March 6 - a significant date for Africa and the Caribbean

by Oscar Ramjeet:


March 6 is a significant date for both Africa and the Caribbean. It is on that date in 1957 (54 years ago) the first African state, known as that time the Gold Coast, was given independence from Britain and was renamed Ghana. It was also on that date 40 years after Ghana's independence (1997) that two Caribbean greats, Dr Cheddi Jagan and MIchael Manley, died within hours of each other. Jagan died at Johns Hopkins hospital in Baltimore in the United States, and Manley died in Jamaica.

The Gold Coast was one of the richest countries in Africa conquered by the British and after a strenuous battle with Kwame Nkrumah the Brits decided to hand over independence to the country, which was renamed Ghana. Of course, by then, the country was stripped of its vast wealth by the British masters.

There are about 1,000 Ghanaians living in the Caribbean and a few of them hold top positions. I know of a High Court Judge in St Vincent, Frederick Bruce Lyle, who started his career in 1989 and a highly respected Senior Counsel in Belize, Fred Lumor.

Like many Commonwealth countries, Ghana, like Guyana, was not only robbed of its wealth, but suffered severe brain drain. However, reports from Accra state that the country sees a bright future.

Ghana has discovered oil in commercial quantities and is currently from December last year pumping 50,000 barrels of oil for export, which is expected to increase to 120,000 barrels a day within the next couple of months. It is understood that other fields are being discovered, together with immense natural gas deposits, which would place Ghana in the big leagues of oil producers in about five years. It is reported also that the country has a stable democracy since 1992.

Jagan, who had been the president of Guyana since 1992, became ill in Georgetown and was airlifted to the Johns Hopkins hospital, but succumbed on March 6, 1997, a week later. While his death was being announced throughout the region, another sad story broke of the passing of Michael Manley, who served three terms as prime minister of Jamaica.

Jagan was considered one of the greatest politicians in the Caribbean and the Western Hemisphere, but US President John F. Kennedy dubbed him as public enemy no. 2, no doubt because of his leftist tendencies and his close association with Fidel Castro, and other world leaders who had socialist ideas and did not see eye to eye with the US and even Britain.

Jagan's People's Progressive Party (PPP) won three elections -- in 1953, 1957 and 1961 -- before independence. He served as chief minister, and later premier. It was under his leadership that Britain suspended the 1953 Constitution and brought in British troops to the country, a move that shocked the world because the country was peaceful at the time. However, both Britain and the United States wanted Jagan out of the way, and worked out a way to do so.

The usual divide and rule strategy was used and race was brought into politics in Guyana when Forbes Burnham, Cheddi's deputy and a brilliant lawyer and a great orator, was prompted to challenge Jagan for the leadership and that move back in the mid-fifties sowed the seed of racial problems in Guyana.

Cheddi was out in the cold. It was not until 1992 he was able to take over the government, but died five years later following a heart attack.

In Guyana, the political climate is not good and at present the political parties are preparing for general elections to be held later this year. I sincerely hope that the politicians will see wisdom and work in the best interest of the country, which has suffered immensely since adult suffrage the 1950s.

Over in Jamaica, Michael, son of the famous Norman Manley, came to prominence after he defeated his cousin, Hugh Shearer, a former prime minister. He served three terms as prime minister of Jamaica, and was soon branded a leftist because of his association with Cuba's Fidel Castro, Julius Nyerere of Tanzania and other well known socialist leaders at that time. He got rid of the jacket and tie, and introduced what he called the "bush jacket"

Michael Manley, who was the fourth prime minister of his country, and a keen cricketer, was married five times.

March 7, 2011

caribbeannewsnow

Bahamas Blog International

Have CARICOM governments surrendered foreign policy independence to the Secretariat?

By Ian Francis



The debates and concerns about regional independent sovereignty are very much alive in academic, communities and other concerned sectors in the Caribbean Commonwealth. Many questions are being asked by those debating the issue. Recently, I became involved in the debate through my participation in a meeting amongst many concerned Caribbean nationals now residing in Toronto but maintain a deep affinity to the state from where they originally immigrated.

-- Is the foreign policy management process of independent Caribbean sovereign states, republics and nations managed through agencies that are in receipt of multilateral grants and contributions?

-- Are Commonwealth Caribbean governments exerting their sovereign rights and responsibilities to ensure that foreign policy decisions evolve through the government-designated ministry of foreign affairs?

-- Have our governments surrendered these sovereign rights due to concentration on managing the local economy?

