CELAC meeting in Caracas. They went along and joined the Latin pariah states in excluding Canada. In my view, Canada will always remain a friend of the Caribbean Community irrespective of their transience when El Presidente speaks.

The meeting with Canada demonstrated the show of regional collectivity, cooperation and leadership given by the CARICOM Secretariat. However, those who attended should understand that, although Prime Minister Harper was impressed by the show of solidarity, his briefing books and three ring binders would have indicated a totally different situation. So, Caribbean Community leaders, do not be fooled. The same applies to Mexico and the United States.

The Caribbean Community leaders who participated in the meeting need to clearly understand Canada’s role in the Caribbean. Traditionally, in the conduct of its foreign relations, Canada has always recognized the region as two distinct vantage points. Canada has traditionally maintained strong bilateral and multilateral cooperation with Barbados, Jamaica, Trinidad, Belize and the Republic of Guyana. They have established diplomatic missions in each of these nations as well as strong cooperation agreements ranging from military to education.

What was previously known as the Windward and Leeward grouping, which is now the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS), Canada has opted to allow its High Commission in Barbados to handle OECS Affairs. There, OECS states must understand that, although Canada recognizes and understands the plight of the OECS, there are indeed preferential treatments to the five nations mentioned above. Unfortunately, OECS leaders have not spent the time to re-orient Canada’s strategy in the region. A clear indicator of OECS deficiencies is accepting the suggestions of a soon to be retired Canadian diplomatic official to close the OECS diplomatic mission in Ottawa as a cost containment effort. To many diplomatic observers, it is an extremely dumb move to close a vehicle that provided an OECS diplomatic presence in Ottawa. The decision to close the OECS diplomatic mission in Ottawa was ill-fated and many leaders are now privately expressing regrets at the decision made in St Vincent.

The Caribbean Community’s desire to see Canada continue lobby efforts with G20 countries is laughable and could be considered the greatest foreign affairs prank by the Caribbean Community on Canada. Why is it laughable? Many of the G20 nations have bilateral diplomatic relations with most of the independent nations that constitute the community. While the exchange of diplomatic personnel might be at a non-resident level, the mere fact that all community members have flourishing and active diplomatic missions at the United Nations and in Washington should provide them the opportunity to access G20 nations to discuss economic and vulnerability issues on a bilateral level rather than begging Canada to ensure that the regional economic plight is mentioned in the final communiqué of G20 meetings.

Three other issues caught my attention. These are: 1) Canada’s significant multilateral assistance to the CARICOM Secretariat to implement the Caribbean Single Market and Economy (CSME) program, and the inability of the Community leaders to give an accurate progress report on the status of the CSME to Harper; 2) Canada’s false belief that OECS nations’ economic problems can only be effectively resolved by plowing more multilateral assistance within the CARICOM Secretariat, knowing full well that such assistance is not impacting on daily conditions faced by the poor and disadvantaged; and 3) the OECS Caribbean Community leaders shortsightedness, and lack of an economic development bilateral strategy for presentation to Canada.

To conclude, I will not add any further comments about the revised CARIBCAN trade agreement. However, I am curious about what OECS nations will sell and market in Canada, as the Caribbean rum environment in Canada is very competitive.

So, personnel in OECS foreign ministries need to become more visionary and place less emphasis on the next foreign posting.
April 23, 2012

caribbeannewsnow

A modern Bahamas must adopt modern ways of conducting its affairs... and if we are to contemplate a reform of our tax structure... we ought to look at all forms of taxation ...and select the most efficient and the most appropriate for the benefit of all Bahamians

Pursuing tax reform

thenassauguardian editorial

 

Nassau, The Bahamas

Given the fiscal performance of the economy over the past few years and especially in the midst of the global recession, it has become increasingly clear that the days of relying on customs duties for the majority of the government’s revenue are rapidly coming to an end.

The arguments against, and the analyses of, the current tax regime are as numerous as they are compelling.

The more often repeated reasons are that customs duty as a major source of government revenue has outlived its usefulness because the system is extremely insensitive to changing circumstances in the economy; it is unintentionally unfair and regressive in its impact, particularly on low-income households, and at best it distorts the orderly and efficient working of a market economy.

To which we can add: In the context of the predominantly retail and wholesale services sector of the Bahamian economy, it ties up too much of the cash flow in advance of the first sale or turnover of the imported goods.

Some have argued, rather convincingly, that consideration ought to be given to introducing a more progressive tax regime, such as the value added tax (VAT), a tax regime that is used in more than 170 countries and that is generally considered less onerous on low-income households and small businesses.

Since the tax is levied on both goods and services, it is believed that the government’s overall take could increase without having to increase the tax rate.

Indeed, there may be scope for reduction in tax rates and fees in some specific categories.

In a country such as The Bahamas, that has historically boasted of its distaste for imposing direct taxes on income, the VAT has a certain amount of appeal in the sense that it has the potential to increase the tax yield to government without having to concede its historical adherence to no tax on income.

Given the developments over the past few years with the removal of the veil of secrecy and confidentiality as regards to bank accounts in The Bahamas, and more recently the almost 30 tax information exchange agreements (TIEAs) signed by the government and other foreign jurisdictions, perhaps the time has come to re-examine tax reform in The Bahamas beyond the consideration of a VAT.

Consideration could be given to a broad-based or selective income tax regime which would permit the country to enter into double taxation agreements, and by so doing obtain tax income from foreign companies operating in The Bahamas without increasing the overall tax burden to those companies since — because of the double taxation treaty — the existing tax would be shared between our Public Treasury and that of the company’s home country.

Such a move could also provide added protection against the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s constant threats to destabilize the so-called “tax haven” countries.

A modern Bahamas must adopt modern ways of conducting its affairs, and if we are to contemplate a reform of our tax structure, we ought to look at all forms of taxation and select the most efficient and the most appropriate for the benefit of all Bahamians.

Apr 23, 2012

thenassauguardian editorial

 

Caribbean Blog International

Bahamas Petroleum Company (BPC) stock has lost a fourth of its market value on the heels of a declaration from Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham that his government would not allow BPC to drill for oil in Bahamian waters

Oil company’s stocks plummet

Drop in market value follows PM’s comments

By Candia Dames
Guardian News Editor
candia@nasguard.com

Nassau, The Bahamas

Bahamas Petroleum Company (BPC) stock has lost a fourth of its market value on the heels of a declaration from Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham that his government would not allow BPC to drill for oil.

The company recently said it would seek to renew its licenses with The Bahamas government.

BPC wants government approval to drill an oil well in Bahamian waters by April 2013.

In 2005, BPC began its negotiations with the Christie administration for its various permits and licenses to look for oil in the country’s territorial waters.

Since then, the company has only done 2D and 3D underwater seismic testing to figure out the best areas to drill for oil and get a better handle on the country’s oil potential.

The Nassau Guardian asked the prime minister on Wednesday whether his administration would allow oil drilling in Bahamian waters, and he responded ‘no’.

Ingraham also said, “We are undertaking studies and after that we will see, but we don’t have any plans to drill for oil in The Bahamas.”

He also said certain senior members of the Opposition Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) have direct links to BPC.

“They (BPC) are very much tied to Perry Christie and those,” Ingraham said.

