Harsh Truths About Constitutional Reform

 

There are some who would see Jamaica’s transition from a constitutional monarchy to a constitutional republic as a historic endeavour but historic does not always mean it is a step in the right direction especially since there is no evidence to contradict my long held assertion that this is becoming a republic for the sake of it just so we can have a president for the sake of it.  The loftiness of it all makes it very easy for anyone to buy into. But after doing careful examination, I am here to expose some harsh truths that those who support this shift tend to overlook.

The first point of contention is that of the final court of appeal. The current model stipulates that final appellate jurisdiction rests with the Judicial Committee of His Majesty’s Privy Council. Over the last two decades there has been a debate about replacing the JCPC with the Caribbean Court of Justice. This move is one that has been made already by several Caribbean countries. The disagreement is that the government supports retaining the status quo for now while the opposition favours the change. This is somewhat confusing for several reasons. Why would an anti-royal and pro-republic government be opposed to altering the final appellate court? That makes no logical sense especially in light of two additional variables. First it is much easier to change the final court than it is change the head of state, the latter requires a referendum whereas the former does not. Second, there have been several judges who sit on the JCPC openly telling us that they would rather not hear cases from Jamaica or the rest of the Caribbean as it takes time away from their other work. In other words, the Law Lords themselves are encouraging us to join the CCJ. I have yet to hear The King or any other royal tell us that they want us gone so they can focus on their other realms, the most I’ve ever heard from The Palace is that it is a matter for the Jamaican people to decide. In light of this, it baffles the mind as to why the government is making no move towards the CCJ although that is much easier than moving us to a republic. Nor should we buy the argument about a phased approach. If that were the case then why not do the easier task first? there is literally no plebiscite required to leave the JCPC, that alone should be incentive enough.

The second concern I have is with the appointment of the president. Yes. You read that correct, appointment not election. For all this talk about Jamaica finally asserting itself as a sovereign nation, it seems as though the supreme authority will still be vested in one man. Except instead of King Charles III, it will be PM Holness, who will get the sole right to determine who the president should be. I know some will argue that the prime minister has to consult the leader of the opposition. Anybody who has read the fine print will know that the consultation will be merely a courtesy, the PM will be the final decider on who the president is. Some will argue that this is exactly how the governor-general is chosen. To such persons I would ask this question: what exactly is the material difference between a monarchy and republic? In a monarchy, sovereignty is vested in the Crown which means it is the King’s royal prerogative to ask for the Prime Minister’s advice on who to select as governor-general but in a republic it should be different, no single individual should have that power because a republican state vests sovereignty in the people. The idea that a PM can remove the actual king and yet maintain royal prerogatives akin to a king is rooted in hypocrisy. The current system works because the Crown is politically neutral and hence his representative can also be politically neutral. The government’s proposal destroys any air of political neutrality that the head of state can have. The current constitution is honest because the governor-general does not pretend to represent popular sovereignty, he represents the sovereignty of The Crown and we know this, not everyone likes it but no one is deceived into thinking it is something that is it not. The new proposal is rooted in an attempt to hoodwink the Jamaican people into thinking that the president is their representative when the truth is that he is wholly a creature of the prime minister, completely incapable of being truly neutral. This would not be because of any personal, political or moral failings on the president’s part but simply by the very nature of the way the office operates, in other words, it is a purposely built-in feature. In a country that is so heavily tribalised between supporters of both sides of the aisle, that is the last thing we need. And if anyone doubts how divided we are just look at the sharp divergence between the government and opposition to the point where the opposition has all but boycotted sitting of the parliamentary committee on this matter.

I am aware that supporters of the government’s republic agenda will criticise the opposition for refusing to participate. Some even go as far claiming that the opposition is “holding the country hostage” but that is demonstrably untrue because regardless of what the opposition does or says, the government is moving full speed ahead without them. So the opposition is not holding the country hostage at all, it is the government that is refusing to listen to anyone or anything that does not fit their agenda. For people who give lip service to democracy, they are certainly moving in an autocratic fashion but they say the monarchy is antithetical to democracy? They should look closer to home instead of throwing that charge at any else’s door

And speaking of opposition, has anyone seen the proposal for senate reform? The current system has 21 senators, 13 from the government and 8 from the opposition which means that any bill which requires a two-thirds majority would need at least one opposition senator to break ranks and join the government. The new senate being proposed would have 27 senators, 15 from the government, 9 from the government and 3 “independent” senators appointed by the president.  But as I explained earlier, the president appears neutral but is truly not which in essence means 18 senators siding with the government compared to 9 from the opposition. This means that the two-thirds protection built into the current constitution will not be a feature of the new one. No doubt the government was not counting on those with keener eyes to take notice of this cleverly disguised three card trick but it only serves to underscore the deception of this government, trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the Jamaican people who they need to buy into their propaganda. This is the reason why they are not so keen on listening to any voice that does not agree with theirs whether it be from opposition or ordinary citizens.

