Free movement hot topic at CARICOM Single Market and Economy (CSME) convocation

GEORGETOWN, Guyana -- The free movement of labour and goods, reduction of the food import bill, and strategies to ensure the general public’s effective participation in the CSME were among the key issues raised at an Open Forum of the Convocation on the CARICOM Single Market and Economy (CSME) held in Bridgetown, Barbados.

The Open Forum on Saturday afternoon brought the curtain down on the two-day Convocation at the Lloyd Erskine Sandiford Conference Centre, which was held to receive a Report of an Audit of the status of implementation of the CSME.

The Audit was mandated by the CARICOM Heads of Government, four of whom were at the Convocation – David Thompson, Prime Minister of Barbados and Lead Head of Government with responsibility for the CSME; Baldwin Spencer, Prime Minister of Antigua and Barbuda; and Ralph Gonsalves, Prime Minister of St Vincent and the Grenadines and Patrick Manning, Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago.

The Open Forum, which lasted for more than two hours, benefitted from robust interaction among the Heads of Government, Ministers, regional institutions and organisations, representatives of civil society, the labour union, the private sector and the media.

In particular, the free movement of labour and the attendant consequences for Member States emerged arguably as one of the more pressing issues at the Convocation.

Characterised from the floor alternatively as the “feel of the CSME” and a “thorny issue”, the free movement of labour element of the Community’s flagship programme elicited recommendations ranging from the establishment of a labour market information system and a social welfare stabilisation programme to the full exploration of lifestyle and demographic changes that would be wrought by the free movement of people.

The labour movement, which was well represented at the Convocation, reiterated its support and commitment to the CSME and recommended the establishment of a regional labour market information system so that the Community could be adequately informed about employment opportunities and other pertinent data from which residents could make informed decisions. The time ripe for such a regional facility, the trade unions argued.

Dialogue and discussion between governments and labour were also critical to progress within the CSME, the trade unions stressed, and suggested that regional tripartite consultation committee forum be set up aimed at promoting and monitoring regulatory labour market developments at the regional level, suggesting areas for improvement and advising on strengthening social capital.

The business community expressed concern about the likely change in the demographics of Member States, particularly those in the Eastern Caribbean that may occur from the free movement of people in the Region.

The Region must be able to address those facts head-on and until such time as the benefits associated with the CSME are firmly ventilated and understood, there will always be objections, Mr. Robert LeHunte, the Caribbean Association of Indigenous Bankers representative said.

“Life as they know it with those changes will not be the same and people must be aware of that,” he said.

He was also of the view that it was important for the Community to understand the benefits of political union.

“We are missing some of those issues…; the politics of fear can take us that far, but the politics of inclusion is also important,” he said, while underscoring that the goals and ideals of the CSME would not be achieved unless there was a mechanism for corporate governance that was not possible without political union.

The Audit identified five basic challenges which would affect the pace at which economic integration could be achieved:

• surviving the current global economic downturn and emerging from it as a transformed and more resilient Community which is still committed to its original purpose;
  
  


• strengthening the market integration process and stimulating increased cross-border activity, especially in favour of the Member States with negative trade balances;
  
  


• increased investment to build up the general infrastructure and for increased production and job creation;
  
  


• mobilizing adequate resources for implementing effective Community sectoral and other progammes to sustain the supply of skills and for export expansion;
  
  


• reaching agreement on mobilizing adequate resources and execution of a scheduled plan of actions for implementation of the macroeconomic and other measures to establish the single economic space

The matters raised at the Convocation will be considered by officials in November. A final report of the CSME appraisal is expected to be ready for submission to the Twenty-First Inter-Sessional Meeting of the Conference of Heads of Government in 2010.