“In fact, I think he may be a consultant for them. He is certainly involved with them.”

Ingraham also suggested that attorney Sean McWeeney, a former PLP attorney general, is also tied to BPC.

On its website, under company advisors, BPC lists the law firm Davis & Co., run by PLP Deputy Leader Philip Brave Davis, as part of its Bahamian legal team.

McWeeney’s law firm Graham Thompson & Co. is listed as the second firm representing BPC in The Bahamas. McWeeney is a partner in the firm.

On Thursday, Christie told The Nassau Guardian he is a legal consultant for Davis & Co., the law firm which represents Bahamas Petroleum Company.

Christie confirmed that the company benefits from the advice he provides to BPC’s legal team.

Christie said the working relationship with Davis & Co., the law firm owned by Brave Davis, began after his party lost the 2007 general election.

Christie would not say definitively if his administration would allow any company to drill for oil if the PLP wins the election. He said that decision would depend on environmental studies presented to government on the issue.

While in opposition, the PLP has been relatively quiet on the issue of oil drilling in The Bahamas.

Former Minister of Trade and Industry Leslie Miller, however, recently accused the current administration of failing to keep the Bahamian people properly informed on the matter.

Apr 21, 2012

thenassauguardian

Bahamas Blog International

US facing bold new calls for 'drug war' alternatives

by Ekow Bartels-Kodwo


Research Associate at the Council On Hemispheric Affairs.



At a poorly attended summit of Central American leaders, the host President Otto Perez Molina of Guatemala reiterated calls for the decriminalization of recreational drug use. Although some regional former heads of state have called for such a solution, President Molina became the first sitting head of state to openly advocate for such a controversial stance when speaking at the Central American Security Summit in Antigua, Guatemala.

Billed initially as a groundbreaking summit during which “alternative solutions” to the War on Drugs were to be discussed, the conference’s emphasis on how to manage the War on Drugs, as well as talk of decriminalization, were sidelined before the conference even began.

After accepting invitations to the conference, three heads of state, representing fully half of the countries in the region, pulled out of the conference on short notice. This was likely the result of pressure from Washington, which has long opposed legalization, and the reluctance of the Organization of American States, the (OAS) to face up to the issue of drug trafficking and related violence.

President Molina declared that the War on Drugs had failed, asserting that it was time to reconsider drug policy in the region. The summit, he hoped, would put an end to the stigma surrounding the discussion of decriminalization as a serious policy alternative to outright prohibition. He added that the conflicts surrounding their countries have cost Central American countries hundreds of millions of dollars annually and tens of thousands of lives.

Referring to the current policy, Molina opined “We have seen that the strategies that have been pursued against drug trafficking over the last 40 years have failed.” He added that there was a need to “look for new alternatives” and “end the myths, the taboos, and tell people we need to discuss this.”

Also in attendance was Laura Chinchilla, President of Costa Rica, who decried the cost in terms if human lives, asking rhetorically, “How much have we paid here in Central America in deaths, kidnapping, and extortion?”

The summit came in the wake of US Vice President Joe Biden’s trip to the region in early March, wherein he restated the United States’ opposition to the decriminalization of drugs in Latin America, and attempted to muster support for a renewed push in the US-led War on Drugs. Speaking in Mexico City, Vice President Biden told reporters that, while the discussion on decriminalization was a “legitimate” one, the dangers of legalization outweighed any benefits.

Biden’s visit came shortly after the OAS warned against the crippling social and economic effects that Central American and Mexican drug cartels are having on the region. In remarks to the OAS-sponsored Conference on Transnational Organized Crime in Mexico City, OAS Secretary for Multidimensional Security, Adam Blackwell said that the state of transnational crime in the region not only threatens to undermine institutional security and stability, but also poses a systemic threat to democracy.

In his further comments at the conference, Secretary Blackwell admitted that there had been an increase in the regions drug-related violence, but stressed the importance of remaining steadfast in the ongoing fight against the criminal organizations behind it. He stated, “I urge you to direct our efforts to the development and strengthening of our institutional capacities, through knowledge-sharing, the exchange of information and experiences, and wherever possible, joint action.

This increased pressure on area countries from the OAS and the US, as demonstrated by Mr Blackwell and Vice President Biden respectively, to stick to the script in regards to the war on drugs, is symbolic of how oblivious the hand-me-down US policy regarding her neighbours in the western hemisphere is to changing realities on not just the war on drugs, but on seemingly unrelated issues such as the US embargo against Cuba.

The calls by Presidents Perez Molina of Guatemala and Chinchilla of Costa Rica, while by no means unequivocal, signify a shift of tectonic proportions when it comes to dealing with the drug gangs that have terrorized the Central American countries from their bases in Mexico.

It remains to be seen, however, just how unyielding such calls for legalization will be in the face of strident US opposition. Already, President Molina has suggested alternatives to decriminalization. He proposed a tax levied on the US for all drugs seized in Central American countries because the US is the largest consumer of these drugs. He also proposed that Central American governments set up a court with regional jurisdiction that deals with transnational similar to the approach of the UN’s International Criminal Court.

Overall, two factors remain to be weighed. First, will the United States encourage some of the new alternative solutions presented by President Perez Molina? But even more important to the verifiably bona fide post-colonial sovereignty of these countries is whether or not those Latin American states ultimately do genuinely favor decriminalization and whether or not their leaders were bold enough to raise the issue at the Summit of the Americas this April, at which the United States was represented by its Diplomat-in-Chief, President Obama and not Joe Biden as was the case in early March.

Whatever be the case, it is time to stop throwing away the baby with the bathwater and to put heads together in order to put a halt to the menace that has plagued, and continues to undermine the fundamental and systemic national security of the entire Central American region. The time has come for the United States to allow the region to start seriously looking at less costly policy alternatives to the war on drugs, in order to remove this deepening stain on the conscience in order to move the society that we live in from one that we have cause to be ashamed of living in to one that future generations can be proud to be a part of.

The Council on Hemispheric Affairs, founded in 1975, is an independent, non-profit, non-partisan, tax-exempt research and information organization. It has been described on the Senate floor as being "one of the nation's most respected bodies of scholars and policy makers." For more information, visit: http://www.coha.org/ or email coha@coha.org

April 19, 2012

caribbeannewsnow

Bahamas Blog International

Bahamas Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham ...says that there would be no oil drilling in Bahamian waters if his party - the Free National Movement (FNM) is re-elected to office

The Bahamas PM: FNM government won’t drill for oil

By Taneka Thompson
Guardian Senior Reporter
taneka@nasguard.com

Nassau, The Bahamas

Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham said yesterday - there would be no oil drilling in Bahamian waters if his party is re-elected to office.

Asked if his administration would allow drilling if returned to power, he said ‘no’.

Ingraham added that Bahamas Petroleum Company Plc. (BPC) — the company licensed to explore for oil in Bahamian waters — has direct ties to Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) Leader Perry Christie and other senior members of the party.

In 2005, BPC began its negotiations with the Christie administration for its various permits and licenses to look for oil in the country’s territorial waters.

Since then the company has only done 2-D and 3-D underwater seismic testing to figure out the best areas to drill for oil and get a better handle on the country’s oil potential.