This brings me to my message to the Jamaican people and it is simple, we have but one chance to halt this and it is to turn out and vote no their republic. Any idea that puts forward the notion that this for the benefit of the Jamaican people is a falsehood. The truth is that the enemies of The Crown have sold us an illusion that our national pride and self-determination will be boosted by voting for their agenda, but the truth is that self-determination and national pride will be just as powerful by voting against them because that what WE THE PEOPLE decide. Our worth as Jamaicans is not rooted presidential titles or republican aspirations but rather in the fact that as a collective, we can stand up and speak truth to power, making it clear that we are wiser than they are, we see right through them and will not allow them to deceive us into give them more power to do as they like.

Embracing our destiny…what does it mean?

 

In the discourse on constitutional reform one word I often hear used in the rhetoric is that of “destiny”. This is normally used in two phrases. Either we are being told that becoming a republic is in our destiny or we are told that to become a republic is taking our destiny in our own hands. Both of these sound very good from a campaign standpoint but I would like to go beyond the fancy phrases and examine if such sentiments have any merit or not.

The first idea that I would like to challenge is that becoming a republic is to “take our destiny in our own hands”. This presumes that until we have a president our destiny is in the hands of someone else and only by replacing King Charles with a president will that change. I recall in a forum on an online discussion, someone pointed to the example of what Mia Mottley imposed on Barbados in 2021 as “taking charge of one’s destiny. I, however would contradict that narrative by pointing to the fact that the people of Barbados were given no say in their destiny by their government. Did the people of Barbados truly want to replace the late Queen Elizabeth? Maybe or maybe not. The truth is we will never know because the decision to become a republic was not made BY the people but made FOR the people by a government who did not ask the people for permission to change the constitution in the first place. Does this sound like being charge of your destiny? I know some would say that the government was duly elected and as such has the right to change the constitution on their own? This argument is a logical fallacy as the standard practice of democracies is that governments are elected to uphold the constitution not to change it as they see fit. It is people who have the ultimate right to decide what they want to do with the constitution, St Vincent demonstrated perfectly well how this is done in 2009 when the people were given the opportunity to become a republic and they rejected it in a public vote. It should be pointed out that they did not have to reject it, they could have gone along with it but they chose not to. This is how a nation’s destiny is decided, by the will of the people.

 

This brings me to my second criticism of this “destiny” narrative. Jamaica’s destiny is whatever we make it to be. A republic is not and has never been an inevitability. The government only wants us to think that it is inevitable because it serves their interest for us to think that, but the truth is the power should not rest with the government and it certainly does not rest with Brits either (contrary to what we are told), the power belongs to us, the people of Jamaica because the constitution is clear on that already, we have no need of a president to solidify that fact. 

 I can already anticipate the backlash to my assertions. “If the power belongs to us already then shouldn’t we have a president to show that we are truly independent?” That might be a useful argument if we were talking about a president chosen by the people. But there is no way anyone can convince me that a president that is handpicked and totally controlled by the prime minister and his inner circle is somehow Jamaica’s great inevitable destiny, if that is what we call destiny then it’s a very low bar indeed. This is the same kind of mindset as those who seek public office so they can be somebody instead of those who seek office so they can actually do something. In other words, this is having a president for the sake a having a president, a useless proposition as we already have a governor-general serving the same function.

Another criticism I would like to address is those who point to fact that we already have a homegrown governor-general to justify the transition to a presidency. The logic behind this argument goes something like this, from Sir Clifford Campbell onward, Jamaicans have served in the office of governor-general and have done well with this position therefore this means we are ready to move to having a president. This line of thought is faulty from the very start as it incorrectly assumes an inherently superior nature of a presidential office over a viceregal one. However, anyone who looks outside this prism will see the obvious loopholes. The fact that several great Jamaican statesmen have been appointed to the office of the governor-general and excelled at it, does not justify switching to a presidency, on the contrary it justifies the continuation of the office of governor-general because we have Jamaicans that have proven they are perfectly capable and competent enough to step into the shoes of literal royalty and function as a king would, that is not a boast that any president can make, only the King’s representative is capable of such bragging rights. Should that be a cause of shame or despair for us? Not at all, I consider it a matter of pride that we have such caliber of men (and hopefully women in the future) who would have served us so faithfully in said capacity. This whole idea of the governor-general being an agent of the UK is totally false because the UK government has nothing to with the GG, he is purely Jamaican the literal embodiment of constitutional and royal legitimacy at the apex of our government, appointed by the Sovereign of Jamaica on the advice of our parliament. This idea that fulfilling our destiny means switching this out in favour a presidency is a made-up idea that holds no water except in the minds of those making the argument.

