19 August 2014

Former U.S. Ambassador and Virgin Islander joins the ancestors

Territory Mourns Death of 

Terence A. Todman


18 August 2014

Caribbean, Latin American experts discuss post-emancipation period and the future evolution of the Raizal people of San Andres

Panelists from Columbia, Nicaragua, Panama and the Virgin Islands joined with Raizal scholars during a day-long conference in commemoration of the 2014 Emancipation Day ceremonies. 

Panamanian activist Ricardo Richards

Raizal youth activist Edmiston (Eddie) Williams 

International Governance Expert Carlyle Corbin
Panelists respond to questions from audience



International Linguistic Expert Guillermo McLean

14 August 2014

UK corruption in Cayman Islands while it preaches adherence to 'rule of law'


bridger_jack_bulgin
GEORGE TOWN, Cayman Islands - In a decision that has been described by local media as part of an “ongoing cover up”, the Royal Cayman Islands Police Service (RCIPS) has concluded that allegations that a former Cayman Islands governor, the attorney general and a British Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) adviser lied to investigators about their level of involvement in an ill-fated corruption investigation are unfounded.

However, the conclusion apparently reached by the RCIPS in response to a criminal complaint againstformer governor, Stuart Jack; attorney general Samuel Bulgin; and FCO advisor Larry Covington by former Scotland Yard detective Martin Bridger flies in the face of an earlier contrary view reached by London’s Metropolitan Police and a statement by former Cayman Islands police commissioner Stuart Kernohan.
In a complaint dated March 4, 2013, headed “Allegation of Crime”, a redacted copy of which has been seen by Caribbean News Now, Bridger said he wished to make criminal allegations, which he asked the Metropolitan Police to investigate.
The crime involved events that took place in the Cayman Islands between September 2007 and May 2009, he said.
According to the complaint, “The allegation of crime is against [redacted] and possibly FCO officials in the UK.”
READ FULL ARTICLE HERE

11 August 2014

Cooperation Agreement between Curacao and Republic of Colombia



Asjes in Colombia
WILLEMSTAD – During his stay in Bogota, the Prime Minister of CuraƧao, Ivar Asjes had a meeting with the Colombian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mrs. Maria Angela Holguin Cuellar. According to the Prime Minister, this meeting was very positive for both countries. At the end of the meeting the Prime Minister and the Colombian Minister of Foreign Affairs signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) to open the doors to continue promoting, strengthening and intensifying the bilateral ties and cooperation between CuraƧao and Colombia. The areas of cooperation indicated in the MoU are: agricultural products and services, fishery, customs, culture and education, tourism, infrastructure, transport and urbanization, health and energy.
Premier Asjes is very satisfied that the CuraƧao government was able to sign this important agreement after both CuraƧao and Colombia has been working on it for some time now. “As it is known, CuraƧao and Colombia have historical ties, solidarity and friendship. Seeing that Colombia went through an economic boom these last years, this MoU represent a concrete opportunity to realize more cooperation between CuraƧao and Colombia,” the Prime Minister said.
Asjes in Colombia
To achieve more cooperation on the areas discussed in the MoU, the governments of CuraƧao and Colombia will install working groups, which will jointly prepare a plan and indicate action steps to execute these plans. Prime Minister Asjes is convinced that this cooperation agreement will benefit both the people of CuraƧao and from Colombia.

08 August 2014

Virgin Islands Premier announces tax agreement with U.S.

STATEMENT BY PREMIER AND MINISTER OF FINANCE - ON THE FOREIGN ACCOUNT TAX COMPLIANCE ACT

Tuesday July 22, 2014


Madam Speaker it is now appropriate to address the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (or FATCA) pursuant to the British Virgin Islands having formally signed an intergovernmental agreement with the United States on the 30th of June 2014.

Madam Speaker, FATCA was enacted by the Government of the United States in 2010 as part of a process to ensure that US persons around the world fulfill their obligation to the US by reporting on, and remitting taxes where necessary on their worldwide earnings. Indeed all major countries including Europe Asia, Australia, as well as smaller ones such as the Channel Islands, Bermuda, and Cayman have signed this agreement.

FATCA places an obligation on Foreign Financial Institutions to report on the particulars of accounts owned by US Persons (including green card holders and US Companies) to the US Internal Revenue Service. Madam Speaker I must make it abundantly clear that FATCA does not place any additional obligation whatsoever on the US person or entity with respect to what they were obligated to do by virtue of their status as a US person.