However, in 2010 the Ingraham administration placed a moratorium on new oil exploration or drilling licenses. The moratorium came after the disastrous Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

“We are undertaking studies and after that we will see, but we don’t have any plans to drill for oil in The Bahamas,” Ingraham said.

He was responding to questions put to him by The Nassau Guardian after he completed a tour of Bains Town and Grants Town yesterday.

“They (BPC) are very much tied to Perry Christie and those,” Ingraham said.

“In fact, I think he may be a consultant for them. He is certainly involved with them.”

Ingraham also suggested that attorney Sean McWeeney, a former PLP attorney general, is also tied to BPC.

On its website, under company advisors, BPC lists the law firm Davis & Co., run by PLP Deputy Leader Philip Brave Davis, as part of its Bahamian legal team.

McWeeney’s law firm Graham Thompson & Co. is listed as the second firm representing BPC in The Bahamas. McWeeney is a partner in the firm.

A press release posted on BPC’s website and published in Offshore magazine, said the company “now looks forward to the outcome of the Bahamian elections.

“Whatever the result, it anticipates a refreshed mandate to support exploration,” the press release said.

Ingraham said yesterday The Bahamas’ waters are too pristine and important for the country’s tourism product to risk drilling for oil.

“We’ve seen what happened in Louisiana with oil drilling,” Ingraham said, referring to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

BPC’s CEO Simon Potter recently told Guardian Business that drilling an oil well by April 26, 2013 was an important benchmark for the company. However, BPC’s current oil drilling license is set to expire this month.

Potter said he was confident that the company would receive an extension from the government; the renewal is subject to the company meeting certain obligations, terms and conditions.

Last September, the company began compiling its 3-D seismic data.

There is reportedly a 25 to 33 percent chance of oil being found under The Bahamas’ territorial ocean floor.

The company has also submitted its environmental impact assessment to the Bahamas Environment, Science and Technology Commission (BEST).

Apr 19, 2012

thenassauguardian

General Election in The Bahamas: ...Bahamians are expected to turn up at the polls in record numbers to vote in a new government - May 07, 2012

2012: The FNM’s new plan

The governing party puts forward its vision for the next five years

By Taneka Thompson
Guardian Senior Reporter
taneka@nasguard.co

Nassau, The Bahamas

With three weeks left until the general election, two of the three major parties jockeying for your vote on May 7 have released their blueprints for governance.  Last Thursday night, before thousands of jubilant supporters who converged at R.M. Bailey Park for a mass rally, Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham unveiled the Free National Movement’s Manifesto 2012.

The FNM’s extensive, 120-page document touches on the party’s plans to reduce and prevent crime, tackle illegal immigration, improve the country’s educational system, diversify the economy, reform the tax system and improve life for all Bahamians.  It places a heavy focus on youth development, national volunteering, business expansion and economic development of the Family Islands.

On Thursday afternoon, the Democratic National Alliance (DNA) released its Vision 2012 and Beyond – a document which sets out that party’s policies on crime, immigration, the economy and social issues.  At the time of writing this article, the official opposition Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) had yet to release its five-year blueprint, called “Our Plan”.  However, the party asserted that it had been releasing critical components of Our Plan, such as its crime fighting platform Project Safe Bahamas and a mortgage relief scheme for homeowners facing foreclosure, over the past several months.

While this is by no means an exhaustive look at Manifesto 2012, I have highlighted a few areas which should be of concern to voters.

Crime

In no other area has this administration faced more criticism and backlash than its crime fighting strategy.  Murders climbed to record levels under the FNM’s watch and incidents of other violent crime and anti-social behavior grabbed headlines during the past five years, in spite of the myriad of policies the government put in place to curb violence.

Critics from the opposition maintain that the government failed to deliver on its 2007 mandate for crime fighting and continue to lay the blame for the crime statistics at the government’s feet.  It is not surprising then that the fight against crime is listed as the main concern of the next FNM administration.

“Ensuring the safety and security of all Bahamians is our number one priority,” the manifesto says. “The business of police must be preventing crime not simply responding to it...  Our aim is not just to control bad behavior but to change it.”

In the document, the FNM lays out 11 ways it plans to ensure that the Royal Bahamas Police Force (RBPF) not only responds to crime, but also helps to prevent criminal behavior.  The FNM plans to accomplish this by increasing the police’s visibility and presence on the streets.  Low visibility is a common complaint from many in society who feel that officers spend too much time in their squad rooms and not enough time patrolling known criminal hot spots and neighborhoods which have become targets for housebreakers and armed robbers.

The FNM said during its next term in office, it will boost the ranks of the Royal Bahamas Police Force by 250 officers; require officers to spend half of their weekly shifts working the beat; and require police to spend as much time on the streets at night as they do in the daytime.  The FNM also said it will marry community policing with modern technology to increase the predictive capability of the police force and expand closed circuit television to assist in crime prevention and criminal detection. The FNM also says it will require district constables to hold monthly meetings in their areas to keep residents aware of crimes committed in their communities.

While placing more police on the streets and beefing up the command of the RBPF may put some residents at ease and catch a few criminals in the act, it will do nothing to root out the spirit of lawlessness, disorder and general disregard for human life that so many in our society are afflicted with. Focusing on at-risk youth, instilling positive values, education and affirmative life skills are the only long-term solution to the crisis our country is faced with.

There are several long-term initiatives in the FNM’s agenda that could lead to positive results if they are properly introduced and maintained.  One such policy is identifying troubled youth when they display anti-social or violent behavior in the school system.  The FNM says it plans to create “a fast and effective program in the school system and at the community level to address the early display of anti-social behavior by young persons as well as a targeted program for repeat offenders”.

Other proposed policies in the FNM’s manifesto for youth development include a mandatory community service program for government school students; creating a summer institute for boys making the transition from primary school to junior high; and creating a youth outreach initiative.

Education

Under its education platform, the FNM promised to ensure that every child is adequately numerate and literate before he or she leaves the third grade.

The manifesto says the FNM will create a mandatory work experience program if elected for another term, which will ensure that all high school seniors complete a minimum number of apprenticeship hours before being allowed to graduate.

The FNM also plans to place a heavier focus on skills training by expanding technical and vocational skills training offered at public high schools and increasing the budget allocation to the Bahamas Technical and Vocational Institute (BTVI).  The next FNM administration also plans to bolster programs at BTVI so that it can certify skills levels and standards for Bahamians trained in construction, plumbing, masonry, electrical work, etc.

Jobs

Another key issue in this election will be job creation.  According to recent figures released by the Department of Statistics, the country’s unemployment rate was 15.9 percent as of November 2011.  The unemployment rate for young people was 34 percent and the unemployment rate in Grand Bahama stood at 21.2 percent.

Unemployment and crime go hand in hand and in order to stem the level of violence and theft on our streets, the government must focus on job creation.  In order to stimulate job creation, a responsible government must look out for small businesses and create grants and stipends which allow them to remain afloat and keep people employed.

In its manifesto, the FNM said it will foster small and medium business development by giving more incentives to the manufacturing and industrial sectors; it will promote and encourage small resorts and bonefishing lodges that are Bahamian owned; and give incentives to entrepreneurs to open up shops in the Family Islands and create employment in those communities.  If re-elected, the FNM says it will also offer a one-time apprenticeship financial incentive to manufacturers for each apprentice they take on.