October 13, 2009



caribbeannetnews

Bahamas Blog Bahamas

The bells are tolling for the dollar

Reflections of Fidel

(Taken from CubaDebate)

THE Empire dominated the world more through the economy and lies than by force. It obtained the privilege of printing convertible currency at the end of World War II; it had a monopoly of nuclear weapons; it had virtually all the gold in the world; and was the only large-scale producer of productive equipment, consumer goods, food and services at global level. However, it did have a limit on printing paper money: the backing of gold, at the constant price of $35 per troy ounce. That was the case for more than 25 years until, on August 15, 1971, via a presidential order from Richard Nixon, the United States unilaterally broke that international commitment by defrauding the world. I shall insist on repeating that. In that way it launched on the world economy its rearmament costs and military adventures – in particular the Vietnam war – which, in line with conservative calculations, cost no less than $200 billion and the lives of more than 45,000 young Americans.

More bombs were dropped on this little Third World country than all of those used in the last world war. Millions of people died or were mutilated. When the conversion rate was suspended, the dollar became a currency that could be printed at the will of the U.S. government without the backing of a constant value.

Treasury bonds and bills continued to circulate as convertible currency; state reserves continued nourishing themselves on those bills which, on the one hand, served to acquire raw materials, properties, goods and services from every part of the world and, on the other, privileged U.S. exports in the face of other economies of the planet. Time and time again, politicians and academics refer to the real cost of that suicidal war, admirably described in the film by Oliver Stone. People tend to make calculations as if the millions were the same. They do not usually take note of the fact that the millions of dollars of 1971 are not the same as the millions of 2009.

One million dollars today, when gold – a metal whose value has been the most stable throughout the centuries – has a price in excess of $1,000 per troy ounce, is worth approximately 30 times what it was worth when Nixon suspended the conversion rate. In 2009, $6 trillion is equivalent to $200 billion in 1971. If this is not taken into consideration, the new generations will have no idea of imperialist barbarism.

In the same way, when one speaks of the $20 billion invested in Europe at the end of World War II – in virtue of the Marshall Plan for reconstructing and controlling the principal European powers that had the necessary workforce and technical culture for the rapid development of goods and services – people usually ignore the fact that the real value of what was invested at that time by the empire is equivalent to a current value of $600 billion. They do not note that today, $20 billion would barely stretch to building three large oil refineries capable of supplying 800,000 barrels of gasoline per day, in addition to other oil derivatives.

The consumer societies, the absurd and capricious waste of energy and natural resources that are currently threatening the survival of the species, would not be explicable in such a brief historical period if one is unaware of the irresponsible manner in which developed capitalism, in its superior phase, has ruled the destinies of the world.

That astounding waste explains why the two most industrialized countries of the world, the United States and Japan, are indebted to approximately $20 trillion.

Of course the U.S. economy has an annual gross domestic product of $15 trillion. The crises of capitalism are cyclical, as the history of the system irrefutably demonstrates, but this time it is about something more: a structural crisis, as Professor Jorge Giordani, Venezuelan minister of planning and development, explained to Walter Martínez in the latter’s Telesur program last night.

News agency reports circulated today, Friday October 9, add irrefutable data. An AFP cable from Washington notes that the budget deficit of the United States in the fiscal year 2009 is rising to $1.4 trillion, 9.9% of the GDP, "something unseen since 1945, at the end of World War II," it adds.

The deficit in 2007 was one third of that figure. High deficit figures are expected for the years 20010, 2011 and 2012. That huge deficit is fundamentally determined by the U.S. Congress, to save that country’s major banks, to prevent unemployment rising above 10% and to pull the United States out of recession. It is logical that if they flood the nation with dollars, the large commercial chains will sell more merchandise, industries will increase production, fewer citizens will lose their homes, the unemployment tide will stop rising, and Wall Street shares will increase in value. However, the world can no longer return to what it was. The economist Paul Krugman, an eminent Nobel Prize winner, has just affirmed that international trade has suffered its greatest fall, worse than that of the Great Depression, and has expressed doubts on its recovery in the short term.

Nor can the world be inundated with dollars and think that those bills without backing in gold will maintain their value. Other economies, today more solid, have emerged. The dollar is no longer the hard currency reserve of all states; on the contrary, its holders wish to move away from that currency, while as far as possible avoiding its devaluation before they can get rid of it.

