– dilemma linked to a wanted Jamaican and ‘credibility’
Analysis
JAMAICA’S  Opposition People’s National Party yesterday tabled in parliament their expected motion of ‘no confidence’ in Prime Minister Bruce Golding for his confessed role in seeking to avoid the extradition to the USA of the controversial ‘don’ of Tivoli Gardens, Christopher ‘Dudus’ Coke, for alleged trafficking in drugs and guns. At the time of writing, former Attorney General in the last PNP
administration, A. J. Nicholson, said to me that “desirable as it is”, he could not be sure whether the debate on the motion would have started yesterday afternoon.

The motion was specific in its identification of Golding, as distinct from a general expression of no confidence in the Jamaica Labour Party administration he leads.

But success of the motion’s passage would require support from some government MPs in the 60-member House of Representatives in which the JLP has a majority of four – one of whom is the Speaker.

Nor has disagreements among JLP parliamentarians over Golding’s role been discerned to be strong enough to support the opposition’s motion. Particularly since its approval would have the effect of a no confidence vote against the government as a whole.

The no confidence motion is clearly a standard but legitimate political initiative by a parliamentary opposition to score an advantage against the government.

Rarely in our Community, however, has such a political bouncer had to be bowled at a ‘wicket’ as poorly and  embarrassingly defended by the ‘captain’ himself.

And with almost 100 Jamaicans killed by security forces in a hunt for ‘don’ Dudus in his Tivoli Gardens fortress and other garrison communities, what until now has largely been discussed
in terms of a “Jamaican problem” with the United States, is beginning to widen into an issue that could well involve the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) in general.

WIDER PROBLEM

This anticipated wider development of the Dudus/Golding dilemma with ‘Uncle Sam’ at the centre, likely reaching CARICOM’s door, is currently being discussed by some government leaders and officials of the 15-member Community.

They are grappling with the tenuous difference of having to show solidarity with a fellow Head of Government under enormous pressures at home and from Washington, without appearing
to sanction known political interference in a very sensitive judicial case involving  an alleged drug baron and a foreign government.

The venue for such an unsettling scenario, while legal battles continue in Kingston over Washington’s requested extradition of Coke, is the forthcoming annual Heads of Government Conference of CARICOM, scheduled for the first week in July in Montego Bay.

Current thinking among some Community leaders – not including the new “People’s Partnership” government settling down in Port-of-Spain is that even if open expressions of ‘solidarity’ with Prime Minister Golding is carefully avoided at this stage, there remains the reality that once he hosts the summit he assumes chairmanship of CARICOM.

Therein lies the rub: The reasoning, as it goes and perhaps deficient, is that a hitherto ‘Jamaica problem’, one involving a credibility factor in leadership, will extend to that of a CARICOM ‘problem’ when the Jamaican leader also becomes Chairman of the Caribbean Community.

It is felt by some regional politicians and officials that perhaps a practical way to avoid such a dilemma developing at this phase of murky politicking in Jamaica, is for the incoming Prime Ministerial host of the scheduled CARICOM summit in Montego Bay to recommend an alternative venue.

HAITI TO MONTEGO BAY

When Mr. Golding generously consented – consistent with his own known strong commitment to CARICOM – to host the July summit after Haiti’s President Rene Preval (the original host) could no longer do so in view of the massive earthquake disaster of last January, he had no idea of being so entangled by the prevailing political dilemma.
The big question, therefore, is: Which CARICOM government would be willing to host, within five weeks, the scheduled annual summit which is normally preceded with a series of technical and ministerial meetings?

Since Guyana was host of the 30th regular summit in July 2009, only two countries, with required facilities and personnel resources, could possibly volunteer, at this late stage, to host the 31st summit – Barbados and Trinidad and Tobago.

Considering the personal health problem of Prime Minister David Thompson and his declining workload as advised by doctors, it is most unlikely that his government would be disposed for Barbados to host the summit.

That leaves Trinidad and Tobago as the obvious other alternative.

The government of Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar may, however, quite reasonably plead that it is yet to get a firm grip even on pressing domestic issues.

One Head of Government, speaking off the record, feels that if it’s not feasible  to shift the summit venue away from Montego Bay, then another alternative would, ironically, depend on Prime Minister Golding himself:

He can make the magnanimous gesture, the reasoning goes, of not accepting the chairmanship of the 31st CARICOM Summit but still have his government remain host for  the event.

That may be a big price to pay for CARICOM by an embattled Prime Minister struggling to survive the differing agenda and manoeuvres of Washington as well as his domestic opponents, starting with the PNP’s no confidence motion against him.