Reprinted from Caribbean Net News
caribbeannetnews.com
PART I
This is Part I of a comprehensive response to Mr. Hall on the issue of the CSME.
“The Bahamas is a relatively rich nation and has no fiscal need to trade its natural heritage for easy cash; especially with so many islands and cays available for sale that would pose far less threat to sensitive ecosystems.”
These are the words of Mr. Anthony L. Hall -- the new omnipresence at Caribbean Net News -- whose opinions seem so pure as to levitate above the real situation on the ground.
For instance, the assertion in the sentence above -- on its own -- requires extensive research before one can say what Cays are available for sale, the development of which may be less onerous environmentally than "mainland” developments. It ignores the infrastructure costs of developing Cays or the "knock-on" effects of such developments.
That captures the whole spirit of ungoverned hubris in Mr. Hall's article on the CSME which calls for a response.
I must answer Mr. Hall, not because he challenged me directly. And though I was foremost in a considered opposition to the CSME in its current iteration -- in this very electronic newspaper -- I have no reason to believe Mr. Hall has had access to my views. However, since I am well known for such views, I am compelled to represent those whose opposition to the CSME is not as Mr. Hall supposes, but is based on genuine understanding of International Trade policy and geo-strategic realities.
Mr. Hall is -- without doubt -- a man of incisive intellect; with a mind of undeniable “candle power”. However, in his commentary: CARICOM’s CSME vis-à-vis NAFTA, CAFTA, FTAA and the EU on aforementioned media platform, on Tuesday, November 8th 2005, Mr. Hall revealed that his approach to international trade relations is largely impressionistic, resting -- as it seems to -- on comparisons of type and of scales that betray an innocence, which whilst it seems comforting in its triumphal pronouncements, is as injurious to the potential -- economic, political and social -- opportunities of the Caribbean as the intractable myopia he seeks to condemn.
To put the matter plainly, I am not at odds with Mr. Hall’s indictment of the time-wasting, strategies of successive political administrations & institutions across the Caribbean. To be sure, if Mr. Hall’s indictment is correct, it hardly seems right that he shall call for a “confederation of failures” by a region wide ‘copycatting’ of the EU or NAFTA, both of which have enormous inherent problems.
These problems were displayed recently -- over the last two years -- on one hand -- by the nations of the EU -- all or anyone of which have stronger, more matured economies than any Caribbean nation -- observing routinely in the breach of EU rules on financial stability.
On the other hand, referenda has confirmed a salient, and irrefutable point: The makers of the “Federation of Europe” failed to think through or consult their citizens on the make-up or meaning of their nebulous, shambolic, dream of “an ever closer union”, which was the central mantra of the Maastricht Treaty from which CSME was copied, that European citizens rejected, and which Mr. Hall now recommends.
There is another tendency typical of people who behave as Mr. Hall described in his article. Here is what he says in his own words:
"For their part, though diplomatic protocol precludes their saying so publicly, Bush Administration officials regard our leaders as impudent ingrates who are being marginalised for pursuing policies that are hostile to America’s interests; For example, by: Undermining efforts by former U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell to resolve the recent political crisis in Haiti and even accusing the U.S. of orchestrating a coup d’etat against then President Bertrand Aristide; and Strengthening diplomatic and economic ties with perennial U.S. nemesis Cuba whilst accepting sweetheart investments from China - in return for severing diplomatic ties with perennial U.S. ally Taiwan. But, whatever the merit of these policies, CARICOM leaders have not inspired much regard for (or confidence in) their authority by proving almost as feckless as African leaders in dealing with regional problems (like drug trafficking and Haitian immigration). Moreover, despite legitimate complaints about America’s arbitrary and capricious exercise of its super power, internecine squabbles amongst CARICOM members are primarily responsible for our marginalisation".
It is nearly impossible to pick apart these statements, and convey what I mean. This is not because they are complex. Instead they mix and match apples and oranges with such a subtly as to defy even the most learned exegesis. In these comments Mr. Hall praises the same people he condemns. He asserts US actions -- even if justified -- incorrectly, then answers his own supposition with the certainty of a Roman judge. In doing so, he has no means to see -- because he is levitating above what is real -- that he undermines his own thesis for unification under CSME.
This is where matters become convoluted. First, Colin Powell is a distinguished man, of whom it is easy to be proud. Still, how can one find his actions consistent with his expressed values in the case of Haiti is beyond me. You had the nations of CARICOM insisting on the principles of democracy.
That is, given that Aristide was elected and given that we (USA/CARICOM) believe in the power of the plebiscite -- which should be of comfort to America -- and given that justice Brandeis had famously said in Olmstead v. America 1928: that governments were not at liberty to break the law under claims that a greater good was achieved, since this opens the opportunity to justify any government action -- as doing an illegal thing to achieve something legal -- the CARICOM position ought rightly to have been that of the United States.
Moreover, in dealing with nations whom it regards as having a casual attitude to the rule of law, how better to demonstrate its commitment to the principle than by…well, upholding the rule of law?
The Americans say Aristide wanted to leave. The Caribbeans say he was kidnapped. Neither side has the reputation or credibility to deny the worse or confirm the best explanation. As such, Mr. Hall’s certainty in these matters seem fetching at best, and innocent -- to speak euphemistically -- at worst.
The matter of fact is that none of the above explains my view of the matter. This is what I mean by convolution. One is forced to discuss these questions in the manner in which they were raised by Mr. Hall.
Yet, I did not care for CARICOM’s position as I understood it either. Here is why, if you please forgive me this immodest reference: In my book In Defense of National Sovereignty, drawing on Metternich -- the Prime Minister of Austria after the Napoleonic wars, from about 1804 -- I paraphrased the following: “In our relations with America we must remember the cardinal proposition: Large nations are always right, small nations can only keep from being wrong. Small nations should only defend their interests openly when it is intertwined in the interests of larger nations”.
I added: “Caribbean nations may gain the respect of the United States as a geo-strategic partner, only when they demonstrate prudent management of their domestic affairs and committed responsibility in regional ones; whilst – without whining – they commit themselves to the to rules mentioned before”.
It is well to remember that I chose Austria particularly because it was a small nation ensconced between three superpowers: Russia, France and England. Another reason is because its leader understood that only leveraged options are available to small nations; in our case, the first of which must be that we govern ourselves so well and conduct our affairs with such seriousness, that we are not a problem for the United States.
There is no single area of domestic policy in which we can say we have optimized our potential, save Barbados’ world class success in education, The Bahamas in sport and both in political stability, without violence. I do not mean by this either that there are amongst us, no pockets of excellence, or we lack the brains to meet our potential.
Instead, what is profoundly disappointing is that there are so many examples of the brilliance which can become synonymous with our region, hampered only by mis-governance and mismanagement. How is the US supposed to enter a collegial relationship in which it takes seriously a partnership with people who fail to take themselves seriously?
To put the matter with some force, if we ran our countries properly, we would have had the “windfall’ resources to handle the Haiti situation more directly and with greater competence. If Mr. Hall intends to say that, who could disagree?
But if one accepts that, how can one put about to instigate a confederation countries which have failed at the very processes critical to political and economic management. One commenting on these questions without an understanding of the complexity of the matter leaves the appearance that he levitates above what is real; as if he has been lost on Mars.
Previous Page Print This Page.
Copyright© 2007 Caribbean Net News at www.caribbeannetnews.com All Rights Reserved
License is granted for free print and distribution.
