Looking for a leader in the Caribbean

By Robin Guittard:



It takes a strong leader to sit up and take notice when the tides of public opinion are turning. Often the idea of real change can be concerning to politicians. However, in Trinidad and Tobago people are crying out for their rights to be recognised, as a whole section of society suffers continued discrimination and abuse. Will the leaders listen to their calls?

A few months ago, the country’s Commission in charge of the reform of the constitution pointed out “a high level of violence and abuse directed against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual or intersex (LGBTI) people” in Trinidad and Tobago

But over the last couple of weeks something has changed, there is excitement in the air. Perhaps the country is having its most mature debate since independence half a century ago. The nation is discussing what place to give to those who doesn’t identify themselves as heterosexuals, those often called LGBTI.

The ground-swell of support has been palpable, and has come as a reaction to a mis-judged statement from Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar.

Last month, during an interview in New York, she ducked and dived when she was questioned about the “decriminalization of homosexuality” in the country. She said that it isn’t something her government is seeking to do at the moment because “it’s too divided, there’s no consensus on that issue.” She then rapidly ended the discussion saying the question should be put before a national referendum.

Since then, a fierce debate has taken place. Many new voices have appeared to challenge the Prime Minister’s dismissal of her government’s obligations to protect the rights of LGBTI people.

The public debate has been bolstered by recent developments.

Recently UNAIDS, the United Nations agency in charge of the fight against HIV/AIDS, presented the results of a survey undertaken in Trinidad and Tobago.

An encouraging 78% of people interviewed said that “homosexuals should not be treated differently”, and 56% said that they themselves were tolerant towards LGBTI people.

Then, last week the country’s Equal Opportunity Commission announced that it will recommend including sexual orientation, age and HIV status in national legislation designed to protect citizens against discrimination.

Surely if the Prime Minister needs a green light to act on this issue, she has just received a strong message: the country is ready to move forward.

In fact, Kamla Persad-Bissessar herself has already shown she is open to change. In 2012 she noted that “the stigmatisation of homosexuality in Trinidad and Tobago is a matter which must be addressed on the grounds of human rights and dignity to which every individual is entitled under international law.” Amnesty International could not agree more.

However, while the prime minister can take strength from the outpouring of support and call for change, her suggestion of a referendum is not the surest way forward. If the prime minister is serious about effecting progressive change she does not need to put the question to a referendum and risk a result that reinforces discrimination. She should instead promote legislation that would ensure that Trinidad and Tobago’s laws comply with its international obligations and implement appropriate awareness raising measures to combat society’s prejudices and discriminatory practices.

Above all, protection from discrimination is an internationally-binding obligation that has been voluntarily accepted by the Trinidadian state. Over the years, UN experts have clarified that treaty provisions prohibiting discrimination implicitly proscribe discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. It’s a responsibility which needs to be acted upon by the government, not something that’s optional.

Trinidad and Tobago has repeatedly proven to be a tolerant society. Protection from discrimination is a key component amongst its diverse communities, the foundation on which the society has been built.

It’s exactly because of this strong track-record in tolerance that the prime minister’s inaction and excuses need to be challenged. When so many people and institutions are voicing concerns that LGBTI Trinidadians are continuously facing discrimination, the Prime Minister can no longer ignore the issue.

To improve the human rights record in Trinidad and Tobago the country needs leadership. Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar can be that leader and could truly make a mark on the country’s history and change the human rights environment for the better.

A national version was published on Monday in the Trinidad Express

October 24, 2014

Caribbean News Now

Resetting US-Caribbean relations

By Anton E. Edmunds:


The announcement of the departure of Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs Dr Arturo Valenzuela has prompted quite a reaction in the Washington community that tracks hemispheric affairs. While some argue that Valenzuela was marginalized by others with direct access to the White House and the Secretary of State, others have weighed in on how badly academics do in similar roles. There is even an assessment that the US role of protector of democracy in the region was damaged under his watch.

While it may be unfair to blame this one individual for the collapse of relationships with some countries that have become emboldened in their ability to goad the United States, it is equally unfair to look to Valenzuela’s predecessor as an example of a more effective Assistant Secretary or for that matter, claim that the US regional relationship has suddenly been harmed. The reality is that the United States has long had regional relationship problems and has not had a consistent regional strategy in decades. A key fact that most chose to ignore is that relationships do not remain static, and the region itself for better or worse has changed.

Gone are the fledgling independent Caribbean states of a generation ago, and the new democracies of post conflict Latin America, both groups in the past clinging to a relationship with a regional hegemon freely dispensing aid and protection as these new nations weaned themselves from both colonial master and communist threat. Gone also is the belief by countries that the United States is a benevolent partner, willing to allow them to slowly evolve while accepting systems and standards consistent with its own. Instead what we see is a dysfunctional hodgepodge of struggling economies, each trying to eke out an existence in a merciless global marketplace while their leadership learn on the job the importance of good governance, an area where some would argue many are failing.

A perceived or real absence from the region by the US, while focusing elsewhere has served to exacerbate this weakening of ties and while opening of markets has done wonders for trade flows, it has proven not to be the panacea that Washington or the region once thought it would be. While by rote, Cuba has been the major focus of every incoming head of the Western Hemisphere at the State Department, it may not be any longer in reality the biggest problem. Instead it’s a combination of nuisance situations that serve to aggravate the United States vis-à-vis the Hemisphere.

There is Venezuela who some argue has managed to leverage its petroleum resources to gain friends and influence people; and one also sees a surging China providing aid to multiple nations and financing major a infrastructure and hospitality development. There is even an increased Middle-Eastern presence, with countries promising resources to a region some would argue is starved for attention and support, as in the case of Libya with the Eastern Caribbean.

The fact that the region has changed, with Caribbean and Latin American leaders becoming less wedded to their largest trading partner is not lost on observers. The hope is that with crime rampant, drugs flowing freely through the region and the threat of countries becoming controlled by criminal elements, the US and the region can find themselves once again together as partners sharing solutions to address important socio-economic problems.

This not unlike as in the days of the Cuba-Russia threat that preceded the Caribbean Basin Initiative and other similar initiatives. Recent initiatives such as Merida and the Caribbean Basin Security Initiative may well be attempts by the US to reengage.

Specific to the Caribbean, the Washington relationship appears to be one characterized more and more by feelings of both parties of dissatisfaction, distrust and disillusionment. The Caribbean unfortunately has long believed that a proud history of democracy should mean something more than it does, and that the tradition of a stable transition of government should be rewarded by thoughtful programs to advance this region’s development.

