Caribbean Passport

Commentary: CARICOM passport - a joke

Published on Friday, December 19, 2008 Email
By Sir Ronald Sanders
Source Caribbean Net News

Dominica’s Prime Minister Roosevelt Skerrit says the current situation in which holders of Caribbean Community and Common Market (CARICOM) passports are not enjoying any real attendant benefits is “almost laughable”.

The situation is not “almost” laughable. It is laughable.

The CARICOM passports provide not one more practical benefit than the national passports of the CARICOM member countries. At the airports of some CARICOM countries, many holders of CARICOM passports are subject to the same scrutiny, the same suspicion and the same grilling by immigration officers that they endured prior to the adoption of the passport by some CARICOM states.

The CARICOM passport does not even provide the “symbolism” of one-Caribbean people that it was supposed to engender. If anything, it does the opposite by emphasizing that, despite the fact that CARICOM has existed for 35 years, there remains no welcome mat at the doorstep of many CARICOM countries for the people of their partner states.

In the official literature related to the Caribbean Single Market (CSM), it says that CARICOM enjoys “free movement of goods, services, capital and people”. A quarrel could be picked and won on the motion that none of these categories of free movement exist, but on the last of them – people – most of all.

The reality is that CARICOM is a single market “in the making”, and one that is being made very slowly despite the urgency that has existed for some time to get on with its completion.

North Americans and Europeans enjoy far greater freedom of everything in CARICOM states than CARICOM nationals do. And, the recently signed Economic Partnership Agreement between the EU and individual CARICOM states will give European companies and individuals greater freedom, rights and protections in CARICOM countries than CARICOM governments give to companies and individuals of their own states.

Some governments will point out that there are groups within their countries who, through their own insecurities, are virulently anti CARICOM nationals. That is so. But no government should pander to such short-sighted insularity. Instead, they should educate their populations about the importance of deeper CARICOM integration for their own survival. They ought not to pretend – as some do - that they possess some unidentified magic formula to prosper on their own for it is simply not true.

Governments, who indulge in this pretence, do their people an enormous disservice. If people conduct their lives in the belief that they have no need to worry, when the crunch comes, they will be fatally unprepared.

Two points are worth making here.

First, in the case of many CARICOM countries, a significant portion of their exports of manufactured goods and services relies on the CARICOM market. If the CARICOM markets bought elsewhere, these countries would suffer – a fact that many governments fail to tell their people.

Second, if CARICOM nationals in many CARICOM states were to leave, the economies of these states would decline in myriad ways. Not only would they lose skilled and unskilled labour that they need, they would lose the taxes these people pay, the services they use such as rented houses, and the money they spend in the economy on items such as food, clothing, transportation, utilities, and medical care.

In this regard, the authorities in all CARICOM countries should be mindful of the importance of according to CARICOM nationals, who are legitimately living and working in their states, the rights and respect to which they are entitled. They should not be treated as “second-class”; they should not be exploited and they should have the same rights of protection as any legitimate resident in the country. Picking-up people in the middle of the night and deporting them without due process is not right or legal; nor is deporting people who are legitimately waiting for a work permit to be renewed. This is especially so when the only people treated in this way are those from the Caribbean.

It should also be clearly understood by all that at some time in the not too distant future, all CARICOM countries will be confronted by the stark reality that they cannot survive on their own. In the cycle of livelihood, some countries have enjoyed the upswings that have come from preferential markets and official development assistance –both of which are declining fast. In the enjoyment of the temporary upswing, they seem to have forgotten that CARICOM’s small and vulnerable economies are not sufficiently well endowed or diversified to survive on their own, and the downturns come. And when they come, they do so with a vengeance.

Were the countries of CARICOM a genuine Single Market in which free movement of goods, services, capital and people were a reality, they might have a better chance of survival. As one small example, think of what would have happened in the mighty United States in the present financial crisis, if it was not a single market and economy and each of its 51 states had to struggle for itself.

Businesses in CARICOM states have long recognised the value of a Single Market with free movement of goods, services, capital and people. If there were free movement in all these areas, they know that CARICOM would be a stronger entity today better able to cope with the world economic crisis.

