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

Our leadership paradox in the Caribbean

Michael Harris:


This past week I was in Jamaica where the venerable daily newspaper the Gleaner took the unprecedented step of publishing a series of four consecutive special editorials essentially calling on all sectors of Jamaican society to rally together to find solutions to the deep and seemingly endemic problems which that country faces.

In addition to the Gleaner’s own editorials, the paper also invited several prominent citizens to a round-table discussion in which they were asked not only to address what they saw as the causes of the problems but to put forward their views as to the required solutions.

What struck me about the whole discussion was the almost unanimous view of the several participants that a key component of the problem was the failure of leadership in the years since independence. What makes such a perspective really remarkable is the fact that Jamaica has had, since independence, a progression of exceedingly powerful and, in some cases, extremely charismatic leaders.

From the heroes of the nationalist movement, Norman Manley and Alexander Bustamante, to Michael Manley and Edward Seaga, to PJ Patterson, Jamaica has had no dearth of strong leaders. How is it then that today, 47 years after independence, prominent voices in society, including former prime minister Seaga himself, could look at their history and conclude that a key contributory factor to the nation’s problems was a failure of leadership?

That question goes to the heart of the political conundrum not only of Jamaica but of the entire English-speaking Caribbean. The key political legacy in all these countries was a model of governance in which all power and authority resided in the person of the governor, the representative of the imperial power.

In some countries, some sectors of the society enjoyed varying degrees of representation but even in such instances these sectors still saw themselves and their status in relation to their degree of access to such centralised power. As for the people in general theirs was a condition of total powerlessness and zero access to power.

The only real change in the model had come a few years before political independence with the general introduction of full adult suffrage which meant that the masses of people could no longer be completely ignored but had to be wooed periodically for their support.

This in turn, after a while, led to the advent of political parties as the most effective means of corralling the support of people behind different political leaders. However these political parties for the most part never became institutions of people participation, where the ordinary supporters could engage in policy debate and discussion, and be exposed to political education and development.

The consequences of this in the post-independence period were several. In the first place the leaders who came into government inherited the enormous powers of the colonial executive but did not have, either inside their political parties or outside, any institutionalised channels for consulting the views of the people on the policies and programmes to be adopted.

On the other hand the political parties themselves, being simply vehicles for electoral mobilisation rather than political mobilisation, possessed no powers of constraint on the exercise of governmental power by their leaders.

The further result was a critical disconnect between the political leaders in government and the mass of their supporters, a disconnect which, for electoral purposes, could only be bridged by the sustained proffering of patronage. There is no country in the English-speaking Caribbean in which this is not the essential characteristic of the major political parties.

Herein lies the heart of the leadership paradox in Jamaica, as in Trinidad, as in every one of our Caribbean countries. Our leaders possess enormous amounts of legal and constitutional authority which they inherited when they took over the colonial model of governance. They are, in fact, our modern-day governors. The problem is that they are incapable of transforming such overwhelming authority into genuine political power, if we understand political power to be the ability to persuade and commit.

And the truth is that under conditions of independence, our governments, no matter how well-intentioned, no matter how ’strong’, will never be able to solve the kind of economic and social problems we have in the Caribbean without persuading the vast majority of citizens to commit themselves to the effort and the sacrifices necessary for the solutions which we need to work.

That is the paradox. So many powerful leaders possessing so little leadership capacity. For leadership capacity does not depend on oratorical skills, it does not depend on intellectual ability, it does not depend of innate goodness and it certainly does not depend on divine drunkenness.

Leadership capacity depends on the existence and maintenance of institutions of political information, consultation and exchange between leaders and supporters which, when used in a genuine way and on a sustained basis, allows the leaders to time and space to persuade and commit. In short it depends on the existence of genuine political parties rather than election mobilisation outfits.

I am not familiar enough with Jamaica to hazard a guess as to what will happen there. Here in Trinidad however all the signs point to a total collapse of the old politics and with it the old political parties. That eventuality surely must present us with a golden opportunity to fashion new institutions of leadership.

December 14th 2009

trinidadexpress

Bahamas Caribbean Blog International