The reality is that be it with Europe or the United States, such a democratic history does not automatically translate into treats. As with the trade negotiations with the European Union, though called flawed by some, a level of maturity and creatively must be developed by the region if it is interested in working with its partners on co-authoring agendas and programs that are nuanced, thoughtful and comprehensive.

Caribbean leadership has also failed to effectively understand how Washington works and instead of cultivating multi-pronged alliances based on shared concerns such as security and mutually beneficial economic growth, instead depend on relationships of old and worse, looks to tenuous familial links between US government officials and countries of the region as a foundation upon which to advance policy discourse.

The great hope that a president of similar likeness and a State Department head who has travelled to the region in the past would usher in an era of re-engagement without real inputs from the Caribbean is a pipedream. Even relationships with entities such as the Congressional Black caucus have been badly managed and the Caribbean with few exceptions has failed to deliver its part of the equation when engaging groups like this by not submitting good ideas for consideration and worse, not engaging in the simplest of action of following up.

For the future, willingness by the Caribbean to develop and proffer solutions that take into consideration US policy direction is critical. That willingness must extend to listening to sometimes ill-conceived proposals but importantly, to understanding what drives them and to work to broker compromise where everyone wins.

While a knowledge gap and weakness at the senior levels at the US Departments of State, Commerce and other agencies in dealing with the Caribbean does not help and some may well characterize the placement of some who cover the region as tokenism, the Caribbean must itself step up to the plate by placing its best and brightest in the right space to rebuild a fractured relationship.

Some point out that a lack of attention by agencies such as USAID supporting on issues such as disaster mitigation and business continuity; the linking of key industries like tourism to agriculture; and the supporting of skills training in viable industry areas reflect changes in Washington and the centralization and politicization of this agency by the State Department.

Others argue that the bigger issue may simply be one of Caribbean irrelevance to the US or as stated before, the region’s inability to make itself heard. In any event, the lack of focus on the Caribbean is real and can be seen across the board.

In the case of the US Department of Commerce, it is perceived that the primary focus continues to be solely one of interest in building stronger alliances with Free Trade countries, with little acknowledgement of and unwillingness to invest in strengthening a robust trading relationship the Caribbean. Caribbean irrelevance to that entity may well be evidenced in the fact that never once in the three year history of that organization’s Americas Competitiveness Forum, has a Caribbean Head of State or corporate leader been featured.

In the case of others, including the Department of Energy, the use of proxies such as the OAS is becoming habit instead of direct engagement. One even sees the use of countries like Brazil and Canada as proxies for US engagement.

Unfortunately, for many in Washington there are some fundamentals that it is argued tell a different story. The lack of responsiveness from the region to overtures by the administration does allow many to question the seriousness of the Caribbean. As this is a problem also experienced by many an investor, the question as to whether Caribbean governments are incompetent or worse is not uncommon.

The now discounted Caribbean promise of an integrated marketplace, and regional standards in areas such as security has also served to dissuade many a career official from trying to advance a Caribbean agenda. Lack of action by the region on past initiatives does little to protect them from change by newcomers to Washington agency offices.

On the regional front, the Caribbean today is very much at the crossroads. The region lacks leadership at its crown jewel CARICOM, which begs the question as to which entity should major US agencies engage on regional programs. While the region itself reflects on the value of this body, one can only imagine what allies within agencies such as the State Department are thinking, as they have long had questions related to that organ’s ability to deliver. Gone too are the Caribbean statesmen of yore and lore who were able to command a certain amount of respect when it came to policy discussions with the US.

Compounding this is the re-emergence of regional and sub-regional rifts, often driven by personal and cultural inter-island animosities and protectionism that now consume significant time and resources.

When asked to comment about the future of the US-Caribbean relationship, there is expressed by many the hope is that the replacement for Dr Valenzuela will bring some broad regional experience and that Cuba and Venezuela, while they will continue to be key countries of focus will not be issues that derail the advancing a productive US-Caribbean relationship.

There is also hope that there will be real depth at the State Department and other administration agencies as it relates to the Caribbean, and one will see the Administration take a real stab at engaging Caribbean experts, maybe from the Diaspora community to fill out some of its ranks. Irrespective of the change in Washington, critical will be the ability of the region to do its part to help reset the relationship.

May 23, 2011

caribbeannewsnow

Bahamas Blog International

The Pharaoh factor in Caribbean politics

By Oliver Mills



Politics in the Caribbean is in a state of volatility and controversy. The fundamental question is, when has this never been the case?

In one country, accusations are being made over the receipt of aid money from Libya, to help in the rebuilding of the country after the damage done by Hurricane Tomas.

In another, an interim government is in place directing the affairs of the country through an Advisory Council and a Consultative Forum.

In yet another country, its president’s performance has been described as fifth rate, and doing nothing for his country.

Again in another, the political directorate has been accused of having a minimal impact on nation building, and failing to provide intellectual and moral direction towards putting the country on the right track.

What is really going on in the politics of the Caribbean? Why is it that, particularly in four countries, which are indeed representative of the others, there are these contentions against the political directorates? These are tame in comparison to what is happening in other Caribbean countries. And there is no difference whether these countries are independent or not.

We would have thought that with so many years of political maturity, with technology and communications being so highly developed, that some level of sanity would have emerged in the politics of our region. But it has not. Is what is happening a reflection of a lively democracy, or is the critical reason what I have decided to describe, as the Pharaoh factor in Caribbean politics?

The idea of a lively democracy, on the surface would seem to imply unrestricted debate and dialogue over the pertinent issues of the day, elections held within a certain period of time, the presence of opposition forces, and a ‘free’ press. But this seems to be what a political leader in Israel has called, a process, rather than the values that go along with it.

Is democracy therefore more than a process, or a set of procedures, but most importantly a values based practice? When we examine what has just been given as happening in the four Caribbean territories, is it merely processes and procedures, rather than evidence of certain cardinal values which govern, and are integral to the practice of real democracy?

At one level, if one sovereign country decides to negotiate an aid package from another, irrespective of the politics of the lender country, is this not a democratic right to choose and deal with any country one chooses, or is it that either insufficient discussions were held with other political forces, or they were not consulted at all? In the latter sense, is it evidence of Pharaoh politics, rather than the politics of deliberation involving all significant actors?

In the Turks & Caicos, is the formation of an Advisory Council, and a Consultative Forum to assist in the process of governance, after certain alleged behaviours by politicians, a form of democratic intervention, since locals were appointed as members of these bodies, and therefore make decisions on behalf of the country, even though they are not formally elected?

