By Ian Francis
Within the next year, the much touted CARIBCAN trade agreement tinkering will be concluded. CARICOM, OECS and Canadian trade negotiators will take credit for a job well done after the signing ceremony.
It will be interesting to see where the signing ceremony takes place. If it is in the depth of winter, the Canadian negotiators are likely to push for a Georgetown or Bridgetown signing ceremony only to escape Canada’s brutal winter. On the other hand, irrespective of the cold and soggy winter in Canada, our Caribbean negotiators who are so embedded in the per diem culture will prefer an Ottawa signing ceremony in order to maximize their per diem incomes.
Once the revised agreement is signed, the burning question remains. How can the Caribbean trade and export sectors maximize opportunities in Canada through the CARIBCAN agreement?
It is not a new agreement and has been around since the Mulroney days. Unfortunately, its failure was well known when Caribbean governments took ownership and locked up the policies and tariffs in the cupboards of local ministries of trade and industry. Exporters and investors from some CARICOM states remained disengaged and could not seize the opportunity to penetrate and sustain markets within Canada because there was no information, no market intelligence and no encouragement of partnerships through joint ventures and other initiatives.
It is hoped that, this time around, Caribbean governments will understand that a successful trade and investment partnership must be realized through strong and effective institutional collaboration. To put it bluntly, the Caribbean and Canadian governments are not involved in trade exports. However, through the agreement and sensitizing of officials on both sides of the spectrum, it is quite likely that barriers will be minimized and officials will become more informed about the free movement of goods and tariffs that have been eliminated.
In objective and realistic terms, trade collaborative efforts and sustainability between CARICOM nations and Canada require more than dependency on the “tiny bob” consular missions established in Canada. With fairness, Jamaica, Trinidad, Barbados and Guyana maintain very effective consular missions with a strong trade arm.
Therefore, if the OECS is serious and committed to a trade and investment strategy between Canada and member states, the current regional approach and strategies for market penetration cannot be successful in its current form. Caribbean trade and investment initiatives cannot be achieved through obscurity or ineffective marketing networks.
The OECS must recognize that they require planning assistance to formulate, implement and sustain an effective trade strategy in Canada. It is achievable but there must be a willingness to understand the need for planning and collaboration.
An effective trade and investment strategy between Canada and the Caribbean within the context of the CARIBCAN trade agreement must extend beyond rum and nice beaches. Certainly, Caribbean rum imports in Canada will continue to be very important. However, those responsible for such products reaching Canadian shelves must understand that it is a competitive environment, as Trinidad, Cuba, Guyana, Jamaica and Barbados have already saturated the products.
Therefore, while the Europeans continue to fund the OECS Dominica-based Trade Unit, staff at this unit must understand that the import tariff on Caribbean rum will be affected within the new agreement and OECS nations need to introduce more than rum and hot pepper sauce to the Canadian market.
A few years ago, Michael Astaphan of Dominica and some other OECS colleagues began the process of establishing a private sector export organization. The concept had merit and received much needed assistance from the Europeans. Unfortunately, the concept died and a very valuable opportunity was lost. It is hoped that the concept can be revived because such an organization is of necessity, since most Caribbean exporters and investors are private sector persons.
Both CARICOM and the OECS must recognize that trade and exports should be private sector driven and not given the appearance that it is state sector driven. It is time to support and assist the private sector in their quest for new markets.
Another perception that must be dispelled with is the belief that regional chambers of commerce are the prime export movers in the region. While some chamber members might be exporters, we need to ask why Guyana, Barbados and other MDC Caribbean nations have strong and effective export agencies. The OECS needs to adopt a learning chapter from these organizations and support a strong OECS private sector export agency.
Another issue on Caribbean trade initiatives seems to be the duplication of regional agencies that purport to promote Caribbean trade abroad. There is the Barbados-based, CARICOM-funded agency Caribbean Exports, which continues to find successful niches with only hot pepper sauce promotion. Frankly speaking, this is another serious area that CARICOM’s new secretary general must address.
Maybe it is time to eliminate this agency and find some form of new organizational accommodation with the OECS that will witness the following three concrete outcomes: 1) Development and sustainability of a strong OECS private sector exporting agency to maximize opportunities and success through the CARIBCAN trade agreement; 2) strong and sustainable trade partnerships between private sector institutions in Canada and the OECS; and 3) moving the OECS trade initiative in Canada beyond the Trade Facilitation Centre.
Finally, successful trade implementation initiatives by OECS exporters to Canada require reliability, effective communications, utilization of information technology tools and seriousness. Canadian importers are not interested in stories and excuses as to why a product did not arrive.
The CARIBCAN trade agreement will provide excellent opportunities but its success will only be realized if the regional export private sector players are allowed to play their role. Once the agreement is signed, both regional multilateral agencies need to delimit their involvement.
The trade and investment process between Canada and the Caribbean must be private sector driven.
August 22, 2011
caribbeannewsnow
Google Ads
Showing posts with label OECS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label OECS. Show all posts
Monday, August 22, 2011
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
The CARICOM Single Market and Economy (CSME) and the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) - are we ready?
Law and Politics: The CSME and the CCJ - are we ready?
By Lloyd Noel:
Now that we have just celebrated our thirty-seventh anniversary of independence, from the colonial rule of England way back in 1974 – but having maintained our association and membership of the British Commonwealth of nations over all those years – we in the tri-Island State of Grenada, Carriacou and Petite Martinique seem to be on the verge of severing all those ties that assisted us in becoming who we are, and achieving what we have by reason of that association.
And as we are about to travel down that road, to some unknown destination in the new world order, it may be useful to look back from whence we came, to reflect on where exactly we are at this time, and what in fact and in reality we have thus far achieved.
Of course, I must admit up front that I have been very, very fortunate, as far as my personal achievements have been over the years from those colonial days – and some may be tempted to suggest that it is because of my good fortunes during my sojourn in England that I still harbour the fond memories and gratitude of the country and people and their customs.
But I will readily respond to that suggestion by making bold to say, without fear of any contradiction, that the great majority of those thousands of West Indians who travelled to England in those colonial days, to work and start a new life, they too still cherish the opportunities and achievements.
It was while thousands of us were already in the Mother Country in Great Britain, when the first attempt at the unified West Indies came on stream with the Federation of the West Indies in 1958 – but it only lasted for four years (1958-1962), when Jamaica decided to secede, by formally withdrawing from the Federation; and the late P.M. of Trinidad and Tobago, Eric Williams, created new maths by announcing that, because there were ten states in the Federation and Jamaica was withdrawing, then one from ten leaves nought, so Trinidad and Tobago was also moving out, and that was the end.
And it was from then that the rush to political independence by the Big Four started; Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago, Barbados and Guyana all went on to break their colonial ties with England, although thousands of their nationals were very firmly rooted in the mother country and doing very well for themselves.
From then on the same Big Four states tried to get the same West Indian islands to form an economic union, and the Caribbean Community or CARICOM is what remains of that effort.
Over the years, of course, all the smaller islands went on to achieve their independence – except Montserrat, the BVI and Anguilla -- and that rush to statehood began with Grenada in February, 1974.
Needless to repeat the happenings since then, but now we have the “CARICOM Single Market and Economy” (CSME), and included therein is the “Caribbean Court of Justice” (CCJ), which is the body responsible for the due administration of the Single Market; but more importantly any of the independent states can decide to adopt the CCJ as its final court of appeal, for both civil and criminal and constitutional matters, and by so doing abolish appeals to the Privy Council final court of appeal in England that the West Indies have always been accustomed to, both as colonies and independent states since 1962.
The strange thing about the membership of the CCJ is that, while all the independent states signed on the CSME, only Barbados and Guyana started off using the CCJ as their final court of appeal, and late last year, Belize adopted the court and abolished the Privy Council.
Trinidad and Tobago, where the court has its headquarters, has not adopted it, and the newly elected government that came into office last year are thinking of referring the option to the people for a decision.
And even the Jamaica government is now saying that it is considering establishing its own final appeal court.
