My colleague at work likes to remind me that common sense is not common but since I am a non-economist about to comment on economic ideologies, I hope I can at least float on the buoy of common sense since I cannot swim and really do not want to sink either.

Ijahnya Christian

Some years ago I had the videoconferencing opportunity to pose a question from a meeting in Jamaica to Ambassador Dr. Richard Bernal on screen from Barbados reporting on the work of the Caribbean Regional Negotiating Machinery. Since we were meeting on the anniversary of the birth of Marcus Mosiah Garvey, my question was whether or not modern day regional economists saw the need to revisit the Garvey economic model in an age of the power blocs associated with globalisation. On January 12, 2006, I joined a small group at the Eastern Caribbean Central Bank’s Anguilla office, to view and listen to Governor Sir K. Dwight Venner’s report to the OECS on the 2005 Economic Review of the Eastern Caribbean Currency Union. On that occasion Dr. Wycliffe Fahie posed the first of Anguilla’s questions on the report and I was privileged to pose the second question. Before the question, there was the excitement associated with the use of technology as it was the first time I had experienced a videoconference in which so many countries were involved at once. Onscreen with the Governor were similarly small audiences in Anguilla, Antigua & Barbuda, British Virgin Islands, Dominica, Grenada, Montserrat, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent & the Grenadines. To some extent Sr. K’s response reminded me of Ambassador Bernal’s in its care to search for a diplomatic response more so than to expand their embrace outside of the prevailing ideology of economic growth.

The question I wanted to ask initially was how could the economic growth model be justified to the longstanding poor or to banana or sugar cane farmers in the sub-region facing loss of livelihood and poverty with the removal of subsidies? That question arose because the performance of the sub-region seemed commendable even in spite of the numerous challenges identified and the weakened position regarding trade subsidies. The challenges identified included increasing levels of crime and violence, the apparent state of social alienation of the young male population, higher levels of drug use and abuse and higher levels of HIV/AIDS infection. I did not eventually ask that question as some level of critique of the economic growth model emerged from several of the questioners before me. While I appreciate the particular historical and geographical situation in which Caribbean trade is located, the OECS performance cannot be dislocated from the dominant capitalist mode of economic organization. When coupled with the existing political (read colonial) state of islands like Anguilla, which has a tourism-based economy, our economic performance may pass somebody’s test but it does not make me feel any more secure than a banana farmer in St. Vincent, especially since we continue to report concerns about social disintegration but are not responding cohesively and strategically with the level of investment I envisage as being required for transformation.

My question therefore was about that concept of expanded choice for the OECS and whether it included deeper and wider engagement with South America in the Bolivarian initiative being promoted by Venezuela’s Hugo Chaves and other leaders on that continent. Governor Venner’s reply was, I thought, overly cautious. It stopped short of giving any kind of positive assurance of further involvement and not for the first time I thought that there was a lot that was not being said after the first wave of excitement in the rush to sign the Petro Caribe deal with Venezuela. The Governor was undoubtedly on target in his recognition that these deals were not about the milk o’ human kindness but about expanding spheres of influence (these are all my words) and pushing the cause of socialism into the Caribbean strongholds of the mighty North. I wanted to hear more about how our governments were stepping forth into the alternative relationships on offer and the exploration of their feasibility but that may have meant inviting the Governor to depart from the truth. No one could say that our Central Bank was leading us either up or down any kind of blind garden path but while my confidence in the Union remains unshaken, I feel unfulfilled if we remain timid in our examination of the alternatives. I am particularly interested in Venezuela’s interests in strengthening ties with the African continent – again, nothing romantic about roots when one considers the slick, smooth reality of African oil. This is the breadth of the expanded choices in which I would like us to become engaged.

As in the beginning, my reflections at the end remain on the delivery as much as on the report itself and I think that next year with the use of the same technology, a wider audience can be invited to participate in the interactive aspect. This is something I have been thinking about since CARIFESTA V in 1993, when the CARIFESTA Symposium was taken by video to the University of Woodford Square and passersby could see and hear the presentations though they could not, at that time, interact with the speakers. We were able to listen and view Governor Venner’s presentation on radio and television simultaneously. However, if we widen the opportunity to discuss these matters which affect us all, we may also expand the pool of ideas for development outside of the box into which we fit but uncomfortably while agreeing fully with the Governor that “…the whole concept of development means increased self reliance and increased choices for individuals, communities and nations.”
Meanwhile, in keeping with Sir. K. Dwight Venner’s theme, Cousin Hugo in his address to 10,000 at the recently concluded World Social Forum in Venezuela, also called for people’s participation, unity and environmental considerations. These to me are points of convergence on which the OECS can base an invitation for further dialogue if it is interested. What would we urge though, if our leaders were to ask. Would we err on the side of caution or trod boldly forth in the name of sovereignty?

| Printer-friendly page | Send this article to a friend |

World News