PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PANAMA - MIGHT IS RIGHT

 I was intrigued by the American President's seemingly unprovoked attack on Panama. Why would Drumpf (his real family name) just threaten to attack Panama  seemingly out of the blue by saying that "the Panama Canal is American, we built it and we gave it to them?"? This didn't really make a lot of sense, especially when you realize that Panama took over control of the Canal AFTER protracted negotiations with ... you guessed it ... the Americans! What this means in effect that is that you can't really trust the Americans when they make a deal ... especially when they perceive that they aren't in complete agreement and didn't argue or quibble with it ... and even then?

In other words, might is right!

But why would President Drumpf make this pronouncement?  The real answer is that Mr. Drumpf was in partnership with a Panamanian and together they built a hotel. They fell out (why? I don't know) and ended up in Court. the case worked its way up to the Panamanian Supreme Court and was decided in favour of the Panamanian partner. Of course, Drumpf was mad but he couldn't do anything about it.

Now he can. 

Are there any lessons for us here?

CRYING "KORBAN"

 While it is true that democracy has always been both a moral and an instrumental project, it really only works when voters trust and respect the persons who are promoting the particular policies. For example, 100 years ago there was a big issue on whether or not women could/should or even have the right to vote. This was obviously a moral issue, but it was an instrumental one as well  as the protests of the suffragettes  were also done with an aim to achieve a certain objective (the right to vote) and which was ultimately successful.

However, these days these two cornerstones of democracy seem more and more to be in conflict with each other. In my lifetime the two main races in this country have been driven apart by leaders on both sides who have used racist statements  to further their (or their Party's) particular cause. For example, who has forgotten the racist statement by Fitzgerald Hinds just before the second to last election that Keith Rowley could never be Prime Minister because he was "too black"? If ever there was a not so subtle racist statement that basically was saying that all black people should vote for the black leader of the black party, this was it.

In recognizing this particular faux pas Dr. Rowley (who very interestingly  didn't condemn the statement immediately it was made) is now trying to say "hey! We are not racist. Look, we even have a non-black person who will be Prime Minister soon." Of course Dr. Rowley is completely ignoring the fact that in the country, and even in his own Party, Stuart Young has little or no support. Mr. Young has very cleverly furthered his ambition to be Prime Minister by catering to a constituency of one and ignoring everybody else - which means, of course, that he will be completely dependent on Dr. Rowley and his only question to Dr. Rowley when he is told to "jump" is "how high". But that is another story.

Put another way, the PNM will go into the coming general election waving the nationalistic flag as opposed to the racial one, and trying to paint the UNC Leader as incompetent and racist. It is not yet clear how the UNC will respond to this. Certainly, as things now stand both Parties appear to be running neck and neck and  because "a week is a long time in politics" only an idiot will venture to suggest what the outcome will be. And while there is a good argument that the PNM has really messed things up by all that is normal the UNC should be way ahead in the polls - and they are not! There is an equally valid perception that the UNC team appears to be almost completely emasculated by its Leader.

So? The question will be who do you think will better be able to steer us away from the jagged reefs and rocks that we are about to flounder on? Should we be swayed by the two very populist leaders from both sides? Do we honestly believe anything that they say? Or are we going to be like the Pharisee who gets rid of his sins at the gates of the temple by crying "Korban"?

ILLEGAL IMIGRANTS

 The latest "guesstimate" that I have seen is that we have in this country about 300,000 illegal Venezuelans living here. This is in stark contrast to the American figures which say that they have 22,749 illegal Venezuelans. Incidentally, the same official report says that there are 1,197 Trinbagonians eligible for deportation from the USA.

So? How come we have more than ten times more illegal Venezuelans here than there are in the States? I mean, I could understand it if we had 3 or 4 times the American number. After all, we are  (a) that much closer, and (b) easier to get into. But more than ten times?!? Something is wrong here. Do you trust the American figures? As I understand it, most of the illegal Venezuelans have gone to Columbia, Panama and other Spanish speaking countries in Latin America. This makes sense as most people would want to go where they could speak the language.