In the end, I write this letter as patriot who loves this country and wants to see it thrive, however my idea of thriving is not and has never been tied to having a president, especially not a puppet president who is supposedly independent who is anything but. I am aware that those who are all in on the “road to republic” project also see themselves as patriots and no doubt will view those who oppose them as agents of the British. But I’m not here to advocate for the British, I’m here to advocate for Jamaica, for the monarchy of Jamaica and for the constitution of Jamaica as bequeathed to us by our forefathers (not by the British) on our independence. Our destiny is not written is stone like some mysterious runic prophecy and our destiny is certainly not what the ruling class tells us that is, they have their agenda but the power doesn’t belong to them, it belongs to us and I can find no clearer of displaying that than by us rejecting their road to republic.

A Theological Rejection of Zionism

 The war taking place in Gaza is one that has captured the attention of the world with many persons supporting either Israel or Palestine. The common narrative that we are told is that there is a religious-irreligious divide that mirrors the political divide between the left wing and right wing. The story often goes that those who oppose Israel and support Palestine use Marxist talking points and have no regard for God, religion or the Bible.  While those who do the opposite are Bible-believing Christians who unequivocally support Israel, because they are “God’s chosen people”. I however would like to throw spoke in the wheel right here and show why in no way should Christians show support for the murderous actions of the Zionist state and I will do so not from the viewpoint of a secularist but rather from a Biblical standpoint.  

Let’s start from the same place where Israel’s defenders like to start, with the story of Abraham in Genesis 12, it is said that God appeared to him and promised him, the land of Caanan. This promise was later repeated to his grandson Jacob (also called Israel) in Genesis 35. This in the minds of Christian Zionists is enough to justify supporting the modern State of Israel. I however, in my reading of scripture take a contrary view. We must recall the story states that Jacob had 12 sons who founded the 12 tribes of Israel. According to 1 Kings 12, the nation was split into 2 separate kingdoms, one called Samaria and the other called Judah. Later scriptures also tell us both were eventually overthrown by Assyria and by Babylon. That should have been the end of the Israelites right? Not quite yet. The Biblical stories of Ezra and Nehemiah indicated that the people of Judah (i.e. the Jews) later returned to the promised land. But what of the people of Samaria? Did they ever return? I think we will find the answer to that question written plain in the New Testament.

Some say that the tribes of the Northern kingdom are all gone (the so called 10 lost tribes) and that the Samaritans are not descended from Abraham but came from somewhere else. Those who make that claim would do well to look at John 4:12 where Jesus met a Samaritan woman who explicitly states that the Samaritans are descended from Jacob, they are not foreign invaders, they are simply a different group of Semites who are not Jews but from one of the other tribes of Israel. It should also be noted that by the time of Jesus, the Jews had taken the name Israel to refer explicitly to themselves only and exclude the Samaritans.

What does the Samaritans have to do with all this?  Now think about it, the Samaritans were Semites who the Jews refused to acknowledge as their kith and kin because they had taken different customs. Does that sound familiar? Do we know of any other Semitic group that the Jewish state is also keen to disregard? Sounds like the Palestinians doesn’t it? And for those who still doubt it, the reports are there from several archeological studies to prove that the Palestinians come from the same gene pool as the ancient people who lived in the land i.e. the tribes of Israel. Some would have us accept the alternate explanation put forward that the Palestinians are actually descended from another group called the Philistines, a heathen people who Ancient Israel was commanded by God to wipe out, and hence what Israel is doing now is a fulfilment of this command. However, the explanation that equates Palestine with Philistine cannot be true because the Philistines already went extinct centuries ago according to scripture (Jeremiah 47:4) . 

The question then becomes, how comes Philistine sound so similar to Palestine?  The answer is simple; it was the Romans who renamed the country after they took it over. The Jews revolted against Roman rule and were dispersed after 70 A.D, the Samaritans however were less resistant to the Romans and as such when the Holy Land (inclusive of Judea, Galilee, Idumea and Samaria) was renamed Palestine, the people who remained there became Palestinians. So for those who ask “where were the Palestinians in the Bible?”, there is your answer, they are the same ones that used to be called the Samaritans, the same ones who split from the Jews to form a separate kingdom after Solomon’s time. Therefore, the Palestinians are every bit descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob who have every bit of right to be in that land according to the promise of Genesis 12 .  

But Israel are “God’s chosen people” some Christians (not all) will protest, “special in God’s sight above all nations, chosen to fulfill God’s purpose”. What is that purpose that Israel was to fulfill? Most of them cannot tell you. But anyone who actually studies the word for themselves (instead of relying on their preachers) will know that the purpose for which God established ancient Israel was to bring Jesus into the world. But as the 4 gospels tell us plainly, the Jews did not accept the Messiah instead they did everything they could to destroy him and after his resurrection, they tried to destroy the early church. It is for this reason why God made it plain that Jews are no more special than the rest of us gentiles (Galatians 3:28) but instead all are equal in Christ. Therefore, the Jewish state had no special status any longer because through Jesus Christ, our holy mother, the Church is the one object on earth upon which God has bestowed in any special sense his supreme regard. 

