COMMENTARY: Fire in Their Bellies: Do Caribbean Leaders Have It?

By Sir Ronald Sanders

The heads of government of the 15-nation Caribbean Community (CARICOM) countries will meet shortly to decide how they could take their nations forward economically in a highly competitive global environment.

Amongst the matters they will consider is the governance of CARICOM and a specific proposal that they should establish a Commission which would oversee certain agreed matters such as the external trade relations of the grouping and the development of the Caribbean Single Market (CSM) which was established last year.

The proposal for such a Commission was made 15 years ago by the West Indian Commission, but it was never implemented.

Recently, a former Prime Minister of Jamaica, Edward Seaga, predicted that CARICOM is ‘likely to face a slide, not a climb, in the future” because of the absence from regional decision-making at a governmental level of certain leaders. Specifically, he named two former Prime Ministers, P J Patterson of Jamaica and Kenny Anthony of St Lucia.

He claimed that apart from Owen Arthur of Barbados (who, he said, has indicated that he will be retiring soon) and Ralph Gonsalves of St Vincent, “the present group of leaders are supporters but have far less fire in their bellies to carry on a campaign (for greater regional economic integration) with passion”.

Mr Seaga also posited the view that the establishment of a CARICOM Commission would not work, and that anyone who believes that it would “does not understand the psyche of Caribbean leaders nor, indeed, the people”.

Implicit in Mr Seaga’s presentation is that neither the majority of the present crop of CARICOM leaders, nor the majority of the people, want a more economically integrated region, and, certainly, they do not want a CARICOM Commission making decisions for their countries.

Of course, on the matter of the Commission, Mr Seaga’s presentation overlooks the specific recommendation of every proposal that any Commission must take instructions from, and be answerable to, CARICOM Heads of Government. Further, the Commission will have delegated authority and accountability only for such matters as national governments assign to it particularly because those matters are better handled with the collective strength of regional governments than by a weaker national government on its own.

As to the issue of whether leaders have “less fire in their bellies” for the regional integration project generally and a CARICOM Commission in particular, time will tell and the forthcoming meeting of Heads of Government will be a good indicator. If the establishment of the Commission is again delayed despite three reports that strongly recommend it, then CARICOM leaders would have proved Mr Seaga to be right.

And, there would be wider implications for the region.

Many businesses in the member states of CARICOM are eager to widen their markets beyond their national boundaries and into the wider Caribbean community. They are anxious that governments should provide the environment by which they can do so; they want the barriers to trade lifted in both goods and services.

Financial institutions – insurance companies and banks – based in Trinidad, Barbados and Jamaica are already engaging in pan-Caribbean transactions providing capital to governments and businesses – Jamaica, Barbados, Belize and several of the Leeward and Windward islands have been beneficiaries of such financing. The financial institutions could do more if the cross-border controls and restrictions are lifted.

Governments might well wake up one morning to find that, to a certain extent, both market and production integration have taken place around them. But, in this scenario there will be more losers in the business community than there might be if the process of liberalization is orderly and regulated.

Already, there should have been deeper and more meaningful involvement of the region’s private sector and its trade unions in both the development of the Caribbean Single Market and in the trade and investment negotiations with the European Union (EU) and at the World Trade Organization (WTO). However, theoretically sound may be the studies of the region’s technical experts, there is a practicality to doing business whose requirements are best addressed by business people themselves.

Both at the national and regional levels, the private sector ought to be integral parties to negotiations. Some businesses in the Leeward and Windward Islands, the members of the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS), are worried about being displaced in their own domestic markets by firms from the larger CARICOM countries.

In this connection, there is a crying need for the private sector throughout the region to map out their own strategy for sharing the Single Market through mergers, alliances or cooperation. There is urgency for a bargain between them which allows for equity in how the market is shared. Whatever formula results from a bargain will hurt some businesses, but no bargain will harm far more.

Further, the private sector should have a team that plays an advisory and consultative role to the region’s trade and aid negotiators.

The initiative for such activity should be taken by the regional private sector itself. If it fails to do so, it cannot complain if it is dissatisfied with the results of the trade and investment negotiations in which CARICOM governments are now involved. In this regard, the Caribbean Hotels Association (CHA) have shown the way by being forceful in pushing tourism on to the agenda of discussion between the EU and the Caribbean. Others in the services industry should follow.

It is to be hoped that there is still “fire in the bellies” for deeper regional integration not only of the private sector firms that are already forging ahead, but of government leaders, the trade union movement and others in the CARICOM business community.