It has been reported that a little less than ten million Venezuelans have fled their country - which was one of the wealthiest countries in Latin America. That this speaks (nay, shouts) volumes about Maburro's mismanagement speaks volumes, but it still does not answer how many illegal Venezuelans that are here.

I ask the open ended question: is it that the Trini authorities have used the fact that so many Venezuelans have fled their homeland to make excuses  as to why things here are not good? In other words, is there  no real evidence that the illegal Venezuelans have created unsolvable problems for us?And why, if this is a real problem, is the media not only not highlighting the problem, but not giving us the facts? Maybe it's because they think that we are dumb.

And are there other illegal nationalities here? If so, who and how many? Where are these others  from?

CORRECTION

 In my post yesterday on THE LIES OF PRESIDENT DRUMPF I said that "Adolf" Himmler was Hitler's Nazi Minister of Propaganda. This was NOT true. Hitler's Minister of Propaganda was JOSEF GOEBBELS. Goebbels was the one who said "the bigger the lie and the more often it is repeated, the more people will believe it". Heinrich Himmler was the creator of the holocaust and the second most powerful man in Nazi Germany.

I humbly and sincerely apologize for my mistake.

THE LIES OF PRESIDENT DRUMPF

 Well, American democracy has thrown up a man who is not only a big liar but is probably one of the most 'bold-faced' of the biggest liars the world has ever seen. It is difficult to understand how any reasonably intelligent person could vote for or support Donald Trump in any way having regard to things he has said and done. But yet he  received a majority (albeit a very slim one) of the votes cast in the November American elections. Here are a few things that this terrible man has said or done:

(1) He has made unfounded claims that the illegal immigrants in the USA are behind the rise in crime and that many Latin countries are sending their worst criminals and mentally ill people to the USA. There has been absolutely no evidence of the truth in any of these allegations. It's almost as if he has forgotten that his grandfather was a German immigrant who changed the family name from 'Drumpf' to 'Trump' because it "sounded more American".

(2) He claimed that inflation was highest under Biden and he had instituted policies (that Biden canceled) that caused the American cost of living to reach unprecedented proportions, On this issue he seems to have a point. In 2022 inflation had peaked at 9.1% and while some of it might be blamed on Trump - it takes about 6 months for economic policies to work through  the system - inflation had been rising steadily for the 4 years that Trump had been in control. But it is not true that inflation was highest under Biden. At one stage American inflation was over14%!

(3) He has said that Panama has been targeting American ships as they pass through the Canal and that China controls it. This is simply not true. Indeed, while a Hong Kong company won an open bid to control some of the ports in the Canal, the USA also controls some ports in the Canal.

(4) He has consistently denied having anything to do with the January 6th insurrection, but all the evidence points the other way.

(5) He has said on many occasions that he in fact won the 2020 election. That he and his supporters have signally failed to produce any evidence of this and have lost all the dozens of cases that they brought in many States across the country alleging voter fraud speaks volumes. Trump has clearly learned the lesson from Adolf Hitler's Nazi Minister of Propaganda (Adolf Himmler) that "the bigger the lie and the more often it is repeated, the more people will believe it."

(6) He has claimed that he will save the car manufacturing industry by banning the electric vehicle mandate. Fact: no such mandate exists. In April 2023 the Environmental Protection Agency (EVA) announced  strict limits on greenhouse gas emissions. The EVA did say that if these limits were met that by 2032  the limits could be met if 67% of all cars were electric.  But the new rule did not order car manufacturers to go electric, but allowed car manufacturers the latitude on how to meet the limits.

There are numerous other examples of how this man lies and misleads the public. A serious question arises from his behaviour :-  Can he be trusted? For better or worse, we are all subject to whatever the U.S. President does or thinks. The consequences of his misbehaviour  have the potential to seriously affect us. For example, if he carries out his threat to impose tariffs on a whole range of foreign goods, it will have the knock on effect of making things more expensive in the USA, meaning that American imports to T&T (e.g., food) will become more expensive.