There are currently many BVIslanders who purely by birth, who may have been unaware of their obligations as US citizens. Last year we began a public information programme on the impact of FATCA on such persons and what they must do in fulfilment of their obligations to the United States. In the coming days we will reinforce these messages and announce the measures that we are taking to assist BV Islanders who are also 'accidental' Americans as we often refer to them in coming up to speed on their commitments to the Internal Revenue Service. These measures Madam Speaker will include a help desk at the Government Administration Building.

Madam Speaker, so what exactly is the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act.
On 18 March of 2010 the United States enacted Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment (or HIRE) Act, as an incentive to employers to hire previously unemployed persons by giving them payroll tax exemptions. Enacted by President Obama’s administration, the HIRE Act was designed to increase the level of employment in the United States and to combat money laundering and drug trafficking.

Madam Speaker, as part of this Act there were two components to it aimed at improving tax compliance of US persons holding assets overseas these are FBAR (report on Foreign Bank Accounts) and FATCA. The first of these to Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts requires a US citizen or green card holder to report if:

1. He or she is a United States “person” (which can include residents in the United States on a visa);
2. He or she had a “financial interest” in, or “signatory authority” over any “financial account” in a foreign county or jurisdiction; and
3. The total of all such foreign accounts exceeded $10,000 at any time in a given year.

The second of these components; FATCA, requires that:
• U.S. taxpayers report on certain foreign financial accounts and offshore assets
• foreign financial institutions report on financial accounts held by U.S. taxpayers or foreign entities to report instances in which U.S. taxpayers hold a substantial ownership interest
• The objective of FATCA is the reporting of foreign financial assets; withholding tax is the cost of not reporting.

Madam Speaker, in no instance does the HIRE Act and specifically FATCA require a foreign Government to report on the financial accounts of US persons within its borders, but it does require foreign institutions to do so. In the event that a foreign institution does not report on the accounts of US persons, a thirty percent (30%) withholding tax would be applied to the foreign institution whenever the US was able to apply such to the institution.

In order to avoid violation of domestic law in countries around the world, but reporting on accounts held domestically or to increase the comfort level of foreign institutions when reporting to the US authorities, the idea of the Intergovernmental Agreement was born. This agreement essentially allows the Government of the respective country to act as a facilitator, acting as an intermediary between the financial institution and the US Government. This arrangement in desirable to institutions since it requires them to report through the same channels with they are accustomed to reporting, and the information in relation to FATCA is merely passed on to the US Government.

The countries around the world as a matter of course have taken this route in order to reduce the effects of the requirements of FATCA.

Madam Speaker the Government of the Virgin Islands has signed a Model 1B intergovernmental agreement, which provides for information on US Accounts held in the BVI to be sent to the US. A copy of this agreement and it annexes are posted on the website of the Ministry of Finance.

Madam Speaker the IGA itself outlines.
1. the type of information that will be transmitted,
2. the time and manner in which the information will be transferred
3. the rules surrounding how the institutions in the BVI will be required to transfer the information and those of which will not have to transfer information,
4. rules regarding the confidentiality of the information and
5. how the BVI and the US will communicate on administrative procedures and enforcement.

Attached to this Madam Speaker are two Annexes.

Annex I speaks to the due diligence obligations for identifying and reporting on the requisite accounts to the US authorities and Annex II identifies the entities in the BVI that will be exempt from reporting. For example Madam Speaker, government institutions, international organizations, retirement funds and low value accounts (accounts less than 50,000.00) will be exempt from reporting under FATCA.

Madam Speaker, at the risk of repeating myself, FATCA does not put any new obligations on BVIslanders who in having dual nationality also have to report to the United States Tax Authorities. These obligations have always existed as part of the obligations of being a US person. However the BVI Government will, assist persons who consider themselves to need this support in meeting their reporting requirements to the US by providing useful advice and identifying professionals versed in US Tax matters to assist.

Madam Speaker, the Government of the Virgin Islands has not sold out its citizens as some would deliberately mislead you into believing, but instead has, by signing an Intergovernmental Agreement with the United States, improved the ability of financial institutions and relevant US citizens in the BVI to comply with this requirement.

Finally Madam Speaker I think that it is important that the implications of FATCA are understood by all in order that any uncertainties may be dispelled. Pursuant to this we have drafted a set of Guidance notes that will be used to clarify in great detail the various provisions of the FATCA IGA. During this week the Government of the Virgin Islands is hosting workshops to examine these documents with a view to finalizing them by the end of this month. In addition to this we will also be speaking to the public again in order that any remaining questions can be answered and the apparent mysteries surrounding FATCA dispelled. These discussions will be done through various media, including television and radio.