Against that state of disunity and disorganisation, our own government is now saying that it will soon be adopting the CCJ as our final court of appeal, to replace the Privy Council in England.
Maybe I missed it whenever it was said, but I have never heard any statement from this government about the preference of the CCJ over the Privy Council, and neither has any opportunity been given to Grenadians to express their opinions or views on the matter. And there can be no doubt whatsoever, that this very fundamental decision, after all those years of the very excellent services we have received from the judges of the highest quality and experience, our people should have been given the opportunity to have their say.
And in the absence of that very basic and highly principled opportunity, I cannot support the government’s decision to go it alone. I hope it is not regretted before too long.
What is also of some importance to the whole concept of regional unity, at the lower level of the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS) in particular, is that we have been sharing a common court system, from our associated statehood days since 1967, and we continue to do so after independence right up to the Privy Council.
I have not heard of the same unified position with the other five states on this matter – but maybe I missed it, while they all were busy promoting the latest unitary animal in the recently publicised “OECS Economic Union” – for the free movement of people and capital throughout the six independent states, with the hope that the three remaining colonies of England will sooner or later get the UK’s go-ahead to join the economic union.
To take the confused situation of so many so-called unity groups in our region – all serving the same little population at different levels -- should a company in St Lucia open a business entity in Grenada, and that business has a court case in the Grenada court, it can go to the OECS Court of Appeal and then to the CCJ final court of appeal in Trinidad.
And if the same company has a case in St Lucia, it can go to the OECS Court of Appeal and then must go to the Privy Council in London for a final decision. It would be interesting if the legal issue is similar in both OECS Court of Appeal but the final decisions at the CCJ and the Privy Council differ.
To think that we in these Caribbean Isles have been playing around with this concept of unity for so many years, and for one reason or another the governments cannot get it right -- that must have some bearing on the fact that the politicians who come and go in the various islands all seem to take the position that they alone have all the answers so they never put it to their people to say yea or nay.
We saw what happened in St Vincent, when the government there put the proposed amended constitution to the people and they rejected it – yet in general elections thereafter the same people voted the same government back into power for a third term.
And that is why I agree with the Trinidad and Tobago prime minister, to put the question of whether or not they opt for the CCJ in place of the Privy Council to the people for a decision.
I saw the news item last week that the NDC government plans to hold its party General Council meeting next month, on the 13th March at the Boca Secondary School.
The same meeting was postponed last November, around the time there was the breakdown in unity over the re-shuffle of those three ministers, and one minister actually resigned from Cabinet.
The party general secretary is the minister of tourism, Peter David, and he was removed from foreign affairs back to tourism. He has since been saying that he is rebuilding the party machinery, but the 13th March is a date that is synonymous with the PRG of 1979, not the NDC of Prime Minister Tillman Thomas, on which bandwagon he entered Parliament.
So the questions beg themselves – was the choice of that date a wise decision in the circumstances?
And will it help to rebuild the NDC Party, and at the same time keep the thousands who voted for NDC loyal enough to so vote the next time?
I was chatting with an ex-PRA of the Revolution days, the day after I saw the news item, and he too felt the date of 13th March was much too sensitive at this time – bearing in mind all the events that have taken place.
Time alone will tell, in the months and years ahead.
But like all the issues mentioned above that will affect us as a people in the times ahead, the even bigger question presents itself: are we ready for the possible changes that can result therefrom?
February 22, 2011
caribbeannewsnow
By Lloyd Noel:
Now that we have just celebrated our thirty-seventh anniversary of independence, from the colonial rule of England way back in 1974 – but having maintained our association and membership of the British Commonwealth of nations over all those years – we in the tri-Island State of Grenada, Carriacou and Petite Martinique seem to be on the verge of severing all those ties that assisted us in becoming who we are, and achieving what we have by reason of that association.
And as we are about to travel down that road, to some unknown destination in the new world order, it may be useful to look back from whence we came, to reflect on where exactly we are at this time, and what in fact and in reality we have thus far achieved.
Of course, I must admit up front that I have been very, very fortunate, as far as my personal achievements have been over the years from those colonial days – and some may be tempted to suggest that it is because of my good fortunes during my sojourn in England that I still harbour the fond memories and gratitude of the country and people and their customs.
But I will readily respond to that suggestion by making bold to say, without fear of any contradiction, that the great majority of those thousands of West Indians who travelled to England in those colonial days, to work and start a new life, they too still cherish the opportunities and achievements.
It was while thousands of us were already in the Mother Country in Great Britain, when the first attempt at the unified West Indies came on stream with the Federation of the West Indies in 1958 – but it only lasted for four years (1958-1962), when Jamaica decided to secede, by formally withdrawing from the Federation; and the late P.M. of Trinidad and Tobago, Eric Williams, created new maths by announcing that, because there were ten states in the Federation and Jamaica was withdrawing, then one from ten leaves nought, so Trinidad and Tobago was also moving out, and that was the end.
And it was from then that the rush to political independence by the Big Four started; Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago, Barbados and Guyana all went on to break their colonial ties with England, although thousands of their nationals were very firmly rooted in the mother country and doing very well for themselves.
From then on the same Big Four states tried to get the same West Indian islands to form an economic union, and the Caribbean Community or CARICOM is what remains of that effort.
Over the years, of course, all the smaller islands went on to achieve their independence – except Montserrat, the BVI and Anguilla -- and that rush to statehood began with Grenada in February, 1974.
Needless to repeat the happenings since then, but now we have the “CARICOM Single Market and Economy” (CSME), and included therein is the “Caribbean Court of Justice” (CCJ), which is the body responsible for the due administration of the Single Market; but more importantly any of the independent states can decide to adopt the CCJ as its final court of appeal, for both civil and criminal and constitutional matters, and by so doing abolish appeals to the Privy Council final court of appeal in England that the West Indies have always been accustomed to, both as colonies and independent states since 1962.
The strange thing about the membership of the CCJ is that, while all the independent states signed on the CSME, only Barbados and Guyana started off using the CCJ as their final court of appeal, and late last year, Belize adopted the court and abolished the Privy Council.
Trinidad and Tobago, where the court has its headquarters, has not adopted it, and the newly elected government that came into office last year are thinking of referring the option to the people for a decision.
And even the Jamaica government is now saying that it is considering establishing its own final appeal court.
Against that state of disunity and disorganisation, our own government is now saying that it will soon be adopting the CCJ as our final court of appeal, to replace the Privy Council in England.
Maybe I missed it whenever it was said, but I have never heard any statement from this government about the preference of the CCJ over the Privy Council, and neither has any opportunity been given to Grenadians to express their opinions or views on the matter. And there can be no doubt whatsoever, that this very fundamental decision, after all those years of the very excellent services we have received from the judges of the highest quality and experience, our people should have been given the opportunity to have their say.
And in the absence of that very basic and highly principled opportunity, I cannot support the government’s decision to go it alone. I hope it is not regretted before too long.
What is also of some importance to the whole concept of regional unity, at the lower level of the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS) in particular, is that we have been sharing a common court system, from our associated statehood days since 1967, and we continue to do so after independence right up to the Privy Council.
I have not heard of the same unified position with the other five states on this matter – but maybe I missed it, while they all were busy promoting the latest unitary animal in the recently publicised “OECS Economic Union” – for the free movement of people and capital throughout the six independent states, with the hope that the three remaining colonies of England will sooner or later get the UK’s go-ahead to join the economic union.
To take the confused situation of so many so-called unity groups in our region – all serving the same little population at different levels -- should a company in St Lucia open a business entity in Grenada, and that business has a court case in the Grenada court, it can go to the OECS Court of Appeal and then to the CCJ final court of appeal in Trinidad.
And if the same company has a case in St Lucia, it can go to the OECS Court of Appeal and then must go to the Privy Council in London for a final decision. It would be interesting if the legal issue is similar in both OECS Court of Appeal but the final decisions at the CCJ and the Privy Council differ.
To think that we in these Caribbean Isles have been playing around with this concept of unity for so many years, and for one reason or another the governments cannot get it right -- that must have some bearing on the fact that the politicians who come and go in the various islands all seem to take the position that they alone have all the answers so they never put it to their people to say yea or nay.
