Sir Hilary Beckles, Principal of the Cave Hill Campus of the University of the West Indies (UWI) ...wants Caribbean Community (CARICOM) countries to begin efforts aimed at seeking some form of reparation from Western countries ...for slavery

UWI principal wants CARICOM to seek reparation for slavery

The New York Carib News



GEORGETOWN, Guyana, CMC – Principal of the Cave Hill Campus of the University of the West Indies (UWI), Sir Hilary Beckles, wants Caribbean Community (CARICOM) countries to begin efforts aimed at seeking some form of reparation from Western countries for slavery.

Speaking at the first of a series of lectures to commemorate the 250th Anniversary of the 1763 Berbice Slave Revolt, Sir Hilary said an ongoing discussion was needed to address the issue and called for an “informed and sensible conversation” on what has been described as the, “Worst Crime against humanity”.

The lecture titled, “Britain’s Black Debt: reparations owed the Caribbean for Slavery and Indigenous Genocide”, examined the damage done and wealth created through the slave trade particularly by Britain. Sir Hilary said out that reparation is not about people getting handouts, but about repairing historical damage and how to find a way forward.

He said that while all races experienced some form of slavery, African slavery was unique in its scope and brutality. Comparative studies note that it was the only system of slavery in which people were viewed legally as property and seen as non- humans.

African slavery was also unique in that it reproduced itself, meaning the children of slaves were born as slaves, they had no rights, and females in particular were seen as the prefect property since their offspring would add their value.

Sir Hilary said landmark cases such as the 1781 Zong Massacre in which 350 slaves were thrown to sharks after the ship’s captain went off course, helped to shape the discussion on the legality of slavery.

He said the issue of slavery has in recent years been viewed as a crime against humanity and these types of crimes have attracted calls for reparation for victims, in various forms.

He cited the case of Haiti noting Western countries had no qualms about requesting and obtaining compensation. Haiti had to pay, from 1825 to 1922, 150 million gold francs to France after its slave population fought and successfully gained its freedom.

Sir Hilary argued that Haiti has never been able to recover from that payment, which was needed for it to gain international recognition.

Sir Hilary urged Caribbean countries to emulate the position adopted by the Jews who were prosecuted during the Second World War and have since organised the Jewish Reparation Fund.

He said that through meticulous research, the organisation has been able to garner financial support for its claims against several countries for atrocities committed against Jews. These funds have been used to enhance the State of Israel in various means.

Sir Hilary said that countries such as the United States, Canada, Japan and New Zealand have put measures in place as part of their efforts to give reparation to indigenous peoples or war victims, yet there has been no similar move by CARICOM on behalf of its people.

He said the benefits accrued to many of the now powerful Western nations through slavery have been documented and accepted, citing the cases of the aristocracy in England, the Lloyds and Barclays’ banks which built massive fortunes through their involvement with the slave trade.

Yet many of these same countries have not been willing to offer any apologies for slavery, but instead have grudgingly given “expressions of regret”, an acknowledgment that falls short of an apology,” Sir Hilary said.

He said CARICOM has to come together to find a way to address the issue, one which will lead to peace, justice, reconciliation and future harmony.

February 13, 2013

The New York Carib News

Bahamas Blog International

Freedom of movement curtailed since independence of Caribbean countries

By Oscar Ramjeet



The freedom of movement of Caribbean nationals has been severely curtailed since the breakup of the West Indies Federation five decades ago and the various countries in the region gaining independence.

It is unfortunate because in the colonial days persons were free to move from one country to another, even to Barbados, without hitch, but because some governments became intoxicated with sovereignty they imposed serious restrictions.

And although the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) Single Market and Economy (CSME) made provisions for free movements of professionals, musicians, journalists, etc., here is still a problem and regionalism does not seem to exist anymore.

There was some hope with the establishment of the University of the West Indies (UWI) and the West Indies cricket team, but that seems to be shattered because there is no longer that regional togetherness of UWI students because of recent significant changes.

For instance, students from Guyana now complete their LLB degrees in Guyana and no longer have to travel to Barbados, where hundreds of students enroll every year, and now Jamaica is offering the LLB programme and this reduces the Jamaican student population at Cave Hill.

Bahamas now has its own law school and, as a result, would-be lawyers study at home.

From the 1950s up to recently, all medical students in the region have had to attend Mona, but now they can do so in Trinidad and Tobago, Guyana, Grenada, and other Caribbean islands.

The poor performance of the West Indies cricket team has forced thousands of cricket fans to lose interest in the game and that to some degree has some effect on Caribbean unity.

The shameful behaviour of immigration and police officers at the Grantley Adams International airport against fellow Caribbean nationals should be dealt with by the Caribbean Community and it is unfortunate that CARICOM moves so slowly with these issues, as well as Caribbean unity.

Trinidad and Tobago Prime Minister, Kamla Persad Bisssessar made a couple of unfortunate statements that Trinidad and Tobago is not an ATM machine for other CARICOM countries, but she has nevertheless said that she is very much in favour of regional integration.

Owen Arthur, former Barbados prime minister, who was masquerading and preaching the importance of CSME, was critical of Mara Thompson, running for a seat in Barbados because she was not a born Bajan, but a St Lucian, although she was married to a Bajan, late Prime Minister David Thompson, for more than 20 years.

The British Overseas Dependant Territories of Anguilla, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands and Turks and Caicos require entry certificates (visas) from Jamaicans, Guyanese and citizens of the Dominican Republic.

For years the CARICOM has been discussing freedom of movement, but it seems as if they are not getting anywhere; as a matter of fact, it is getting worse since there is more harassment at airports, especially Barbados.

There have been reports that, in Antigua and Barbuda, Guyanese nationals are given a rough time by the Baldwin Spencer administration.

What is also unfortunate is the lack of interest and in some instances the refusal of governments to get rid of the Privy Council as their final court and accept the Caribbean Court of Justice as the final court.

Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago were the first countries to gain independence from Britain in August 1962, and it unfortunate that after nearly five decades they are still holding on to the coat tails of the United Kingdom for justice. If you had political independence so long ago why not judicial independence, especially since you have highly qualified judges who can do a better job than the English Law Lords, who are so far away and do not understand the Caribbean culture and way of life.

April 11, 2011

caribbeannewsnow

Bahamas Blog International

National self-interest and the absence of vision among CARICOM leaders are pulling the Caribbean apart

CARICOM: It's leadership that's needed
By Sir Ronald Sanders



There should be no doubt that the people of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) are well aware that failure of the regional integration project to contribute to solving the urgent problems, which now beset their countries, is a really a failure of leadership.

In a thoughtful – almost despairing - column last week entitled “A new commitment to regionalism”, my friend and colleague, David Jessop, recorded his troubling conversations with “a wide range of Caribbean visitors on where the regional integration process is going”. He reported that “to a person, all were concerned that national self-interest and the absence of vision among leaders were pulling the Caribbean apart and removing any ambition for taking the regional project forwards”.

As I was about to write this commentary, I received an email from a distinguished and learned Caribbean person who has held ministerial office in the region and whose regional contacts are wide and diverse. The email said: ”The real problem is that there is no one among the reigning political class of vision and intellect sufficient to provide the leadership. There is, too, no technician of the calibre of (William) Demas or (Sir Alister) McIntyre. Additionally, the impact of the recession has left the politicians with no time for the integration movement. They are really pushed onto a survival path struggling as they all do with growing unemployment and serious financial problems both on their current and foreign accounts. The virtual abandonment of the integration movement is unfortunate, for a fully functioning, expanded and enriched integration will in the end be the buffer against some of the very problems which we are currently experiencing”.

And, therein lies the rub – there is a lack of understanding that a fully functioning, expanded and enriched integration could help to solve many of the problems that now confront CARICOM countries.

What the region needs now is more not less integration, for not one of its member countries – not even Trinidad and Tobago with its oil and gas resources – can hope to maintain its autonomy in a globalized world in which the rich and powerful are intent upon a new kind of dominance; one which marginalizes small countries whose concerns become important only when they coincide with the interests of the powerful.

The leaders of CARICOM, therefore, should be strengthening and sharpening the regional integration process as a vital instrument in improving the conditions of their countries individually and collectively.

But, the process has to start with a willingness by leaders to talk with each other frankly, openly and with empathy, and it has to be infused with an acknowledgment that they have side tracked the regional integration process, and must put it back on a main track because their countries need it. The conversation has to be underlined by a desire to reach collective decisions which take account of the circumstances of each in trying to achieve benefits for all.

The present media squabble over an announcement by those in Trinidad and Tobago who own and control Caribbean Airlines Limited (CAL) that it will compete with LIAT in some Eastern Caribbean destinations, and the response of the Prime Minister of St Vincent & the Grenadines, Ralph Gonsalves, epitomizes the absence of dialogue at appropriate levels in the region.

