Similarly, it has to worry the small Caribbean island, Barbados, that Venezuela claims that a recent offshore oil bidding round by Barbados violates the maritime border with Venezuela. Venezuela is a not a signatory to the UN Convention of the Law of the Sea. The Barbados Foreign Ministry has said that the bid does not infringe on the rights of any other state. Chavez may be helping some Latin American and Caribbean countries through the crunch of high oil prices with his PetroCaribe arrangements, but his military build-up will cause them great unsettlement as well.

Source: Jamaican Observer

Based on our count ten of the fifteen members of CARICOM are signatories to the PetroCaribe Agreement. After reading Sir Ronald Saunder’s article we are left to question the effectiveness of CARICOM. The PetroCaribe Initiative has been discussed exhaustively and if viewed in the context of the preferential payment it rewards its members, we have to say it is a sweet deal. To prove our point, a Reuters report confirmed that the Caribbean currently imports 450,000 bdp of oil, Venezuela supplies 190,000 bdp of oil and products to the Caribbean and Central America as part of the PetroCaribe arrangement. What the dependence on PetroCaribe has done is to make the CARICOM region hugely indebted to Venezuela. As the price of oil rises (although falling in recent days) the indebtedness to Venezuela by CARICOM countries signed-on to PetroCaribe will rise.

The growing concessional financing provided by President Chevez combined with his ideologue should start to concern leaders in CARICOM. In the case of Barbados the challenge to two Offshore Blocks out of twenty six has been labeled a hostile act by Venezuela. We have listened to the response from Minister of Foreign Affairs Chris Sinkler but what recourse is there for Barbados? Remember that Venezuela is not a signatory to the UN Convention of the Law of the Sea. We read recently that Venezuela has purchased millions of dollars in military aircraft and other weapons.

We have so far established the influence which Venezuela currently has over most of the members of CARICOM because of PetroCaribe. We have established the military might of Venezuela, all the time cognizant that Venezuela is a ‘dictatorship’. It is no secret that Chevez sees himself as a ‘Castro’ and has tried unsuccessfully to change the constitution of Venezuela to make him President for life. Also we need to remember that Venezuela is not a signatory to the UN Convention of the Law of the Sea.

The final point to our argument is to highlight that Petrotrin (Trinidad) has had to improve it refinery operations to gain entry to non-CARICOM markets. Petrotrin was severely affected by the CARICOM countries defecting to PetroCaribe and had to retool to penetrate new markets. According to reports Petrotrin has made the adjustment and in the prevailing world market conditions is doing quite well. It is ironic that Trinidad removed the Common External Tariff (CET) on petroleum products which has allowed Venezuela to avoid additional costs to PetroCaribe members.

Should we not have a ONE CARICOM foreign trade policy?

What CARICOM what!?!

36 responses to “What CARICOM What!?!”


  1. What Caricom What
    Barbadian Andrew Hinds who trained in Jamaica was denied training with the squad in China. Why? Because he is a bajan. What Caricom What?


  2. The Scout

    I understood it slightly different …. it was because he wasn’t a Jamaican!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Same thing … only different!!

    Caricom and CSME are for politicians to mouth off about and use to try to hide their, and our, own utter failure in the management of our countries.

    The only form of integration which exists but is rapidly going is in West Indies Cricket, … and that integration is entirely the making of our former colonial masters.

    Our current masters will preside over a period in which I think even this will be destroyed, … or will destroy itself ….. and I think they will not even realise what happened because they never understood what was given to them.

    They were just too busy looking after thir own pockets to spend the time understanding what was.

    Sorry for being so negative but that’s just how I feel.


  3. I supported the last government’s refusal to sign on to petro caribe. The economic rationale of not financing current consumption on credit) that Owen Arthur spelled out in a televised interview with Peter Thorn made a lot of sense to this layman. The other reasons that i have held fast too since the height of the Barbados/Trini fish dispute, is the clear intent of Venezuela regarding rights to the Caribbean and Atlantic sea, and the geopolitical implications of entering agreements of any kind with them giving their President confrontational posture with the US. Now the Owen Arthur government may have had similar concerns, but diplomacy may have factored in why they did not speak about such. What i don’t understand is, on realizing that our Caricom and CSME partners where not treating to petro caribe as one, why did the Last government continue to integrate our economy with these islands, so much so that we are now in a position of having to pander to them, because our economy is now highly dependent on them more so now the ever before. Venezuela via petro-caribe can influence these economies and by so doing disadvantage ours. Thanks Owen.

    It will be on interest how Venezuela seeks to asserts it’s rights to the Atlantic ocean via agreements it made, and signed with a Basdeo Panday Trinidad government.


  4. Why are we so cynical about the Petro Caribe oil deal from Venezuela.I believe the Petro Caribe deal will be beneficial to us in Barbados.One of the reasons why we did not and can not sign on to the deal is as a result of the richest man in Barbados Kyffin Simpson of Simpson Motors & Solgas fame dictating to our politicians what oil deal we must sign.Nothing to do with the terms and conditions but Kyffin Simpson.

    Trinidad & Tobago a so call CARICOM member sells oil to the USA at a more cheaper rate than it sells its CARICOM members.The politicians in the region are making sport at the people in the region and each CARICOM member state should let the leaders know we are fed up with the nonsenese. CARICOM & Caribbean integration are pipe dreams and nothing substantive will ever come from CARICOM & Caribbean integration.