Tax reform

Although tax reform is noted in the manifesto under its plans to modernize the economy, just how the FNM will address the issue if re-elected is not made clear.

“Accelerate taxation system reforms to reduce dependence on border taxes and broaden the tax base,” is all the manifesto says on the issue.

Financial analysts have long maintained that the country has to move away from its heavily customs based tax regime to another taxation system which makes us more competitive in the global trade market.  Tax reform is also needed so that this country can fully comply with international trade agreements such as the one signed with the World Trade Organization.

Vote wisely

Bahamians are expected to turn up at the polls in record numbers to vote in a new government.  This election cycle there are many choices.  Three parties are fielding 38 candidates each and there are a handful of independents and fringe party members all hoping to be elected to Parliament come May 7.

In New Providence, it is now impossible to avoid the billboards and posters with the smiling faces of political hopefuls which crowd every corner, or to ignore the political ads filled with promises and election pledges which play every few minutes on the radio and television.

However, voters should not be fooled by the fanfare and theatrics which are commonplace in “silly season”.  In between the gibes, wisecracks and blame laying which are thrown about at political rallies are slivers of the real issues that will affect this country for the next five years and beyond.  The concerned voter, and every Bahamian interested in the future of this country, should make an informed choice based on the policies and promises each party and candidate has made on the campaign trail, along with their records in office.

The discerning voter should decipher the grandiose promises from the probable initiatives that can be implemented over a five-year period before he or she makes a choice.

Apr 16, 2012

thenassauguardian

Caribbean cruise ships: The imbalance of risk/reward and a Trojan Horse

By Robert MacLellan



April’s annual Caribbean Hotel and Tourism Investment Conference in Puerto Rico provides a highly appropriate time and venue to raise questions about the future of the cruise industry in the Caribbean and its impact on the region’s hotel sector.

Since the beginning of 2012 alone, four cruise ships have now experienced very serious incidents that could have resulted in disastrous damage to the marine environment in tourism dependent areas of the world. One ship, the MSC Poesia, was stranded on a reef in early January while approaching Port Lucaya, Bahamas. The other three ships drifted helplessly, without power or steering capability. The Azamara Quest was adrift for 24 hours in late March near the UNESCO World Heritage Site of the Tubbataha Reefs in the Philippines. The Costa Allegra was adrift in late February near the pristine Alphonse group of coral atolls in the Seychelles, until towed to port by a fishing boat, and the Costa Concordia drifted until it capsized on rocks in mid January on the Italian tourist island of Giglio.

The Caribbean is THE most tourism dependent region in the world, marketing itself primarily on its pristine beaches and reefs. In total, over 60% of the world’s cruise ship fleet is in the Caribbean in the winter high season – a greater number of ever larger ships today -- but which, self evidently, have inadequate emergency back-up systems to allow safe operation of the vessel in the event of a major fire or severe grounding or collision.

Costa is a division of Carnival Group and Azamara is one of Royal Caribbean Group’s brands. Together, their ships call at every major tourist island in the Caribbean. These two groups completely dominate the world cruise industry and their financial resources dwarf the GDP of most island economies in the region.

Few resources exist in most Caribbean island ports to limit the effect of similar or greater cruise ship incidents -- a serious grounding or collision could result in a devastating and long term environmental disaster. Most cruise ships move to “high season” in other parts of the world at the end of the Caribbean’s winter season and detailed cruise itineraries within the region can be readily changed. Therefore, in the event of a disaster, it is a single island government or small group of governments that will bear the full environmental and economic impact.

How much cooperation or finance have Caribbean governments received from cruise lines even to help resource effective disaster planning in order to mitigate these risks? In overall terms, what is the actual economic risk/reward balance with cruise ships in the Caribbean?

Caribbean government port taxes have not even kept up with regional inflation rates and in recent years the shore-side spend per cruise ship passenger on each island appears to have declined significantly. Today, even the discretionary spend per cruise ship passenger in the Caribbean is estimated at 82% on board and 18% on shore. While the economic benefit to island economies has declined on a per passenger basis, cruise ships continue to operate in a virtual tax free environment within the region -- yet they require island governments to finance and build larger expensive piers for their larger, more cost efficient ships.

Furthermore, today’s cruise ship business model is now a highly aggressive one, operating from multiple home ports in the USA. Larger ships have lower levels of capital and operating unit costs and, thus, correspondingly lower fares -- as low as US$45 per passenger per day, including meals. Construction cost of the larger ships is around US$250,000 per cabin, compared to US$750,000 per room for a new 4/5 star resort in the Caribbean. Cruise ship food costs, liquor costs and comparable labour costs are lower than in Caribbean hotels.

The cruise industry’s overpowering competitive edge over Caribbean hotels in high season is a “Trojan Horse” with its resultant negative impact on inward investment for new resorts. This factor has been consistently and grossly underestimated both by governments and the private sector in the region. In the meantime, Caribbean hotels struggle desperately to absorb ever higher energy and food costs, while being the largest direct and indirect tax contributors and the largest employers in almost every economy in the region. The region’s governments tax their own major “export” industry, while allowing massive international corporations to make massive profits from the Caribbean’s natural resources.

Is it not time that the fiscal contribution by cruise lines to Caribbean governments more fairly reflected the industry’s impact on the local environment and, ultimately, their potential for environmental disaster in the region? If the Caribbean Tourism Organisation is evidently not powerful enough for that challenge, then CARICOM governments should act with the governments of Mexico and Central America to present a united front in negotiating with the cruise lines.

In today’s global cruise market from November to April there are virtually no realistic, alternative itineraries to the Caribbean -- relative to major passenger feeder countries, adequate port facilities, attractive tourism infrastructure and cruising distances. Cruise ships are currently “using” most Caribbean destinations almost for free. NOW is a highly appropriate time to end that scenario -- while the cruise industry is struggling hard to protect its image and to achieve good “corporate citizen” status. Even Alaska, on its own, negotiated a better deal for its ports. The countries of the Caribbean basin can and should dictate better terms with the cruise lines, while also helping to protect their own domestic hotel industry.
April 17, 2012
 
caribbeannewsnow
 

Bahamas Blog International

Is The Bahamas headed towards a dictatorship?

Are we headed for dictatorship?

Consider this

By Philip C. Galanis

"How fortunate for leaders that men do not think." – Adolf Hitler

The election bell has been rung, Parliament has been dissolved and, like the Biblical reference to Gog and Magog, the forces are assembling on all sides toward the final countdown on May 7, 2012 – General Election Day in The Bahamas.

Over the past five years, there have been numerous references to, and a certain level of discomfort regarding, the leadership style of our current prime minister.  It has been described by some as domineering, dictatorial and despotic.  Others have preferred decisive as a more appropriate description of his leadership style.  So this week we would like to Consider This...is it more appropriate to characterize the prime minister as dictatorial or decisive in light of his authoritarian style, and, if he is returned to office, are we at risk of becoming a country that is led by a dictator?