One would hope that if the region now had a strong Secretary-General as the Chief Executive Officer of the regional movement, he or she would have stepped-in long ago not only to diffuse this issue, but to steer the leaders involved to a path of cooperation that could realize mutually beneficial objectives.

But the truth is that the regional movement now needs more than a strong Secretary-General, it requires a complete overhaul of the entire CARICOM machinery, beginning with a renewed commitment to regionalism by leaders. New priorities have to be set for CARICOM and many of its dead-weight issues dropped; both sufficient financial resources and appropriate skills have to employed to accomplish the priorities which must include strategic partnerships with the private sector and with international partners including China, India and Brazil to help crank-up economic growth through investment and employment.

All is not well in CARICOM. Indeed, much of it is ailing, and while the regional project weakens, all of its member countries are being left behind in the global race for betterment.

There are also some stark realities that should be confronted, not to jab accusatory fingers but to see how best these realities can be used to improve national economies and the region as a whole.

Here are some of the realities. Trinidad and Tobago has consistently maintained the smallest percentage of intra-regional imports, as a percentage of total imports, averaging less than 2 percent each year between 2004 and 2009 and valued at its highest point in 2008 at US$121 million. On the flip side, Trinidad and Tobago has enjoyed the largest increase in intra-regional exports from US$859 million in 2004 to US$3.2 billion in 2008 (source: Caricom Secretariat Trade and Investment report 2010). That surplus alone – which many regional producers ascribe to “unfair advantage” due to cheaper sources of energy – should encourage Trinidad and Tobago to work with its CARICOM partners to invest some of that trade surplus not in “give-aways” but in bankable projects that would bring mutual benefits to all.

A further reality is that Jamaica is the largest intra-regional importer, due in part to its larger population size. Jamaican manufacturers cry out about the unfair advantage of Trinidad manufacturers, but the CARICOM treaty allows Jamaican manufacturers to establish a manufacturing presence in Trinidad and to also take advantage of cheaper energy.

There are myriad ways in which CARICOM can benefit all its members, if there is a resolve to approach the regional project with a “can do” and not “will not do” attitude. And, there is much that CARICOM should be doing collectively. Tourism – the engine of economic growth for the majority of countries – is struggling and desperately needs combined regional action that it is not getting.

Here again are some facts: Between 1998 and 2008, tourist arrivals in CARICOM grew at an average rate of 2 percent per year while the world average was 6.5 percent per year. Arrivals in CARICOM fell to 5.96 million in 2008 from all time high of 6.16 million in 2007. The years 2009 and 2010 showed no improvement and introduced many new challenges. To revitalize the industry and to make it globally competitive requires regional creativity and regional action.

CARICOM needs strong leadership, a new vision and new and relevant priorities in a more dynamic structure. Only the leaders can begin the process of overhauling it for the benefit of the region’s people.

February 11, 2011

caribbeannewsnow

Bahamas Blog International

Is The West Indies West Indian? (Part 2)

By Sir Shridath Ramphal


Nothing speaks louder of CARICOM’s current debilitation than our substantial denial of the Caribbean Court of Justice. The Bar Association of Grenada is host to this Lecture Series, which is a memorial to a great West Indian lawyer. It is poignant that the Inaugural Lecture in this series delivered in 1996 was entitled: Essentials for a West Indies Supreme Court to replace the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council as the final Appellate Court for Commonwealth Caribbean States and Territories. Fifteen years later, it is still apposite that I address this issue when we talk of being West Indian.

In 2001, twelve CARICOM countries decided they would abolish appeals to the Privy Council and establish their own Caribbean Court of Justice, serving all the countries of the Caribbean Community with both original jurisdiction in regional integration matters and appellate jurisdiction as the final court of appeal for individual CARICOM countries. As of now, only Guyana (which had abolished appeals to the Privy Council on independence, believing it to be a natural incident of ‘sovereignty’), Barbados and now Belize have conferred on the CCJ that appellate jurisdiction

Constitutional amendment is required for the abolition of appeals to the Privy Council. In practical terms, this means bipartisan political support for the CCJ. In Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago (where the Court has its much sought after location) that political consensus does not exist – because the political party now in office in each of those two major regional jurisdictions has turned its back on its regional court. In St Vincent and the Grenadines, a referendum last year rejected the transference of appeals to the CCJ.

The situation has been complicated by the issue of the death penalty, on which the Privy Council, reflecting contemporary English (and EU) mores and jurisprudence, has been rigorous in upholding Caribbean appeals in death sentence cases. Someday, the Caribbean as a whole must accept abolition of the death penalty; I believe we should have done so already; but, in a situation of heightened crime in the region, popular sentiment has induced political reticence. Even so, however, the Privy Council’s anachronistic jurisdiction persists; and the Caribbean Court of Justice remains hobbled in pursuing its enlightened role in Caribbean legal reform.

It is almost axiomatic that the Caribbean Community should have its own final Court of Appeal in all matters – that the West Indies at the highest level of jurisprudence should be West Indian. A century-old tradition of erudition and excellence in the legal profession of the region leaves no room for hesitancy. As a West Indian I despair, as a West Indian lawyer I am ashamed, that the West Indies should be a major reason for the unwelcome retention of the Privy Council’s jurisdiction within the halls of the new Supreme Court in England. Having created our own Caribbean Court of Justice it is an act of abysmal contrariety that we have so substantially withheld its appellate jurisdiction in favour of that of the Privy Council – we who have sent judges to the International Court of Justice, to the International Criminal Court and to the International Court for the former Yugoslavia, to the Presidency of the United Nations Tribunal on the Law of the Sea (from Grenada); we from whose Caribbean shores have sprung in lineal descent the former and current attorneys general of Britain and the United States respectively.

As I recall this register of West Indian legal erudition, let me pause to pay tribute to the memory of Prof Ralph Carnegie who left us last month – a veritable icon of learning in the law and of service to it – and always a West Indian. As CCJ Judge Winston Anderson acknowledged at his funeral service, he died sadly without attainment of his vision of a fully functioning Caribbean Court of Justice, and fearful of the prospects for the legal monument he strove so hard to build. We owe him a more lasting memorial.

This absurd and unworthy paradox of heritage and hesitancy must be resolved by action. In law, as in ourselves, the West Indies must be West Indian. Those countries still hesitant must find the will and the way to end this anomaly, and perhaps it will be easier if they act as one. The truth is that the alternative to such action is too self-destructive to contemplate. The demise of the Court itself is not an improbable danger when in both Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago the creation of a local final Court of Appeal is being canvassed. Loss of the CCJ will almost certainly frustrate progress on a Single Market and Economy -- the vision of Grand Anse. We will have begun tearing up the Treaty of Chaguaramas, whose Preamble recites “that the original jurisdiction of the CCJ is essential to the successful operation of the CSME”. If West Indian lawyers, in particular, remain complacent about this absurdity much longer – and I am afraid some are -- we will begin to make a virtue of it, and in the end dismantle more than the Court.

So grave and present is this danger that in August last, five West Indians to whom the region has given its highest honour, the Order of the Caribbean Community, took the unprecedented step of warning publicly “with one voice of the threat being posed to the Caribbean Court of Justice and the Community’s goals more generally”. I was among them. “We warn against these developments” we wrote, “which, as in an earlier era, could bring down the structures for advancing the interests of the people of CARICOM … carefully constructed and nurtured over many decades by sons and daughters of all CARICOM countries”. We were warning of the mire of despond we would stumble into if in this matter the West Indies ceased to be West Indian.

But let me add what we all know, though seldom say: to give confidence to our publics in their adoption of the CCJ as the ultimate repository of justice in the West Indies, our governments must be assiduous in demonstrating respect for all independent West Indian constitutional bodies (like the Director of Public Prosecutions) lest by transference, governments are not trusted to keep their hands off the CCJ. And Courts themselves, at every level, must be manifestly free from political influence and be seen to be sturdy custodians of that freedom. In the end, the independence of West Indian judiciaries must rest on a broad culture of respect for the authority and independence of all constitutional office holders – for the Rule of Law.

We must not forget that the structure of the CCJ goes further than does that of any court in the region, and most courts in the Commonwealth, in securing independence from political influence, much less political control. It is at least as free of such local control as is the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council; and freer than any national or sub-regional Court. West Indian people who want such a Court that is beyond the reach of politics must understand – and must be helped to understand – that they have it in the CCJ.

The question, therefore, cannot be avoided: is a regional political leadership that conjures with rejecting the CCJ doing so because it is beyond political reach? I cannot believe that; but, in my own judgment, with the Privy Council no longer a realistic option, the CCJ is the most reliable custodian that West Indians could have of the Rule of Law in the region. Despite this, will we once more, with the gains of oneness in our grasp, forego being West Indian?

The foregoing is an extract from the Eleventh Sir Archibald Nedd Memorial Lecture delivered by Sir Shridath Ramphal in Grenada on 28 January 2011.