And, are critical comments concerning the performance of the political directorates not evidence of democracy in action? Or, is it because of the practice of Pharaoh politics in the Caribbean by its leaders, which generated this response from other political forces?

Is reaction to policies by political directorates based on the fact that they appear ill-conceived, and in total disregard for the involvement of other interests, a form of democracy in action, or is it a response to political inertia, lack of concern, and self-righteousness of Caribbean political leaders?

Is this not the politics of Pharaoh where the political leader does as he or she wishes, or does not do anything of substance, and does not care irrespective of what others may think?

But what is real and genuine democracy? It involves serious deliberation with others about policies and issues, using rational and reasonable arguments in order to agree on a position satisfactory to all. Here, the general interest is considered, without partiality. Agreement is arrived at through dialogue, and not by the threat of force, psychological or otherwise.

Pharaoh politics on the other hand has to do with some Caribbean leaders being highly autocratic in their actions, running roughshod over competing parties, and of the Pharaoh character feeling that his opinions and actions are above criticism or debate, and all others who challenge this position are unpatriotic, or disrespectful to the office of the Pharaoh.

We have seen Pharaoh politics in action in a most blatant form in Grenada under Gairy, in Haiti under Papa Doc and his son, and in many of the actions of earlier Caribbean leaders on assuming power. Some of these felt that because they were the first to form political parties or trade unions, that there was a certain entitlement they had, and therefore it was rude and disrespectful to challenge them.

Unfortunately, this type of political mentality has seeped down to many of our political operatives. We saw this in a remark by one political leader that it is either his way, or the highway. And again, by the same leader who when challenged to give up leadership after a number of years in opposition said that no other person in the party was qualified to succeed him. This is the politics of Pharaoh in action.

Pharaoh politics is also seen where political supporters break up political meetings, or other gatherings that oppose the existing regimes, or use other intimidating tactics, to discourage opposition activity. It is also seen in the gerrymandering of constituencies giving favour to one political party over the other. It is further seen where after an election, irrespective of the competencies of people, many are removed from their jobs, and replaced by the supporters of the Pharaoh.

Again the politics of Pharaoh shows itself in awarding contracts to the chosen, without even any bidding process being put in place. It is further seen in using the institutions and resources of the state for self enrichment, and the enrichment of Pharaoh’s colleagues at the expense of the people and the sustainability of the state.

It is also observed in the behaviour of the Pharaoh, after accumulating enormous resources for himself. The many homes built, the construction of what could be regarded as palaces, the encouraging of political spies who carry news on others, truthful or simply made up, and the resulting political victimisation of these persons.

Pharaoh politics therefore results in the accumulation of resources through rather innovative means, seeing the populace as us and them, the idea that if you are not with me, you are against me, granting extraordinary favours without using the correct channels, or influencing these channels to do so, and creating psychological fear in others, and the use of reprisals on those who are of a different persuasion.

But what are the origins of Pharaoh politics? It has its beginnings in the parliamentary system of government, surprisingly, since this is the model that is supposed to promote and represent real democracy. This system encourages a maximum leader with enormous powers and authority. This leader can apportion political responsibilities, has the resources to attract support, can dominate politics, and can hire or fire ministers.

The parliamentary system therefore produces autocratic leaders disguised as democratic figures. The maximum leader can also ignore the advice of public officials and his ministers, and appoint his or her own core of advisers. This is the origin of the Pharaoh factor.

From this emerged a situation where two cousins headed two opposing political parties. Two brothers are ministers of government in different parties, and because of the politics, a president hands over office to his wife. And again, a situation where the father was head of government, and was later followed by his son. This is the story of Pharaoh politics in the Caribbean.

And what kind of politics does the Caribbean need to free itself from the grip of Pharaoh politics? It is first of all a politics of values. This means that there are certain values that are adhered to in the practice of political discourse. These include having a moral approach to the issues.

This involves making decisions on their merit, establishing political parties with a moral purpose of what is right and good, and making choices which benefit the entire populace, and not a segment of the country. It also means choosing to run for office, people with ethical backgrounds, and who have a character history of making choices and decisions that are noble and just.

It also means that Caribbean politics needs to be standards based, using prescribed benchmarks which can be measured to determine behaviour that is acceptable. The abolition of Pharaoh politics also means having compassion and care for people and their problems, being sensitive to the needs of others, and having the capacity to put ourselves in the shoes of others. Pharaoh politics lacks compassion and identification with the needs of those who do not share Pharaoh’s vision.

Caribbean politics further needs to have institutions that are honourable and trustworthy, can be depended on to deliver, and that are run by people who show mercy and a sense of deep humanity. Most importantly, the Caribbean intelligentsia needs to educate the public on the real meaning of a changed and relevant politics that is kind, gentle, and reasonable.

We further need to rid ourselves of the politics of hate, divisiveness, and which forms cleavages and factions. The latter needs to be replaced by a politics that is all inclusive, respectful of the individual and his or her contribution, and which puts the interests and welfare of the country, over that of political constructions formed within it.

All of these constitute the ingredients of an antidote to the Pharaoh factor in Caribbean politics.

March 10, 2011

caribbeannewsnow

Bahamas Blog International

Is The West Indies West Indian? (Part 3)

By Sir Shridath Ramphal


There is another major respect in which the West Indies, in not being West Indian in the Marryshow manner, is not being true to itself. We are failing to fulfill the promise we once held out of being a light in the darkness of the developing world. Small as we are, our regionalism, our West Indian synonymy, inspired many in the South who also aspired to strength through unity. Solidarity has been lost not only amongst ourselves, but also collectively with the developing world.

And, perhaps, therein lies the ‘rub’. Were we making a reality of our own regional unity we would not be false to ourselves and we would have inspired others who, in the past, had looked to us as a beacon of a worthy future. Instead, we are losing our way both at home and abroad.

Have we forgotten the days when as West Indians we were the first to daringly bring the ‘Non-Aligned Movement’ to the Western Hemisphere, when we pioneered rejection of the ‘two China’ policy at the United Nations and recognized the People’s Republic; when, together, we broke the Western diplomatic embargo of Cuba; when we forced withdrawal of the Kissinger plan for a ‘Community of the Western Hemisphere’; when we were in the front rank (both intellectual and diplomatic) of the effort for a New International Economic Order; when from this region, bending iron wills, we gave leadership in the struggle against ‘apartheid’ in Southern Africa; when we inspired the creation of the ACP and kept the fallacy of ‘reciprocity’ in trade at bay for 25 years; when we forced grudging acceptance in the United Nations and in the Commonwealth that ‘small states’ required special and differential treatment? In all this, and more, for all our size we stood tall; we commanded respect, if not always endearment. We were West Indians being West Indian.