And, on the matter of free movement of people, businesses know that they would have a wider pool of people on whom to draw for the knowledge and skills they need to compete both in the global community and in their own domestic market where, increasingly, they have to fend off foreign competition. The most apt analogy is the West Indian Cricket team. If we can’t find 11 globally competitive players in all the CARICOM states together, how will we each find them from within our individual borders?

The truth is that the issue of movement of CARICOM nationals between all CARICOM countries can be settled if CARICOM becomes a genuine Single Market with freedom of movement of all the factors of production including labour. Both the gain and the pain will be shared by all.


Sir Ronald Sanders is a business executive and former Caribbean diplomat who publishes widely on small states in the global community. Reponses to:
ronaldsanders29@hotmail.com

Cracks in CARICOM

Cracks in CARICOM

Source: Freeport News

Printer-friendly version

Published: Thursday, July 31, 2008

The Conference of Heads of Government of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) was convened during the first week of July in Antigua and Barbuda and the discussion on the European Partnership Agreement (EPA), among other items, gave some indication of the growing discord in the CARICOM integration movement.

Guyana, which claimed it had the most to lose if the current EPA deal was sealed without amendment, remained stubborn throughout the meeting.

It argued that the EPA would give Europe a favoured trading partner status that could adversely affect trade agreements with other parts of the world; a position not dissimilar to sentiments expressed locally in The Bahamas on the proposed agreement.

They also argued that the discriminating preferential trade agreements offered by the European Union were incompatible with the World Trade Organization's (WTO) rules and they therefore urged the Community to consider a renegotiation of the deal.

On the matters of the freedom of movement and the single market, there still appears to be wide differences. Complaints about the humiliating treatment of CARICOM nationals by immigration authorities in some countries were lodged and the question was raised as to whether the hassle-free travel envisioned in the revised treaty of Chaguramas would ever materialize.

Some countries revealed that they do not yet have the national capacity to implement all the requirements of the single market and economy, particularly at this time when the region is facing, perhaps, some of its greatest challenges inclusive of escalating food and energy prices.
The CARICOM Treaty requires each member state to take the necessary constitutional and legislative steps to enable the establishment of the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) as the final Court of Appeal for the Community; many states have not done so yet nor are there any visible efforts on their part to do so in the near future.

Indeed, it was observed that none of the members of the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States (St. Lucia, St. Vincent, Dominica, St. Kitts, et al) have yet committed to the process. Indeed, most of these sovereign states have in fact signed on to the Bolivian Alternative for the Americas (ALBA), which is the President of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez's creation as the regional trading arrangement to replace, or in his words, to destroy, the Free Trade of the Americas (FTAA) process which was developed by the Americans on former President Clinton's watch.
ALBA, which has a substantial economic aid component, is regarded by some Caribbean countries as a historic watershed in the relations between Latin America and the Caribbean; others are much more cynical and feel that the effort would be better spent in forging stronger ties within the region.

Although Venezuela is in favour of higher oil prices as a way of punishing the United States, it has provided through Petrocaribe, an oil-price support program, the means by which some Caribbean states could obtain relief.

Those states, by the way, are also taking full advantage of the Petroleum Development Fund which was established by sister Caribbean nation, Trinidad and Tobago, for virtually the same purpose.

While the Caribbean integration movement is by no means at a standstill, the cracks in the ambitious wall of the single market and economy appear to be widening over time as opposed to narrowing with maturity, as was the case with the European Union, the organization upon which it was modelled.

One head of state at the meeting summed it up rather eloquently by blaming "the politics of limited regional engagement in Jamaica...; the politics of ethnicity in Trinidad and Guyana...; separation among large sections of the Barbadian populace...; and, the CULTIVATED ALOOFNESS FROM THE REGIONAL ENTERPRISE BY THE BAHAMAS.

Where there is no strategy the people perish

Where there is no strategy the people perish
Wednesday, May 28, 2008

Source: Jamaica Observer Editorial

The popular Biblical admonition says that "where there is no vision the people perish". We would like to add, for the sake of Caricom, that a vision is no use unless there is a strategy to realise it.

Let's face it, the Caricom countries have not perished, but economic growth has been disappointing, to say the least. The exceptions are those blessed with energy resources or those who shelter funds avoiding taxation and scrutiny. The fragile economic foundations of Caricom countries are being threatened by a combination of escalating prices for oil and food, the recession in the US economy, crime and drug trafficking.

