University of the West Indies (UWI) and PhDs

UWI and PhDs

By Oliver Mills

It was reported in the Jamaica Gleaner newspaper of October 14, 2010, that professor Paget Henry of Brown University in the United States, who is Antiguan born, stated that it is critical for the UWI to graduate more PhDs to teach students at degree granting colleges that are emerging throughout the Caribbean.

The professor stated that the areas should be Caribbean history, sociology, political science, economics, literature and the arts.   He added that this self knowledge could only come from artists and scholars trained at the UWI.

But what is the professor really suggesting?  Is he intimating that these emerging degree granting institutions lack sufficiently well qualified lecturers in these areas?  Again, is he saying that a masters degree or a post graduate specialist diploma are insufficient to teach at the level of these degree granting institutions?  Or, is he stating that the UWI needs to, and is not graduating sufficient PhD students, and therefore needs to increase the completion and graduation rates of PhD students?

On the surface, this suggestion appears quite straight forward, but on close examination it is highly complex, as well as quite revealing concerning not only what is being done, but what should be done.  It also implies that the degree granting institutions have sufficient persons with masters degrees, but what is now badly needed is more people with PhD qualifications.  This is far from being the case, since many degree granting institutions do not have every staff member with a masters qualification, even though many may be working towards achieving this credential.

The further factor is that many degree granting institutions in the Caribbean only offer first degrees.  Very few offer masters qualifications, unless it is done in collaboration with institutions within or outside the Caribbean.  So what seems to be initially required, is to improve the quality of the first degree, so that it articulates with the higher requirements of other institutions abroad, particularly for persons pursuing higher studies.   This is very important, since many students from some Caribbean institutions who go to schools in the United States, often have to either repeat the first degree, do make up courses, or spend an additional year, and score a particular grade, before they are accepted into the programme of their choice, even if their first degree is in the particular area.

I know personally of a Caribbean student who went to a North American institution with an upper second class honours degree in library science, but was told that her course concentration was insufficient to gain direct entry.  She had to do a number of undergraduate courses over the period of a year, before her first degree was recognized as equivalent to that offered by this institution.   The issue seemed to be that since the first degree in the Caribbean took three years, the degree at the foreign institution was a four year programme.  After completing the additional year, the Caribbean student was allowed to enter the masters programme in library science.  It means that some Caribbean institutions have to examine their first degrees in terms of equivalency with that of other institutions.  We live in a global society that is highly competitive and connected, and so we need our institutions to offer qualifications that are accepted globally, and not just in the island where they are, or in the region.

There are also cases where Caribbean students with masters degrees who have applied to certain North American institutions to doctoral work in the area of their masters, were required by the institution they had applied to, to redo their masters programme, because it was not regarded as being at the level acceptable by that institution.   Even in a certain European university, students with a first degree from their home institution who applied to do a masters programme were told they had first to do a post graduate diploma in the area with a “B” average, before they could be accepted, and those with masters who wanted to do a doctorate were told they had to do either the M.Phil. first, or do one year of this programme, and present an acceptable research paper of a particular quality, before being considered for a doctoral programme.

The whole issue here, is that before we can talk of graduating more PhDs, we in the Caribbean have first to critically and systematically look at our first degree and masters programmes in terms of global equivalency, so that when our students apply abroad to other institutions, they would not have to spend additional time and money repeating what they thought they already had in the bag.  Degree granting colleges in the Caribbean therefore need to buck up, and look not only at the commercial aspect of their programmes, but their international currency.    An important feature of their programmes should be what the student, after pursuing a course of studies is capable of doing.  Does the programme fit appropriately with the job market and requirement of the wider society?  And, does the programme ensure that the student would have acquired entrepreneurial knowledge and skills to not only qualify for a job, but to create and innovate new products and services to the benefit of the economy and society?