For what do we stand today, united and respected as one West Indies? We break ranks among ourselves (Grenada, I acknowledge, no longer) so that some can bask in Japanese favour for helping to exterminate endangered species of the world’s whales. We eviscerate any common foreign policy in CARICOM when some of us cohabit with Taiwan. Deserting our African and Pacific partners, we yield to Europe -- and take pride in being first to roll over.

What do these inglorious lapses do for our honor and standing in the world? How do they square with our earlier record of small states standing for principles that commanded respect and buttressed self-esteem? The answers are all negative. And, inevitably, what they do in due measure is require us to disown each other and display our discordance to the world. This is where ‘local control’ has led us in the 21st Century. We call it now ‘sovereignty’. In reality, it is sovereignty we deploy principally against each other; because against most others that sovereignty is a hollow vessel.

It is easy, perhaps natural, for us as West Indian people to shift blame to our governments; and governments, of course, are not blameless. But, in our democracies, governments do what we allow them to do: they themselves say: ‘we are doing what our people want us to do’. It is not always true; but who can deny it, when we accept their excesses with equanimity, certainly in silence.

No! There is fault within us also. We have each been touched with the glow of ‘local control’; each moved by the siren song of ‘sovereignty’; have each allowed the stigma of otherness, even foreignness, to degrade our West Indian kinship. The fault lies not only in our political stars but also in ourselves that we are what and where we are; and what and where we will be in a global society that demands of us the very best we can be. When the West Indies is not West Indian, it is we, at least in part, who let it be so. And what irony: Marryshow and his peers demanded that we be West Indian to be free together. We were; but in our freedom we are ceasing to be West Indian and in the process are foregoing the strengths that togetherness brings.

When are we at our best? Surely, when the West Indies is West Indian; when we are as one; with one identity; acting with the strength and courage that oneness gives us. Does anyone doubt that whatever we undertake, we do it better when we do it together?

Thirty-five years ago, in 1975, on the shores of Montego Bay, as I took leave of Caribbean leaders before assuming new roles at the Commonwealth, my parting message was a plea TO CARE FOR CARICOM. Among the things I said then was this:

Each generation of West Indians has an obligation to advance the process of regional development and the evolution of an ethos of unity. Ours is endeavoring to do so; but we shall fail utterly if we ignore these fundamental attributes of our West Indian condition and, assuming without warrant the inevitability of our oneness, become casual, neglectful, indifferent or undisciplined in sustaining that process and that evolution.

The burden of my message is that we have become ‘casual, neglectful, indifferent and undisciplined’ in sustaining and advancing Caribbean integration: that we have failed to ensure that the West indies is West Indian, and are falling into a state of disunity, which by now we should have made unnatural. The process will occasion a slow and gradual descent – from which a passing wind may offer occasional respite; but, ineluctably, it will produce an ending.

In Derek Walcott’s recently published collection of poems, White Egrets-- for which he has just won the prestigious T.S. Elliot Prize -- there are some lines which conjure up that image of slow passing:

With the leisure of a leaf falling in the forest,
Pale yellow spinning against green – my ending.

This must not be a regional epitaph. But, if CARICOM is not to end like a leaf falling in the forest, prevailing apathy and unconcern must cease; reversal from unity must end. The old cult of ‘local control’ must not extinguish hope of regional rescue through collective effort; must not allow a narcissist insularity to deny us larger vision and ennobling roles. We must escape the mental prison of narrow domestic walls and build a West Indies that is West Indian. We must cherish our local identities; but they must enrich the mosaic of regionalism, not withhold from it their separate splendours.

In some ways, it must be allowed; our integration slippage is less evident among the smallest of us. The OECS islands have set out a course for more ambitious and deeper economic integration among themselves, which would be worthy of all, if it could subsist for all. The Treaty establishing the OECS Economic Union is now in force. But, it is early days; it remains to be seen at the level of action, at the level of implementation, whether, even for them, the earlier ‘agony’ (of which Sir Arthur Lewis wrote so ruefully in 1962) lingers still. Meanwhile, however, congratulations are in order, and I extend them heartily.

In moving closer to ‘freedom of movement’ among the OECS countries they have set a vital example to the rest of CARICOM. The OECS West Indies is being West Indian. May it translate into an ethos among them, and in time infuse the wider Community with an end to ‘foreignness’ among all West Indians. The OECS islands have taken the first steps in a long journey whose ultimate goal must be a larger union.

Collectively, we must recover our resolve to survive as one West Indies -- as one people, one region, one whole region. Imbued by such resolve there is a future that can be better than the best we have ever had. Neither complacency nor resignation nor empty words will suffice. What we need is rescue – by ourselves, from ourselves and for ourselves. We cannot be careless with our oneness, which is our lifeline. As it was in St Georges in 1915, so it is now: The West Indies must be Westindian!

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 10, 2011

Is The West Indies West Indian? (Part 1)

Is The West Indies West Indian? (Part 2)

caribbeannewsnow

Bahamas Blog International

Is The West Indies West Indian? (Part 1)

By Sir Shridath Ramphal



It was here in St George’s 95 years ago that T.A. Marryshow flew from the masthead of his pioneering newspaper The West Indian the banner: The West Indies Must Be Westindian. And on that banner Westindian was symbolically one joined-up word – from the very first issue on 1 January 1915. In the slogan was a double entendre. To be West Indian was both the goal of self-determination attained and the strategy of unity for reaching and sustaining it.

Of course the goal of freedom kept changing its form as the world changed: internal self-government in the pre-war years; formal independence in the post-war years; the reality of freedom in the era of globalization; overcoming smallness in a world of giants. But the strategy of regional unity, the strategy of oneness, would not change, at least not nominally: we called it by different names and pursued it by different forms -- always with variable success: federation; integration, the OECS, CARIFTA, CARICOM, the CSME, the CCJ. It is that ‘variable success’ that today begs the question: Is The West Indies West Indian? Nearly 100 years after Marryshow asserted that we must be, are we yet? Worse still, are we less so than we once were?

Times changed in the nineteen twenties and thirties – between the ‘world wars’. The external economic and political environments changed; and the internal environments changed – social, political and most of all demographic. Local control began to pass to the hands of local creoles, mainly professionals, later trade unionists, and for a while the new political class saw value in a strategy of regional unity. Maryshow’s slogan ‘the West Indies must be West Indian’ was evocative of it; and for two generations, West Indian ‘unity’ was a progressive political credo.

