Kick CARICOM to the kerb

We, Jamaica and Jamaicans - need to give the six-month notice and leave CARICOM

I would support the repatriation of CARICOM nationals who work in Jamaica.  Parochial, yes.  More jobs for Jamaicans

By Ronald Mason, Jamaica Gleaner Contributor

There comes a time when the only thing to do is make clear, definitive, unambiguous statements about things of importance.  Here goes.  I am a Jamaican, I am NOT a Caribbean man.

I want no part of the totally useless creation we label CARICOM.  The peoples who populate those islands 1,000 miles away from my home are not brothers and sisters.  There has been some cross-breeding, but it's statistically insignificant to warrant the familial term 'brothers'.

I do not ascribe to the notion that because we are primarily and predominantly of the same racial composition, that makes us brothers.  The same could be said of the people of Papua New Guinea.  They were also former colonies of the same empire, but I do not hear this claim for integration with those good people.

I have visited countries in this Eastern Caribbean.  On arrival, one is not imbued, as a Jamaican, with the feeling of belonging.  One is met with the quizzical, "What do you want now?"

I have had a period of enforced residence with some of them at a particular North American university and here in Jamaica.  This has not created any pleasant memories, and I would have been better off not to have had those interpersonal experiences.

NOT THE SAME

We are different.  Mauby, blood pudding, bake, monkeys unfettered, major racial divide are all daily features of life in those islands.  The fact that the West Indies cricket team is offered up as a source of bonding strikes me as overreaching.  The team, when it was great, had individuals who proved to be extraordinary.  They were immensely, individually talented.

They had a singular purpose - to win.  They did win, but the team was created initially out of British colonies.  The development of independent countries with their own attendant nationalism has significantly diluted this experience.  One is hard-pressed to foresee a return to glory on the field, and even if they did, what would differentiate them from other cricket entities?  Just look at the Indian T20 spectacle.  Love cricket - watch, recognising the multiple nationalities playing as a unit.

The Trinidadians have this over-bearing, suffocating attitude.  The Bajans have this bombastic self-importance.  Both of these nations waste no time in displaying these traits towards Jamaicans.  Remember Kamla Persad-Bissessar and the ATM being out of bounds?  The Bajans and Shanique Myrie?

NO LONGER SUFFER IN SILENCE

As an aside, until these most recent incidents, I was prepared to listen to Sir Ronald Sanders and suffer in silence.  No more.  We need to give the six-month notice and leave CARICOM.  Keep your oil, money, flying fish and population.  We will deal with the world as it is and forge our way therein as best we can.

We have the resourcefulness, aptitude and personnel to make our mark.  Let us use what we have and be inspired by George Headley, up to Shelly-Ann Fraser-Pryce, Usain Bolt, the Nobel laureate in our midst and those high achievers in the diaspora.

Have you noticed which two countries are usually responsible for put-downs of Jamaica and Guyana?  I, for one, am no longer prepared, on the national level, to engage those who patronise my country and my countrymen.  I would support the repatriation of CARICOM nationals who work in Jamaica.  Parochial, yes.  More jobs for Jamaicans.

The matter of commerce between the countries is predicated on mutual benefit.  Is this the case with Jamaica and CARICOM?

Hell, no.  They see Jamaica as the market to be exploited, not where fair trade exists.  No to Jamaican patties.  Yes to tissue high in bacteria.

Play the fool regarding natural gas.  Pull the plug.  Get the brand name Air Jamaica, then curtail service to Jamaica.

We do not have to buy the biscuits, chocolate, peanuts, tissue and the multitude of other consumables from Trinidad.  There are Jamaican products of similar or superior quality than.  And our local purchases will boost jobs at home.  As for me and my house, we will not buy CARICOM products.

OTHER OPTION

As a member of the legal fraternity, I have given great thought to the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ).  I understand the need for a final appellate court.

I do have a longing to sever the ties with the colonial power.  Let me suggest that we look at another option.

There is a country in our part of the world that is developed, shares our judicial heritage and philosophy, does not have the baggage of colonial domination, and has proven itself to be a worthy ally of Jamaica.  I have no knowledge that they would be receptive to affording us assent for our final court.

However, we need to cut the ties to CARICOM.  Leaving the treaty will mean exiting the CCJ.  We would be diminished as a court of original jurisdiction for CARICOM trade matters.  Can we give thought to looking to Canada as our final court of appeal?

This may well mean a diminished court.  It may further be reduced if we could recoup the 26 per cent contribution we made to the trust which funds the court.  This totalled US$100 million.

Federation was a bad idea.  It was laid to rest.  CARICOM cannot hope to be viable without some states ceding to the whole some political power.  God forbid that Jamaica should do that.  Political decision-making, however limited?  No way!

The current experiment has to be laid to rest.  For me and my household, we will be at the vanguard of seeing to the dismantling of CARICOM.  I am a proud Jamaican.  I am not a Caribbean man.

Ronald Mason is an immigration attorney-at-law/mediator. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com.

