Earl Best comments on the
post-Olympics drugs controversy

Carl Lewis

Trinidad and Tobago could find itself in the sporting headlines for all the wrong reasons when Usain Bolt comes here for the inaugural Caribbean Games next year.  If we do, we may well have multi-Olympic medallist Carl Lewis to thank for it. When the 22-year-old Jamaican sprinter whipped the field in the 200m final in Beijing, he eclipsed former American athletic superstar Michael Johnson’s 19.32 world mark which many were confident would last for many decades more.  But Johnson was not the only American left in the shadows. ‘Lightning’ Bolt, winner of the 100m a week earlier, became only the ninth man to do the rare sprint double in a single Olympics and the first since Lewis had completed the feat in Los Angeles in 1984. The 6’5” sprinter from Trelawny had done more than his five predecessors; he had claimed world records in both the short sprint and the half-lap sprint and that did not seem to go down well with all eight of those who had preceded him along that road.
One, Lewis, who had for years reigned supreme among sprinters, was belatedly and briefly implicated in a mini-scandal when a dismissed IOC member claimed that the USOC should have prevented him from competing in Seoul because of a failed drug test.  Never durably tainted by the drug scandals proliferating around his sport, though, the American icon has long been an outspoken and articulate spokesman on the problem of drugs in sport. He has seemed comfortable with his place in Athletics and Olympics history, the nine gold medals which he owns ensuring that that place is lasting.
In August, however, Bolt’s performances made the Daily Telegraph’s list of the ten of the most exciting moments in Olympic history while no Lewis showing figured in the count. Coincidence or not, the 46-year-old ex-sprinter/long jumper, whom the International Olympic Committee selected as its Athlete of the Century, seemed less secure about his place in history and opted, in my view, to blot his copybook. He forgot the old adage about saying nothing if you have nothing good to say. Bolt’s success, he declared to general surprise, is attributable to the absence of a serious random anti-drug programme in Jamaica and it’s therefore only a matter of time, he implied, before the 23-year-old star and his compatriots are all exposed for the cheats they are.
“No one is accusing anyone,” Lewis told Sports Illustrated. “But don’t live by a different rule and expect the same kind of respect. They (Jamaican track officials) say, ‘Oh, we’ve been great for the sport.’ No, you have not. No country has had that kind of dominance. I’m not saying they’ve done anything for certain. I don’t know. But how dare anybody feel that there shouldn’t be scrutiny, especially in our sport?”
“The reality is that if I were running now and had the performances I had in my past, I would expect them to say something. I wouldn’t even be offended at the question. So when people ask me about Bolt, I say he could be the greatest athlete of all time. But for someone to run 10.03 one year and 9.69 the next, if you don’t question that in a sport that has the reputation it has right now, you’re a fool. Period.”
To be fair, suggesting that it was out of an abundance of caution that he was raising the red flag, Lewis also acknowledged the existence of a drug problem in America - if only en passant.
“Let’s be real,” he said. “Let me go through the list: Ben Johnson, Justin Gatlin, Tim Montgomery, Tyson Gay and the two Jamaicans. Six people have run under 9.80 legally, three have tested positive, and one had a year out.”
“Not to say [Bolt] is doing anything, but he’s not going to have me saying he’s great and then two years later he gets popped. If I don’t trust it, what does the public think?”
The answer is that the public does not seem to agree with Lewis. Since his comments were first made public almost a month ago, there has been precious little public support for his claims. In fact, much of the reaction has suggested that Lewis’ analysis flies in the face of the facts. From the flippant explanation offered by Bolt’s father Wellesley, who says that a Jamaican yam is the secret of his son’s success, to the detailed responses provided by IOC as well as Jamaican officials, everything leaves Lewis out on a limb.
Speaking before the Games about the fact that his country did not have an independent anti-doping agency, the Jamaican team’s chief medical officer, Herb Elliott, declared that he was paying no attention to the rumours because “Usain has been tested over and over again.”

Usain Bolt

Chef de mission, Don Anderson, added that the team had endured an “extremely unusual” number of drug tests in Beijing, having been tested 32 times in five days. He went on to address himself directly to those who had doubts about the legality of what has been happening with their athletes.
“I say to them to come down, come down and see our programme,” he challenged, “come down and see our testing and see how we operate.”
Communications Director of the International Association of Athletics Federations, Nick Davies, confirmed that the Jamaicans were being tested a lot and explained why. “We have target groups and we look at the top people. It’s not about doubt. It’s more about insurance.”
“We test the top athletes and we test them a lot. If these are the people producing the best performances, they’re the ones tested.”
Davies was fulsome in his praise of the young track star, calling him “the new hero the sport has been looking for.” It does not seem like an exaggeration. The Bird’s Nest lustily serenaded Bolt on his birthday and showed their clear appreciation for his repeated pre- and post-race antics. More importantly, perhaps, respected commentators have said that they fully expect that Bolt will over time improve on his already impressive world records. His current coach, Clyde Mills, told reporters that his charge is “an athlete with a tremendous range” and he has always felt as his coach that he is likely to be “equally effective at the 400 metres.” Clyde Hart, the man credited with conditioning Michael Johnson to capture his two world records, has said that he thinks that Bolt has the wherewithal to shatter the current 400m mark, the 43.18 posted by Johnson in Seville in 1999. With the right handling, Hart speculates, ‘Lightning’ can complete the one-lap sprint in less than 43 seconds.

Providing colour commentary on television during the Beijing Olympics, Johnson had gone to great lengths to explain why he thought his record would still be intact at the end of 200m final. Conceding that Bolt “has incredible leg speed and a long stride,” he noted that “that combination is deadly, but the 200 metres has another element, which is speed endurance. What we don’t know is how long he can hold that speed.”
Likewise noting that much more than physical ability was needed to excel at the one-lap distance, Hart did not repeat his charge’s “speed endurance” term. But he pointed out that in his view Johnson, too, had had the potential to break the 43-second barrier but had never done so. He explained that the former world record holder had shown little real interest in making an attempt on the world mark “until he was well on into his career.” Bolt, in contrast, is at the start of his career and is already aware of his tremendous potential. However, Bolt, who clocked 45.35 as an 18 year-old in 2003, has merely been running the longest of the sprints as part of his strength training for the 200m; last year, he posted a personal best 45.28 seconds over the distance. Still Hart, who also guided Jeremy Wariner to 400m gold in the 2004 Olympics, is confident that the current 100m and 200m record holder can outperform all his predecessors in the quarter-mile event.
“Yes, I think certainly if he (Bolt) had the right programme, with his speed, he could run under 43 seconds,” he said last month. “When we talk about potential, I always use a formula. You double a person’s best 200m and add 3.5 to it and that should give you what you are able to run in the 400 metres. If they have the work ethic, motivation and all the condition to go with it, you could see that Bolt would be running in the 42s.”

Should that ever happen, it would be completely without precedent. Bolt’s compatriot Don Quarrie once held the 100m and the 200m world record at one and the same time and Johnson was the holder of both the world records for the 200m (the 19.32 he set in Atlanta in 1996) and the 400m. But no one has ever been able to go one better and get atop the world in all three of the sprints from 100m to 400m. No one has even had the gall to contemplate it publicly – until now. And the thought of it being achieved might have been enough to disturb the composure of the great Carl Lewis. And loosen his tongue to a degree that he might still rue one of these days.
And it is probably merely the fact that Lewis lives in cricket-shy America that stopped him from catapulting the story back into the news a couple of weeks ago. That was when another Jamaican sportsman, talented West Indies opening batsman Xavier Marshall, was revealed to have used drugs and was summarily cut from the Stanford Superstars team selected to face England in a US$20m Twenty20 fixture in Antigua on November 1. Marshall’s infraction is unlikely to have involved performance-enhancing drugs and is even less likely to have been widely reported in the USA. But I for one would not have been entirely surprised if Lewis had seized the opportunity to finish the job he had started. Given his apparent determination to protect his place in history, I doubt whether Carl  would have had any qualms about hanging the dog to whom he had attempted, albeit not very successfully, to give such a bad name.

Ashford Jackman
mulls over T&T football

Francisco Maturana

Quick! What do Superblue and the late Sir Alf Ramsey have in common? Give up? Shame on you! The answer is easy… if your mind is open.  For the host country, the old English football scribes have always maintained, winning the 1966 World Cup was both a blessing and a curse.  The success of Ramsey and his 4-4-2 formation led almost as an immediate consequence to the elimination of wing play in British football. Think now of the Soca industry and the mega success of Arrow’s “Long Time,” (“Long time we eh fete like dis”) better known as “Raise yuh han’ if yuh want to jam,” and its successor, Superblue’s “Get Something an’ Wave.” Think of the lyrics about waving that have stuck like a pox on all our so-called Soca artistes for the last decade and a half. Get my drift now? The recent World Cup setbacks suffered by Jamaica and T&T and the responses of the authorities to them make me think that, like Superblue and Sir Alf, the successes of Leo Beenhakker and Rene Simoes are having an unhealthy effect on the game in the region’s two leading football-playing nations.
Jamaica is virtually out of the running for South Africa 2010, and Simoes, the darling of the 1997 qualifying triumph, has been unceremoniously dumped, replaced – temporarily – by the icon of the France ’98 side, Theodore Whitmore. With T&T teetering on the brink, Special Adviser Jack Warner has called up the brightest star of the 2006 Soca Warriors, Russell Latapy as aide to Francisco Maturana. Europe’s most successful managers like Jose Mourinho and Arsene Wenger would amount to nothing given these conditions - tons of talent but an almost complete absence of professionalism and a deadline for producing results that would put Sir Alec to flight. Nevertheless, the TTFF (read there’s-nothing-that-money-can’t-buy Warner) is quick to hire and even quicker on the chop. So it is not unreasonable to assume that if T&T were to crash like Jamaica, it would be Adiós, Francisco. Who, indeed, would disagree with the view that Latapy’s sudden appointment as player/assistant coach is arguably the most naked sword ever brandished at any national team coach in the nation’s 100-year football history?
Eight months in, a couple of adverse results and here we go again. But don’t think for a minute that I am defending the incumbent.; Maturana’s erratic chopping and changing has played no small part in the present crisis, and maybe in both cases (in Port of Spain and in Kingston) change is justified. My concern is that replacing the Colombian is the extent of the change that we are likely to see. It is this that fuels my conviction that ultimately Don Leo and Professor Simoes may have done us all as much harm as good. The taste of success they gave us seems to have quashed all considerations of meaningfully addressing the deep-lying issues plaguing the game, convinced as the authorities and even much of the public appear to be that foreign coaches are the instant cure-alls for the ills afflicting the national sport.
Such reasoning flies in the face of the most telling evidence, both the long and short-term results. It is undisputable that under Englishman Kevin Verity, T&T were cheated out of a place in West Germany 1974. But in the quarter-century since the tenure of Dutchman Jan Zwartkruis to the incumbent, has our football improved? Are we at least holding our ground or was 2006 no more than a flash in the pan? What makes “foreign” so clearly superior when, in the 34 years since Haiti, the only coach other than Beenhakker who came close to touching football’s Holy Grail was son-of-the-soil Everald ‘Gally’ Cummings? Some may argue that the selection of Latapy, who is, in more ways than just football, Trini to the bone defeats my argument; but can anyone confidently say the “Little Magician” is the successor-in-waiting? Or has Special Adviser Jack merely dangled the title of “Assistant Coach” before the 40-year-old’s eyes to coax him onto the field again in the hope that he will once more galvanise an ordinary lot into playing above themselves?
Whatever the intent, the present scenario in CONCACAF World Cup Qualifying reinforces my view that the real problems run far deeper under the troubled surface than can be reached by any amount of oil poured on the top. The current standings brutally reflect a grim picture of the region’s football being left in the wake of the Confederation’s giants. After three rounds, Trinidad and Tobago and Cuba occupy the nethermost positions in Group A; in Group B, Jamaica also lies dead last and in Group C, Suriname and Haiti are also bottom of the heap. Four of those five surviving Caribbean nations have just one point each; T&T have four, but three of them were earned, with the win over Cuba in Havana, at the expense of another regional side.
Now compare, if you will, the present squad, replete with European-based professionals, to the all-amateur unit of two decades ago. The latter drew at home and away with Honduras, beat Guatemala here and on the road, held Costa Rica at home, drew and won against El Salvador and took a point from the U.S. in California. Succeeding troops, hardened in the cauldron of “foreign” where, handled by an assortment of Europeans and South Americans of varying pedigree, they earn their livelihood, have never approached such levels of either achievement or consistency.

What further evidence that nothing durable was built on the 1988-89 platform does one need but the recurring recall to active duty on the field of play of the two youngest players from that squad of 19 years ago? The sum of Dwight Yorke’s and Latapy’s ages is almost 77; arguably, the pair present a greater challenge to our foes than many, perhaps even any of the younger crop. Small wonder, then, that once again crisis beckons; the victuals for dinner continue to fall short of required standards and the master keeps changing the cook, leaving conditions in the kitchen intact.

Between the Bahrain victory in 2005 and the present, little if anything was done to identify and nurture a pool of competent replacements for the ageing legs that did us so proud in Germany. Neither was any programme developed to bring the fitness and technical skill levels of the local players in line with those of their foreign-based counterparts. The TTFF seemed more concerned in the interim with other agendas: the blacklisting of “greedy” players following the World Cup and the sacking of Rijsbergen after he had started the rebuilding process. Both actions seriously undermined the foundation work already done. Having fallen into the deep hole they had dug, what did the Federation and its Adviser do? First they exhumed yet another inactive foreign coach, then they massaged Yorke’s ego yet again to coax him into accepting the captain’s armband, and finally they have lured Latapy onto the bandwagon with the carrot of a National Coach tag down the road. We can now be confident that, come year’s end, Father Christmas will drop another World Cup berth down the TTFF chimney just like that.
But the TTFF may have overplayed the hand. Vital points were thrown away by Maturana’s failure to have his team shut the game down after taking a late lead against Guatemala; by his consigning Dennis Lawrence to the bench when playing away to an American team that attacks best in the air and by his decision to omit an in-form Chris Birchall entirely, leaving himself no real alternative should Yorke be injured - or unavailable for any reason. Which self-respecting coach willingly goes into a multi-match situation without adequate cover for key roles? To a team with such an aversion to marking as T&T, a ball-winning, holding midfielder is critical; yet the Colombian showed more faith in rookies Clyde Leon and Osei Telesford as back-up for Dwight than in the tried and proven Birchall. Sadly, the ensuing verbal exchange between the “clown” Jack Warner and Sunderland boss Roy Keane, who prematurely ordered Yorke back to England, merely served to deflect attention away from Maturana’s strategic blunder.
Indeed, whatever the pressures he might have faced at the start of his tenure, six to seven months in charge was sufficient time for the Colombian to have assessed both his player options and the trustworthiness of his advisors. Yet, three former players (Angus Eve, Shaka Hislop and Clayton Morris) had cause to publicly lament his defensive approach that allowed the Americans to completely dominate the game in Chicago. Beenhakker also habitually took a negative view of T&T’s ability to attack worthy opponents but at least his methods eventually took us to Germany and a better-than-honourable draw with Sweden. I seriously doubt that I am alone in my scepticism that Floormaturana will get us even close to South Africa.
In Chicago, for instance, Cornel Glen’s pace and ability in one-on-one situations were negated by his being left alone up front, more a diversion than a threat to the Americans. There are men who can play that demanding role, Kenwyne Jones for one, perhaps in the near future young Jamal Gay. Glen, however, is not of that ilk. Ironically, Maturana’s decision to drop Stern John was not, in my view, a bad one; the team can ill afford a player who has a notoriously poor work rate yet fails to put away many of the rare chances that come his way. Still out of form at Southampton, Stern owes his recall, one suspects, to advice other than Maturana’s.
Other mysteries exist. Does Maturana, for instance, not see that so long as Cyd Gray plays his normal game at right back, Carlos Edwards’ effectiveness as a flank midfielder will be undermined? Under Englishman Terry Fenwick at Jabloteh, Gray plays as he has been trained to, bang the ball into the opposing penalty area. For him the short pass is not a real option, even if Edwards is available and eminently capable of working with the ball to create space for others. Such errors of perception only serve to reinforce the point that even a man who has managed great teams with the likes of Carlos Valderrama and Faustino Asprilla may not be able to get the best out of gifted but clearly untrained troops. Unless we expect a cordon bleu chef to transform rice and peas into a gourmet experience overnight, we cannot reasonably expect foreign coaches to convert our raw talents into world-class professionals overnight. Bringing big-name national coaches before implementing development programmes is simply putting the cart before the horse. It is what local football icon Leroy De Leon meant when he suggested recently that we should forget qualifying this time around and look to develop our young players.
Meanwhile, the ball remains simultaneously at the feet of Jack, Maturana and Anton Corneal, the jefes now calling the shots and having their shots called for this outfit. And if Latapy’s approach to coaching in any way mirrors the style of his play, then to give him any real authority right now would be not so much to believe in the “Little Magician” as to believe in sheer magic.
So the horizon looks bleak and the current public dismay and despair seem well-founded. Though Trinbagonians may forget the past or misinterpret it, they know trouble when they see it. Beenhakker’s achievement is indelibly written into our football history but, looked at dispassionately, it is clear that a happy conjuncture allowed it to happen. It was achieved when FIFA afforded the CONCACAF an unprecedented three-and-a-half qualifying places and because the return of Yorke and Latapy coincided with the availability of a group of ageing but experienced British-based pros. Today’s situation is quite different: With only three places in South Africa 2010 guaranteed, Shaka and Marvin Andrews have gone, Latas is 40 and Yorke, approaching 37, is once again torn between club and national loyalties. Lawrence and Clayton Ince are also on the wrong side of 35 and John (S)’s better days seem long gone. Meanwhile, Mexico, the USA, Costa Rica and Honduras all appear to be no less well equipped than they have always been. Add too the reality that, even if T&T were somehow able to scrape in at fourth place once again, we would this time have to contest that extra ‘half-place’ with a South American opponent.
As for Latapy’s expectation that he might be able to break the cycle of foreign coach out/ foreign coach in, he would be well advised to remember that, even if football, like politics, does not have its own morality, yesterday is yesterday and today is today.