When the professor used the term ‘graduating more PhDs’ it gives the impression of the UWI being a factory, which churns out products, where, irrespective of quality control, still come out with certain defects, such as the student not being equipped with the right match of performance skills, along with not being educated with respect to how to transfer knowledge fit for purpose.   It is not simply a matter of graduating more PhDs, but giving students a quality education reflected in a PhD.  This means that supervisors of students must be highly credentialed, and must have published widely in local, regional and international journals.  It also means that the work produced must be either highly original, or there is a creative reinterpretation of work already in the market, providing a new and different perspective, which not only adds further weight to the area, but gives it a new and transformative applicability. It is not a rehash, or a commentary.

Furthermore, when professor Henry says that the areas should be Caribbean history, the social sciences, literature and the arts, and adds that self-knowledge could only come from artists and scholars trained at the UWI, he misses the point and purpose of education completely.   Education aims at a transfiguration of the human personality through the quality of the subject areas.  It seeks to create thinkers, open-mindedness, and a cultured and humane people.  What the professor does not say is how these areas would meet the criteria just suggested.  He seems to be saying that more PhDs should be awarded in these areas.  But why these, as opposed to others?  Is this a reflection of his bias for these areas?   Of the PhDs awarded in these areas, how have they helped the Caribbean economy and society?  Have they given the emerging degree granting institutions further status and pull, with respect to students’ interest and competence?  What about management studies?   How many persons who have already done a PhD in any of the areas mentioned by the professor, have opted to work at these institutions?

When the professor further mentions that self-knowledge can only come from artists and scholars trained at the UWI, he fails to realize that self-knowledge is personal, based on the interactions of the individual with society, how he or she interprets these, and the responses that are given.   You do not acquire self-knowledge from others.  It is an individual, psychological thing that emerges from our transactions within the environment and not from entities external to us who bestow it on us.  Artists and scholars can provide insights, based on their own analysis, but they cannot infuse self-knowledge into us.   Self-knowledge is authentic to us.   To also say these have to be trained at the UWI, is the ultimate fallacy.  Any genuine institution anywhere which exposes us to the best that has be thought and taught, qualifies to facilitate the development of our intuitions, but not award us self-knowledge as the professor seems to think.

I am sure after further reflection, the professor would enhance his perspective on the issues he has promulgated, and arrive at a conclusion that is more rational, informed, and objective.

October 21, 2010

caribbeannewsnow

The Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) needs two justices, including a president

CCJ needs two justices, including a president

by Oscar Ramjeet

The Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) has been in operation for five-and-a-half years as a final appellate court, with only three countries on board, and already it is on the hunt for a new president and another judge, and one has already retired.

Guyanese Duke Pollard reached the age of 75 and went into retirement after being given a three-year extension.

President Michael De La Bastide, who celebrated his 73rd birthday on July 18 this year, will go into retirement mid-next year and the CCJ has already placed advertisements in the region’s media inviting applicants who have served as a judge for five years or more in a court of unlimited jurisdiction in civil and criminal matters in the region, the Commonwealth or in a civil law jurisdiction.

Applicants are also being encouraged from persons who have been engaged as a practitioner or teacher of law for not less than 15 years in a member state of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) or in some part of the Commonwealth or in a civil law jurisdiction.

The CCJ notes that the tenure of the president is for a "non renewable term of seven years or until age 72, whichever is earlier.”

The lone female judge in the regional court, Desiree Bernard, will be 72, and if she does not get an extension, the CCJ will have to get a replacement and the question is if the Regional Judicial and Legal Services Commission will look for another female to fill the slot held by Justice Bernard who had several firsts -- the first solicitor to be appointed a judge, the first female to be appointed a judge in Guyana, first female to be an appellate court judge, also chief justice, and the first woman to be head of the judiciary in the Caribbean when she was named Chancellor of the Judiciary in Guyana more than a decade ago.

The regional court has the most modern technology in several areas -- for video conferencing, research, and even presentation in court -- and it is very unfortunate that after such a relatively long time only three countries have joined the court. It seems to me that the other countries have breached their agreement with the Caribbean Development Bank since they agreed to go on board within a reasonable time.

Although most of the countries have not abolished appeals to the Privy Council, so that the CCJ can be their final appellate court, the CCJ can still determine their issues in its original jurisdiction.