The European Union euro, the Chinese yuan, the Swiss franc, the Japanese yen – despite that country’s debts – even the pound sterling, together with other hard currencies, have moved to take the place of the dollar in international trade. Gold metal is once again becoming an important international reserve currency.

This is not a capricious personal opinion, nor do I wish to slander that currency.

Another Nobel Prize winner in economy, Joseph Stiglitz, commented, according to one news agency, that the most likely thing is that the green bill will continue its decline. He stated this on October 6 at the IMF World Bank Joint Annual Meeting in Istanbul. Violent repression could be noted in that city. The event was greeted with broken windows in the commercial sector and fires from Molotov cocktails.

Other agencies talked of the fact that the European countries are fearful of the negative effect of the weakness of the dollar compared to the euro and the consequences of that on European exports. The U.S. treasury secretary stated that his country "was interested in a strong dollar." Stiglitz made fun of an official statement and stated, according to EFE: "In the case of the United States money has been squandered and the reason has been the multimillion rescue of the banks and defraying the cost of wars like that of Afghanistan." EFE reported that the Nobel Prize winner "insisted that instead of investing $700 billion to help bankers, the United States should have directed part of that money into helping the developing countries which, at the same time, would have stimulated global demand."

Robert Zoellick, president of the World Bank, raised the alarm a few days earlier, warning that the dollar could not maintain its status as a reserve currency indefinitely.

Kenneth Rogoff, an eminent professor of economics at Harvard, stated that the next major financial crisis will be that of "public deficits."

The World Bank declared that "the International Monetary Fund has demonstrated that the central banks of the world accumulated fewer dollars during the second half of 2009 than at any other point in the last 10 years and increased their euro holdings."

That very same October 6, AFP reported that gold reached the record figure of $1,045 per ounce, prompted by the weakening of the dollar and fears of inflation.

The Independent newspaper of London published that a group of oil producing countries were studying the possibility of replacing the dollar in commercial transactions with a basket of currencies including the yen, the yuan, the euro, gold and a new unified currency.

The news leaked or deduced with impressive logic was refuted by some of the countries presumably interested in that protection measure. They do not want it [the dollar] to collapse, but neither do they want to continue accumulating a currency that has lost its value thirty-fold in less than 30 years.

I must mention a cable from the EFE agency, which cannot be accused of being anti-imperialist and which, in the current circumstances, includes opinions of particular interest:

"Experts in economy and finance were in agreement today in New York in affirming that the worst crisis since the Great Depression has resulted in this country playing a less significant role in the world economy."

"The recession has led to the world changing its way of looking at the United States. Our country is now less significant than before and that is something that we have to recognize," affirmed David Rubenstein, president and founder of the Carlyle Group, the largest risk capital company in the world, addressing the World Business Forum."

"The financial world is going to be less centered in the United States… New York is never again going to be the world financial capital and that role will be shared with London, Shanghai, Dubai, Sao Paulo and other cities," he noted.

"…sort out the problems that the U.S. will confront when it comes out of the ‘great recession,’ which will probably go another month or two."

"…’enormous public debt, inflation, unemployment, loss in value of the dollar as a reserve currency, energy prices…"

"The government must reduce public spending in order to confront the debt problem and do something that it doesn’t much like: increase taxes."

"Jeffrey Sachs, an economist at the University of Columbia and UN special adviser, agreed with Rubenstein that the economic and financial predominance of the U.S. ‘is fading.’"

"We have left a system centered in the U.S. for a multilateral one…"

"…’20 years of irresponsibility by the first part of the Bill Clinton administration and then that of George W. Bush,’ yielded to the pressures of Wall Street…"

"…the banks negotiated with ‘toxic assets2 to obtain easy money,’ Sachs explained."

"’The important thing now is to recognize the unprecedented challenge that supposes achieving sustainable economic development in line with the basic physical and biological rules of this planet’…"

On the other hand, the direct news from our delegation in Bangkok, capital of Thailand, was not at all encouraging:

"The essential issue being discussed – our minister of foreign affairs noted textually – is the ratification or not of the concept of shared but differentiated responsibilities between the industrialized countries and the so-called emerging economies, basically China, Brazil, India and South Africa, and the underdeveloped countries.