Dr Brian Copeland, left, Tony Williams, centre, and Bertie Marshall after receiving the Order of Trinidad and Tobago from the President. —Photo: STEVE MCPHIE

Innovation, Respect Or Just Plain Politics?

By Orville Wright

The 46th anniversary of Independence brought overdue prominence to the national instrument of Trinidad & Tobago, as two important pioneers and one engineer received the highest award—The Order of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago, for their contribution to the development of the steelpan. From my perspective, it is important to differentiate Mr. Anthony Williams and Mr. Bertram “Bertie” Lloyd Marshall from Dr. Brian Copeland and ask the question—are Mr. Anthony Williams and Mr. Bertram “Bertie” Lloyd Marshall really in the same category as Dr. Brian Copeland and/or vice versa? For the remainder of this article, I will refer to Mr. Williams and Mr. Marshall, as Tony and Bertie respectively because, in the steelpan community, these are the names by which they are honorably and fraternally addressed.

Prior to the actual 46th anniversary day, there was copious chatter about giving the country’s highest award to Dr. Copeland, and based on what I read and heard on the airwaves, Tony and “Bertie” were not mentioned at all. As a matter of fact, the President made the announcement at the award ceremony for the 45th anniversary in 2007 when he said, “I would like to advise the nation that Dr Brian Copeland will be receiving the nation’s highest award.” This was reported in an article penned by Michelle Loubon in the Trinidad Guardian on Saturday September 1, 2007.

Dr. Copeland is being recognized for his association with the innovation of the G Pan. But given the status of the G Pan; the age and current usage of the G Pan, as well as its overall non-acceptability by the pan community at large, should Dr. Copeland receive equal recognition alongside Tony and “Bertie”?

On July 16, 2007, the Prime Minister unveiled the G Pan. At that time, most of the reports stated that the instrument was still in its embryonic stage. Thirteen months later, the G Pan is still in developmental mode. I base this statement on the fact that only the National Steelband is utilizing the G Pan. If his association with this innovation makes Dr. Copeland worthy of being recognized with Tony and “Bertie”, why aren’t more orchestras using the instruments? Why isn’t the Ministry of Education supplying the new schools’ steelband programs with the G Pan?

Is it because the G Pan is not available? Is it because the G Pan is too expensive for orchestras to go through a comprehensive re-configuration of their stands—and obviously—pans? Could the steelband community be upset about the fact that Dr. Copeland and his research team determined that a number of currently used instruments are extinct—when they really are not? Is Dr. Copeland’s work merely an extension of Tony and “Bertie’s” innovation and they refuse to buy into the notion that Dr. Copeland and his research team are really innovative? Let me try to answer each of these questions.

I had the opportunity to visit the lab at UWI where the G Pan is being created in September 2007. I signed a NDA (non-disclosure agreement), so in spite of the fact that the instrument was unveiled and awards are being given for the instrument, if I talk about the G Pan I could get myself in trouble. There is incongruity here and I don’t understand what the NDA is all about. If the instrument/s have not been fully developed, then obviously, they cannot be available. In the case where there has to be mass-production in order to meet the needs of all the steel orchestras in T&T, there is a perception that supplying all the bands in Trinidad & Tobago was not thought of at all. Maybe I have been living abroad too long and have a different point of view on something like this.

Allow me to draw an analogy to the iPhone that Apple developed. When it was unveiled, millions of units were made available for consumers. Now, I fully understand that the iPhone is a small component compared to the G Pan, but the ideology has to take precedence here. When Digicel made its way into the T&T market, they had to have phones available for consumers. If they hadn’t, crapaud smoke dey pipe.

The G pan is a four-pan family comprised of soprano pan, double-second, three-pan set and a six-bass. The soprano pan is an over-sized pan and the skirt is also longer. During the carnival season, there can be conservatively as many as 10 – 30 lead/soprano pans in a band depending on its category—small medium or large. This means that a band must now make 10 -30 stands to accommodate the new pans. If a band has a sponsor that is willing to foot the bill for the pans and the stands, re-configuring the front line of that band may not be a problem. However, there are many bands without sponsors and the cost of acquiring these instruments could run into thousands of dollars. Additionally, what is going to be done with the extinct instruments? Was this sort of expense put into the equation for all steel orchestras when the G Pan was in the planning stages?

The steelband community has not been overtly receptive to Dr. Copeland receiving the highest award for the G Pan, and there are many reasons why he is getting the cold shoulder—many of which have been voiced by the executives of Pan Trinbago, the steelband fanatics and the general public. In spite of the technological improvement Dr. Copeland and his team have brought to the instrument, one of the issues I had with the G Pan is: how did they determine that some of the instruments used in the present day orchestras have become extinct?

Sean Nero’s article on July 16, 2007 of the Trinidad Guardian declared, “Based on the research and development of the government-appointed team, popular instruments such as the double tenor, the double guitar, the quadraphonic and the four cello are now extinct, following the improvements to the tenor, double second and three cello.” What was the hypothesis? The mere fact that the majority of steelbands are still using the double tenor, the double guitar, the quadraphonic and the four cello totally refutes Dr. Copeland’s team outcome. Add to this, the reality that the G Pan (in its present instrumental configuration) cannot emulate a Bradley, “Boogsie” or Samaroo arrangement, and this alone conjures up much of the resentment on the part of the steelband community. I would love to hear All Stars play their arrangement of Woman On the Bass on a G Pan configuration. If it has all the nuances of this classic arrangement, then everybody should support the award for Dr. Copeland.

The decision to give the highest award in the country to Mr. Anthony Williams, Mr. Bertram “Bertie” Lloyd Marshall and Dr. Brian Copeland—for pan innovation is an enigma. When you take into consideration the 40+ years of work that Tony and “Bertie” did in pan-and for pan- should Dr. Copeland’s paltry involvement with the instrument be measured against, or compared to the work of Tony and “Bertie”? Remember, Dr. Copeland’s work is yet to be completed, and frankly, the assessment of Dr. Copeland’s work really cannot be measured as I write this piece.

The only time that the work of Dr. Copeland can be assessed is when a plurality of steelbands in Trinidad & Tobago gets the G Pan, plays them, but more importantly, puts them through the rigors of two or three Panorama seasons where they literally get beat. There should be random interviews with pannists from all the bands, and then we can see where it goes.

A report by Julien Neaves in the Trinidad Express of September 1, 2008, states: “On the criticism by Opposition politicians and some members of the pan fraternity that he did not deserve the award and it was the Prime Minister who specifically selected him, Copeland said he did not read any of it and anyone who had a problem should take it up with the Prime Minister or the selection committee.” Since both the Prime Minister and the President made the announcement a year ago, should it be the 2007 selection committee or the 2008 selection committee?

I met Dr. Copeland in September 2007, and firmly believe that his heart is in the right place with regard to the national instrument. In conversations with him he was genuine about his work. But as an academician—one who understands, and has done research, that is not the kind of response you offer to criticism of a product that is so close to Trinis. If I were in his shoes, I would have seized upon the opportunity to praise Tony and “Bertie”, and then explain—from a technological point of view—what I am doing to further cement the future of the national instrument as a true Trini ting. That sort of flippant response hurts his cause more than it helps, because I know he has to be aware of what preceded him. On the other hand, he may have signed an NDA too, so he cannot talk about what he is doing. Tony Williams introduced the spider web pan and it is on that foundation that Dr. Copeland is able to embellish what’s being done in his lab. Had it not been for the work that Tony and “Bertie” did, there is no way that he would have gotten the highest award.

If Dr. Copeland came up with a new (note) configuration of a pan with the technological advances that he is working on, and every panman was knocking down his door to get the pan—that is a different thing. Give him more than the highest award.

The Prime Minister is from south, Dr. Copeland is from south, and so there is a perception that it is a ‘south ting’. So, whoever said that the Prime Minister “specifically selected him” might be aware of the political connection to the award.

The decision to give Dr. Copeland the award was made in 2007. That is a fact. Tony and “Bertie” were added this year because somebody got through to the powers that be—the Prime Minister and one of the selection committees—and told them, all yuh crazy or what, how yuh go do that? Maybe it is time for the Selection Committee to review its criteria for determining deserving recipients of the nation’s awards in general, and the nation’s highest award in particular.

Sir Shridath Ramphal

A conversation with Sir Shridath Ramphal

During a recent visit to Guyana former Commonwealth Secretary General Sir Shridath Ramphal granted The Guyana Review a frank and extensive interview covering a wide range of issues embracing aspects of Caribbean diplomacy, the role of the United Nations and evolving issues in the development of the international system. Sir Shridath also provided glimpses into his own distinguished career including the circumstances associated with his candidature for the Secretary Generalship of the United Nations.

Following is the full text of that interview.

GR: How satisfied are you with your career as a diplomat and international civil servant?

SR: Very satisfied. In a sense it is inevitable that I should be because I have been very fortunate in having had a varied career and at very high levels. But I say that with a great deal of humility because I do not think that it was a career that I carved out for myself. I don’t think it was a career that responded to goals that I set for myself. It was a career that evolved from one thing that I did to the next. To the extent the people were generous enough to believe that what I had done at any one time was worthy of going on to something else, then that was a stroke of good fortune.

The lesson of it, I suppose, is that you must do well whatever it is that you are doing and it will lead on to other things, undreamt of. That is not to say that it is not good advice to give young  people—that they must have specific goals and work to meet them, it is just the case that I didn’t.

I pursued the areas that I found to be of interest and that were compatible with the interests of the country and the community which I wanted to serve and they naturally led me to higher and higher levels of service. In fact, they still are.

GR: Is the international diplomatic agenda as challenging today as it was fifty years ago?

SR: Very much so. In some senses it is more troubling because the levels of danger and horror and terror that characterize the international scene today must, on any showing, be said to be worse and more terrifying than they were fifty years ago. Fifty years ago was challenging enough but as the years have unfolded new issues have come on the scene. The whole issue of the environment was not an issue fifty years ago. We had not foreseen the magnitude of the terrible things we were doing to the planet. We had not remotely contemplated that human survival could be endangered. We assumed, rather glibly, that life  would go on  forever as it had gone on over the millennia, unmindful of the fact that we were gradually using up the time because we were making too large a footprint on the planet. That whole area of activity, (diplomatic, non-diplomatic, civil society), is new. Generation after generation has had to adjust to that newness.

GR: What isn’t new is the ongoing struggle by developing countries to balance the scales,  to level the global economic playing field.

SR: Absolutely! That is not new at all. It took different forms and it came under different names. In our experience the worst elements of colonialism were at the heart of the divide between rich and poor and we believed that with independence, with freedom, there would come new opportunities to put aside the iniquities of the colonial system. It turned out that is was not as easy as that. They adjusted too and gave new forms to dominion. Colonialism was overcome but dominion in a deeper sense was not; So whether you look to the business community or you look to the regulatory apparatus that was put in place after the Second World War in terms of the whole Bretton Woods System, this did not, in fact, work for  development. The rules were created to sustain the status quo and that status quo was inimical to the developing countries.

Today that fight is ongoing. That is the fight that we face in the World Trade Organization (WTO) because the WTO  is an attempt to establish a legal regime – and a legal regime Iis a good thing – for world trade. But the rules that the WTO seeks to establish or the rules which the developed countries seek to establish through the WTO, sustain the status quo, sustain poverty. Hence the trials of the developing countries; and, thank goodness, up until now, the successes of the developing countries – at Seattle, at Cancun, at Doha and, more recently, in Geneva - have foiled these efforts.

GR: Where do you fit the current hectic discourses regarding an Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) with Europe into this matrix?

SR: It is unfortunate that even at this moment, even as we were part of the Group of 77  in Geneva we are about to sign an EPA with Europe in which we give away to Europe all of those things which we were keeping not just from Europe but from the developed world as a whole. The trouble is that while the EPA is with Europe today it will be the basis for our relations with all of the developed world. We are behaving in a totally contradictory manner.

GR: You sound very disappointed.

SR: Of course! At eighty and after fifty, sixty years of effort when you hope to see the aspirations and the institutional structures that they should lead to in the developing world virtually crumble, I am saddened by the loss of passion and commitment and vision on the part of the leadership of most of the developing world. We are not where we were in 1974 when we talked about a New International Economic Order. At least we knew what we wanted and what we were trying to get. What are we trying to get now?

GR: Haven’t developing countries become worn down by the whole process?

SR:   We cannot afford to be worn down. At eighty I certainly do not feel worn down. Why should the developing world feel worn down after fifty years of struggle? It may take another fifty but we cannot throw in the towel except we are accepting all that throwing in the towel involves – which is back to dominion; back to a state that isn’t going to be called colonial because it isn’t colonial in the sense that we used to know it; but it is dominion and the leadership of the developing world could be contemplating abandoning that struggle.  That would be too much to bear. I do not think that that is so. The stand by China, India and Brazil helped by the rest of the G77 in Geneva within recent weeks demonstrates that there is leadership out there which is mindful of what is at stake and which is going to persist in preventing it.  Guyana and the Caribbean as a whole – used to be part of that, but we are not now; all because we think we perceive small gains in special deals. That a terrible level of acquiescence in defeat. Because we are in effect saying that for this small gain from Europe we are prepared to abandon the bigger fight. Either we understand that – which I think we must do because our political directorate is very bright and very able – and if that is the choice that is being consciously made then yes – to your question as to whether I feel frustrated and unhappy -  yes, I do.

GR: Where do you locate the contemporary Caribbean in your global village?

SR: That is the biggest area of frustration because for forty or fifty years I had no trouble with that question. We were a small area of the developing world but we were clear-headed. We had an awareness that our contribution did not lie in numbers but that that contribution lay in our capacity to think, to cerebrate, to develop and sustain a vision, to encourage our colleagues who had the greater clout to pursue a path that would lead to the amelioration of this terrible division, this gap between rich and poor, the elimination of so many elements of the relationship between rich and poor countries that lead to human poverty and destitution within our countries; and that poverty is real. Countries may talk about great increases in Gross Domestic Product but, in fact, we know that within every society in the Caribbean there are unacceptable pockets and levels of poverty. We have to have those eliminated and we have to do all we can, at the local level, of course, and all that is necessary at the international level so that those local efforts may be fulfilling.

GR: Has the Caribbean diplomatic effort become, in your opinion, afflicted by a slowing down of its energy levels?

SR: Yes I think there has; but I don’t think that you can blame the diplomats. It’s a consequential slowing down of diplomatic effort deriving from a policy shift at the level of the political directorate of the entire region.

GR: Where has that shift taken us?

SR: It has lost its passion and I think it has lost its direction. It has lost a clear-minded view of what needs to be done at the global level so that life can be better at the local level.

GR: What troubles you most about the condition of the Caribbean?

SR: I think that we have to recognize that we are small and that to count for anything in the world we haven’t got to develop a sense that we matter because we can attract a great many tourists to come and admire our sea and our sand; we have to count by exercising some intellectual leadership that can contribute to sensible and fulfilling global policies.

GR: Are we still capable of providing that kind of global diplomatic input?