Quite frankly, I am not even certain what Zionist Christians find appealing about the modern Jewish state? It is plainly not the same country as the one we read about in the Bible. It is not the Mosaic theocracy established by God, this new Israel claims to be a modern democracy, one set up exclusively for the benefit of European descended Jews. It was founded by Ashkenazi Jews who had vague ancestral connections to Judea but were religiously atheist, who only chose the name Israel to merely piggyback on the memory of an ancient civilization in order to justify their false legitimacy. How can anyone claim to be a follower of Christ and yet believe that a people who are adamant about their rejection of the Messiah could be God’s chosen people? Yes, it is true, the Bible does say that Jesus was born and lived among the Jews but John 1: 11 tells that “He came unto his own, and his own received him not.”  Furthermore, The Lord was crystal clear in Luke 10:16 that anyone who rejects the Messiah also rejects God the Father.  The modern state of Israel is of the same stock of people as those who shouted “crucify him” and “give us Barabbas”. Let us not be deceived, the religion of the present Jewish state is the same as the religion of the Pharisees, a religion that Jesus explicitly rejected (Mark 7:13). Therefore, anyone who calls themself Christian and supports the Zionist state is supporting the very system that plotted to kill Christ and persecute the apostles.

With that said, for those who still insist on backing Israel, it would be easier to find a secular based reasoning than a religious one. I don’t imagine that the same God who told us “thou shall not kill” (Ex 20:13) and “thou shall not steal” (Ex 20:15) would be very pleased with the Zionists doing these things especially given that they are taking his name in vain (Ex 20: 7) as justification for their crimes.  Nothing gives Israel any right to do this, the Palestinians have every right to that land because they too are Jacob’s seed descended from the Northern kingdom after the split, the fact that they have converted to Islam does not change their genetics. Nor can any Christian claim that the Jewish religion is not more righteous than the Islamic one because ultimately both faiths reject the divinity of Christ which as Christians we should see as central and supreme above all else. Let us get rid of this myth of the Judeo-Christian, there is no such thing. It is very simple, there is Judaism (or more accurately Talmudism) and there is Christianity, one is with Christ and the other is anti-Christ.  Therefore, I end where I begin, there is zero religious or Biblical justification for what Israel is doing now, as such Bible believing Christians cannot and should not ever blindly stand with Israel. 

Rules for thee but not for me

 

There is a fundamental question that I would very much like to have answered, what is the rules-based international order? Why such a question you might ask, because the International Criminal Court has finally decided to issue warrants for the arrest of leaders of both Israel and Hamas over the humanitarian crisis going on in Gaza; this comes on the heels of an International Court of Justice ruling that a genocide was indeed taking place in that part of the world.  This is but the second incident in which the ICC has acted in this manner recently, it issued similar warrants for the arrest of Russian President Vladimir Putin for the ongoing situation in Ukraine. That was not the first time that a European leader had been charged with war crimes by an international tribunal, this also happened at the Nuremburg trials that took place after World War II. Such incidents however are exception to the rule as international criminal law has a tendency to target leaders from the Global South such as Bashar Al-Assad of Syria or Omar Al-Bashir of Sudan, leading to criticisms of the courts being biased.

And speaking of criticism, it did not take long for Israel and their US allies challenge this decision on account of bias. This charge however has no merit whatsoever as the ICC warrants have been equally applied to both Israeli and Hamas leaders. This application of the rules in an equitable manner has not satisfied the critics like US President Joe Biden and his Secretary of State Anthony Blinken who have made the argument that it is “wrong” to apply equivalence to the actions of Israel and those of Hamas. The logic behind such an argument goes that because Israel is the “only democracy” in the Middle East then treating it as a pariah state is wrong. I however would argue that since Israel claims to be a democracy then it should be judged by the standard of what is expected of a democracy and when it falls short, it should be held accountable like any other nation. Democracy is inherently linked with the rule of law, yet the argument put forward by Israel and its allies is that the Zionist state should not be subject to the same rules as its adversaries.

On the matter of adversaries, I would like to draw a sharp contrast between how US reacted to the ICC’s warrants against Netanyahu as opposed to the one issued against Putin. The United States in the past has a tendency to be very supportive of international court rulings when applied to their enemies such as the Russians, however as soon as Israel is the one placed on the microscope then all of a sudden the legitimacy and even the integrity of the court is called into question. One of the most egregious examples of this comes directly from the Netanyahu himself who called the court anti-Semitic for daring to hold him accountable. This is hardly the first time he has made such a claim, using that same rhetoric to refer to South Africa when it brought its genocide case before the ICC. He also said something similar regarding protesters around the world calling for justice for the Palestinian people. In fact, one can see it almost as a pattern of the Israeli Prime Minister where every critic is called a neo-Nazi sympathizer. How can Israel plausibly refer to itself as a democracy when it uses such ugly language to smear anyone that dares criticize it?