We saw what happened in St Vincent, when the government there put the proposed amended constitution to the people and they rejected it – yet in general elections thereafter the same people voted the same government back into power for a third term.
And that is why I agree with the Trinidad and Tobago prime minister, to put the question of whether or not they opt for the CCJ in place of the Privy Council to the people for a decision.
I saw the news item last week that the NDC government plans to hold its party General Council meeting next month, on the 13th March at the Boca Secondary School.
The same meeting was postponed last November, around the time there was the breakdown in unity over the re-shuffle of those three ministers, and one minister actually resigned from Cabinet.
The party general secretary is the minister of tourism, Peter David, and he was removed from foreign affairs back to tourism. He has since been saying that he is rebuilding the party machinery, but the 13th March is a date that is synonymous with the PRG of 1979, not the NDC of Prime Minister Tillman Thomas, on which bandwagon he entered Parliament.
So the questions beg themselves – was the choice of that date a wise decision in the circumstances?
And will it help to rebuild the NDC Party, and at the same time keep the thousands who voted for NDC loyal enough to so vote the next time?
I was chatting with an ex-PRA of the Revolution days, the day after I saw the news item, and he too felt the date of 13th March was much too sensitive at this time – bearing in mind all the events that have taken place.
Time alone will tell, in the months and years ahead.
But like all the issues mentioned above that will affect us as a people in the times ahead, the even bigger question presents itself: are we ready for the possible changes that can result therefrom?
February 22, 2011
caribbeannewsnow
Sunday, August 8, 2010
'Job description' for a new Caricom secretary general
Jamaicaobserver Editorial:
Mr Edwin Carrington, the secretary general of Caricom, has signalled he will be stepping down after 18 or so years in the job. The appropriate tribute will be paid to him when he does so.
But as the Caribbean Community looks for a new secretary general, the search, we suggest, must be guided by certain criteria in order to find the person with the necessary qualities. Let's start with the 'don'ts'.
First, the person cannot be a Jamaican because Jamaicans now head several regional institutions, such as the Office of Trade Negotiations, the Caribbean Development Fund and Caribbean Export. A Jamaican is also the financial controller (effectively number two) at the Caribbean Development Bank. Let's avoid the appearance of a Jamaican take-over.
No one from the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS) has been secretary general and they are now the governments with the least commitment to Caricom. A woman has never had the post and this should not be ruled out nor made a requirement. The person should not be a naturalised citizen of the OECS as they would not have support in the sub-region.
Second, the person must be a genuine leader with proven political acumen and experience and have a stature which commands respect -- ideally, a former minister or prime minister.
Technocrats and bureaucrats from regional and international organisations should, under no circumstances, be considered.
Third, the person must be in his or her mental and physical prime, given the stamina required to maintain the arduous travel schedule and the tedium of the perpetual round of meetings. The new SG must be able to serve for 10 years and this should be the enforced term limit.
The region must not entertain the delusion that anyone in their 70s can properly execute the duties of SG. Ideally the person should be in the 40s, like United States President Barack Obama and British Prime Minister David Cameron. The heads of nearly all Fortune 500 companies are below 55 years old. There is good reason why 60 is the normal mandatory retirement age for diplomats.
Fourth, nobody currently in the Caricom Secretariat or retired from it has the ability or credibility to become SG because of their culpability for the failures of the outgoing administration.
Recruiting someone from outside is necessary, both to inject new management and to send a clear signal that there is a new beginning. An outsider needs to be unencumbered by loyalties to existing senior staff since they will have to be quickly replaced. This is often a healthy practice when there is a new CEO.
Fifth, it is essential that the person should have some exposure to and understanding of Caricom affairs. The vice chancellor of UWI can vouch for the difficulties and disadvantages entailed in the steep learning curve of Caribbean politics when you do not have that background.
In short, the new SG must be a non-Jamaican in his or her prime (under 55 years old) who has a track record of leadership, management skills and political savvy. Under no circumstances should the new SG be a former diplomat, bureaucrat in an international organisation, academic (generally out of touch with reality) and current member of staff of the Caricom Secretariat.
The Caribbean has an embarrassment of riches in human resources. The region has more than enough well-qualified and talented people to find a very able individual to be SG of Caricom as it struggles to survive.
August 08, 2010
jamaicaobserver editorial
Mr Edwin Carrington, the secretary general of Caricom, has signalled he will be stepping down after 18 or so years in the job. The appropriate tribute will be paid to him when he does so.
But as the Caribbean Community looks for a new secretary general, the search, we suggest, must be guided by certain criteria in order to find the person with the necessary qualities. Let's start with the 'don'ts'.
First, the person cannot be a Jamaican because Jamaicans now head several regional institutions, such as the Office of Trade Negotiations, the Caribbean Development Fund and Caribbean Export. A Jamaican is also the financial controller (effectively number two) at the Caribbean Development Bank. Let's avoid the appearance of a Jamaican take-over.
No one from the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS) has been secretary general and they are now the governments with the least commitment to Caricom. A woman has never had the post and this should not be ruled out nor made a requirement. The person should not be a naturalised citizen of the OECS as they would not have support in the sub-region.
Second, the person must be a genuine leader with proven political acumen and experience and have a stature which commands respect -- ideally, a former minister or prime minister.
Technocrats and bureaucrats from regional and international organisations should, under no circumstances, be considered.
Third, the person must be in his or her mental and physical prime, given the stamina required to maintain the arduous travel schedule and the tedium of the perpetual round of meetings. The new SG must be able to serve for 10 years and this should be the enforced term limit.
The region must not entertain the delusion that anyone in their 70s can properly execute the duties of SG. Ideally the person should be in the 40s, like United States President Barack Obama and British Prime Minister David Cameron. The heads of nearly all Fortune 500 companies are below 55 years old. There is good reason why 60 is the normal mandatory retirement age for diplomats.
Fourth, nobody currently in the Caricom Secretariat or retired from it has the ability or credibility to become SG because of their culpability for the failures of the outgoing administration.
Recruiting someone from outside is necessary, both to inject new management and to send a clear signal that there is a new beginning. An outsider needs to be unencumbered by loyalties to existing senior staff since they will have to be quickly replaced. This is often a healthy practice when there is a new CEO.
Fifth, it is essential that the person should have some exposure to and understanding of Caricom affairs. The vice chancellor of UWI can vouch for the difficulties and disadvantages entailed in the steep learning curve of Caribbean politics when you do not have that background.
In short, the new SG must be a non-Jamaican in his or her prime (under 55 years old) who has a track record of leadership, management skills and political savvy. Under no circumstances should the new SG be a former diplomat, bureaucrat in an international organisation, academic (generally out of touch with reality) and current member of staff of the Caricom Secretariat.
The Caribbean has an embarrassment of riches in human resources. The region has more than enough well-qualified and talented people to find a very able individual to be SG of Caricom as it struggles to survive.
August 08, 2010
jamaicaobserver editorial
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Regionalism: The Caribbean prospective - Part 2
By D. Markie Spring
Turks and Caicos Islands:
The past leaders of the OECS members’ states should be applauded for their vision, which our present leaders are failing to conceptualize. The world over will soon become a single unit, where every region is forming alliances in all aspects, including that of security and safety. In this sense, it is necessary that the Caribbean introduces and implements a regional police force.
The Eastern Caribbean has always faceted integrated, but their efforts were crippled and discouraged by the so-called More Developed Countries, especially Jamaica and Barbados that have economic difference and disputes. The Regional Security System - the RSS that was created by the OECS is closest the region has come to creating oneness for our security and safety.
This regional body has served the Eastern Caribbean in the eradication of illegal drugs in the OECS, especially in St Vincent and the Grenadines, where that problem is prominent. Hitherto, the RSS has assisted with security in the 1983 Grenada uprising and the attempted coup d’état in 1990 by the Muslimeen leader, Yasin Abu Bakr in Port of Spain, Trinidad.
This regional force has proven to be effective, although this organization does not have all the necessary equipment. I strongly encourage the leaders of the More Developed Countries to take note.