"China, Brazil, India, South Africa, Egypt, Bangladesh, Pakistan and the ALBA are the most active. In general terms, the majority of the Group of 77, are holding to firm and correct positions.

"Figures being negotiated for the reduction of carbon emissions do not correspond to those calculated by scientists for keeping temperature increases to a level below 2 degrees Celsius, 25-40%. At this point, negotiations are moving around a reduction of 11-18%.

"The United States is not making any real effort. It is only accepting a 4% reduction in relation to the year 1990."

In the morning of today, October 9, the world awoke to the news that the "good Obama" of the enigma explained by the Bolivarian President Hugo Chávez at the United Nations, has received the Nobel Peace prize. I do not always agree with the positions of that institution but I am obliged to acknowledge at this moment in time, that – in my view – it was a positive measure. It compensates for the setback that Obama suffered in Copenhagen when Rio de Janeiro and not Chicago was chosen as the venue for the 2016 Olympics, which prompted irate attacks from the extreme right.

Many people will say that he has not as yet won the right to receive such a distinction. We would like to see in the decision, more than a prize to the president of the United States, a criticism of the genocidal policy followed by more than a few presidents of that country, who have brought the world to the crossroads where it finds itself today; an exhortation to peace, and the search for solutions that will lead to the survival of the species.



Fidel Castro Ruz
October 9, 2009
6.11 p.m.

Translated by Granma International

granma.cu

Bahamas Blog Bahamas

How realistic is it for the Caribbean to join the G20?

By Dr Isaac Newton and Debbie Douglas:

In the Caribbean, schisms have opened up over such pressing issues as immigration, foreign policy agendas, borrowing from the IMF, implementation of the Caribbean Court of Justice, viability of the Caribbean Single Market Economy, and leadership clarity over regional direction.

More worrisome are: inadequate critical discussions on national and regional issues over the development of the region, preferred worldview that excellence is imported and things foreign are superior, and threats over sub-regional and regional splits on South American alliances.

But excluded from serious public debates are priorities such as ecological security, fiscal scare, die-hard poverty and rising debt. The paradox is that year after year, the Caribbean spends wasteful resources on conferences that do not yield positive outcomes.

Yet, in this climate, some conscientious political analysts and social scholars attempt to differentiate local realities from global trends. They are on a mission to decipher where points of intersection could help clarify, the key variables needed for the Caribbean to forge its own success pathway.

Against this wider backdrop, former Antigua and Barbuda diplomat, Sir Ron Sanders has written two articles: “Can the Caribbean rely on the G20?" and "Who is listening when the Caribbean speaks?”

We have read Sir Ron Sanders’ admirable endeavors to support Caribbean leaders by articulating why they should be given a place at the table where decisions that affect them, directly and indirectly, are made. Such places include the G20, the IMF, and the World Bank.

We know that the Caribbean has played a significant historical role in providing resources that European countries and the USA used to catapult their societies into advanced economies. We are aware also that the Caribbean continues to advance ideals of democracy, with geographic strategic value for Europe and North America. From this angle, we resonate with Sanders’ righteous anger, for rallying against wrongheaded attitudes that arrogantly dismiss the Caribbean and arbitrarily victimizes poor regions.

We particularly embrace Sanders’ enormous optimism, and praise his outstanding passion for envisioning the Caribbean as qualified to enter into the G20 circle. But we are aware of the dizzying nature of how unlikely his goals are to be attained. Added to that, is the unsentimental cost of the possibility of being slighted by the major powers of the world.

There is a difference between a coconut tree and a lamp post-- both are firmly planted in the ground-- one has roots but the other does not. In the same way, Sanders’ desire may be exceedingly earnest but his declaration appears incredibly inaccurate. For the Caribbean to execute its lofty goal of achieving G20 status, it must be willing to put vital steps in place to get there.

At best, Sanders’ articles contribute to our understanding of how geo-politics and ethics are deeply connected to our conceptions of sustainable development and identify. At worst, his ideas illustrate how the Caribbean itself, fails to create added value to penetrate world shaping institutions like the World Bank, the IMF and the G20.