SR: Of course we are! We are bright people in the Caribbean. We are a people who have demonstrated that we can give leadership; leadership within the developing world – that is perfectly clear – but leadership as well in the international community; and as we do that we inspire the younger generations of West Indians to recognize that they can do it too. So that over the years you develop a confidence in your capacity to make a difference.

I think that we are losing some of that confidence. I think that we are relapsing into a colonial frustration, a line of reasoning that says …that’s how the world is; the rich are always going to be dominant and we are going to have to have to take what crumbs we can get and be content… . I think that we are settling all too readily for the world as it is.

GR: The Caribbean Community (CARICOM) is the institution that was set up to enable the creation of a regional diplomatic effort in some areas of international relations. Has it worked?

SR: CARICOM and CARIFTA which preceded it – with such an important Guyana contribution – was designed to restart the Caribbean project after the failure of the Federation. CARICOM is the centre of our vision of the future both for ourselves and in terms of our capacity, through the strengths that CARICOM will provide to exercise influence beyond the Caribbean Sea; and CARICOM has not been going well ever since 1992 when the Heads of Government choked on the central recommendation of the West India Commission which was the establishment of an executive authority at the centre to be responsible for the implementation of  decisions taken by those Heads of Government; not taken by a federal government or some  other authority.

They choked on it because it looked as if it might be a process through which people were losing  power, some even said sovereignty. None of this was true but it was a feeling that pervaded the political directorate. Ever since then, trying one way or another to respond to the need that the Commission identified - and which the Heads of Government recognized, – through a whole series of alternatives, make-do arrangements   a Bureau of Heads, an allocation of subjects to Prime Ministers – all of that was really an effort to respond to the needs that the Commission had identified in order to avoid the solution that the Commission had recommended; and they all failed. The Bureau is not an effective arrangement for the integration of Caribbean economies or even of the co-operation of Caribbean countries. The allocation of subject portfolios to individual Prime Ministers is a total failure and ought to have been seen to be a failure because Prime Ministers are very busy with what they are doing and have to do in relation to their domestic agenda; so that CARICOM becomes something on the side and once it’s something on the side it has no capacity to sustain itself. So that CARICOM has gradually slipped from the centre, moved away from the centre of our lives. We talked – because it came out of those days of the nineties – about a  Caribbean Single Market and Economy (CSME) and yet Caribbean people, I believe, West Indians in the streets, have a sense that this thing isn’t working at all; it isn’t changing their lives in any way and through that they lose confidence in the political directorate.

GR: Is there an argument here for reviewing the way in which CARICOM works?

SR: Of course there is and Caribbean Heads are doing it all the time because they recognize it; but they are doing it, always, with these blinkers on. Yes, we’ve got to make fundamental changes but we’ve got to do it in a way that doesn’t change the status quo. It’s a built-in contradiction. We must not change the status quo of power but we must, somehow make radical changes to improve our condition. You cannot reform while standing still.

GR: When you compare the current situation with the decades of the seventies and eighties, for example, Guyana too has experienced a decline in the quality of its diplomatic service. What does it take to build at Foreign Service?

SR: We need to do all that we did in those days. That is the simple answer. If we did it once then we have the blueprint. It is a question of following that blueprint.  I think that the answer must lie in younger people not having the opportunities to fulfill the capacities that they have. You can  have all the capacity in the world to be a brilliant diplomat but if you have no opportunity to demonstrate and develop those aptitudes then it wouldn’t come. I remember in the early days – because I had the great opportunity  of creating Guyana’s first Foreign Service and it was a  big responsibility but it was an exciting challenge. You don’t sit down and draw up a foreign policy on a sheet of paper. It has to evolve out of experience and that experience has to come out of structure, not out of ideology.

Looking around the world there were two countries which seemed to me to be countries by which we should be guided in the evolution of our Foreign Service and the development of our foreign policy. This was fifty years ago and those countries were Brazil, in terms of the institutional structure of their Foreign Service and India, in terms of the policy content of their foreign policy. We did that and the latter took us down the path of non-alignment and that was good for us because those were the dangerous times of the Cold War when we were being tugged hither and thither in that struggle - which really didn’t concern us – between superpowers who couldn’t care for us save that we are dragged away from being on the side of the other protagonist. Non Alignment was the chosen path and it was chosen and pursued by Guyana with vigour, with passion and with commitment and that led to a great many of the things that we did in those days.

As to structure the Brazilians really do point the way.  They have a marvelous institutional arrangement by which they insulate their Foreign Service, first of all, from the rest of their bureaucracy and from politics. Brazil has gone through very turbulent times. including periods of military dictatorship, and yet, through all that time.  their Foreign Service has remained a quality Foreign Service, above the fray, never being dragged down and into the political mire I think those were very good choices that we made, maybe very fortunate choices in terms of the models that we had. There is no question in my mind that we can still look to India and Brazil today, in particular areas, You don’t take India, lock stock and barrel. In the case if India. I am talking about Indian foreign policy and the role of non-alignment in standing up to the superpowers, having not so much an ideology but a vision of the directions, the paths that we have to go down as a country to develop and to sustain our freedom, our independence.

GR: How to you perceive the role of the United Nations in contemporary international relations?

S.R: The United Nations has been buffeted, first of all, by the Cold War and then by the era that has superceded it, that is, the era of a uni-polar world, a world dominated by the United States. The Cold War was bad enough but the uni-polar world is worse. Now we are beginning to see a shift in the tectonic plates of world politics. We can look now to a post-American world, I believe; to a world in which the United States will no longer be the sole superpower. It isn’t going to be a return to the Cold War but it is going to be a movement to a time when the United States is certainly not the sole economic powerhouse in the world. I’m thinking China. I’m thinking India, I’m thinking Brazil.  Brazil has mobilized the Latin American continent under MERCUSOR. This is what the Europeans have done in Europe.

So the world is going to look very different and small countries have to have a vision of their place in that post-American world. It should not be a place which is built on alienations. We don’t start looking at that time with an anti-American bias. Indeed, we must look at that time with the knowledge that we are part of a hemisphere in which the United States is going to be, forever, a very big player; but there are now going to be other players, other big players; and beyond the hemisphere, particularly in a time when hemispheres no longer matter. We are one world, one increasingly small world in which the fate of the Americas – north and south – are not going to depend on whether we have a free trade area with America but on what happens in the world economy. Geneva is going to be more important to us than Washington.  We have to prepare for that world. We have to be actors in that world and we have to start at home. Everything, of course, starts at home in a national sense.

But for us in the Caribbean we have to start by getting our act together. We are less cohesive than we were twenty years ago. Twenty years ago when Guyana led the process by which four Caribbean countries broke the diplomatic embargo against Cuba – a global embargo – it was our collective action with very confrontationalist neighbours looking at us. That was a time of very considerable achievement for the Caribbean. Once we had taken that very courageous action the diplomatic embargo crumbled, the rest of Latin America  just gave way; and that was the end. Yes, the United States maintained its economic embargo but Cuba’s isolation in the world was over. The Caribbean did that! The seeds of that were sown here in Georgetown. I f we could do it then, surely, fifty years later we can do even better.

GR:  Is it not the case that here in the Caribbean the national will to survive may have superceded the regional will to succeed?

SR:  I think that what has happened is that we have been seduced a little by short-term gains within the Caribbean, largely through tourism. There is no question that many islands have developed in a real sense on the basis of enhanced tourist economy. But a tourist economy is a very fragile thing. It has a downside in terms of your nationalism because what you are conveying to the world all the time – sometimes consciously, sometimes subliminally -  is  that we’re a little bit of paradise here on the Caribbean.

GR: Does this remove that image of seriousness as a country?

SR: Its a difficult thing because there is validity in having to make an effort in that direction because tourism is, after all, the   bread and butter of hundreds of thousands of West Indians and to that extent it is a laudable pursuit. What we have to do is to be on guard that we don’t begin to believe our own propaganda and therefore diminish our capacity to engage in struggle in those areas where we must. For political leaders it is a particularly difficult process to have to walk these two ropes together.

Some have done it very successfully. Some with less success. People too are part of that process. Our whole mentality, our way of thinking and in fact my own feeling is that that level of international policy doesn’t win you respect and to that extent doesn’t affect your tourism. Which is the biggest tourism destination in the Caribbean today?” There is no question that it is Cuba. But Cuba hasn’t changed to become so. It pursues the same policies; it has retained its character and yet it has welcomed the world to come; and the world has come and the world goes away from Cuba respecting that country. Our Caribbean identity must be developed in the same way. It’s not going to be the Cuban identity but it is going to be ours and we must not worry that developing that Caribbean identity will somehow keep the tourists away. The truth is that the tourists are not coming to the Caribbean because we are taking this position or that position in the WTO. Those are not the things that they come for when they think of beaches and sunshine. The informed people in the world who come and find that we are struggling to improve ourselves and our place in the world – probably even by engaging their own countries – leave us respecting us, respecting us a little bit more. That is something that we always have to be careful about.

GR: How close is the Caribbean to a more cohesive foreign policy?

SR. We are not very close at all. We talk a great deal about it but the closest that we get to co-ordinated action is deciding on appointments and places and candidatures in international institutions. Yes, we do come together to say who we are going to support for this job or that job in Geneva, Washington or in Latin American institutions. That is not foreign policy. That is acting together in a tiny little area of foreign affairs. The big issues of foreign policy don’t even get debated in the Caribbean. They get debated among academics. Our Institutes of International Relations have grown from strength to strength but I do not think that the work of those Institutes play a big part in policy-making. In Britain, for example, there are think tanks like Chatham House – The Royal Institute of International Relations in London. They have institutions that function as think tank. Outside of London there are institutions like Witon Park where people from all over the world assemble for serious policy discussions.

They are, in fact, funded by the British government because the British government recognizes that in making foreign policy it needs to draw on that intellectual input. It is not bound by it and it establishes enough distance from them to go in a different direction to the ones they have mapped out when it chooses. But it is then a conscious choice, based on analysis and information, The same thing happens everywhere. It happens, for example, in the United States in places like the Institute of Foreign Relations and the Stanley Foundation. Everything is the subject of dispassionate analysis before policy is made. The policy makers are not bound to go in that direction but they are informed by those analyses in making policy. The same thing is true in countries like China and India. I do not think that we use the institutions that we have in that way. I do not think that what comes out of the Institute of International Relations in Trinidad or in Jamaica filters into the foreign policies that we pursue at national levels. They were intended to but we don’t take it seriously now. We are a little whimsical about foreign policy. That applies to the entire Caribbean.

GR: Is that a call for making institutions like the IIR more relevant or for creating new ones?

SR: I think that we have the institutions.  How you make them relevant is by changing the attitude of decision-makers to them. If the attitude is – ‘This a good little Ivory Tower institution that is doing good things but that doesn’t need to trouble us in the Cabinet’ – then nothing will change. It isn’t a change in the institutions that is needed. It is a malaise that exists all over the Caribbean.

GR: Is there a price that we pay for this?

SR:  Of course you pay a price because you are pursuing foreign policy on an ad hoc and an ill-informed basis so that you are responding to short-term considerations. These are reflex responses and reactions and that does not allow you to build and sustain the kinds of alliances that are an essential element of a sound foreign policy. You can’t expect, for example, to play a part in the Non Aligned Movement if the principles of non alignment do not find expression in the day to day policies that you pursue. There is never going to be a body of prescribed decisions. What is needed is a basic reservoir of appreciation that non alignment—if that is what we are talking about—must inform what we are doing in our relations with others in the world. The same is true about the things that are so much to the fore today. Non Alignment was very relevant in the Cold War period. It is not as relevant now. It needs to be re-branded, in my view; but whatever the brand it is going to be ours and we need to be playing a part in the re-branding. But we are together with the G77 in New York, in Geneva and around the world in terms of a collective developing countries’ position in the big international negotiations. We have talked about what we did and didn’t do in Geneva in the last negotiations following the Doha Round. But that is something that is ongoing everywhere. We have to have a basic commitment to a body of principles that guide us.  I think that most Prime Ministers have that sense of where the country ought to be going or where the region ought to be going. It is translating those individual perceptions into a collective sense of where the region is going that is lacking. That is what George Lamming was talking about a few weeks ago when he spoke at the Heads of Government meeting in Antigua.

GR: Do you fear that as a consequence of al this Caribbean diplomacy has been left behind?

SR: I think that it isn’t where it was forty years ago and we harm it every time we do things that are inimical to our standing - as I think signing the EPA will be. I am particularly concerned that we are going in this direction without the close consultation that we promised ourselves at the level of the ACP group. The ACP was created here in Georgetown and yet the Caribbean is pursuing a path with Europe almost unmindful of the hesitations, reluctances and reservations of Africa and of the Pacific.  The Pacific is showing more of a capacity to resist than the Caribbean. Something has happened when that is the case. That leaves you to wonder how is the Caribbean going to be sustained. We need each other for survival and if we forget that then we face the danger of becoming inconsequential.

GR: Are the differences within CARICOM on the signing of the EPA not reflective of the worst kind of division?

SR:  It is a manifestation of a lack of cohesiveness and, ultimately, a lack of vision in terms of our priorities. The EPA in my view – but not just in my view, in the view of our most informed thinkers in the region – is anti-CARICOM, anti Caribbean integration, anti - CSME; and if it is then why are we not standing up and telling Europe ‘hold on, we want an economic relationship with you and we  want to preserve the interests of our products. But there are limits and you cannot expect us to commit ourselves to any action which endangers Caribbean integration.’ The EPA endangers Caribbean integration and that ought to be our starting point for any analysis.

GR: Can we talk a bit on what might have been - Sir Shridath Ramphal as Secretary General of the United Nations?

SR: It didn’t happen. I will leave you with a little anecdotal evidence of why it didn’t happen. The superpowers, these were Cold Warriors – and I’m glad to say both superpowers – were very uneasy about my candidature. The Russian Ambassador at the time was a man called Federenko. Any candidate for the Secretary Generalship has to be sensible enough to speak to the Ambassadors of the Permanent Members of the Security Council. I had discussions with Federenko, He was a very attractive diplomat and he was a straight shooter. He said to me, Minister – I was Foreign Minister at the time – I must level with you. We like you. We like Guyana. We think that Guyana has been pursuing an enlightened foreign policy; but you worry us. You remind us too much of Dag Hammarskjold; and I said to him, Ambassador, thank you very much.

Thank you for telling me why you can’t support me because it is a reason that I can live with for not being Secretary General of the United Nations. That was the level of respect that I had for Hammarskjold. Washington worried too. I don’t think that they would have gone as far as the Russians in saying that they thought that we were pursuing an enlightened foreign policy because they had conceived of Non-Alignment as being anti-western, which was not true. But their ‘bottom line’ was the same. “You worry us.”

Donald Peters

EARL BEST considers the WICB’s $64,000 question

“Would you step into my parlour,” said the spider to the fly, “I can’t guarantee your safety but I’m sure prepared to try.” If security were the only issue, the fly, in this case the West Indies Cricket Board, would have no difficulty saying no to the absurd request from the spider, aka the Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB). When under duress last month the ICC took the unprecedented step of postponing the 2008 Champions Trophy tournament, the PCB turned to Julian Hunte’s WICB to step into the breach and tour that country next month. And despite a clear negative response from the senior players on the squad, the Board has as yet given no unequivocal response to the invite. The real reason is that in the troubled waters of international cricket there is much more to most issues than meets the eye. And beneath the ripples that grace the seemingly calm surface many powerful undercurrents roil the turbulent sea bottom.

Perhaps we should start at the beginning. And this particular story starts with the protracted to-ing and fro-ing by the ICC over the staging of the Champions Trophy tournament, originally scheduled to come off in the sub-continent from September 11 to 28. The competition is supposed to showcase the talents of the cream of the one-day crop, which implies, as ICC General Manager Dave Richardson told the media, “the best eight teams in the world, the best players.” The ICC’s best advice, it claimed, was that, despite the continued high level of violence in the country, Pakistan’s chances of staging the tournament without any major incidents were very good. The problem was that with the political situation in that country being what it was – and deteriorating – several of the best teams in the world were baulking at the prospect of asking their players to run the risks inherent in playing cricket in so volatile an environment.

Five of the countries involved were not prepared to be guided solely by the ICC’s security assurances and, not surprisingly, went ahead and got their own advice. Conflict! All the independent consultants warned that the level of risk involved was too high. If it were decided to proceed with the competition, they cautioned, Pakistan would not be able to guarantee the safety of every member of every one of the eight teams.

