December 5, 2012 by augustine63

Why go back home – The irrelevance of geography

By Adrian Augier

CASTRIES, St Lucia, Thursday November 29, 2012 – After half a life of caring for everyone but herself, an exhausted wife may well contemplate running away from home. A mid-life businessman – mortgage paid, kids finished school, some money saved – might think of relocating to a future rich with guiltless possibilities. But for hundreds of young St. Lucians studying abroad, where to live is a question of an entirely different colour.

If there’s a family business, a plot of debt-free land, or some promised post still waiting, a few will eagerly return. But many young undergrads – in Canada, England, America, Cuba or Trinidad – foresee at best, a doubtful future and feel a dwindling sense of national obligation.

After three or more years in a world of higher incomes and stronger growth, they view their new degree as a tradable asset offering immediate returns. In a vibrant, if foreign labour market, it is the first step to even higher earnings. Retreating now would feel like the end of learning, unplugged from the mainstream of professional advancement.

By comparison, home is a stagnant backwater. Even for the wealthy and well-connected, it is a tangle of pot-luck politics and vengeful personalities. For students from modest circumstances, prospects are even more daunting. Return implies building a future from scratch in an economy with no discernible direction. Better to stay abroad: learn, work, save, grow.

Over there, new paths and old pitfalls are fairly clear: there is a perceptible order to society. If one follows the rules, there will be certain rewards and assurances, whether you are Joe Plumber or Marcella, a gifted software designer with village roots in Mon Repos. Success is the expected norm, not the coveted exception.

Granted, it is tough going with fewer family and friends. But at least daily life is not frustrated by arbitrary ignorance. Out there, the enemy is known, and it is not some ministry official messing with your life just because he can. Whatever happens, you do not labour under the illusion that you deserve a break in your own country.

Meanwhile back home, others also want out. They crave escape, living for the day when they too will be sent for. The family home, with its aging parents and a slew of heirs, offers few possibilities. It is not their capital to mortgage.

Then there is that student loan: larger than a house, slower than a car. It will devour half the average EC salary. So, the best risk-taking years are spent paying off a mountain of old debt. Soon there will be a vehicle loan and the inevitable mortgage. By then, it is too late to transition from bill payer to investor. All that state of the art expertise, lost to kin and country.

So the decision to leave or stay is hardly rocket science – not with economic growth dwindling, investment approaching zero, and employment under siege at home. The future becomes that place where the graduate can reasonably expect to prosper on individual merit, in a system that cares little about who he is, or where he started, or how he voted in the last election.

Of course, there is still love of country: that need to be rooted to a few square miles of planet earth. All very nice, but that won’t pay the bills. Besides, these grads know how elusive higher education can be. They remember what their parents lived through.

Even for retirees, who also need good health care, personal security and a sense of order, back-home is no longer the ideal place to retire. The tug of patrimony has given way to practical considerations about their quality of life. Without a range of wholesome activities to occupy their days, the undertow of emotion which once dragged them back from England and North America is dissipating.

The emotional tug does not work on their offspring either; those second and third generations, full of first-world knowledge and technology. All they feel – if they visit – is acute disappointment that so little has changed since their parents migrated to a better life. To them, basic systems of governance remain inexplicably archaic and obtuse: their metropole has moved along while ours has slipped back.

To foresee the future, one need only ask the average St. Lucian – secondary schooled, thirty something, mother of three – if she has any idea where the country is headed under this or any other administration. Ask her about the tourism product; what it will look like in five years. Ask her about new jobs in e-commerce. Ask her about environmental change or green energies. Ask her where she thinks her school-leaving son will likely find a job. Then ask her if she wants a ticket to Obamaland.

Hell, ask the average minister about renewables, emerging technologies, new economic space, alternative agriculture, global trends in education, digital media, social entrepreneurship… or how to energize a shrinking private sector. It’s not stupidity; it’s just that our systems have not evolved and now require radical re-engineering.

Simply put: our economic base is not adequately prepared for the future. Most Caribbean economies are languishing because the economic fundamentals are sagging and the old ways are painfully obsolete. At this stage cosmetic surgery simply will not do.

What the region needs is more like a triple bypass operation to remove the detritus of decades of complacency. Unless this happens soon, not even our own moribund citizenry will take this country seriously. And that lack of faith – now manifesting as a haemorrhage of brain power – will be the fatal stoke.

Already, there are signs of a muted frenzy bubbling to the surface of everyday existence: that dark energy which turns people on each other at the first scent of blood. It makes a bus full of travellers curse a policeman for sanctioning their reckless driver. It makes a young man stab his best friend over some electronic trinket.

“St. Lucia needs more open and enlightened government” –Adrian Augier

It makes you think you’re not a victim of a crime taking place next door. It makes a politician kill a project offering a hundred jobs, because the idea came from someone on the other side. It makes the ministry official messing with your life, chronically unavailable to answer phone calls. It makes governments impotent, unable to satisfy even the basic aspirations of ordinary citizens.

So if young graduates don’t turn for home, don’t be surprised. They too feel the need to jump free of the failing system. Unable to point to a single thing that works convincingly well, they make the only rational choice available.

The same logic drives away investors, foreign and domestic. As economic circumstances level out across the global marketplace, the factory floor is moving even further from its virtual boardroom. To be effective, first-world executives need little more than a smart phone and a bank card.

Consequently, quality of life issues – not geography – will increasingly decide where progressive businesses locate. They too need security, education, health care, infrastructure, quality services and good governance. Where St. Lucia ranks in that scheme of things will also determine whether or not our own army of tech-savvy, knowledge-laden new-age entrepreneurs ever return to our shores.

