By G. A. Dwyer Astaphan
.jpg)
There seems to come a time in the affairs of every developing country when its citizens start to develop a sense of deep concern and insecurity with regard to foreigners coming in and taking up jobs and doing business.
At least, that has been the Caribbean experience in modern times.
We know that the history of the Caribbean is punctuated by migration.
And we are essentially a region of immigrants, most of who have their roots in slavery or indenture.
In addition to the inward migration, there has been much internal (intra-regional) migration, with workers (especially) moving from territories of lesser, to territories of greater, opportunity.
This movement of workers has served, not only to assist with manpower resources and economic development in the already better-performing territories, but also to relieve the social, economic and political pressure in the under-performing home territories of the immigrants.
Major regional recipients of migrants over the past 100 years or so have been Panama, Cuba, and the Dominican Republic ( earlier on), and Trinidad, Puerto Rico, the USVI, the BVI, St. Maarten, Anguilla, Antigua, Barbados, St. Lucia, St.Kitts & Nevis and the Cayman Islands (more latterly).
And, of course, over the past 60 years or so, there has also been a mass exodus to the United Kingdom, France, Holland, the USA and Canada, in search of a better life.
However, over the years, as it became more difficult for Caribbean people to migrate to Europe, North America and the US and UK Virgin Islands (and St. Maarten seems to be tightening up too), greater pressure has been exerted on the failing Caribbean economies to stay afloat and avert disaster and on the better-performing Caribbean economies to receive migrants from their under-performing counterparts.
And let us not forget the relatively recent matter of the large number of deportees from the USA, a number which is likely to increase under President Obama.
We should note that the larger their number, the more difficult it is going to be for them to assimilate into societies of which they know little. So there will be an increased risk of them engaging in criminal activity, thus exacerbating an already awful crime situation in those countries. This will only further drive frightened law-abiding citizens to find an exit route, and it will create even more pressure on the better performing Caribbean territories.
In fact, this pressure has already become institutionalized within the framework of the CARICOM arrangements which, inter alia, are intent upon merging all of the economies into a single one that allows free movement of capital and labour.
Interestingly, however, as I write this piece I am unable to recall any CARICOM member state having a referendum for its people to decide upon these matters of free movement. Maybe it has happened, but right now I cannot recall it.
Instead, what has happened is that leaders and some experts have been declaring that their proposed single economic space with free movement of capital and labour is the only salvation for the region.
Especially leaders of countries which, because of their own chronic under-performance, rely on their citizens’ ability to migrate in order to help avert further instability and chaos at home.
But here is a question.
If the people could enjoy better economic, social and political circumstances at home, wouldn’t less of them want to migrate? After all, home is home!
So would it not be better for all concerned if, in addition to better leadership coming from governments and other stakeholder groups in countries like Haiti, The Dominican Republic, Jamaica and Guyana, there could be a special, sensible and compassionate effort by the region, by the various international institutions and by the G-8 countries to transform and stabilize those four larger Caribbean nations instead of emptying them of their populations which they would desperately need in order to recover, grow and stabilize?
Would it not be fairer if smaller, better governed and better performing, but also very fragile and vulnerable countries such as Antigua & Barbuda, Barbados, St. Lucia and St.Kitts & Nevis were not put under all of this pressure of having to take up burdens on their physical and social infrastructures, created in no small measure by mismanagement in, and in relation to, the larger countries of the region?
How can free movement of capital and labour be beneficial to these smaller islands in the prevailing conditions of the region?
Is it not better to be supportive of movement, but only on a managed basis, as Barbados’ Prime Minister, David Thompson, is advocating?
Already Antiguans, St. Lucians, and Kittitians and Nevisians, like Barbadians, are developing anger and resentment over their perception that jobs and other opportunities in the lands of their birth are being taken away from them by foreigners.