I am surprised and disappointed with Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago because these two countries were in the forefront in the late 1980s and early 1990s towards the setting up of the court. I recall the attorneys general of these two countries, Oswald Harding of Jamaica, and Selwyn Richardson (now deceased) of Trinidad and Tobago, were moving around the region lobbying governments to join the CCJ, and it is unfortunate those two countries have not yet done so.

Trinidad and Tobago’s new prime minister, Kamla Persad Bissessar, said that she will seek a referendum from the electorate before doing so. This is a bit baffling because it was the UNC administration under Basdeo Panday which was pushing for the court -- hence the reason why the court is located in Port of Spain.

Former Commonwealth Secretary General, Sir Shridath Ramphal, who has been advocating Caribbean integration for five decades, said in an interview with me that, if the CCJ collapses, the CARICOM Single Market and Economy (CSME) will fail.

Ramphal joined with four other eminent CARICOM nationals, former Jamaica prime minister, PJ Patterson; former CARICOM secretary general, Alister McIntyre; Dominica's president, Nicholas Liverpool; and University of the West Indies Vice Chancellor Sir George Alleyne, all recipients of the Order of the Caribbean Community (OCC), the highest award in the region, in calling on the other regional governments to rid themselves of the Privy Council and join the appellate jurisdiction of the CCJ.

The latest call for the other regional governments to join the CCJ came this week from another distinguished Caribbean jurist, Patrick Robertson, president of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, who said that the regional governments should have abolished appeals to the Privy Council since the day they became independent states.

So far, only Guyana, Barbados, and Belize have abolished appeals to the Privy Council. Let’s hope that the others will soon come on board.

October 19, 2010

caribbeannewsnow

Chile mine rescue exposes precarious working conditions

By Rafael Azul


The collapse of the San Jose gold and copper mine that trapped 33 miners for 10 weeks 2,300 feet below ground has focused attention on the safety of operations at Chilean mines.

Over the past 30 years, the mining industry, which accounts for 40 percent of Chile’s gross domestic product, has profited from the high price of copper, gold and other commodities while keeping costs low by neglecting safety and accelerating the exploitation of its mining workforce.

Before the mine collapse, the San Jose mine was a relatively small underground operation, which extracted gold and copper. Annual revenues at the mine exceeded US$20 million. As a result of the latest collapse, the San Sebastian Group, which operates San Jose, filed for bankruptcy in September. This move places a question mark over the company’s ability to provide the compensation it has promised to the trapped miners, plus back wages owed to the other 300 workers at the mine.

In fact, the San Sebastian Group is demanding that the Chilean government first unfreeze US$10 million in assets as a condition for compensating the miners, effectively holding hostage the compensation owed the workers in its dispute with the government.

News reports indicate that the miners and their families are suing the mine owners and the Chilean government for US$27 million over conditions in the mine. Brunilda Gonzalez, mayor of the town of Caldera, located near the mine, reported that the miners and their families are “furious” that the San Jose mine was reopened in May 2008 with no improvements in safety following the death of a mine geologist in 2007.

The reopening of the mine, with no improvements to safety, was justified then as a response to increasing Chinese demand for copper and gold. Under these conditions, both the government of then president Michelle Bachelet, and the San Sebastian Group management, concluded that the lives of miners were a small price to pay relative to the expectation of high profits.

While mining in Chile is generally dangerous, this mine in particular has a history of mining accidents that have killed and injured workers. In 2004, the miners union petitioned for the closure of the mine over its dismal safety record. The petition was driven by the death of miner Pedro Gonzalez from a rock fall. The union’s demand was denied by a Chilean appeals court. In 2007, before the closure of the mine, workers at the mine once again petitioned for its closure, following the death of three miners. Once again, the petition was denied by the courts.

Earlier this year, in July, falling rocks at San Jose severely injured a miner, Gino Cortez, whose leg had to be amputated. Cortez maintained that elementary safety measures, such as installing a safety wire mesh on the roof of the mine to prevent rocks from falling, were never undertaken. While the 33 miners were waiting to be rescued at San Jose, another worker was killed by falling rocks at a separate mine.

