The political events of last week in Barbados were both intriguing and depressing and as I approach this week’s comment, I feel compelled to express renewed concern about the extent to which our ship of state continues to drift towards the proverbial iceberg.
Certainly a comment on the Minister of Finance’s much anticipated “statement” would be appropriate today, but this task is made difficult by the fact that I spent the time last Tuesday morning exercising and would therefore need to comment based on second hand reports, which I prefer not to do.
Interestingly enough, from all appearances the Minister of Finance appears to have been engaging in similar activity of late and for that I commend him.
The one comment I can, however, offer is related to the logic of his approach which opted for a statement instead of the traditional Budget he previously promised. The logic here appears to be entirely political and represents yet another illustration of this administration’s mastery of the art of politics, as distinct from the science of government.
Two important factors should be considered and the first is the extent to which Prime Minister Stuart has demonstrated the efficacy of silence when one has nothing to say. This lesson had ironically been lost on Minister Sinckler, until last week. However, one presumes that he now too understands that “silence is golden”.
The other and more significant point is the fact that this administration is less settled than one might think and therefore needs to avoid contentious debates and worse yet votes that would present any renegade Minister with a platform to frustrate or embarrass the DLP administration.
Good strategy
A statement therefore makes good political sense since a Budget was not legally required and the statement conveyed the impression that the Minister was speaking to the economy while it was painfully obvious that he was avoiding both the political and economic issues of concern now.
The only challenge could be the fact that he promised a Budget and then didn’t deliver, but that challenge presented by that mistake is blunted by the fact that several other promises have been made and later “amended”.
This approach therefore meant that Sinckler could accomplish his task and thereafter Parliament could continue happily along debating a land acquisition bill, while the rest of us were left to wonder when exactly this Prime Minister will apply his enormous intellect and outstanding oratory to the central questions that we continue to ask.
Thankfully, the international events of last Wednesday overshadowed the events of last Tuesday and provide good (alternative) fodder for this analyst.
These events were clearly so compelling that our beloved leader was uncharacteristically moved to comment on an issue of contemporary relevance. Like him, I was also intrigued by President Obama’s move to signal a significant shift in relations between America and Cuba and felt that this worthy of comment.
To my mind, President Obama’s move is as courageous as it is sound and is as much a defining moment of his administration as our Prime Minister’s silence on economic matters defines his and it is therefore important that my political commentary captures this moment.
The Cuban embargo and accompanying attitude of indifference towards that country can be traced back fifty years and the lack of logic of its continuance is compelling.
It could be argued that President Kennedy’s actions in imposing the embargo were reasonable; however one struggles to understand the logic of its continuance in the face of its obvious failure along with the US’ relative comfort with countries like China (both pre and post-Tiananmen Square) and Venezuela, even after Chavez’s “El Diablo’’ comment.
The striking difference between the way that President Bush II warmed to an unelected nuclear armed Pakistani leader against whose country the US imposed sanctions in 1998, compares unfavourably with America’s persistent cold shoulder towards Cuba.
In almost every instance the arguments advanced regarding Cuba’s shortcomings from the perspective of democracy, human rights, and even its aggression toward America can be countered by evidence of America’s “friends” that have behaved no differently at one time or another.
One is left therefore to assume that America continues to behave the way she does towards Cuba because of her relative strength/weakness along with a heavy dose of diplomatic hypocrisy, which is not a flattering image to thinking members of the global community. Merry Christmas!
• Peter W. Wickham ([email protected]) is a political consultant and a director of Caribbean Development Research Services (CADRES).
