Cases of 'bullying' US politics

Analysis by Rickey Singh



IT would be a pity if the rest of our Caribbean Community governments do not see it necessary to acquaint themselves with the circumstances of the current sharp dispute between Jamaica and the United States over Washington's demand for the extradition of Jamaican Christopher 'Dudus' Coke.

Prime Minister Bruce Golding should consider briefing his Caricom counterparts, if he has not already done so, as well as have a candid discussion with the parliamentary Opposition.

For what is at stake seems to be much more than the individual human rights of Coke, regardless of the fact that he is the strongman in the Tivoli Gardens community -- a known political stronghold of the prime minister's governing Jamaica Labour Party.

The very sovereignty of Jamaica seems to be at stake in its Government's defence of its constitutional right, within the framework of an existing bilateral extradition treaty it has with the USA, which would require extending that right for a ruling by the courts in Jamaica BEFORE Coke could be handed over to US authorities, or that such a process be denied.

Given the commitment to the rule of law in our Caribbean civilisation, it is good to have an independent judicial system as final arbiter in the current dispute over the extradition of a Jamaican wanted by American authorities for alleged narco-trafficking and related crimes.

In a sense, the explosion of the bitter extradition row resulting from Jamaica's refusal to extradite Coke is a classic case of déjà vu in terms of relations between Washington and Kingston under different administrations.

As it was under previous governments of the now Opposition People's National Party (PNP), and the administrations of both presidents Bill Clinton and George W Bush, Jamaica remains a favourite "punching bag" in America's diversion to cover up its own woeful failures to effectively deal with its immense problem as the world's biggest consumer of illegal drugs as well as its involvement in gun-running linked to narco-trafficking.

This observation should not be misconstrued as support for Coke, or any other Jamaican or Caricom national whose alleged criminal activities can threaten national security as well as undermine good bilateral relations with the USA and other traditional external allies.

The 'Coke extradition case' reminds us of other instances of the USA wielding the 'big stick' to force small and poor states in this and other regions to genuflect to the assumed legal demands of Washington.

'Silver Dollar' and 'Shiprider'

A typical example of the USA's 'big stick' approach would be the threatened financial sanctions against Jamaica by the then Bill Clinton administration over a then PNP government, led by PJ Patterson, amid a raging bitter dispute involving alleged violations under of a then prevailing Maritime Counter-Narcotics Co-operation Agreement (the 1996 case of the fishing boat Silver Dollar).

A shining example of Caricom solidarity was demonstrated at an extraordinary summit in Barbados hosted by then Prime Minister Owen Arthur.

It was to frustrate Washington, which had threatened sanctions with the emergence of major changes to controversial provisions in the "Maritime Counter-Narcotics (Shiprider) Agreement" which, for its part, Trinidad and Tobago had earlier hastily signed in its original format.

Jamaica's signing with the USA of the revised protocol to the 1997 'Shiprider' pact had ended a chilling episode of political tension, and new cordial relations were flowering in Kingston (then under PNP rule) and other Caricom capitals with the USA when President Clinton showed up in Barbados in May 1997 for the historic summit that resulted in a far-reaching "Partnership for Sovereignty and Security".

Subsequently, however, under the administration of President George W Bush, there was to be another example of bullying tactics by a Washington administration against small and vulnerable economies.

In this case it was related to Caribbean countries that signed and ratified the Rome Treaty of the International Criminal Court (ICC), to concur with a demand from Washington to exonerate from extradition US citizens wanted by the ICC for specific crimes.

Failure to agree, they were made to understand, would mean losing whatever military assistance they normally received from dear "Uncle Sam".

Such is Washington's concept of "democracy" and "sovereignty' when dealing with small and poor states like ours in the Caribbean -- something for which it is occasionally applauded by sections of the region's media.

Among the countries that had both signed and ratified the Rome Treaty were Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, and St Vincent and the Grenadines. Antigua and Barbuda genuflected; Barbados and St Vincent and the Grenadines refused.

Jamaica, Guyana and St Lucia had signed but not ratified the treaty and, consequently, there was no need to pressure them into concurring with Washington's demand. These are just two examples of Uncle Sam's arrogance to push small and poor states into a corner.