The bottom lines are not much different: what works for our people also works for likeminded others. In the meantime, the islands are great to visit, but fewer and fewer people actually need to live here.

Changing that outlook means a shift of focus, in public policy and actual follow-through. A more progressive approach to financing higher education is critical. Removing disincentives to domestic investment will certainly help. But the huge challenge is creating viable opportunity: new economic space rather than low-wage employment for its own obvious sake.

Both the country and its people need to become magnets for home-grown talent as well as foreign capital. To do that, St. Lucia needs something that no amount of foreign aid can ever buy: more open and enlightened government. That is the one thing the people must manufacture for themselves.

As the recent US elections demonstrate, many rank and file voters are prepared to forego immediate benefits to secure a more viable future. Any party which is bankrupt of ideas, energy and new ways of resolving economic challenges, will be summarily dismissed, even if the alternative is not much better.

If local elections prove anything, it is that citizens will no longer tolerate inefficient, corrupt and self-serving government. The rationing of economic benefits by secret ballot needs to end. The alternative, which serves even myopic politicians, is a functional, well regulated market system built on competitiveness and merit.

It is also an excellent platform for re-election; one that would excite an unimpressed electorate and draw deserved attention from that new generation of global citizens we so desperately need in our midst. Hopefully younger and wiser, they just might have the energy to drag this place, kicking and screaming, from the fringes of anarchy into the civility of a new century.

December 2, 2012 by augustine63

The Politics Of Nonsense

There is a kind of politics which is played out almost daily in our country. We see it in the words and actions of our political elite, those governing and the others waiting in the wings. This kind of politics is useless, mindless and most importantly, it is harmful to our nation’s growth and development.

For ease of reference, we call it the politics of nonsense. Glenford Prescott wrote passionately about this plague in last weekend’s VINCENTIAN. More of us need to raise our voices to silence this bad jumbie.

We don’t have to look far to observe this politics of nonsense. The germ is all around us. It infests our hallowed halls of parliament, the entrance to our courts, political meetings, radio stations (especially Star FM and Nice radio), newspapers and other social media like Face book.

This politics of nonsense has its origins in the single but powerful desire: We must not, we will not, we cannot let our leader, our party, our supporter, our idea fall or fail. It does not matter how silly, improper, corrupt, illegal or embarrassing the revelation. Even in the face of the most blatantly outrageous statements or actions, we are required to hold our ground. In the end, we do nothing more than defend the indefensible.

Speak to persons across the political spectrum. Some try to make you into what you are not. They most urgently want you to become an activist for their cause. If you push back or resist, your every action or statement becomes suspect. You are viewed as not belonging to the group. Scorn and insults flow from the negative label.

We have failed to find a Labour Party supporter who stops to question whether the opposition might have a point when they complain about the many rulings of House Speaker, Hendrick Alexander. We are not here talking about agreeing with the opposition. We simplY point to a failure to exercise the mind to see if the other side has an arguable point.

Similarly, one might look in vain to find a New Democrat, young or old, who doesn’t have a negative view of the speaker. Most might not be able to identify a single rule that he might have violated. More importantly, when was the last time you heard a supporter of the NDP question the party’s policy of walking out of parliament for the slightest infraction or perceived insult?

One gets the distinct impression that, had it not been for the same house rules which mandate sanctions and repercussions for prolonged absence, the opposition might simply refuse to return to parliament. The NDP appears intent on waiting out the time until the next elections, with the grand hope of ousting the ULP and begin its merry reign.

But we are reminded by the brilliant Chinese strategist, Sun Tzu, that ‘strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before the defeat.’

Is it not to our country’s dishonor that we have had top civil servants in the Ministries of Health and Agriculture implicated in inappropriate or corrupt practices, who simply walk away with taps on their wrist? The ‘disgraced’ person, for no other reason than the fact that she or her family supports the government, is transferred to a post of equal or superior rank.

Or we can take the situation at the Argyle Airport Development Corporation. This is Gonsalves’vision – the crown jewel achievement if he completes it before leaving office. He travels all over the world in an attempt to drum up financial support for the completion of the airport. But are we getting the bang for each dollar given?

Sometime ago, we were told of financial wrong doings at the Argyle Airport site. The information was that about $63,000 went missing, and an investigation was continuing. We now know that a forensic audit was done and hundreds of thousands of dollars cannot be accounted for. We also know that recommendations were made to fire some persons and to seek recompense. Don’t hold your breath for any action.

The offending party or parties are said to be well connected. Some of this information is in the public domain’; but you don’t hear Labour Party supporters calling for inquiry and discipline or even a show trial? By contrast, look at how enthusiastically they supported the trial of Ordan Graham, Burton Williams and Vynnette Fredericks.

Or turn the tables. Observe the glee with which opposition leaders and supporters greeted the news that Luke Browne, Douglas Slater, Ralph Gonsalves and Clayton Burgin were charged with possibilities of undoing what the people decided at the December 2010 elections. It is not that some of these actions are bereft of merit. The call is for more thought and reflection before we support or condemn actions which have their origins in the political mind of our elite.

Finally, we address the discourse around the 3 percent increase owed to civil servants. For years now, the opposition has maintained, with some justification, that the government has no money in the treasury. Yet Eustace and others in the NDP leadership tell public workers to reject the government’s offer of 1 ½ percent increase. Why? Because a decade ago when it was in power, Gonsalves encouraged workers to demand 30 percent.