-- Are they perceived simply as aid recipients and beggars that it is either the surrender of independent sovereign rights or getting the necessary aid?

Looking at the historical development of independence in the Commonwealth Caribbean, the names of Eric Williams, Forbes Burnham, Michael Manley and Errol Barrow cannot be forgotten as they clearly demonstrated their strong anti-colonialist stance and at the same time to ensure that the independence and management of their foreign policy remained intact in the various sanctuaries of their ministry of foreign affairs.

We cannot ignore their joint collective decision to ignore Washington’s objection when they made the decision to establish full diplomatic relations with the Republic of Cuba. Burnham and Manley’s unflinching support for the liberation movement against apartheid in South Africa and membership in the Non-Aligned Movement were independent foreign policy decisions taken, which brought no smiles in the State Department. In spite of the applied pressure unleashed on both Burnham and Manley, they stood their ground and demonstrated to the colonial interests that they are capable of making their own independent foreign policy decision.

In 1974, the courage against colonial domination was once again demonstrated by former prime minister of Grenada, Sir Eric Matthew Gairy, when he made the decision to lead Grenada, Carriacou and Petit Martinique to independence. What was challenging about Grenada’s decision is that it became the first Associated State in the now renamed environment of the OECS Union to break its colonial shackles with Britain.

Grenada’s decision to become independent led to the formation of various local alliances that were vehemently opposed to independence, leading to strikes and other civil disobedience, which led to the emergence of the famous Committee of 22. This Committee was made up of a group of local colonialists consisting of merchants, lawyers, farmers and other opposition factions. While their opposition to independence had some mitigating effects on the local economy, on February 7, 1974, Grenada, under the leadership of Eric Gairy, became independent and recently celebrated its 37th birth date as an independent nation.

Many of the other Associated States have since followed Grenada’s decision and finally broken the yoke of colonialism with Britain. Many are known as independent Caribbean Commonwealth States.

With the More Developed Countries (MDC) maintaining the management of their independent foreign policy, Grenada followed suit and went on to manage its own foreign policy in a number of misguided ways by establishing diplomatic relations with many nations that had a disregard for individual human rights. This misguided approach resulted in diplomatic relations with some notorious nations.

On the other hand, Grenada was successful in establishing a young corps of dedicated foreign service officers; joining many international organizations and of course taking its illustrious seat at the United Nations General Assembly; establishing its own embassies and consulates across the global community. In essence, it is fair to conclude that Grenada built a foreign policy infrastructure between 1974-79, which the Bishop regime acquired following the 1979 people’s uprising, and which witnessed the overthrow of Gairy from office.

While some of Grenada’s foreign policy decisions have been severely criticized by many international relation experts, the period of government under the Bishop regime of 1979-83 also had some misguided moments like the Afghanistan vote, the unnecessary feud with former Barbados prime minister, Tom Adams, and the constant negative exchanges with Washington.

Based on a careful review of regional events, it would appear to the writer that the surrendering of Caribbean states’ foreign policy management to the CARICOM Secretariat could have started in the late 80s or early 90s. With the surrendering of such an important pinnacle of any government, there have been many dull outcomes for regional independent governments. Some of these dull outcomes have seen a steady decline in bilateral assistance to our governments and a sudden increase of multilateral assistance to the Secretariat and many other regional multilateral agencies.

In conclusion, it is not too late for regional independent states to reclaim their foreign policy management niche. As they ponder the structural changes to be made within the Secretariat in the coming months, CARICOM’s management of regional foreign policy and its relation to international multilateral agencies require closer scrutiny. It is hoped that under Thomas’s current chairmanship and vigour, he will be able to convince his Council of Ambassadors to take a second look at this situation. A ministry of foreign affairs in any independent nation means more that good protocol practices. Formation of good foreign policies is crucial.

Ian Francis resides in Toronto and writes frequently on Caribbean Commonwealth Affairs. He is a former Assistant Secretary in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Grenada. He can be reached at info@vismincommunications.org

February 24, 2011

caribbeannewsnow

Bahamas Blog International

The vulnerability of small states in the Commonwealth Caribbean

By Ian Francis



The vulnerability of small Caribbean states was first raised at the 1979 Commonwealth Heads of Government Conference in Lusaka, Zambia, by former prime minister of Grenada, Maurice Bishop. This matter had received overwhelming support from countries such as Australia, Canada, Guyana, Jamaica and a host of other Commonwealth nations at the conference.