Israel is not alone in this however as the United States has also taken a similar stance to refer to critics of Israel and its ongoing offensive against the people of Gaza. A week before the warrants were issued, a group of US Republican senators issued threats to staff members of the ICC wishing to impose heavy penalties should they follow through on issuing the warrants. This act of bullying would be clearly unacceptable in other context and quite frankly it is rather disturbing that the same US that commonly refers to its enemies like Putin and Assad as thugs, now has some of its most senior congress members openly and blatantly intimidating court officials and staff in the exercise of their judicial functions.

 If all of this was not already bad enough, some of the most hardline Zionists in the US have even advocated for the US to invoke The Hague Invasion Act (HIA) to deal with the ICC should they attempt to bring Netanyahu or other Israeli leaders to justice. The HIA claims to give the US Armed Forces the “right” to take military action to rescue any US personnel who being held by the ICC. This act has never actually been exercised but the very fact that it even exists on the books is telling as such an action would require the US to invade the sovereign territory of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, a democracy and a NATO ally, an act which clear violates the North Atlantic Charter. The fact that some in the US would advocate using this method to violate international law to defend persons who are not even US citizens sends a clear message that they see themselves as being above the rules based international order.  

Another talking point that demonstrates the hypocrisy of the US and Israel is the argument regarding jurisdiction. According to the US and Israel, the ICC has no jurisdiction because Israel is not a signatory of the Rome Statute. This argument falls flat for two reasons, first of all, the Rome Statute in Article 13 states that once ONE of the affected party is a signatory to the statute then the ICC does have jurisdiction and in this case Palestine is a signatory to the statute therefore its jurisdiction in this matter is perfectly legal. Secondly, the same US which claims that Israel is exempt from ICC rules had no problem supporting the ICC warrant against Putin for the Ukraine War although in that case neither Russia nor Ukraine were signatories of the Rome Statute which means that the ICC genuinely had no jurisdiction there.  US stance on the ICC’s case against Netanyahu is rooted in its decision to refuse to recognize Palestinian statehood which in their view makes Palestine’s signature of the statute illegitimate. However, it must be pointed out that the US is not the arbiter of international law and in an environment where more and more countries are increasingly recognizing the legitimacy of a Palestinian state, its competence to sign the Rome Statute is therefore perfectly legal.

In a democratic world order, all are meant to be equal, but clearly some are more equal than others, which goes against the very spirit of a rules-based international order in the first place. Idea that some nations can pick and choose when to apply rules, how to apply rules and who the rules apply to are all clear signs of a broken system. There can be no justice in the world, so long as law is not respected by all, otherwise what we end up with as a two-tiered hypocritical system where the rules can “apply to thee but not to me” .

Constitutional Kerfuffle: Republic or Democracy

 

I have following the recent discussions going on re the Constitutional Reform Committee where it has come to light that the opposition People’s National Party has refused to sign the final recommendations of the committee due to its dissention regarding whether our final appellate jurisdiction should be retained by the Judicial Committee of His Majesty’s Privy Council or be transferred to the Caribbean Court of Justice.

The disagreement lies in what the opposition sees a haphazard approach to reform in that the current ruling Jamaica Labour Party wishes to separate the issue of the head of state from that of the final court. In the PNP’s view, it is impossible to do one without the other but the JLP does not see it that way. This has led to great debate as to whether or not, it is possible for both to be done simultaneously, with no clear settlement on the matter. My own position is somewhat similar to the government’s position to have them separated however my version would have us getting rid of the Privy Council but retaining the monarchy which is exactly what Canada, Australia and New Zealand have all done so there is plenty of precedent for such a stance.

To further complicate the debate is the matter of timeline. If the government had it gotten its way earlier, all of this would have taken place before the monarchy had even changed hands in 2022 from Elizabeth II to Charles III. The timeline then shifted to 2025 when we are due to have our next general election but therein lies another problem as we would have to hold a popular referendum which is unlikely to take place in that time window, therefore the time would have to go beyond that unless we go the Barbados route.

And what is the Barbados route?, you might ask,  That is where the government unilaterally changes the constitution without asking the people’s permission at all. No doubt there are some who would love for this to be the case given the history of referenda in the region? What history is that? Currently, Dominica, Barbados, Guyana and Trinidad, all made the transition from realm to republic. While Barbados, Belize, Dominica, Guyana and St. Lucia have moved from the JCPC to the CCJ. In every single one of those cases, these changes have been done without calling a referendum. Conversely, the monarchy referendum in St Vincent (2009) and the final court referenda in Antigua (2018) and Grenada (2018) all flopped with the population voting in favour of the status quo.