There is a teaching moment that the opposition fails to grasp. It fails the test because it is thinking about scoring political points rather than about governance. Now is the time to show workers that some reckless politicians will tell them anything to win their favour. But the NDP is different and intends to govern again in a style fit for our times. By choosing politics over the nation, the NDP fails the most basic test of politics. Don’t offer what you cannot deliver. It shows that it is equally willing to manipulate the electorate for partisan ends.

Unless we speak out forcefully against this politics of nonsense, our country’s future will be placed on indefinite pause.

Jomo Thomas

December 1, 2012 by augustine63

WERE THE VINCENTIAN MARXIST’S EVER CLOSE TO REVOLUTION?

February 7, 1979, St Vincent: Ralph Gonsalves says: “St Vincent’s economic base is in ruins. The economy is poised at the precipice of bankruptcy.” He said a way out of the political and economic crisis is contained in the YULIMO program “based on socialist orientation amidst a patriotic call for democratic and anti-Imperialist unity”.

February 1979, Cuba: Cuba sends a shipment of arms and equipment to Grenada in advance of the Grenadian revolution, timed to arrive at the initial seizure of power in Grenada by Maurice Bishop. The ship lingered in the Caribbean to assess the success of the revolution before docking. (Maurice Bishop had previously received training by the Cubans and was supported and was to a great degree controlled by them).

The Cubans well known for their export of communist revolution. They swamped Grenada with Doctors, nurses, teachers, engineers, builders of which all had military training and many were military advisor’s and specialist armed services, some disguised. Many entered the country prior to March 13th 1979, using false Venezuelan passports. Without the Cuban help and assistance there could not have been a Grenadian revolution. Huge amounts of arms and ammunitions arrived from Cuba, Russia and several other countries. In fact more than could ever be used for the Grenadian revolution, enough to arm several revolutions on several Caribbean islands. Cuba was backing, funding, training, arming and assisting revolutionary insurgency on several fronts in Central, South and Latin America. They were also fighting revolutionary wars in cohorts with the Soviet Union (Russia) in several African countries, they needed an airport hub in the Eastern Caribbean as a drop off and launch refueling site for their aircraft, which were flying regularly from Cuba to Africa. Of course Cuba was a front for the Soviet Union, it was really Russian communist expansionism that was feeding Cuba’s revolutionary efforts on several continents. Because everything has a price, when established communist states gave money or kind to revolutionaries and their projects, they expected to control the proceedings. Maurice Bishop was controlled by the Cubans and Russians, who trained the Grenadian military, police, prison officers and secret service. They also held classes in Marxism which all party members and Grenadian government workers were required to take. Some of the upper people in government and military were sent to Cuba or Russia for training and indoctrination. Some believed the Soviet control via Cuba extended to Saint Vincent.

March 13, 1979, Grenada: A revolutionary coup takes place in Grenada, led by Maurice Bishop. ‘Operation Apple’, the code name for the coup, marked the official beginning of a new government, based on years of preparation. The coup was spearheaded by Cuban personnel who had arrived in Grenada days before as “tourists,” using forged Venezuelan passports. Also the island was already swamped with Cuban military posing as teachers, medical staff and contractors. Cuban aid and Cuban volunteers were indispensable in the coup. Aid was also given by the Soviet Union, socialist (communist) countries in Eastern Europe, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea), Libya and Syria. Help and support was given by Caribbean communists, such as Ralph Gonsalves of Saint Vincent. Grenada was also becoming a socialist pole of attraction for socialist African Americans.

March 1979, Grenada: Maurice Bishop invited the Vincentian Marxist, Ralph Gonsalves on the second Saturday of the revolution to help with political work. Gonsalves joined Bishop, riding in his car with him to rallies and speeches. Gonsalves had a hand in writing Bishops political speeches.

March 13th 1979, Grenada: A speech by Maurice Bishop to the New JEWEL Party members: “It is clear that our objective as Marxist-Leninists must in the first instance be to construct socialism as rapidly, but scientifically as possible From the start too, comrades, we had an alliance with sections of the upper petty bourgeoisie and national bourgeoisie this was done deliberately so that imperialism won’t get too excited and would say they have some nice fellow’s in the thing; everything alright That was the mistake, for example, the comrades in Gambia made a few months ago. Remember the Gambia coup d’etat a few months ago? What was the first thing those comrades did? They say, If we are Marxist-Leninists and we have just had a Marxist Leninist revolution and we go wipe out the bourgeoisie.” (this was extracted from documents found by the U.S. forces when they invaded Grenada in 1983)

March 15th 1979, Grenada: Based on years of extreme left socialist preparation Bishop became Prime Minister of Grenada, at 34 years of age. His oratorical dynamism and facility with words, phrases and hugging up people and their children were vital skills for the mobilization of a nation. This marked the official beginning of a new style of communist government.

March 15th 1979, Grenada: Several advisors to Maurice Bishop arrived in Grenada . They were Allan Alexander and Frank Solomon both of Trinidad & Tobago, Miles Fitzpatrick of Guyana, Dr. Ralph Gonsalves of St.Vincent and Robert “Bobby” Clarke of Barbados. They met with Maurice Bishop, Kenrick Radix and Unison Whiteman.

March 20, 1979, Antigua: At a meeting held in Antigua and Barbuda, leaders of Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica, Montserrat, St Kitts and Nevis, St Lucia, and St Vincent and the Grenadines decided to examine the feasibility of establishing a regional defense force empowered to intervene in future rebellions “by armed and trained communist revolutionaries” against any of the governments concerned. Despite the obvious threat the region established diplomatic relations with the de facto People’s Revolutionary Government (PRG) in Grenada. Regional leaders were swayed by Bishop’s assurances that free and fair elections would be held (a promise never kept).