February 9, 2011

Is The West Indies West Indian? (Part 1)

Is The West Indies West Indian? (Part 3)

caribbeannewsnow

Bahamas Blog International

Mediation in Caribbean justice

By Abiola Inniss, LLB, LLM, ACIArb


The use of alternative dispute resolution in the Caribbean is as yet in a fledgling state and there is little information about it in most parts of the region, except for Jamaica, which has a considerably developed ADR scheme that focuses on mediation, and there is substantial ignorance about what constitutes alternative dispute resolution.

While Jamaica’s dispute resolution foundation has made significant strides in the promotion of peace and reconciliation in various communities, as well as in providing useful support to its justice system, the example has not resounded strongly across the region. Caribbean justice systems and seekers of justice remain strongly entrenched in the adversarial, combative methods of resolving matters, even with all the attendant difficulties and disappointments which often accompany litigation.

It needs to be clear that ADR usually applies to civil matters (person to person non-criminal claims) and that, where ADR is applied in the criminal jurisdiction, it is known as restorative justice and remains distinct from the other ADR methods, comprising conciliation, negotiation, mediation, and arbitration. In selecting mediation for particular attention in the discussion of Caribbean justice, it is intended that this form of dispute settlement might be considered within the context of the issues that trouble the region at community levels within CARICOM countries and their impact on the justice system.

A cinematic view of community life in any Caribbean nation would reveal a culture that contains a mixture of stereotypes, prejudices, superstitions and beliefs, which often compound the issues of what justice is and what is expected of it in the mind of the average citizen.

For example, it is common perception that a woman’s birthright is the home and that this right is absolute, her physical right is unquestionable while in her home; however, if she is violated in any way while outside her home, perceptions tend to vary as to whether the violations were of her own making or whether she contributed to it by being outside her home (see Caribbean legal educator, Hazel Thompson Ahye - ‘Women and Family Law and Related Issues’ for further discussion).

This idea, among others, has extended from the grassroot levels to the halls of justice, with consequences ranging from the interesting to the appalling.

Mediation comes into the justice system as a means of tempering the dispensing of justice according to fixed principles and judicial discretions and gives disputants the power to discuss their problems under professional guidance and to come to a resolution of their own making. It also gives a means of hearing to those affected by prejudice and other forms of unreasoned or unreasonable thinking, so that a path to common understanding might be laid.

It has been found that parties retain a high level of loyalty to their settlements when reached in this way and that there is better opportunity of conciliation afterwards.

The obvious advantage is that there is a lesser burden on the courts to deal with petty matters that often permeate the Magistrates courts and which could be dealt with by mediation. Issues of common corridor littering, noise nuisance, market vending disputes, family disputes concerning common dwelling and other similar problems can be addressed in this manner.

The overall benefit to the system of justice is that the municipal courts are freer to deal with more jurisprudentially substantial issues and that a culture of peaceful resolution is recognized at all levels of society. The economic side of justice dispensation internationally also favours the use of ADR very strongly and the current trend across Europe with the budget cuts has made it imperative for governments to find other means of addressing the resolution of disputes.

In the United Kingdom, the government announced proposals to close 54 county courts and 103 magistrates courts in order to save some 15.3 million pounds sterling in annual operational costs. The Courts Minister Jonathan Djanogly is quoted as saying, “Not all disputes need to be resolved in court . I want to explore whether more people can resolve their disputes in a way that leads to faster and more satisfactory solutions.”

Lord Woolf FCIArb, the architect of the major reform of the UK justice system, which led to new civil procedure rules in 1998, is also quoted as saying, “The availability and use of mediation is always important but the present financial situation has made its use, whenever possible, essential. No one can afford to ignore the benefits it offers.”

In the Caribbean, Guyana recently passed the Mediation Bill, which among other things makes the use of court-connected mediation mandatory for some kinds of disputes. Experience has taught, however, that it sometimes requires more than the passing of legislation to create a new cultural norm. The application of the law may demand conformity from a party to it but does not translate to wide cultural acceptance of an idea and many examples of this abound worldwide, the ongoing debate over the US case of Roe V Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) points out this idiosyncrasy.

There needs to be region-wide promotion of the concept of alternative dispute resolution and the particular use of mediation in the court systems and in the communities. Citizens need to see and feel the benefits for themselves in order to promote a culture of mediation, negotiation and conciliation Arbitration is hardly a community based option since it is more suitable for business arrangements and industrial and commercial disputes.

The concept and use of mediation in Caribbean justice requires far more effort and application than is currently exerted. Certainly it is to be hoped that Caribbean leaders in the legal field and in government will not wait for the gates of perdition to be opened upon our society before embracing alternative dispute resolution.

November 29, 2010

caribbeannewsnow

Bahamas Blog International

Why Caricom needs to know of T&T's illegal spying politics

By Rickey Singh





PRIME Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar of Trinidad and Tobago would have done herself and her Government a whole lot of good by going public last Tuesday with an apology to Caricom partners for her recent unfortunate and insensitive statements that linked emergency disaster aid to likely benefits to her country.

Without any rhetorical choreography, she declared during Radio Jamaica's Beyond the Headlines: "I do apologise for the statements that have been taken in this regard. I remain committed to regional integration and to our Caricom brothers and sisters."

What she now needs to consider — bearing in mind that her domestic opponents will continue to exploit that careless political stance — is to sensitise Caricom governments to the uncovering of an illegal spying network with the lists of unsuspecting victims reaching the highest political office to ordinary law-abiding citizens.

The reason such an initiative should be considered is not a matter of courtesy but because the national security interests of Trinidad and Tobago's community partners may well have been compromised by the spying epidemic that involved State-funded intelligence agencies.

Let the following account help to inform what went so terribly wrong when illegal spying on law-abiding citizens, pursued under the guise of battling crime and ensuring "national security", got out of control:

If the problem were not as nationally and regionally challenging, a relevant news item last week could have been dismissed as perhaps an error, or a joke.

Some quick checking by this columnist with the Caribbean Community Secretariat in Georgetown and Caricom's Implementation Agency for Crime and Security (IMPACS) made it clear that it was neither an error nor a laughing matter.

The dust had not yet settled on a parliamentary exposure on November I2 about very extensive and intrusive spying activities of State agencies under the previous People's National Movement Government of ex-Prime Minister Patrick Manning, when there came a surprising press release last Monday from the Community Secretariat.

It announced the holding of a five-day training workshop -- which was then currently occurring in Port-of-Sain, involving 20 immigration officers from 11 Caricom countries, in addition to seven law enforcement officers from the Special Anti-Crime Unit of Trinidad and Tobago (SAUTT).

Under normal circumstances, such a news release from the Community Secretariat would simply have been taken as notification of another work programme of IMPACS. This is the agency which was established to serve the security needs of the region when we hosted Cricket World Cup 2007.

However, given the grave implications of the violations of the fundamental rights of citizens across all races, political parties, social classes and professions by the illegal spying network, it was ironic that SAUTT was involved in the so-called 'train-the-trainer' workshop then underway in Port-of-Spain.

Money and arms


Granted, the arrangements for the workshop would have preceded the November 12 statement in Parliament by Prime Minister Persad-Bissessar about the shocking illegal spying operations in which SAUTT was initially involved.

There also came the exposure of even more disturbing illegal activities by an uncovered Secret Intelligence Agency (SIA) that was out of control, with millions of dollars and a quantity of sophisticated weapons at its disposal.

It may perhaps have been too late for either the Caricom Secretariat and/or the Trinidad and Tobago Government to pull the plug on the five-day 'train-the-trainer' workshop at SAUTT's Camuto-based training facilities.

Nevertheless, it's difficult to ignore the insensitivity on the part of those who have collaborated on the training project with SAUTT as a core partner, as if oblivious to the negative image of this State agency now facing a doubtful future.

Unlike the alarming details the people of Trinidad and Tobago and the region in general came to learn by Prime Minister Persad-Bissessar's disclosure of the SIA's illegal spying activities, the public had already been alerted to the disturbing functioning of SAUTT.

For instance, that the six-month-old People's Partnership Government (PPG) of Prime Minister Persad-Bissessar felt compelled, on the basis of controversial reports received, to terminate the services of the former director of SAUTT as well as to significantly overhaul its mode of operations, pending further decision on its future.

The Workshop


This, then, is the same security body that was involved with IMPACS for last week's training programme.

Involved in collaborative efforts for the workshop are CARICAD (Centre for Development and Administration) and DIFID (British Department for International Development).

While SAUTT remains under the microscope with a doubtful future, and the more controversial SIA has been shut down while the Government finalises plans for a structured probe, a formal request is to be made to the director of public prosecutions to pursue actions he deems legally relevant.

There remains, of course, another dimension to the saga of Trinidad and Tobago's "spying politics" in relation to the security interest of Caricom as a whole.