The Dominican Republic, Guyana, Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago and Puerto Rico have advanced law enforcement equipment and personnel, which should aid the rest of the regional in its pursuit of a regional security system.
Moreover, the Caribbean is experiencing an increase number of criminal activities. Again most of these criminal activities are evident in the More Developed Countries of the region -- Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago, Guyana and Barbados, to some extent. In Trinidad and Tobago and Jamaica criminal activities range from kidnapping, murder and other drug related crimes.
Haiti and the Dominican Republic are in a crime zone by themselves. Crimes in the Bahamas are also escalating to a point never imagined.
In my honest opinion, the Jamaica Constabulary Force and the Jamaica Defence Force is in no way effectively controlling and dealing with crimes in that state. The same can be said about Trinidad and Tobago -- the same reason the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the RCMP assisted that country with its crime rate in 2006. It is also evident that the crimes associated with the More Developed Countries indirectly influence and affect the OECS nations.
Furthermore, it won’t be much longer before terrorism spreads its operation within our region. The big questions to ask here are, if terror strikes the Caribbean, is any single nation equipped to deal with this problem? And if not, are we going to wait on the US or other global armed forces for months before they respond? So where do we go from here?
In light of this, terrorism in the region is inevitable; it is just a matter of time before it strikes. Millions of American citizens visit our shores on a yearly basis and the trend shows that terrorists target Americans in unexpected places. We should not forget the hotel bombings in India and Indonesia, which targeted American citizens.
Global trends also indicate that countries are forming alliances and integrating their efforts in order to achieve shared responsibilities, shared resources, shared costs, and creating diversity in both their ideas and personnel. The European Union, the economic giant, has formed NATO, the intergovernmental military alliance, which constitutes a system of collective defence. The United States, another economic giant, has solicited the assistance of NATO and UN to fight the war of terror in Afghanistan.
It is safe to conclude that we need a regional force to police our nations -- land, sea and air. With the enormous drug trade, disasters, political unrests, peacekeeping missions, attempted coups d’état, other criminal activities and the advent of terrorism, the region must be prepared. We need a police force that would be readily available for deployment at any time and place.
If a regional organization existed, Haiti would be a better place today. World leaders allowed Haiti’s issues to escalate before they could intervene.
I realise that this mission would be a long painstaking one, which demands enormous energy, finance, political disputes, and months, if not years of planning amongst other underlying challenges; therefore, we must communicate the change early enough and understand the benefits of the integration process. We could only make it happen if we unite our efforts and support the change.
August 5, 2010
Regionalism: The Caribbean prospective - Part 3
Regionalism: The Caribbean prospective - Part 1
caribbeannetnews
Turks and Caicos Islands:
The past leaders of the OECS members’ states should be applauded for their vision, which our present leaders are failing to conceptualize. The world over will soon become a single unit, where every region is forming alliances in all aspects, including that of security and safety. In this sense, it is necessary that the Caribbean introduces and implements a regional police force.
The Eastern Caribbean has always faceted integrated, but their efforts were crippled and discouraged by the so-called More Developed Countries, especially Jamaica and Barbados that have economic difference and disputes. The Regional Security System - the RSS that was created by the OECS is closest the region has come to creating oneness for our security and safety.
This regional body has served the Eastern Caribbean in the eradication of illegal drugs in the OECS, especially in St Vincent and the Grenadines, where that problem is prominent. Hitherto, the RSS has assisted with security in the 1983 Grenada uprising and the attempted coup d’état in 1990 by the Muslimeen leader, Yasin Abu Bakr in Port of Spain, Trinidad.
This regional force has proven to be effective, although this organization does not have all the necessary equipment. I strongly encourage the leaders of the More Developed Countries to take note.
The Dominican Republic, Guyana, Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago and Puerto Rico have advanced law enforcement equipment and personnel, which should aid the rest of the regional in its pursuit of a regional security system.
Moreover, the Caribbean is experiencing an increase number of criminal activities. Again most of these criminal activities are evident in the More Developed Countries of the region -- Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago, Guyana and Barbados, to some extent. In Trinidad and Tobago and Jamaica criminal activities range from kidnapping, murder and other drug related crimes.
Haiti and the Dominican Republic are in a crime zone by themselves. Crimes in the Bahamas are also escalating to a point never imagined.
In my honest opinion, the Jamaica Constabulary Force and the Jamaica Defence Force is in no way effectively controlling and dealing with crimes in that state. The same can be said about Trinidad and Tobago -- the same reason the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the RCMP assisted that country with its crime rate in 2006. It is also evident that the crimes associated with the More Developed Countries indirectly influence and affect the OECS nations.
Furthermore, it won’t be much longer before terrorism spreads its operation within our region. The big questions to ask here are, if terror strikes the Caribbean, is any single nation equipped to deal with this problem? And if not, are we going to wait on the US or other global armed forces for months before they respond? So where do we go from here?
In light of this, terrorism in the region is inevitable; it is just a matter of time before it strikes. Millions of American citizens visit our shores on a yearly basis and the trend shows that terrorists target Americans in unexpected places. We should not forget the hotel bombings in India and Indonesia, which targeted American citizens.
Global trends also indicate that countries are forming alliances and integrating their efforts in order to achieve shared responsibilities, shared resources, shared costs, and creating diversity in both their ideas and personnel. The European Union, the economic giant, has formed NATO, the intergovernmental military alliance, which constitutes a system of collective defence. The United States, another economic giant, has solicited the assistance of NATO and UN to fight the war of terror in Afghanistan.
It is safe to conclude that we need a regional force to police our nations -- land, sea and air. With the enormous drug trade, disasters, political unrests, peacekeeping missions, attempted coups d’état, other criminal activities and the advent of terrorism, the region must be prepared. We need a police force that would be readily available for deployment at any time and place.
If a regional organization existed, Haiti would be a better place today. World leaders allowed Haiti’s issues to escalate before they could intervene.
I realise that this mission would be a long painstaking one, which demands enormous energy, finance, political disputes, and months, if not years of planning amongst other underlying challenges; therefore, we must communicate the change early enough and understand the benefits of the integration process. We could only make it happen if we unite our efforts and support the change.
August 5, 2010
Regionalism: The Caribbean prospective - Part 3
Regionalism: The Caribbean prospective - Part 1
caribbeannetnews
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Caricom SME — soon come
By ANTHONY GOMES
PRECIOUS little has been reported in the media about the outcome of the 31st meeting of Caricom Heads of Government in Montego Bay. Apart from the sparse attendance by Heads of Government that can only be described as disappointing, the meeting was successful in bringing to the fore the three cardinal issues that for years have haunted the agenda of the conference. These are the issues of governance, that is, leadership, difficulties with intra-Caricom trade, the selection of a new Caricom Secretary General and reform of the Secretariat.
However, we are encouraged by Prime Minister Persad-Bissessar's expression of goodwill by promising to address several trade disputes existing between Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago. The PM made reference to concerns about a "few perceived issues" related to the cost of production and inputs in both Trinidad and Jamaica, which would include the preferential cost of energy in Trinidad. She said, "We will assess and reassess and review, and where we can find amicable solutions that will endure and enure for the benefit of our people here in Jamaica and in Trinidad and Tobago."
The PM continued, "Now is not the time for the regional business community to be combative rather desperately, we need to join forces to impact in a sustainable way on the international scenario, so let us not in some ways concentrate on our differences and engage in warfare in the region." These remarks are well intentioned, indicating where the inquiry process should begin and the amicable attitude that should prevail.
The foregoing comments were well received and it is now clear that the PM is aware of our continued "bleating and bitching" about these "perceived issues" over the years. It is certainly not the intention to be "combative" as the issues at hand are legitimate trade problems encountered as part of our developing Caribbean trade regime, to be settled within the purview of the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas without recourse to the World Trade Organisation, if possible.
The PM also gave advice on how the two states can enjoy successful commercial relationships. Three changes for improvement were recommended. First, engage in innovative improvements to their businesses. Second, create alliances between the business communities of both countries. Third, engage in meetings to discuss ways in which businesses could establish partnerships. These business liaisons are already in progress evidenced by the continuing investment by Trinidadian interests in new projects being developed in Jamaica. However, as the adage goes, "The largest room in the world is the room for improvement", and so we support and concur with the offered advice.