07 August 2014

French rule of law in Polynesia: Justice delayed is justice denied

Removal of convicted French Polynesia President Gaston Flosse still to be implemented weeks after the verdict. French commitment to rule of law is in serious question.

lepoint.fr

Tahiti rule of law still questioned



A leading French Polynesian opposition politician, Teva Rohfritsch, has re-stated his shock at the French government's decision to shield the territory's president, Gaston Flosse.
Last month, Flosse was stripped of all his offices by France's highest court because of corruption.


However, the French government has refused to serve the sentence.
At the same time it accepted an application by Flosse to seek a presidential pardon and it allowed him to stay in office.
Rohfritsch of the A Tia Porinetia Party has told local television that the rule of law is being called into question.
“I have even, humbly, asked Mr Flosse to pre-empt this decision and to give up his mandate of president of French Polynesia. Young people are watching us. For me the law is after all the bedrock of our society and the territory's leading personality mustn't disregard it."
“I would like to address to Mr Francois Hollande. In any case our strongest wish is not to let things drag out because it puts into question fundamental things of the republic, the separation of power. The judiciary has made its decision and the executive cannot just lift it.”.

05 August 2014

The Jones Act and the Energy Price Hawaii Pays for Protectionism


By Grassroot Institute @ 7:12 PM :: 617 Views :: EnergyJones ActCost of Living


by Gaetano Venezia, Grassroot Institute

The US is involved in two secretive trade negotiations: the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). Both aim to provide new market access, expand existing markets, and provide regulatory transparency and consistency among European and Asia-Pacific markets.

Unfortunately, multiple sources close to the negotiations say the US flatly refuses to include Jones Act reform in either round of talks.
Ironically, the Jones Act, more formally known as the Merchant Marine Act of 1920, harms the US far more than any other country.

The Jones Act requires that ships carrying cargo between US ports be 1) built in the US, 2) crewed largely by American citizens 3) owned largely by Americans, and 4) be registered US vessels. With up to 90% of US goods transported by sea at some point in their production cycle,1 the Jones Act keeps prices artificially high for consumers, especially in the non-contiguous states and territories. The Jones Act costs US consumers and businesses “at least $2.8 billion [$4.37 billion in 2014 inflation-adjusted dollars] annually and its removal would lower domestic shipping prices by 26%,” according to a 1995 report from the U.S. International Trade Commission.2 More recent research by Justin Lewis of Tulane University has shown that “a full repeal of the Jones Act would yield economic benefits of up to $682 million per year” with domestic coastal shipping “approximately 61% cheaper.”3

Hawaii suffers disproportionately from these costs and missed opportunities thanks to the state’s dependence on imported products and limited competition among ocean carriers. Hawaii's cost of living is estimated to be anywhere from 16% to 85% higher than the rest of the US.4 One big factor in this disparity is energy prices which reverberate through every sector of the economy. A recent Heritage Foundation article found that, “electricity prices in Hawaii are nearly double those in the state with the next highest prices because Hawaii generates 75 percent of its electricity from petroleum and must rely on Jones Act vessels for all domestic oil shipments.” 5

Conversion of Hawaii’s electric generation to liquid natural gas (LNG), a much cheaper and cleaner alternative, is limited because no US shipbuilder has the capacity to build LNG bulk-transport ships. Instead, HECO and Hawai'i Gas import LNG in 40-foot containers—a much more expensive proposition. Eliminating the US-build requirement would allow purchase or lease of a foreign-built bulk LNG carrier for Hawaii, speeding LNG conversion and sharply lowering Hawaii’s cost of electricity and natural gas.
Jones Act restrictions don't only impose high costs, they can shut businesses down completely.  In 2013, Sunoco oil refineries in the Northeast weren’t able to order shipments of US oil due to the high cost and limited availability of Jones Act tankers. Expensive oil from abroad rendered them unprofitable and forced closure of the refineries.6 Ironically, the Sunoco refinery in Marcus Hook, PA is being converted to a natural gas export terminal. Without Jones Act bulk LNG carriers to serve US ports, foreign consumers and businesses will benefit from the cheap American natural gas.7

Perhaps foreign competition could make American shipbuilders and ocean carriers cheaper and more efficient as it has done for the automobile industry. Ever since foreign cars entered the US market, American automakers have been challenged to create more efficient and better quality vehicles. Despite this ongoing challenge, the auto industry remains the largest American employer in manufacturing and a main economic driver.8 By meeting this challenge, American automobile companies have also become internationally competitive. In 2013 GM sold more cars in China than in the US, 3.2 million as compared to 2.8 million.9

Because of these great detriments of Jones Act protectionism, domestic and foreign trading partners have challenged US support for a policy that runs counter to its commitment to free trade.10 But the TTIP and TPP will not be the turning point for Jones Act reform unless the Obama administration changes its stance.