First, the G20 nations deliberately set up structures to protect self interests; they are not too much concerned with building bridges or even recognizing how their fate and the Caribbean’s destiny are interlinked. When shoring up their faltering economies, being charitable towards the Caribbean, is the last thing on their minds.

Second, the very nature of G20 is discriminatory. It is designed for well developed and highly integrated economies both to support each other and to superimpose their collective financial agendas on the rest of the world. The Caribbean’s economies are too meager and far too insignificant to be considered worthy of inclusion.

Third, although ‘a little leak can sink a big ship’, Caricom seems inept, to reverse president Jean Bertrand Aristide’s ousting, when outside powers, unseated a democratically elected leader, from amongst its rank. It took an African country to offer him a place of refuge.

Fourth, until the Caribbean gets its strategic intelligence, market integration, immigration freedom, and innovative educational practices act together, our future seems dismal. Caribbean leaders must concentrate on internally derived development solutions, and on the capacity to ignite the genius of its people, both at home and abroad, to facilitate its growth. Since these dynamics are not in place, why should the most powerful countries in the world, listen to the Caribbean or take our issues seriously?

The fact that so much is at stake, yet we continue to fight ever so often, over narrow terrain of resources and interests, knowing full well, that such infighting has dire consequences for our collective future, suggests that our moral compass is not set in the direction of self-empowerment.

We have our internal work cut out for us, and maybe feelings of being flatly ignored, is a clarion call to explore possibilities for sustainable unity, which is essential for regional advancement.

Perhaps the time to shift strategy and begin to rethink, how to fashion our destiny, from the inside out, while not dismissing the supreme value of finding relevant global partners, to harness mutually beneficial interests, has come.

Sanders’ highly ambitious enterprise, and remarkably, in these difficult economic and social times, places the cart before the horse. Therefore, we read his unique advocacy, more as an investment in encouragement, than as a signature of regional readiness and achievement.

The sentiments in his articles imply that our self-promoting agendas, (we can’t even get the China/Taiwan issue straight) that foster regional hierarchies and that work counter to the need to be critically conscious about the way forward, must be first clarified.

Invisibly and thence consciously, until we nurture a strong sense of ‘regionhood,’ which is indissolubly tied to the power of representation, we will be left out of important decision making processes.

Essentially, the Caribbean must find productive methods of listening to each other. We must speak with one voice by packaging indigenous issues in convincing frameworks to the G20, the World Bank and the IMF. This will increase our clout.

There is plenty of merit for the Caribbean wanting to have its own representation in international gatherings. We can no longer simply react to policies. We must provide intelligent input to shape and implement them. But to have our concerns addressed realistically, depends on our perceived and real weight.

For example, what are we bringing to the international table and how are we communicating added value? Do we have the leadership to build a sustainable regional economy to earn a place at the G20? Do we invite our most competent people to represent our views at the World Bank and the IMF?

No one will listen to us, if we continue to be disunited and needy. In short, we have a lot of growing to do, before we develop the capital to get the deference and high regard needed to wield influence on the global landscape. We wonder, what will quicken in our souls, given how far from the G20 mark we are, for us to realize that seven requests, of wanting to be included, do not an invitation make?

Ultimately, the Caribbean needs to cultivate a robust self-confidence to excel at prosperity-generating ideas. We must also learn to model a quest for excellence through virtues of mutual affirmation, cultural creativity, justice and fairness, critique and rejuvenation.

In essence, the Caribbean must find strategies to ensure that its place in the global-mix is not compromised. Preserving our best cultural features, should involve arresting the attention of global players, in our pursuit of ambitious exploits.

While some amongst us are worrying about the big questions—like, ‘How to develop the Caribbean as a major world force?’ Caribbean leaders have smaller concerns to tackle—‘How to harness and unify the Caribbean’s best energies (human and natural) for its own survival?

Perhaps we must earn inclusion, before we demand it. We need to unite, define our regional interests, build our economies to attain G20 status, and carve out a strategy that advances our needs/wants effectively, to rightly gain the possibility of a place at the table.