 How you interpret these events is dependent entirely on your point of view, do you value democracy more than republicanism? or do you think republican aspirations should override the democratic will of the people? Because contrary to what we are told, the two are not synonymous, especially not when we are so often told that having a president is more democratic than having The King yet in countries like Barbados, Dominica and Trinidad, presidents are selected and not elected. To further emphasize the point, I cannot help but notice an area of democratic deficit that no one wishes to talk about. It stems from the fact that when both Barbados and Trinidad became republics, neither country had a viable opposition. Starting with Trinidad, upon independence in 1962, the People's National Movement was already the established party in power with an established grip that it continued to hold for decades culminating in the 1971 general elections where it won more than 80% of the seats in parliament, therefore by the time it established the republic in 1976, there was no entity in the country that could challenge its decision given that its main rival the United National Congress was not established until 1989, well after Trinidad became a republic. Similarly, in Barbados, Mia Mottley’s Barbados Labour Party in the 2018 general election won 100% of the seats in the Bajan Assembly and 3 years later they unilaterally ushered in a republic. The trend here is quite obvious, in both cases the government had no real opposition party to hold it accountable and it both cases there was no popular vote on the matter. Contrast this with the case of St Vincent in 2009 where there was not only a referendum but also where the government had only 55% of seats in parliament meaning there was still viable opposition. Given this history, it should come as no surprise that in Jamaica where we pride ourselves on having a strong opposition as a counterweight to the ruling party that the CRC has ended up with this result. All the talk about how other Caribbean countries have managed to “accomplish” republicanism has never once accounted for the fact that governments were only able to remove The Crown when they had no democratic oversight to prevent them from messing with the constitution in the first place, but that will not be the case in a robust democracy such as ours.

Some would argue that this is less about democracy and more about our sovereignty. I, however would take a different approach by carefully examining this argument and if it has any merit. The common mantra goes that only by replacing His Majesty with a president can we be truly sovereign. But is that argument true?,  first of all let us explore what sovereignty means. According to Article 1 of the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, for a state to be sovereign, it must satisfy four conditions

i.                     a permanent population;

ii.                   a defined undisputed territory;

iii.                 government capable of exercising sovereignty and having a monopoly of the legitimate use of force;

iv.                 the capacity to enter into relations with the other states and be recognized by them.

So my question is, are there any grounds to suggest that Jamaica is lacking in any of these four areas?  Is there any country on earth that disputes Jamaica’s right to exist as an independent entity in the international community due to the lack of president? I can think of several countries who has disputed sovereignty issues such as Palestine, Taiwan and Kosovo and yet they are all republics with presidents. Clearly then there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that The King makes us less independent and a president would make us more independent. That is but the story that republicans have told themselves (and the rest of us) to justify their own political leanings.

The CRC has once again hit a roadblock which means any attempt by the government to rush through a change in our constitution as it likes will not happen, Jamaica is not Barbados and Andrew Holness is not Mia Mottley. I have no doubt that should the government change at the next general election, the PNP will try to push through its own version of constitutional reform which will face opposition from the JLP therefore unless one party gains control of all 63 seats, our sacred founding document will remain intact, a prospect that no doubt fills republicans with dread. But having seen what took place in our sister islands, it makes me value our democracy even more and I am proud to say that I prize that far more than I do any republican sentiment.

Israel is a problem: Let’s acknowledge it

 

I know the things I’m about to say in this piece will get me branded as an anti-Semite but some things need to be said. We all know what happened on October 7 when Israel was attacked by the forces of Hamas and like the rest of the world at the time, I also stood in full solidarity with Israel in its dark hour. But the response of Israel since then has caused me take a very different view of the Jewish state. As we speak, the Israeli Defence Force acting on orders from Zionist-in-Chief Netanyahu has been on a mission to clean out the Gaza Strip of the Palestinian presence. The mission, ostensibly, is to get rid of Hamas once and for all. But as the world knows by now, Hamas fighters are not the ones really being harmed. The bulk of those killed are innocent civilians and those whose lives are not taken, still have their livelihoods destroyed by the indiscriminate bombing of the IDF.

Yes, you read that correct, indiscriminate. Contrary to the lies put out by Israel, there has been no real effort to limit civilian casualties even as the world continues to stand by. A fact made crystal clear to all when South Africa boldly called out Israel for genocide and took them to the International Court of Justice. Instead of ruling decisively, the UN took the middle ground by trying to appease everyone but they failed to address the most important point by ordering a ceasefire, instead making the case that Israel was possibly guilty of genocide while not saying anything definitive. This ruling while celebrated in many quarters ultimately meant nothing because there is no point in telling Israel to “limit casualties” without telling them to cease hostilities entirely. It is little wonder that the utility of the United Nations is being questioned when it is clear that they are entirely toothless, gutless and spineless displaying cowardice in the face of this affront to humanity by the State of Israel who continues to operate an apartheid regime.