That there is a lesson for us down here in T&T in that when we limit our choices between Tweedledum and Tweedledee  we are asking for trouble where  neither Tweedledum nor Tweedledee is acceptable and there is no third option.

VENEZUELA AND THE LOCAL MEDIA - WHY?

 On Thursday last (9th January) there was a massive Opposition demonstration in Caracas. The people were protesting against the coming inauguration on Friday January 10th of Nicholas Maburro  (and yes, the misspelling is deliberate - the man is a donkey). I was able to watch a lot of the demonstration on You Tube. At the demonstration the leader of the Venezuelan opposition spoke and was detained shortly after she had finished. She was released after about two hours. The protests were about the blatant theft of the election by Maburro.

Now, my wife is Venezuelan and I obviously have a very personal interest in what goes on in our neighbour to the West. So I switched over to CNN and then to BBC. On both channels there was endless reporting and commentary about the devastating wild fires in Los Angeles but not a word on Venezuela. Well, I understood that; the fires are big news in the United States, which makes it big news around the world. And the terrible devastation in California needed to be reported on - indeed, it still needs to be reported on.

But that is not my point. The point which I wish to draw your attention to is that not a word on the Venezuelan unrest was reported in our local media and I have to ask, why? Approximately 10 million people out of a population of approximately 30 million have fled the country. If one third of the population of a country leaves a brutal dictatorship is not news then what is? Especially when we in little T&T are being affected by the donkey's repressive policies? 

But not a 'boo' was heard, not a single report! Why not? It can't be that the local media didn't know about the huge demonstration in Caracas. But  the local media chose not only to down play it but to ignore it altogether! Why?  Was it because of ignorance or incompetence? Was it because they are too lazy to get the news as to what is happening in the world other than in Ukraine and the United States? Was it because they didn't want to show people how many genuinely oppose Maburro despite the support for him from Prime Minister designate Stuart Young? Why?  Why do ugly and (what should be) unnecessary suspicions arise over the media's continued ignoring of the plight that ordinary Venezuelans face from Maburro's dictatorship and outright theft? Why?

Dictatorship can creep up in many forms. If we continue to ignore the donkey's machinations next door what will happen, do you think, if we follow the same road?

THE TROUBLED APPOINTMENT OF STUART YOUNG

 I received an opinion in What's App from a friend of mine. In essence, he argued that there was nothing in the Constitution that prevents a sitting Prime Minister to resign as Prime Minister and move to the back benches while remaining as Prime Minister. I agree with this interpretation, but (and there's always a "BUT" isn't there?) The President chooses as Prime Minister the person who IN HER OPINION is best able to command a majority in the House of Representatives. Now, having regard to all that has been reported if the dissident PNM M.P.'s who voted against Stuart Young by a very narrow margin were to combine with the Opposition in a vote of no confidence then the only way out will be a General Election.

Of course, they (the dissidents) will be hoisted on a petard of Rowley's making in that if they vote against the Motion of no Confidence they will be condemned by their Party for allowing this confusion to happen in the first place and if they vote for the Motion then they'll have to contend with the fact that they forced an early election which the Party might well lose. Either way, they have a real problem especially as an election is due by September. In the meantime, The President could have a problem in that she can't be certain that Mr. Young will have majority support.

Perhaps the best way out for the PNM is not to call an election until they think they are ready by not having any sessions of Parliament for the next 6 months.

No matter what the old curse "May you live in interesting times" is clearly alive and well.

YOUNG FOR PRIME MINISTER? Part 2

 Well, so far it seems that I am losing my bet with myself that the PNM will never choose Stuart Young as their leader. It seems that the whispers that I picked up on Monday were true in that the  support for Mr. Young to be leader of the PNM were true. The latest whispers are that there was a certain amount of 'bribery' (for  want of a better word) in that certain people were promised certain things if they supported Mr. Young. Is this true? I haven't the foggiest idea. My sources are the same as on Monday when I got the word that this was Dr. Rowley's plan before it was announced.