The San Jose mine incident exemplifies what has happened to mine safety in Chile since the dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet. Under Pinochet, in the name of regulation and free market capitalism, virtually all safety regulations were dismantled. A key player in that process was current president Sebastian Pinera’s older brother, Jose Pinera, minister of labor in 1980. Jose Pinera was tasked with creating a labor code that would not interfere with big business profits. In the name of a more flexible labor code that would stimulate economic growth, he abolished labor rights that had been won through decades of bitter struggle by the Chilean working class.

The labor code established in 1980 continues to be the law of the land in Chile today. As a result, fully 50 percent of Chile’s working class has no stable employment. At least five of the 33 miners rescued from San Jose fall under this category.

In line with this policy, which ignores mine safety and denies workers their basic rights, a succession of “Concertación” governments, in which the Socialist Party has shared power with the Christian Democracy since the end of the dictatorship, the Chilean government has yet to ratify the International Labor Organization’s 1995 agreement on mine health and safety. Convention 176 commits mining nations such as Peru, Mexico and Chile to undertake a modicum of health and safety measures and to commit themselves to the elimination of mine deaths by creating a national policy on health and safety, which includes regular inspections as well as provisions to protect miners from retaliation from exposing violations.

The latter is a real problem in Chile, where workers are routinely sacked for complaining about their working conditions. Despite the inadequacy of the ILO agreement, only 24 countries have ratified it. In additional to Chile, the ILO agreement has been ignored by other major mining nations such as Australia, Canada and Russia.

Since the turn of the century, some 350 miners have died from mine accidents in Chile, a number that may well be an underestimation. According to Dick Blin, a spokesman for the International Federation of Chemical, Energy, Mine and General Workers’ Unions (ICEM), worldwide some 12,000 miners die every year, well above official figures. The under-reporting of mine fatalities is most glaring at small mines, such as the one at San Jose.

In a radio interview, Marco Canales, president of the Chilean Labor Federation (CUT), pointed out that the labor rules that were implemented in 1980 by Jose Pinero are still in effect. Canales said that the country lacks minimal mining regulations. He pointed out that health and safety violations are also rampant in agriculture, where workers are subjected to dangerous chemicals.

Even in cases where regulations exist, they are poorly enforced and when a violation is discovered, mine management often finds it cheaper to pay fines than to fix the problem. This applies as well to mine violations that result in injuries or deaths. Canales also pointed out that there is insufficient training for miners. Two of the 33 miners rescued at San Jose had been recently hired with no mining experience.

At the same time that the CUT denounces conditions in mining and other industries, it is silent about its own role. Over the last 20 years the CUT has been fully integrated into the structure of the Chilean state and as such has been largely incapable of bringing about the repeal of Pinochet’s labor laws.

In 2008, as the effects of the global financial crisis were affecting the price of copper and bringing about increasing unemployment, the CUT channeled working class anger into the blind alley of one-day protests, making it possible for the Chilean government to attack education and pension rights and to block increases in the minimum wage. Unemployment in Chile exceeds 8.5 percent, with a 20 percent jobless rate for young workers.

Such conditions make many Chilean workers highly skeptical of assurances by the Chilean government that changes will be implemented.

18 October 2010

wsws.org

Bahamas Blog International

The Commonwealth: No slippage from upholding human rights

By Sir Ronald Sanders





The following is an excerpt from a speech delivered by me to an Economic Forum at the Guildhall in the City of London held by the Commonwealth Business Council.

A British newspaper carried a story on October 10 suggesting that the Commonwealth Secretariat had abandoned its commitment to defending human rights. The newspaper based this story on a "leaked document" in which Commonwealth Secretary General Kamalesh Sharma is alleged to have told his staff it is not their job to speak out against abuses by the 54 member states.

The Secretariat responded publicly by saying: "There is no memo directing staff not to respond to reports of human rights abuses. There was an options paper for discussion among senior managers about how we could strengthen our human rights pronouncements and encourage the buy-in of member governments to address concerns."