It is simply not easy to accept that the implications of the gross human rights violations involved in the illegal spying politics in Trinidad and Tobago may have been overlooked in relation to their consequences for Caricom partners.

The reality is that whoever is the prime minister of Trinidad and Tobago also holds lead responsibility for "crime and security" in Caricom's quasi-cabinet.

That was the case under Patrick Manning's watch during the past five years in particular when the now recognised 'spying epidemic' was spreading with all the negative effects of illegal interceptions of telephone, e-mail and other forms of communication.

In the circumstances, it is felt that Prime Minister Persad-Bissessar, who currently shoulders lead responsibility for crime and security in Caricom, has a moral obligation to share as much as possible of the illegal spying activities with her community counterparts.

Question of relevance is: How can a Caricom prime minister, with lead portfolio responsibility for crime and security, be depended upon to be competent and committed in fulfilling his/her mandate, when at home there are a multiplicity of examples involving illegal spying activities that violate the basic rights and dignity of law-abiding nationals?

November 21, 2010


jamaicaobserver

Bahamas Blog International

Of Sir Edwin, CARICOM and regional integration

by Carlos James, Esq.


CARICOM Secretary General Sir Edwin Carrington has had his share of work cut out for him. However, after nearly 20 years as head of the Caribbean Community, there is little to be excited about in terms of progress made towards full integration.

This, however, does not minimise the significance of the ceremonial activities held in Antigua last week to mark his knighthood, one of the highest honours of an individual’s contribution to national life. Some may rightly argue that a Caribbean Community Award would have been even more symbolic and appropriate, considering his contribution to the region spanning nearly two decades.

It was interesting to read Sir Edwin’s comments, admitting that the institution had failed to bring home its policies to the common Caribbean man, who simply does not see or understand the workings of CARICOM. If I may suggest, Sir Edwin’s comments on CARICOM’s failed public relations policy is more than just a lack of public awareness. What can CARICOM really put forward to the region and flaunt as effective integration policies?

Yes, the people of the region understand what CARICOM means to them, what it implies and what it requires of them, but what exactly is being done, where are the functional policies?

Frankly, there is not much to look forward to from CARICOM as a regional entity. It has lost its sparkle. No longer are we hearing the chorus of regional leaders, who once sang the same tune of regionalism, a single market and a single economic space.

Interestingly enough, Sir Edwin has admitted that the framework to make the CARICOM Single Market (CSM) and the CARICOM Single Market and Economy (CSME) fully operational is in place. In what can be considered a diplomatic cry for help, Sir Edwin confessed that more thrust is needed for both initiatives to take firm steps towards realisation.

In plainer language, for farmers in North Leeward and North Windward, and other rural communities across the region who want better regional access to markets for trade purposes, the vision of a Caribbean single market is failing because of the lack of interest from regional leaders.

CARICOM has become stagnant and cannot handle the surmountable challenges of our region’s changing political economy. It is swiftly withering into a failed institution lacking the energy, vision and the political will to carry forward its mandate which is central to regionalism - The Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas. In no uncertain terms can a framework for integration survive solely on the technical machinery of the CARICOM Secretariat without the political will of the region’s leaders. The structure for the integration process is merely skeletal, crippled, non-functional and hangs on life support.

No amount of media relations, as Sir Edwin envisaged, can connect the people of the region to something that lacks any form of functional capacity without coming across in an ostentatious way. The need for reforms at every faction of the CARICOM fibre is needed.

I must agree that formalising a single economic space is no easy task, the difficulties faced by the powerful European Union is evidence of this, but we must be reminded that the Caribbean Community is characterised by a people of common cultural and political identity. The socio-political dynamics of our region puts us in a more suitable position to establish and benefit from such a union.

Even the big capitalist countries are moving away from monopolistic ideals and trade protectionism. German Chancellor Angela Merkel, ahead of this week’s G20 meeting in Seoul, has warned that the greater danger facing the global economy is a return to trade protectionism. So why is CARICOM failing to further develop its single market and economic space? Where is the political will?

St Vincent’s Prime Minister Dr Ralph Gonsalves, and perhaps a few others, stand out as the lone batsmen at the crease, so vocal and tirelessly struggling to add to the score of the opening political giants of Eric Williams, Tom Adams, Errol Barrow, Michael Manley, et al.

It was Dr Gonsalves in 2003 who, while presenting a lecture in Trinidad to commemorate CARICOM’s 30th Anniversary, questioned:

-- What is the most advanced model of regional integration that the political market nationally can bear?

-- Do the leaders of the region -- political, economic, community and social -- and the people themselves possess the political will and readiness to go beyond the parameters of the individual nation-states and embrace a union deeper than that which currently exists?

-- What is to be done right now to construct, or prepare for the construction of a deeper union between CARICOM countries, or at least between those who are ready and determined, to go forward?

The Caribbean community has yet to answer. CARICOM is in retreat and this makes it hard for the region to get its voice heard. We need to reinvigorate the CSME process or CARICOM will suffer.

Instead of moving towards full integration as a region, we are seeing prime ministers becoming more nationalistic in their policies and utterances. These unreasoning allegiances are insensitive to the harmonisation efforts made by our leaders over the years.

I note the recent tongue-tied comments by Trinidad and Tobago’s Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar while the hurricane ravaged islands lay open and vulnerable after the onslaughts of hurricane Tomas.

PM Persad-Bissessar, has made similar gaffes in the past, including her now infamous ATM reference at the CARICOM Heads of Government meeting in July. Her utterances on regional matters have been extraordinarily undiplomatic for someone holding the office of prime minister and Commonwealth Chair-in-Office. It is hard to distinguish her constructive utterances from insentient reasoning.

Common foreign policy?

Sir Edwin rightly pointed out that the region needs to develop a strategic foreign policy in order to represent itself on the international stage. I am in agreement with the position that co-ordination of such a framework is paramount, but it must be noted that, while some countries take an aggressive approach towards foreign relations, others are quite stagnant and remain passive in befriending new diplomatic allies. We must not be seen as chiding regional countries who take on new focus in forging diplomatic relations with emerging economies.

In fact, we are in trouble if we continue to sit on the laps of traditional allies, who themselves are going further East, seeking new trading partners and political friends. It is important to our sovereignty to move away from this docile form of diplomacy, no country owns us. We need to shift from this conservative foreign policy focus on bilateral relationships and focus on multilateral action.

Not surprisingly, we see foreign policies grounded on national interest, ignoring the obvious regional implications of which Sir Edwin is so concerned about. Relations with China and Taiwan among our regional states is a never ending game of diplomatic hopscotch, while some continue to act as political stooges to the US and other G8 countries.

A point of interest is the headlines this week where the US and Britain are courting both India and China. The West has turned to the East. So what is so wrong with diplomatic relations with Brazil, Russia, India and China (BRIC), Cuba, Venezuela and oil-rich Iran?

Caribbean countries need to let go of this erroneous belief of indirect dependency on the so-called powerful traditional allies and provide a common foreign policy agenda that can attract the courting eyes of industrialised and emerging economies.

We have made many strides as a region, let’s not turn the wheel back. Let us continue the process of region-wide engagement on the issue integration. There are obvious lessons that the OECS can offer the larger bloc.

November 18, 2010

caribbeannewsnow

Bahamas Blog International

Cool Heads and no Crowns: The Caribbean in a storm

By Sir Ronald Sanders


Not for the first time in the history of the Caribbean Community and Common Market (CARICOM), Heads of Government are conveying mixed signals to the people of the region about how they feel about the CARICOM relationship and, indeed, about themselves.

Two incidents brought this reality into sharp focus over the last few days. The first was an inflammatory statement attributed to Trinidad and Tobago’s Prime Minister, Kamla Persad-Bissessar, that she did not make, and the other was the almost complete turn out of CARICOM Heads of Government to the funeral of David Thompson, the late Prime Minister of Barbados, and the genuine sense of “family” that they showed.

The statement that Persad-Bissessar is alleged to have made is, “No free help” for the islands of St Vincent and St Lucia that have been severely battered by Hurricane Tomas with St Lucia getting the worst of it. Earlier, as a tropical storm, Tomas had also sallied through Barbados uprooting trees, dislodging utility poles and wires, and damaging hundreds of mostly low-cost houses throughout the island.

“No free help” were not Persad-Bissessar’s words. They were the headline in the Trinidad Express newspaper on November 1, which did report what the Trinidad and Tobago Prime Minister actually said. According to the story and other newspaper reports, the Prime Minister was speaking at a press conference about a request that she had received from the Prime Minister of St Vincent and the Grenadines, Ralph Gonsalves, for assistance after his country was ravaged by the brutal Tomas.

What all the Trinidad and Tobago media reported her to say, was: "We will have to look at ways in which we would be able to assist. But you would recall my comments earlier this year, when I said there must some way in which Trinidad and Tobago would also benefit. So if we are giving assistance with housing for example, and that is one of the areas that we (Prime Minister of St Vincent and myself ) spoke about, ... then we may be able to use Trinidad and Tobago builders and companies, so that whatever money or assistance is given, redounds back in some measure to the people of Trinidad and Tobago."