Now, having got the support of the Parliamentary caucus behind him (the reports are 11 in favour with 9 against) the next step will be the General Council. If Mr. Young wins there then he will be the next Prime Minister whenever Dr. Rowley chooses to step down. So what could happen next?

First of all, understand that a Prime Minister is chosen by the President from the person who in the opinion of the President is likely to be able to command a majority IN THE HOUSE Of REPRESENTATIVES. And that is where the General Council can come in. The General Council can threaten, for example, the present M.P.'s that they  will lose the backing of the Party if they vote for Mr. Young. 

The Opposition can, in the meantime, file a motion of no confidence in the Lower House which will give them an opportunity to highlight the problems in the ruling PNM. Dr. Rowley can avoid this for the time being by proroguing the Parliament - but this will only be a temporary fix of about 3 months. Remember also that according to the Constitution, Parliament has to meet only once every 6 months according to the Constitution, so he can simply avoid calling the Parliament after the debate that has to be held on the State of Emergency

No matter which way it turns, we are looking at a General Election, probably sooner rather than later. In the meantime,  Dr. Rowley can continue to control the country - even after he demits office as Mr. Young has absolutely zero support either in the Party or in the country and will be completely dependent on Dr. Rowley for support. 

Actually, that may have been Dr. Rowley's plan to hold on to power all along! He is, after all, a superb politician.

PRIME MINISTER STUART YOUNG?

 There are unconfirmed reports that at a secret meeting of the Cabinet Dr. Rowley tried to get the Cabinet to agree that Minister of Energy Stuart Young would be his successor. According to these unconfirmed reports there was tremendous 'push back' from the Cabinet.

While both of these reports are highly believable  it has to be noticed that they are unconfirmed. Assuming (though certainly not accepting) that there is truth in these two rumours, they certainly warrant a closer look. On the one hand, Mr. Young has been a very close confidant of Dr. Rowley from the very beginning. He has shown great loyalty to Dr. Rowley and has not hesitated to paint his leader in the most favourable light. On the other hand , he is not black. Question: will the rank and file of the PNM accept this? Other question: will the rank and file feel that Mr. Young is responsible for a lot of the 'screw-ups' and that swinging behind a non-black man will be the same thing as allowing an Indian (Mrs. Persad Bissessar) into power? In other words, they would have nothing to lose by 'sitting on their hands'.

 Dr. Rowley, for example, can resign as leader of the PNM but stay on as Prime Minister until a new leader is chosen. Put another way, there are several options open to him. One thing is certain though: the longer he stays the more difficult his successor (whoever it may be) will find it hard to get established.

The problem is that the economy has not done well under Dr. Rowley; house prices and rents are soaring as well as food prices; everything costs more. Two people can eat in a restaurant in Miami for one sixth of thecost for the same meal in Port of Spain.

I can understand Dr. Rowley's preference for Mr. Young (assuming but not accepting that there is any truth in these rumours). It would come at a time when the Opposition is very weak and would belie the belief that the PNM is racist. On the other hand, Mr. Young would be the weakest leader to date having no racial or other base to rely on.

Prime Ministers get extremely accurate security reports that  say explicitly which party is currently in the lead in the polls. It is not therefore beyond the realm of possibility that the Prime Minister's announcement of his intention to resign was influenced by the fear that he was going to lose the coming elections based on his security reports and he wants to be perceived as being undefeated.. He has already taken care of his pension (which will be in excess of $84,000)  and will have more than enough time to indulge in his favourite pastime - golf!

Well, we'll see soon enough. I have a bet with myself (and ONLY with myself) that this won't happen, i.e., that the PNM will NOT choose Mr. Young as its leader. But then, we'll soon see, won't we?