    CARICOM is a joke.It is very selective in who the members are.It has rejected some of the biggest land masses in the Caribbean such as Cuba,Puerto Rico,Dominican Republic,Martinique,Gaudeloupe,and many other small Caribbean countries and has gone on the South American Coast and include Guyana & Suriname.I believe true Caribbean integration should include ALL Caribbean islands irrespective of if those countries are colonies of Europe or a state of North America.They are in the Caribbean sea and should be included in any Caribbean integration process.However,that is not the case and we have a nonsensical arrangement that has some Caribbean states being member and some are not.
    CARICOM should be disbanded.We cannot even sign the EPA agreement as one group.
    ALL THE CARICOM COUNTRIES HAVE CLOWN LEADERS.


  5. Negroman
    Don’t get so tecnical. If we can’t agree on a little issue like Andrew Hinds’, do you expect us to deal with Petro Caribe?
    Caricom is for the big boys, free trips, vacations, waste on money and prestige, these are some of the benefits from Caricom. All the average person gets is illegal migration.


  6. The Scout,I am not being technical but facing the harsh realities of the Caribbean.I am a bit surprise that the Jamaicans treated Adrian Hinds in that manner.I know many Jamaicans and I know that Jamaica & Barbados have a very close relationship.I know that for a fact because I experienced it on my travels to Jamaica that Jamaicans and Barbadians share a very close bond.Therefore I am surprise at the actions of the Jamaicans.Nevertheless I am still hoping that Asafa Powell or Usain Bolt win the 100 meters finals.
    Let support our black athletes from the Caribbean & Africa.


  7. I think we are discussing three issues here.
    1:I am in agreement that Caricom is a talk shop,

    2:I agree that Trinidad was not honouring their commitments to CARICOM by selling oil to the US cheaper than to it’s caricome partners,
    …credit to Owen for stating such while disagreeing with those that sign on to petro caribe.

    3: Petro caribe was still a bad deal on it’s own.
    ————————————————

    THE CASE AGAINST PETRO-CARIBE
    3. Governance

    The highest policy making body of PetroCaribe is the Ministerial Council comprising ministers of energy or their representatives. This council was formally established in Montego Bay, Jamaica, in September.

    The minister of energy and petroleum of Venezuela is the permanent president of the Ministerial Council and Jamaica was appointed deputy president for the first year, being the host country for the first meeting. Subsequently, the position of the deputy president will be rotated.

    The main functions of the council are:

    * co-ordinate relevant policies, strategies and plans;

    * delegate functions and responsibilities to the agencies created for the fulfilment of specific tasks, whenever necessary;

    * agree on and approve issues of absolute priority to the organisation, as well as studies, workshops and work sessions, with a view to providing the necessary technical and legal support for these issues;

    * exercise its fullest authority with regard to the performance of the executive secretariat;

    * agree on the admission or withdrawal of members whenever required.

    There will also be an executive secretariat located within the Ministry of Energy and Petroleum of Venezuela. This secretariat will service the Ministerial Council. The main functions of the executive secretariat are as follows:

    * prepare the agendas of the meetings of the Council of Ministers;

    * Directly manage and administer PetroCaribe-related affairs;

    * ensure the implementation and follow-up of the decisions adopted by the Council of Ministers and submit the relevant reports and recommendations.

    * prioritise the studies and projects defined by the Council of Ministers;

    * propose the allocation of resources for the performance of all necessary studies.

    ================================
    Nationnews 9/18/05.


  8. THE CASE AGAINST PETRO-CARIBE

    1: Pricing

    1. Pricing

    Under the agreement, Venezuela will continue to sell oil at prevailing market prices, in accordance with its obligations as a member of OPEC (Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries);

    PetroCaribe makes it easier for countries to purchase petroleum products from Venezuela through the use of cash and a loan facility; and not through discounted prices. That is, a sort of pay-later plan.

    If the price of oil is US$70 per barrel a country will pay 60 per cent or US$42 per barrel in cash at the time of delivery of the shipment. The remaining 40 per cent, or US$28 per barrel, will be converted into a loan.

    The conditions of the loan are as follows:

    * interest rate of 1 per cent over a term ranging from 17 to 25 years with two years’ moratorium.

    * when the price per barrel is below US$40, the repayment period or term of the loan is a minimum period of 17 years, and above US$40 per barrel, the repayment period rises to a maximum of 25 years.
    This simple illustration emphasises the point that PetroCaribe does not offer cheap oil (oil at heavily discounted prices) to signatory countries. It presents a short-term cash flow ease as distinct from better prices. It is also important to note that part of the unfunded portion of the shipments from Venezuela can be handled through the use of agricultural commodities and services.

    =======================
    Nationnews 9/18/05


  9. Is it just my own perceptions? Or has it suddenly gone *really* quiet around here?

    I do so love running the empirical… It tell us so very much about reality…

    (For the record, this post is itself an experiment. Let us all observe the results…)

    Kindest regards to all…


  10. Now as you view the map of Caribbean caricom and non caricom nations that signed up for Petro-Caribe, THINK OF THE CONTROL VENEZUELA WILL HAVE OVER OUR ECONOMIES BY WAY OF THE PERMANANT PRESIDENTCY OF THE PETRO-CARIBE MINISTERIAL COUNCIL.
    ….Remember energy (oil) is the life blood of our economies.