The behavior

What is the genesis of the accusation of dictatorial behavior by the nation’s chief executive?  Perhaps it is deeply rooted in his no-nonsense approach and social intercourse with friends and foes whom he would not hesitate to publicly humiliate, particularly if they do not share his point of view.  The prime minister is not known to suffer fools – or even sages – lightly.  While there are countless examples of this during his term in office, the more recent past provides graphic patterns of such petulant propensities.

Perhaps the more glaring ones are those instances where he single-handedly chose his candidates for the upcoming elections, introducing them en masse to the Free National Movement (FNM) council as a fait accompli with the autocratic attitude of “take it, or leave it, this is what I want, and this is what I will get”.   Of course, the party acquiesced to each and every nominee, without exception.

Who can forget how mercilessly he cut three of his sitting parliamentary members from the candidate’s list for the upcoming general election?  To add insult to injury, at least one of the eleventh hour “terminated” candidates was not even informed that he had been chopped this time around.

Then, of course, the House of Assembly proceedings were abruptly abated, suspended, then dissolved, without allowing any of the members from both sides, including the speaker, the deputy prime minister, past and present, as well as several of his own ministers, past and present, the customary opportunity to thank their constituents and the Bahamian people for allowing them to serve in high office.  Parliament belongs to the people of The Bahamas, not to one man to do with it as he wishes, when he wishes.  But not one of his parliamentary colleagues dared raise his voice in disapproval.  As Adolf Hitler once said: “How fortunate for leaders that men do not think.”  I would add, “or speak up”!  There are certain parliamentary conventions that apply to our system and to deliberately disregard the established decorum is an abuse of office and an abuse of power.

We also recall that at the launch of the FNM candidates in Freeport many Sundays ago, the prime minister bellowed: “I want to win all five seats in Freeport.”  Not, “the FNM wants to win” or “we want to win”.   No, his words were well-chosen that, “I want to win all five seats in Freeport.”  Since that launch, he has repeated this personalization of the goals of the FNM in speech after speech.  His party, his Parliament!

The practice of the leader

Now that the elections have been called, a thinking and discerning public would seriously question the appropriateness of the executive branch of the government entering into and executing new multimillion-dollar contracts, one after another, from island to island, as Hubert Ingraham’s government seems intent on doing right up to voting day.

On the other hand, while in office, Perry Christie refused to sign the agreement which would have authorized the sale of BTC after he called elections for May 2007.  He could have, but he did not think it was appropriate and therefore did not abuse his office or power.

We believe that it is totally inappropriate for any government to continue to execute substantial, new contracts or agreements after its term in office has come to an end and Parliament has been dissolved.  There are only two things which can explain this prime minister’s behavior: Either he is deliberately and unconscionably exploiting the public purse in order to win votes in the upcoming elections, or he is rushing to reward and enrich his supporters with last minute, multimillion-dollar, ginormous contracts because he is not sure that he will be returned to office as the prime minister.

Bahamians are increasingly expressing their fears that if he is returned to office, the prime minister will believe that his behavior has been validated and sanctioned by the Bahamian people.

Some thinking Bahamians have rightly expressed concerns about the mesmerizing effect that Ingraham has had on his blind and unquestioning supporters who insist on calling him “Papa”.  This is not without good reason.  The last person in Bahamian memory who bore the title of “Papa” was Francois Duvalier, the president of Haiti from 1957 until his death in 1971.  He was better known to his people and to the world as “Papa Doc”, the demonically despotic dictator who dominated Haiti with an iron fist.

He was also a very decisive leader, who, viciously assisted by his bullies and brutal goons, the Tonton Macoutes, blatantly abused his power for his own personal aggrandizement, profit, corruption and genocide of his Haitian political opponents.  Named after a Creole term for the bogeyman, the Macoutes’ raison d’etre was to extend and bolster support for the Papa Doc regime in the countryside.  By 1961, although they had twice the numbers of the regular Haitian military, they never developed into a real military force but remained more of a brutal secret police and Papa Doc’s private, malevolent army dedicated to maintaining that Papa’s iron grip on his country.

Conclusion

As thinking Bahamians, it is our duty to continually ask the pressing questions of and to challenge our leaders to account for their actions in order to ensure that they never become too big for their britches.  When that occurs, we the people must never hesitate to cut them back down to size.  Most dictators are cowards who recoil into the shadows when faced with an intelligent, probing populace who is not afraid to boldly confront and fearlessly oppose their misdeeds.  Whether we are talking about Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein or any wannabe Bahamian variation of the former, if we wish to stave off any vestige of a dictatorship, we must never, ever allow our leaders to believe that we have become the kind of a people who caused Adolf Hitler to say: “How fortunate for leaders that men do not think.”

Philip C. Galanis is the managing partner of HLB Galanis & Co., Chartered Accountants, Forensic & Litigation Support Services. He served 15 years in Parliament.  Please send your comments to: pgalanis@gmail.com

Apr 16, 2012

thenassauguardian

The political parties seeking employment as the next government of The Bahamas should note that the increasingly informed Bahamian electorate demands details of their proposed monetary, fiscal and macroeconomic policies ...before they cast their votes for them... The stakes are too high to entertain politics as usual in The Bahamas

Another general election without substance?

By Arinthia S. Komolafe

thenassauguardian

Nassau, The Bahamas

Now that the election bell has been rung and the anticipated date for the election is scheduled for May 7, 2012, one can’t help but wonder what lies ahead for the Bahamian people during the next government’s term of office from 2012 to 2017.

It is now officially four weeks prior to the election date and we have yet to receive a single manifesto from any of the political parties vying for the top spot in governance.  The opposition Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) is running a campaign primarily based upon improving the economy, job creation and crime reduction and has released literature to that effect.  The newly formed Democratic National Alliance (DNA) has based its campaign on “real change” and being a viable alternative to the established parties outlining its proposals on certain issues such as the economy, crime and illegal immigration.  As anticipated, the governing Free National Movement (FNM) is running a campaign based upon leadership, delivery on its promises and its ability to manage the economy in the midst of the global economic crisis.

 

The economic situation

Nationwide commentary suggests that Bahamians are concerned about both microeconomic and macroeconomic issues affecting their lives.  From a microeconomic standpoint, they are concerned about the government’s inability to create permanent jobs, improve education and ensure that they are able to maintain a decent standard of living.  The issue of home ownership and the deepening mortgage crisis remains of utmost concern to the middle and working classes of the electorate.  It is also an understatement to emphasize that the electorate abhors the reality that in 21st century Bahamas.  Widespread job opportunities are still restricted to the tourism and financial services sectors or the civil service.

On the macro-economic front, there is widespread uneasiness about the rising government debt level in the face of reduced government revenue; a U.S. economy that is slowly recovering; high food and fuel prices; and corresponding increases in the inflation and unemployment rates that are believed to have a high correlation to the high crime rate.  In the past five years, unemployment has doubled to more than 15 percent; the national debt has doubled to more than $4 billion; and crime, including the heinous crime of murder, evidence a fast-paced upward trend with approximately 500 murder victims to date.

While it is true that governments across the world, including developed nations, were faced with some of the challenges outlined above, it has been reported that the Bahamian government had at its advantage several investment projects left on the table by the former Christie administration that had the potential to create additional jobs.  The PLP opposition has reiterated this point and accused the government of what it termed as the “stop, review and cancel” policy which it argues expedited the recession in The Bahamas.