It was a strategy that was to reach its apogee in the Federation of The West Indies: due to become independent in mid-1962. It is often forgotten that the ‘the’ in the name of the new nation was consciously spelt with a capital ‘T’ – The West Indies - an insistence on the oneness of the federated region. But, by then, that was verbal insistence against a contrary reality, already re-emerging. The new political elites for whom ‘unity’ offered a pathway to political power through ‘independence’ had found by the 1960s that that pathway was opening up regardless.

In the event, regional unity was no longer a pre-condition to ‘local control’. Hence, Norman Manley’s deal with McLeod and the referendum in Jamaica; and Eric Williams’ self-indulgent arithmetic that ‘1’ from ‘10’ left ‘0’; even ‘the agony of the eight’ that ended the dream. Despite the rhetorical passion that had characterized the latter years of the ‘federal movement’ the imperishable impulse for ‘local control’ had revived, and the separatist instincts of a controlling social and political elite had prevailed. Within four months of the dispersion of the Federation (on the same day in May 1962 that it was to become a single independent member state of the Commonwealth) Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago became so separately. We can act with speed when we really want to!

But objective realities are not blown away by winds of narrow ambition, Independence on a separate basis had secured ‘local control’; but the old nemesis of colonialism was replaced by the new suzerainty of globalization. Independence, particularly for Caribbean micro states, was not enough to deliver Elysium. ‘Unity’ no sooner discarded was back in vogue; but less a matter of the heart than of the head.

In an interdependent world which in the name of liberalization made no distinctions between rich and poor, big and small, regional unity was compulsive. West Indian states -- for all their new flags and anthems -- needed each other for survival; ‘unity’ was the only protective kit they could afford. Only three years after the rending ‘referendum’ came the first tentative steps to ‘unity’ in 1965 with CARIFTA; ‘tentative’, because the old obsession with ‘local control’ continued to trump oneness – certainly in Cabinet Rooms; but in some privileged drawing rooms too; though less so in village markets and urban street corners.

Despite the new external compulsions, therefore, the pursuit of even economic unity, which publics largely accepted, has been a passage of attrition. It has taken us from 1965 to 2010 -- 45 years -- to crawl through CARIFTA and CARICOM, through the fractured promises of Chaguaramas and Grand Anse, and through innumerable pious Declarations and Affirmations and Commitments. The roll call of unfulfilled pledges and promises and unimplemented decisions is so staggering that in 2011 a cul de sac looms.

At Grand Anse in 1989, West Indian political leaders declared that “inspired by the spirit of co-operation and solidarity among us (we) are moved by the need to work expeditiously together to deepen the integration process and strengthen the Caribbean Community in all of its dimensions” They agreed a specific work programme ‘to be implemented over the next four years’ with primacy given “towards the establishment, in the shortest possible time of a single market and economy”. That was 22 years ago. The West Indian Commission (also established at Grand Anse) confidently charted the way, declaring it a ‘Time for Action’. West Indian technicians took their leaders to the brink with the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas. But there was no action – no political action, no political will to act. In twenty-two years, nothing decisive has happened to fulfill the dream of Grand Anse. Over those two decades the West Indies has drawn steadily away from being West Indian.

Not surprisingly, when Heads of Government meet in Grenada later this month it will be at a moment of widespread public disbelief that the professed goal of a ‘Single Market and Economy’ will ever be attained, or even that their political leaders are any longer “inspired by the spirit of co-operation and solidarity” or “moved by the need to work expeditiously together to deepen the integration process and strengthen the Caribbean Community in all its dimensions” - as they proclaimed at Grand Anse in 1989.

Words alone are never enough, except to deceive. As Paul Southwell used to remind us in Shakespearian allusion: “Words, words, words; promises, promises, promises; tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow”. Nothing’s changed. In the acknowledged quest for survival (including political survival) the old urge for ‘local control’ by those in control has not matured to provide real space for the ‘unity’ we say we need. Like 19th century colonists we strive to keep our rocks in our pockets – despite the enhanced logic of pooling our resources, and the enlarged danger of ‘state capture’ by unelected groups and external forces while we dally.

The West Indies cannot be West Indian if West Indian affairs, regional matters, are not the unwritten premise of every Government’s agenda; not occasionally, but always; not as ad hoc problems, but as the basic environment of policy. It is not so now. How many Caribbean leaders have mentioned CARICOM in their New Year messages this year? Only the Prime Minister of Grenada in his capacity as the new Chairman of CARICOM. For most West Indian Governments Caribbean integration is a thing apart, not a vital organ of national life.

It seems that only when it is fatally damaged or withers away will Cabinet agendas change.

But let us remember, a civilization cannot survive save on a curve that goes upward, whatever the blips in between; to go downward, whatever the occasional glimpses of glory, is to end ingloriously. Caribbean civilization is not an exception. It is now as it was 95 years ago with Marryshow: The West Indies must be West Indian.

As current Chairman of CARICOM Prime Minister Tillman Thomas has rightly called for the West Indian people to be better informed and more intimately engaged in the regional project. CARICOM is essentially about people; about West Indian people; but, in truth, they have been too remote from its being. They are its heartbeat; but in the small states that we all are Governments tend to occupy the entire space of governance. They control the bloodstream of the integration process and when anemia threatens, as it does now, it is an infusion of people power that is needed to resuscitate CARICOM.

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 8, 2011

Is The West Indies West Indian? (Part 2)

Is The West Indies West Indian? (Part 3)

caribbeannewsnow

Bahamas Blog International

Caribbean integration is a mockery - CSME at a standstill

by Oscar Ramjeet


It seems as if Caribbean leaders are not serious about regional integration. The talk about freedom of movement is only lip service and there is no genuine effort for this to become a reality.

It is since 1989, more than 21 years since the CARICOM Single Market and Economy (CSME) agreement was signed and, although there has been a series of meetings throughout the region, very limited progress has been achieved to date, especially in the area of free movement of capital, skilled labour and the freedom to establish business enterprises anywhere in the Community.

It is rather surprising that former Barbados Prime Minister Owen Arthur, who had been travelling from island to island "preaching" regional unity and for governments to adhere to CSME, has criticised St Lucian-born Mara Thompson, for contesting the vacant seat in St John created after the death of the late prime minister.

The action by Arthur is very surprising and, in my view, very ridiculous because it defeats CSME and the regional integration process, but two friends of mine who are very familiar with regional affairs reminded me that Thompson, when he was prime minister, completely disregarded CSME when he took stringent, harsh and unconscionable action against non-Barbadians, especially Guyanese. He chased them out of the country and many of them did not get the opportunity to take their assets with them.

My friends said that you reap what you sow and said that the sins pass on to the third and fourth generation.