For the past half-a-century, the region has sought to enhance growth and structural diversification by various forms of collective action. The template has, for the last 30 years, been the deepening degrees of economic integration, with the current incarnation being the Caricom Single Market and Economy (CSME) which sets out broad goals and principles.But we should not need to stress that for the CSME to be a vehicle of economic progress there must be a development strategy, which, to date, has been absent, as evident in the lack of preparedness to engage constructively in pursuing the new export opportunities.

This glaring failure is highlighted by the recent angst over the Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) with the European Union. Even more worrying is the steady decline in the ability to supply the local market, resulting in increasing imports. Take the case of domestic food production: the region's agriculture ministers were recently in Guyana, desperately and belatedly devising a response to the food crisis. Their response will constitute an emergency version of the Jagdeo Initiative for agriculture, but what is needed is an overall development strategy.

The region needs a new development strategy that goes beyond the CSME paradigm. We must stop recycling politically correct platitudes that are unrelated to the national, regional and global realities. The recommendations of "Towards a Development Vision and the Role of the Single Economy" bear a remarkable similarity to those that informed the West Indies Federation of the middle of the last century. It is devoid of fresh thinking and offers nothing useful that can help the governments of the region with the fundamental problems of crime, unemployment, dependence on imported food and the exponential increase in the price of oil.

We urge that a new development strategy be formulated by the end of this year, based on new, solutions-oriented thinking. Which means avoiding 'rounding up the usual suspects' to regurgitate the past. A creative, technically sound and intellectually virile team must be commissioned to chart a practical course to overcome the challenges facing the region.

The Heads of Government must convene a special session to agree on the development strategy for the next decade. The agenda for this meeting must be free of perennial items such as cricket - sacrilegious as this might sound - and a Caricom passport. We must avoid paralysis by analysis and end the tendency to note work done and commission additional work.

To ensure effective implementation of the strategy, a new governance structure for Caricom is critical and, as we have said before, must involve a reorganisation of the Caricom Secretariat based on a management audit by a reputable firm. This, for obvious reasons, is not a task for officials from member states or former employees of the Caricom Secretariat.

EPA Conundrum

The EPA conundrum
ANTHONY GOMES

Jamaica Observer

Wednesday, May 21, 2008

There are strident calls for the Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA), due to be signed by Cariforum in July, to be amended, varied or simply not signed. Any possible renegotiation of the treaty, it is acknowledged, might come at a potentially intolerable cost. The strongest demand for change emanates from within the academic community that has raised certain valid issues, which should have been addressed earlier during the negotiations that officially ended on December 31, 2007.

The legal status of initialled EPAs, currently Cariforum's situation, is described by Dr Lorand Bartels, lecturer in International Law and Fellow of Trinity Hall, University of Cambridge. The following relevant excerpts are informative: "Under international law, initialling an agreement demonstrates that the text is authentic and definitive, ready for signature, or although unusual, ready for provisional application. But an initialled text does not itself impose any obligations on the parties. The parties to an agreement are only under an obligation to implement its terms once it has entered into force, which takes place upon ratification or after ratification, if this is specified in the treaty (as it is in the interim and full EPAs). On signature (but not on initialling), a country enters into an obligation not to defeat its object and purpose prior to its entry into force.

"Provisional application may subsequently be terminated by notifying the other party. However, terminating the provisional application of an agreement may indicate an intention not to ratify the agreement, which could result in the EU withdrawing the preferences it had already granted.

Therefore, if parties have concerns about content of the agreements, it may be advisable to refrain from provisional application until the dispute clauses are first revised". It is not known if Cariforum intends to apply the agreement provisionally, but the above caution is worthy of note.
"WTO law sets minimum requirements covering free trade in goods. It does not require the inclusion of liberalisation "multiplier" clauses, such as MFN or standstill clauses. Moreover, the WTO Transparency Decision specifically provides for the possibility of renegotiating an already notified agreement. This has been done on five occasions to date. The only requirements are that the renegotiated agreement be re-notified to the WTO and that it remain WTO legal. This leaves a great deal of scope for renegotiating aspects of the agreements which are not required for WTO legality (for example, the MFN clause and the standstill clauses could be removed without compromising WTO validity)."

According to this dictum, there is room for renegotiation of some aspects of the EPA, but at what price? However, the MFN clause is one of the major concerns for Cariforum and certain third countries, notably Brazil, that has already referred the issue to the WTO for debate.