She did not say that the Trinidad and Tobago government would not help. Indeed, she is reported as actually saying that her government had already mobilised two containers of foodstuff, and a decision would be made about where to send them but "certainly to St Vincent".

The issue here is not that she refused to provide assistance. If she had done so, I would have joined the chorus of voices that are now condemning her. When she talked earlier this year of Trinidad and Tobago not being “an ATM machine” for the Caribbean, I was one of the first to criticise that statement drawing attention to the fact that Trinidad and Tobago enjoys almost a monopoly market in the Caribbean for its cheaper oil-subsidised goods because of the CARICOM Treaty and that the Petroleum Fund (badly managed though it is) is as much in Trinidad and Tobago’s interest as the rest of the CARICOM countries since it helps to keep those countries as markets for Trinidad and Tobago’s goods.

The real issue with those who now condemn her is the link she drew between her government’s assistance and the use of “builders and companies” from Trinidad and Tobago.

Heat over that issue should be tempered by two realities. First, other countries (not only the former imperialists) link their assistance to their own materials and people. As examples, Cuban projects in many CARICOM countries use Cuban material and Cuban labour, as do several Venezuelan-funded projects. And, China not only insists upon the use of its material and people in aid projects, it does so for commercial projects too. And, it has long been the condition of many donors – either directly or through the agencies they use to finance aid projects – that their money be used for materials and workers from their countries exclusively.

The second reality is that Kamla Persad-Bissessar is the leader of a political party and Prime Minister of a country that, like many others, has become sceptical of CARICOM. It is up to her and her Ministers to demonstrate to a large section of the Trinidad and Tobago population that there is benefit in CARICOM for them.

Of course, they need to demonstrate CARICOM’s benefit to them over a very wide range of issues which includes the fact that CARICOM is a very lucrative market for Trinidad and Tobago’s products and services keeping thousands of its people employed; the country needs the support of CARICOM in fighting drug trafficking and crime, and maintaining security; it needs CARICOM in international bargaining in trade against larger entities such as the European Union; and it would not fulfil its international aspirations in the international system without the full backing of CARICOM.

Trinidad and Tobago, too, must realise that it alone does not wear a crown and it is not an island (not even two) unto itself.

But Persad-Bissessar should not be lynched for what she did not say, or for linking her government’s assistance to use of her country’s material and work force. At no time did she say no help would be forthcoming.

The entire Caribbean is going through what Professor Norman Girvan recently described as “existential threats”. This is a time for cool heads. It is not a time for tit-for-tat statements or for statements whose content sound like “something will not be given for nothing”.

Much of this present controversy is unnecessary and would not happen if CARICOM governments talk to each other on a platform of interdependence and common problems, and with a resolve to solve them collectively, recognising that none of them can go it alone and the task at hand is urgent and huge.

It was significant that at the well-organised and dignified funeral of Barbados David Thompson in the same week of this incident, CARICOM leaders turned out in full force to honour their fallen brother, and CARICOM was given an important role in the proceedings through its Chairman, Jamaica’s Prime Minister Bruce Golding. It is on that sense of CARICOM “family” that the region needs to go forward in its own vital interest.

November 5, 2010

caribbeannewsnow

Bahamas Blog International

Caricom in 'changing' Cuba

ANALYSIS

RICKEY SINGH





A communiqué was expected to be issued yesterday on the Third Caribbean Community-Cuba Ministerial Meeting that concluded in Havana on Friday.

It was expected to offer an explanation on future Caricom-Cuba co-operation and initiatives in economic and political co-ordination with Latin America in the context of new economic and political alliances and arrangements in response to international developments.

The two-day meeting occurred in the significantly changing Cuban environment compared to that of 1972, when four Caricom countries had played a vital role in helping to bring the then Fidel Castro-led revolutionary Government out of the diplomatic cold in a display of courageous defiance of the United States of America.

At that time, Jamaica, Barbados, Guyana and Trinidad and Tobago chose to break Washington's crude isolationist policy against that small Caribbean nation with their unprecedented joint establishment of diplomatic relations with Havana.

The legendary Fidel Castro along with the administration he led for some half-a-century, before serious illness compelled him to hand over government leadership to younger brother Raoul Castro four years ago, has never failed to show his deep appreciation for that pace-setting diplomatic initiative by the quartet of Caricom states.

Caricom ministers who participated in the Havana meeting were expected to learn at first-hand why Cuba -- the only country to suffer from the longest and most punitive embargo enforced by the USA -- is now in the process of implementing serious adjustments to its economic model from total State control, based on socialist transformation, to embrace a widening experiment in private sector operations.

The announcement earlier in the week by President Raoul Castro that some half-a-million State workers are to be facilitated in new employment, mostly in a gradually expanding private sector — including tourism and construction industries — had followed a controversial interview by elder brother Fidel with an American journalist, Jeffrey Goldberg, published in The Atlantic magazine.

The "misinterpretation"


Castro lost no time in telling the media at the launch of his latest book that he was "misinterpreted on the economy" by Goldberg when he reported him as saying that "the economic model no longer works for us".

But the Cuban leader refrained from any criticisms of Goldberg, remarking that he would "await with interest" the journalist's promised "extensive article" to be published in The Atlantic.

Those in the US Congress and mainstream media, known for their anxieties to ridicule Cuba's economic model and governance system, can be expected to join in political jeerings.

Of course, they would have no interest in considering, for instance, that after 50 years of admirable struggles to survive the onslaughts of successive administrations in Washington, with their suffocating blockade as a core feature, Cuba does not have to apologise for tough, pragmatic decisions on adjustments to its economic model; not in this closing first decade of the 21st century — long after the disappearance of the once powerful superpower, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and not after the collapse of Wall Street, America's traditionally flaunted economic model of capitalism.

Indeed, the 'Wall Street crash' was a development that spawned the prevailing global economic and financial crisis still seriously impacting today on economies the world over.

Work force


Initially, as explained in Havana, the alternative employment programme will affect half-a-million of the five million-strong Cuban work force, with another half-million to follow over a phased period with State assistance in various private sector businesses.

This, according to reports out of Havana, is not an overnight development. The adjustments, linked to reassessments of policies and programmes over the past two years, are being made all the more necessary by the global crisis that has affected so many poor and developing nations.

Incidentally, as readers would know, none of the economically affected nations have had to contend with a 50-year-long spiteful blockade by Uncle Sam.

Yet, for all its domestic challenges, the Cuban Government continues to reach out, in offering assistance, though not as previously extensive, to countries in the Caribbean and other regions in various areas, including health, agriculture and construction.

The United Nations has long recognised the remarkable achievements of Cuba in health and education. And just last week, while President Raoul Castro was speaking about redeployment of sections of the labour force, Inter-Press Service was reporting on Cuba's success in making available in the world VA-MENGOCO-BC, the only vaccine against meningitis-B. This medication has been included, since 1991, in Cuba's national infant immunisation programme and is used successfully in South and Central America.

As we await the outcome of last week's Third Cuba-Caricom Ministerial Meeting, it is of relevance to recall here what Professor Norman Girvan noted when he accepted in 2009 an Honorary Doctor of Economic Sciences degree from the University of Havana.

In recalling the debt of gratitude owed to the people of that Caribbean island state by so many in the poor and developing world, Girvan, a former secretary general of the Association of Caribbean States, observed:

"The Cuban revolution has been a source of inspiration on the ability of a small Caribbean country to chart its own course of social justice, economic transformation and national independence by relying on the mobilisation of the entire population; on the will and energy of its people; and for its numerous actions of intensive international solidarity... The debt is unpayable."

September 19, 2010

jamaicaobserver

Bahamas Blog International

Caribbean globally uncompetitive: Time to get serious

By Sir Ronald Sanders:


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

September 10, 2010

caribbeannewsnow

Bahamas Blog International

Kamla was the star of the Montego Bay summit... but

by Oscar Ramjeet:


Kamla Persad Bissessar, the new prime minister of Trinidad and Tobago definitely stole the show at the recently concluded summit of CARICOM Heads of State at Montego Bay, Jamaica, not only for her nimble dance moves, and calypso relics, but for her tough, no nonsense talk, and sympathy shown to the unfortunate abandoned, mental and AIDS children at the "Mustard Seed"

The 58-year-old attorney, who spent 14 years of her life in Jamaica as a student and teacher, said that she was a Caribbean woman, but made it quite clear she would not be dishing out money to assist regional countries as was done by her predecessor, Patrick Manning. Issuing the Jamaican politicos with a stern warning, "Move from mi stall, unna think is a ATM machine dis."