April 6, 1979, St Vincent: Dr Ralph Gonsalves said in Saint Vincent, “the Popular Revolution in Grenada could be explained by the rise in the people’s consciousness. The effect of the Revolution was that in one stroke it had greatly raised the consciousness of the masses in the whole Caribbean.”

April 13, 1979, St Vincent: The eruption of Mount Soufrière. An explosive eruption occurred accompanied by effusive activity. The eruption was preceded by increased numbers of earthquakes, an increase in the temperature of the crater lake and a slight inflation of the volcano flanks. The eruption started on April 3 with dome building continuing up to 1983. There were no fatalities, but there was loss of crops and livestock. The final cost of eruption to the economy was estimated at EC$13,784,797. Over 14,000 people were evacuated from areas located north of Union Village (east) and Belleisle Hill (west); explosions continued for two weeks followed by six months of non-explosive emission of lava. The government of St Vincent and the Grenadines sought and obtained US$541,423 from the United Nations Development Programme for this project which facilitated the expansion and improvement of the volcano monitoring program at the Soufrière volcano.

Ralph Gonsalves, a Vincentian politician and Marxist activist, a lecturer in government and sociology at UWI (Barbados 1976 – December1979), travels in March 1979 to Grenada, to support the revolution and help Maurice Bishop with his revolutionary work.

July 1979, St Vincent: Some of St Vincent’s political parties join forces: The PDM and YOULIMO unite. Parnel Campbell, Oscar Allen, Renwick Rose, Ralph Gonsalves.

August 1979, St Vincent: United Peoples Movement (UPM) launched. The party executives: Dr Ralph E. Gonsalves, Dr. Kenneth John, Carlyle Dougan, Renwick Rose and Oscar Allen.

A statement by Dr. Ralph E. Gonsalves said, “The UPM is an independent party. A party which is concerned about St Vincent. The party’s affairs will be conducted with flexibility and good sense, reflecting those interests which we consider national.”

August 3, 1979, St Vincent: Ralph Gonsalves, in a Vincentian newspaper question and answer article, denies that he or YULIMO are communist. That he does not wish to make St Vincent a communist state.

August 17, 1979, St Vincent: A letter printed on page 5 of the Vincentian newspaper from ‘A concerned Vincentian’ “YOULIMO is lying about not being communist”.

The People’s Political Party (PPP), with the development of a more conservative black middle class, began to lose support steadily, until it collapsed after a rout in the 1979 elections.

The St Vincent Labour Party (SVLP) led the island to independence, winning the first post-independence election in 1979.

September 2, 1979, St Vincent: Parnel Campbell returns from the UK for a two week visit. Believed to be in connection with his political activities, he is an active member of the Peoples Democratic Movement (PDM). The PDM recently formed an alliance with the parties YULIMO and ARWEE.

In 1979, London: Campbell successfully completed his law studies in the UK and was called to the Bar as a member of Grays Inn, in November 1978.

September 1979, St Vincent: Parnel Campbell in an interview was asked for his socialist views. He was asked how he felt about communism: “The Vincentian man needed an inspiration of economic justice if he was to put forward the effort needed for the society to develop and make progress.”

During 1979, Grenada: Cuban aid to Grenada was extensive in areas which affect the security of its government and the island’s strategic usefulness to Cuba. Cuba has advisers on the island offering military, technical, security, and propaganda assistance to the Bishop government. Many Grenadians have been sent to Cuba for training in these areas. Last year journalists observed Cuban officials directing and giving orders to Grenadian soldiers marching in ceremonies in St. George’s.

October 13th 1979, Grenada: The “Torchlight,” the only free press Newspaper in Grenada, was closed. Mass arrests followed of persons considered to be “counter-revolutionaries.” Cuba built a 75-kilowatt transmitter for Radio Free Granada. Grenada’s state-controlled press, enjoying a government enforced monopoly, enforcing news was to a strict “revolutionary” line. Indications are that the new transmitter will continue this emphasis while providing facilities for beaming Cuban and Soviet-supplied propaganda into the Caribbean and South America.

October 19, 1979, St. Vincent: The United Peoples Movement (UPM) [consisting of: PDM, YULIMO, ARWEE] held a march and rally. The main speakers were Renwick Rose, Ralph Gonsalves and Parnel Campbell.

October 27, 1979, St. Vincent: Independence (St Vincent and the Grenadines).

Flag of St Vincent and the Grenadines 27 Oct 1979 – Mar 1985 (flag changed in 1985 by omission of white stripes)

October 27, 1979, St. Vincent: Constitution: Saint Vincent and the Grenadines gained full independence and elected to stay within the British Commonwealth.

Milton Cato, elected prime minister, 27 October 1979 to 30 July 1984.

Sir Sydney Gun-Munro (27 October 1979–28 February 1985) appointed first Governor General of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines.

In 1979, St. Vincent: The United People’s Movement (UPM), a progressive, nationalist, and anti-colonialist group, which included among its leaders PR Campbell, Renwick Rose, Kenneth John, Oscar Allen, and Ralph Gonsalves, took a principled line of: “YES” to independence. The political forces which made up the UPM were prepared to go to London for “independence talks” with Premier Cato as part of a broad-based national movement; Cato rejected their requests to accompany him. James Mitchell and Ebenezer Joshua, rejected Cato’s repeated invitations for them to join him in the London at the “independence talks”. Mitchell and Joshua were, at the time opposition parliamentarians to Cato.

