Broad Minds And Narrow Perspectives

I sometimes – most times – find distressing the way we tend to minimize everything to fit our own limited scopes of vision. We try to fit everything involving Saint Lucia on the world stage within the limited scope of home politics. We find ways to analyze external events only from internal partisan perspectives. We paint the rest of the world only in yellow and red, as if no other colour exists.

I listen to, read and view the analyses of the current purely private and civil matter involving a non-national appointed to serve Saint Lucia at an international organization based in London and they sound like nobody who isn’t born in Saint Lucia should ever hold a Saint Lucian passport.

I listen to former diplomats offer international perspectives that fit hand-in-glove with their own partisan local perspectives; and they sound as if they left all their understandings of international diplomacy at their respective Embassies or High Commissions after recall or retirement.

I read the British Telegraph newspaper’s story (out of London) that led to the local response of a call for the duly appointed local representative to an international body in London to be stripped of his diplomatic immunity to facilitate his ex-wife’s private divorce proceedings — and I almost asked myself whether this Saudi Arabian man had married in Saint Lucia or to a Saint Lucian woman.

I read the government’s response and I saw in it several things that have been conveniently ignored by its local critics – just like was the case with the government’s recent decision to secure an embassy in Taiwan for an ambassador to work at and out of, before naming the selected ambassador.

The long and short of the matter is that the Saudi gentleman who the government is saying was appointed an ambassador to attract investments for Saint Lucia is well placed to do just that. He’s the ‘head honcho’ in one of the biggest conglomerate groups of companies in Saudi Arabia. His family is in the business of representing countries overseas interests in Saudi Arabia and other parts of the world. His daughter represents Saint Lucia’s interests in Saudi Arabia. He also represents other countries and has been officially honoured by three different states for his diplomatic services in their name.

Those who are honest and open enough will admit that the government of Saint Lucia has done nothing wrong in appointing a billionaire Saudi Arabian to put his money where his mouth is for Saint Lucia. We just recently gave a top national honour to a Lebanese of Nigerian origin for spending his millions to help us, over many years, to fight and win the battle to make the Pitons a World Heritage Site.

Some of the very critics of the Saudi Arabian billionaire today worked hand-in-glove at the international level with the Lebanese-Nigerian billionaire yesterday. So, what’s the difference? What has the Saudi Arabian done to deserve different treatment? Do we accept the government’s point that he has in fact delivered on his two first major promises?

Those who argue that the government of Saint Lucia should lift the diplomatic immunity of the Saudi billionaire simply to help his ex-wife drag him before a divorce court cannot be serious. What do the extremely rich gentleman and his demanding ex-wife’s divorce business have to do with Saint Lucia? Why do the government’s critics want Saint Lucia to take sides in a civil case in a divorce matter involving a diplomat? Do they actually want Saint Lucia to do what no other country in the world has done with or to any of its diplomats in London?

Besides, one local retired diplomat of high standing has already offered proof that this is all “Much ado about a diplomatic nothing” as the diplomat is not in fact immune from court action by his wife and therefore the calls for that immunity to be lifted is simply out of place – a call for removal of something that does not exist.

Like I always say, when general elections are approaching, we have a tendency to get ridiculous. Some of us behave as if we are expected to behave absolutely and unapologetically silly during “the silly season”. But do we really have to? Are we supposed to be only seeing as far as our eyes can see when enhanced vision is most needed? Do we have to keep measuring the future only by the past? What about the present?

While we’re still talking about citizenship and passports and whether investors should or must live here to invest here, the world is continuing to spin around us.

This propensity to tailor elections only around local issues can also be seen in the response so far to the disclosure by the Director of Public prosecutions (DPP) that she does not have the evidence she needs in her hands to be able to go anywhere with the IMPACS Report or the other report from a management audit into mismanagement of government funds during the previous administration.

In both cases the responses have mainly been guided by which side of the local partisan colour scheme those commenting stands. Those wishing to see the back of this government insist this is another welcome issue to hammer the government mercilessly on for as long as possible. Those supporting the government insist the DPP has simply spat in the Prime Minister and the Government’s face, in return for the public challenge by fellow lawyer and government minister Stanley Felix, off a party political.

Of course, nothing the DPP has said can be interpreted to mean that those accused of killing do not have questions to answer. Nor has she said the IMPACS Report is dead. All she has said is she needs the evidence on which the conclusions and recommendations of the two Reports are based.

The DPP has effectively ruled herself out from ever proceeding any further with either Report during whatever is left of her tour of duty. She also cited all the additional ‘constraints’ that would limit or prevent her from taking any action, especially insufficient human and material resources. But all some heard her saying was that “Kenny Anthony had again wasted all that money spent on the IMPACS, just for nothing!”

Of course, the DPP never said so. But try telling that to those of us who hear only what we want, even if none of it was never said!