Press reports from Kingston state that Kamla, who went on her first tour as prime minister, quickly became the darling of the region by singing and dancing at the "Jamaica night" party, when she swept into the dance floor immediately after her arrival and, minutes after, she grabbed the microphone and sang the lyrics of "One Love", the Bob Marley anthem that had formed part of her campaign repertoire for the May 24 elections.

However, after pointing out the constraints on the economy at home, she made it quite clear at the Summit that the twin island republic will no longer carry the bag with the goodies, but would rather seek relationships with her Caribbean partners that "pull their weight" rather than those who seek handouts.

She told her colleagues that she will withdraw her country's funding for several regional programmes, which include patrol and surveillance in the region to develop stronger and more effective countermeasures to the incursions of the drug trade. She also told businessmen at a luncheon that she would "find amicable solutions" to the issues between business operating in both countries.

She urged Jamaican and Trinidad and Tobago's business leaders to participate in a three-pronged effort to drive innovative improvements, deepen alliances between each nation's business communities and to explore more meaningful partnerships.

The former attorney general also said that there was need to join forces to impact in a sustainable way on the international scenario and added, “So let us not in some ways concentrate on our differences and engage in warfare in the region."

The Guardian newspaper, in an editorial on Sunday, stated, "It is incumbent on the Prime Minister and her Trade Minister to ensure that there is adequate follow through on her promises to defuse the source of those differences and review the complaints of Jamaican manufacturers and exporters in the best interests of developing strong regional trade partners."

Persad Bissesssar made it clear at the Summit that Trinidad and Tobago would be retiring from its role as Caribbean financial godfather in favour of regimes that engaged more co-operative regional efforts at driving the many initiatives of CARICOM that have languished over the years.

But former Caribbean diplomat, business consultant and regional commentator, Sir Ronald Sanders, took issue with Kamla for her ATM machine utterance, contending that "such statements would not endear Trinidad and Tobago to the rest of the CARICOM countries, nor would it encourage citizens of Trinidad and Tobago to regard other CARICOM citizens with anything but contempt."

In fact, Sir Ronald went further to state, "In reality, the relationship between Trinidad and Tobago and other CARICOM countries, particularly the small nations of the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS) is far more beneficial than is conveyed by the analogy of the ‘ATM machine’. Other CARICOM countries are a lucrative protected market for Trinidad and Tobago manufactured products and financial services under CARICOM Treaty. Were it not for the membership of CARICOM, those countries could purchase most of what they buy from Trinidad and Tobago at cheaper prices elsewhere in the world."

July 12, 2010

caribbeannetnews

Bahamas Blog International

Owen Arthur - the Caribbean Commissioner the region should have

By Sir Ronald Sanders:


Owen Arthur, the former Prime Minister of Barbados, is probably one of the best Commissioners of a Caribbean Commission that the region does not have but ought to have.

Indeed, had Caribbean Community and Common market (CARICOM) governments implemented the recommendation of the 1992 West Indian Commission to establish a Caribbean Commission, we may today have as its President, PJ Patterson the former Prime Minister of Jamaica, Owen Arthur as one of its Commissioners and someone from the OECS of the regional calibre of say, Ralph Gonsalves the present Prime Minister of St Vincent and the Grenadines, or Vaughan Lewis former Prime Minister of St Lucia, as the third Commissioner.

Had such a Commission been in place and operating, CARICOM countries may have been dealing with their current financial and economic crises in a collective and cohesive fashion, and much better than they are currently.

As it is, each country has struggled to deal on an individual basis with the walloping effects not only of the global financial crisis, but also of the consequences of the collapse of CLICO and British American.

While it is true that in mid-June, the governments of the seven small members of the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS) signed a Treaty to establish an Economic Union among themselves, that treaty is not yet operational and while, once it is operational, it will represent progress, it remains insufficient. It is the wider CARICOM region that has to deepen its integration arrangements and especially its machinery for joint decision-making and implementation.

Regrettably, Owen Arthur is not looking for a job as a Commissioner or even Head of a Caribbean Commission. Indeed, one interpretation of a comment he made recently in the Bahamas suggests that he may be interested in being Prime Minister of Barbados once again.

In a very important speech to the Institute of Chartered Accountants of the Caribbean at its annual meeting in the Bahamas on June 25, Arthur said: “You should allow me to begin by stating how very pleased I am to be able to share the same platform once again with Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham who until recently, like I do now, carried the title of Former Prime Minister. His presence fortifies my belief in the concept of the second coming”.

Whatever Arthur meant by that comment, the rest of his statement was a telling analysis of the present financial and economic condition of the Caribbean Community, and a blistering revelation of the lack of support from the International Financial Institutions (IFI’s).

It has to be said, however, that while the IFI’s have not been as responsive to the Caribbean as they could have been, and the IMF in particular has applied the usual prescriptions for providing Stand-By arrangements to Jamaica and Antigua and Barbuda, CARICOM countries failed to provide the IFI’s and major world economies with a clearly defined plan of what they need, for what, and how they plan to repay it.

It should be recalled that when the global financial crisis erupted, the world, and the Caribbean Region within it, faced an economic crisis of unprecedented proportions. Globalisation threatened to overwhelm the Caribbean with a world-wide recession, and indeed it did. Growth in every country except Guyana (according to the IMF) declined in 2008 and 2009. In some cases, there was negative growth. The ratio of debt to GDP escalated everywhere even in normally cautious Barbados. Tourism, on which the entire region (except Guyana and Trinidad and Tobago) now relies, declined everywhere if not in numbers, certainly in spending.

No State, no Government, no society within the region was immune from the economic consequences of the global financial crisis and the effects of the collapse of CLICO and British American. In that context, CARICOM societies expected their governments to come together to explore measures they could take in concert to enlarge the capacity of the region. Indeed, several regional commentators urged such action in very specific terms. As it turned out, CARICOM governments set up two separate task forces and both reported, but no joint plan was put to the IFI’s and none to the major world economies.

Owen Arthur reminded his audience in the Bahamas that “in April 2009, the G20 countries pledged provision of an additional $1.1 trillion to the IMF and the Multilateral Development Banks to enable them to carry out a programme to restore credit, growth and jobs to the world economy”, and he observed that “we have witnessed the carrying out of a rescue and recovery programme for the world’s developed economies, involving an unprecedented commitment of financial resources and the incurring of fiscal deficits on a scale that has hitherto been unimaginable”.

But, while the developed countries were bailing themselves out, they failed to deliver on the pledge “to make available an additional $850 billion of resources through the IMF and the multilateral development banks to support growth in emerging market and developing countries by helping to finance counter-cyclical spending, bank recapitalization, infrastructure, trade finance, balance of payments support, debt rollover and social support”.

Arthur pointed out that the IMF introduced a new Flexible Credit Line through which the bulk of additional IMF financing was to be channelled. As he said: “It was also especially intended to herald a fundamental change in the procedures for accessing IMF funds and meeting IMF programming tests”.

However, it could not be used by Caribbean countries and the facility into which $500 billion was pledged to support recovery in the developing world was used by countries in Latin America, Africa, Eastern Europe and Asia.

In the Caribbean, the IMF has agreed to two Stand-by Arrangements, one for $1.3 billion with Jamaica, and the other for almost $120 million with Antigua and Barbuda for which all the traditional IMF conditionalities apply.

As Arthur concludes: “It however cannot fairly be said that IMF response has or will assist in any major material way in achieving the grand overarching objectives stated on April 2nd, 2009 of fostering counter-cyclical stimulation, spurring employment creation nor attending to the needs of structural diversification in Caribbean economies”.

The space allowed in this commentary does not permit discussion of Arthur’s analysis of the lack of adequate response by other IFI’s to the Caribbean. But, his statement should be compulsory reading for all.

His conclusion is also extremely important. He said: “Where there is common threat, we must devise and pursue a common response. Should this global crisis engender such a common response to the common threats faced by the societies of the region, it will have served to usher in a better way of doing things in the Caribbean and will help to ensure that our best days are still ahead of us”.

In simple terms, Owen Arthur has made the case for a Caribbean Commission. If it were in existence, and if someone of his calibre – if not he himself – was Commissioner for the Community’s finance and trade negotiations, the region as whole might have got from the IFI’s a reasonable share of the resources it has been denied – largely because it failed to produce a clearly defined plan that could be effectively argued.

July 2, 2010

caribbeannetnews

Bahamas Blog International

Diaspora bonds - a compelling development opportunity for CARICOM nations

By Jerry Edwin:



The idea that Grenada may become the first CARICOM nation to follow the lead of Africa and Asia and issue a government guaranteed Diaspora Bond presents a compelling contract between the current government and the tens of thousands of its immigrants. Such an initiative could lead the way for Caribbean nations to find vast new sources of development funds.