Regarding the paramount issue of governance, PM Golding as Chair of Caricom for the next six months said, "We acknowledge that there is an issue with governance, and we have not solved that problem. We are aware of the proposal to put in place a permanent executive commission or a group of commissioners who have executive powers and then, in effecting the decisions of heads, would translate it to a domestic legislation with a certain amount of automaticity. There is need for continuity and follow-up. There is need for coordination to ensure that those decisions can be implemented." We await the report of the sub-committee in January 2011 covering this key proposal for a Caribbean Commission. The issue of the inequitable terms of trade between the states has been dealt with above.
The selection of a successor to the Caricom Secretary General and reform of the Secretariat should be the subject of a Technical Working Group study. The world's largest current service industry is "bureaucracy" creating a multilayered structure comprising organs, bodies, treaty entities, installations and associate institutions in Caricom which excels in job creation but slows to a moribund pace of implementation of constructive decisions. To be relevant to Caricom today, it has to be reorganised from bottom up and turned into a lean, mean, multifaceted machine, equipped to manage the electronic speed of business today, without the "paper chase" that accompanies the conduct of the Secretariat's business dealings.
A point of high importance which passed unnoticed without comment, was reported by Rickey Singh in this newspaper on July 7, that referred to Trinidad's PM openly speaking about her government's reservations: "...as well as against a commitment to any form of political integration with the sub-region of the OECS as had been signalled by her predecessor, Patrick Manning." Such an outstanding rejection will surely reverberate throughout the Eastern Caribbean, but will reinforce Caricom's unity.
Mission: "The Caribbean Court of Justice shall perform to the highest standards as the supreme judicial organ in the Caribbean Community. In its Original Jurisdiction it insures uniform interpretation and applications of the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas, thereby underpinning and advancing the Caricom Single Market and Economy. As the final court of appeal for member states of the Caribbean Community, it fosters the development of an indigenous Caribbean Jurisprudence."
There should be no rush to enjoin the CCJ in its original jurisdiction on the sensitive issue of disadvantaged trade in Caricom. The issue could be resolved by dialogue, investigation and conciliation, given the goodwill and understanding expressed by Kamla Persad-Bissessar during her visit to Jamaica. As with all things temporal, should the critical path as suggested not succeed, then referral to the CCJ should be considered. It is sincerely hoped that such recourse would not come to pass.
July 14, 2010
jamaicaobserver
PRECIOUS little has been reported in the media about the outcome of the 31st meeting of Caricom Heads of Government in Montego Bay. Apart from the sparse attendance by Heads of Government that can only be described as disappointing, the meeting was successful in bringing to the fore the three cardinal issues that for years have haunted the agenda of the conference. These are the issues of governance, that is, leadership, difficulties with intra-Caricom trade, the selection of a new Caricom Secretary General and reform of the Secretariat.
However, we are encouraged by Prime Minister Persad-Bissessar's expression of goodwill by promising to address several trade disputes existing between Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago. The PM made reference to concerns about a "few perceived issues" related to the cost of production and inputs in both Trinidad and Jamaica, which would include the preferential cost of energy in Trinidad. She said, "We will assess and reassess and review, and where we can find amicable solutions that will endure and enure for the benefit of our people here in Jamaica and in Trinidad and Tobago."
The PM continued, "Now is not the time for the regional business community to be combative rather desperately, we need to join forces to impact in a sustainable way on the international scenario, so let us not in some ways concentrate on our differences and engage in warfare in the region." These remarks are well intentioned, indicating where the inquiry process should begin and the amicable attitude that should prevail.
The foregoing comments were well received and it is now clear that the PM is aware of our continued "bleating and bitching" about these "perceived issues" over the years. It is certainly not the intention to be "combative" as the issues at hand are legitimate trade problems encountered as part of our developing Caribbean trade regime, to be settled within the purview of the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas without recourse to the World Trade Organisation, if possible.
The PM also gave advice on how the two states can enjoy successful commercial relationships. Three changes for improvement were recommended. First, engage in innovative improvements to their businesses. Second, create alliances between the business communities of both countries. Third, engage in meetings to discuss ways in which businesses could establish partnerships. These business liaisons are already in progress evidenced by the continuing investment by Trinidadian interests in new projects being developed in Jamaica. However, as the adage goes, "The largest room in the world is the room for improvement", and so we support and concur with the offered advice.
Regarding the paramount issue of governance, PM Golding as Chair of Caricom for the next six months said, "We acknowledge that there is an issue with governance, and we have not solved that problem. We are aware of the proposal to put in place a permanent executive commission or a group of commissioners who have executive powers and then, in effecting the decisions of heads, would translate it to a domestic legislation with a certain amount of automaticity. There is need for continuity and follow-up. There is need for coordination to ensure that those decisions can be implemented." We await the report of the sub-committee in January 2011 covering this key proposal for a Caribbean Commission. The issue of the inequitable terms of trade between the states has been dealt with above.
The selection of a successor to the Caricom Secretary General and reform of the Secretariat should be the subject of a Technical Working Group study. The world's largest current service industry is "bureaucracy" creating a multilayered structure comprising organs, bodies, treaty entities, installations and associate institutions in Caricom which excels in job creation but slows to a moribund pace of implementation of constructive decisions. To be relevant to Caricom today, it has to be reorganised from bottom up and turned into a lean, mean, multifaceted machine, equipped to manage the electronic speed of business today, without the "paper chase" that accompanies the conduct of the Secretariat's business dealings.
A point of high importance which passed unnoticed without comment, was reported by Rickey Singh in this newspaper on July 7, that referred to Trinidad's PM openly speaking about her government's reservations: "...as well as against a commitment to any form of political integration with the sub-region of the OECS as had been signalled by her predecessor, Patrick Manning." Such an outstanding rejection will surely reverberate throughout the Eastern Caribbean, but will reinforce Caricom's unity.
Mission: "The Caribbean Court of Justice shall perform to the highest standards as the supreme judicial organ in the Caribbean Community. In its Original Jurisdiction it insures uniform interpretation and applications of the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas, thereby underpinning and advancing the Caricom Single Market and Economy. As the final court of appeal for member states of the Caribbean Community, it fosters the development of an indigenous Caribbean Jurisprudence."
There should be no rush to enjoin the CCJ in its original jurisdiction on the sensitive issue of disadvantaged trade in Caricom. The issue could be resolved by dialogue, investigation and conciliation, given the goodwill and understanding expressed by Kamla Persad-Bissessar during her visit to Jamaica. As with all things temporal, should the critical path as suggested not succeed, then referral to the CCJ should be considered. It is sincerely hoped that such recourse would not come to pass.
July 14, 2010
jamaicaobserver
Friday, July 2, 2010
Owen Arthur - the Caribbean Commissioner the region should have
By Sir Ronald Sanders:
Owen Arthur, the former Prime Minister of Barbados, is probably one of the best Commissioners of a Caribbean Commission that the region does not have but ought to have.
Indeed, had Caribbean Community and Common market (CARICOM) governments implemented the recommendation of the 1992 West Indian Commission to establish a Caribbean Commission, we may today have as its President, PJ Patterson the former Prime Minister of Jamaica, Owen Arthur as one of its Commissioners and someone from the OECS of the regional calibre of say, Ralph Gonsalves the present Prime Minister of St Vincent and the Grenadines, or Vaughan Lewis former Prime Minister of St Lucia, as the third Commissioner.
Had such a Commission been in place and operating, CARICOM countries may have been dealing with their current financial and economic crises in a collective and cohesive fashion, and much better than they are currently.
As it is, each country has struggled to deal on an individual basis with the walloping effects not only of the global financial crisis, but also of the consequences of the collapse of CLICO and British American.
While it is true that in mid-June, the governments of the seven small members of the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS) signed a Treaty to establish an Economic Union among themselves, that treaty is not yet operational and while, once it is operational, it will represent progress, it remains insufficient. It is the wider CARICOM region that has to deepen its integration arrangements and especially its machinery for joint decision-making and implementation.