    …..as Chavez continue to consolidate his dictatorship at home. Do we think that he could possibily have any democratic intent towards us?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Petrocaribe-Map.png


  11. The PetroCaribe Initiative has been discussed exhaustively and if viewed in the context of the preferential payment it rewards its members, we have to say it is a sweet deal. To prove our point, a Reuters report confirmed that the Caribbean currently imports 450,000 bdp of oil, Venezuela supplies 190,000 bdp of oil and products to the Caribbean and Central America as part of the PetroCaribe arrangement.
    ——————————————————–

    Wikipedia says the following:

    Criticism
    While the agreement offers concessionary financing to these heavily indebted nations, it places them in a financial bind by allowing them to pay with agricultural goods (whose value fluctuates greatly from week to week) for part of their fuel bills. These nations ultimately take on more debt to pay these bills. Additionally, open press reporting has documented that the majority of the signatory countries are either not receiving fuel shipments or are receiving sporadic shipments that do little to meet the internal needs of these nations[citation needed]. Only Jamaica and Cuba are receiving regular shipments, and it is widely rumored that Cuba is paying very little or nothing at all for its fuel shipments, owing to Venezuelan president Chavez’s friendship with the Cuban government.

    ****Venezuelan oil minister Rafael Ramirez acknoweledged in December 2007 that his nation was shipping far less oil than previously expected; Petrocaribe members receive 145,000 barrels daily (rather than the 300,000 barrels initially planned), and of these, 95,000 go to Cuba.[1]
    ——————————————–
    So who is Petro Caribe really benefiting?


  12. …….The pertinent question is Venezuela’s contention of an area consisting, two blocks of what was awarded to Barbados via Arbitration. By what method and with whose consent did Venezuela assert ownership of the area (bottom bay) in question?


  13. Adrian H your last question is very pertinent and one which we want to hear Minister Sinckler speak to.


  14. Chris Halsall // August 12, 2008 at 4:40 pm

    Is it just my own perceptions? Or has it suddenly gone *really* quiet around here?
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Chris

    Guess it is summer and traditionally, vacation time.

    Had a lovely one last month and am still trying to get back into the grind.


  15. Negroman
    I’m with you all the way. 1-2 in the 100 m. What a day for the caribbean that would be. Have you heard that they are targetting these two athletes? So far they were drug tested four times ; twice as much as as the other athletes. Powell said if this testing continues, it has the potential of weakening them for the races in a few days. POWER to the caribbean. WE SHALL OVERCOME


  16. It seems that Chavez does not want Barbados to get into the oil drilling so he’ll try something to cause controversy. we are one of the few nations that have not bowed to his “generous” offer. I suspect some countries would run afoul of the agreement and it would be worse than being in the hands of the IMF/World Bank


  17. The scout // August 13, 2008 at 6:05 am

    It seems that Chavez does not want Barbados to get into the oil drilling so he’ll try something to cause controversy. we are one of the few nations that have not bowed to his “generous” offer. I suspect some countries would run afoul of the agreement and it would be worse than being in the hands of the IMF/World Bank
    =================================

    Chavez plans are much grander than that. Venezuela has maritime disputes with the US by way of Puerto Rico using the same Archipelagic base line method. The US as only agreed to a median line, but not to who has rights to the Ocean floor.


  18. David // August 12, 2008 at 6:13 pm

    Adrian H your last question is very pertinent and one which we want to hear Minister Sinckler speak to.
    =================================

    Yes we would also like to hear the GoB position on this latest position by Venezuela. However, while we wait we can turn to NOTESFROM THE MARGIN who gave us the clearest and most likely answers to Venezuela’s method and with whose cooperation, have they arrived at, ownership to what is clearly Barbados territory.

    1:
    http://notesfromthemargin.wordpress.com/2007/07/10/venezuela-and-its-claim-of-most-of-guyanas-land/

    2:
    http://notesfromthemargin.wordpress.com/2007/07/27/how-trinidad-recognised-venezuelas-claim-to-most-of-guyanas-land/

    3:
    http://notesfromthemargin.wordpress.com/2008/06/16/marginal-picks-up-his-pen-venezuelas-claim-of-barbados-waters/

    This article is freely reproducible (once the source is attributed). In fact we would ask that given the potential seriousness of the claim that members of the blogosphere and other media propogate this story.

    Marginal

    notefromthemargin.wordpress.com


  19. This article is long but makes for a good read if you are interested in Venezuela US relations:

    The United States and Venezuela: More Than Just A Gun Show
    Hugo Chávez’s presidency has prompted a growing concern over a country to which little attention was previously paid. Nevertheless, as Chairman Eliot L. Engel of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere described it, “There is plenty of passion surrounding the Venezuela policy debate.” Venezuela was once known solely for its oil deposits and compliant trade relations with the United States; Washington’s interest in the country was largely limited to the economic ties between the two countries. Only when Chávez became the leader of what was beginning to become an important trading partner and threatened to destabilize a status-quo that was not in Venezuela’s favor, did the United States express much concern over the well-being of the latter’s population. The sudden concern that then followed seems directly tied to the U.S.’s economic interests, glazed over by a revival of a heavy dose of Cold War-era ideology.

    The commercial ties between the U.S. and Venezuela are deep if not broad. Venezuela is one of the largest Latin American investors in the U.S. and one of its top four foreign oil suppliers. In 2007, bilateral trade between the countries totaled U.S. $50 billion, consisting of $10 billion in U.S. exports and $40 billion coming from Venezuela. The U.S is Venezuela’s most important trading partner, representing about 22 per cent of its imports and approximately 60 per cent of Venezuelan exports. Ninety-five per cent of Venezuelan oil is exported to the U.S., establishing it as Venezuela’s principal energy client. Venezuela is the U.S.’s second largest Latin American trading partner, purchasing U.S. machinery, transportation equipment, agricultural commodities, and auto parts. Thus, the rhetorical battles between the two nations carried very little heft due to the importance of the petroleum trade relationship to their joint economic stability.