While Grenada contemplates a Diaspora Bond, two other CARICOM nations, Jamaica and Guyana, appear better placed to issue these bonds, potentially receiving two billion dollars and two hundred and fifty million dollars respectively from their overseas nationals. Without question, the financial impact of a Diaspora Bond to these three economies will radically alter the trajectory of their national development plans.

Indeed, Grenada has progressed further in this regard than any other CARICOM member.

This past March, members of a research organization visited Grenada at the invitation of Prime Minister Tillman J. Thomas to address the Cabinet on their findings of the viability of using a Diaspora Bond to fund revenue-generating projects on the island. It is the first time that a CARICOM government has held a Cabinet-level discussion regarding the potential issuing of a Diaspora bond.

At a World Bank-sponsored conference on development finance held at New York University in December 2009, both Jamaica and Grenada were cited as viable candidates for Diaspora Bonds. Recently, the Bank also suggested that Haiti reach out to its vast Diaspora to issue a bond that can potentially raise up to two billion dollars.

According to the New York-based research organization, the Caribbean Development Policy Group, Inc. (formerly the Grenada Diaspora Organization), Grenada receives more than a third of its GDP from overseas remittances and has one of the largest annual out-migration rates globally. In its latest country report on Grenada, the International Monetary Fund further notes that remittances are the leading source of foreign exchange for the Spice Island as its construction and tourism sectors continue to lag.

So persuasive was the data compiled in support of the proposed Grenada Diaspora Bond by the New York research organization that the island’s leading newspaper, The New Today, said in an editorial that it fully supported the use of Diaspora Bonds as a leading alternative in the government’s toolbox of development options.

The organization also held high-level meetings with Opposition Leader, Dr Keith Mitchell, and opposition Members of Parliament, as well as stakeholders in the private sector and non-government organizations.

Bipartisanship and political cooperation are key elements to the success of a Diaspora Bond from any CARICOM nation including its governance, marketing and distribution. This approach is been fully embraced by both the Thomas Administration and Opposition Leader Mitchell and his MPs.

Moreover, Grenadian nationals have expressed their desire for separation of bond revenue from the government’s general budget. They also requested an oversight role for the Eastern Caribbean Central Bank or the Eastern Caribbean Securities Commission.

Although the Grenada government has yet to make a final decision on proceeding with a Diaspora Bond, several leading ministers have expressed full support and believe that this option could not have come at a better time for the island as it continues to experience a decline in tourism receipts and its export sectors.

From all accounts, stakeholder interest in and outside Grenada for a Diaspora Bond is highly animated. Grenada, renowned for the bold resolve of its past leaders like the Home Rule patron T.A. Marryshow and the revolutionary nationalist Maurice Bishop, appears ready for a government decision to issue a Diaspora bond that could dramatically alter the direction of its current and future economic and social development.

Some in Grenada’s Diaspora caution that, prior to issuing a Diaspora Bond, there must be careful planning, fiscal integrity and a transparent governance structure to secure the confidence of overseas investors.

“The Diaspora bond holds tremendous promise for CARICOM countries but its success requires leadership from experienced financial experts not from people with political alliances of one kind or another,” said Earle Brathwaite, a successful Silicon Valley financier and technologist, who is also the son of a former prime minister of Grenada.

Bernard Bourne, the research group’s Director of Community Relations, agrees with Brathwaite, adding that it is time Grenada changes its paradigm for seeking financing to develop the country. He stresses that with prominent nationals like race car superstar Lewis Hamilton, calypso icon Mighty Sparrow, former Chief Justice of the Federal Court of Canada, Julius Isaac, and scores of leaders in law, medicine, engineering and other professions, Grenada is more than capable of obtaining development finance from its own nationals once adequate protections are established.

Jerry Edwin, Executive Director of the Caribbean Development Policy Group, was a featured speaker on June 12, 2010, at the Annual Caribbean Private Sector Conference attended by CARICOM Ministers of Finance and Ministers of Trade. His topic was Diaspora Bonds: A Developmental Tool for Growth and Investment.

June 28, 2010

caribbeannetnews

Bahamas Blog International

The Politics of Leadership: Guyana and its Presidency (Part 3)

Sir Ronald Sanders


Guyana's system of government and its electoral system are very different from the systems in place in the other 14 Caribbean Community and Common Market (Caricom) countries. For a start, it has an Executive President whose powers under the Constitution are considerable. Understanding the system is important to appreciating the politics of winning the Government and the Presidency.

In 11 of the Caricom countries which, like Guyana, are former British colonies and Montserrat, which is a still a British colony, the electoral system divides the country into many constituencies. Each party wishing to contest a constituency puts forward one candidate to stand. Each voter in the constituency then casts one vote for the candidate of their choice. The candidate with the largest number of votes is elected as the Member of Parliament for that constituency, and the party whose elected members represent an overall majority then forms the Government.

The exception is where no party's elected members constitute an overall majority. In such a case, political parties then bargain with each other to form a coalition Government as happened recently in Britain where neither of the two largest political parties -- Labour and Conservative -- secured an overall majority of elected members. The Conservative Party and the smaller Liberal Democratic Party then struck a deal to form a coalition Government.

Among the Caricom countries that have a system similar to Britain's is Trinidad and Tobago where, at recent general elections, a number of political parties agreed to form an alliance to contest constituencies against the incumbent governing party but not against each other. At the end of the elections, having together secured an overall majority, they formed a coalition Government.

Guyana's system is different. Its system of elections is based on proportional representation. Each elector has one vote which is cast for a political party. The elector's vote is applied to the election of 65 members of parliament by proportional representation in two ways. First, the country is divided into 10 administrative regions (geographical constituencies) which elect 25 seats. Some of these regions are allocated more seats than others dependent on the size of their population. Second, the remaining 40 seats, called "top up" seats, are then apportioned to parties based on the proportion they received of the total valid votes cast nationally. A vote for a party in the geographical constituency is simultaneously a vote for that party's national "top up" seats.

Importantly, however, while the same single vote of an elector goes toward electing the President, the Constitution of Guyana states that a Presidential candidate shall be deemed to be elected President "if more votes are cast in favour of the list in which he is designated as Presidential candidate than in favour of any other list". In other words, the successful Presidential candidate requires only a plurality of the votes, not an overall majority.

So, given this electoral system, it is possible for a political party that secures the most votes (a plurality) to gain the Presidency outright.

What is not possible is for a coalition of parties after the election to gain the Presidency. Any coalition that wishes both to form the Government and get the Presidency must contest the election as a single entity with a single Presidential candidate whose name has to appear on its list as the Presidential candidate.

It is an interesting debate for lawyers versed in the intricacies of the Guyana Constitution as to whether a President, elected by a plurality of the vote, is obliged to call on a coalition of parties (that may together outnumber the votes cast for his party) to form a Government or could he simply call on his own minority party to form the Government.

The Guyana Constitution states that it is the President who "shall appoint an elected member of the National Assembly to be Prime Minister of Guyana", and the President who shall appoint "Vice Presidents and other Ministers from among persons who are elected members of the National Assembly". There is no stipulation that such appointments should or must be made from elected members of a party or coalition parties that have an overall majority in Parliament.

Therefore, it appears that a President who is elected by a plurality of votes can choose Vice Presidents, the Prime Minister and Ministers from his own party whether it has an overall majority or not.

While it is possible for the majority of elected members in Parliament to vote against legislation and budgets, creating havoc for a minority Government, it would not necessarily stop the Government from functioning. The classic case in point is Canada where the Conservative Party of Prime Minister Stephen Harper has been operating a minority Government since 2008.

This all serves to underscore two things if Guyana is to remain politically stable, build on its recent economic successes and take advantage of the enormous economic possibilities of successful oil exploration and minerals development.

First, it would be best if next year's general election is decisive in terms of a clear winner of both the Presidency and the overall majority in Parliament for one party. To this end, the ruling People's Progressive Party should ensure that both its Presidential candidate and its policies are broad enough to appeal to a wider cross section of the electorate than its core supporters. Similarly, the now disparate opposition parties (disunited internally and fragmented) should try to forge an alliance that also has a Presidential candidate and policies that are attractive across a wide swath of the Guyanese population.

Second, whoever wins the election, the problems of race, equal opportunity, bridging the increasing gap between rich and poor, and crime require tackling in an open, transparent and institutionalised way, or Guyana will always be a divided and weak society failing to be the cohesive and strong nation that it could be in its own interest, and the interest of its Caricom neighbours.

-- Sir Ronald Sanders is a consultant and former Caribbean diplomat
Responses and previous commentaries at: www.sirronaldsanders.com

June 27, 2010

Politics of Leadership - Guyana and its presidency (Part-1)

The Politics of Leadership: Part 2 of Guyana and its Presidency

jamaicaobserver

Bahamas Blog International

Will Jamaica soon abolish appeals to the Privy Council?

by Oscar Ramjeet:


It seems as if the Bruce Golding administration in Jamaica has had a change of heart and is now contemplating abolishing appeals to the Privy Council so that the country could join the Appellate Division of the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ).