In the interim, despite repeated requests from the ICC, Australia, England, New Zealand and South Africa sedulously refused to commit themselves irrevocably to making the trip. The West Indies gave little indication of which way the Caribbean breeze was blowing. And while Sri Lanka declared itself ready, willing and eminently able to take their place, the hosts were equally adamant about not agreeing to yield to anyone else their right to stage the tournament. So caught between a rock and a very hard place, the umbrella organization hemmed and hawed and tried to buy time. Until they were overtaken by events. On August 21, in the week before the unusually elastic deadline the organisers set for the teams to “reaffirm their commitment to participate” in the tournament, a bomb killed 60 people in downtown Islamabad.

Cricket South Africa (CSA) did not hesitate. Count us out, they told the ICC, setting off a chain reaction that ended with the official announcement at the end of August of the postponement of the tournament for one year. And leaving Pakistan with a gap, another gap, to fill after the hole left by the refusal of Ricky Ponting’s world champions Australians to tour the strife-torn country earlier in the year. And to add insult to injury, the Aussies looked committed to making their scheduled tour of India that started last month. The cricket-crazy Pakistani supporters had not taken that setback as permission to mash up the place. But with an October Twenty/20 quadrangular tournament also involving Sri Lanka, Zimbabwe and hosts Canada the only international outing carded for their team in the near future, the PCB did not want to run the risk of offering the fans no international cricket at all. Whence the request to the WICB.

It needs to be said here that, ever since Kapil Dev’s Indians upset the West Indies to win the 1983 World Cup, cricket had become something of a religion in the subcontinent. The numbers of devotees following the progress of their team – and of the game – in the world had grown steadily until the market for cricket in all its forms was nowhere larger than in India. That led to a shift in the balance of power within the sport’s previously MCC-dominated power structure, a shift exacerbated by the subcontinent’s fascination with the latest, most abbreviated form of the game, Twenty20 cricket. Even before the hugely successful Indian Professional League was actually launched, it was obvious that there was a close link between cricket’s realization of its revenue-earning potential and the religious fervour of the support base in the sub-continent. And that began to be reflected at the decision-making level. Move over, ANZE (Australia/New Zealand/England), here comes SLIP (Sri Lanka/India/Pakistan).

Now, the West Indian Cricket Board often seems out of step with much that is happening in the wider world. However, even they had eventually woken up to smell the coffee. Whereas for years WICB representatives had largely merely rubberstamped proposals coming from the old ANZE axis (later upsized to ANZESA by the return of South Africa to the fold), someone one day perceived that we might be able to increase our clout if we let our bucket down on the other side. ANZESA was yesterday, it dawned on that someone, SLIPWI might just be the powerhouse of tomorrow. And suddenly the fly was bending over backwards (mixed metaphors be damned!) to scratch the spider’s back.

Which is why, I think, as I write towards the end of September, the fly has not yet officially declined the spider’s invitation to step into his parlour. Of course, the security situation in Pakistan has not improved. On September 19, almost exactly a month after the blast that stopped the Champions League, a bomb ripped through a school, killing five people.

The WICB, meanwhile, has not exactly been able to give its full attention to the matter of convincing its players to agree to make the Pakistan trip. First there is the small matter of the Stanford October 25 to November 1 US$20m Twenty20 Super Series that has put major sponsors Digicel up against the Stanford organization. The Board has given the series its blessing and taken the position that in so doing it has not infringed any of the provisions of its contract with the Irish Telecommunications giant. No way, say the sponsors’ representatives, who have demanded more and more concessions from the cash-crammed Stanford organization.

In the latest development, Stanford Limited Communications and Media Manager Imran Khan revealed that both the ICC and the English Cricket Board have confirmed what all reasonable commentators have long been saying. In their view, the Stanford Superstars team cannot be considered in any way a West Indies team. Nevertheless, Khan’s organization has told Digicel that it is prepared to make three major concessions, including “a significant amount of branding at no cost to Digicel in respect of the 2008 edition.” In vain. The exclusive sponsors rejected the offer and are still pursuing the mediation option initiated earlier, which involves an October 3 judgement by the Court of International Arbitration.

As for the Pakistan outing itself, since it was not listed on the Future Tours Programme, the Board took the unusual step of putting the initial decision to go or not to go squarely in the court of the Players’ Association. WICB Chief Executive Donald Peters recently explained to reporters that the West Indies Players Association (WIPA) has to give its sanction to any tour which was not originally included in the FTP. WIPA President Dinanath Ramnarine has been very quiet and largely invisible for some time now, perhaps, say the cynics, because he is now on the Executive of the Board. But quiet or not, Ramnarine is neither compromised nor inactive and he quietly told the Board that the senior players are not interested in the Pakistan outing at this time.

The story, however, does not end there. In talking to the media, Peters added that, in spite of the WIPA advice about the unwillingness of the seniors to make the tour, his Board is “taking a new approach to things now.”

“We did our own poll,” Peters announced, “and we found that the majority of the younger players would go.”

The issue, of course, is clearly not whether there are players willing to go but whether the WICB is willing to send players. And why they would still be thinking of so doing. Is there not a real security issue? Peters sidestepped.

“If we were to go,” he said, “we would have checked the security system ourselves. We normally hire a firm to go and check on security systems for us like we did in Zimbabwe.”

Peters declined to indicate whether any such firm had already been hired. Suggesting that the WICB “would love to give the boys a lot more practice,” he added that the Board “would like to help our fellow full member, Pakistan.”

I reckon that “the boys” interested in making the trip received that last bit of information with the same sort of bright-eyed, bushy-tailed enthusiasm with which America’s soldiers welcomed the news that their country was going to war with Iraq.

Rene Simoes

By KEN CHAPLIN

The issue that caused the separation of service of the technical director of Jamaica’s national team, Rene Simoes, and the Jamaica Football Federation has to do with the insistence of Simoes playing a young and inexperienced team. The more experienced overseas players were either benched or were not invited at all.

When Jamaica made history as the first English-speaking Caribbean country to qualify for the 1998 World Cup finals in France under the leadership of Simoes, an achievement which made the Brazilian a hero, it was the overseas players who carried the ball. But for some reason, Simoes benched many of the overseas players in the current campaign for the 2010 World Cup finals in South Africa. On the other hand, the Jamaica Football Federation (JFF) wanted the island to field the best possible team at a given time—the World Cup preliminary rounds. Simoes felt that it was best to build a team mostly around local players to avoid not only the problem of getting overseas players, but also a team of players that plays together frequently and who would get accustomed to one another’s movements on the field. Nothing is wrong with Simoes’ plan except that it has to be a long-term development. It ought not to be experimented with nor tried out when the team is fighting for a place in the World Cup finals.

Another factor that bore heavily on Jamaica’s mediocre performance in the current World Cup campaign was the limited time the players played together as a team. The JFF has to conform to rules set by FIFA, the world body that controls football, as regards the release of overseas players from their clubs and availability to the Jamaica team. No one could expect players who have not been playing together for a long time to go on the field and move with precision. Football is a game of movements, and good positional play is crucial to success. In 1998 it was a different ball game as most overseas players were based in England, and even if some were scattered among the clubs, they had seen each other play in the English League.

Bringing overseas players and local players together a month or so before a match (or matches) is inviting poor performance. The present team played a total of 11 matches, winning three, losing three and drawing 5. I remember some years ago when Haiti qualified for the World Cup finals in Germany, the team lived in a hotel for six months and played many matches before proceeding to Germany. Jamaica has three more World Cup matches to play. The team will have to win all three to be one of the six teams in the finals of the CONCACAF competition from which two teams will be selected to go to the World Cup finals. With a new coaching team of Jamaican-born former England international, John Barnes (whose father, Colonel Ken Barnes captained Jamaica), and Theodore Whitmore, once a great attacking player, there is a possibility that Jamaica could still go forward.

It is debatable whether Simoes should have been fired at this crucial stage when Jamaica has three more matches to play in the CONCACAF preliminary round. What is not debatable is the clumsy, unprofessional manner in which he was dismissed by Captain Horace Burrell, president of the Jamaica Football Federation. After the World Cup match against Honduras in which Jamaica lost, 0-2, Burrell called a meeting at 12:30 am in the hotel where the team was staying, to discuss the matter and by l:00 am the technical director was fired. Although Horace Reid, secretary of the JFF denied that Burrell used strident language to Simoes, I gathered that the parting was far from amicable. Simoes had two airline reservations - one from Honduras to Jamaica and the other from Honduras to Brazil. He took the one to Brazil because, as he said, he needed comfort from his family.

Nevertheless, in the end Burrell thanked Simoes for his service to Jamaica. Simoes was rather gracious. He refused to accept the balance of his US$600,000 pay and influenced his Brazilian assistants to accept less pay on the termination of contract.

Some people who are experienced in business management have expressed the view that Simoes should not have been fired on foreign soil, especially in the land of the host country. All parties should have returned to Jamaica and the matter settled one way or the other. The matter should have been settled by the same committee which hired Simoes. It was also disingenuous of Burrell to blame the past administration of the JFF for the debacle when everything was at the door of the current administration.

Editor’s note: Ken Chaplin is a former national and international referee, FIFA referee inspector and chairman of the JFF Referees Commission.

(Reprinted from the Jamaica Observer of Tuesday, September 23

‘Express’ as Agent of Change

Ken Gordon

Journalist ERROL S. PILGRIM recalls how a story he wrote collided head-on with the colour bar in newly independent Trinidad and Tobago.

The August 1st celebration of emancipation in Trinidad and Tobago coincided with an event that took place thirty-nine years ago that may have eluded those who have survived it. Yet, it’s an event which not only exploded the myth that independence in 1962 had brought an end to racial discrimination in Trinidad and Tobago but which cemented the role of the then struggling Trinidad Express newspaper as a proponent of crusading journalism and a major organ of social change.

It was on August 1, 1969 that a story that defined my place as a member of the Fourth Estate was exploded across the front page of the Trinidad Express under the headline: “Colour Bar at the Country Club”.

The story would precipitate a lot of anxious moments for myself as the writer and for the Express as the newspaper which had the temerity and the testicular fortitude to pillory the Trinidad Country Club, still a most “sacred cow” in a nation just seven years old.

Up to that point, the question of racial discrimination at the Country Club was discussed only in whispered conversations, either to be dismissed or accepted as part of the status quo. Reports involving prominent black personalities like the late Chief Justice Sir Hugh Wooding being subjected to one kind of bigotry or the other at the Country Club made the rounds but remained unconfirmed.

But here were Errol Pilgrim and the Express, both brash and young, daring to venture into territory where more established newspapers had feared to tread, detailing a story of not one, but two black American couples, who were claiming to have been discriminated against in two separate incidents at the Country Club during the last week of July 1969.

I still clearly remember that morning, thirty-nine years ago. Sitting at my desk at the old cramped but comfortable Express building on Independence Square, I got a telephone call from a good friend and trusted contact, Georgiana Masson, then public relations officer at the Trinidad Hilton. Hers were words that were like music to my ears, the kind of words that never fail to set those journalistic juices pumping: “I think I have a good story for you!”

But the story was too sensitive to be discussed on the telephone, she said. I had to come up to the Hilton, just a few miles away. I informed my then editor Owen Baptiste that something appeared to be brewing, grabbed ace photographer Tony Forte, now departed, and headed up to the Hilton.

The ever dependable Georgiana Masson had two distinguished looking black people sitting there in her office awaiting our arrival.

The story they told would come to be known as “The Country Club Scandal”. It would send the Express circulation figures soaring but would result in this impudent newspaper, just two years old, losing a whopping million dollars in advertising and teetering on the brink of collapse.

Dr. and Mrs. Leonard Hanna, were guests at the Trinidad Hilton, having come to Trinidad and Tobago “where every creed and race find an equal place”. They were seeking a holiday far from their home in Detroit, Michigan, where race riots were rampant in the sixties and black people were subjected, as a matter of course, to discrimination, injustice and inequality.

The Hannas were among the few blacks who had been able to pull themselves out of the mire of poverty and deprivation, but they were still part of the frustration that had boiled over into the Detroit race riots that lasted five days in the long, hot summer of 1967, claiming 43 lives in the process. Today, it should be noted, Detroit remains the most segregated major city in the United States.

So here they were at the Trinidad Hilton with one simple request on that fateful Monday, July 28, 1969: they wished to play a round of tennis.

The Hilton, not yet possessing its own tennis courts, had established an informal agreement with the neighbouring Country Club whereby its guests would be accommodated at the Country Club courts. Except that Dr. and Mrs. Hanna were the wrong colour.

Although there were vacant courts, the Hannas were turned away by the Club, their unbelieving suspicions of racial discrimination later confirmed when another Hilton guest, a white American naval officer, was welcomingly facilitated at the tennis courts of the Country Club.

In my front page report in the Express, I quoted Dr. Hanna as saying: “The furthest thing from our minds at the time was that we would be blocked because of the colour of our skin. This was unthinkable. We felt that race was something we had left far behind - in Detroit, Michigan.”

Three days later, it was as if the fates were trying to rip Trinidad and Tobago out of its inertia, perhaps preparing the country for the traumatic events that were to erupt early the next year, 1970. Another American couple, Mr. And Mrs. Robert Pious, also guests at the Trinidad Hilton and both delegates at a Mental Health conference at UWI, St. Augustine, were refused service in the Country Club bar. The bartender, as well as the manager, informed them that they could not be served unless they were members. The Piouses were both black.

On the morning of Friday August 1, 1969, the people of Trinidad and Tobago woke up to be confronted on the front page of the Express by what appeared to be proof that their free and independent country had something ugly in common with places like Detroit, Michigan: racial discrimination.

The Express page one story was complemented by an editorial with the headline “A Question of Colour”.

It stated in part: “In a small, close-knit society like this, with a largely homogeneous culture, there will always be examples of perfectly harmonious relationships between people of different races and colours. But should this blind us to the fact that there are still, in this day and age, numerous instances of blatant discrimination against black people, even though black people have become the political bosses of this country, and even though they form the majority in this country?”

That Express editorial of Friday August 1, 1969, went on to point to the ugly social situation that would linger even into 21st century Trinidad and Tobago: “There are still several social clubs which continue to operate informal colour bars in this country.”

The editorial continued: “The Country Club has traditionally been the most notorious offender in this respect. Nobody is fooled by the fact that they have taken in a few token blacks since Independence.”

This editorial and the news story which it supported would unleash a series of circumstances to which not many newspapers and journalists have been subjected.

First of all, I became the target of the anger of the Chairman of the Country Club, rum magnate Joseph Fernandes, now deceased. I had contacted him for a comment before committing my story to print. If I dared to publish what I had related to him about the two Country Club incidents, he warned, not only would he see to it that I was instantly fired from the Express, but he doubted I would be able to get a job anywhere in Trinidad and Tobago.

A powerful man indeed, but a little overreaching in his prognostications about my career path. Not only did I become political reporter of the Express but I do not think the goodly Joseph Fernandes survived to witness my much later assumption of the position of Head of News and Current Affairs at the now defunct Trinidad and Tobago Television.

So much for his assumptions regarding the extent of the power he wielded in independent Trinidad and Tobago.

However, Mr. Fernandes and the seven-man Country Club Board of Directors did go on to file libel suits against both myself, as the writer of the offending article, and Owen Baptiste, as the editor of the offending newspaper. The suits did cause some anxiety in the Express newsroom, but it never reached the courts.

Where Joseph Fernandes succeeded was by attacking the Express in the area where it was most vulnerable—its pocket. He was able to use his extremely influential position in the business community to rally a significant segment of the business comunity against the Express, no doubt with the objective of, at best, teaching this brash, young newspaper a lesson or, at worst, bringing the Express down. For a period of almost a year, the business community withheld advertising support from the fledgling newspaper, starving it of an estimated one million dollars at a crucial point in its development. One million dollars in 1969 terms, would be worth a fortune in today’s market.

Later, Express Managing Director Ken Gordon would acknowledge the role that popular national support played in protecting the Express from collapse in this period. In the minds of many in newly independent Trinidad and Tobago, the Express was a crusader for positive social change and protector of the public interest.

Notable among the Express “crusades” of this period were its spearheading of the national outcry against the Public Order Act and its decision to open up its pages to the historic Lloyd Best/James Millette debates that would have a powerful impact on regional integration.

An outcome of the “Country Club Scandal”, however negatively or positively it might be viewed, was perhaps the extent to which it may have fuelled the flames of protest and dissent that were to erupt in Trinidad and Tobago in early 1970 in what Lloyd Best dubbed the Black Power Revolution.

I remember a then young, “bad boy” political activist named Aldwyn Primus, a former copyboy at the defunct Trinidad Mirror, who had launched a Black Panther Movement in the late sixties, aping the more credible and much more militant Black American organization by the same name. Well, Primus and his scattering of followers had been looking for a platform on which to launch their organization into the consciousness of the Trinidad population and saw in the Country Club Scandal just the thing the doctor had ordered.