    The Chávez Rhetoric
    Since Chávez took office in 1998, his fighting words have contributed heavily to forging an inevitably hostile path for U.S.-Venezuelan relations. While Chávez tarnished his credibility in the eyes of White House policy makers, it was mainly Washington’s negative reaction to his commitment to socialism that made the conflict inevitable. Chávez is principally known for his “anti-empire” remarks and his demands that Washington end its interventionism. Further, he has consistently railed against the Bush administration’s strong-armed practices. On a number of occasions, he has accused the U.S. of infiltration, invasion, and assassination plots. Chávez claims that the U.S.-led invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq are evidence of the “Empire” flexing its muscles. For this reason, he insists that any improvement of relations with Washington will have to wait for the next administration. In fact, he argues that the U.S.’s professed embrace of liberal democracy is aimed at protecting corporations and traditional elites from his efforts to make decision-making more responsive to the nation’s poor majority.

    Venezuela’s antagonism towards the U.S. has escalated since the April 2002 attempted coup against Chávez, which allegedly was backed by the U.S. In January 2006, the Chávez government expelled a militant attaché from the U.S. embassy in Caracas, claiming that he had been spying on the Venezuelan armed forces; Washington was quick to respond that the accusation was concocted. In May 2008, a U.S. fighter plane “inadvertently” violated Venezuelan airspace due to an acknowledged navigation error. Despite U.S. air-traffickers contacting the Venezuelan tower to report the accidental incursion while it was occurring, the Venezuelan Defense Minister Gustavo Reyes Rangel characterized the action as “deliberate on the part of the North American Navy… It is nothing but another link in the chain of provocations in which they are trying to involve our country.” When the U.S. later accused Chávez of collaborating with the FARC in June 2008, Chávez replied that it was a ploy by Washington to spread violence and disunity in the Andes.

    Threatening U.S. Interests
    Based on Chávez’s indifference regarding the pursuit of amicable relations with Washington, it wasn’t clear whether it was a matter of bark or bite when it came to his threatening gestures to U.S. interests in his country. While his rhetoric was decidedly bite, his actions generally were bite. The populist leader’s militant socialism, his anti-Americanism, his clashes with the Venezuelan elite, his efforts to build alliances with his neighbor and even with distant rogue nations like North Korea and Iran, his resolve to strengthen OPEC as an economic power inevitably eroded relations between the two countries. Not only did he nationalize the holdings of such major U.S. corporations like Exxon Mobile and Conoco Phillips, but he also ended intelligence liaison relationships and shut down military and anti-drug cooperation in an attempt to show his disdain for the “empire” and its imperialistic footprints.

    In addition to these measures, U.S. political figures, especially among the ranks of Washington Republicans, condemned Chávez’s unwillingness to cooperate in the fight against drug-trafficking. In 2005, the Venezuelan National Guard removed its experienced members from the U.S. Prosecutor’s Drug Task Force and Caracas ended formal cooperation with the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) after accusing it of domestic espionage. As a result, DEA agents have found it increasingly difficult to obtain entry visas into Venezuela. The last was a clear gesture on Chávez’s part to make cooperation between the two countries more burdensome. Due to these circumstances, the White House officially has “determined that the Government of Venezuela has ‘failed demonstrably’ in meeting its obligations under international counter-narcotics agreements and U.S. domestic counter-narcotics requirements.” The State Department has stated that its occasional efforts to improve relations in other areas that are mutually beneficial, such as energy and commerce, have been consistently cast off by Chávez—a contention which Caracas is quick to reject.

    The Enemy of My Enemy is My Friend
    As was previously mentioned, Chávez has persistently pursued alliances aimed at diluting the U.S.’s international authority. Not only is Venezuela intent on diversifying its oil clientele to reduce dependence on the U.S. market, but it also has pressed OPEC to back policies that have restricted production and increased oil prices on the world market. In August 2000, as OPEC’s leader through rotation, Chávez became the first head of state to meet with the late Saddam Hussein since the Gulf War, an action that many deemed as an act of defiance of U.S. policy. Following Colombia’s March 1, 2008 incursion into Ecuadorian territory to raid a FARC camp, Chávez vehemently criticized President Uribe’s infringement upon Ecuador’s sovereignty, taking issue with the U.S.’s most important ally in South America. Additionally, Hugo Chávez’s significant trade relations, and his general closeness with Havana has undermined Washington’s attempts to isolate the island and coerce the Castro brothers to democratize according to a U.S.-drafted script. His ties with the Castro regime represent one face of his struggle toward Latin American integration consistent with his idea of “21st Century Socialism.” As such, he has become one of the main leaders of the leftist resurgence in Latin America, whose main goal is to reduce the U.S.’s longtime influence and interventionism in Latin America’s domestic affairs, while defiantly creating new regional, economic, political and military bodies outside of Washington’s orb.

    Chavez’s relationship with the President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is especially aggravating to the United States. Washington perceives this heightened effort on the part of the Iranians as an attempt by Tehran to deliberately infiltrate and engage a region traditionally under Washington’s watch. As founding members of OPEC, Iran and Venezuela have constantly engaged in dialogue regarding oil pricing and sales and production policies since 1960. Under Chávez, moreover, there have been broadened relations with the Islamic country on such issues as culture and information technology, largely as a demonstration of the Venezuelan leader’s opposition to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

    Venezuela has repeatedly supported the development of peaceful nuclear technology and requested the help of countries like Iran to assist it to lay the groundwork to inaugurate nuclear research in Caracas. Considering Washington’s hard-line stance against Tehran’s uranium enrichment program, Venezuela’s benign attitude towards Iran, with whom it has 181 agreements, in effect, signifies a carefully planned attack against U.S. foreign policy interests.