Professor Bartels continues: "Arguably, it would be unreasonable to hold an ACP country to a standard higher than that which the EU member states apply in their own treaty practice. Consequently, there is a case that a minimum of four years between signature and ratification would be a "reasonable period of time" for an ACP country to endorse the agreement. ACP countries are not precluded by treaty law or WTO law from renegotiating initialled agreements, so long as the resulting agreement is still WTO legal."

This then is an avenue to be explored if COTED decides to move for selected amendments. The main thrust of the implementation plan, however, should be to exploit successfully the opportunities created by eventually signing the agreement.

Another concern raised by observers is the loss of sovereignty relative to the powers vested in the Joint Cariforum-EC Ministerial Council, the principal institution for oversight of the operation and implementation of the agreement. Its functions include examining proposals and recommendations for the review of the agreement. To attain the objectives of the agreement, the council shall have the power to take decisions in respect of all matters covered by the EPA. The specific reference to the council's powers relative to the EPA seems designed to exclude reference to the authority and jurisdiction of The Revised Treaty of Chaguaramus and the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ). It remains possible, however, that at some time these institutions could be opposed on certain unforeseen overlapping issues.

Other critical points cited were the limiting of Caricom's "policy space", that is the amount of flexibility available for manoeuvre in policy formulation by the Joint Council and its three other supporting institutions, that is, the Joint Cariforum-EC Implementation Committee, The Joint Cariforum-EC Development Committee and The Joint Cariforum-EC Consultative Committee.

Another criticism is the inadequate funding from the 10th European Development Fund (EDF), amounting to 2.2 million Euros per country for development/adjustment.Finally, the regional preference granted to the DR has also created some disquiet. In essence, any preference granted by one Caricom member to another must include the DR. This has created a very beneficial windfall for the DR that is still negotiating outstanding items in its trade agreement with Caricom.

We await the EPA Implementation Plan being developed by the Caricom Secretariat. Hopefully, it should indicate the way forward for Cariforum by unravelling the many complexities contained in this first ever treaty of indefinite duration, and selecting those items of concern for eventual review with the EC.

Guyana- Jamaica Rice Spat

Guyana - Jamaica Rice Spat

Source: Trinidad and Tobago Express

May 7, 2008

WHEN writing in this column two weeks ago on the scrambling by Caribbean Community governments to face up to the challenges of a deepening international food crisis, little did I realise that Jamaica and Guyana were heading for a serious row over Caricom's Common External Tariff (CET) as it relates to Guyanese rice shipments to the Jamaican market.

People in Trinidad and Tobago may be indulging in bantering over Agriculture Minister Arnold Piggott's surprise to hear that this country is also affected by a "food crisis''. Perhaps Piggott should have a chat with his boss, Prime Minister Patrick Manning, who is now seemingly anxious to release arable lands for increased food production.

For sure, Jamaica's threat to override Guyana's resistance to a standing 25 per cent suspension of the CET to enable it to import rice at more favourable prices from outside Caricom is no laughing matter.

Guyana has for years been and remains Caricom's single largest producer and exporter of rice for the regional market. Rice is one of the commodities protected by the CET against unauthorised imports from extra-regional competitors who benefit from significant subsidies at home.

Jamaica's Minister of Industry and Commerce, Karl Samuda, has warned that his government would not sit idly while Guyana defaults on rice shipments to his country (some 52,000 tonnes were shipped in 2007), and especially since the commodity could be obtained on a dependable basis at lower prices from non-regional sources.

Competitive sources for subsidised rice exports to this region have largely been the US and Thailand against which Caricom producers like Guyana and Suriname cannot afford to compete. Hence, the protection of the CET as a mechanism to prevent unfair competition to the detriment of a local industry.

Trinidad and Tobago, now reportedly again contemplating the possibility of commercial rice production, has recorded its own past failures to get a waiver of the CET to permit importation from extra-regional exporters of parboiled rice normally purchased from Guyana.

In the circumstances, it is difficult to see how Caricom's Council for Trade and Economic Development (COTED), the body that maintains oversight on the application of the CET, can possibly allow Jamaica's quest for a suspension.

Guyana's Agriculture Minister, Robert Persaud, has already publicly signalled to Minister Samuda that his country was certainly in no mood to endorse the suspension of the CET.