We will never know the true impact that these projects would have had if they had come to fruition.  What is clear is that the government lacked a clear and prudent fiscal, monetary or economic policy that would have guided us through this recession with minimal casualties of unemployment, crime and home foreclosures.

The FNM, which is traditionally considered to be both politically and fiscally conservative in contrast to the PLP’s social and liberal approach to politics and fiscal management, has done very little to distinguish itself in this current term of office from the manner in which it is perceived a PLP government would govern.

The introduction of the prescription drug program and unemployment benefits, which would traditionally be seen as PLP policies, are necessary safety nets that all progressive governments should implement.  However, due to the regressive tax structure in The Bahamas, low to middle income earners bore the brunt of the implementation of these initiatives through increased taxes in the midst of an already challenging economic climate.

 

Where are the ideas?

It is rather unfortunate that in spite of the lessons supposedly learned during the financial crisis and with the election date fast approaching, all the political parties have not provided to the Bahamian people a comprehensive action plan to address the pressing issues facing our dear nation.  Rather, we seem to be headed to another election season in which silliness and petty issues are magnified.  I submit that what is lacking in The Bahamas today is not intellectual capacity or a shortage of innovative ideas, but rather our leaders do not have the political will to implement policies that will move the country forward.

The Bahamian electorate has become weary of campaigns without substance which fail to expressly articulate in clear terms how the country will be put back on the right track.  Political parties will do well in unequivocally committing to tax reform, economic diversification, reducing the budget deficit and national debt in the interest of future generations by producing a viable plan as documented in their respective manifestos.  A commitment in this regard will ensure in the long run economic stability, growth and development.

In the absence of manifestos to date, it is without a doubt that the build-up to this year’s general election will lack the necessary substance to foster sensible debates on pertinent issues and ensure effective scrutiny of the next government.  Politicians should be advised that the old tricks of sheer rhetoric and glorified baloney will no longer satisfy a people that desire more for our Bahamaland. The political parties seeking employment as the next government of The Bahamas should note that the increasingly informed electorate demand details of their proposed monetary, fiscal and macroeconomic policies before they cast their votes for them.  The stakes are too high to entertain politics as usual.

 

• Arinthia S. Komolafe is an attorney-at-law. Comments can be directed to:arinthia.komolafe@komolafelaw.com

Apr 12, 2012

thenassauguardian

The negative media portrayal of black males as criminals

Who is George Zimmerman? Some people say he is a white American; others say he is a Latino American of mixed race, but the fact is he killed a teenage African American young man. However, in the news reports Zimmerman claims that he shot a suspicious looking young black man walking in his neighbourhood. But what clues Zimmerman had to claim that the young black man looked suspicious and suspicious of what? It is obvious that Mr Zimmerman has been influenced by popular western media that portray black men as criminals.

Most people think that George Zimmerman is a racist and he targeted a young black male and committed a hate crime and he should be punished for his bigotry and murder. However, if George Zimmerman was black man and he killed a young white man, most likely in American society he would have been charged with murder, but in the United Sates race is a factor that determines people’s ethnicity and class status. But then again, race and class discrimination is not isolated to American society, because lots of people all over the world are living with hate. They hate other human beings for various reasons beside race.

In the Caribbean there are many people as Zimmerman and sometimes they do stupid things, if and when they have privilege to exercise their powers in society. For example, Caribbean men and women in the police and military service who have the privilege to carry weapons to serve and protect the state, sometimes kill innocent civilians by abusing state power. In most cases, the police and soldiers in Caribbean countries are black and they abuse civilians of all different races for various reasons. And sometimes the state covers up the crimes they commit, when it suits the interest of those in higher authority.

Race, class and gender are social factors that determine people’s status within society. In the United States black people are an ethnic minority that has a lot of social problems. High rate of gun crime, racism, unemployment and drugs are daily dilemmas black Americans have to deal with in their community. 

However, these social dilemmas have created a sort of perception that all black people, especially black men, are suspected drug dealers and thieves, and we cannot deny the fact that George Zimmerman has targeted the young black man as a suspected criminal, who he perceived had some kind of intention to commit a crime in the neighbourhood. Therefore, in the process of confrontation, he shot the unarmed young black man dead.

Most of us as adult black males can visualise what this young black man went through before he was fatally shot. Personally, I experienced the negative stereotype of what is expected of a black man. On many occasions persons of other racial backgrounds approach me and ask if I have drugs to sell and when I reply to them that I do not use or sell drugs, they usually act like if they are surprised. I have experienced some folks of other racial backgrounds make racial jokes when they see a police cruiser passing and telling their black coworkers to look out, the cops are coming for them. 

In North America, the concept that certain crimes fit people of a particular race is no hidden thing and it is sometimes promoted in some media outlets. We cannot deny that Mr Zimmerman must have gravitated to this kind of negative media portrayal that associates some particular criminal activities with black males. 

However, the young black man Trayvon Martin is dead but Mr Zimmerman is alive and living as a free human being, while black folks and other people of good reasoning conscience protest against racism. But this tragedy won’t be the last racially profiling killing. Racism is alive globally in all societies where people of different race and ethnicities reside together. People who follow the Marxist ideology principles believe that capitalism is the root of racism. Some religious folks blame the devil for instilling racism in people’s mind. Many other people have their own views about racism.

However, I believe that racism will never be eliminated from society because some folks who are racists usually accuse anti-racist people of being racists too and in other cases religious doctrines and holy books’ teachings are being used to justify racism. But as I look at black people on the television news media protesting against George Zimmerman as a racist murderer, I wonder how many of them are conscious of the racial dilemma they encounter on a daily basis, even though they are sensitive enough to protest against racism and the killing of the young black man, but at the same time they are being brainwashed by the same mainstream media that are destroying the fabric of black society.

April 7, 2012

caribbeannewsnow

The marvelous world of capitalism

REFLECTIONS OF FIDEL


(Taken from CubaDebate)

THE search for political truth will always be a difficult task, even in our times when science has placed a large body of knowledge in our hands. One of the most significant aspects of this scientific knowledge has been learning of and studying the fabulous power of energy contained in matter.

The discoverer of this energy and its potential use was a peaceful and good-natured man who, in spite of his repudiation of violence and war, sought its development in the United States, during the Presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt, who was known to have an anti-fascist position, and the leader of a capitalist country in deep crisis, which he had contributed to saving with strong measures which earned him the hatred of the extreme right wing of his own class. Today, this state is imposing on the world the most brutal and dangerous dictatorship that our fragile species has known.

Cables from the United States and its NATO allies refer to the crimes committed by these countries and their accomplices. The most important cities of the United States and Europe are seeing constant pitched battles between demonstrators and well trained and fed police agents, with armored cars and protective gear, dispensing blows and kickings and firing gases at women and men, arm-locking the hands and necks of young and old, displaying to the world actions being committed against the rights and lives of citizens of their own countries.

For how much longer will these barbarities continue?

In order not to write extensively, given that these tragedies will be ever-increasingly presented on television and through the press in general, and will be like the bread denied every day to those who have least, I will cite a report received today from an important Western news agency:

"Huge swathes of the Japanese Pacific coastline could be inundated, with 20-meter-plus (112ft) waves hitting areas from Tokyo down to the southwestern island of Kyushu, according to the revised calculations of a government panel.