The reason for my opinion is that the country's Governor General Sir Patrick Allen earlier this week administered the oath of office to Jamaican born Professor Winston Anderson as a judge of the CCJ in Kingston and that Prime Minister Bruce Golding spoke in appreciative, though measured, terms of the court’s performance in its five years.

The move to administer the oath to a CCJ judge outside Port of Spain is unprecedented, but it has been reported that the request came from Professor Anderson in order to facilitate his mother and other relatives to witness the ceremony.

An editorial in the Jamaican Gleaner states, "It seems likely that Mr Golding will at next month's summit of Caribbean Community (CARICOM) leaders indicate that his government has completed its re-evaluation of Jamaica's absence from the court and is now ready to begin to plan its accession. This is the difficult bit."

The governing JLP two decades ago was in the forefront, along with Trinidad and Tobago, of the establishment of the CCJ.

I recall while I was solicitor general of St Vincent and the Grenadines in the late 1980s, the attorney general of Edward Seaga 's JLP administration, Oswald Harding, was travelling around the region, along with the late Selwyn Richardson, who was the attorney general of the twin island republic, trying to lobby CARICOM leaders to join the court, but the party changed its stand and vehemently opposed the regional court in its role as the court of last resort in criminal and civil matters.

Their concern was mainly the question of the independence of the CCJ, which the JLP continued to advance even after it was clear that the court was insulated against political interference.

The JLP went further when it successfully challenged the constitution at the Privy Council against Jamaica's participation in the CCJ as was then contemplated.

If the JLP is now in favour for Jamaica to join the CCJ as the final appellate court instead of the Privy Council, there should be no problem because the opposition People's National Party is a strong supporter of the CCJ.

The Jamaican government is contributing 27% of the costs to run and administer the CCJ and has not been getting any benefit whatsoever, since it has not yet abolished appeals to the Privy Council.

Belize is the third country to join Guyana and Barbados, and now that Trinidad and Tobago has a new government, legal circles in the twin island republic feel that the new Prime Minister, Kamla Persad Bissessar, a West Indian-trained attorney might be in favour of the CCJ.

She has already indicated that she will fully embrace CARICOM and its members. She is known to be close to CARICOM colleagues and, as a matter of fact, she invited five of them from Barbados and St Kitts to attend Friday's opening of Parliament in Port of Spain.

She recently commented on the poor state of West Indies cricket, and said that every effort should be made to solve the problems between the West Indies Cricket Board (WICB) and the West Indies Players Association (WIPA), since she said that cricket is one of the pillars of Caribbean unity.

St Lucia, Dominica and Grenada are also considering going on board. The Ralph Gonsalves administration in St Vincent and the Grenadines wanted to join also, but it failed in its referendum to amend the constitution on November 25 last.

However, in my view, it is not that Vincentians do not want to remove the Privy Council as the final court, but the referendum was loaded with a series of constitutional amendments, including more powers to the prime minister, and a president to replace the governor general.

It is unfortunate that CARICOM countries take so long or are somewhat reluctant to be a part of the regional system since the CCJ was inaugurated on April 12, 2005.

I was privileged to visit the court while in Port of Spain for the Fifth Summit of the Americans and was impressed with what I have seen -- besides the well equipped libraries, spacious conference room, robing room, etc, I was elated with the courtroom’s appearance, with the most modern telephonic and other fascinating equipment, which is said to be some of the best in the world.

The facilities include a document reader/visual presenter; ability to use laptop computers, DVF/VCR; audio/video digital recording (microphones situated throughout the courtroom); wireless internet access, and audio/video transcripts.

June 19, 2010

caribbeannetnews

Bahamas Blog International

Timid Leadership setting back Caribbean in the world

By Sir Ronald Sanders:


Several commentators have lamented in recent years the seeming timidity of Caribbean leaders in not more aggressively defending and advancing the economic interests of Caribbean countries in the global community.

This apparent timidity has been evident in a number of areas including the surrender to bullying by the European Union (EU) when Caribbean governments signed up to an Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) which went beyond the requirements of World Trade Organization (WTO) rules, and in the submission to the dictation of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) over the operations of the financial services sector.

These capitulations will hurt the Caribbean now and haunt the region’s economic future for some time to come. Essentially, the space for making and implementing decisions in the Caribbean’s interest is either being severely restricted or lost altogether.

This malaise is weakening the once vibrant Caribbean Community which was led by courageous men and women who were not averse to standing up to the most powerful countries and agencies in defense of matters of importance to their nations and to the region.

While they sought strategic alliances with other nations and groups of countries, such as the pact with African and Pacific countries in the original negotiations with the EU, the motivation was the furtherance of their domestic and regional interest. They recognized that each of them was stronger for the support of the others, and they made unity not only a virtue but a tool, gathering together their best brains from government, the private sector and academia to map out their strategies and to implement them.

Somewhere along the path in recent years, the region has lost its way. The resolve to act collectively in the common interest of all appears to have been pushed to one side, as governments seek individual salvation. Collective action, long a strength of CARICOM, is paid only lip service. Worse yet, the collective use of the Caribbean’s best brains in government, business, and academia has disappeared.

So, the OECS countries join Japan to vote for commercial whaling even though there is a thriving tourism whale watching industry in the region; some countries have joined the Venezuelan-initiated ALBA – often taking positions within that group before discussing it in CARICOM; and the region remains divided on the issue of diplomatic recognition of China or Taiwan.

But, above all, bold leadership has diminished in the region, and it has reduced among Caribbean people the ambition to reach for the stars; to push the envelope so as to stride out of the shadows and into the global sunlight. The region is weaker for it. And, it will become weaker still unless the leadership of the region returns to the fundamentals of collective thinking and collective action, and asserts the Caribbean’s interest boldly; not surrendering to imposed rules in which they have not had a say; refusing to be bullied; and not allowing their governments to be captured by the inducements of others.

In this connection, a statement made to me by the Prime Minister of St Vincent and the Grenadines, Ralph Gonsalves, is warmly welcomed. The Prime Minister told me on the record that “Venezuela had nothing to do with St Vincent’s decision to offer itself for a non-permanent seat on the UN Security Council for the 2011-2012 term”.

Our discussion followed my commentary: “Serve the Caribbean’s interest, not some other country’s”.

Dr Gonsalves placed his government’s decision in the context of the need for small Caribbean states to be bold in order to reverse the idea that they are “little nothings”, and he was adamant that, should St Vincent and the Grenadines – one of the smallest of the Caribbean nations - succeed in this quest, its seat on the Security Council will be a CARICOM seat dedicated to advancing the region’s interest even as it deliberates, and helps to arbitrate on, global hot-spot issues.

Gonsalves looked forward to St Vincent’s UN mission being strengthened by personnel from other CARICOM countries and benefitting from advice and consultations with experienced present and former diplomats from the region. While he expected support from the ALBA countries, he declared: “We are not an ALBA candidate”. In this, the Prime Minister was prudently distancing his country from the controversial relations between Venezuela and Colombia, since it is Colombia against whom St Vincent will be competing for the single seat available to the Latin American and Caribbean group.

If, indeed, the St Vincent government is pursuing the Security Council non-permanent seat in a spirit of boldness and to assert the right of small countries to be represented and heard at the highest levels of global decision-making, then all Caribbean people should support it. When Guyana ran for - and got – the seat in 1975 as the first CARICOM state to do so, it was because the government at the time also felt that the domination by the larger Latin American states should end and the capacity of small states to contribute to thinking and solutions at the global level should be demonstrated.

None of this ignores the costs that the St Vincent government will face, and in this connection, every CARICOM government should pitch-in with money and qualified people. The quest must be a Caribbean one, for Caribbean purposes, financed by the Caribbean to assert the region’s independence.

And, as part of this resurgence of Caribbean boldness, regional governments should reject the recent offer made by the European Union to pay for Caribbean delegates to attend a Meeting of the CARIFORUM-EU EPA Joint Council, at ministerial level, on 17 May 2010 in Madrid.

This meeting was hastily proposed by the Commission of the European Union to be held on the day of the scheduled CARIFORUM-EU Summit in order “to adopt the two sets of Rules of Procedures” for the Joint Council.

But, CARICOM countries have not collectively addressed these rules. Worse yet, the European Commission (EC) has scheduled only one and a half hours to consider these complex legal rules whose application will have far reaching implications for the work of the Joint Council.

It is obvious that the EC expects the Caribbean to do nothing but rubber stamp the rules. And, it is time that regional governments call a halt to being railroaded.

They should reject the proposal for a hurried meeting of the Joint Council for which they are not prepared, and they should use the Summit to boldly tell the EU leadership of their dissatisfaction with the treatment the Caribbean has received for sugar, bananas and rum.

It is time again for collective and informed Caribbean boldness.

May 14, 2010

caribbeannetnews

Bahamas Blog International