Tweet
clay.
As far as I know, Howard Gregory the Suffragan Bishop of Montego Bay is a good man. Yet for all of that his reasoned 'nice' column with balanced views fits right into "cut each of us, we bleed".
---------------------
Of diplomacy and truth-telling
Howard Gregory
Sunday, June 19, 2011
SEVERAL years ago while I was on a sabbatical in San José, Costa Rica, I was invited to be the preacher at the Remembrance Day Service being held in the Anglican Church of the Good Shepherd in that city. In addition to the regular members of the congregation, the service was attended by a number of dignitaries from national life and from the diplomatic corps.
In that sermon I sought to do a number of things. I first pointed to the way in which on occasions of this nature when we honour our dead soldiers, we find it necessary to justify the atrocities committed in war and the loss of these young lives by giving sanctity to wars and invoking the name of God in this process.
The commissioners who presided over the commission of enquiry into the events leading to the extradition of Christopher ‘Dudus’ Coke and the hiring of the US law firm Manatt, Phelps and Phillips. From left: Anthony Irons; Emil George, chairman; and Donald Scharshmidt.
I sought to point out also that, up to the time of the two major World Wars, wars were fought by soldiers of opposing forces confronting each other, but that wars have now taken on a new twist across the world, and the primary victims are ordinary citizens, inclusive of significant percentages of women and children, and which we have come to designate in contemporary battles as "collateral damage".
I also took note of the proliferation of landmines which were being manufactured by so-called "developed nations", and which were being planted indiscriminately in those territories in which the battle is being fought. As a consequence, ordinary civilians in the conduct of their daily activities have their limbs blown off or their lives extinguished. This would include children at play and farmers going about their round of duty.
Although at the time there was international consensus on the harmful effects of these devices on innocent civilians, a few countries, including "developed ones", refused to stop the production of these weapons, perhaps because wars of this nature would not be fought on their territory and their citizens would not be so maimed or killed.
At the end of the service a member of the diplomatic corps from one of the nations of the North came to me and said, "I can see that you are a real diplomat". The message was clear, I had made the points on which I wanted the congregation to focus, but without creating an unnecessary ruffling of feathers which would simply alienate those whom I wanted to reach with a message.
I am fully aware that there are those who see this position as a cop out because, for them, the truth must just be blurted out if warranted. Perhaps I take my cue from one of the greatest transformers of human life and proclaimer of the truth — Jesus Christ — who used the symbolic language of parables to effectively disturb, engage, and challenge the worldview of His hearers when appropriate.
While it would be presumptuous of me to attribute to the three commissioners of the Dudus/Manatt Commission of Enquiry any particular moral, religious, or philosophical motivation, it is clear to me that whatever findings they had to share in their report would have to be tempered in a language that would at least be diplomatic in nature.
From the outset there was a situation of national ambivalence toward this commission. While there were many who were calling for such a commission, there were significant numbers who, recalling the experience of commissions of enquiry in the past, felt that this exercise would not come up with anything of consequence, and would not be worth the time and the financial outlay.
Not to be forgotten are the loyalists of both political parties, one hoping for exoneration of its leader and party, and the other hoping that findings will emerge which will not only discredit but scandalise the leadership of the other party. Having been appointed by the prime minister, who would have a vested interest in the findings of the commission, there were questions of credibility of the commissioners, notwithstanding their professional career histories.
As the hearings of the commission progressed and took on the form of a television drama to which some persons were fixed, whether at work or at home, it became clear that the fractious nature of the society surrounding the work of this commission was being heightened.
The attorneys led the charge, the media reported every move, and the viewing audience took their positions on the credibility of witnesses, based again in large part on party loyalties. Every opportunity was used in the hearing, in the media, and on the talk shows to challenge the authority and integrity of the commissioners in their handling of the process.
Under the circumstance, it is clear that there is no report that could come from the commissioners which would find ready acceptance by the overwhelming majority of the population.
The threats coming from representative figures in the PNP concerning the staging of protest demonstrations if the findings were not in keeping with the general thinking of the public, prior to and since the release of the report, will be nothing more than mere posturing. It certainly could not have intimidated the commissioners into drafting a report which would be consistent with the expressed wishes and bias of the PNP, neither is the debate on the report which has been sought for Parliament likely to change one iota of the report.
It is also in this light that the intimation by Senator KD Knight that preparations will start for demonstrations against the report of the commissioners must be seen. It hardly represents more than political posturing at this time.
So now we have a report that has not offered any hard-nosed or earth-shaking revelation concerning its findings and recommendations. Why should anyone be shocked or surprised? Not only did the naysayers inform us that nothing meaningful would come from the exercise, but it was clear that whatever would come out would be something that touched on some issues but caused no offence in the process.
Beginning with a definition of "misconduct", which would have necessitated the indictment and/or discrediting of individuals, the commissioners saw "misconduct" as constituting what is unacceptable, deliberate, dishonest and mischievous conduct on the part of the individuals who were involved in Christopher 'Dudus' Coke's extradition.
They then dismissed the behaviour of any and all of those operative in the extradition affair as constituting misconduct. So, naturally, what follows is a language which is more of the symbolic, philosophical, and iconoclastic, and on which persons may form opinions, but not requiring or indicating any positive course of action in relation to the actors in that saga.
What then are the findings of the commission? In short, "mistakes and errors of judgement were made", "the prime minister's involvement with Coke's extradition was inappropriate", and "it seems to us that although late in signing the authority to proceed, the minister acted reasonably in signing it when she did".
Having been exposed to the diplomatic language as revealed by WikiLeaks in recent weeks, most of us are seeing a different understanding and use of the language of diplomacy from that of the traditional use of the symbolic, non-interfering, and non-confrontational.
Fortunately or unfortunately the commissioners are clearly of the old school and have chosen to opt for the traditional language and interpretation of the language of diplomacy so that they can be all things to all people and not cause any offence or rock any boat. Those receiving the report can form their own opinion and come to their own conclusions. I think that there is unlikely to be any change in the opinion of members of the public from the time the hearings began and now that the report has been released.
Given all of this language of diplomacy, one is still left to ask, where does all of this leave the people of Tivoli Gardens who were caught up in the middle of the conflict, trauma, and the loss of life which resulted from the mishandling of this situation, and what of the family of Keith Clarke whose brutal murder (my emphasis) has been linked to the same extradition affair and for whom no answer regarding the circumstance of his death has been forthcoming?
How does this report help the nation to come to terms with the events that transpired in Western Kingston in the wake of the extradition request, and the damage that the handling of this whole affair has caused to the international reputation of our nation with regard to the handling of corruption?
The next time we are inclined to call for a commission of enquiry, let us first ask ourselves whether we need another exercise which results in diplomatic statements, leaving us all to form our own opinions and no wiser than we were before, but with a hefty price tag, and offering little that is concrete and the basis for collective understanding and corrective action.
Howard Gregory is the Suffragan Bishop of Montego Bay
Read more: http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/colum...#ixzz1PraDI8Z6
As far as I know, Howard Gregory the Suffragan Bishop of Montego Bay is a good man. Yet for all of that his reasoned 'nice' column with balanced views fits right into "cut each of us, we bleed".
---------------------
Of diplomacy and truth-telling
Howard Gregory
Sunday, June 19, 2011
SEVERAL years ago while I was on a sabbatical in San José, Costa Rica, I was invited to be the preacher at the Remembrance Day Service being held in the Anglican Church of the Good Shepherd in that city. In addition to the regular members of the congregation, the service was attended by a number of dignitaries from national life and from the diplomatic corps.
In that sermon I sought to do a number of things. I first pointed to the way in which on occasions of this nature when we honour our dead soldiers, we find it necessary to justify the atrocities committed in war and the loss of these young lives by giving sanctity to wars and invoking the name of God in this process.
The commissioners who presided over the commission of enquiry into the events leading to the extradition of Christopher ‘Dudus’ Coke and the hiring of the US law firm Manatt, Phelps and Phillips. From left: Anthony Irons; Emil George, chairman; and Donald Scharshmidt.
I sought to point out also that, up to the time of the two major World Wars, wars were fought by soldiers of opposing forces confronting each other, but that wars have now taken on a new twist across the world, and the primary victims are ordinary citizens, inclusive of significant percentages of women and children, and which we have come to designate in contemporary battles as "collateral damage".
I also took note of the proliferation of landmines which were being manufactured by so-called "developed nations", and which were being planted indiscriminately in those territories in which the battle is being fought. As a consequence, ordinary civilians in the conduct of their daily activities have their limbs blown off or their lives extinguished. This would include children at play and farmers going about their round of duty.
Although at the time there was international consensus on the harmful effects of these devices on innocent civilians, a few countries, including "developed ones", refused to stop the production of these weapons, perhaps because wars of this nature would not be fought on their territory and their citizens would not be so maimed or killed.
At the end of the service a member of the diplomatic corps from one of the nations of the North came to me and said, "I can see that you are a real diplomat". The message was clear, I had made the points on which I wanted the congregation to focus, but without creating an unnecessary ruffling of feathers which would simply alienate those whom I wanted to reach with a message.
I am fully aware that there are those who see this position as a cop out because, for them, the truth must just be blurted out if warranted. Perhaps I take my cue from one of the greatest transformers of human life and proclaimer of the truth — Jesus Christ — who used the symbolic language of parables to effectively disturb, engage, and challenge the worldview of His hearers when appropriate.
While it would be presumptuous of me to attribute to the three commissioners of the Dudus/Manatt Commission of Enquiry any particular moral, religious, or philosophical motivation, it is clear to me that whatever findings they had to share in their report would have to be tempered in a language that would at least be diplomatic in nature.
From the outset there was a situation of national ambivalence toward this commission. While there were many who were calling for such a commission, there were significant numbers who, recalling the experience of commissions of enquiry in the past, felt that this exercise would not come up with anything of consequence, and would not be worth the time and the financial outlay.
Not to be forgotten are the loyalists of both political parties, one hoping for exoneration of its leader and party, and the other hoping that findings will emerge which will not only discredit but scandalise the leadership of the other party. Having been appointed by the prime minister, who would have a vested interest in the findings of the commission, there were questions of credibility of the commissioners, notwithstanding their professional career histories.
As the hearings of the commission progressed and took on the form of a television drama to which some persons were fixed, whether at work or at home, it became clear that the fractious nature of the society surrounding the work of this commission was being heightened.
The attorneys led the charge, the media reported every move, and the viewing audience took their positions on the credibility of witnesses, based again in large part on party loyalties. Every opportunity was used in the hearing, in the media, and on the talk shows to challenge the authority and integrity of the commissioners in their handling of the process.
Under the circumstance, it is clear that there is no report that could come from the commissioners which would find ready acceptance by the overwhelming majority of the population.
The threats coming from representative figures in the PNP concerning the staging of protest demonstrations if the findings were not in keeping with the general thinking of the public, prior to and since the release of the report, will be nothing more than mere posturing. It certainly could not have intimidated the commissioners into drafting a report which would be consistent with the expressed wishes and bias of the PNP, neither is the debate on the report which has been sought for Parliament likely to change one iota of the report.
It is also in this light that the intimation by Senator KD Knight that preparations will start for demonstrations against the report of the commissioners must be seen. It hardly represents more than political posturing at this time.
So now we have a report that has not offered any hard-nosed or earth-shaking revelation concerning its findings and recommendations. Why should anyone be shocked or surprised? Not only did the naysayers inform us that nothing meaningful would come from the exercise, but it was clear that whatever would come out would be something that touched on some issues but caused no offence in the process.
Beginning with a definition of "misconduct", which would have necessitated the indictment and/or discrediting of individuals, the commissioners saw "misconduct" as constituting what is unacceptable, deliberate, dishonest and mischievous conduct on the part of the individuals who were involved in Christopher 'Dudus' Coke's extradition.
They then dismissed the behaviour of any and all of those operative in the extradition affair as constituting misconduct. So, naturally, what follows is a language which is more of the symbolic, philosophical, and iconoclastic, and on which persons may form opinions, but not requiring or indicating any positive course of action in relation to the actors in that saga.
What then are the findings of the commission? In short, "mistakes and errors of judgement were made", "the prime minister's involvement with Coke's extradition was inappropriate", and "it seems to us that although late in signing the authority to proceed, the minister acted reasonably in signing it when she did".
Having been exposed to the diplomatic language as revealed by WikiLeaks in recent weeks, most of us are seeing a different understanding and use of the language of diplomacy from that of the traditional use of the symbolic, non-interfering, and non-confrontational.
Fortunately or unfortunately the commissioners are clearly of the old school and have chosen to opt for the traditional language and interpretation of the language of diplomacy so that they can be all things to all people and not cause any offence or rock any boat. Those receiving the report can form their own opinion and come to their own conclusions. I think that there is unlikely to be any change in the opinion of members of the public from the time the hearings began and now that the report has been released.
Given all of this language of diplomacy, one is still left to ask, where does all of this leave the people of Tivoli Gardens who were caught up in the middle of the conflict, trauma, and the loss of life which resulted from the mishandling of this situation, and what of the family of Keith Clarke whose brutal murder (my emphasis) has been linked to the same extradition affair and for whom no answer regarding the circumstance of his death has been forthcoming?
How does this report help the nation to come to terms with the events that transpired in Western Kingston in the wake of the extradition request, and the damage that the handling of this whole affair has caused to the international reputation of our nation with regard to the handling of corruption?
The next time we are inclined to call for a commission of enquiry, let us first ask ourselves whether we need another exercise which results in diplomatic statements, leaving us all to form our own opinions and no wiser than we were before, but with a hefty price tag, and offering little that is concrete and the basis for collective understanding and corrective action.
Howard Gregory is the Suffragan Bishop of Montego Bay
Read more: http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/colum...#ixzz1PraDI8Z6