Golding's Stand

In the current political episode involving Coke, Prime Minister Golding has made it clear that it is NOT a case of his Government's refusal to co-operate with Washington.

Jamaica's objection relates to the manner in which the USA was muscling its way to secure Coke's extradition, even to the extent of obtaining information illegally by violating key provisions of the Extradition Treaty between the two countries.

According to an irate Golding, who has vowed to pay, if necessary, "the political price" for his handling of the extradition request of August 25 last year, the evidence submitted is based on a violation of Jamaica's Interception of Communications Act.

He went on to state that "constitutional rights do not begin at Liguanea" (location of the United States Embassy in Kingston).

Given the nature of competitive party politics for state power, the Opposition PNP may have its own reason for an earlier press statement that accused the Golding administration of not "expeditiously" responding to the US request for the extradition of Coke.

Yet the PNP can hardly forget its own very unpleasant experiences while in government in dealing with differences with Washington on matters of narco-trafficking.

An example would be the impasse over the so-called Silver Dollar Affair that had led then Foreign Minister Seymour Mullings to accuse Washington of breaching Jamaica's sovereignty.

Cubana Tragedy

The Caribbean Community would be quite aware of Washington's unflattering record in honouring requests for the extradition of those in the USA wanted for outrageous criminal acts in other nations.

Foremost in the minds of Caribbean people would be two Cuban émigrés currently being sheltered in the USA from prosecution for their involvement in the 1976 bombing of the Cubana aircraft off Barbados in which all 73 people on board perished.

One of the terrorists in that Cubana tragedy, Orlando Bosch, a medical doctor, was given a presidential pardon by the senior George Bush, following his illegal entry into the USA after fleeing Venezuela, from where his partner in crime, Luis Posada Carriles, was to later escape. Carriles, after a 'protected' stay in Panama, also illegally entered the USA.

Washington continues to ignore Caricom's request for him to face a court trial for the biggest ever act of terrorism in a Caribbean jurisdiction.

March 07, 2010

jamaicaobserver

Bahamas Blog International

To OAS or not to OAS: that is the question

Ronald Sanders





At a meeting of leaders of Latin America and the Caribbean on February 23, Caribbean Community (Caricom) governments supported a joint "Declaration on (the) Falklands Islands Issue".

The Declaration "confirmed their support of Argentina's legitimate rights in the sovereignty dispute with the United Kingdom over the Falkland Islands Issue", and recalled "regional interest in having the governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom resume negotiations to find a fair, peaceful and definitive solution to the dispute over the sovereignty" of the Falklands/Malvinas islands. They went further to call on the European Union (EU) countries to amend their charter to remove the Falkland Islands from the list of overseas territories associated with the EU.

The support of Latin American countries for Argentina in this matter is quite understandable. They have links of language, culture, history and proximity that go back centuries.

But the support of Caricom countries for Argentina's "legitimate rights" is puzzling. Both the UK and Argentina have claimed the Falklands/Malvinas for almost 200 years. So what now makes Argentina's rights more "legitimate" than Britain's? And why call for "negotiations" between Argentina and Britain to find "a fair, peaceful and definitive solution" to the dispute if it has already been decided that Argentina's rights are "legitimate"?

Unless there is something they have not made public, this position by Caribbean governments appears on the surface to run counter to their own national interests.

The Caribbean has always strongly supported a people's right to self-determination. It is in fulfilment of their own right to self-determination that Caribbean Community (Caricom) countries are independent states. In this regard, since the people of the Falklands/Malvinas have consistently and overwhelmingly chosen to be British, Caribbean governments would certainly not argue that the manifest wish of the people of the Falklands/Malvinas should be ignored, particularly since Britain has exercised de facto sovereignty over the islands continuously since 1833.

The national interests of 12 of the 14 independent Caricom countries are much more bound up with Britain than they are with Argentina. Caricom's trade with Britain far exceeds trade with Argentina; investment in Caricom countries from Britain is much greater than any investment from Argentina; official development assistance from Britain to Caricom countries directly and indirectly (through the European Union and the Commonwealth for instance) is much larger than any assistance from Argentina; the number of tourists from Britain to Caricom countries is considerably greater than from Argentina; and far more Caricom nationals live, work and study in Britain than in Argentina.