In 1979, St. Vincent: General elections, the United Peoples Movement (UPM) led by Ralph Gonsalves, Renwick Rose and Parnell Campbell won 14.5% of votes in the country but under the system won no parliamentary seats. The UPM had performed dismally. Their own analysis told them that in spite of their hopes, they were too academic in their approach and for the most part naive. UPM, United People’s Movement, was the coming together of three main groups, namely DFM, which was a grouping of EFP, headed by Parnell Campbell and PDM, headed by Carlyle Dougan; ARWE, a group out of Diamonds Village, headed by Oscar Allen and YULIMO, a group ultimately as a result of the coming together of various predecessor groupings, from Rose Place. Shortly after the 1979 general elections, the DFM faction broke away. They lingered on for a short while and finally gave way by1984, making way for one of its members, Eddie Griffith to contest the Central Kingstown seat on an NDP ticket. The UPM struggled on under the leadership of Renwick Rose and Ralph Gonsalves, Gonsalves being the joint-absentee leader. The party became a virtual protégé of Maurice Bishop and the MJM in Grenada.

October 1979, St. Vincent: Independence of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines from the United Kingdom, the Saint Vincent Labour Party (SVLP), led by Prime Minister Milton Cato, garnered 11 out of 13 elected seats in the December 1979 election.

Sir Sydney Gun-Munro(27 October 1979–28 February 1985) appointed first Governor General of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines.

November 9, 1979, St. Vincent: Vincentian Newspaper, page 5: In a published letter from Cameron G. King.

[excerpt] “YULIMO/UPM they are anti-Christian people. They are upset that I have exposed their ideology for its anti-God stand. They follow Marx who was an atheist. Marx did not believe in God. Marxism-Leninism is a Godless creed. It is a Godless creed aimed at one party dictatorship, and requiring the denial of human rights to all those who have conflicting views. They are upset that I have alerted Christians to the grave danger of electing men whose creed is anti-Christ and anti-God. Let us not be fooled into thinking YULIMO and ARWELL are the only groups subscribing to Marxist disbelief in God. One of the leading lights in the PDM has plainly said time and time again that he does not believe in God. Now his son repeats the statement everywhere.”

December 1979, St. Vincent: A large yacht name ‘Sayonara Alpha’ anchored off Villa Beach, and had laid at anchor for several weeks. The police, following a tip-off, searched the vessel. They found it loaded with guns, ammunition and explosives. Four crew members were taken into custody, they were said to be three English, one German and a Caribbean man. A story at the time was that the boat was used as a transfer depot for the weapons. Also that a local group was involved in receiving the arms. There was much speculation if this was part of the Caribbean Marxist Conspiracy.

December 8, 1979, St. Vincent: The government had to quell an uprising on Union Island. The uprising called the “December Revolt” on Union Island by a group that wanted more power in the country’s new government. Rastafarians seized the airport, police station, and revenue office on Union Island in the Grenadines.

On notification of the uprising Milton Cato immediately declared a state of emergency and imposed a dusk-to-dawn curfew throughout St Vincent and the Grenadines. Less than two weeks into the curfew, the government’s action was criticized by the Marxist led United People’s Movement (UPM) in an official release in which co-leader Renwick Rose (other co-leader Ralph Gonsalves), complained of police harassment of three members of the UPM over speculations of their involvement in the Union Island uprising. Rose also argued that there was no reason why the state of emergency could not be confined to a part of or the entire Grenadines since it was “creating such serious economic loss and personal inconvenience at that festive time of year.” In justification of his action, Prime Minister Cato stated that the government had conclusive evidence of a “link between the Union Island rebels and forces on the mainland, whose intentions were to execute a similar event in St Vincent.” According to Cato, the seizure of a yacht with a large quantity of ammunition, the attempted burning of the Public Works Building and the destruction of the PBX system housed in the same building were evidence of a plot by the mainland Marxist forces.

Fearing an uprising in Saint Vincent, Cato appealed to Barbados for help. Within hours of his appeal, Barbados sent a detachment of soldiers to St Vincent where they remained for the next six days before going on to Union Island. The decision by the Tom Adams Barbados Government to deploy Bajan troops on Vincy soil was strongly condemned by that country’s opposition socialist party the Democratic Labour Party (DLP). Leader of the DLP and opposition leader Errol Barrow criticized the action of Prime Minister Adams on the basis that the Union Island uprising was an internal affair that ought to be handled only by Vincentian forces. Barrow accused Adams of usurping authority and setting a dangerous precedent by sending troops into St Vincent.

Renwick Rose later stated that the UPM party had nothing to do with the uprising.

December 1979, St. Vincent: In St. Vincent and the Grenadines, the newly formed United People’s Movement, an alliance of three opposition parties including the socialist Youlou Liberation Movement, led by Ralph Gonsalves, raised up a leftist challenge to the Milton Cato government. Milton Cato hated communist’s and therefore disliked Ralph Gonsalves. As Cato’s fright grew, the establishment became more and more hysterical. Cato’s rabid anti-communist campaign evoked echoes of Georgetown in the turbulent 1960s. Kathy Sunshine records: “…sound trucks patrolled the capital at 4 am booming: Do not let the communists take over in St. Vincent! If you vote UPM, you vote for communism! If you have two sheep, they will take one! If you have one sheep, they will cut it in half!”

