De Wicket Takin Spin: Of Coha, Hurst & Seriousness

Article
Some days, events; even issues, are unforgettable, unfathomable!

Half our side was down for less than ten! It was clear we would cede bragging rights to village cricket supremacy. Crestfallen, we searched for answers on our way home. Teammates felt wily sophistry by a master craftsman of spin had done us in. To this day, I maintain our rueful infamy was due more to right conditions than bowler’s wizardry- De wicket was takin spin.

Mr. Hurst’s frontal assault on the Coha article (Votes for sale) appears heroic. He stands tall, dressed in Caribbean colors, tugging at our heartstrings- a true defender of the archipelago’s pride- And in the process emerges an almost enviable recipient of honey dripping accolades.  But seriously, is lampooning the Coha article justifiable? How did Mr. Hurst so easily succeed in spinning us out of considering more critical and consequential imperatives? And does his unchallenged polemics not provide troubling evidence that de wicket takin spin?
Unabashedly, Mr. Hurst deserves plaudits for his robust sense of regional pride/passion. He is a Caribbean apologist par excellence. At the same time we must not shirk critical assessment of consequential issues re regional development which the Coha piece addresses. In this regard, I find Mr. Hurst’s response to the article flawed in two separate but related primary areas.

First, it is often true, as Mr. Hurst asserts that imbalance and condescension are replete in written works on international development that emanate from (so called) 1st world sources. However, in Coha I find these violations to be less evident. In fact, the Coha article appears balanced not only in implications; but also in its exculpatory and deliberate exposure of America’s inconsistencies, hypocrisy and unethical dualism in the conduct of its international diplomacy re the two issues addressed. Specifically Coha highlights:

• The curious way in which America’s once strong stance with Taiwan has weakened and become blurred in concomitant measure with its increasing dependence on China’s economic strength to support its economy and budget deficits. In other words the article has not failed to imply that desperate nations (regardless of size, America non the least) do desperate things- including adopting curious diplomatic postures- in keeping with their immediate needs/interests
• The frequent and shameless ways in which America itself practiced and still practices (check book diplomacy) the buying of votes from need based nations- now so glaringly undertaken & exploited by China, Taiwan and Japan.

What Coha is intimating is that these two present diplomatic hot potatoes (the China/Taiwan dispute & Japan’s unsavory whaling practices) are but latest victims of a less than decorous creeping check book diplomacy first championed by America. In the process they’re alerting to a developing diplomatic crisis in which critical and consequential issues are more and more likely to be settled by size of a vote getting check and fiscal expediencies of poorer nations rather than the merits of their moral/ethical and/or human/environmental underpinnings. What is touchy for us is that the article uses the present chase/buy of votes from our Island states to highlight the plight.
   
The second flaw in Mr. Hurst’s response is that having treated these observations as if they were not already present in the article, he invariably proceeded to craftily spin us away from what ought to be more critical and consequential areas of regional import/concern coming out of the Coha article.  Among others, three appear primary:

1. What is the role of Caricom in shaping and defining a coherent foreign policy regarding international issue of critical importance? What is the preferred Caricom policy position on China Vs Taiwan & Japanese Whaling practices? For example, is the former issue one of sovereign land mass rights or one of self determination, independence and resistance to colonization?  China/Taiwan, & Japanese whaling are matters with severe moral/ethical underpinnings directly related to human rights, quality of life and preservation of eco-cultures- They ought not to be left to the whims and fancies of economic needs of voter nations. In addition, we must ask- what greater benefits can the region derive by pursuing an en block voting approach to these issues based on a shared principled approach?
2. What is our collective responsibility as a region to foster, supervise and ensure accomplishment of sustainable development approaches in each Island state; and how are we performing in this regard? If the quality of life in the region is dependent upon the sale of our representatives votes at international bodies, that says something not only about our right to nationhood; but about our success at pursuing sustainable development. Under such conditions, the title of check book diplomacy appears a trophy of a name; quite a few less than flattering nomenclatures readily apply.
3. What regional structures/strategies surrounding rewards/sanctions are in place to ensure compliance of voting in keeping with agreed to Caricom will?  How do we propose to dissuade potentially corrupt political executives and/or their representatives from besmirching their islands and the region by lining their back pockets by way of questionable and undesirable diplomatic postures?

These are just some of the issues up for discussion coming out of the Coha piece. I find the article far more objective and therefore far less discredited than Mr. Hurst’s spin craft suggests. Any serious batters out there- Ones willing to get to the pitch of the ball, with level eyes, and pierce the field (issues)? Until then keep on spinning Hurstie.  Conditions are right- De wicket takin spin. Sad thing is- Caribbean infamy lurks!

Dr. Raymond S. Edwards
President/CEO, MOHDC
http://www.mohdc.com
Raymond Edwards, Ph.D. Organizational Psychologist & Minister of Religion: is an international development consultant and executive Leadership behavior specialist.