* * *

Sir Ronald Sanders is a business executive and former Caribbean Ambassador to the World Trade Organisation who publishes widely on Small States in the global community. He is a regular contributor to Huntington News Network. Responses to: ronaldsanders29@hotmail.com

COMMENTARY: A $32 Million Football Coach? Outrageous!

By Rene A. Henry

Seattle, WA  — The University of Alabama just spent $32 million to hire a football coach! A college football coach. Yes, that’s correct. And at a public university supported by the taxpayers of Alabama.

This clearly sends the wrong message not only to the public in Alabama but to all taxpayers throughout the U.S. at a time when state supported colleges and universities are badly in need of and seeking more public funds. If I were a member of the Alabama legislature, I would tell the leadership of this university to either get its act together or look elsewhere for taxpayer support.

To say the president and governing board at the university acted irresponsibly would be an understatement. They must be held accountable for their actions and any repercussions that follow. The beneficiaries are a small minority of the Alabama alumni who love to dress in Crimson and join other fans a dozen times a year to wave ‘Bama pennants and pom poms and yell “Roll Tide” hoping their football team will win the game.

I can’t fault Nick Saban, the new coach, for accepting something like $4 million a year for the next eight years. This tops the $3.5 million a year Oklahoma pays Bob Stoops, $3 million a year Iowa pays Kirk Ferentz and $2 million a year Ohio State pays Jim Tressel. Additionally they all receive other benefits and perks. All are public universities. I do hope these coaches follow the leadership of their Penn State colleague, Joe Paterno, who has generously given much of his salary back for endowments, programs and scholarships.

You can’t logically compare any of these coaches’ salaries to a CEO or president of a Fortune 500 company who is charged with delivering bottom-line profits and dividends for stockholders and employees. CEOs are compensated on their performance. Saban is paid only to win football games and hopefully a national championship. Regardless of his success, he always will be in the shadow of Alabama’s legendary Bear Bryant.

Why not hold college coaches to a performance standard that includes graduation rates of athletes with salary deduction penalties if thugs are recruited who end being arrested and disgrace the institution?

Other college football and basketball coaches are the highest paid public employees in their respective states. Why? Congressman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) said he plans to look into what he considers to be excessive compensation for corporate executives. Congress now may also look into why college coaches are being paid so many millions and why athletic departments have budgets that exceed $100 million with tax exempt revenues.

Many public colleges and universities who once called themselves “state supported” now, because of decreasing funds, use the term “state assisted.” Some, who receive less than 15 percent public support from their legislature now even say they are just “state located.”

The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), the governing body of intercollegiate sports, is gutless when it comes to limiting spending on sports. Why does a college football team need to have two or three times more uniformed players than a professional team in the NFL? Or larger coaching staffs? Or coaches being paid more than their professional counterparts? There is no justifiable answer.

The NCAA and its leadership and members forget that intercollegiate sports exist for one reason only – because there is an academic institution. The institution of higher learning does not exist so there can be football, basketball and other sports teams. Some universities have made bad hiring decisions and had to honor multimillion dollar contracts when coaches don’t win and are fired, sometimes having to pay several coaches at the same time.

The NCAA doesn’t even use the millions of dollars of free network television time given it each year to win public support for higher education. Instead many of the commercials are completely self-serving, say nothing, or feature an egomaniacal university president who wants everyone to see him on TV.

In response to overpaid coaches, some presidents, chancellors and athletic directors will offer the excuse that the funds are paid by alumni and friends. If this is the case, let those so-called “philanthropists” endow scholarships to young people who otherwise might not be able to afford a college education and who might just be the next Nobel Prize laureate, breakthrough scientist, or even a governor or president of the U.S.

My experience in national and international sports spans five decades. Ten years of my career were in higher education at four different public universities. I began as a student assistant in sports information at The College of William & Mary and I have always been a strong supporter of intercollegiate sports, but not at the financial levels they are today. By the way, the graduation rate for football players at my alma mater is 100 percent.

There can be no justification whatsoever to pay $32 million to any coach at a nonprofit institution that is supported by taxpayer dollars. Knute Rockne, Amos Alonzo Stagg  and Pop Warner must be holding their heads in shame. It’s time for the American public to rebel, speak out and demand their elected representatives cut off public funding to institutions that favor athletics over academics.

* * *

Rene A. Henry is the author of six books and lives in Seattle. He has commentaries on other subjects and issues posted on his website at http://www.renehenry.com. He is a native of Charleston, WV, a graduate of The College of William & Mary and a “Lifetime Gold Alumnus” of West Virginia University where he was Sports Information Director for two years.