However, two wrongs cannot make a right and Arthur, who served three terms as prime minister, should know better because Mara is a citizen of Barbados and under the Constitution she can hold office as a lawmaker. The Constitution does not state that you have to be a Barbadian by birth. It states a citizen of Barbados and she has been a citizen for the past 21 years by marriage and residency.

Barbados Prime Minister Freundel Stuart has expressed surprise at Arthur's comments.

It seems to me that there is a dim future for the regional integration movement and recently distinguished commentators have been questioning if the CSME has a future. One is David Jessop, Director of the Caribbean Council. He spoke of the criticism meted out against CARICOM Governments and institutions for not ensuring the capacity and economic strength to create a sound regional economic base for investment and trade.

He also touched on the failure to implement regional and external agreements which, he suggests, indicates at best the absence of any coherent long term strategy and, at worse, irreconcilable divisions.

Sir Ronald Sanders, former Caribbean diplomat and well known commentator, suggested that the time had come to stop playing with the aspirations of the Caribbean people and argued that CARICOM needed to devise urgently a comprehensive regional plan utilising the best Caribbean brains that can be assembled from inside and outside the region.

Jessop agrees with Sir Ron's comments and said there is desperate need for a commission with popular support to be empowered to make recommendations on how to move forwards and modernise CARICOM.

The delay by most of the regional governments to abolish appeals to the Privy Council and accept the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) is another glaring example of the lapse by the various administrations. So far only three jurisdictions, Guyana, Barbados and Belize have accepted the CCJ as the final appellate court.

January 15, 2011

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

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

After a year of the Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) with Europe: What benefits for the Caribbean?

After a year of the EPA with Europe: What benefits for the Caribbean?
By Sir Ronald Sanders:


The European Commission (EC) will be holding a symposium on April 22 and 23 on the year-old Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) between the European Union (EU) collectively and 15 Caribbean countries individually.

There is, as yet, no indication that Caribbean governments or the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) Secretariat will be holding a similar exercise.

It has to be assumed that each of the governments that signed the EPA has long established units both to implement its terms and to monitor its effects on individual economies.

Therefore, relevant authorities in each of the Caribbean states as well as the Secretariat of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) should be able to provide a list of the benefits that have been secured from the EU under the EPA. Our publics had been told that we would benefit not only from the exports of new goods and commodities to the EU but also from the provision of a wide range of services. Additionally, Caribbean companies would have the right of establishment in the EU.

Against this background, it should be fairly easy for the competent authority in each country to provide information related to just a few matters such as: what preparations and actions have been taken by exporters of goods and especially services to access the EU market; what are the investment plans by companies to establish in the EU market; and how easy or difficult are their plans looking for access to Europe.

There is a very important clause in the EPA which allows for a review of it within 5 years of its coming into force. That clause was hard fought for, and came about only because Guyana’s President Bharat Jagdeo had the courage to insist upon it even after other Caribbean governments had agreed to sign the EPA without such a review mechanism.

In defence of several Caribbean heads of government, it should be noted that they were reluctant to sign and many did so only after their crucial exports of bananas and sugar and some manufactured goods (from Trinidad and Tobago for instance) were threatened by the EC with a higher tariff in the EU market.

But, if the EPA is to be properly reviewed – and it should be subject to such a review on an annual basis – it is essential to monitor its implementation and to gather information that will inform an examination

However, informed sources in the region say that some governments have done very little about implementation and others have done nothing at all.

What is known for certain is that even though Caribbean countries and the EU are supposed to be ‘partners’ under the EPA, the EC has denounced the Sugar Protocol causing Caribbean countries to lose their preferential price for sugar; the EC has agreed a new trade regime for bananas with exports from non African, Caribbean and Pacific countries that will decimate what is left of the banana industry in the Caribbean; and come June 20, the EC will renege on an undertaking to the Caribbean rum industry to help finance restructuring and marketing while at the same time reducing tariffs on competing rum from several Latin American countries.

Not surprisingly several Caribbean businesses have lamented the benefits to them of the EPA so far. For example, Ramesh Dookooh, President of the Guyana Manufacturing and Services Association, observes that “Guyana earns much of its revenue on traditional exports, including rice and sugar, both of which are not covered by the EPA’s duty- and quota-free. Thus, the private sector in our country has its reservations about the economic opportunities available under the EPA”. Nonetheless, he is hopeful. He says: “Wider consultation with stakeholders and a stronger focus on the developmental dimension of the agreements could make the EPAs even more effective.”

Unfortunately, there has not been much evidence of consultation. The experience of sugar, rum and bananas indicate that the EC now takes the Caribbean for granted. After all, they do already have a signed full EPA from the region, so why concern themselves overly about the Caribbean.

The EC also controls the purse strings. They have knotted those strings on the purse of the 8th European Development Fund (ED) from which money for restructuring and marketing the rum industry should have come, and its daunting bureaucratic procedures halt many Caribbean countries in their tracks from getting money to implement the EPA under the 10th EDF.

An EU fund, managed by the Caribbean Development Bank (CDB), is reported to be exhausted with no sign of being replenished.

Undoubtedly, the global financial crisis – as well as the failures of regional financial institutions – has battered Caribbean governments. All CARICOM countries have been preoccupied with saving their economies from shocks including worsening terms of trade especially with the EU – even Guyana though it had 3.3 per cent growth in 2009.

But, Caribbean governments cannot afford to let attention to the EPA with the EU slip. The European Commissioner for Trade, Karel De Gucht, recently told German business people: “The economic crisis has temporarily halted the process of globalisation. But let there be no mistake: this process is very likely to pick up again with renewed vigour. The EU must put in place the conditions to benefit from it to the full”. He is looking to a “successful conclusion” of the global negotiations at the World Trade Organisation (WTO) “to boost Europe's GDP by around 45 billion Euros”.

Commissioner De Gucht will measure a “successful conclusion” very differently from the Caribbean, but the region should have its own collective plan of action and its own definition of success on which it should collaborate with like-minded countries.

The implementation of the EPA and the procuring of benefits from it have not been evident so far, and the EC has not been helpful to the Caribbean in the process.

When Caribbean leaders meet their EU counterparts for a Conference on May 17th in Spain, they should be fully briefed and prepared to tell European leaders of their dissatisfaction and propose means of making the EPA deliver on the ‘partnership’ it promised.

April 16, 2010

caribbeannetnews

Bahamas Blog International

Delay in joining Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) is amazing

By Oscar Ramjeet:


As Belize is about to join the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) as its final court, one of the seven judges and the Court Registrar visited the country and held discussions with local judges and explained the Rules and Procedure of the regional court with practising lawyers.