Despite the Secretariat's firm statement, the story was picked up by a section of the media in Australia and has been the subject of a lively e-mail discourse among many people who are deeply concerned about the image and substance of the Commonwealth.

This question of human rights in the Commonwealth and the role of the secretary general have occupied the attention of the Eminent Persons Group (EPG) of which I am a member, as we fulfil a mandate from Heads of Government to produce a report that would strengthen the Commonwealth and make it fit for purpose in the decades to come.

The EPG has focused some attention on the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG), which was established to protect Commonwealth values and principles and to take action against member states that indulged in serious or persistent violations of them.

Like many others throughout the Commonwealth, the EPG has been concerned that, thus far, CMAG has acted only when there has been an unconstitutional overthrow of a government, but has not dealt with other serious or persistent violations of other declared core values of the Commonwealth.

The EPG would like to see further empowerment of CMAG to take up the full gamut of its remit.

We are aware that CMAG has been reviewing its own work and that it has developed a position, but in considering our own view of CMAG, while we will take CMAG's review into account, we will not consider ourselves bound by it.

As people outside the day-to-day interplay between governments, we feel we can bring a level of distance and independence to the scope of the work that CMAG should be undertaking, and we can suggest objective criteria by which its scrutiny of a member state should be triggered.

We regard the secretary general's "good offices" role as equally important in relation to violations of Commonwealth declared principles.

Prevention is better than cure.

But we recognise that this role is under-resourced and requires not only wider machinery to alert the secretary general to potential problems, but also a mechanism that goes beyond government permission, to set the machinery in motion.

In other words, action by the secretary general to employ his 'good offices' role to correct infractions of the Commonwealth core values should be undertaken within member states automatically and should not have to await the agreement of the government concerned.

However, there needs to be a clear understanding of what we mean by 'human rights'.

In the Commonwealth, there are some organisations palpably more concerned with the wretchedness of the weak under despotic national regimes than they are with the degradation of the poor under inequitable international structures.

'Human rights' for these organisations means the former, not the latter.

But human rights in the Commonwealth must embrace both, and do so with equal passion.

The Commonwealth must see its commitment to the universality of human rights as including strong opposition to the denial of civil and political rights anywhere in the Commonwealth.

The Commonwealth will lose its credibility if it abstained on such human rights denials or was thought to be indifferent to their emergence within its member countries.

In this regard, we will likely recommend that, as the chief executive officer of the Commonwealth Secretariat, the secretary general should immediately speak up publicly when there are serious violations of the Commonwealth's core values.

In making this recommendation, we will not be breaking new ground; we will simply be reiterating and reinforcing a principle long established.

The issue that clouds a clear Commonwealth posture on this matter is that of 'interference in internal affairs'.

But there is a difference between meddling and taking an honourable stand, and the latter must not be avoided where human rights violations are so gross or systemic that the line against 'meddling' has been crossed.

The Commonwealth confronted this issue over South Africa as early as 1960, and very specifically over Idi Amin and Uganda in 1977. In the latter case, even the UN Human Rights Commission stalled in condemning the Amin Regime on arguments about 'interfering in internal affairs'.

At the 1977 Commonwealth Summit, the Commonwealth was strong in its condemnation. After the Commonwealth had condemned Amin, the UN HRC followed suit.

I think it is true to say that all of the members of the EPG are convinced that the Commonwealth's business as much as business in the Commonwealth will be conducted in much larger measure and with far greater economic benefits if human rights, in the widest meaning of the term, are respected and upheld throughout its member states.

And let me say with no fear of contradiction that Secretary General Kamalesh Sharma shares this view with the EPG.

We are convinced that problems of poverty, inadequate health and sanitation, education and infrastructural development are most effectively and sustainably addressed within a framework of democracy and good governance.

Upholding human rights in the broadest understanding of this term must remain central to the Commonwealth's activities.


Responses and previous commentaries at: www.sirronaldsanders.com

Sir Ronald Sanders is a consultant and former Caribbean diplomat.

