Editorial
Cayman Lobbying for Strength and Unity
There are some striking similarities in the approaches of the Cayman Islands' Leader of Government Business, the Hon. McKeeva Bush and United States President George W. Bush's approach to current matters of their respective national interest.
Over the past few months President Bush has been able to lobby the media, politicians and members of the international community to gain support for his decision regarding military action against Iraq.
In so doing he has succeeded in demonstrating that this is not a campaign of fulfilling his father's former president George Bush's failed mandate to eliminate Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.
Mr. Bush obviously recognised that not only was his presidential foreign policy reputation at stake, but the national interest of the United States was certainly on the line.
A similar situation confronted the Cayman Islands Leader of Government Business Mr. McKeeva Bush when he had to deal with the European Union's (EU) Draft Directive on the Taxation of Savings Income.
Mr. McKeeva Bush has taken the initiative and lobbied his colleagues in the Caribbean Overseas Territories (COT) to resist any temptation or desire to sign on to this directive.
Like his US namesake, the Caymanian leader must have recognised that his handling of this issue was being scrutinised because of its potential impact on the economy of the Cayman Islands.
Realising that there is unity in strength, Mr. Bush and his delegation flew in a chartered plane to the British Virgin Islands where high level discussions were held on this proposed EU directive and its impact on COT.
That was followed up by a meeting in the Cayman Islands, where his position on the matter remained constant and robust.
The point here is that in this world of globalisation a different type of leadership will be required in dealing with matters that are of interest to individual countries.
Initiatives that are proposed or taken in the international fora can so often have profound effects on countries big and small, that leaders will find themselves having to either build or join coalitions to garner and ensure the necessary support to protect their national interests.
What is evident from the US and COT scenario is that it will therefore become increasingly difficult for leaders to go the distance alone, hence the importance of closing ranks and presenting a unified front.
Unfortunately, in the case of small developing countries this unified approach does not provide any absolute guarantee of protection against the punitive action of strong and mighty international countries and institutions.
They seem to subscribe to the maxim that he who pays the piper calls the tune and they seek to trample on the rights and sovereignty of small countries that are reliant on them in some form or fashion, through the age-old scheme of divide and rule.
It is only regarding matters such as narco-trafficking and illegal immigration in which these imperialist countries and institutions have a vested interest, that they tend to relax their hardline positions and iron-clad postures towards Caribbean countries, because they recognise that our cooperation in these matters will ultimately redound to their benefit.
So in much the same way that US president spared no effort in lobbying almost every political office around the globe to protect and safeguard the US national interest, given the high stakes, we in the Caribbean must never fail to demonstrate our solidarity to the world when it comes to matters that affect our fragile economies.
That is why regarding this EU proposal, it would be unwise and unfortunate for a particular country to seek to gain any form of advantage over the others.
A chain is as strong as its weakest link.