Regrettably, Owen Arthur is not looking for a job as a Commissioner or even Head of a Caribbean Commission. Indeed, one interpretation of a comment he made recently in the Bahamas suggests that he may be interested in being Prime Minister of Barbados once again.
In a very important speech to the Institute of Chartered Accountants of the Caribbean at its annual meeting in the Bahamas on June 25, Arthur said: “You should allow me to begin by stating how very pleased I am to be able to share the same platform once again with Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham who until recently, like I do now, carried the title of Former Prime Minister. His presence fortifies my belief in the concept of the second coming”.
Whatever Arthur meant by that comment, the rest of his statement was a telling analysis of the present financial and economic condition of the Caribbean Community, and a blistering revelation of the lack of support from the International Financial Institutions (IFI’s).
It has to be said, however, that while the IFI’s have not been as responsive to the Caribbean as they could have been, and the IMF in particular has applied the usual prescriptions for providing Stand-By arrangements to Jamaica and Antigua and Barbuda, CARICOM countries failed to provide the IFI’s and major world economies with a clearly defined plan of what they need, for what, and how they plan to repay it.
It should be recalled that when the global financial crisis erupted, the world, and the Caribbean Region within it, faced an economic crisis of unprecedented proportions. Globalisation threatened to overwhelm the Caribbean with a world-wide recession, and indeed it did. Growth in every country except Guyana (according to the IMF) declined in 2008 and 2009. In some cases, there was negative growth. The ratio of debt to GDP escalated everywhere even in normally cautious Barbados. Tourism, on which the entire region (except Guyana and Trinidad and Tobago) now relies, declined everywhere if not in numbers, certainly in spending.
No State, no Government, no society within the region was immune from the economic consequences of the global financial crisis and the effects of the collapse of CLICO and British American. In that context, CARICOM societies expected their governments to come together to explore measures they could take in concert to enlarge the capacity of the region. Indeed, several regional commentators urged such action in very specific terms. As it turned out, CARICOM governments set up two separate task forces and both reported, but no joint plan was put to the IFI’s and none to the major world economies.
Owen Arthur reminded his audience in the Bahamas that “in April 2009, the G20 countries pledged provision of an additional $1.1 trillion to the IMF and the Multilateral Development Banks to enable them to carry out a programme to restore credit, growth and jobs to the world economy”, and he observed that “we have witnessed the carrying out of a rescue and recovery programme for the world’s developed economies, involving an unprecedented commitment of financial resources and the incurring of fiscal deficits on a scale that has hitherto been unimaginable”.
But, while the developed countries were bailing themselves out, they failed to deliver on the pledge “to make available an additional $850 billion of resources through the IMF and the multilateral development banks to support growth in emerging market and developing countries by helping to finance counter-cyclical spending, bank recapitalization, infrastructure, trade finance, balance of payments support, debt rollover and social support”.
Arthur pointed out that the IMF introduced a new Flexible Credit Line through which the bulk of additional IMF financing was to be channelled. As he said: “It was also especially intended to herald a fundamental change in the procedures for accessing IMF funds and meeting IMF programming tests”.
However, it could not be used by Caribbean countries and the facility into which $500 billion was pledged to support recovery in the developing world was used by countries in Latin America, Africa, Eastern Europe and Asia.
In the Caribbean, the IMF has agreed to two Stand-by Arrangements, one for $1.3 billion with Jamaica, and the other for almost $120 million with Antigua and Barbuda for which all the traditional IMF conditionalities apply.
As Arthur concludes: “It however cannot fairly be said that IMF response has or will assist in any major material way in achieving the grand overarching objectives stated on April 2nd, 2009 of fostering counter-cyclical stimulation, spurring employment creation nor attending to the needs of structural diversification in Caribbean economies”.
The space allowed in this commentary does not permit discussion of Arthur’s analysis of the lack of adequate response by other IFI’s to the Caribbean. But, his statement should be compulsory reading for all.
His conclusion is also extremely important. He said: “Where there is common threat, we must devise and pursue a common response. Should this global crisis engender such a common response to the common threats faced by the societies of the region, it will have served to usher in a better way of doing things in the Caribbean and will help to ensure that our best days are still ahead of us”.
In simple terms, Owen Arthur has made the case for a Caribbean Commission. If it were in existence, and if someone of his calibre – if not he himself – was Commissioner for the Community’s finance and trade negotiations, the region as whole might have got from the IFI’s a reasonable share of the resources it has been denied – largely because it failed to produce a clearly defined plan that could be effectively argued.
July 2, 2010
caribbeannetnews
Owen Arthur, the former Prime Minister of Barbados, is probably one of the best Commissioners of a Caribbean Commission that the region does not have but ought to have.
Indeed, had Caribbean Community and Common market (CARICOM) governments implemented the recommendation of the 1992 West Indian Commission to establish a Caribbean Commission, we may today have as its President, PJ Patterson the former Prime Minister of Jamaica, Owen Arthur as one of its Commissioners and someone from the OECS of the regional calibre of say, Ralph Gonsalves the present Prime Minister of St Vincent and the Grenadines, or Vaughan Lewis former Prime Minister of St Lucia, as the third Commissioner.
Had such a Commission been in place and operating, CARICOM countries may have been dealing with their current financial and economic crises in a collective and cohesive fashion, and much better than they are currently.
As it is, each country has struggled to deal on an individual basis with the walloping effects not only of the global financial crisis, but also of the consequences of the collapse of CLICO and British American.
While it is true that in mid-June, the governments of the seven small members of the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS) signed a Treaty to establish an Economic Union among themselves, that treaty is not yet operational and while, once it is operational, it will represent progress, it remains insufficient. It is the wider CARICOM region that has to deepen its integration arrangements and especially its machinery for joint decision-making and implementation.
Regrettably, Owen Arthur is not looking for a job as a Commissioner or even Head of a Caribbean Commission. Indeed, one interpretation of a comment he made recently in the Bahamas suggests that he may be interested in being Prime Minister of Barbados once again.
In a very important speech to the Institute of Chartered Accountants of the Caribbean at its annual meeting in the Bahamas on June 25, Arthur said: “You should allow me to begin by stating how very pleased I am to be able to share the same platform once again with Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham who until recently, like I do now, carried the title of Former Prime Minister. His presence fortifies my belief in the concept of the second coming”.
Whatever Arthur meant by that comment, the rest of his statement was a telling analysis of the present financial and economic condition of the Caribbean Community, and a blistering revelation of the lack of support from the International Financial Institutions (IFI’s).
It has to be said, however, that while the IFI’s have not been as responsive to the Caribbean as they could have been, and the IMF in particular has applied the usual prescriptions for providing Stand-By arrangements to Jamaica and Antigua and Barbuda, CARICOM countries failed to provide the IFI’s and major world economies with a clearly defined plan of what they need, for what, and how they plan to repay it.
It should be recalled that when the global financial crisis erupted, the world, and the Caribbean Region within it, faced an economic crisis of unprecedented proportions. Globalisation threatened to overwhelm the Caribbean with a world-wide recession, and indeed it did. Growth in every country except Guyana (according to the IMF) declined in 2008 and 2009. In some cases, there was negative growth. The ratio of debt to GDP escalated everywhere even in normally cautious Barbados. Tourism, on which the entire region (except Guyana and Trinidad and Tobago) now relies, declined everywhere if not in numbers, certainly in spending.
No State, no Government, no society within the region was immune from the economic consequences of the global financial crisis and the effects of the collapse of CLICO and British American. In that context, CARICOM societies expected their governments to come together to explore measures they could take in concert to enlarge the capacity of the region. Indeed, several regional commentators urged such action in very specific terms. As it turned out, CARICOM governments set up two separate task forces and both reported, but no joint plan was put to the IFI’s and none to the major world economies.