Already they are saying that politicians, having lost the goodwill of many citizens, are courting CARICOM immigrants and using them, where their numbers are critical (and it does not take a lot in a small place), in order to get, or to hold on to, power.
Already many people in these smaller islands have begun to feel cheated.
For example, Kittitians are very upset at the thought of themselves, their relatives or friends, being laid off from their jobs, or even unable to get jobs, while they see foreigners, both from CARICOM countries and beyond, ‘making a bread’ here in St.Kitts doing the same or similar jobs.
They are fuming mad when they see foreigners who are studying at universities here in St.Kitts holding down jobs, and getting away with, with or without work permits, while they, the locals, go unemployed.
And speaking of foreign students, happy as we all are to have them, and we want more of them to come, many, many homeowners who depend on the rents from these students to maintain their mortgages are expressing deep concern over the fact that local hotels at Frigate Bay have opened up their rooms to students on long-term rentals, thereby depriving the homeowners of critical rental income.
The homeowners understand the economic crunch, and they want the hotels to remain open, but they feel exposed and vulnerable. And they want explanations and assurances. They feel that without guidance, they could lose their homes, and a crisis could develop.
But let me go back to the CARICOM thing.
While free movement of labour is of concern, so too is the matter of free movement of capital, and what is referred to as “rights of settlement” whereby a business from any country can essentially set up shop in any other country, and do so on an equal footing with a local company.
This could be a formula for death and destruction for enterprises in the smaller islands, especially smaller enterprises, because not only will they be unable to compete in their own countries, but they feel that they cannot, and will not, get a fair shot at the market in Trinidad, Jamaica and so on.
CARICOM’s dream is at risk of turning turn into a nightmare for the smaller countries, and on its present path, it can create a level playing field, yes, but a level playing field of losers, bringing down surging, smaller countries to the level of the rest.
The people and the businesses in the smaller Caribbean territories are under a lot of pressure. And it seems that they cannot take much more.
And quite apart from CARICOM, we see local businesses in some of these small countries already acing collapse, as developers and others from outside of the region move in and crowd them out of a living.
Let us look, for example, at the heavy equipment business in St. Kitts.
At least one provider has a ‘for sale’ sign on some of his equipment.
He and his colleagues are being put to a disadvantage, because whereas they have to pay duty on their equipment and spare parts, the developers do not. This inequity renders our locals uncompetitive, and such an arrangement is simply untenable, especially in a man’s own country.
The developers bring in their equipment, they retool when necessary( duty free, of course),and they also bring in operators, which further deprives local operators from getting work and it also discourages young locals from becoming operators.
So what ought to be a situation of growth opportunity for locals with these developments is turning out to be quite the opposite, as locals are blocked out of the action, whether as contractors, (or sub-contractors) or as operators, mechanics, etc.
It is also reported that developers sometimes bring in somewhat defective equipment, upgrade it with duty free parts, and after some use, send it back home (where duty free concessions are not available) in an improved condition and with a higher value.
It seems to be that the prudent and fair thing for Government to do is to revisit its policy and also the arrangements governing all present projects which utilize heavy equipment, in order to give our local businesses a chance to stay afloat, and in order to keep the sector strong and to maximize economic and social local value added from these projects.
The developers would pay less, and the locals would earn, and learn, more.
Indeed, as a general principle, when developers engage our government in talks, they should always be told that certain aspects of the works must be reserved for locals.
In my opinion, and I am not xenophobic or in any way bigoted, there are too many businesses being conducted by foreigners that can and should be reserved for locals.
As a proud, little developing country, we have to ensure that our people, who are our major investment and our major hope, are empowered in the process of designing and building the new economy.
If it is not to be that way, then why are we wasting time educating and nurturing our children?
Because they will not get their fair chance at jobs and as entrepreneurs in the land of their birth.
The people of this country are now at the stage where they are deeply concerned about these things. And that is not a good thing. Positive action is required.
Until Next Time, Plenty Peace.