One morning, following the publication of the story, Primus and his handful of “panthers” marched around the Country Club armed not only with placards bearing over-sized pictures of myself but also of the white members of the Country Club board. One of the “panthers” also allegedly threw a poorly-crafted Molotov cocktail onto the grounds of the club which seared a small tuft of grass, but otherwise did no damage.

But perhaps the more positive outcome of the daring journalistic prowess of the Express was the eventual decision of then Prime Minister Eric Williams to do something about the Country Club situation. To the extent that he could be, Williams may have been moved not so much by the persistent crusade of the Express on the issue but moreso by the ensuing outcry from the national community that something decisive be done. In a dramatic political move, he appointed a Commission of Enquiry into the Country Club. At the end of the day, the Commission delivered a report, merely rapping the offending institution on its privileged knuckles.

The Commission found that the unsavory incidents involving the two Black American couples were more of an aberration of the management of the Club than reflective of any entrenched policy of racial discrimination by its Board of Directors.

Its conclusion, however, did nothing to assuage the mounting anxieties of the Express or of the general community. The still fledgling newspaper, spurred on by its significantly increased readership, decided to pursue one aspect of the points made in that editorial of August 1, 1969 which stated:

“The history of this society has been one long, slow climb from privilege based on colour to privilege based on merit and ability. In many areas of our social life we have succeeded in replacing the criterion of colour with that of merit. Education, public employment, political life, to quote the most outstanding examples.”

And the kicker: “But we would be only fooling ourselves if we felt that the struggle for social and economic equality is over, and that colour is no longer an important criterion in many areas of life. Private employment practices, for example, still leave a lot to be desired: how many banks and insurance companies (to name two examples) can claim that their employees were recruited purely on the basis of education and ability?”

The Express would go on to spearhead another journalistic crusade that would significantly influence the process of social change in Trinidad and Tobago. It demanded that the government appoint a Commission of Enquiry into Banks and Insurance Houses.

Williams, who had come to office with his own agenda for social change, promptly accommodated the request.

One of the major recommendations of the new Commission that would have a far-reaching effect on the society as a whole was that the ethnic composition of banks and insurance companies must reflect, as closely as possible, the ethnic composition of Trinidad and Tobago. The die was cast. Black faces began to emerge at the front desks and counters.

As we celebrated Emancipation 2008, I recalled a function that was held at the Trinidad Country Club on July 4, just a few weeks before Emancipation Day. It celebrated American Independence and was organized by the United States Embassy and its Ambassador Roy Austin, a naturalized black American, born in St. Vincent.

Looking around at the hundreds of black faces taking the Country Club surroundings for granted, I could not help but recall those incidents 39 years ago when four Americans could not play tennis or get a drink at the Country Club because they were black.

The Trinidad Country Club, the Express and indeed all of Trinidad and Tobago have indeed come a long way since 1969. But the question remains: is it far enough? Indeed the injunction of that Express editorial of August 1, 1969 is as relevant to today’s Trinidad and Tobago as it was then.

“The paradoxical thing about this country,” the editorial said, “is that of all multi-racial societies, it has perhaps come the closest towards establishing the basis for a genuinely harmonious society. Already we can say that most racial groups share in a common culture, and the barriers of language and religion which separate many races in other societies do not exist here at all.

“It is precisely because of this, therefore, that we should all strive to make an honest appraisal of our present situation, and move towards eradicating , for all time, the remaining barriers between us which none of us created, but which all of us have a responsibility to destroy.”

And this was 1969.

Neo-liberal Free Market Exposed As Dotishness

By Lester Henry

When Wall Street moguls of high finance find themselves running to Uncle Sam for public assistance you know that we are living in interesting times. Make no mistake about it what they are seeking- and getting- are billions of dollars in “welfare”. This is the exact same thing that they and their rich friends in the Senate and Congress deride against when it is sought after by the poor. But unlike the poor, they ask for handouts of US$700 billion and US$ 85 billion. The population is supposed to go along with this because, they are told, it is necessary to “save the system”. As the lowly rated US President Bush himself said, if they don’t get this money “this sucker is gonna blow”. Those of us looking on remain puzzled as to how an advanced developed country like the US could find itself in such a mess, making it look like a financial banana republic. The answer lies in a combination of greed and skullduggery that was justified under the hubris of neo-liberal free-market fundamentalism.

The Market

The belief that markets work best when left on their own is at the core of the current financial crisis. Even though this should have long been discredited - at least since the Great Depression of the 1930s- policymakers in the US have held on to it, actually believing their own rhetoric! The truth is that free markets always tend to create speculative bubbles, chaos and a concentration of wealth and power into the hands of a few. This is why nowhere in the world are markets ever allowed to be completely free from government intervention. The temptation to take excessive risk, to cheat or to form monopolies is built into the system. As students of economics will know, when there is anything close to a free market - e.g. the case of perfect competition - economic profit goes to zero for all firms. So in order to make any extra normal profits a firm has to engage in some form of risk, non-competitive or rather shady behavior.

What Happened:

The Market Unleashed

This is precisely what happened in the US financial system. Wall Street bankers had been pushing the envelope for more and more deregulation since the late 1970s. During the 1980s they got tremendous leeway under Ronald Reagan and rewarded him with the Savings and Loans crisis that ended up costing American taxpayers some US$600 billion. That bailout helped to push up interest rates around the world and caused many developing countries to fall deeper into the debt crisis. But it was during the 1990s under Bill Clinton that they really hit the jackpot. This came in the form of the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933. Among other things, this act had set strict barriers on what commercial banks, merchant (or investment) banks, and mortgage and trust companies could have done. In other words, firms had to choose which one they wanted to be. With that out of the way, there became a financial free for all. So for example, insurance company AIG started acting like an investment bank and dealing in sub-prime junk derivatives. This was chiefly responsible for its rapid demise.

When Alan Greenspan was being warned about the exploding housing bubble he said he had nothing against “wealth creation”.

The Sub-Prime

Base of the Pyramid

The base of the financial pyramid rested upon the sub-prime mortgage market. Since I have previously written about how this financial bubble came about and how it crashed before in the TTR, I will not dwell too much on it here. However, suffice it to say that it started with fraudulent, greedy developers and naïve home buyers over the period of the housing bubble, roughly between 2000 and 2006. Throw in over-eager financial institutions with lots of liquidity on their hands and you have the recipe for what is now called “toxic waste” in the financial markets. That is, many firms ended up with pieces of paper that became completely worthless once the original borrowers began to default en masse. So now Merrill Lynch is part of Bank of America and Lehman Brothers is now part of history.

The Revolving Door

Apart from the removal of laws allowing further deregulation of the financial sector in the US, there was also a revolving door from Wall Street to the government. High ranking Wall Street CEOs like Robert Rubin and Henry Paulson became Treasury Secretaries of the State, the former under Bill Clinton and the latter under George Bush. Were they then supposed to be “regulators” to their own firms?

The Credit Rating Agencies

Furthermore, the complicity of the rating agencies such as Standard and Poors and Moodys helped boost up the size of the pyramid. These agencies were all too eager to stamp AAA ratings on all sort of junk paper called fancy names like SIVs (Structure Investment Vehicles) and CDOs (Collateralized Debt Obligations), all of them based on sub-prime mortgages. These high ratings also contributed to an internationalization of the skullduggery. When European and Asian investors saw such ratings on these instruments they dived in head first or maybe “headless”. Now many of them will go the way of Merrill Lynch or Bear-Sterns unless their governments bail them out.

The Crash

As with all pyramid schemes eventually it had to collapse. It was good for about 5 to 6 years and many Wall Street crooks made fortunes out of the housing bubble. But as one commentator put it, if you jump out of a 100-storey building, for 99 floors, you can really think that you are flying. Many readers may have forgotten that this current financial crisis started to unfold more than a year ago. The first major casualty was Countrywide, the largest mortgage company in the US at the time. This was followed by some small and medium-size bank failures. But from then until now the names just kept getting bigger and bigger, culminating with the likes of Bear-Sterns, Lehman Brothers, Merrill-Lynch, AIG and now Washington Mutual Bank. After losing a fortune in the South Sea bubble of the 1600s, the great Sir Isaac Newton is reported to have mumbled “I can calculate the movement of the stars, but not the madness of men”.

The Lessons

The first lesson is that unregulated financial markets are a disaster waiting to happen. The neo-liberals should be hanging their heads in shame. Partial deregulation resulted in the Savings and Loans crisis in the 1980s. Full deregulation has now caused the worst financial crisis in the world since the Great Depression of the 1930s. Second, continuously appointing financial industry executives as regulators is asking for trouble. How could they be expected to act in the best interest of a nation when they are so closely tied to the industry? A case of who will guard the guards? Third, all of the high finance and complex mathematical modeling of financial markets being pushed by top business schools will have to be debunked as pure obfuscation. It’s just a pyramid! Fourth, we should perhaps not be too hasty to get highly sophisticated in our financial system here in Trinidad and Tobago. Look at what it has brought. As for the Americans, as Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz has suggested “we need to impose a special financial sector tax to pay for the bailouts conducted so far. We also need to create a reserve fund so that poor taxpayers won’t have to be called upon again to finance Wall Street’s foolishness”

The Black Stalin

Winthrop Holder offers a wide-ranging appreciation of Black Stalin’s ‘Hard Wuk’ as the University of the West Indies prepares to confer the Honorary Doctor of Letters (DLitt) on the people’s calypsonian.

“You cannot see a light if it is put in a place of brightness, so it was necessary that [European colonialists] create darkness so that their light would shine.”

—Earl Lovelace, T&T Review, June 1998

“The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes but in having new eyes.”

—Proust

Debate, rather celebration, broke out on Spiceislandertalkshop.com, an open Grenadian forum on the Internet, when word leaked, from the ivory showers of the Mona Campus of the University of the West Indies, revealing that at the October 31, 2008 graduation ceremonies on the St. Augustine Campus, Trinidad, the university would be conferring an Honorary Doctor of Letters (DLitt) on Calypsonian Black Stalin. And it was from this lively, borderless, yet temporal, symposium that I first heard word that the academy had finally caught up with The Black Man’s awesome indigenous knowledge and his embrace and celebration of the ‘ritual discourse of the streets’. Elation reigned supreme among the masses and beyond. And, soon people were testifying, anew, how Stalin’s work resonates among so many “sufferers”, in particular, and civilians in general.

“Leroy Calliste [is] one of the truly great exponents of the calypso art” wrote Bigdrumnation on the Internet thread. Attesting to his ability to bridge the gap between the sacred and the secular he continued, “Black Stalin is revered by legions of calypso fans, including the Roman Catholic Bishop of Grenada.” Such testimony to the reverential awe that encircles Stalin paved the way for an exploration of The Black Man’s life journey, pilgrimage if you will, and a dialogue around his ability, not only to foment contemplation as a precursor to action, but also about the force of his work to engender hope and renewal. And in a flash, breaking out in cyberspace, the rum shops, market places and limes throughout the Caribbean and the world, was an electrifying discussion on the enigmatic and iconoclastic Stalin, the “Emblematic Figure of Calypso”, and his centrality to our very being and sense of selfhood.

RealPolice, another contributor to the thread, thundered, “Most of the pioneer calypsonians in Trinidad and Tobago were either born in Grenada or have Grenadian roots. Gypsy, Faye Anne Lyons [and her] father ‘Super Blue’ [have] ties to Grenada. Therefore, Grenada has lost out culturally to Trinidad and Tobago.” Commie, another contributor, wrote “I was in Port of Spain when Stalin won the crown with ‘Caribbean Man.’” All of this and we haven’t heard from any “Trini” or “’Bago” voices “to the bone” yet.

Sometime in late July 1988 I received a call from Dawad Philip, then the editor of The Daily Challenge, New York’s only Black daily, informing me that he had scheduled a five minute interview for me with Black Stalin to get background information for a short piece for the Friday paper to promote Stalin’s historic performance at the famous, now defunct, Village Gate Jazz club in NYC. But, the Stalin Symposium—rather Dialogues—-went on for more than 90 minutes. And, when I sat down to write, I realized that (even now) I had a serious problem: How to truncate Stalin’s words into the few lines that the editor had set aside for the piece. Or, as The Black Man, himself, would, in a later interview, pose the dilemma of kaiso research/writing thus: “How to capture/bottle the spirit of calypso in a few words?”

Picking up the Friday newspaper I was elated on seeing a picture of Stalin staring at me from the centerfold between the two pages filled with his words. And when he was presented with the paper Stalin, rather nonchalantly, said: “Man, you guys really allow me to talk!” The paradox of someone who has continuously used the vehicle of calypso to advance the cause of the underclass being amazed at his being allowed to talk, stunned me. It was then that it dawned on me that my editor had experienced the power of Stalin’s words even before hearing them read, for he recognized the error of the academy’s and media’s penchant for authenticating some voices and de-authenticating others. And this may have been the epiphany that moved him to reorganize the center pages thereby giving voice to, and validating, Stalin’s words beyond his lyrics. Little wonder, then, that around the same time Phillip started a weekly column, “Word! A Youth Forum,” which brought the marginalized and suppressed, though resilient, youth voices into the mainstream of the media and our popular imagination.

While in the interview Stalin may not have set out to seek and reshape landscapes, his written words provided him with a new vision. The catch phrase—a core element in his work—“allow me to talk,” helped us see more clearly how the calypsonians’ voice beyond the lyrics, had been muzzled in the discourse on the calypso. And this may well have compelled us to embrace Stalin’s quest to ‘bend de angle on them,’ by unearthing and validating more voices from the so-called margins.

‘Ah Home-Grown Kinda Thing’

“In times of joy we must be thankful/ Because life really have its ups and its downs.” “In Times”

How did we get to this point and why have so many been so willing to join Stalin on his “ongoing reflective process of self-discovery and self-creation”? By sampling the poetry of everyday people to contest the discourse and dogmas of the downpressors and, to use dub poet Mike Smith’s apt term, ‘intellectual pen dragons’, hasn’t The Black Man extended roles from being mouthpiece of the oppressed to that of our ultimate warrior intellectual? How have we been connected to, and drawn into, his message and method and what animates his vision/work? Stalin elaborates in a late July 2008 interview:

“It was really nice to hear of the UWI recognition. It feels good to know that over the years I’ve been able to make a contribution in people’s lives. And that’s all that I set out to do.”

Launching his career in 1959, as a citation to be presented to the Black Man later this year by the Emancipation Committee of T&T notes, “with ‘Why I Want to be a Calypsonian’… he remained true to what he conceived his profession to be about, a position he states in ‘Wait Dorothy Wait’:” ‘In this world of nuclear and revolution/ The calypso man still singing ‘bout rum and woman/ So ah just making sure that when they runnin they big mouth/ It ain’t Black Stalin music that they talking ‘bout.’”

Though Stalin may never have struggled much to find his voice but walking with him on the road to (re)fashion his distinctive message we may have encountered one or two bumps. Still, an aversion to smut and degrading lyrics runs deep in Stalin, as less than uplifting lyrics were firmly expunged by the Black Man in 1965 when, as Keith Smith and Kim Johnson revealed in The Official Calypso Review ‘88, after “being encored night after night for a smutty song [that] he was uncomfortable with… he walked out of the [Original Young Brigade] tent mid-season never to return.” Such tenacity, faith and conviction in the ultimate supremacy of the progressive over the merely crowd pleasing is at the core of his work and appeal.

In our July 2008 Symposium Stalin reflects: “I grow up in a God-fearing home and I couldn’t go on stage, night after night, and sing smut with my mother still alive…. So the positive vibes were ah home grown kinda thing.” Here Stalin demonstrates the quintessential human and noble character of engaging in self-reflection as a means of inspiring self and others to greater heights. Stalin adds, “We have to hope that who on smut would make the change one day” And there can be no better testimony of hope, renewal and transformation than “Wait Dorothy Wait” which percolated in his mind for a long time before unleashing it in 1985 as an anthem for many.

Getting to the core of The Black Man’s reach, the Emancipation Support Committee citation continued: “The Black Man has placed himself from the outset, within an emancipatory process that has many dimensions and levels. It is political, cultural, economic, intellectual and spiritual, but his work is always in this emancipatory mode.” It’s a mode of resistance that Stalin embraces and projects, in his own words, and as he says, “Just to make a difference. And I’m so happy that over the years my work has been taken up by people in different quarters and has been used to make a better life for themselves.”