And speaking of Apartheid, I must question why does the “international community” stand by and allow Israel to commit such wanton violation of international law that they would never excuse if it were any other country? All we hear Israel’s apologists talk about is Israel’s right to exist and Israel’s right to defend itself. But what about Palestine’s right to exist? what about Palestine’s right to defend itself? We often hear that it is anti-Semitic” to utter the “from the River to the Sea” chant but somehow when Benjamin Netanyahu literally uses that very phrase to explain his plan for ethnic cleansing of Gaza, no one bats an eyelid.

I hate to break it to the Zionist supporters out there but the purpose of the state is to serve the welfare of all its people and any state that only serves one class of its citizens at the expense of others, does NOT have the right to exist. There is no justification for the creation and perpetuation of a Jewish state in the Holy Land when that state is based on the idea that European descended Jews have a God-given right to the land whereas African descended Jews from Ethiopia and Eritrea are sterilized to prevent them from procreating. A better solution would have been the creation of secular state where Jewish Palestinians, Muslim Palestinians and Christian Palestinians could live side by side in peace. Interestingly enough, King Hussein of Jordan had once made that very proposal once only to be rebuffed, perhaps it would have been wiser to listen to the late Arab monarch but in the light of strong Zionist ambition to claim everything “from the River to the Sea”, this was not meant to be.

The Western world, particularly the US continues to bandy the idea about of a two-state solution to solve the problem, but this, like the ICJ ruling is an empty gesture because Israel has made it clear that they have no intention of allowing the Palestinians the dignity of establishing their own sovereign state. In any other scenario, when faced with opposition to their foreign policy goals, the US would often resort to harsher methods of negotiation in order achieve their objective. What has the US done in response to this defiance by Israel? Have they tried anything to get Israel to change course as they would in any other case? Not at all, they gave them full backing to continue assaulting Gaza, a policy that has been supported by the majority of both Democrats and Republicans with those opposing it being branded as either far left (Democrats) or far right (Republicans). I would posit however that it is the anti-war extremists in both parties and are correct while the mainstream alliance of neo-liberal and neo-conservative war hawks that are the problem. And then to compound this, when Houthis from Yemen proceeded to block sea lanes to prevent Israel from being rearmed to commit more genocide, the US and its NATO allies proceeded to bomb Yemen (a poor country with limited resources) in order to strong-arm the Houthis to break the blockade. By doing so, the message of NATO was clear, shipping routes matter more to them than the lives of innocents being slaughtered by the score and all this to protect Israel’s “right” to commit more human rights violations. It should be noted that it would not have taken much for the US to get Israel to change course, all they would have to do is cut both financial and military aid to Israel until they comply. After all, since they were willing to use force to get the Houthis to break the blockade, then they can very well use sanctions to get the Zionist to break the siege and thus the failure of the Biden admin to do so, renders them complicit.

Israel has long hidden behind the Holocaust as a shield to justify their crimes, but anyone paying attention should realise that what Israel is doing is NOT self-defence, the UN charter in Article 2iv and Chapter 7 of the United Nations Charter sets out clear rules for which use of force can be justified and what the Zionist state is doing has gone well beyond that. It is high time that the world treat Israel as the pariah that it is. Israel is NOT special (bear in mind that the 1948 Zionist state is not the same as the Davidic Kingdom of the Old Testament) and Israel is NOT above the law of nations. Every nation is obliged to abide the rules and norms of International law such as the UN Charter and as long as the Zionist state continues to act with impunity the world should not coddle them but acknowledge in clear and no uncertain terms that Israel is a problem.

Venezuela Land Grab

 

Something rather bizarre happened recently. The Maduro administration in Venezuela took it upon themselves to host a referendum to decide the fate of the Essequibo region, which was approved by 95% of voters. While democratic processes are all good and well, the problem here however is that Essequibo is not part of Venezuela but part of Guyana and has been that way for nearly two centuries. The root of this dispute can be traced back to colonial competition between Britain and Spain. According to the Venezuelans, after declaring their independence from Spain in 1819, the Essequibo region that was (in their view) originally Spanish automatically became theirs under the successor state principle of international law. The problem is that this is a false justification because Spain never held undisputed sovereignty over the region but instead was faced with constant competition with its rivals namely Britain, France and the Netherlands. Sometime in the course of the dispute, the other contenders withdrew to the eastern part of the Guianas region leading to the formation of Suriname (former Dutch Guiana) and French Guiana, leaving only the Brits who maintained effective control of the region later combining the colonies of Essequibo, Berbice and Demarara in 1831 to form British Guiana (which became Guyana in 1966).  Venezuela also became its own country for the first time in 1831, having previously been a part of the Republic of Gran Colombia (itself formed from the Spanish Viceroyalty of New Granada) for just over 12 years following a separation from Spain. The point of this background is to show that at no time was the Essequibo region ever under the effective control of either New Granada or Gran Colombia, as  two polities never held real control of the region.