So impressed by Grenada’s vision on this issue, then President Kenneth Kaunda of Zambia was in the process of planning a state visit to the Cooperative Republic of Guyana and immediately made the decision to include Grenada on his list for a state visit.

President Kaunda’s visit to Grenada came approximately six months after the March 13th revolution and, with the assistance of the protocol machinery from the Guyana Ministry of Foreign Affairs, President Kaunda visited Grenada and was deeply touched by the welcome he received. Though late, both former Prime Minister Forbes Burnham and Foreign Affairs Minister Rashleigh Jackson must be recognized for the role played by these two outstanding regionalists.

The recent government of Grenada saga with Taiwan’s Sewang, One World affair could have been avoided if the nation’s elected and appointed representatives were fully conversant with Taiwanese foreign policy tactics and desire in the Caribbean Commonwealth. It is not a hidden fact that Taiwan’s pursuit to secure a diplomatic beachhead in the region is waning, with mainland China forging ahead on its diplomatic, cultural and economic ties. This being the case, Taiwan will leave no stone unturned in order to compete with the mainland in the region.

It is quite evident that the state of Grenada had an established relationship with the Sewang Group dating back to 1993.During this period, Grenada and Taiwan had very strong diplomatic relations and Grenada was always seen as a regional Taiwanese base from which the Taiwanese conducted their diplomatic and other tactics to undermine mainland China.

Therefore, it was not surprising to see the signature of former Deputy Prime Minister Gregory Bowen on correspondence between Sewang and the government of Grenada that addressed potential private sector investments.

The recent contact by representatives of this pariah group with appointed and elected officials of the current government and the signing of a memorandum of understanding attest to the ongoing saga that has now erupted into close scrutiny and the attention of the Grenada public.

The memoranda of understanding (MOU) signed between the Taiwanese pariahs and the government of Grenada seems to be merely a document that expresses a convergence of will between two parties and outlines a plan of action for the future. It is abundantly clear that the MOU(s) currently being referred to are not a binding contractual agreement(s), although there are clear indications that the current government of Tillman Thomas was under the impression that things can happen “in the future”.

As a senior foreign service officer lamented, “It is shameful and embarrassing because officials in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs were not consulted. The MOF could have told Finance to tread cautiously due to our diplomatic relations with mainland China.”

With all of the above, these past and current situations stem from the ongoing vulnerability of small states like Grenada. Like many other small states in the global community, they are stricken with national debts; there is growing pressure and expectation of the population for the state to deal the socio-economic factors of its population and one of the key platforms for national development in these states is Foreign Investment.

Investment players are fully aware of these pressures and, given their deceitful and dishonest skills, they prey and pounce on small states, especially within the Caribbean Commonwealth, knowing full well of their vulnerability and the existing lack of appropriate tools that can be applied to weed out these global pariahs.

Dating back to 1967, shortly after statehood was granted by the United Kingdom and the election of the Grenada United Labour Party under Eric Gairy, many global pariahs arrived and offered all forms of goodies, which were never delivered. Similar occurrences took place during the ill-fated People’s Revolutionary Government of 1979-83. Unfortunately, many of the duped stories were not publicized due to the control of the media at the time.

The saga continued under the various coalition governments led by Blaize, Braithwaite and Brizan. While many of the foreign investor fallacies under these leaders were not published or exposed, sources that were close to these administrations have indicated that global pariahs were active but nothing materialized.

It is quite obvious that under the NNP-led administration, the situation became more atrophic, during which time the global pariahs extracted government guarantees at some local financial institutions and acquisition of prime properties. These situations occurred all under the desire of national development through foreign investment to address local socio-economic ills.

The recently elected Tillman Thomas administration continues to face such a dilemma and might have gone a little further to demonstrate to the population that they can get things better done than their predecessors. Hence, the Sewang One World affair has returned to haunt the current administration.

In my opinion, the Sewang World affair should be a further lesson to Caribbean Commonwealth nations. The advent of new technology tools which are being applied throughout the global community gives rise to additional schemes to which our vulnerable nations and people can become victims.

There are many across the global environment whose desire and exploration to prey on vulnerable small states are evident, they are quite skillful in locating and identifying local people with close political connections as their representatives.

Government officials must become more aware and develop the necessary transparent tools to circumvent and expose those who seek to exploit the situation.

Ian Francis resides in Toronto and writes frequently on Caribbean affairs. He was a former Assistant Secretary in the Grenada Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

October 13, 2010

caribbeannewsnow

Bahamas Blog International