This, Persaud contends, would be to consciously work against "not only our own national interest in a very vital sector, but also undermine the very mechanism, the CET, we have established in the wider interest of the economies of Caricom...''

Strong stand indeed. The Guyanese minister must also be aware that just recently Trinidad Cement Ltd (TCL), with production operations also in Guyana, has found it necessary to refer to the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) a dispute it has with the Guyana government for an alleged failure to impose the CET against non-Caricom suppliers of cement for the local market.

Guyana has accused TCL of having defaulted on arrangements to satisfy the demands of the local market, Consequently, it has decided to defend the legal action to be pursued by TCL before the CCJ.

For its part, Jamaica has also been claiming defaults in rice shipments from Guyana. The Guyanese private sector - producers and exporters - as well as the government, have denied this claim. They have countered that Jamaica was engaged in "misrepresentations'' in order to secure sources of foreign rice supplies at prices disadvantageous to Guyana's rice industry and national economy.

This latest spat over rice shipments between Guyana and Jamaica is expected to engage the attention of COTED.

Parties to any trade dispute pertaining to the functioning of the CET under the revised Caricom Treaty are free to access the CCJ, if dissatisfied with a decision by COTED. The CCJ has original jurisdiction on trade disputes within Caricom and its ruling is binding.

Article 83 of the Caricom Treaty makes clear that the criteria for a suspension of the CET has nothing to do with comparative prices for a foreign sourced commodity but its availability, as required, and approved quality of the Caricom product.

Whatever the outcome of this "rice spat'' it is simply one aspect of widening pressures being experienced by the region's economic integration movement and generated by the escalating worldwide food crisis.

History of West Indian Federation Effort

Remembering a four-year exercise in futility
KEEBLE McFARLANE
Saturday, April 26, 2008
Source- Jamaica Observer

To many of us who were around at the time, it seemed like a great idea - all the British colonies in the Caribbean region banding together in a federation, the better to chart their future. After all, isn't unity more desirable than operating separately? Aren't some of the most successful countries in the world federations? Wouldn't we be able to have much more clout in the world with a unified voice rather than as a collection of micro-states? Wouldn't our economic affairs be much more efficient?

Well, 50 years ago this week, it happened - the Parliament of the Federation of the West Indies was inaugurated in Port of Spain with Princess Margaret representing the Queen.

The federation came into being on January 3, 1958, and an election was held on March 25. The West Indies Federal Labour Party, made up of Norman Manley's PNP, Eric Williams's PNM and the urban-based parties in the eight other islands handily won the election, with the Democratic Labour Party, led by Bustamante's JLP and the rural-based parties throughout the islands, as the much smaller Opposition. Grantley Adams of Barbados was the first (and only) prime minister, and Britain sent out a career Conservative politician, Patrick Buchan-Hepburn, to serve as governor-general. He was a baron, and we knew him as Lord Hailes.

The idea of a federation of the British Caribbean territories was not a new one - it had been kicked around for years. The first serious consideration, though, took place at a conference in Montego Bay in 1947. It was attended by delegates from Barbados, British Guiana, British Honduras, the Leeward Islands, Trinidad and Tobago, and the Windward Islands. The conference voted to accept the principle of political federation and struck a committee to examine the possibilities and to draft a constitution. The committee submitted its report to a second conference held in London, and it was circulated to all the legislatures for their consideration.

With some reservations, all the legislatures, except those of British Guiana, British Honduras and the British Virgin Islands, accepted it. The final decision on federation came out of a third conference in London in 1956. It left open the possibility of the reluctant territories to join later. After that came prolonged and difficult discussions about where the capital should be situated. They chose Chaguaramas in Trinidad, but that didn't work since the US had a naval base there. The idea was soon abandoned and Port of Spain stood in as the capital.

One Commonwealth country which showed considerable interest in the new federation was Canada, which itself began as a confederation of former colonies with large tracts of unknown territories added later. It contributed two merchant ships, the Federal Palm and the Federal Maple, which visited all the islands twice a month. When the federation was dissolved not long after it was born, the ships continued their rounds for a while, then seemed to disappear without a trace.