December 1979, St. Vincent: General Elections, the United Peoples Movement (UPM) led by Ralph Gonsalves and Renwick Rose, won 14.5% of votes in the country but under the system won no parliamentary seats. The UPM had performed dismally. Their own analysis told them that in spite of their hopes, they were to academic in their approach and for the most part naïve. The UPM was the coming together of three main groups, namely DFM, which was a grouping of EFP, headed by Parnel Campbell and PDM, headed by Carlyle Dougan; ARWE, a group out of Diamonds Village, headed by Oscar Allen and YULIMO, a group ultimately as a result of the coming together of various predecessor groupings, from Rose Place. Shortly after the 1979 general elections, the DFM faction broke away. They lingered on for a short while and finally gave way by 1984, making way for one of its members, Eddie Griffithto contest the Central Kingstown seat on an NDP ticket. The UPM struggled on under the leadership of Renwick Rose and Ralph Gonsalves, Gonsalves being a joint-absentee leader. The party became a virtual protégé of Maurice Bishop and the MJM in Grenada.

December 1979, Barbados: Vincentian, Ralph E. Gonsalves was fired from his post as a lecturer at Cave Hill University and his work permit was revoked by the Barbadian government and made ‘persona non gratis’. This was brought about by his newspaper articles which were deemed seditious and communistic, communist propaganda. Ralph E. Gonsalves, Vincentian, lectured in Government and Sociology at UWI (Barbados) from 1976-1979, Assumed the position of Visiting Professor at Queens College, Queens, New York, in 1980.

Peter Binose

December 1, 2012 by augustine63

Why is our trade unions so weak and disorganized

Jomo Thomas on

Here are a couple of questions that many Vincentians ask almost daily. What has happened to the Trade Union Movement and civil society in the last decade? Is it coincidental that the dramatic fall off in trade union and civil society activity co-relates to the rise and dominance of Ralph Gonsalves’ Unity Labour Party? Is there anyon

e, except for the current governing elite, who believes that the wretched state of our trade unions/ civil society benefits our young democracy? The current condition facing our trade unions/civil society was not always the case. We must not forget. In 2000, the workers, nurses, doctors and civil society played a central role in the organization for the Defense of Democracy (ODD) that brought down the James Mitchell/Arnhim Eustace NDP government. So what’s happened from then to now? Why has the trade union movement and civil society gone into a state of dormancy? Why has the militancy and organization of people’s participatory organization died off? Who killed the fighting spirit of our unions?There are a host of reasons among them the fact that the government has done a number of things to appease the workers organizations and their leadership. The government has sought to correct historical wrongs as regards lands to agricultural workers, it has opened up hitherto non-existent opportunities to the children of the poor to attend secondary school and university in record numbers as well as some help to small business and civil servants as it relates to mortgages for loans for first time home buyers/builders. Hundreds more benefited from low income housing.

But in light of the harsh economic conditions which has battered this country and the world, why is it that our unions are so quiet? Some say government has bought off/ won over the leaders of most trade unions. But is that really the case? If we accept this argument, how do we explain the fact that the Public Service Union, led by the virulently anti Gonsalves, anti ULP Cools Vanloo has also failed to organize any significant anti government, pro-worker event?

Part of the explanation we think is that the objective difficulties of daily living has so pre-occupied people that they find little or no time to engage in collective action. Another reason might relate to people’s growing understanding of the difficulties faced by governments in delivering what they so glibly promise. Workers look around the world recognize that their countries are experiencing economic difficulties and resign themselves to unemployment, bad working conditions, small salaries that decrease every year because of rising inflation.

But something else is going on in SVG because workers in other countries that are experiencing similar difficulties are up in arms with their governments and employers. Across the world workers are increasingly downing their tools with demands for higher pay and better working conditions. What explains the docile state of things here?

Our view is that in SVG the dormancy of the trade unions and civil society coincides with the triumph and supremacy of the political party as the major non-state institution in the country. Before this development organizations looked out first and foremost for their workers or the community in which they worked. Today the leaders and some members look first to see how their actions might impact on the party they support even when non-action may impact negatively on their livelihood, neighbourhood or country.

In that sense then the state of trade unionism in St Vincent is cause for concern. This alarm is not raised because there has been no significant trade union protest, march or strike action since the ULP came to power. The basis for this claim is that unionism should have been more strident and the unions should have been more organized precisely because the ULP is in power.

Gonsalves touts his party and government as the most pro-labour in the country’s history. This stark reality concerning the state of disarray and dormancy of our unions puts into question this boastful claim. It is true that the ULP has initiated a number of pro-worker initiatives since its assumption of power in 2001, but the virtual collapse of the trade union movement under the ULP watch is testament to the political use and misuse that people and their organizations experience everyday at the hands of the politicians.

It is said that today’s civil society leader is tomorrow’s government minister. SVG is a good test case of that truism. Political parties have historically feed off the community connections of teachers. In the last four decades we can think of Yvonne Francis Gibson, Mike Browne and Calder Williams who played prominent roles in the 1975 teachers strike.

In more recent times there have been Clayton Burgin, Girlyn Miguel, Elvis Charles, Nigel Stephenson, Maxwell Charles, Terrance Ollivierre. Tyrone Burke and Otto Sam were former presidents of the teachers union and strong supporters of the government. Sam has since broke with Gonsalves. This proves that Politicians or parties will use persons with links to the masses for narrow ends. These individuals will sometimes forget their roots and settle for a pot of messy porridge. One can never forget or forgive Mike Browne for his negative comments about teachers and the union.

The foregoing is intended to show that if support of workers and unions and civil society means more than political expediency to Gonsalves, Gonsalves should have done much more to ensure that the workers movement was more vibrant, organized and strong. That they strive long after he leaves. The poor showing at the teachers march last week is living proof that the political elite care only about their political survival and very little about workers and their movement.