May 05, 2013

Kick CARICOM to the kerb (Part 2)

Jamaica Gleaner

Caricom's 'buck-passing' culture

ANALYSIS
RICKEY SINGH




THE latest example of amusing buck-passing, or how to avoid taking political responsibility as leaders for advancing the goals of the Caribbean Community, emerged from a meeting in Grenada last Wednesday of five Caricom prime ministers and two foreign ministers.

Comprising a committee mandated to deal with the critical issue of improving governance of the affairs of the 37-year-old community, the participants were mindful to reflect customary caution in decisions taken for expected endorsement next month by the wider body of Heads of Government.

The committee's mandate flowed from last month's 31st Caricom summit in Montego Bay where the Heads of Government of the 15-member community had once again shied away from any consideration to introduce an empowered management structure that could have the effect of diluting, in some aspects, their domestic political authority.

This, even if such a course could result in satisfying, to some extent, their own often claimed commitment to achieving what's good for the regional economic integration movement as a whole, and knowing that it would require a sharing of some defined measures on sovereignty.

It is the reluctance to manage national sovereignty in the interest of the declared concept of 'One Community' that surfaced in Montego Bay last month.

The customary rhetoric about "commitment to Caricom" (read CSME; functional co-operation; integrated foreign and economic policies, etc), gave way to mild initiatives for tinkering with the community's prevailing governance status quo.

Consequently, the decision came from last Wednesday's meeting in Grenada on governance, plus another on a large nine-member "search committee" to help find a new secretary-general for Caricom with the retirement from year end of Edwin Carrington.

Two decisions

Participating in the meeting were the prime ministers of Jamaica (Bruce Golding, current Caricom chairman); Grenada (host Tilman Thomas); St Vincent and the Grenadines (Ralph Gonsalves); St Kitts and Nevis (Denzil Douglas) and Dominica's Roosevelt Skerrit. The two foreign ministers were Barbados' Maxine McLean, and Trinidad and Tobago's Surujrattan Rambachan.

First surprise was the disclosure that a nine-member "search committee", chaired by Foreign Minister McClean, would begin the process of pre-selecting candidates for the appointment of a successor to Carrington.

The committee's terms of reference, still to be formulated, will be determined by the Heads when they meet on the periphery of next month's start of the annual session of the UN General Assembly in New York.

The second surprising decision was even more baffling, in the sense that it offered neither anything new, in terms of a fundamental restructuring of the community Secretariat; nor any creative initiative for improved decision-making and implementation processes to check the snail's pace at which the CSME project continues to proceed.

The surprise came in the form of the announced decision to create a "Council of Community Ambassadors". It would operate on a permanent basis from the respective capitals to help remove barriers, at national levels, that frustrate implementation of regional decisions, and to strengthen co-operation.

If, after all the research materials and range of proposals over the years on alternative systems for improved governance of the community, Caricom leaders are to now offer a Council of Ambassadors as a standing mechanism for improving "governance", then they should not be surprised by an expected wave of cynicism and disenchantment across the region.

The Heads of Government may be scared of the politics of sharing a measure of sovereignty in the functioning of an empowered executive management structure, even though it is intended to function under their direct supervision and final authority.

How could it be explained -- if it is not a case of unintended contempt for the region's people -- the Heads' assumption of public acceptance of the proposed Council of Ambassadors as representing a creative effort for improved governance from the second decade of the 21st century?

Not flattering

For a start, the proposed Council of Ambassadors should not be confused with what obtains at the Organisation of American States (OAS), or in relation to the African Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) group. For a start, such councils function from a common location-- Washington (for the OAS) and Brussels (for the ACP).

For now, we are aware of examples of how senior cabinet ministers, and in a few cases at Heads level, have encountered difficulties in resolving sensitive bilateral matters and also failing to take advantage of the disputes settlement provisions located in the revised Treaty of Chaguaramas.

It would not be flattering for the Heads to hear criticisms of them "joking around" on the governance issue. But it is quite disappointing to note, in 2010, that ours remains a "Community of sovereign states" that has acquired a reputation for making bold, at times quite imaginative decisions, only to falter, too often, when it comes to implementation of unanimously approved decisions.

Examples abound, but a few should suffice, for now, such as failure to give legislative approval of the Charter of Civil Society -- one of the core recommendations of the West Indian Commission that was released as a document of the community since 1997.

(Incidentally, "good governance" is one of the Articles of the Charter that calls for establishment of a code governing the conduct of holders of public office and all those who exercise power that may affect the public interest).

Policies requiring implementation would also include the sharing of external representation; pursuing, with vision and vigour, a common policy on regional air transportation; the dismantling of barriers to free intra-regional movement of Caricom nationals (currently some states are making things worse for nationals).

The question, therefore, remains: Who among the Heads of Government of the estimated dozen countries fully participating in the policies and programmes of Caricom is now ready to call a halt to the community's governance system?

While they try to market the idea of a Council of Community Ambassadors that, in the final analysis, would be accountable to them, why this widening of a bureaucratic management system? Is it really a plausible approach for changing the prevailing buck-passing culture that has been virtually institutionalised by a model of governance our Heads of Government — past and present — seem so loath to change?

August 22, 2010

jamaicaobserver

Bahamas Blog International