Despite the good intentions and the efforts of many, the federation was doomed from the start. For one thing, the constituent territories had each developed in its own way, with varying degrees of cooperation commingled with large dollops of suspicion and insularity. Jamaica, the biggest territory by far, and separated from the eastern string by 1500 kilometres of water, was the most suspicious. Its leaders, Manley and Bustamante, did not personally enter federal politics, and Trinidad's Eric Williams stayed away as well.

In addition, the British created a weak government structure, with the governor general having executive, rather than mere ceremonial powers. Money was a serious problem - the budgets of Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago were both larger than the federal budget, and all the territories remained as separate entities, able, for instance, to hide behind tariff walls against other members of the federation. Contrast this with the present-day European Community, which has a high degree of cooperation and commonality.

The differences and divisions very quickly began to fester, and by 1960 the JLP began agitating against the federation. Bustamante and his cohorts kept the heat on, and in 1961 Manley asked his compatriots for their opinion. The campaign was a contrast between the concepts of the two parties. Manley and the PNP discussed the merits of joining with others to work towards the goal of eventual independence, which he had promoted from his first entry into politics in the late 1930s. Bustamante and the JLP, on the other hand, appealed to the basic concerns of the poor - "Can you eat federation?" In the end, it was no contest - the "No" side won a decisive 54 per cent in the referendum on September 19, 1961. The event was special for me, as I served as a presiding officer at a polling station located at my home.

Britain had proposed in 1961 that the federation should become independent the next year, but the idea was now moot. The vote was followed by a flurry of talks among the leaders of the remaining territories, but these soon came to naught, and Williams was strongly re-elected in December of that year. He declared that "ten minus one is nought", and followed Jamaica's lead in going it alone. Formal independence came to both countries in August of 1962, and the others were left to fend for themselves.

About the only solid regional entity remaining is the university, which had been set up long before all this anyway. The cricket team had long preceded the federation, and all the endeavours since then, such as Caricom, have come up against the same insular attitudes and distrust. The Caribbean Court of Justice is a perfectly logical and intelligent idea, but, as we have witnessed, it has been having a very difficult time getting airborne. Part of the unease among Jamaicans in this regard can be attributed to the underlying suspicion that this could be a form of federation by the back door. When I first went to Toronto and began working for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, I met an older editor who had been correspondent in Bonn and London.

He used to joke that the Secretary of State for the Colonies of the day, Duncan Sandys, had the habit of inviting colonial leaders to London and locking them in a room until they agreed to form a federation. Several were formed, including the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, the East African Federation (Kenya, Uganda and Tanganyika). The only one of note to have survived is Malaysia, after Singapore seceded soon after it began.
keeble.mack@sympatico.ca

Let the People Decide

Jamaicans will decide on regional integration, says PM

Source: Caribbean Net News
Published on Friday, April 11, 2008

Print Version

KINGSTON, Jamaica (OPM):

Prime Minister Bruce Golding said only the people of Jamaica can decide if the country should enter into a unified political structure with the rest of the region. His comments were made on Tuesday, during a courtesy call at Jamaica House by Stuart Jack, Governor of the Cayman Islands.

In responding to a question from Jack about the pace of Caribbean integration, Golding said there is a limit to which any region can integrate without having a political structure. He said however that the decision as to how that political structure will derive its legitimate authority rests ultimately with the people of the region.

Jamaica's Prime Minister Bruce Golding. JIS Photo"If we are going to invest in a sovereign authority, only the people can decide," Golding stated. He said the process of integration has been moving along very slowly, especially with regards to the free movement of skilled nationals. He said Jamaica is the only country where the system seems to have worked, adding that a lack of capacity may be one of the reasons it has not worked in others.

He cited the Economic Partnership Agreement and the staging of Cricket World Cup in 2007 as examples of how regional cooperation has worked. He said much more could be achieved especially in the area of security. Turning to US/Caribbean relations, Golding said there is a feeling that the United States has been distracted from its interest in the region by events unfolding in emerging democracies, as well as the war in Iraq.

He said it is hoped that there will be an enlightened approach to the region as a whole and not just towards Cuba, where there was a recent change in leadership. Golding expressed the view that Cuba should be brought into the mainstream of the international fold as there are structures within the United Nations to deal with contending issues. He said now was the time for the region to hold hands and engage in deeper collaboration, as there was enough wealth that could be generated for all countries. He said Jamaica will be seeking to expand its cooperation with Cuba outside of those areas in which both countries are already engaged.