October 17, 2010

jamaicaobserver

Bahamas Blog International

Kamla and the Caricom serpent, Brady fights back, OCG, red mud

BY FRANKLIN JOHNSTON





Caricom does not want Jamaicans to move freely in the islands.They don't want our homophobia, idle, lewd and violent conduct. We do not like it, why should they? The EU Directive on free movement to the UK landed in 2004 and by 2006 EU citizens were flocking to London. Trinis, Lucians, Bajans, etc, will move freely in Caricom - not us. As a group we are feared! Even the big US and UK can't cope with our offal, and to our chagrin they deport us daily! Caricom works well as friend, coordinator - CCJ, negotiations and "fluffy" things - not growth.

Caricom is becoming a beggar brand - lots of chat, jobs for old boys, no help for our economy or poverty. The core market is small, distant, and as we have half its people and debt we can sink it! Do the maths. We are a big market for them, they are a small market for us. Will the advocates say how CSME will help us? Can we entrust CSME with our economic future? No! We know little of CSME. Will chairman Bruce publish the accounts now? Caricom is not transparent - there's no freedom of information and CSME is flawed. What works in Europe may not work here. Caricom needs a "root and branch" review of all operations, structures, governance and the 1962 and 1973 premises which underpin it. We need to see figures before we cough up more money. We invested 38 years and billions. Where has the money gone?

What's with Minister Tufton and the JMA? Why lobby PM Kamla Persad-Bissessar to make Trinis pay 10 times what they now pay for energy so JMA can export there? What if Kamla asked Bruce to put up the water bill so she can sell us some? The iniquitous light bills we hate, we want Kamla to lay on Trinis! This would raise energy and all other prices for Trinis! A wicked, grudgeful, badminded and stupid act; she must raise prices for her people so we can make a profit! The real politics of poverty - we won't rise to the challenge, so we try to bring Trinis down to suffer with us - voila, we are equal! Is this unity? Friendship? No! We must stop whingeing. Get productivity up, costs down, or lobby Bruce to forgo the same revenue that Kamla forgoes to give her people a break. They see our true colours! Screw Trinis so we can get ahead - I weep for CSME! Scotland gets benefits from its North Sea gas. No UK or EU member protests. It's their gas. Scottish patriots even want to cut ties so they can get the full benefit for their people. Will T&T leave CSME? With friends like us they need no enemies! Tufton and the JMA must lobby the US and UK to raise energy prices for their citizens; tell China to pay workers a living wage so we can compete with them? "Duppy know who to frighten!" Kamla, as a UWI graduate, educator and lawyer, please "run dem bwoy" and let them know "Jancro chrisen 'im pickney firs'!" Selah!

The Maastricht treaty in 1992 took the EU to its present state. CSME will introduce EU-type controls by stealth, but it does not have the frisson of contiguous states, unity in war or wealth to make it work. EU law is superior to its members' laws via the issue of Regulations - binding and applicable with no variation; Directives - the local law must be changed in a given time and its Court of Justice - rulings are binding on individuals and countries. We had the CCJ, now the Council of Ambassadors; we are getting there.

Last week saw Directives to the UK that all EU citizens must have equal rights to housing, health care, employment and benefits in the UK as UK citizens. This will cost UK taxpayers a bomb and new Directives arrive every day. France is told not to deport Roma (gypsies) despite their disruptive behaviour! Can you imagine CSME ordering us not to deport Haitians or to give them free housing and other benefits? Or direct T&T to raise fuel prices to its citizens so Jamaicans can profit? Riot and revolution! CSME is taking supra national control by stealth and we must stop them. CSME is good politics but bad economics. The EU Directive on caged birds in the UK means farmers must buy new "enriched cages" by 2012 to give hens more space - a multi-million pound sterling investment. English eggs will cost more and they can do nothing. CSME must not be allowed to restrict, impair, pre-empt, limit, dictate or control any aspect of our economy. It is a power trip and a trough of foreign loans and grants. What is our share of Caricom debt? Will Governor Wynter tell us? More anon. My Caricom whistleblower is fearful. CSME's agenda is control, not growth. Does it have top business brains as Gordon Shirley's? No! We must vet the new secretary general; if a businessman, we have hope; an international or local civil servant and its politics! Our economic future still lies with our Greater Antilles neighbours whose markets are close and 10 times larger than Caricom's.