What appears to have triggered this discussion at the 33-nation Cancun meeting is the fact that a British oil exploration company, Desire Petroleum Plc, announced that it had started drilling for oil 60 miles (100 kilometres) north of the Falklands/Malvinas. Argentina objects to this development.

In giving support to Argentina, Caricom countries run the risk of compromising their own interest. For instance, where would they stand if Venezuela objected to oil exploration off part of Guyana, despite long-standing international arbitrations and agreements confirming Guyana's title? Also, where would these countries stand if Venezuela objected to oil explorations that might be granted by some of them near Aves Island/Bird Rock to which Venezuela lays claim? In the case of Belize where Guatemala claims the entire country, the same argument applies.

Then we come to the matter of the creation of a grouping of these 33 countries that excludes Canada and the United States. Some of the Latin American leaders - in particular those with a strong anti-American position - proclaimed to the media that this new grouping should replace the Organisation of American States (OAS).

Well, replacing the OAS is simply in no country's interest - not even those with the most rabid anti-American governments. There has to be a forum in the Hemisphere where all its countries are represented and where discussions can take place at all levels of government and on all issues. And that organisation is clearly the already well-established OAS. In this regard, Cuba should return to the OAS and the exclusion of the present elected government of Honduras should cease.

In any event, I suspect that only a very few governments touted the idea of an "alternative" organisation to the OAS and even fewer would have supported it. Certainly for Caricom countries, there is no other organisation in which they can engage the US government on a regular and sustained basis at all levels. That alone makes the OAS worthwhile for them.

Further, Caricom governments greatly value their relations with Canada, which has been an ally and partner for generations in the Hemisphere and in the Commonwealth. They would want deeper, not distant relations with Canada.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with Latin American and Caribbean countries establishing a grouping that is not an alternative to the OAS, but is additional to it.

However, no one should believe that it will be anything more than an opportunity for dialogue at the leadership level. It will have no secretariat and therefore little means of implementing decisions; decisions will have to be made by consensus, therefore no binding decisions will be made. In truth, the grouping is so amorphous and is made up of countries at such different levels of development and with such differing interests and ambitions, that its meetings will largely be obligatory and its decisions only declaratory.

The Summit "Declaration of Cancun" does have as one of its objectives "the co-ordination of regional positions ahead of meetings and conferences of global reach... to project the region and increase its influence". This is to be welcomed provided that the view of smaller Caribbean islands are seriously considered and reflected by the larger Latin American states.

This brings us to the OAS itself. The US government should regard this move by Latin American and Caribbean countries to set up a Hemispheric grouping, which deliberately excludes it, as a firm warning that its neglect of Latin America and the Caribbean's development needs and issues, and its oftentimes casual dismissal of their positions is not in the interest of the United States. The authorities in Washington need to engage Latin American and Caribbean countries as genuine partners and neighbours, and a strengthened and revitalised OAS is the place to do so.

In this connection, Caricom countries should indicate their support for the re-election on March 23 of the incumbent Secretary General José Miguel Insulza. His task over the last five years in a fractious organisation, which also relies on consensus for decision-making, has not been easy. But he has tried to introduce reforms and he has been the most forceful secretary general the OAS has seen for a long time. Additionally, he has been very mindful of his obligations to his Caribbean member states.

He has also taken on Hugo Chavez over violations of media freedom in Venezuela and he has not been afraid to point out shortcomings by the US government. To have offended both these adversaries, he must have done something right for the rest.

Over the next five and final years as secretary general, Insulza can be bold in giving the OAS real direction in reforming its mandate and establishing it as a meaningful forum for settling hemispheric issues and advancing democracy, development and human rights.

Responses and previous commentaries at: www.sirronaldsanders.com


Sir Ronald Sanders is a consultant and former Caribbean diplomat.


February 28, 2010

jamaicaobserver

Bahamas Blog International