Few recognize the potential and reach of his work better than Stalin himself, who grounds his work in the people’s life stories, travails and aspirations. He continues, “Because pieces of Black Stalin’s work is people’s anthem, whether it’s like a family would say to each other, ‘We could make it if we try’. Or when one is in problems to say, ‘Let’s Look on the Bright Side’, or draw on ‘Better Day are Coming’ and the ‘The Caribbean Man’ for inspiration and guidance.”

Popular Education Thru Calypso

“Notting, notting … eh strange/ In de life of a man out for change.”

Oh, how have numerous sectors of our global village been drawing from, and on, his work for inspiration and a guidance that’s life-long and life affirming. Moreover, through the portal of Stalin’s work many seize the opportunity to use the calypso, in general and his work in particular, to reflect on personal, emotional and, even spiritual growth. Commenting on the Spiceislandertalkshop.com, Bigdrumnation recalls that “Stalin and Valentino headed a ‘Grenadian Posse’ in a 1979 tour of Grenada, Carriacou and Petite Martinique in the immediate wake of the triumph of the Grenadian Revolution. Posse members included calypsonian Gypsy- whose roots run deep in Paraclete, and bandleader Roy Cape, whose parents hailed from Grenville.” Thus this new honor for Black Stalin forces people to remember and reflect on the selfless spirit characteristic of the Black Man life’s journey sowing seeds of possibilities/empowerment in its wake.

Let’s listen in on the reflections of Martin Felix, a Grenadian activist and educator residing in Brooklyn, “Although short-lived, the PRG/NJM Revolution in Grenada was a memorable and educational experience for me as a youth growing up during that period. It was a moment filled with rich political, cultural, and literary lessons [and] that experience… enriched my life and made me a better person.”

Indeed, in “No Way” (1988), Black Stalin reflects on the revolutionaries devouring the revolution:

“When they try and they fail to stop Maurice Bishop/

Yes, they get he own people, Ah say, to Lick him up.”

Although concerted attempts are made to denigrate and revile that period in Grenadian history, the glories, memories and possibilities linger in the minds of many. Felix continues: “Much credit for the cultural capital of that era has to be given to the many artists who emphasized the true essence of calypso – popular education…. There were many examples of such compositions and I witnessed many memorable moments, but a Black Stalin performance one very late Saturday night (sometime on or around African Liberation Day in 1980) made an indelible impression on me. Black Stalin came to Grenada with Brother Valentino and some performers of NJAC’s cultural arm on a solidarity tour. Though all the performances of that series were outstanding, it was Stalin’s performance of ‘Caribbean Unity (The Caribbean Man)’ that I can recall most vividly. It was simultaneously theater, spoken word, and a history lesson.” Felix continues, “Probably it was because the song provided some answers and set the parameter for discussing one of the most burning questions I had at the time,” and he breaks out singing:

“You try with a federation/ De whole ting get in confusion

Caricom and then Carifta/ But some how ah smelling disaster

Mister West Indian politician/ I mean yuh went to big institution

And how come you cyar unite 7 million.”

Indeed, as Felix notes, “Stalin’s Caribbean Unity plea can be said to be the anthem of the moment because he captured the long-standing quest of the unfinished business of a Caribbean nation - a genuine and wider Caribbean Union.”

This notion that we, of the Caribbean, are inextricably linked as one is key in Stalin’s thinking as reflected in his words, “There exists a homeliness and togetherness throughout the Caribbean… away from the politicians [who] don’t know how powerful Caribbean Unity is.” Recent posturing by a few Caribbean governments with talk of a Caribbean Union highlights anew how far removed these ‘leaders’ and their top-down approach to (mis)governance are from the true aspirations of the Caribbean masses whose voices refuse to be silenced.

Hoagy Stevens, a New Jersey based social activist from St Lucia, reflects: “From the ghettos of Soweto to the Laventille Hills, Stalin’s music has been used to uplift the downtrodden…. I have seen him in performance endless times. Anytime you hear Black Stalin or David Rudder is in town, I’m sure to be there…. No matter how small, Stalin is always pushing for Caribbeanism and Caribbean integration. That’s my umbrella, my movement.” Foregrounding Stalin’s “Caribbean Man” more than 60 years ago, Eric Williams, in The Economic Future of The Caribbean, made the still unacknowledged point, “[C]hange there must be. And that change, it is equally clear, must be carefully planed and must involve a closer union of the separated Caribbean units.” How, then, can present-day leaders talk about a Caribbean Union without careful planning that solicits and values the input of the masses? If it’s clear to the Caribbean massive that togetherness arises from the bottom up, why are the ‘leaders’ so deaf to the people’s chants and aspirations? It’s as if today’s leaders never heard, or even read, Relator’s “Deaf Panmen” with its caustic refrain,

Some playing B-flat, some playing F

They can’t hear a thing because they deaf

But still they come out to jam

And the name of the band is Dr. Williams

Ah hope you understand the masquerade

Panmen with dark shades wearing hearing aid.

If leaders are now aphonic and incapable of voicing sense and simple truths, then The Black Man’s role as perceptual antenna is all the more central. His music may also be viewed as a lens though which we reflect on our own self-fashioning, self-transformation and social awakening as we divine the future in the present. Dr. Jessica Adams-Skinner, now an AIDS Research Scientist and Educator, reflects on her first transformative encounter with Stalin: “‘Caribbean Man’ is definitely one of my favourite pieces…. I was in high school in Trinidad in 1979 and prided myself on keeping abreast of the political scene in the Caribbean. When I first heard this song I was mesmerized by the lyrics and Stalin’s ability to deliver what at that time I was already hailing as a classic in its own right. I could be in a deep sleep but once that song came on the airwaves it was as if I was conditioned, almost zombie-like, to wake up and salute one of my heroes. To sleep through this song for me was total disrespect.”

Indeed, Stalin’s haunting lyrics have a way of waking people up while tugging at our collective conscience and pushing us to engage in action, even if merely dancing, as a precursor to social activism. His approach is, as one writer puts it, “more probing than telling, less annalistic than analytic” to which Stalin adds: “So, I think, not only for me, but for writers in general, as Sparalanag says, ‘It’s important that when you write, you try and write sense.’ I welcome the recognition and I hope that other writers could see the importance of trying to make a contribution to change the lives of people and the world in general.”

Joining the symposium of celebration Ulric Butcher, former T&T national youth soccer player (1974) and one who “dabbles in composing and singing calypso”, adds, “It’s a milestone achievement that enhances Stalin’s other awards…. It also provides motivation and inspiration for younger artists who are dedicated to making a difference like Dr. Sparrow, and Stalin who is now achieving this recognition… It’s not the first time that the University is granting such a degree to a calypsonian.” On that historic occasion Black Stalin was one of the first to proffer profuse praise on Dr. Slinger Francisco. Celebrating Sparrow and the calypso in an (October 1988 T&T Review) symposium, The Black Man said, “Kaiso come a long way and it’s going to go a long way. When I saw Sparrow being honored…and Stalin interjects … Sparrow[‘s] classic [line], ‘Calypsonians really ketch hell for a long time’ … and to see that today universities could watch kaiso and honour it. A kaiso Doctor! Give Praise and Thanks!”

Commenting on Spiceislandertalkshop.com, which approximates a public university where everyone is both student and professor, Bigdrummation reminds us that “It was Stalin who conferred on Brother Valentino the title of ‘People’s Calypsonian’ [and] it was Stalin who lavished tributes (in song)… on pannist Winston “Spree” Simon, and on chutney singer Sundar Popo.” Just as Stalin forges and values life-long friendships with the “Sufferers” for whom he speaks, so too he treasures and nurtures artistic relationships. Indeed, his classic “Sundar” was not only a paean to national unity but, more importantly, a tribute to the indomitable Sundar Popo. Writing Sundar into Kaiso lore and our cultural history Stalin sang:

“Since de days of Nani and Nana/

He is de man who really start chutney/

And clear de way for Rikki and Drupatee/

So now I going and do for you ah chutney jam.”

Little wonder then that on his passing, Hinduism Today (September/October 2000), reported that Stalin “delivered the eulogy at Sundar’s funeral, becoming the first black artist to speak at the funeral of a Hindu/Indian artist.” Capturing Stalin in full flight and revealing the essence of his humanity and a commitment to crossing borders and igniting social cohesion among “sufferers”, the paper continued, “[i]t was a touching ceremony to see a black calypsonian among the many orthodox Maha Sabha pundits who performed the religious rites for Sundar Popo.” Revealing the essence of friendship and documenting “the first time a calypso was sung at the funeral of a Hindu” the article noted that, “Stalin sang the 1995 song he and Sundar had sung together on the national calypso stage.”

The Black Man, like David Rudder, is committed to spreading the gospel of unity while documenting “The [Auto]biography of the Now.” Stalin, in paying tribute to famed bandleader Roy Cape, collaborated with him on the playful, “Leroy Roy” in which Stalin sings: “Since you is a kaisonian take the mike and let we extempo.” But, instead of taking the mike Cape takes his sax and obliges with a hauntingly magnetic extempo all the while The Black Man bigs up the legion of musicians who influenced Cape. “Leroy Roy”, then, is a tightly constructed and arranged ode that only The Black Man could conceive and execute, flawlessly. And there’s tension in the piece as the chorus encourages the mock duel instructing the ace sax man to “Blow Roy Cape, Blow” as he continues to provide sweet music for Stalin and us all, even as The Black Man continues with the tease. Stalin explains the collaboration, “I’m giving praise to my brethren concerning his musical talents, featuring him as an individual player, in the whole thing and not just a band accompanying a kaisonian.”

Similarly, highlighting the deep and real sense of camaraderie, support and love nurtured in the calypso Stalin reveals that, ”When the degree was announced, one of the very first calls I got was from Gypsy… but I wasn’t home and he sang two extempo verses… expressing how beautiful he felt about the recognition.” And when I asked Short Pants, another master of the extempo, for a reaction he offered:

It is fitting that we celebrate/ The Caribbean Man gets the Doctorate.

His Immortal Message still there to see/ The Black Man, Doh Get Nothing Easy -

But We Can Make It If We Try/ We can Bun Dem if, we hold we head high.

Feel to Party; Better Days Coming/ It’s the time to Play One for Black Stalin!

Stalin continues his reflections: “And calypso people and associations from all over the Caribbean and as far as Britain, even ordinary people called to congratulate me.” Stalin’s music, sometimes serving as a type of therapy, has touched people in many walks of live. Eddy Taylor, a retired hospital administrator who hails from San Fernando, reflects, “We began to recognize that intellectually, the Black Man had more to offer than purely the jump and wave party mentality.” He adds, “although the calypsonian was always the messenger, Stalin built on that tradition by fusing and channeling the bacchanal situation and the entertainment arena into a focus on social commentary and used our common, everyday language and behavior, to raise our level of psychological and political consciousness.” Key to Stalin’s reach and his mode of instruction, then, is an ability to cultivate the intellect of the downtrodden and the dispossessed by forcing us to revisit and re-engage deeply troubling and formerly suppressed issues.

King Swallow, multiple Antiguan Calypso Crown and Road March Title winner who will be honoured at the October 25 Annual Sunshine Awards(NY), testifies to The Black Man’s appeal and influence in the calypso community: “If you ask him about Rupert Philo he’ll tell you, ‘That’s my brother. I have a brother in Antigua.’ It’s always an encouraging feeling to go and watch him perform. Sometimes if I’m going on stage before him, he’d say, ‘I’m going to take you in.’ And,I make sure that I’m out of the dressing room to take him in when he’s on stage…. He’s always accepted in Antigua as one of the greatest performers…. He does it so well and so easy. You can even say he is flawless…. Over the years his work has had a strong influence on my work: In composing, the artistry, the presentation of the music, his stage personality in all these aspects Stalin is super.”

As such, the calypso fraternity from far and wide welcomed this honouring of Black Stalin as only the second calypsonian to be recognized by the university with an honorary doctorate! Interestingly, at the July 2008 International Conference of the Association for Cultural Studies held at Mona, Jamaica, David Rudder was hailed as one of Six Scholars of Caribbean Cultural Studies thereby underscoring what Brian Meeks, in Narratives of Resistance: Jamaica, Trinidad, The Caribbean, highlights as “the central importance of the popular arts in social analysis.” One wonders when consideration would be given to bestowing similar honours on a few more of our still unsung heroes such as Shadow, King Short Shirt, Boogsie Sharpe and Robbie Greenidge.

Dancing Without Regret (a personal connection)

“If you can’t prove what you writing/ Then don’t write what you writing.”- “Jail”

How has Stalin’s “emancipatory lyrics” channeled our sense of selfhood and independence? What about his hold, not only on the popular imagination but also, on the ‘vision thing?’ What accounts for the continued relevance and prescience of The Black Man’s work and its penchant for recapturing sensibilities while refashioning futures? Listen in as Ian Martin narrates the trajectory of Stalin’s pull: “I came [to the U.S.A.] in 1973…. And when I graduated I went back to Trinidad and got married [and] was fortunate to see carnival in 1978 and 1979…. When I returned here I got a real comfortable position with one of the largest property casualty insurance companies so carnival was out of the question for me during the `1980s and 1990s because the busy months for me are January through March…. However, late one Saturday night in 1991 I happened to turn on the radio and I heard Black Stalin’s “Ah Feel to Party” and immediately I said to myself, ‘Stalin is singing about me.’ I felt a personal connection with the song…. It was as if Stalin knew me and studied my situation and was singing directly to me.”

Martin interjects the opening lines of the song, ‘Stop all housework you doing/ Tonight we going and have some fun/ Ah just feeling to party/ The way we used to when we was young.’ Switching back to talk, he continues, “So I spoke with my wife and the following day we booked tickets to carnival. And that was my first carnival in about 12 years because all my efforts in the 1980s were about seeing about the family and maintaining the job…. Carnival didn’t cross my mind in the 1980s… until that night when I heard ‘Black Man Come out to Party!’”

This classic number resonates and provides a space in which bonds are renewed thus strengthening the foundation for family and community, even dancehall, cohesion. And how have we partied while being mindful of our social responsibility to keep family together. Les Slater, chairman of the Trinidad and Tobago Folks Art Institute (NY), observes: “I know of a few intellectuals who had a problem with ‘Black Man Come out to Party’ but I don’t have a problem with it…. Once on Trevor Wilkins Show (91.5 FM) we did a program on the best party music that has come down the pike. And, as for my list, I wound up with ‘Black Man Come Out to Party’ as the best party song ever! That is saying something for an artist whose focus is dealing with the more serious side of life…. He’s saying that after having done all the serious stuff through the years [husband and wife] have earned the right to go out and party!”

“Ah Feel to Party” has become such a personal anthem that it moves people in so many directions even to the point of referencing it in multiple ways. Zennie De Silva, a Trinidadian poet/educator, offers: “Long after the carnival season is over Stalin’s social/political songs linger on in our minds because we not only listened to the lyrics but we also danced to them and as we danced, we sang the words and they became part of us. For all this, however, his greatest song for me is still, ‘Tonight the Black Man Feeling to Party.’ When the opening bars of that song start up everyone feels to party. It is powerful in its music as well as its lyrics.”

Indeed, “Ah Feel to Party” is among a pantheon of songs from Marvin Gaye’s “What’s Going On”, Bob Marley’s “War”, Ella Andall’s “Black Woman” and Stalin’s own ”Bun Dem,” among others, which elicit instant dancing and singing in unison at the sound of first bar! Stalin, then, never has to instruct his audience to ‘get something and wave’. Spontaneous waving, dancing, celebration, and even taking a plane to witness and be rejuvenated by a Stalin performance, flow naturally from the power of his poignant lyrics and rootedness. His rejection of binary opposites or blending of the party feeling with conscious lyrics was dramatized by Louis Regis in his must-read Black Stalin: Kaisonian noting that Stalin’s early dancing days and time spent playing pan may have shaped his “notion of calypso as dance music… thus escaping the sermon or lecture mode into which other message calypsonians have fallen.”

Regis helps us see more clearly a Stalin who is grounded in, and integrates, the best of our even seemingly contradictory folk traditions by employing what Barry Chevannes, in Between and Betwixt, refers to as “[t]he power of ambiguity and paradox in Anansi.” This, then, is the great strength/paradox of the Black Man: a penchant for getting people to dance, and be fun-filled even when confronted by a bleak, even stark, reality all the while infusing his subversive lyrics that serve as a reality/sound check and counterpoint to the (un)controlled frenzy of the moment.