OCG: The "politics plot" to erode the OCG's credibility is being played out slowly but relentlessly. I admire the DPP, yet she gave comfort to the plotters by being triumphalist rather than demure and professional. Tufton and his PS know better. The wrongheaded media think it's a contest. Their duties are different. OCG proposes and the DPP decides if the three "horse-taring man dem" with big lawyers should be jailed! Can you tell your bank you made a "genuine mistake" when you get papers, discuss them and sign them under oath with a JP? Wow! Boys, put on your "dunce cap" and sit in the corner!

BRADY: The Brady letter says who met Bruce, when, where, the brief, the money part and who told whom to hide the role of government. Brady is a heavyweight and can win but he will settle and save their skins! At least we know the truth.

RED MUD. I hope ODPEM is in Hungary to help and learn from the spill of bauxite offal. This toxic soup destroyed villages, killed people, spread its poison and they are now detoxing all tributaries into the Danube. The CEO of Mal Zrt, the bauxite firm, was also arrested. What a "prekeh"! Are there lessons for us? Stay conscious!

Dr Franklin Johnston is an international project manager with Teape-Johnston Consultants currently on assignment in the UK. franklinjohnston@hotmail.com

October 15, 2010

jamaicaobserver

Bahamas Blog International

My annual Columbus Day tribute

By Anthony L Hall


In 1492, Columbus sailed the ocean blue. When he landed he must’ve thought, phew. But where he landed, he hardly knew….

Of course, he thought he had landed in “the Indies”; so, in typical European (imperial) fashion, he named the (Caribbean) natives he met (er, I’m sorry, “discovered”) ashore “Indians”. The rest, as we say, is HIStory.

“They would make fine servants … With fifty men we could subjugate them all and make them do whatever we want.” (Medieval Sourcebook)

This entry from Columbus’s own journal shows what he intended to do from the outset with the hospitable and unsuspecting Tainos who greeted him upon his arrival. It’s only one of the many reasons why eminent historians are finally beginning to cast a critical, if not accusatory, eye at the hagiography his voyages have enjoyed throughout history.

Here, for example, is how Howard Zinn frames this corrected version of history in A People’s History of the United States 1492-Present:

“To emphasize the heroism of Columbus and his successors as navigators and discoverers, and to de-emphasize their genocide, is not a technical necessity but an ideological choice. It serves -- unwittingly -- to justify what was done… The easy acceptance of atrocities as a deplorable but necessary price to pay for progress (Hiroshima and Vietnam, to save Western civilization; Kronstadt and Hungary, to save socialism; nuclear proliferation, to save us all) -- that is still with us.”

All the same, Americans have been celebrating Columbus Day for centuries. Yet it wasn’t until 1971 that the US Congress declared the second Monday in October a federal holiday in honor of this sea-faring Italian.

Many other countries throughout the Americas, most notably here in the Caribbean, mark a similar holiday in his name. But a few of us just consider him a glorified pirate -- with apologies to Blackbeard … and to Captain Jack Sparrow.

October 15, 2010

caribbeannewsnow

Bahamas Blog International

The vulnerability of small states in the Commonwealth Caribbean

By Ian Francis



The vulnerability of small Caribbean states was first raised at the 1979 Commonwealth Heads of Government Conference in Lusaka, Zambia, by former prime minister of Grenada, Maurice Bishop. This matter had received overwhelming support from countries such as Australia, Canada, Guyana, Jamaica and a host of other Commonwealth nations at the conference.

So impressed by Grenada’s vision on this issue, then President Kenneth Kaunda of Zambia was in the process of planning a state visit to the Cooperative Republic of Guyana and immediately made the decision to include Grenada on his list for a state visit.

President Kaunda’s visit to Grenada came approximately six months after the March 13th revolution and, with the assistance of the protocol machinery from the Guyana Ministry of Foreign Affairs, President Kaunda visited Grenada and was deeply touched by the welcome he received. Though late, both former Prime Minister Forbes Burnham and Foreign Affairs Minister Rashleigh Jackson must be recognized for the role played by these two outstanding regionalists.