    Iran, a major oil producer, has promised tens of millions of dollars worth of economic assistance to pro-Chávez governments in the region such as those of Nicaragua, Ecuador, and Bolivia. These enhanced recently nursed relations have been solidified in the opening of direct flights between Caracas and Tehran. According to the Department of State, Iranians arriving in Venezuela undergo extremely lax customs checks and an easy-pass process for those desiring to obtain Venezuelan citizenship.

    In an even more controversial move, Venezuela and Tehran are now engaging in two banking ventures that many believe will allow Iran to evade U.S.-led sanctions aimed at strangling the Iranian financial structure and its access to outside capital. These sanctions are aimed at undermining its support of what the U.S. and much of the international community see as international terrorism and nuclear proliferation. The first such bilateral venture was the creation of the Banco Internacional de Desarrollo established in Caracas in September 2007. This financial institution’s funding was authorized within 72 hours, even though the process normally takes months. The second joint venture occurred in May 2008 with the creation of a binational bank, Banco Binacional Irani-Venezuela, to which each country will contribute at $600 million. The Venezuelan National Assembly also authorized the formation of an investment fund called Fondo Binacional Venezuela-Irán, with a influx of U.S. $500 million from each respective country.

    Considering Iran’s abiding hostility towards the West, and the United States in particular, it is understandable that some in this country would fear the close relationship between Venezuela and Iran as being unnatural. According to State Department sources, these banks will not only allow both counties to freely move funds with little accountability, but their officers will enjoy legal immunity in Venezuela. Noting the obscurity and scant public information often characterizing such ventures, U.S. State Department officials have claimed that these institutions will not be forced to uphold the normal and rigorous transparency standards required of such bodies. As Norman A. Bailey from the Institute for Global Economic Growth pointed out in a testimony before a Congressional hearing, if hostilities were to break out between the United States and Iran, its presence in the Western Hemisphere would be to Iran’s advantage. Those hardliners in the Bush administration who favor including Venezuela on the state-sponsored terrorist list believe that doing so would make the U.S. better prepared to ward off such a blow coming from Caracas.

    Cold War: A Sequel?
    Most recently, the Venezuelan president traveled to Moscow to formalize the “Alianza Estratégica,” a military and defense alliance deemed necessary by Chávez in order to “guarantee Venezuela’s sovereignty, which is now threatened by the United States.” Though it may seem that there is some evidence of U.S. offensive plans against Venezuela, it seems highly unlikely that Washington would even consider taking such an explosive step after its failed coup attempt against Chávez in 2002 which it abetted, and the near-universal, international criticism elicited by its unilateral decision to invade Iraq. Washington’s public response was merely to voice its belief that Venezuela’s stepped-up pace of arms purchasing from Spain, China and Russia goes beyond its defensive needs. Precisely due to the tense relations between the two countries, Venezuela’s desire to build up its military capacity, faster than any apparent legitimate need, makes the U.S. government more than a little apprehensive. Yet, Caracas can argue that being on the wrinte side of the barrel with the world’s sole surviving superpower is somewhat disconcerting.

    The “Alianza Estratégica” with Russia was accompanied by a series of agreements regarding trade, weapons purchases, coordinated energy policies, oil exploration, and the expansion of joint financial services. The two countries are expected to reach several agreements in the near future in which the South American country will buy up to U.S. $2 billion worth of Russian military hardware in an attempt to modernize its military, as part of its U.S. $2.6 billion defense budget. When the U.S. stopped supplying weapons to Venezuela in 2006, it was Russia which filled the void and began to sell military supplies and weapons to Chávez, while maintaining a constant capacity for training of military personnel. However, Russian-Venezuelan relations are going beyond the military arena. Just last year, bilateral trade between both countries already had reached U.S. $1.1 billion, double that of 2006. In addition, the state-run Venezuelan oil company has signed deals with three different Russian energy companies.

    The United States’ Role
    Not only has Washington denounced Venezuela’s failure to cooperate with the U.S. in counternarcotics efforts, it also had “rescinded Venezuela’s eligibility to purchase most types of U.S. weapons and weapons systems; closed Venezuela’s Military Acquisition Office in Florida; arrested unauthorized Venezuelan agents; denied Venezuela access to Export-Import Bank financing and Overseas Private Insurance Corporation coverage; designated several Venezuelan nationals under Executive Order 13224 and the Narcotics Kingpin Act for its support provided to Hezbollah and for trafficking illicit drugs.” These measures were enacted in an effort to compel Chávez to submit to U.S. standards of democracy because, as Washington perceives the situation, U.S. interests will best be served under a capitalist economic system. The problem is that, rather than making a serious case against Venezuela, Washington has had a good deal of success in making its charges stick, even though specialists see them as political propaganda meant to advance Washington’s ideological propensities.

    The Case Against the U.S.
    United States actions have precipitated an aggressive response by Chávez. There is a clear cause-effect relationship between Washington’s strictures and its harsh language directed towards Caracas and Chávez’s hostility toward the U.S. The hypocrisy with which the Bush Administration has handled its relations with Venezuela has massively contributed to a lack of cooperation and dialogue between the two countries. When Venezuela asked the U.S. to extradite Venezuelan citizen Luis Posada Carriles in 2005 for the alleged bombing of a Cuban passenger liner in 1976, Washington adamantly refused, saying that he would be denied a fair trial there. The Bush Administration claims to act under the moral confines of a fair and just democracy serviced by an egalitarian legal system and yet, by refusing to extradite, has obstructed justice by politicizing its decision. As a Venezuelan citizen, Posada Carriles should be held accountable to the laws of his country for a crime purportedly committed in his country. While the United States insists that Venezuela’s relationship with Iran can be deemed as facilitating terrorist activity, it operates under a specious double-standard by harboring this world-class Venezuelan terrorist. While some U.S. officials would like to label Venezuela a terrorist state, one must ask what Caracas has done to warrant such distrust.