Enter Venezuela, the new country formed from the split of the first Bolivarian republic. Like Spain and Gran Colombia before it, they also claimed that Essequibo was rightfully theirs. They even went as far as attempting to evoke the Munroe Doctrine. By all rights, a policy that was unilaterally crafted by the US government has no standing among the law of nations and cannot be used as justification to claim anything. Nevertheless, the US doing what it does best, decided to insert itself and insisted that the only way to settle this “peacefully” was by arbitration of a neutral court, they said this thinking to  catch the UK in a trap. This move backfired spectacularly on both Venezuela and their American allies (this was before the Hugo Chavez era) when in 1899 the court ruled in no uncertain terms that territory was part of British Guiana.

While initially accepting the ruling, Venezuela changed its mind in the 1960s to challenge the veracity of the court’s judgement, but truthfully it is this referendum held by Maduro that has no validity. Venezuela can wail all it likes about the court ruling in favour of a colonial power back then, the truth is that the current dispute is not with colonial Britain but with the modern independent state of Guyana. Like Venezuela, Guyana also uses the principle of the successor state to justify its sovereign right over the region. Unlike Venezuela, Guyana has exercised jurisdiction over the Essequibo region since it gained independence and as such legally speaking, the region is rightfully theirs by virtue of the 1899 ruling and 1966 Guyana Independence Act. And speaking of 1966, Venezuela actually tried to stall the Guyanese independence effort with the Geneva Agreement which insists on having the issue revisited by a UN Commission before Guyana could be granted full independence. Although both British and Guyanese leaders signed the agreement for further discussion to take place, it did not forestall Guyanese independence as Venezuela had hoped, which means that when Guyana raised its own flag for the first time, Essequibo was part of its territory.

What all of this means is that Venezuela for the longest while has accepted de facto Guyanese jurisdiction over the region, so the question now is what changed? One might expect the answer to be very complicated but the truth is that it is very simple: oil. Recently, thanks to the efforts of oil giant Exxon Mobil, oil reserves was discovered off the coast of Guyana. According to estimates, these reserves would put Guyana closer to Kuwait, outstripping Venezuela by far as biggest oil producer in the region, it was this and only this that caused Caracas to all of a sudden pick up where it left off in the 19^th century.  Let us be clear, for all the talk of a “need for justice” or the fabrications of any imagined wrongs done to Venezuela in the past, these are little more than smokescreens to mask the true intentions of the Bolivarian Republic, their real agenda has always been about gaining more territory to take advantage of Guyana’s oil discovery. This should be worrying for two reasons, 1. Venezuela has oil reserves of its own already and it has not done very well in managing them to the benefits of its people and 2. Given their obvious lack of frugality in handling their own oil reserves, why should they be given more oil resources to mismanage?

There are not much shades of grey here, it is cut and dry, a larger nation is being quite open its desire to annex two-thirds of a country that it is less than half of its size, in other words this is a land grab. This so-called vote is illegal in every sense of the word as the right of conquest was outlawed by the UN Charter of 1945. I find it ironic that Venezuela attempts to use democracy as justification for this while ignoring the fact that a vote cannot be valid if the persons doing the voting are not the persons who are to affected by the vote, in other words it is not the place of the Venezuelan people to decide what should happen to two-thirds of Guyana’s land, something that the International Court of Justice was adamantly clear on. Quite frankly, the actions of the Bolivarian regime are grossly hypocritical for two reasons 1. They claim that Guyana’s claim is not legitimate because it was inherited from colonial Britain, but Venezuela itself used colonial Spain to justify their own claim and 2. Maduro himself has struggled with the idea of an external power challenging his legitimacy as the US has repeated tried to install the puppet Juan Guaido in his place. How then can he not see the irony of his own government acting as an external power imposing itself on a smaller nation, when that is exactly the kind of struggle they are having with the US only in reverse?

In the end, there are no “both sides” argument here as there are in some international disputes. The international community (especially CARICOM and the Commonwealth) should stand by Guyana and let Venezuela know that Guyana’s territorial integrity must be respected. The fate of Essequibo is non-negotiable and any attempt to alter it should be met with swift and decisive action proportional to the extent that Caracas is prepared to go to pursue this false claim. The world is in enough chaos as it is, the last thing we need is another unnecessary war especially not against one of our sister states in the Commonwealth Caribbean. Therefore, every effort must be made for cooler heads to prevail, this dispute (which should not even be a dispute to begin with) has gone far enough and it is high time for the government in Venezuela to focus on cleaning up its own messy situation, dial down on the inflammatory rhetoric and leave Guyana alone.