The recent government of Grenada saga with Taiwan’s Sewang, One World affair could have been avoided if the nation’s elected and appointed representatives were fully conversant with Taiwanese foreign policy tactics and desire in the Caribbean Commonwealth. It is not a hidden fact that Taiwan’s pursuit to secure a diplomatic beachhead in the region is waning, with mainland China forging ahead on its diplomatic, cultural and economic ties. This being the case, Taiwan will leave no stone unturned in order to compete with the mainland in the region.

It is quite evident that the state of Grenada had an established relationship with the Sewang Group dating back to 1993.During this period, Grenada and Taiwan had very strong diplomatic relations and Grenada was always seen as a regional Taiwanese base from which the Taiwanese conducted their diplomatic and other tactics to undermine mainland China.

Therefore, it was not surprising to see the signature of former Deputy Prime Minister Gregory Bowen on correspondence between Sewang and the government of Grenada that addressed potential private sector investments.

The recent contact by representatives of this pariah group with appointed and elected officials of the current government and the signing of a memorandum of understanding attest to the ongoing saga that has now erupted into close scrutiny and the attention of the Grenada public.

The memoranda of understanding (MOU) signed between the Taiwanese pariahs and the government of Grenada seems to be merely a document that expresses a convergence of will between two parties and outlines a plan of action for the future. It is abundantly clear that the MOU(s) currently being referred to are not a binding contractual agreement(s), although there are clear indications that the current government of Tillman Thomas was under the impression that things can happen “in the future”.

As a senior foreign service officer lamented, “It is shameful and embarrassing because officials in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs were not consulted. The MOF could have told Finance to tread cautiously due to our diplomatic relations with mainland China.”

With all of the above, these past and current situations stem from the ongoing vulnerability of small states like Grenada. Like many other small states in the global community, they are stricken with national debts; there is growing pressure and expectation of the population for the state to deal the socio-economic factors of its population and one of the key platforms for national development in these states is Foreign Investment.

Investment players are fully aware of these pressures and, given their deceitful and dishonest skills, they prey and pounce on small states, especially within the Caribbean Commonwealth, knowing full well of their vulnerability and the existing lack of appropriate tools that can be applied to weed out these global pariahs.

Dating back to 1967, shortly after statehood was granted by the United Kingdom and the election of the Grenada United Labour Party under Eric Gairy, many global pariahs arrived and offered all forms of goodies, which were never delivered. Similar occurrences took place during the ill-fated People’s Revolutionary Government of 1979-83. Unfortunately, many of the duped stories were not publicized due to the control of the media at the time.

The saga continued under the various coalition governments led by Blaize, Braithwaite and Brizan. While many of the foreign investor fallacies under these leaders were not published or exposed, sources that were close to these administrations have indicated that global pariahs were active but nothing materialized.

It is quite obvious that under the NNP-led administration, the situation became more atrophic, during which time the global pariahs extracted government guarantees at some local financial institutions and acquisition of prime properties. These situations occurred all under the desire of national development through foreign investment to address local socio-economic ills.

The recently elected Tillman Thomas administration continues to face such a dilemma and might have gone a little further to demonstrate to the population that they can get things better done than their predecessors. Hence, the Sewang One World affair has returned to haunt the current administration.

In my opinion, the Sewang World affair should be a further lesson to Caribbean Commonwealth nations. The advent of new technology tools which are being applied throughout the global community gives rise to additional schemes to which our vulnerable nations and people can become victims.

There are many across the global environment whose desire and exploration to prey on vulnerable small states are evident, they are quite skillful in locating and identifying local people with close political connections as their representatives.

Government officials must become more aware and develop the necessary transparent tools to circumvent and expose those who seek to exploit the situation.

Ian Francis resides in Toronto and writes frequently on Caribbean affairs. He was a former Assistant Secretary in the Grenada Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

October 13, 2010

caribbeannewsnow

Bahamas Blog International