Dr Isaac Newton, an international leadership and management consultant, is a graduate of Harvard, Princeton and Columbia, and Debbie Douglas, a legal analyst and government relations consultant, is a graduate of McGill University, Stockholm University and University of London.



caribbeannetnews

Bahamas Blog Bahamas

CARICOM Single Market and Economy (CSME) is working says Barbados' Prime Minister, David Thompson

By Gillian Applewhaite:

BRIDGETOWN, Barbados (BGIS) --

The CARICOM Single Market and Economy (CSME) is not working perfectly and is also not above suspicion, but it is working.

This view was expressed Friday by Barbados' Prime Minister, David Thompson, as he delivered the feature address at the opening ceremony of the Convocation on the CSME in Barbados.

Referring to a report of an appraisal conducted on the progress achieved by the 12 CSME Member States, Thompson said it indicated that the regimes for trade, capital and movement of persons were functioning under the Treaty.

He stressed that countries within CARICOM had differing capacities, unique governance structures and there was no "one size fits all formula".

"To be brutally frank, varying levels of commitment and emphasis on specific initiatives bedevil implementation in a consistent and timely manner. Ultimately, we are dealing with individuals, individual states and also cultural and social nuances," the Prime Minister stated.

He revealed that one of the findings of the Secretariat concerned the difference between the expressed commitment and full access to the rights expressed in the Revised Treaty.

Thompson said that this, along with other findings, suggested a capacity and communication deficit which regional governments needed to address, as a matter of priority, to ensure that obligations under the CSME were met.

"I raise these matters here because I believe this capacity constraint, and not disinterest in the CSME, is responsible for any examples of irregular application of the provisions across the Community.

"This is not to suggest that we are not to be held accountable for the failings, real or perceived, but rather to point us all to this key area for immediate attention," he noted.

The Prime Minister pointed out that the CSME was the region's main tool of regional development and had to be refined to ensure it delivered on CARICOM's goals.

He lamented the fact that the capacity constraints had been compounded by the sudden financial crisis, which engulfed the major economies of the world some 18 months ago.

"It is expected that each state will be preoccupied with national crisis management. That is why an even greater effort will be required to keep our CSME project on course.

"The integration of our 12 states has presented tensions and we must not ignore them. Not only do we have domestic priorities, which arise from the confluence of national and global developments, but the harmonisation of policies. Also, across key sectors of our economies, the Single Market has challenged the national economic systems," Thompson said.

With respect to the movement of people, the Prime Minister observed that it had "elicited vigorous responses from the length and breadth of our Community". He added: "And, it should excite debate as an effective Single Economy can only exist with the movement of its people. We must, however, be careful not to allow the excitement associated with a declaration of free movement of people - a principle to which we all ultimately agree - to eclipse the matter of balanced regional development."

October 12, 2009

caribbeannetnews

Mr Obama's Nobel Prize

There is much global debate, as the Nobel Peace Committee would have expected, over its award of this year's Peace Prize to US President Barack Obama, a mere nine months into office and with the nominations having closed only weeks of Mr Obama formally taking up the job.

Beyond the uncharitable nastiness of the responses of some of Mr Obama's virulent critics on the American right, who allow political partisanship to trump decency and goodwill, there are those, even among the president's supporters, who argue, with cogency and legitimacy, that the prize may be premature. Mr Obama, it is felt, does not as yet have concrete achievements in any of his initiatives towards a sustainable global peace.

This newspaper is not hostile to those who hold such a position, but appreciates the decision by the Nobel Peace Committee on two fronts: first, as a repudiation of the Bush doctrine of America's iron-fisted, unilateralist exertion of its power and second, and more important, an investment in the promise of Barack Obama. Indeed, it is not uncommon for the Nobel Committee to use the prestige of the Peace Prize to bring attention and impetus to important issues, as was the case with its award to the former US vice president for his efforts in combating global warming.

In fact, the Nobel Committee signalled as much in its citation. Not only did it note the US president's "extraordinary effort to strengthen international diplomacy and co-operation between peoples", but his place as an inspirational figure.