November 28, 2012 by augustine63

PRIVY COUNCIL OR CCJ

“To argue the view point that the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) would not be as effective as the Privy Council to execute its duties as the Final Appeal court of the Eastern Caribbean”.

Over a period of almost three centuries, ending at the close of World War II, Great Britain ruled a vast colonial empire. During this period, to writer John Wilson it was said that, “the sun never set on the British Empire” its rule spread far across the world. Britain ruled colonies in the Near East, the Far East, India, Africa, Australia, New Zealand, and the Caribbean. Since World II, all but a few British colonies sought and won their independence. A number of the former colonies formed their own governments, implemented their own parliaments, and devised their own court systems. Many became Commonwealth countries, keeping strong ties to Britain while others became republics. Despite their independence however, most former colonies retained the English common law as part of their legal system. As part of this British legal tradition, most of the newly independent countries, as codified in their new constitutions, were required to rely upon the Judicial Commission of the Privy Council “Privy Council” as their final court of appeal. Although these countries implemented local court systems, there may have been the belief that their legal traditions were still too new to have produced judges with enough experience to sit on a court of final appeal. This Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is often referred to simply as the Privy Council.

The Privy Council is a part of the House of Lords in London, England, and consist of senior judges who look at appeals from trials in lower courts and decide if any there were errors in their proceedings. The Privy Council has remained the final court of appeal for many countries of the Caribbean Community “CARICOM” up to the present time with much uncertainty. The drive to achieve full independence and unity as a Caribbean Region has led to many nations questioning the need for their own final appeal court. Therefore, in 2001, a number of English Speaking Caribbean countries (ESC) signed an Agreement Establishing the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) “Agreement”. This CCJ, is designed to perform dual functions. Firstly, the CCJ will operate as the final court of appeal for the ESC to replace the Privy Council as the court of final appellate jurisdiction for decisions on criminal and civil matters. Secondly, it will be a court of original jurisdiction and function as an international court to settle disputes of ESC countries under the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) Treaty.

The hybrid nature of the CCJ, with its exercise of both original and appellate jurisdiction, is part of the vision of those who wish to ensure autonomy of judicial determinations in the ESC with the aim of strengthening regional integration in a postcolonial world. The implementation of the CCJ, the formation of a regional, “super national” court by the ESC and viewed as an historic legal accomplishment of which there would be global recognition. The formation of the CCJ is should be regarded as a final step in the self-determination of people of colour in the ESC to rise about the oppression of their ancestors. Over the years, citizens and politicians of the ESC suggested that the ESC should form their own supreme court and relinquish ties with the Privy Council. However, there are still countries that are unwilling to move away from the Privy Council despite the establishment of the CCJ. This even as the Agreement to establish, the Caribbean Court of Justice was formulated and ratified by the requisite number of ESC members states.

There are arguments that the CCJ would not be as effective as the Privy Council in executing its duties as the Final Appeal court of the Eastern Caribbean. They argue that, the motivation for the implementation of the Court is power driven by the governments of the day who have been stung by reversals in death penalty cases brought before the Privy Council. Critics view the argument of nationalism and sovereignty as blind and lacking in consistency. In relation to the independent nations of the region, the CCJ will be a non-national Court both in constitutional terms as well as in composition and would therefore be in no different position than the Privy Council. There are also questions about the influence of politics on appointments to the court, which threatens its independence. There are concerns that the CCJ will not dispense impartial justice and judges would not be competent enough to make the right decisions in addition with the high cost to upkeep the court.

The argument that the motivation for the implementation of the court is the governments of the day who have been stung by reversals in the death penalty cases brought before the Privy Council is somewhat vague. The formation of the court had the initial support of most of the CARICOM states. Ten (10) Heads of Regional Governments, as contracting parties, signed the agreement establishing the Caribbean Court of Justice in Barbados on the 14th February 2001. They were Antigua and Barbuda, Jamaica, Barbados, St. Kitts and Nevis, Belize, St. Lucia, Grenada, the Republic of Suriname, the Co-operative Republic of Guyana and the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago. The main purpose is to strengthen and deepen judicial independence and regional integration. In an ever-changing world and as independent states we need to move away from our colonial masters and embrace our own achievements. The importance of this is expressed by Prime minister [1]Dr. Kenneth Anthony, who said that the “need for the nations of the Caribbean to assert the constitutional legitimacy of our own civilisation, is more fundamental than a mere emotive claim to a theoretical sovereignty, without practical significance, or persuasive symbolism. It is in my view, simply a hard statement of principle, which should not admit to compromise at this point in our history”. Supporters of the CCJ argue that the Privy Council is too remote from the realities of the legal, cultural and economic environment within independent Caribbean countries. The CCJ would therefore consist of judges who are more familiar with the Caribbean, has a better understanding of the socio-cultural background of these islands and are in a better position to make keen judgments based on current issues before them. The Privy Council on the other hand consist of past cabinet members, certain members of the House of Commons and members of the Royal Family. They hardly understand the socio-cultural and historical background of the region and are unlikely to relate to the issues before them in the Privy Council. This can hinder their judgement on cases

The argument that the courts would lack independence because of political influence in the appointments of positions is a very robust argument. Article V of the Agreement provides criteria, which guides the structure of CCJ through the establishment of the Regional Judicial and Legal Services Commission. The Commission consists of a president, who shall be its chairman; two persons nominated jointly by the Commonwealth Bar Association and the Eastern Caribbean Bar Association. There shall be one chairman of the Judicial Services Commission of a contracting party; the chairman of a public service commission of a contracting party; two persons from civil society following consultation with regional nongovernmental organizations; two distinguished jurists nominated by law school deans; and two persons nominated jointly by the bar associations of the contracting parties. Therefore, to say that appointments would be politically motivated is an unjustified statement without merit. The Privy Council, comprise of e member of the house of commons, speakers and even leader of the opposition are sitting on the council to make decisions, they also can be bought out by political leaders in the Caribbean especially if they are very close allies. In relation to the various reasons given by the Commission in their Minority Report, it seems to suggest reluctance on the part of the Commission to assume the responsibility of independence. Dr. Fenton Ramsahoye, a leading Caribbean lawyer, as quoted by Rawlins; 2000 felt that it is time we take on our own responsibility of a final court despite the dissenting views as display or our “nationalism” and “independence”.