    U.S. efforts to influence Chávez’s policies have not only failed, but, in some instances, have given the Venezuelan government further examples of U.S. interventionism in hemispheric hot spots rather than seeking constructive bridges to reconcile a string of negative strategies. U.S. government officials continue to devise strategies about how to deal with the “Chávez problem.” In a Subcommittee Hearing on July 17, Representative Connie Mack, a Republican extremist on Latin American issues, voiced the opinion of many Bush administration officials when he cited Venezuela’s questionable relationship with the Iranian government as sufficient reason to put Venezuela on the very controversial state-sponsored terrorist list compiled by the State Department. Chávez has repeatedly deemed such a threat as a U.S. attempt to destabilize his government and has, in fact, dared the U.S. to take this action by saying, “Let them make that list and shove it in their pocket…We shouldn’t forget for an instant that we’re in a battle against North American imperialism.”

    On the other hand, more enlightened U.S. officials like Assistant Secretary of State Thomas Shannon have insisted along with Subcommittee Chairman Engel, at a House Hearing, that it is necessary to maintain diplomatic ties with Chávez through patience and dialogue. At the July 17 Subcommittee Hearing, Representative William Delahunt (D-MA) discussed the need to respect the sovereign rights of a country like Venezuela, whose citizens democratically voted to elect their leader; failure to do so would be viewed as an insult to the intelligence of Venezuelan citizens. As the world’s surviving superpower, the United States, at times, thoughtlessly delegitimizes countries with which it does not share the same ideology. However, the Bush administration fails to adequately realize that different countries, having different cultures, express conflicting values. The fact remains that even though he has sponsored many controversial measures and often has resorted to impolite rhetoric, Chávez’s era in power has been almost entirely legitimate. Including Venezuela on a self-serving U.S. terrorist list would be a sorely misguided move due to the strong existing economic and social ties between both countries. The U.S. must be patient and understand that prevailing tensions will only dissipate when Chávez feels confident enough to sit down and talk with one of its senior officials, under no limiting preconditions.

    Eliminating Misconceptions and Barriers to Improvement
    Venezuela has long been plagued with widespread poverty and a hugely disparate income gap as is often found in many Latin American countries. When Chávez came onto the political scene, he began to show those at the bottom of the income ladder that it was possible for them to improve their living standards. He was able to convince a clean majority of his fellow citizens that progressive change was possible, and, at least for the time being, the majority of Venezuelans decided that they no longer would settle for the status quo.

    Director of The Carter Center’s Americas Program, Jennifer McCoy stated, “We need to understand the hunger for recognition and inclusion by populations marginalized from economic and political power. Procedural democracy is not a priority for many in this situation. Having greater control and participation in the forces that determine their daily lives is.” Thus, while many in the U.S. government complain that the erosion of the separation of powers in today’s Venezuela is a violation of the country’s fundamental tenants of democracy, it should also understand that the country has experienced a vastly different history and, thus, the current situation there responds to different needs. Sometimes the need to eat will overwhelm the need for government checks and balances and other constitutional prescriptions, as seen from the perspective of the average citizen living at the poverty line.

    Despite the enmity between the two countries, the harsh rhetoric and the clashing ideologies have had little impact on their economic relations. There have, however, to a great extent, damaged Venezuela’s credibility and trustworthiness in the eyes of some countries, while proving of no particular benefit to the U.S. In a break from tradition, the U.S. has been unable to effectively intervene in Venezuelan affairs or deter the socialization of the country due to its lack of leverage over a number of resource-rich nations in the immediate region and its own singular dependence on Venezuelan oil. Thus, Chávez has never been under extreme pressure to accommodate the U.S. However, it seems that the tide might be changing. The Venezuelan state is presently facing a complicated and challenging domestic situation. The failure of the December 2007 constitutional reform, Chávez’s difficulties in consolidating his political party’s power, the emergence of a semi-effective civil society, and the upcoming Venezuelan November local elections have created a number of political difficulties for the populist leader. These challenges are reflected in the recent food shortages, rising crime rates, declines in medical care, and deterioration of the physical infrastructure. This situation has forced Chávez to, for the first time in years, express a willingness to improve relations with the U.S., which has the technical capabilities to provide significant aid to Venezuela in these and many other areas.

    At this pivotal point in the Chávez presidency, the next U.S. administration should seek to more actively transform its relations with Venezuela in a constructive direction. The current policy has been dominated by barnyard exchanges that have contributed to bilateral tensions and suspicions that have resulted in perpetuating aggressive attitudes on both sides. However, Assistant Secretary of State Shannon has indicated the possible beginning of the end of the U.S. hard-line approach to the country by stating, “We [are] committed to a positive relationship with the people of Venezuela and have the patience and the persistence necessary to manage our challenging relationship.” Placing Venezuela on the state-sponsored terrorist list, as threatened by such hard-line policymakers as Representative Mack, would only prove detrimental to both countries’ economic and geo-political interests. Only through diplomacy and basic respect can the U.S. attempt to overhaul the image of an American empire in the eyes of Chávez and so much of Latin America. The fact that most Latin American countries have refused to take sides, even when one side is the global giant, makes it all the more evident that hostility towards Chávez’s Venezuela has not and is likely to not work in Washington’s interests; a more diplomatic approach is likely to prove more effective in bringing the desired results to both countries.

    This analysis was prepared by COHA Research Associates Monica Narula and Michelle Quiles
    August 12th, 2008
    Word Count: 3500


  20. David what is COHA???? This article is mixing many truths about America’s bad behaviour with many lies about Chavez good behaviour, and to think that it is written this month, after all the things that Chavez has done to deny democracy in Venezuela, and to ensure his lifetime presidency.