"A 34-meter tsunami could hit the Japanese coast in the wake of a massive (Magnitude 9) earthquake, the expert panel said after revising its worst case scenario projections.

"In its previous projection in 2003 the panel gave a worst case scenario in which no areas would be hit by a tsunami of more than 20 meters (66ft).

"The Fukushima plant was designed to resist a 6-meter (20ft) tsunami, less than half the height of the wave that hit it on March 11, 2011."

But there is no cause for concern. Another cable datelined two days ago, March 30, can soothe such fears. It comes from a really well known news source. I will synthesize it in a few words: "If you were a football player, Arab sheik or director of a large multinational, what type of technology would you crave?"

"Recently, certain well-known London luxury stores opened entire sections for technology lovers with fat wallets.

"Million-dollar televisions, Ferrari video cameras and personal submarines are some of the fetishes to delight millionaires."

"The million-dollar television is the jewel in the crown."

"In the case of Apple, the company is committed to supplying stores with its new products on the same day as their launch on the market."

"Let’s suppose that we have left our mansion and are already bored with hanging out with our yacht, limousine, helicopter or jet. We still have the option of buying a personal submarine or one for two people."

The options continue with rust-proof cell phones, 1.2GHz word processors with 8G memory, NFC technology for making payments by cell phone. Ferrari manufactured video cameras."

Compatriots, capitalism really is a marvelous thing! Perhaps we are to be blamed for every citizen not having a personal submarine on the beach.

It is they and not me who have put Arab sheiks and directors of large transnationals in the same bag along with football players. At least the latter entertain millions of people and are not enemies of Cuba. I must clarify that.

Fidel Castro Ruz
April 1, 2012
8:35 p.m.

Translated by Granma International

Bahamas Blog International

The Summit of the Americas: A Cuban conundrum for Colombian President Santos

by COHA Staff

From April 9 to 15, 2012, the Organization of American States (OAS) and other multilateral bodies will host the Sixth Summit of the Americas, which will take place in Cartagena, Colombia. Bogota is absorbed by this major meeting of hemispheric heads of state; according to the Spanish website Infodefensa.com, Colombia will deploy up to five thousand police officers, six planes and helicopters and three unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV), to ensure the event goes on without a hitch.[1]

Unfortunately, the Juan Manuel Santos administration has been deeply concerned that the event’s occurrence would be flawlessly staged, while at the same time it has had to face a diplomatic incident leading up to what Latin America correctly has conceptualized as an extremely important summit. Cuba, which is the only state in the Western Hemisphere that is not a de facto member of the OAS, declared its interest in attending what is certain to be a very substantive meeting of the heads of state.

This possibility became a concern for Washington, which has been at diplomatic odds with the Castro government (first Fidel and then Raul) for decades. Tensions regarding the OAS-led summit further flared up even more when Ecuador, a member of the ALBA bloc (Alianza Bolivariana para las Americas – Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas), let it be known that the ALBA bloc could possibly boycott the meeting if Havana was not allowed to participate.

This situation led to President Santos being placed in an untenable position (he would have to invite Castro to avoid an ALBA boycott but, in turn, this would have angered Washington, who would undoubtedly decide to boycott the meeting), so the Colombian head of state decided to travel to Havana to meet with the Cuban leadership. He met with Raul Castro closed doors and had the onerous chore of having to ask Castro to reconsider his intention to go to Cartagena, in order to avoid an incident with the US delegation. This incident, if it had progressed, would have presented Santos with a guaranteed diplomatic conundrum, but thankfully, this situation did not escalate. The ALBA bloc, including Venezuela, will attend the meeting in lieu of a boycott, and Castro won’t attend.[2]

Cuba, the OAS and the Santos Trip

Cuba and the OAS historically have had a troubled relationship. The island state, with its pre-revolution regime, was one of the original OAS members. The OAS was founded in 1948 as successor to the Pan American Union. After the Cuban 1959 revolution was staged, the John F. Kennedy administration pushed for the continent to politically and economically isolate Cuba after its military relationship with Soviet Moscow was acknowledged by Fidel.

The OAS suspended the Caribbean island from January 1962 until June 2009. It would take nearly five decades for there to be sufficient momentum on the continent for a major policy shift to be made regarding Cuba. In the end, even though Cuba’s membership was validated, Havana decided to dismiss its prospects for full participation and chose not to return to the OAS at this time.

This historical development occurred due to the rise of regimes in the region which have been vociferous in their criticism of US foreign policy (as can be found in Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador), along with the rise of powerhouses like Brazil.

In 2002, Mexico held a major international conference on financing for development, called by then-United Nations (UN) Secretary General Kofi Annan.[3] Then-US President George W. Bush was scheduled to attend, but a diplomatic impasse developed when Fidel Castro, the historical Cuban head of state, decided to attend as well. In order to avoid the embarrassment that was sure to follow, then-Mexican President Vicente Fox privately called Castro and asked him not to come, and the Cuban leader appeared to agree to this. However, even though the conversation between the two leaders was supposed to have been private, Castro actually taped their phone conversation and then made it public. In a famous line, Fox tells Castro that “puedes venir pero comes y te vas” (“you can come, but you eat and then you’ll leave”).[4]

Another causative Cuba-related diplomatic incident occurred in 2009, when Trinidad and Tobago hosted the Fifth Summit of the Americas, and there was a clash between Washington and Caracas over Havana. Even before the summit, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez declared that it would be clear that “we’re going to Trinidad and Tobago to put that issue on the table […] from the moment the curtain goes up, Cuba will appear on the stage.”[5] Throughout the Summit, there also was concern that Chavez and his allies would follow the final declaration at the end of the meeting with one of their own as a way to protest the US embargo against Cuba.

Ironically, in spite of the tension surrounding the meeting, Obama met with Chavez, which was immortalized in an iconic photograph.[6] The US leader also stated that “the US seeks a new beginning with Cuba […] I know there is a longer journey that must be traveled to overcome decades of mistrust, but there are critical steps we can take toward a new day.”[7]

As preparations for the Cartagena summit began to take shape, rumors began to circulate that Cuba would insist in attending the summit. At first, Bogota remained neutral on this development. For example, in early February, Colombian Foreign Minister Maria Angela Holguin stated to the press that “it is not up to Colombia to invite Cuba to the Summit of the Americas.”[8]

Bogota’s position was in response to declarations made by Ecuador’s President Rafael Correa, who said that “from now on I propose that if Cuba is not invited to the Summit of Americas, no member of ALBA is to attend the summit.”[9] Correa’s statements gained some momentum as fellow ALBA members like Venezuela and Bolivia also seemed to be considering a boycott of the summit if Castro was not invited. ALBA has 11 members, all of which are OAS members (which has 34), hence a boycott would have a significant impact on the summit as it would cut the number of attending heads of state by a third. Washington has made it clear that it will not attend the meeting if Castro is present.