"Very rarely has a person, to the same extent as Obama, captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future," the committee said.

rekindling hope

And therein lies the substance of the award: the rekindling of hope, and for a world beyond a single polity.

Perhaps the most critical factor so far in the debate is Mr Obama's apparent appreciation of the intent of the Nobel Prize: as the world's downpayment on his leadership of an America reintegrated into a world of multilateralism, where its might is best displayed by its power of persuasion and the correctness of its values rather than swagger of its gait or the show of its "iron".

"I do not view it (the Nobel Peace Prize) as a recognition of my own accomplishments," Mr Obama said, "but rather, an affirmation of American leadership on behalf of aspirations held by people in all nations."

This is where Mr Obama's job becomes difficult - the need to balance global responsibilities against the contending arguments of domestic political constituents, including a substantial minority, who views as effete and weak the administration's emerging foreign policy of broader international engagement.

In this regard, Mr Obama may find in the Nobel Prize, and the legitimacy it affords, a fillip for the initiatives that he has promoted, not least being a just peace in the Middle East, including a viable Palestinian state.

He may find it easier to pursue nuclear non-proliferation, without undermining the rights of perceived enemies to the peaceful use of nuclear energy, while at the same time finding a credible formula for ending America's conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan without weakening US security.

And as he does these things, he has to set right America's wobbling economy. For around the corner will be the critics who will claim that Mr Obama's response is to the wrong constituency.

October 11, 2009

jamaica-gleaner

Bahamas Caribbean Blog International

UN human rights experts raise concern over growing use of foreign mercenaries in Honduras

A group of independent United Nations experts voiced concern today over the influx of foreign mercenaries in Honduras since the Central American nation’s President was deposed in a military coup in June.

The experts have received reports of the recruitment of former Colombian paramilitaries to protect properties and individuals in Honduras from violence between supporters of the ousted President José Manuel Zelaya and the de facto Government.

Land owners in Honduras have hired some 40 ex-fighters from the former armed group, Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia (AUC), since Mr. Zelaya was removed from power on 28 June, according to the UN Working Group on the use of mercenaries.

In addition, the Working Group said that other sources report an armed group of 120 mercenaries originating from several countries in the region was formed to support the coup in Honduras.

“There are also allegations of indiscriminate use of ‘Long Range Acoustic Devices’ by the police and mercenaries against President Zelaya and his supporters who have taken refuge at the Embassy of Brazil,” the experts said in a news release.

“We urge the Honduran authorities to take all practical measures to prevent the use of mercenaries within its territory and to fully investigate allegations concerning their presence and activities,” they added.

The experts noted that the recruitment, use, financing and training of mercenaries is prohibited under the International Convention on the issue, which Honduras has signed, stressing the right of Hondurans to decide how they want to be governed without the influence of any other entity.

The Working Group on the use of mercenaries as a means of violating human rights and impeding the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination was established in 2005 by the Commission on Human Right, which has since been succeeded by the Human Rights Council.

It comprises five experts serving in their personal capacities. They are: Shaista Shameem of Fiji, Najat al-Hajjaji of Libya, Amada Benavides de Pérez of Colombia, José Luis Gómez del Prado of Spain and Alexander Nikitin of Russia.

9 October 2009

UN News

Bahamas Blog Bahamas

Who's listening when the Caribbean speaks?

By Ronald Sanders:

In Turkey, where meetings of the IMF and the World Bank were held during the week of October 4th, Caribbean Finance Ministers raised with the First Deputy Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund, John Lipsky, their concerns about “the need for better representation and participation of small, developing countries in key meetings and fora such as the G20, where decisions that can significantly impact these small economies are frequently made”.

But, Caribbean representation in the already overcrowded G20 will not happen without a strong case being made and accepted by governments currently at the table.

Similarly, much needed reform of the IMF and World Bank to benefit the Caribbean appears remote.

At the Bank/Fund meetings, the President of Guyana, Bharat Jagdeo, as current Chairman of CARICOM, led a team of Prime Ministers from the Bahamas, Barbados and St Lucia to make a case to the President of the World Bank, Robert Zoellick, that special attention should be paid to relieving and restructuring the debt of the highly indebted, vulnerable, middle income countries of the region.