  21. @ David

    I just recently found this article concerning the
    CSME Integration movement.It looks like some “leaders” are trying to bring back a West indian style Federation.I think an economic union isn’t really a bad idea if it is well managed & to Barbados’ advantage,but a political union is something I could NEVER support.

    http://www.caribbean360.com/News/Caribbean/Stories/2008/08/14/NEWS0000006185.html

    “We believe the time, you know, has come for us really to be under one umbrella, not only in the economic sense but also in the long run in the political sense, and we need to take the necessary steps to get this going,” he said.

    “The process begins with two or three or four countries, but in the long-run it is to envelope all of CARICOM into the integration movement,” Mr Thomas added, as he prepares for today’s meeting.”


  22. Have we learned nothing from the past ?

    An integrated political union with Caricom would never work for Bajans.


  23. @Adrian

    Here is the bio on COHA.

    Founded in 1975, the Council on Hemispheric Affairs (COHA), a nonprofit, tax-exempt independent research and information organization, was established to promote the common interests of the hemisphere, raise the visibility of regional affairs and increase the importance of the inter-American relationship, as well as encourage the formulation of rational and constructive U.S. policies towards Latin America. In 1982, COHA’s board of trustees voted to expand its mandate to include monitoring Canadian/Latin American relations. Since its inception, COHA has been one of the most active and broadest-based U.S. private bodies dealing with the entire spectrum of political, economic and diplomatic issues, as well as responding to the economic and political challenges confronting the nations of this hemisphere. From its beginnings, COHA’s board consisted of the leadership of some of this country’s most important trade unions, professional organizations and religious groups, as well as distinguished civic and academic figures, who joined together to advance their common belief in support of representative government and pluralistic institutions throughout the hemisphere.

    COHA subscribes to no specific political credo nor does it maintain partisan allegiances. It supports open and democratic political processes just as it consistently has condemned authoritarian regimes of any stripe that fail to provide their populations with even minimal standards of political freedoms, economic and social justice, personal security and civic guarantees.

    In recent years, COHA has directed a good deal of its research energies to such issues as unproductive U.S. pressure on President Aristide which eventually led to his ouster and Washington’s replacement with a hapless interim regime. COHA also has condemned Washington’s unexamined and reflexive policy towards Cuba and Venezuela, and the negative impact of neo-liberal reforms on the average Latin American. COHA was opposed to the adherence of the U.S. to NAFTA under the thesis that it shouldn’t have been initiated until basic Mexican institutions were truly democratic, its trade unions free enough to negotiate as equals, and the government purged of endemic corruption. COHA also is a critic of the indiscriminate application of structural adjustment formulas that end up negatively affecting the poorest stratum of Latin America’s population.

    COHA is staffed by a small professional core, who contributes their services to the organization, supplemented by a large number of volunteer graduate and undergraduate students who often receive academic credit from their home institutions for the experience gained through their work with it. Over the years, retired government employees also have cooperated with COHA in preparing monographs on such topics as regional development, trade policies, and the controversial development strategies of the international lending agencies. The staff is assisted by a number of COHA senior research fellows from the United States, Latin America and elsewhere, who are generally considered to be leaders in their respective fields of expertise. It has been described on the Senate floor as “one of our nation’s most respected bodies of scholars and policymakers.”

    COHA’s analyses are frequently sought after by the major media, with its long-time director, Larry Birns, as well as other of its senior personnel regularly being called upon by the major national and international press, along with network radio and TV public affairs programs, to provide commentary on breaking regional issues. COHA contributors also appear regularly in the opinion columns on editorial pages throughout the country, and its findings frequently have been heard and seen over the BBC, NPR Voice of America, CBC, Radio Marti, Radio Havana, and other television and radio networks in a number of overseas countries. COHA personnel have appeared one or more times on CNN, C-Span, Firing Line, CrossFire, Nightline, as well as over the CBS, ABC and NBC evening news, as well as the network Larry King and Oliver North programs, “Good Morning America” and the “Today Show.”

    © 2005. The Council on Hemispheric Affairs. All Rights Reserved.
    1250 Connecticut Ave, N.W., Suite 1C Washington, D.C. 20036, USA
    Tel. (202) 223-4975 Fax (202) 223-4979
    For contacts, suggestions and comments: coha@coha.org.


  24. @Adrian…

    To take the metaphorical intricate of @BU.David’s derivative above…

    The URL of the “Council on Hemispheric Affairs” is http://www.coha.org/

    This doesn’t actually give you any answers, but it at least gets you closer to the raw data…

    (While some might not believe it…) Kindest regards to all..


  25. David thanks, I still think the article is bias against the US and very easy on Chavez.

  26. Barnabas Collins Avatar
    Barnabas Collins

    It is quite unfortunate but we can’t come together on anything in the Caribbean. To me it is simple, Everyone wants to be the King man and you know what they say about having too many chiefs…..nothing gets done…..Only this week, PM Manning decide to have close door meetings to completely derail the CSME. He used the fact that many of the governments change and strike up a deal with the OECS and he wanted Barbados to be there because our former PM was the main impetus behind CSME. And he knows that this government has concerns about the CSME……I heard one political scientist spew out the most nonsense coming from an intelligent man about this move being visionary. That was a hijacking.

    As it relates to the PetroCaribe oil deal. Chavez should never be trusted. He might decide one day to call in the debt out the blue. I am not even reading the proposal, Chavez would do something like broker a deal to release hostages and then turn around and make some obnoxious statements about a head of state. He should not be trusted.