Owen Arthur reminded his audience in the Bahamas that “in April 2009, the G20 countries pledged provision of an additional $1.1 trillion to the IMF and the Multilateral Development Banks to enable them to carry out a programme to restore credit, growth and jobs to the world economy”, and he observed that “we have witnessed the carrying out of a rescue and recovery programme for the world’s developed economies, involving an unprecedented commitment of financial resources and the incurring of fiscal deficits on a scale that has hitherto been unimaginable”.
But, while the developed countries were bailing themselves out, they failed to deliver on the pledge “to make available an additional $850 billion of resources through the IMF and the multilateral development banks to support growth in emerging market and developing countries by helping to finance counter-cyclical spending, bank recapitalization, infrastructure, trade finance, balance of payments support, debt rollover and social support”.
Arthur pointed out that the IMF introduced a new Flexible Credit Line through which the bulk of additional IMF financing was to be channelled. As he said: “It was also especially intended to herald a fundamental change in the procedures for accessing IMF funds and meeting IMF programming tests”.
However, it could not be used by Caribbean countries and the facility into which $500 billion was pledged to support recovery in the developing world was used by countries in Latin America, Africa, Eastern Europe and Asia.
In the Caribbean, the IMF has agreed to two Stand-by Arrangements, one for $1.3 billion with Jamaica, and the other for almost $120 million with Antigua and Barbuda for which all the traditional IMF conditionalities apply.
As Arthur concludes: “It however cannot fairly be said that IMF response has or will assist in any major material way in achieving the grand overarching objectives stated on April 2nd, 2009 of fostering counter-cyclical stimulation, spurring employment creation nor attending to the needs of structural diversification in Caribbean economies”.
The space allowed in this commentary does not permit discussion of Arthur’s analysis of the lack of adequate response by other IFI’s to the Caribbean. But, his statement should be compulsory reading for all.
His conclusion is also extremely important. He said: “Where there is common threat, we must devise and pursue a common response. Should this global crisis engender such a common response to the common threats faced by the societies of the region, it will have served to usher in a better way of doing things in the Caribbean and will help to ensure that our best days are still ahead of us”.
In simple terms, Owen Arthur has made the case for a Caribbean Commission. If it were in existence, and if someone of his calibre – if not he himself – was Commissioner for the Community’s finance and trade negotiations, the region as whole might have got from the IFI’s a reasonable share of the resources it has been denied – largely because it failed to produce a clearly defined plan that could be effectively argued.
July 2, 2010
caribbeannetnews
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Careless with CARICOM - Part 2
Sir Shridath Ramphal:
At the end of Part 1, I suggested that we are losing our way abroad as we are at home. It was not always so; and progress on each journey helped us forward on the other.
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 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 ‘reciprocity’ at bay for 25 years; when we forced recognition of the vulnerability of ‘small states’?
In all this, and more, for all our size we stood tall; we commanded respect, if not always endearment.
And beyond respect from others, was self-esteem; because in all these actions, and others, we were guided by principles: principles rooted in our regional values; principles we were not afraid to articulate and by which we stood, mindful of, but not deterred by, objections to positions we once took boldly on the global stage - not recklessly, but in unity, with honor and circumspection.
For what do we stand today, united and respected?
Some of us weaken the region’s standing in the international community when we are seen as clients of Japan’s pursuit of whaling. 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 submit.
What do these aberrations 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’.
It is easy, perhaps natural, for us as Caribbean 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 say: ‘we do what our people want us to do’. And who can deny that that is so, while we accept their excesses with equanimity, certainly in silence – and not infrequently renew their political mandate.
No! The fault is with us. 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 Caribbean kinship. The fault lies not in our political stars but 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 are we at our best? Surely, 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 become careless with CARICOM – and in the process are falling into to a state of disunity which by now we should have made preternatural. It will be a slow and gradual descent; but ineluctably it will be an ending.
In Derek Walcott’s recently published collection of poems, White Egrets, 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.
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 the new Caribbean with room for all to flourish. We must cherish our local identities; but they must enrich the mosaic of regionalism, not withhold from it their separate splendors.
Today that mosaic is most evident in Caribbean diasporas who have heightened their self-esteem and secured an identity for themselves by holding fast to that image of Caribbean oneness which is slipping away from us at home. No one has told them this is the reality at home; in fact, self-deception, even denial, in the Caribbean has kept them united in a quite poignant way. Could it be that we are more true to ourselves in London or New York or Toronto, than we are within the region itself? What an irony that would be?
In some ways, it must be said, that identity slippage is less evident among the smallest of us. The OECS islands are developing a model of economic unity among themselves which would be worthy of all, if it could subsist for all. But, it is early days, and it remains to be seen at the level of action whether, even for them, the ‘agony’ lingers still.
Whatever ails us now, we must recover our resolve to survive as one people, one region. Imbued by such resolve, yet only so resolved, there is a future for this region that can be better than the best we have ever been. Make no mistake, however; neither complacency nor resignation will suffice. What the Caribbean needs is rescue – by ourselves, from ourselves and for ourselves. We cannot be careless with our oneness, which is our lifeline. We must not be CARELESS with CARICOM.
(Sir Shridath has held the positions of Commonwealth Secretary-General, Chancellor of the University of the West Indies, Chairman of the West Indian Commission and Chief Negotiator in the Caribbean Regional Negotiating Machinery)
May 5, 2010
Careless with CARICOM - Part 1
caribbeannetnews
At the end of Part 1, I suggested that we are losing our way abroad as we are at home. It was not always so; and progress on each journey helped us forward on the other.
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 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 ‘reciprocity’ at bay for 25 years; when we forced recognition of the vulnerability of ‘small states’?
In all this, and more, for all our size we stood tall; we commanded respect, if not always endearment.
And beyond respect from others, was self-esteem; because in all these actions, and others, we were guided by principles: principles rooted in our regional values; principles we were not afraid to articulate and by which we stood, mindful of, but not deterred by, objections to positions we once took boldly on the global stage - not recklessly, but in unity, with honor and circumspection.
For what do we stand today, united and respected?
Some of us weaken the region’s standing in the international community when we are seen as clients of Japan’s pursuit of whaling. 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 submit.
What do these aberrations 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’.
It is easy, perhaps natural, for us as Caribbean 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 say: ‘we do what our people want us to do’. And who can deny that that is so, while we accept their excesses with equanimity, certainly in silence – and not infrequently renew their political mandate.
No! The fault is with us. 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 Caribbean kinship. The fault lies not in our political stars but 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 are we at our best? Surely, 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 become careless with CARICOM – and in the process are falling into to a state of disunity which by now we should have made preternatural. It will be a slow and gradual descent; but ineluctably it will be an ending.
In Derek Walcott’s recently published collection of poems, White Egrets, 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.
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 the new Caribbean with room for all to flourish. We must cherish our local identities; but they must enrich the mosaic of regionalism, not withhold from it their separate splendors.
Today that mosaic is most evident in Caribbean diasporas who have heightened their self-esteem and secured an identity for themselves by holding fast to that image of Caribbean oneness which is slipping away from us at home. No one has told them this is the reality at home; in fact, self-deception, even denial, in the Caribbean has kept them united in a quite poignant way. Could it be that we are more true to ourselves in London or New York or Toronto, than we are within the region itself? What an irony that would be?
In some ways, it must be said, that identity slippage is less evident among the smallest of us. The OECS islands are developing a model of economic unity among themselves which would be worthy of all, if it could subsist for all. But, it is early days, and it remains to be seen at the level of action whether, even for them, the ‘agony’ lingers still.
Whatever ails us now, we must recover our resolve to survive as one people, one region. Imbued by such resolve, yet only so resolved, there is a future for this region that can be better than the best we have ever been. Make no mistake, however; neither complacency nor resignation will suffice. What the Caribbean needs is rescue – by ourselves, from ourselves and for ourselves. We cannot be careless with our oneness, which is our lifeline. We must not be CARELESS with CARICOM.