The opposing view that the CCJ will not dispense impartial justice is based on the standpoint as to whether they are interpreting cases on a moral or positivist viewpoint. In the Agreement establishing the Caribbean Supreme Court, the political leaders have a say only in the appointment of the President of the court through a majority vote. An independent regional Judicial and Legal Services Commission appoint the other judges of the court. The one regional court in existence, the OECS Court, suggests that, in practice, such regional arrangements have worked well although they may not be immune from political and parochial influences with respect to the appointment of its judges. In the final analysis, there is no perfect judicial system, no matter how rigorous the selection process, there would always be flaws. In addition to that, the CCJ is also accepting applicants from other English Speaking countries including England, South Africa, and Commonwealth countries such as, Australia, Nigeria, and the Solomon Islands as judges for the Caribbean Court of Justice. This offers an even greater level of transparency, experience and proficiency in the judicial system. Despite the lack of commitment to the CCJ, there are issues concerning the Privy Council judicial committee and its services ending in the not too distant future. The British Government is planning to end the judicial committee. According to Lord Nicholas Fredericks, “the Law Lords on the Privy Council were spending a ‘disproportionate’ amount of time on cases from former colonies, mostly in the Caribbean.” Notwithstanding that, the Privy Council is facing financial constraints in relation to the sustenance of its members and the courts.

The argument that judges will not be competent enough to make the right decisions is absurd, the Commission is looking for qualified persons with at least fifteen years of legal and/or judicial experience. These judges would have sat for many years in other jurisdictions in the Caribbean and even on the Privy Council and make sound and just decisions on cases before them. The issue of the cost is perhaps justified on but the cost of going to the Privy Council is often extremely high and prohibitive. This is suggested as one reason for the low turnover of Privy Council Appeals. Therefore, the question of cost is not limited to the funding of the CCJ. A grave defect in our legal system is the relatively poor access to justice. Justice is expensive at every level, mainly because of the absence of contingency fees as found in the US and the glaring absence of adequate legal aid for many matters.However though ill wrap up with the quote of a famous Caribbean legal intellect, Justice Duke Pollard to say that “ … there is now another reason for establishing a court of high authority in the Region, and that is the process of integration itself.

Integration in its broadest economic sense – involving a Single CARICOM Market, monetary union, the movement of capital and labour and goods, and functional co-operation in a multiplicity of fields ,must have the underpinning of Community law. Integration rests on rights and duties; it requires the support of the rule of law applied regionally and uniformly. A CARICOM Supreme Court interpreting the Treaty of Chaguaramas, resolving disputes arising

under it, including disputes between Governments parties to the Treaty, declaring and enforcing Community law, interpreting the Charter of Civil Society – all by way of the exercise of an original jurisdiction – is absolutely essential to the integration process. It

represents in our recommendations one of the pillars of the CARICOM structures of unity.

Essentially, our recommendation is that the Court should have an original jurisdiction in matters arising under the Treaty of Chaguaramas (as revised) and that any CARICOM citizen (individual

or corporate) and any Government of a Member State of the Community or the CARICOM Commission itself, should have the competence to apply for a ruling of the Court in a matter arising under the Treaty. This will include, perhaps prominently so, matters in dispute between Member States in relation to obligations under the Treaty, particularly under the Single Market regime; but it will also provide for clarification of Community law as it develops pursuant to decisions taken within the CARICOM process. As already indicated, we envisage that that original jurisdiction should also be exercisable to a limited degree in the context of theCARICOM Charter of Civil Society which we have separately recommended.

I believe the arguments for the Court to be unassailable. It needs only to be added as an important footnote to what we have said about the establishment of the CARICOM Supreme Court that the process of development of Community law in the future will be part of the equally necessary evolution of reform of our legal systems themselves. The point we make here is that we can now look for return on the investment the Region has made in the development of law as a major discipline in the University of the West Indies.”

In conclusion, the Caribbean community persevere with the process of regional integration and independence of our judicial system. The task ahead will not be easy to convince our people of our abilities to manage our own Court of Appeal and replace the Privy Council. The CCJ may not appear to be as effective as the Privy Council but given time, its effectiveness will grow as it executes duties to Caribbean Nationals as a final court. In the final analysis when the Privy Council Judicial Committee finally relinquish ties with the former colonies we would be well established and in a position to hold our own. It is time that the region stands its ground and continues what was started by those ten states who signed that initial agreement. While more can be done to secure the court’s foundation, it has to start somewhere with mutual support and interventions. I hope that there will soon be more countries other than Guyana and Barbados. Other CARICOM countries need to fashion their constitutions to have the CCJ as their final appeal court.

Augustine Ferdinand

Enlighten SVG

A Review of Historical, Social, Political and Economic segments of St Vincent and the Grenadines/ Caribbean

The Politics Of Nonsense

WERE THE VINCENTIAN MARXIST’S EVER CLOSE TO REVOLUTION?

PRIVY COUNCIL OR CCJ