Indeed David Rudder’s “High Mas” challenged us to further ponder the tension between the sacred and the profane while Naipaul, like the calypsonian, realizes that laughter cuts both ways. His own attempt to battle with misperceptions of his work led him to wonder, in words that come close to shedding light on one of the paradoxes at the heart of “Bun Dem” and other great pieces of double-edges works in social realism: How can one laugh/dance to so much evil? Hear Naipaul express it somewhat differently. In commenting on a reading of In A Free State he said, “I had [the audience] rolling in the aisle …though later on they were a little shocked to discover they were laughing at something people shouldn’t really be laughing at. It was too late for them to regret their laughter.” Laughter, as we know it, and dancing often serve as masks in our tradition. It’s a tribute, then, to Stalin’s unapologetic sense of self and unblemished embrace of our struggle that allows him to have us dance and even laugh without any regret.

In ‘Bun Dem”, Stalin also settles the score, on the spiritual and humanistic level, with respect to how we should relate to those found guilty, in the people’s tribunal, of crimes against good sense and world civilization. Looking squarely into the past in a 1988 interview in order to influence the future in the present he says, “In ‘Bun Dem’ all are stripped of their titles… So I didn’t say Queen Victoria or Queen Mary… she became that woman Mary. This was done to express outrage against all perpetrators of injustice against Africans.”

Moreover, by employing eternal flames he recasts the evil that flowed from the darkness of the colonial mindset. Stalin, like Earl Lovelace, contests the cant that anything bright could have flowed from minds so evil that unleashed such pain. More than that, those “vampires” turned light into darkness only to then wallow in the lie of civilizing the ‘dark continent.’ Stalin is uncompromising in his quest to use his acute (in)sight, further brightened by the ‘Burning Flames’, to help us “overstand” the past and more importantly brace ourselves to be the future we seek as he compels us to become subjects of our cognition and masters of our destines. This is a mode of resistance that’s embraced by other noble warriors.

On a Charlie Rose show (July 2008) commemorating Nelson Mandela’s Long Road to Freedom and his ninetieth birthday, one of the interviewees related an exchange between Queen Elizabeth and Nelson Mandela. According to Rose’s guest the Queen called Nelson Mandela on his birthday and when the phone was given to him, the queen said, “Happy birthday Nelson,” to which the former South African president and moral conscience of our world responded, “Thank you Elizabeth.” According to the guest, Mandela’s staff scurried to remind him of the protocol with respect to, as the Mighty Duke would say, “putting a title to she name”! Mandela, like The Black Man, is “overs that” long time!

‘The Problem of Voice & Language

“Every Constituency is my constituency.” Black Stalin

What is it about this man Stalin that allows his voice, message and music to travel so far into the world and our consciousness? Why has Stalin’s voice and message been able to reach so many in the world community? If Dr. Leroy Calliste, our warrior intellectual, forces us to critically engage the past and the future he also pushes us to extend and appreciate a new range of musical possibilities.

How can his voice draw so many into its range in spite of Keith Smith and Kim Johnson noting, correctly, that his voice is “raspy [and] incapable of great heights or lows, maybe incapable of even scanning an octave.” How, then, was Stalin able to transform a potential liability into strength? Underscoring the problem of voice/diction in a stellar performance (at The Trinidad Hilton in the 1980s) the indomitable Lord Relator recreates the traditional tent setting to memorialize our penchant for appreciating calypsonians of various persuasions in spite- rather because of (an absence of sweet) voice and even presentation skills.

Relator reminded the audience that “the beauty with Lord Fluke [is that] you hear every word that he is saying but, poor fella, never would sing in time.” And this may even have enhanced his popularity in many areas even beyond Belmont where he was the Unofficial Road March King. Relator contrasts Fluke with “[The Mighty Jackson] who sings in time but you don’t hear one word that he says.” And striking up a comical pose and making unintelligible sounds, Relator scats much to the amusement of the enraptured audience. Although both acts may have had what some refer to as “major flaws” by conventional musical standards, yet to calypso and its demanding audiences, that didn’t minimize their popularity. Tellingly, Smith and Johnson conclude, “If [Stalin] can hold down a melody, good; his lyrics carry a rhythm that is naturally close to the spoken word as it is heard in the streets” making Stalin a folk poet par excellence, and, not just for his lyrics.

Related to the problem of voice is that of understanding the calypsonian’s language. Hear Stalin addressed this issue, in (Small Axe, March 2001), “It’s important to see us through our language…. When I say our language I mean our Resistance English that we use all the time… The… world had to learn what ‘Ire’ means. [Our] music is for the world but, again, through our eyes.” To which Joan Gordon, a Jamaican cultural activist out of Rochester, N.Y, says, “Stalin’s music transcends his Trinidadian roots…. All progressive people can relate to his music for it brings positive feelings and impacts us in profound ways. Stalin is blessed with deep insight which you can’t learn in a classroom and this contributes to his natural humanity…. Really, it was only after Bob Marley wasn’t with us that people appreciated his real genius…. It’s best to appreciate and honour our heroes now when they are with us.”

That the calypso may well be giving new life to Jamaican and Caribbean icon, Louise Bennet’s vision of “Colonization in Reverse” can be read into the dramatic and increasing interest in the calypso and the steelpan throughout the world. Rita Keresztesi author of a forthcoming study, “Carnival and Calypso, or the Business of Resistance in the Texts of V. S. Naipaul, Earl Lovelace, and David Rudder” says, “As someone from the other side of that bizarrely named…’Iron Curtain’ I have always been intrigued by “Black Stalin.’ His name captures my Hungarian imagination.”

Regis, in his masterful biography Black Stalin: Kaisonian, notes that though Stalin’s name may have held him back in competitions, he has always taken “unpopular decisions in stride and never gone public with invective against administrators, judges and fellow competitors.” Even when a newspaper columnist had the gall to write, as quoted in Kaisonian, “Perhaps [Stalin] should consider changing his name. What will the tourists feel on hearing that the Calypso King of this country is none other tha[n] the dreaded figure Stalin?”, the Black Man remained quiet. Little wonder, then, that Black Stalin never viewed such unnamed newspaper columnists—“silly reporters”—and other purveyors of gloom and doom as having not even, to use Lloyd Best’s term, “mosquito value.”

Exalting the Pan

“[P]an is opening up internationally and we can’t stop that,

what we have to do is come up with new ideas to stay ahead.” Dr. Jit Samaroo

“Steelbands need more respect on carnival day/

Steelbands need more respect coming from the DJ.

You have your big box of twenty thousand watts of power/

When the steelband pass we cyar hear the bass nor tenor…

So for this festival hear what I want you to do

Turn down your box, look the steelband coming…

We want to hear what the steelband playing.”

Black Stalin, “More Respect,” 2009

Stalin is always ready to celebrate the “hard wuk” that spawns achievements as he did with “Dr. Jit” in which he sang: “It was a long hard fight for the panman…/ So when word came out that day from UWI/ Jit Samaroo would receive a degree/ It brought great joy to pan people everywhere.” Here, The Black Man celebrates the famed pan arranger/composer—and nine time panorama winner with Renegades!—on the receipt of an honorary degree from UWI in 2003. This aspect of his work and appeal is not lost on the legion of fans, who respect The Black Man, not just for his music but, for his enhanced humanity and humility. A disposition that’s fused with an urgency to use the vehicle of the calypso to elevate the status of many of our unsung heroes and other voices form the margins even as he excavates and memorializes pan’s journey, “From playing a pan in Miramar Club to a degree.”

Stalin’s haunting lyrics tugs at, and serves as our collective conscience and is recognized and appreciated throughout the Caribbean and beyond. It’s interesting to note how many fans and critics alike instantly retrieve a particular song or catch phrase when looking at Stalin’s transcendental outpouring. St. Lucian Hoagy Stevens reflects: “Even in ‘Hey, Hey, Mr. Panmaker’ we have seen Stalin warning governments to safeguard we art-form.” To be sure, Stalin is very conscious of his mission of celebrating and protecting the interests of both the instrument and player. He explains, “I try to deal with the pan and the man. Like in ‘Mr. Pan Maker’ where we dealing more with the pan: its development and the need to nurture, safeguard, and refine it; and a song like ‘Pan Gone’ where I more deal with the man.” And he interjects a stanza, “Steelband now in society/But when they say society/Brother try and understand/That really goes for the pan/They don’t mean the man.”

Apart from Kitchener, the Grand Master, few calypsonians have celebrated and defended the pan—our patrimony—as tirelessly as Stalin. This inextricable link between artist and pan prompted Les Slater to observe: “Stalin is always exalting the pan; never seeing it in a light manner. The fact that Stalin could ask in ‘Mr. Panmaker’ how many grams of steel to make a pan lets you see the seriousness that he attaches to the pan.”

Indeed, throughout Stalin’s illustrious career, which may well have started in the pan yard, the pan has always been dear to him for as he says, “from small there was always a tenor pan in the house.” Featuring his early connection to the pan, Regis, in his definitive biography on Stalin, notes that Dennis, Stalin’s older brother, of the southern based Free French Steelband, and in whose care the young Leroy was entrusted, carried him to the pan yard from early prompting the mature Black Stalin to reflect, poignantly, that “his first crib was a tenor pan”! And it is this deep affinity with the pan flowing with his social concern which is at the heart of The Black Man’s life work and art.

Dawad Phillip, poet/journalist and founder of the San Fernando Jazz Festival, recalls, “Of course, Stalin’s first success in terms of music for pan was, as early as 1967, with ‘Beat My Tune’,” with which according to Stalin, he “went to the [Calypso] finals.”

Referring to that time when Sparrow and Kitchener ruled the road, Stalin adds, “I got beautiful feedback on ‘Beat My Tune’ as a couple of steelbands played it on the road carnival day… I remember Solo [Harmonites] doing it and it was on a recording with a steelband coming out of Telco Recording.” His appeal to the pan is taking off. Stalin reports that, “Today Jah Roots [a steelband] out of Point Fortin seem to take to Black Stalin’s music…. This year they played ‘We Can Make it if We Try’, ‘Black Man Feel to Party’, ‘Come With It’…. Roots play a lot of Black Stalin music and I sang with so many steelbands accompanying me, Skiffle Bunch, Despers, Silver Stars, and Exodus.”

In discussing the appeal of Stalin’s music to the pan, Phillip adds, “It happens sometimes that because of an artist’s lyrical strength people always listened to Stalin as opposed to cultivating an appreciation for his melodic contribution and its receptivity by pan…. But now, more and more, the pan community is listening to Stalin’s melody and finding a lot of great tunes to explore on the pan.” Embracing and extending Slater’s notion, Phillip adds, “Stalin both exalts the pan and provides beautiful music for the pan to play… but in the past people focused more on the message in the music, as opposed to the music in the message.”

Although “Beat My Tune,” like Shadow’s “The Threat” [1971]—early threats indeed to the then two-man domination of Pan’s Panorama Repertoire—can be viewed as an appeal to the pan, Stalin argues: “I never went the way of writing a particular song for the pan to play or as some people say a pan song. I don’t see that in the music. I don’t think there is anything that one can call a pan song… I view the pan as any other instrument in that it can play any music that you give it play so I never really… concentrate on doing music especially to attract steelband arrangers.” The discography of pan bears out Stalin’s point, for from European classic and Samba to Jazz and Reggae pan has made its mark. Stalin breaks out singing his 1994 Classic, “Me ain’t no one tune pan man/ any tune I could play beat me brudder, bring on you music sheet/ Whether it’s jazz or classic, name the music I could play it/ I could ramajay, any music I could play…. it’s time you start seeing me as a musician”. And he rests his case.

Further buttressing The Black Man’s point Phillip adds, “Sometimes those who make the choices for the steel bands kinda deal with a narrow palette. They look to the usual people. If you look back at the melodies of Stalin’s music, it has all the possibilities for pan… it’s just that somehow he hasn’t been a consistent choice and it’s not Stalin’s fault…. Steelband arrangers hear what they want to hear…. You can’t tell me that if I’m coming down the road with my band playing ‘Black Man Feeling to Party’ I cyant mash up de place!” Underscoring this view Phillip notes, “At this year’s Laventille Steelband Festival, the band that stole the show was Renegades… Everybody was playing Kitchener and all kinds of popular and tested songs but Renegades came through playing Nelson’s ‘All Ah We Is One Family’ and they mash up the place. What they did was energize a song that arrangers rarely looked at before. And it’s the same thing that’s happening with Stalin’s music…arrangers discovering tunes that they never looked at before.”

Flowing from the increasing pan activities throughout the year there has been a broadening of the repertoire of the steelband, especially since many of these events stipulate the genre of music to be played. Phillip reports that at a September 2008 Marabella Pan Festival part of the arrangement required steelbands to play chutney, and a parang. Indeed, these stipulations allow for a broader range of choice thus allowing bands and arrangers to explore previously unexplored music.

It now appears as if society is finally catching up with Stalin in that more and more, we are moving beyond our self-imposed limitations as “part time lovers” of “we culture.” Speaking to this repositioning of the culture of pan in the national psyche Philip concludes, “Of all the songs Phase Two decided to play at this year’s Laventille Festival was a 1957 Melody tune, ‘Jonah and the Bake’, which is an impossible piece of music to play for a band on the move… and you have to imagine how they have to stop and play ‘Jonah…yes pah, you take a bake her, no pah, you tale a bake par.. one gone.’ However, in spite of the challenge, it was a real intricate and beautiful performance,” that dramatizes anew that no tune is beyond the range or scope of the creativity that fires the inspiration for each performance. Indeed, Denzyl Botus, the renowned arranger of Despers USA argues that “We always like to take a challenge, a song [like Rudder’s ‘Monsterrat’] that everybody figures is hard, and make music out of it” (Everybody’s Nov/Dec 2001).

Just as Stalin is committed to exalting the pan he is equally committed to bearing the burden of documenting pan’s journey thereby serving as our collective memory. Challenging the pan fraternity to tell more of their stories Stalin implores, “Robbie Greenidge, Rudy ‘Two Left” Smith, Othello Molineaux and other pannists to relate their stories in any form; lectures or write about it and let the children read about it” For as he asserts, “Young musicians need to understand that journey… to help them appreciate how pannists were able to take their pans from the hills in Laventille or from St. James and reach on a stage with Jimmy Buffet and Liberace… Ah mean, that’s a long trip. If we panmen playing with these musical legends, then they are not just panmen but renowned musicians!”

Fortunately, Stalin’s call for serious documentation of the road traveled by the pan fraternity is being realized. There is now developing a treasure trove of publications to introduce, engage and stimulate young musicians around and behind the many bridges of suffering from which the pan rose. Or, as David Rudder puts it so aptly, “Out of a muddy pond ten thousand flowers bloom.” Both Kim Johnson’s “If Yuh Iron Good You Is King: Pan Pioneers of Trinidad and Tobago” and Myrna Nurse’s “Unheard Voices: The Rise of Steelband and Calypso in the Caribbean and North America” serve as the window through which young pannists can be introduced to pan’s glorious and multifaceted history and in the words of those who, according to Stalin, made “the long journey.”

University Without Walls….

“I made my debut in the late 1950s…. So I started when we was marching

down to Chaguaramus to tell the Yankees go home.” Black Stalin, July 2008

Little wonder that the work of the calypsonians, including Stalin’s, is commanding attention and scrutiny in the public square and on numerous university campuses. Employing the guile and resistance spirit that’s embedded in the spirit of Calypso, Keresztesi, neither tourist nor “Stranger” writes: “When I proposed a course on Carnival Literature at The University of Oklahoma… I felt the need to somehow justify to my colleagues that it was a creditable subject. Because the name of Mikhail Bakhtin carried the value of being ‘difficult’ and could be identified as ‘theory,’ I put his text on carnival at the top of my reading list that also contained Hollis (Chalkdust) Liverpool’s Rituals of Power & Rebellion and music CDs by Black Stalin, the Mighty Sparrow, and David Rudder, among others.”

Keresztesi reports that, “The course was accepted, I think, because Bakhtin carried the weight for the artists not immediately recognizable for a reading list at a traditional English department.” This has to be in the best tradition of the calypso, one which Gordon Rohlehr, the pre-eminent figure in research on the calypso, refers to as employing “a certain twist of mind” to transcend limitations and (re)fashion futures/possibilities. That the professori is a good student of the calypso is evident in her next activist stance: “Next time I teach the course, I should be able to start my reading list with the likes of Black Stalin a. k. a. Dr. Calliste, Dr. Hollis Liverpool, David Rudder, Earl Lovelace, and the list goes on.”