Their visit coincided with a farewell sitting for Appellate Court Judge, Jamaican-born Boyd Carey.

Justice Adrian Saunders, who was involved in drafting the Rules of the CCJ and Registrar, Dawn Pierre, explained to more than three dozen lawyers at a workshop on Saturday, the rules and procedures to be followed in filing appeals to the regional court.

Belize is the third CARICOM country to get rid of the Privy Council as the final Court, and the first to do so since its establishment, when only two countries, Guyana and Barbados, went on board. It baffles me why the other member states are hesitant and/or reluctant to do so, especially countries like Trinidad and Tobago and Jamaica, which were in the forefront in the setting up of the Court. However, I have been reliably informed that Dominica is in the process of making preparations to join, but that country is now experiencing parliamentary setback since the opposition party is boycotting parliament, claiming irregularities at the last general elections.

Jamaica as well as St Lucia are also considering joining in the near future. The Patrick Manning administration in Trinidad and Tobago is all in favour of the regional court, but in order for that country to join it must get the support of the Opposition, since it requires two thirds of the vote, and the then opposition leader, Basdeo Panday, was not in favour of the move. However, now that there is a new leader of the opposition UNC, in Kamla Persad-Bissessar, who is a West Indian- trained attorney, it is likely there will be a change in that regard.

The CCJ has been established since February 14, 2001, by an agreement signed by a dozen regional governments on February 15, 2003, but the inauguration took place nearly five years ago on April 15, 2005.

The Court has not heard many cases in its Appellate jurisdiction since only two of the 12 countries have accepted the CCJ as the final appellate court, and this is very unfortunate since the Port of Spain based Court has the best court facilities on the planet. I was privileged to visiting the Court and was impressed with what I have seen - besides the well equipped libraries, spacious conference room, robing room etc. I was elated with the court room appearance, with the most modern telephonic and fascinating equipment. 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.

International jurists who have visited the CCJ and read its judgments generally have a high opinion of the court. One of them, Francis Jacobs, a Privy Councillor and former Advocate General of the European Court of Justice, said that the CCJ is of a high calibre and would be able to take account of local values and develop a modern Caribbean jurisprudence in an international context. He also took a swipe at some Caribbean leaders when he said, "It is regrettable that political difficulties have obstructed acceptance of its Appellate jurisdiction and that the outdated jurisdiction of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council survives for many of those states.

One of the most respected Caribbean jurists, Dominican born Telford Georges, said before his death that he regarded it as a "compromise of sovereignty" for us to remain wedded "to a court which is part of the former colonial hierarchy, a court in the appointment of whose members we have absolutely no say."

I sincerely hope that steps will soon be taken by those countries that have not yet joined will do so as soon as possible.

March 22, 2010

caribbeannetnews

Bahamas Blog International

Disasters need more than prayers

By Sir Ronald Sanders:


The massive earthquakes in Haiti and Chile within six weeks of each other, on January12 and February 27 respectively, revealed the limited capacity of Caribbean Community (CARICOM) countries to respond to disasters on this scale.

To date, CARICOM countries have not been able to mobilize support for Chile and have virtually left the problem to be tackled by the Chilean government, the United States of America, better-off Latin American nations and the international institutions. CARICOM countries simply do not have the resources in any form to cope with massive disasters within their own member states, let alone to provide help to other countries.

In this regard, CARICOM countries need to thank God that the 7.0 earthquake that buckled Haiti did not extend into Jamaica.

Nonetheless, high praise should be given to CARICOM countries for their efforts, at both the level of governments and the public, to help Haiti. In proportion to their capacity, many of them have been very generous.

Barbados has now emerged as the country which, on a per capita basis, has pledged the most to Haiti’s relief and reconstruction. Prime Minister David Thompson has revealed that the Barbados government is donating US$1 million to Haiti, the same figure as the governments of the two countries at either end of CARICOM’s economic scale - oil-rich Trinidad and Tobago, and Guyana, the poorest country, in per capita income terms, after Haiti in the region.

While Guyana’s contribution was exemplary, the donation of Barbados is outstanding for not only has the government pledged US$1 million, but it has been shouldering the costs for the operations of the Regional Security System (RSS) that has provided much needed security and other services to Haiti. Barbados shares the RSS with six island-territories of the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS) but Thompson revealed that “no other contributions have been forthcoming” from other states.

CARICOM countries gave as much as they could. They did so directly and through the Caribbean Disaster Emergency Management Agency (CDEMA). But, at the end of the day, large though the contribution was in relation to the means of these countries, it was a drop in the Ocean measured against the scale of Haiti’s needs. Haiti required the large scale assistance of countries such as the United States, Canada, France, Brazil and the international institutions like the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB).

In early March at a meeting of CARICOM finance ministers, Secretary-General, Edwin Carrington, declared that the region “cannot fail to take cognizance of the near similar situation (to Haiti) which has befallen Chile.” He urged assistance ‘to the best of our ability at this time”.

The number of dead and injured in Chile was not as great as in Haiti even though the 8.8 tremor was much stronger than the earthquake that bowed Haiti. Nonetheless, as this commentary is being written, the United Nations Office for the coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, reports that 723 people were killed and 2 million (about 10 per cent of the population) have been made homeless and are walking the streets. Six regions were declared as zones of catastrophe.

But CARICOM countries are already over-stretched in Haiti. It is doubtful that any of them, except perhaps for Trinidad and Tobago, could make anything more than a token gesture of assistance to Chile.

Fortunately, there are governments that can provide immediate relief assistance and Chile has the financial capacity to undertake the reconstruction that has been estimate, so far, at US$30 billion - 15 per cent of Chile's annual economic output. The country is the best managed in Latin America with a public debt of only 6 per cent of its GDP. By comparison, the majority of CARICOM countries have a debt to GDP ratio of one hundred per cent and more.

Further, over the last decade Chile saved much of the profits from sales of copper by state-owned mines and taxes on private miners. Its sovereign wealth funds now hold about US$15 billion. With this kind of record and assets, Chile will easily be able to access capital markets at low interest rates for rebuilding.

How to establish machinery for avoiding huge human and infrastructural catastrophes as a result of natural disasters is something that should now be actively exercising the minds of Caribbean leaders.

St Kitts-Nevis Prime Minister Denzil Douglas recently observed that “there is a wave of volcanic activity that is taking place in this region” and he called on his country’s National Emergency Management Agency “to review the country’s capacity to deal with an earthquake”. He would know that to do so the Agency would require greater resources from the government than it now has.