(Sir Shridath has held the positions of Commonwealth Secretary-General, Chancellor of the University of the West Indies, Chairman of the West Indian Commission and Chief Negotiator in the Caribbean Regional Negotiating Machinery)
May 5, 2010
Careless with CARICOM - Part 1
caribbeannetnews
Monday, April 19, 2010
The 'Free Movement' Quiz For Caricom
Carrington sparks questions on labour mobility and help for Haiti
RICKEY SINGH
CARICOM Secretary General Edwin Carrington last week chose to raise hopes - amid prevailing disappointments - for progress in the "free movement of Caricom nationals" of the dozen countries participating in the Caribbean Single Market and Economy (CSME) project.
The optimism expressed by the secretary general has, however, to be considered in the context of caveats that serve to underscore the recognised need for more focused, collective efforts by governments to make stated commitment on planned migration and labour mobility a reality.
Carrington, Caricom's longest chief public servant - he is now in his 18th year as secretary general - was addressing last week's three-day meeting in Guyana of the 19th Council of Human and Social Development (COSHOD), held in conjunction with the Seventh Ministerial Meeting of the International Labour Organisation (ILO).
At the meeting, which was concluded on Friday with Caricom's labour ministers in attendance, Carrington also thought it necessary to remind the Community's governments that "it is not enough for us to just be sorry" for earthquake-devastated Haiti, but to come forward with specific, "concrete pledges" to alleviate the burden of the Haitian people.
Let me address first the secretary general's assessment of what remains one of the more sensitive issues in Caricom's journey towards the laudable goal of establishing a seamless regional economy with the CSME.
While the public awaits the decisions reached at the COSHOD meeting, Carrington has stated that "free movement of labour and intra-regional migration" are "challenging" issues for deliberation.
'Movement' certificates
In recognising the anxieties of wage earners who remain excluded from the 10 approved categories for free movement within the CSME framework, Carrington pointed to the gains made which have resulted in the release of more than 6,000 Caricom skills certificates between 2006 and 2008.
A further increase is expected for 2010 because, he said, of the "expansion in the categories of wage earners who could now move across the region for economic activity".
But Secretary General Carrington would know that for all the expressed good intentions, data on the annual processing of skills certificates, as well as a number of applications yet to be addressed, are not readily forthcoming.
Additionally, frustration continues to be the name of the game in the absence of common legislation guaranteeing contingent rights for holders of approved skills certificates and members of their immediate family to access education, health and housing facilities.
Ironically, one of the governments among those failing to expedite the processes for free movement of labour and intra-regional migration is that of Dominica whose prime minister (Roosevelt Skerrit) has lead responsibility among Caricom leaders for "labour including movement of skills".
A yet unpublished 'country report' in support of full integration of Belize and the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS) has, for instance, observed that while the government in Roseau was strongly in favour of the regional regime for labour mobility, "it needs to put in place the arrangements to facilitate accreditation and full mobility..."
Do not expect a listing of other defaulting governments from either the CSME unit dealing with this matter or the Community Secretariat itself.
But pertinent questions could be: How many of the 12 governments involved in CSME planning are at least 50 per cent ready with necessary arrangements for free movement of labour and intra-regional migration?
The reality is that while the expressed optimism by the secretary general can be appreciated, doubts and cynicism can only diminish, if not disappear, with EVIDENCE of relevant COLLECTIVE action.
Encouraging reminders
Yet, it is at least encouraging to have the Community's secretary general offering appropriate reminders on essential work agendas as he did this past week in relation to free movement of nationals within the CSME.
Also of relevance is Carrington's observation that "it is not enough for us (Caricom) to just be 'sorry' for Haiti (echoing a long-expressed sentiment of the calypsonian David Rudder).
But to tell it like it is may require raising questions about why - in the face of the destruction of Haiti by the earthquake of last January 12 - Caricom governments are yet to come forward with at least a draft plan on how to offer temporary immigrant status for a specified number of displaced Haitians.
With minor exceptions, what we seem to be facing at present is the typical scenario - prior to the earthquake disaster - of Haitians turning up illegally in a few Caricom states - Jamaica and The Bahamas in particular.
Perhaps former prime minister of Jamaica PJ Patterson, our 'Special Advocate for Haiti', should, in collaboration with the Community Secretariat, provide updates on the "concrete pledges of support" being received by the 'Special Support Unit for Haiti' established by Caricom and operating out of Jamaica.
April 18, 2010
jamaicaobserver
RICKEY SINGH
CARICOM Secretary General Edwin Carrington last week chose to raise hopes - amid prevailing disappointments - for progress in the "free movement of Caricom nationals" of the dozen countries participating in the Caribbean Single Market and Economy (CSME) project.
The optimism expressed by the secretary general has, however, to be considered in the context of caveats that serve to underscore the recognised need for more focused, collective efforts by governments to make stated commitment on planned migration and labour mobility a reality.
Carrington, Caricom's longest chief public servant - he is now in his 18th year as secretary general - was addressing last week's three-day meeting in Guyana of the 19th Council of Human and Social Development (COSHOD), held in conjunction with the Seventh Ministerial Meeting of the International Labour Organisation (ILO).
At the meeting, which was concluded on Friday with Caricom's labour ministers in attendance, Carrington also thought it necessary to remind the Community's governments that "it is not enough for us to just be sorry" for earthquake-devastated Haiti, but to come forward with specific, "concrete pledges" to alleviate the burden of the Haitian people.
Let me address first the secretary general's assessment of what remains one of the more sensitive issues in Caricom's journey towards the laudable goal of establishing a seamless regional economy with the CSME.
While the public awaits the decisions reached at the COSHOD meeting, Carrington has stated that "free movement of labour and intra-regional migration" are "challenging" issues for deliberation.
'Movement' certificates
In recognising the anxieties of wage earners who remain excluded from the 10 approved categories for free movement within the CSME framework, Carrington pointed to the gains made which have resulted in the release of more than 6,000 Caricom skills certificates between 2006 and 2008.
A further increase is expected for 2010 because, he said, of the "expansion in the categories of wage earners who could now move across the region for economic activity".
But Secretary General Carrington would know that for all the expressed good intentions, data on the annual processing of skills certificates, as well as a number of applications yet to be addressed, are not readily forthcoming.
Additionally, frustration continues to be the name of the game in the absence of common legislation guaranteeing contingent rights for holders of approved skills certificates and members of their immediate family to access education, health and housing facilities.
Ironically, one of the governments among those failing to expedite the processes for free movement of labour and intra-regional migration is that of Dominica whose prime minister (Roosevelt Skerrit) has lead responsibility among Caricom leaders for "labour including movement of skills".
A yet unpublished 'country report' in support of full integration of Belize and the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS) has, for instance, observed that while the government in Roseau was strongly in favour of the regional regime for labour mobility, "it needs to put in place the arrangements to facilitate accreditation and full mobility..."
Do not expect a listing of other defaulting governments from either the CSME unit dealing with this matter or the Community Secretariat itself.
But pertinent questions could be: How many of the 12 governments involved in CSME planning are at least 50 per cent ready with necessary arrangements for free movement of labour and intra-regional migration?
The reality is that while the expressed optimism by the secretary general can be appreciated, doubts and cynicism can only diminish, if not disappear, with EVIDENCE of relevant COLLECTIVE action.
Encouraging reminders
Yet, it is at least encouraging to have the Community's secretary general offering appropriate reminders on essential work agendas as he did this past week in relation to free movement of nationals within the CSME.
Also of relevance is Carrington's observation that "it is not enough for us (Caricom) to just be 'sorry' for Haiti (echoing a long-expressed sentiment of the calypsonian David Rudder).
But to tell it like it is may require raising questions about why - in the face of the destruction of Haiti by the earthquake of last January 12 - Caricom governments are yet to come forward with at least a draft plan on how to offer temporary immigrant status for a specified number of displaced Haitians.
With minor exceptions, what we seem to be facing at present is the typical scenario - prior to the earthquake disaster - of Haitians turning up illegally in a few Caricom states - Jamaica and The Bahamas in particular.
Perhaps former prime minister of Jamaica PJ Patterson, our 'Special Advocate for Haiti', should, in collaboration with the Community Secretariat, provide updates on the "concrete pledges of support" being received by the 'Special Support Unit for Haiti' established by Caricom and operating out of Jamaica.
April 18, 2010
jamaicaobserver
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)