It now appears that the university is finally catching up with Stalin’s intuition and indigenous knowledge. From which fount springs Stalin’s interests and insights? Rawle Gibbons, an educator and playwright, uncovers and reveals the multiple layers of explanation and influences that engulf Stalin thereby providing clarity and a critical yet creative edge to Stalin’s work: “Some years ago, when I asked Stalin what influenced his perspective, he told me he was schooled in the ‘university without walls’. By that he was referring to the classes and sessions he had as a boy growing up in San Fernando with griots like George Jeremiah, Clemmy George, Roy White and others. These were all African-conscious, Garveyite, Butlerite individuals. Clemmy George, a griot and chronic collector of newspaper clippings, also wrote an operetta on the 1937 riots ‘Winds of Change’. Jeremiah was a primary school teacher whose real passion was African history. His classes learnt African songs and dances and like Bango in Earl Lovelace’s SALT, celebrated Emancipation Day with his own parade since the 1940s. The African influence was at home as well, as his mother belonged to the Orisha faith.”

No doubt, Stalin was well schooled and continues to be appreciative of his informal education. This is evident in his paying homage to the spirit of the times and its impact and continued salience on his social consciousness, even into his mature life. In an interview (T&T Review, October 1988) Stalin, explained, “I do a lot of homework. In the late 196os serious work was gong on. There was a lot of readings happening in the back of the house—running of books,” capturing, as only he can, the minefields that fire his imagination and ire.

As a public intellectual, Stalin employs the vehicle of the calypso to engender thought and action among pupils and professor alike and this is perhaps best gleaned in Martin Felix’s reflections on his 1980s encounter with The Black Man. Understanding intuitively that, at his best, Stalin is a professor emeritus extending the boundaries of knowledge in the ‘university with walls’, Felix commented on a Stalin performance thus: “Stalin, in his trademark centripetal encirclement on stage at Queens Park [Grenada] that night, dressed in all white dashiki with red, green and gold trimming, made me realize that the true intellectuals can be found in the most ordinary packaging [and] that kind of pedagogue is more accessible and more effective because it does not look like teaching.”

Thus Stalin, by valuing and giving voice to his people’s lived realities, understands and employs critical pedagogy much more effectively than our presumed ‘aristocrats of knowledge’ who rely almost exclusively on the fuzzy experts from North American and European universities who are long on jargon and fuzzy modules but short on substance and critical, problem-posing engagements. Is there any mystery why the music of the oppressed—rap, reggae, calypso, and so on—provides us with the most critical element—a bridge—to energize and enliven public education all the while inciting the youth to chant down Babylon as they refashion futures, ours and theirs?

Felix, a grassroots philosopher himself, adds: “Stalin provided me with a great ‘mini-lesson’ and sent me to do further research as extended class work. The task that Stalin provided me at that concert in Grenada, has preoccupied me with an excellent framework for continuing research as well as a model of best teaching practice… I very often revisit Professor Stalin via his recorded ‘mini-/major-lessons’ whenever I need to be reminded of this, our most pressing but illusive task – ‘Caribbean Unity’.”

If Stalin, by continuously excavating and revisiting vexing issues in our social/cultural history provides us with new ways of re-interpreting reality, so too his method has been embraced by those who follow and try to understand and promote his vision. Gibbons sees Stalin’s music as coming “out of a love-place: love for the art, the race, his family, the people and culture of Trinidad and Tobago.” Getting to the underbelly of Stalin’s work Gibbons posits that “Stalin’s music is positive and constructive precisely because he balances artistic integrity and artistic success, offering perspectives that are fair and fearless.” This warrior spirit flowing from a love for his contemporaries and the ancestors is no better place captured than in “More Come”, and his calling on the spirit of the slave revolts to compel us to be “iron thorns” in our struggle to expunge the hold that the oppressors still have on too many minds and, more importantly, to becomes resisters to modern day vampires and all those who push “unfreedom.”

Black Wizard, another celebrated social commentator and three-time Grenadian Calypso Monarch, reflects on the educative role of the calypso and its borderless communities: “I’m a student of Black Stalin, in the sense that I followed his music and learned from him just as I followed the Mighty Sparrow and learned from him…. Stalin has tremendous influence on my type of singing… He’s always singing on… the political, social and cultural issues… Although people appear to go for the more party type music they still have deep respect for Stalin who does deep serious social commentary.” And as if to remind us never to overlook the sometimes hidden registers of the calypso, Wizard reminds us that “Stalin is a deep thinker. Society can’t do without deep thinkers.”

That Stalin is a master of engaging his many audiences in the truly public and open university is further gleaned from Jocelyne Guilbault, author of Governing Sound: the Cultural Politics of Trinidad’s Carnival Musics, who notes: “[W]hen I first heard and saw Black Stalin perform, I was struck by the wits and wisdom of his lyrics and his mesmerizing presence on stage. My interviews with other artists, arrangers, musicians, and calypso aficionados further amplified my own reactions to Stalin’s exceptional stature in the calypso scene.” What is it then about Stalin and his work that incites so many at a moments notice to honour and experience his work as a vicarious thrill?

Though Stalin is known for his great expositions on all aspects of social reality/history, past and present, he must also be viewed not only as a deep thinker but, more importantly, as one of our best conversationalists/listeners and advocates. How else could he, year after year, divine, capture, refashion and express the issues that animate and preoccupy people in their homes and in the public square? And it is in this sense that panologist Khalick Hewitt is on point by replaying Kitchener’s timely and prescient comment on The Black Man as captured in “One Hand Don’t Clap”: “Stalin reminds me of a lawyer, pleading with the judge to win a case.” And though he has won the nod of the Calypso judges five times, he is a perennial winner in the People’s Court!

Yet, in spite of all that has been said, perhaps Wendell Bonnette, an Original Coffee Boy from San Fernando, Stalin’s hometown, may have captured Stalin best:

“I am proud to see him achieve this honour. Stalin’s music come like your children: You can’t love one more than the other… He’s about keeping the culture flowing. Stalin is no ‘part time lover’ as far as the culture is concerned. He’s all Hard Wuk!”

Nuff Respect Black Man, and Give Praise and Thanks!

By GREGORY McGUIRE

Minister of Finance Karen Nunez-Tesheira presents Budget 2008/2009. —Photo: ROBERTO CODALLO

Management of a resource-based economy in times of plenty is by no means an easy task. In many situations, a Government must choose between what is politically appealing and what is economically correct. A prudent Government would seek to strike the right balance the two perspectives. Over the last five years, this Manning administration has demonstrated beyond any doubt that its decisions are influenced primarily by politics and not economics. Nowhere is this more evident than in the 2008-09 Budget speech delivered by Finance Minister Karen Nunez-Tesheira.

The fiscal package pays cursory attention to economic or social realities while pressing ahead with a narrow politically-motivated agenda. It is not surprising, therefore, that the Budget is distinguished by several flaws, omissions and inconsistencies, which render it vacuous as a tool for macro-economic management

The first flaw is the failure to take full cognizance of and to articulate a position on how developments in the international context will impact on the T&T economy over the next twelve months. The Minister was very brief to the point of dismissive in her treatment of the international financial crisis and the prospect of a slowdown in world economic growth. While the world’s major Central Banks, and indeed our own Central Bank, are preparing for the worst effects of the contagion, the Minister proclaims “at this point no one can be certain how the ongoing turbulence in the financial markets will impact Trinidad and Tobago”. Her treatment of oil prices was equally cursory, leaving the impression that the Government was going to persevere with a conservative position, and indeed going on later to contradict what she seem to be saying in the review. But perhaps the most glaring blunder was the failure to even mention the EPA - which is so fundamental to the future of the non-energy productive sector of the economy. Trinidad and Tobago is at the front of the line to sign on to the EPA, yet the Budget does not even recognize that this is a major environmental factor that should influence its policy direction.

There was no mention, for example, of new fiscal measures to support firms, old and new, who are prepared to confront the challenges posed by the EPA. A 2006 promise to provide “assistance to domestic firms to be re-engineered with greater state-of-the-art technology and processes”, remains in abeyance. Equally ignored were the future of regional initiatives such as the CSME and the Caribbean Court of Justice which are critical to intra-Caribbean trade and the future of the regional integration movement. In contrast, the Minister maintained a blinkered focus on those developments which were either favourable to T&T or which served the purpose of showing that “we were not doing too bad”. Her lengthy discourse on the issue of global inflation, for example, amounted to nothing more than an unabashed attempt to place the blame for domestic inflation elsewhere.

Even more troubling was the Minister’s analysis of the domestic economy. Her boast that economic growth of around 3.5 per cent in the last year was on par with that achieved by the major industrial countries was sheer obfuscation of the fact that economic growth is leveling off. The facts are that fiscal 2008 represented the third consecutive year of reduced economic growth in T&T -The Vision 2020 target of economic growth in per capita GDP of 10 per cent per year was ambitious from the start and now seems more improbable with each passing year. In addition, oil production has declined by more than 20% over the last fiscal year and the rate of expansion in the gas industry has slowed considerably. The facts are that a combination of high capital costs, higher gas prices, and unfavourable market dynamics have brought investment in new downstream plant to a virtual halt. For the third straight year, no new plant will be commissioned in the downstream gas sector. The Government remains silent on these facts quietly hoping projects still on the cards- Alutrint, Essar, Polypropylene and Maeleic Anhydride will in fact come to fruition.

On the external account, 90% of export earnings came from energy sector exports, a situation very similar to 1982. However, non-energy exports are also down for the fourth consecutive year, meaning that the economy is losing its capacity to generate foreign exchange outside the energy sector. In the meantime, consumer goods imports continue to soar. What all this means is that given the rate of consumption of imports, the economy could be running into an external deficit which would result in a rapid drawdown of foreign exchange in a manner similar to 1982-86.

The omissions or errors of judgment in the analysis of the domestic economy are compounded by a third flaw in the use of oil and gas prices that are overly optimistic and inconsistent with market realities. Several negative forces in the oil market , including the prospect of a global economic slowdown, volatility in prices and flagging cohesiveness among OPEC members, suggest that this was the year to be conservative with respect to oil and gas prices. But political motives would not permit such reasoning. As a result, the Government entreats the population to save while adopting the profligate attitude of presenting a Budget which seems to calculate first what it wishes to spend and then imagine an oil and gas price to foot the bill. Just consider what would happen if householders were to live like this!

In the current scenario, savings to the Heritage and Stabilization Fund become a residual and will occur if, and only if, realized oil and gas prices substantially exceeded projected levels. Another problem with the price forecasts is that while the Government, opposition and some commentators continue to place emphasis on oil prices, it is natural gas that contributes upwards of 85% of total hydrocarbon production and generates a larger share (50-60%) of Government revenue than oil. Ironically, the gas price forecast used in the Budget has no meaning to anyone because the Government has never explained what it means.

Is it the export price of LNG? Is it the average well-head price of all gas sold in Trinidad and Tobago? Is it the LNG netback price? We have never been told whether the realized gas price was above or below the budgeted price. Moreover, because the natural gas business is characterized by different prices for different applications and end use market segments, Government revenue from gas becomes incalculable in the absence of more precise information. The oil and gas producing companies can contribute to greater clarity in the process by publishing exactly what they pay to the Government.

The fourth flaw is the Government’s blatant refusal to accept that its spending is fueling the flames of inflation. The Minister states in part that one objective of the Budget is “to reduce the rate of inflation to a sustainable level of 6 per cent”. She continues: “the objective is to reduce the non-energy fiscal deficit from its current level of 16% of GDP to a range of 10-12% of GDP by fiscal 2011″. The latter statement is more consistent with Government actions than the first. This year’s Budget shows no evidence of intent to reduce inflation in the short term. Rather than put the brakes on expenditure, the Government takes full advantage of a high commodity price scenario to project higher revenues so that the spending can continue, notwithstanding the capacity constraints and spiraling inflation. Fresh plans are announced in practically every sector for more and accelerated infrastructure expenditure.

Highways, housing, early childhood education centres, water distribution, new hospitals, health and community centres constitute an ever expanding list of planned projects. The Government seems oblivious to the resource constraints that impact negatively on the economy. With the unemployment rate at 4.5%, one would have expected Government to reduce allocations to URP and CEPEP thereby freeing up some underemployed labour to take up more meaningful jobs in other sectors. Instead, plans are announced for the formation of a special purpose CEPEP company, which at best will institutionalize underemployment. Underlying the approach to development is the belief that faster is better. Sadly, the population knows only too well how easily a lack of planning can transform faster into slower and more into less.

The fifth flaw is the message from the Minister that the balances in the Heritage and Stabilization Fund represent an adequate level of savings, because it exceeded our outstanding external debt. I hope the Minister is not suggesting that there would be no need for an HSF if the country’s foreign debt was zero? With the injection of US$1.3 billion in fiscal 2008, the HSF now stands at US$2.9 billion. The Government continues to applaud the growth of the Fund as a significant achievement. However, the relevant questions are not asked or answered. Is there a target set for the optimal size of the fund? How much do we need to save to get to the target in say 20 years? In a speech to the PoS Rotary earlier this year, the Central Bank Governor suggested that at current rates of deposits, and assuming no withdrawals and a real rate of return of 4% , the total Fund balance would rise to a mere US$ 11.3 billion in the next 15 years. He called then for a “more robust rate of accumulation” equivalent to about 20% of annual energy tax collections. Unfortunately this approach of targeting a rate of savings does not appear to appeal to the Government, which seems prepared to leave saving purely to the dictates of the market. It is tantamount to an individual depending on Play Whe or Lotto to meet pension obligations.

In medicine, improper or inaccurate diagnosis would invariably lead to the wrong prescriptions which could worsen the patient’s condition. The same is true for the economy. It is not surprising, therefore, that the policy prescriptions or lack thereof, with respect to some of the productive sectors seem out of line with the reality. A look at the some of the policy prescriptions in two key sectors- energy and agriculture- would support this assertion. In the case of the energy sector, tax reform aimed primarily at the Exploration and Production business, and promised since 2006-07, remains outstanding while oil production and drilling slide. While the PM speaks about wanting to negotiate a better deal with LNG producers, the Budget remains silent on the matter only reiterating the Government’s intention to “increase its participation throughout the value chain”.

Nothing was said about Petrotrin, the state enterprise that sits on the largest acreage among all the companies in the country. In the context of declining oil production, it would have been useful to hear what Petrotrin plans to do with respect to its E&P business. What is the future of the refinery business particularly in light of the loss of markets due to Petrocaribe? Will the Government continue to pump money into upgrading the old plant or will it invest in a new refinery? While the move to reintroduce CNG is commendable the strategy seems to be a carbon copy of the one used in the early 1990s which achieved only minimal success. Shouldn’t CNG be the direct responsibility of NGC? Perhaps CNG would become more attractive when the Government finally develops the courage to cap the fuel subsidy on all fuels.

With respect to the agriculture sector, the Manning administration’s plans seem biased towards mega farms and new institutional arrangements while several long standing issues faced by local farmers endure and food prices continue to soar. These include purposeful action against praedial larceny, access roads and flood mitigation. Interestingly, none of these problems are likely to fall under the portfolio of Government’s new super technocrat Noel Garcia, who, in addition to his position as Executive Chairman of HDC, now has responsibility for ADB, NAMDEVCO and EMBDC.

The Government is clearly signaling its belief that centralization of agriculture agencies is the answer to the sector’s woes. The tardiness and skewed focus of policy initiatives in agriculture do not suggest that this Government recognizes the existence of a “food crisis”. Ironically, perhaps the best example of a nation dealing with crisis is Cuba where new policies and practices introduced during the post Soviet Union economic crisis, created a fundamental transformation in agriculture production .It is interesting to note that decentralization and the break-up of mega farms, ecologically-based agriculture and urban agriculture were some of the new measures introduced by the Cuban government.

The Government has delivered a ” good news” Budget, deliberately refusing to speak of anything negative. It is consistent with its new endemic tendency to deny reality- no dengue outbreak, no food crisis, no worries about an inflation rate above 10%. The result is that the population is being shielded from the real facts about the condition of the economy, the state of key productive sectors and the possible implications of the global financial crisis. It creates an illusion of a robust economy insulated from threat. In this context, the Budget is business as usual, following the pattern set in the two previous statements. It increases welfare payments, mainly to the aged and vulnerable and continues expenditure in the key sectors - education, health, housing and national security. It makes tentative steps to dealing with both the gasoline subsidy and the number of cars on the road. It is important to note, however, that the expenditure profile is supported by rents derived from the energy sector to an increasing extent. Those revenues streams remain vulnerable to price and volume swings in the oil, LNG and petrochemicals. The current global scenario suggests a softening of prices across the board, a situation for which the Government appears completely unprepared as it continues to saunter down the garden path, feet off the ground and head in the clouds.

It all amounts to the failure of Government to take an objective honest look at things and to ask the population to begin to make adjustments in order to preserve our gains. It is a recipe for disaster!