Among the factors that all governments should take into account is the legislation and enforcement of far better building standards than now exists. Equally, they should all subscribe to the Caribbean Catastrophe Facility Risk Insurance Facility which paid out very quickly to Haiti and gave the government some resources to help rebuild the broken country.

The underlying point about all this is that CARICOM countries could not cope with two disasters simultaneously among its own membership, and while they have been valiant in Haiti in relation to their means, their financial contribution to Haiti was miniscule. Nonetheless, disaster threatens them in the form of hurricanes and earthquakes and they are ill-prepared to cope – a fact that international financial institutions and large countries should take into account by ceasing to graduate them from concessionary lending; urgently addressing their burdensome commercial debt problems; and stopping the demand in the World Trade Organisation and in trade agreements that they give reciprocal treatment to countries and regions much larger than they are.

Of course, the principal lesson to be learned from the experience of Haiti and Chile is that the countries that will recover faster and reconstruct quicker from disasters are the ones with the prudently run economies that benefit from greater resources. In this connection, CARICOM countries could make their economies stronger by accelerating the completion of the Caribbean Single Market and Economy with an effective governance structure.

Praying that disaster does not kick down the doors of two or more CARICOM countries at the same time won’t be enough.

caribbeannetnews

Bahamas Blog International

Dumped: A blueprint for Caribbean salvation

By Sir Ronald Sanders:

Government representatives of all the countries that now form the Caribbean Community and Common Market (CARICOM), except the Bahamas and Haiti, were present at a meeting in Montego Bay, Jamaica when “majority opinion was clearly in favour of a Federation”.

They made concrete and visionary decisions and adopted resolutions that they anticipated would help their small countries individually and collectively. The overarching resolution recognized “the desirability of a political federation” in which “each constituent unit retains complete control over all matters except those specifically assigned to the federal government.”

Knowing from experience that any form of deeper integration would need transportation between their countries to move goods and people, the representatives expressed their belief that “the provision of adequate inter-regional and external shipping services and other communication is essential.”

They were wise enough to know that trying to maintain individual markets, individual currencies, as well as bargaining individually in a competitive global market is not practicable. In this connection, they decided that they should appoint a Single Trade Commissioner with “a well qualified staff of assistants” and “adequate funds” to bargain internationally for the region.

They boldly stated, “immediate, direct representation in negotiations affecting overseas trade and commerce is essential to the economic achievement of the countries”.

They also recommended the creation of a Committee “composed of delegates appointed by the Legislatures” of each country to make recommendations on “the assimilation of the fiscal, customs and tariff policy” and “the unification of the currency” of the countries. Not content with that, they also recommended the appointment of a Commission to examine in consultation with the governments of each country “the establishment of a Customs Union”.

And, these Caribbean leaders justified a Customs Union as follows: “the encouragement of inter-regional trade which would naturally be duty-free within the Union; the encouragement of local industries; the establishment of uniformity in tariff rates and customs administration; and the strengthening of the position of the Caribbean territories as far as bargaining power is concerned in relation to international trade agreements.”

They were also mindful that there would be disruption to some countries arising from a Customs Union. Therefore, they were careful to say that a suitable tariff should be prepared “having regard to the fiscal problems of the Governments whose revenue would be affected by the introduction of a Customs Union”.

On the matter of the single currency, they declared themselves “in favour of the early establishment of a uniform currency throughout the Caribbean”, and insisted on recording the view that “this measure is of very great importance to trade and commerce and it would also have advantages in strengthening the currency and the credit of this region”.

Food security was also very much on their minds. Thus, they recommended that “immediate steps be taken for setting-up of a central body of primary producers (representative of all the countries) with a view to accelerating the development of agriculture throughout the area on a sound economic basis”.

A special Committee dealt with the matter of debt and how it could be handled in a Customs Union and a Federation. The Committee held the opinion that the debt position of each country “would have to remain as at present until the comparatively advanced stage of federation is reached” when the major revenues are centralized in a federal exchequer. The Committee envisaged that the Federal government should assume responsibility for the remaining debt less accrued sinking funds.

Quite remarkably, the Committee of all governments also agreed that “the Federal government should be the sole authority for raising loans on the external market, although it would be both feasible and desirable to permit local loans to be raised for approved purposes by individual governments subject to the sanction of the federal finance authorities”.

Unfortunately, this conference of Caribbean government representatives did not take place in 2009. It took place in September 1947. It was attended by VC Bird of Antigua and Barbuda, Grantley Adams of Barbados, Alexander Bustamante of Jamaica, Albert Gomes of Trinidad and Tobago, A M Lewis of St Lucia, J B Renwick of Grenada, S F Bonadie of St Vincent, M H Davis of St Kitts-Nevis, C A Dupigny of Dominica, Dr J B Singh of Guyana and W H Courtenay of Belize. Also attending as a member of the Caribbean Commission was Norman Manley of Jamaica.

“The Conference on the Closer Association of the British West Indian Colonies”, as it was called, laid down the blueprint not only for Caribbean integration and development, but also for strengthening the region’s capacity to bargain in the international community.

In the end personal political ambitions and misplaced nationalism fostered by misinformation hijacked this regional project. A federation was formed, only to fall – not because it would not serve the Caribbean’s people; but because it did not suit some of its more influential politicians.

Thus, a customs union and a common currency were discarded, only to rise again as the Caribbean Single Market and Economy fifty-nine years later. In the meantime, experiments with individual independence and ‘going it alone’ economic policies have done nothing more than emphasize these are impossible dreams.

The present Regional Negotiating Machinery (RNM), now involved in negotiations with Canada after the disappointment of an unequal Economic Partnership Agreement with the European Union, is a half-sister to the more robust single Trade Commissioner the leaders had in mind in 1947 to negotiate for their one Caribbean state.

As for debt, almost all of the CARICOM countries now have a debt to GDP ratio of well over 100% and their economies are in deep trouble; the notable exception being Trinidad and Tobago which has been saved by its oil and gas resources. The Caribbean people could have been spared this situation had the Federation survived, implementing the rules for incurring debt that the 1947 Conference had envisaged, and implementing the blueprint for development it had laid out.

A single Caribbean state, drawing on the resources of tourism, financial services, agriculture, bauxite, gold, diamonds, oil, gas and the capacity of its tertiary educated people (75% of whom now live abroad) would have been far more viable today. It is time, the Caribbean learns from its own history and stop repeating its mistakes.

caribbeannetnews

Bahamas Caribbean Blog International

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

By Dr Isaac Newton and Debbie Douglas:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



caribbeannetnews

Bahamas Blog Bahamas