And, Barbados Prime Minister, David Thompson, speaking at the formal meeting was emphatic that “limited access to World Bank funding has forced many middle income Caribbean countries to borrow in the private capital markets at substantially higher rates and shorter repayment terms”. Mr Thompson recommended that “further consideration be given to this issue of access by middle income countries to financing from the multilateral financial institutions.”

All of this is right. The entire Caribbean region is facing a serious reversal of its economic and social progress arising from a number of factors. It is true that one of the significant factors is poor economic management and decision-making by some of their governments, and this is a concern that Caribbean countries must themselves address.

The external factors are also real. Not least among them is the point raised by both Jagdeo and Thompson that the classification of Caribbean states as middle-income countries disqualifies them from concessionary financing from the international financial institutions and forces them into the commercial market for borrowing.

But, is anyone really listening? The moment for effective reform of international institutions is fast receding. Those industrialised nations that pledged themselves to reform in the wake of last year’s financial crisis are quickly retreating from their pledges as their economies begin to pick-up. The creation of the G20 and the provision of some additional resources to the IMF appear now to be the most they will do.

The new resources for the IMF are insufficient and, in any case, are not targeted to middle income countries such as those in the Caribbean; they are focussed on low income countries and on bigger countries such as those in Europe and Mexico.

A so called Flexible Credit Line has been introduced by the IMF “for countries with very strong fundamentals, policies, and track records of policy implementation”. Caribbean countries will not qualify for among the criteria are: a track record of steady sovereign access to international capital markets at favourable terms, and sound public finances including a sustainable public debt position.

Why these criteria should be relevant instead of ones that recognise the need to stimulate stagnant economies and provide support for social welfare programmes speaks to the anachronistic role of the IMF which still operates as an agency of the victors of World War 11, despite all the rhetoric.

As for the World Bank, the Turkey meeting deferred any increase in its capital until next year. Therefore, the Bank is faced with a limited lending capacity, and in this scenario, countries such as those in the Caribbean that are designated middle-income are not a priority.

Caribbean Heads of Government and Finance Ministers raising their concerns with Heads of the International Financial Institutions and in the formal sessions of the Bank/Fund meetings was absolutely right. They do not get much chance to do so, Caribbean countries have no seat of their own on the Boards of these bodies where they are represented by Canada. And, while Canada may be a sympathetic ally, there is no substitute for authentic argument from high representatives of Caribbean countries themselves.

In this connection, the prospect of any reform of the international financial institutions that would benefit the Caribbean in terms both of representation at the highest levels and change in IMF conditionalites and World Bank criteria for concessionary financing, does not appear to be on the cards anytime soon.

This is why Caribbean countries should adopt a collective and cohesive approach to this issue devoting resources to a joint and continuous diplomatic effort to put their case forcefully to the international community at every opportunity.

It is well within the region’s capacity to establish a task force of public sector and private sector professionals, under the umbrella of a special unit of the CARICOM Secretariat, to undertake this task. The task force could be mandated to produce documentation with all the necessary rigour for presentation to the Boards of the International Financial Institutions and to influential governments. Much of this work has already been done by a group established last year under Caribbean Development Bank President, Compton Bourne.

In turn, high regional representatives led by one or other of available Heads of Government could be appointed to engage the international community in an intense campaign on the basis of a well-debated and agreed CARICOM strategy.

The Commonwealth Heads of Government Conference in Trinidad in November presents a unique opportunity to make the Caribbean case to five Heads of Government of G20 countries – Australia, Britain, Canada, India and South Africa. They may not get far with Australia and Britain, but India and South Africa with whom they have close links, and Canada with whom they share a common neighbourhood should listen.

The Commonwealth Secretariat has itself done a great deal of work on small states and reform of International Financial Institutions. The November Commonwealth Summit, therefore, is an excellent forum for the Caribbean to advance a cohesive campaign.

October 9, 2009

caribbeannetnews

Bahamas Blog Bahamas