    I always felt that CSME can work but we would have to decide that whatever a country have they would supply to the region. Like T&T supplying us with oil under market prices, Guyana food, Barbados human resources that sort of thing. But we are not that mature as a people to organise something like that. I maybe simplifying things a bit but I hope the gist of what I mean gets across.

    BC


  27. BC, I too am of the opinion that CSME can work but the governments of the day need to consult with us the people.

    I will be the first to admit that it will be difficult but if every one decides to be RESPONSIBLE with their task be it food oil etc. I know it will be a sucess but I dont know when ……..


  28. As we bask in the glory of our caribbean athletes at the olympics, I can’t help but marvel at the amount of natural talent that exist in the region. Only if the leaders would stop grandstanding and get serious, this region could be an important part of the new global world. the athletes are showing us the way. It was a JOy to see all the caribbean athletes huddled together at the start of the men’s 100 encouraging each other and offering a prayer. To me that was the highlight of the occasion and the victory was the fitting results.


  29. I am hoping to see some comment on Patrick Manning’s recent “initiative” to effect a political union between T & T and the OECS (by 2013!). Jamaica has raised its concern but Barbados (which has lead responsibility for the CSME) has been quiet except for a tepid statement from Minister Donville Inniss. My own personal view is that Manning’s plan will come to nought but it could further expose the sham that is Caricom.

    On a related note, I find it fascinating that an ethanol plant is being proposed to be built in Barbados. The only “advantage” that Barbados brings to the project is that the ethanol can get duty free access to the USA under the CBI arrangement. It seems risky to me that the economic success of the project hinges on the whims of say the politicians in the US who could give Brazil the same access which would render the Barbados operation redundant.


  30. Neither Manning or Trinidad has the authority to effect any political union with the OECS. I might add neither does St. Lucia,Grenada and St Vincent either.

    The OECS is the only relevant, working and sucessful regional institution in the Caribbean and all the members have to concur before this is effected.

    Trinidad first has to apply and be accepted into the OECS family (if they qualify).

    Its ironic that the country who invented the 1 from 10 leaves nought maths now wants to join the same backward small islands who they rejected some 40 years ago.

    Why now? Isnt Caricom and CSME enough?

    Now the OECS have pulled ourselves up by our bootstraps and are among the wealthiest countries per capita in the Caribbean Trinidad in its arrogance wants not only to join but to form a ‘political union’ .

    I wonder where will the HQ of this union be Port of Spain, and who will be the President, Manning?


  31. Negroman
    The P.M is beginning to curtail this immigation invasion. At last someone has appeared to be addressing the problem.What is interesting is the response from the Vincentian P.M. It now shows that all these countries seem to think that ii is their right to push bajans out of work. If this is the inpression or mandate that Owen had given to CSME, I think he owes Barbados an apology.


  32. To CSME Leaders
    It seems a Barbadian P,M gave you the impression that your people have the right to invade our country and rob bajans of our lands. just let me put the record straight: Barbados is not for sale or hire and we, bajans would welcome our regional brothers/sisters but if their intentions is to replace us, we would defend this country until death.

  33. Vinceywoman who knows Avatar
    Vinceywoman who knows

    What Gonsalves telling Mr.David Thompson? Well I will tell Mr,David Thompson to dont mind that drunk raper, ignore he and do what you got to do for your bajan people. I visits Barbados regular and I love it but the last few years I seeing too much Guyanese there now. Stand up for your rights baje and dont mind ignorant Ralph.


  34. I am happy that at least we have a leader who is willing to defend the rights and integrity of Barbadian workers. PM Thompson has redeemed himself and his administration in the eyes of Negroman for the time being.
    I know serious action on this immigration issue was coming.I wonder what David Ellis,Peter Wickham,Michael Browne,Norman Faria and the rest are thinking now.
    There are some concerns I have that I must highlight.
    Gilbert Greaves a decent,nice gentleman wants us to have compassion on non-nationals.He indicated that we need non-nationals to fill many jobs that Barbadians are reluctant to fill.He wants us to be lenient with non-nationals in this regard.I believe Gilbert Greaves even though he is a decent gentleman will be a problem for the government policy on immigration.I think he should be shifted.
    Amnesty is coming for illegals non-nationals.The proposed period of time is for those who were here prior to 2005 even though some persons want it to be prior to 2003,but the government is looking at 2005.That translates to about 2000 to 2500 non-nationals obtaining permanent residency and some cases citizenship.How much are indo-guyanese I do not know.
    However,amnesty will be coming in about 3 months or so.The rationale is the government does not want to appear as being anti-CSME or CARICOM or xenophobic.
    I feel assure that the government will do the correct thing and many of us bloggers are vindicated and should feel proud that our pleas and concerns have not fallen on deaf ears.
    Prime Minister David Thompson if you deliver on this you will be in power for a very long time.This is a very burning issue affecting us Barbadians and you are about to deliver.Negroman and thousands of sensible Barbadians are supporting you all the way.You have nothing to fear.


  35. I just read on today’s edition of Kaieteur news that guyanese living in Barbados are upset with Norman Faria representation.A PNCR Mp with Barbadians roots met with many guyanese and I suspect those guyanese are black and complained about the harsh treatment meted out to them by Norman Faria.They want him to be replaced. That racist scum bag.


  36. Just wish to say your article is as amazing. The clarity
    in your post is just excellent and i could assume you’re an
    expert on this subject. Well with your permission let me to grab your feed to keep updated
    with forthcoming post. Thanks a million and please continue the enjoyable work.

The blogmaster invites you to join the discussion.

Trending

Discover more from Barbados Underground

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading