Tweet
Criticism and method
published: Monday | March 12, 2007 <DIV class=KonaBody ssBEK="true">
Stephen Vasciannie
Sometimes it is not what you do, it is the way that you do it. For example, I continue to be disappointed with the Gleaner over the cartoon in which the newspaper of record portrayed the Prime Minister as a scantily clad, confrontational virago. Not to be outdone, it seems, the Observer has also taken up the charge: that paper has now portrayed the Prime Minister on the beach, callously dismissing black Haitians in need, while she prepares for the warm embrace of white cricket supporters.
Both cartoons have their supporters. Journalistic licence, freedom of the press, the need to pull down sacred cows, and the virtues of scepticism and independence are all called into evidence to support the cartoons. Just notice, however, that if journalistic licence and other time-hallowed and much-respected concepts are abused, the newspapers will lose readers and credibility. When credibility is undermined, there comes a point when little else remains. Criticise, then, but use a defensible method.
"Trade War"
It's the way that you do it. Last week, some important points were made about the Caribbean Single Market and Economy, and especially about the apparent failure of Trinidad and Tobago to meet its obligations under the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas. The criticism was that, with respect to Liquefied Natural Gas, and probably otherwise, Trinidad and Tobago has failed to satisfy Jamaica's needs and, simultaneously, has used spurious arguments to justify its position.
This criticism could well be true; without more evidence it is difficult to know for sure where the balance lies. The point, though, is that in response to Trinidad and Tobago's actions, Jamaica is being encouraged to embark upon a trade war with our CARICOM partner. Shouldn't we pause, and address the matter in the correct way? Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago are parties to the original jurisdiction of the Caribbean Court of Justice: rather than beat the metaphorical drums of war we could take the matter to a court expressly designed and structured to address this kind of dispute.
One problem with the "trade war" approach is that no one really knows what it means. Does it mean that Jamaica will stop trading with Trinidad and Tobago? If it does, I wonder whose interests this will serve? The whole point of trade is that both buyer and seller perceive that they may derive benefits from specific transactions: if in retaliation for a grievance concerning Liquefied Natural Gas, Jamaica stops selling financial services in Port-of- Spain, Jamaicans will be as hurt as nationals of Trinidad and Tobago. Cutting one's nose.
It is the way that you do it. The United States has issued its annual assessment of human rights throughout the world. With respect to Jamaica, the Americans have made a number of assertions that will bear closer scrutiny later on. And, in particular, it will be important to assess whether, and to what extent, the Americans advance evidence to support their contentions.
<SMALL>Notice, though, that in
published: Monday | March 12, 2007 <DIV class=KonaBody ssBEK="true">
Stephen Vasciannie
Sometimes it is not what you do, it is the way that you do it. For example, I continue to be disappointed with the Gleaner over the cartoon in which the newspaper of record portrayed the Prime Minister as a scantily clad, confrontational virago. Not to be outdone, it seems, the Observer has also taken up the charge: that paper has now portrayed the Prime Minister on the beach, callously dismissing black Haitians in need, while she prepares for the warm embrace of white cricket supporters.
Both cartoons have their supporters. Journalistic licence, freedom of the press, the need to pull down sacred cows, and the virtues of scepticism and independence are all called into evidence to support the cartoons. Just notice, however, that if journalistic licence and other time-hallowed and much-respected concepts are abused, the newspapers will lose readers and credibility. When credibility is undermined, there comes a point when little else remains. Criticise, then, but use a defensible method.
"Trade War"
It's the way that you do it. Last week, some important points were made about the Caribbean Single Market and Economy, and especially about the apparent failure of Trinidad and Tobago to meet its obligations under the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas. The criticism was that, with respect to Liquefied Natural Gas, and probably otherwise, Trinidad and Tobago has failed to satisfy Jamaica's needs and, simultaneously, has used spurious arguments to justify its position.
This criticism could well be true; without more evidence it is difficult to know for sure where the balance lies. The point, though, is that in response to Trinidad and Tobago's actions, Jamaica is being encouraged to embark upon a trade war with our CARICOM partner. Shouldn't we pause, and address the matter in the correct way? Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago are parties to the original jurisdiction of the Caribbean Court of Justice: rather than beat the metaphorical drums of war we could take the matter to a court expressly designed and structured to address this kind of dispute.
One problem with the "trade war" approach is that no one really knows what it means. Does it mean that Jamaica will stop trading with Trinidad and Tobago? If it does, I wonder whose interests this will serve? The whole point of trade is that both buyer and seller perceive that they may derive benefits from specific transactions: if in retaliation for a grievance concerning Liquefied Natural Gas, Jamaica stops selling financial services in Port-of- Spain, Jamaicans will be as hurt as nationals of Trinidad and Tobago. Cutting one's nose.
It is the way that you do it. The United States has issued its annual assessment of human rights throughout the world. With respect to Jamaica, the Americans have made a number of assertions that will bear closer scrutiny later on. And, in particular, it will be important to assess whether, and to what extent, the Americans advance evidence to support their contentions.
<SMALL>Notice, though, that in
Comment