William Ostick, a spokesman for the State Department, said that “today’s Cuba has in no way reached the threshold of participation […] there must be significant improvements in political liberties and democracy in Cuba before it can join the summit.”[10] If Washington carries out this threat, this will continue to diminish the multilateral and institutional ties it has with the rest of the continent, at a time when we are witnessing the creation of regional bodies to which US does not belong, like UNASUR (Union de Naciones Suramericanas – Union of South American Nations) and CELAC (Comunidad de Estados Latinoamericanos y Caribeños -- Community of Latin American and Caribbean States).

To prevent the hemispheric rift from growing, in early March, President Santos traveled to Cuba to ask point blank Raul Castro not to travel to the Cartagena Summit. Given the 2002 precedent, it is understandable that Santos decided to travel to Havana instead of calling Raul Castro. As part of the aftermath, President Chavez stated that there seems to be a consensus among the ALBA bloc to attend the meeting. Nevertheless, he warned that, from the bloc’s point of view, this should be the last summit in which Cuba does not participate.[11]

Cuba and the US: No Breakthroughs On the Horizon?

In recent years there has been a rising momentum to improve relations between Washington and Havana. When President Obama was campaigning, he pledged that he would close down the detention center in the naval base in Guantanamo Bay, located in Cuba. Unfortunately he has yet to do so.

Other more ambitious initiatives included lifting the decades-old embargo on the island. Obama managed to gain enough support to lift some travel restrictions so Cuban Americans can more easily travel to the island or send money to their relatives there,[12] but the trade embargo relentlessly remains, and will continue to do so as long as the political weight in Miami continues.

Regarding the continued tensions between the two countries, in February of this year, Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont traveled to the island and privately met with Raul Castro to pledge for the release of US contractor Alan Gross, who is serving a 15 year sentence for espionage and “smuggling illegal communications equipment and attempting to set up an Internet network that could escape government detection.”[13]

On the other hand, the US has controversially imprisoned five Cuban citizens (known as the Cuban Five), for allegedly being spies for Havana. One of the Cubans, Rene Gonzalez, was released this past October 2011 after serving 13 years in prison.[14] The global negative reaction to this political trial further undermined U.S. stature in the region.

Summits of the Americas, a Historical Source of Criticism

If anything, the tensions over whether Cuba should or will attend the Summit of the Americas adds some flavor to a hemispheric gathering that is usually critiqued for its irrelevancy. The first Summit was carried out in Miami in 1994; at the time, the OAS had former Colombian President Cesar Gaviria as Secretary General. While the 1994 summit was an important milestone regarding the initiatives for hemispheric integration, it was critiqued by Latin American specialists as a simple gathering of heads of state without much substance.

Criticism of such high-level meetings and whether anything productive ever comes out of them has continued over the past two decades. In a recent interview between journalist Andres Oppenheimer and former Peruvian President Alan Garcia, the two-time head of state downplayed the importance of these Summits. The Peruvian politician stated that such high-level encounters “[are] a dialogue for the deaf,” and that each leader “goes with a prepared speech, to read it, and to blame someone else of [his country’s] problems, usually Uncle Sam or the ‘horrendous’ international financial system.”[15]

To be fair, it is noteworthy to state that such meetings have brought about important initiatives. For example, in April 2001, during the Third Summit of the Americas, held in Quebec City, the heads of state decided to push for a new pro-democracy treaty, which would become known as the Inter-American Democratic Charter. As the Charter states, the hemispheric leaders decided to create:

“A democracy clause which establishes that any unconstitutional alteration or interruption of the democratic order in a state of the Hemisphere constitutes an insurmountable obstacle to the participation of that state’s government in the Summits of the Americas process.”[16]

Washington has never been slow to point to this clause when it comes to promoting and protecting its interests in the Western Hemisphere.

The Agencies of the OAS: Working in Obscurity

At a time when the OAS continues to be critiqued regarding how it serves Washington’s interests, it is noteworthy to highlight how the OAS has fielded a number of autonomous agencies that carry out important and relevant work for hemispheric issues. When the OAS is criticized, this is usually targeted at the Secretariat and the General Assembly, but there are various agencies that operate under the OAS umbrella, like the Pan American Health Organization, Inter-American Commission of women,[17] Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Inter-American Committee against Terrorism[18] and the Inter-American Defense Board[19] ( IADB; and its military educational wing, the Inter-American Defense College –IADC).

The IAD Board (created in 1942, which makes it older than the OAS), and the IAD College (created in 1962), throughout their existence, have been accused of being at best, irrelevant, and at worst, a “mooseclub.” In a Strategic Forum report entitled “Reforming the Inter-American Defense Board,”[20] John A. Cope, Senior Research Fellow in the Institute for National Strategic Studies (INSS) at the National Defense University (NDU), perfectly conceptualizes the issues with the IADB, explaining that:

“The reluctance of diplomats to tap the Board’s expertise, even when considering regional defense and security issues, and the IADB’s unwillingness to subordinate itself in practice to the Committee on Hemispheric Security of the OAS Permanent Council or the Secretariat for Multidimensional Security, present a serious impasse.” (P.2)

Cope also adds that, beyond senior officials, most OAS staff members have little awareness of IADB activities (P.2) and that “the IADB structure evokes an earlier period in Latin American and Caribbean history when military institutions were largely autonomous and regularly played a significant role in politics. The legacy of civil-military tension still influences thinking and actions at both the OAS and IADB.” (P. 3)

Conclusions

It appears that Cuba will not attend the summit in Cartagena after all, and the Cuban government is blaming Washington for its likely absence. Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez has stated that the US government has acted with “disdain and arrogance” over Havana’s intentions to participate in Cartagena.[21] The Cuban official also stated that:

“The exclusion of Cuba is probably the most notorious, most evident symbol that (these summits) are made in the image of the owner, which is the government of the United States, and they are instruments to exercise domination in a manner not at all democratic”

Indeed, the upcoming Cartagena summit has proved to be a big headache for President Santos. The Colombian leader successfully achieved a diplomatic solution for the Cuba question. At the end of the day, Santos did manage to avoid a humiliating personal defeat as he was put between a rock and a hard place by Hillary Clinton’s completely obdurate and senseless actions on Cartagena, all aimed at improving Obama’s political prospects in November. But its outcome hardly represented a brilliant victory for Santos’ image as a brave and principled new voice for Colombia and his own amazing hegira from being a defense ministry goon to earning the right to a completely renovated reputation.

After all, while Bogota no longer can be found on the wrong end of the leash regarding its diplomatic relationship with the US, the events leading up to the Cartagena summit so far are hardly a victory for him. By carrying out Washington’s wishes regarding Castro’s presence at this major gathering, the Santos presidency appears to continue being under Washington’s sphere of influence as it was during the Cold War. It seems that, when it comes to hemispheric gatherings, the US continues to reserve the right of determining who makes up the guest list. In 2012, it is correct for Latin American and Caribbean governments to advocate that they should no longer feel destined to be eternally under Washington’s narcotic policy spell.

To review sources, please click here

The Council on Hemispheric Affairs, founded in 1975, is an independent, non-profit, non-partisan, tax-exempt research and information organization. It has been described on the Senate floor as being "one of the nation's most respected bodies of scholars and policy makers." For more information, visit http://www.coha.org/ or email coha@coha.org

April 5, 2012

caribbeannewsnow