Regardless, it’s clear from the economic data and examples of open trade that protectionist policies like the Jones Act have extremely high domestic costs. Hawaii, Alaska, Puerto Rico, and the US energy industry would be prime beneficiaries of a Jones Act modification.

---30---
Gaetano Venezia is a research intern at the Grassroot Institute of Hawai‘i pursuing a degree in philosophy at the University of New Orleans.

Footnotes:
2 Data from US International Trade Commission(5-4). Quote from Malia Blom Hill
4 16%—U.S. Commerce Department’s Bureau of Economic Analysis, 85%—Economic Research Institute. See Huffington Post

31 July 2014

U.S. Territories now exempt from Obamacare



FOX News July 24, 2014 (excerpt)

...The decision covers residents in Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa and the Northern Mariana Islands.

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Administrator Marilyn Tavenner acknowledged in her notice last week that the law was "undermining the stability" of the territories' insurance markets.

That's because the territories were subject to some parts of the law but exempt from others. Namely, their residents did not receive subsidies to help defray the cost of insurance and their residents were largely exempt from the requirement to buy insurance. But insurance companies were still supposed to follow the law's requirements to cover everyone with a certain minimum set of benefits, and other standards.

The lopsided requirements crippled the individual markets in some of the territories. In the Northern Mariana Islands, the top provider, for example, told the insurance commissioner it would stop selling new plans to residents. Premiums shot through the roof and the idea of long-term affordable health care became more myth than reality.

Last year, HHS told the territories it had no legal authority to exclude them from the provisions in ObamaCare. It furthered its case by saying the law adopted an explicit definition of "state" that includes the territories for the purpose of the mandates.

But late last week, Tavenner sent a letter to the governments of those same five territories exempting their individual health insurance markets from virtually all the major remaining provisions. She said that after a "careful review," the department determined the definition of "state" actually means "these new provisions do not apply to the territories."

"This means that the following Affordable Care Act requirements will not apply to individual or group health insurance issuers in the U.S. territories: guaranteed availability (PHS Act section 2702), community rating (PHS Act section 2701), single risk pool (Affordable Care Act section 1312(c)), rate review (PHS Act section 2794), medical loss ratio (PHS Act section 2718), and essential health benefits (PHS Act section 2707)," she wrote. According to CMS, the territories would still have to follow certain requirements for group health plans....
  *   *   *   *   *




29 July 2014

Mauritius Lobbies to Regain Control Of Diego Garcia, Site of U.S. Base

w



The Washington Diplomat

By Larry Luxner 

Diego Garcia, a remote speck of land in the middle of the Indian Ocean, rarely makes news. But in recent months, the coral atoll has grabbed the attention of online conspiracy theorists who claim the missing Malaysian Airlines jet secretly landed there as part of some clandestine U.S. military operation.
A7.IR.diegogarcia.aerial.story
Photo: SRA Sarah E. Shaw / U.S. Air Force
This 1998 aerial view shows the U.S. Naval Station on Diego Garcia, a remote speck of land in the Indian Ocean administered by Great Britain, which signed a 50-year treaty with the United States in 1966 allowing it to build a military outpost there.
The obscure island even got a mention in the latest installment of the Fox TV show “24,” as super-agent Jack Bauer rushes to thwart terrorists who’ve hijacked a group of American drones at the exact time that the U.S. president is trying to convince Britain to extend a treaty allowing the use of drones on its base in Diego Garcia.
As dramatic as these references are, they do hint at the island’s strategic value just as the United States, Great Britain and Mauritius prepare for talks on the future of the Chagos archipelago, which includes Diego Garcia.
At issue: Who, exactly, owns this tiny island 1,000 miles east of Mauritius and 2,900 miles northwest of Australia?
In 1965, three years before Mauritius won independence, Great Britain detached the Chagos archipelago from the rest of its then-colony and created the British Indian Ocean Territory to administer the islands from London. The following year, it signed a 50-year treaty with the United States that allowed Americans to establish a military outpost on Diego Garcia; in return, it secured a discount on U.S. Polaris missiles. In the process, Britain kicked out about 2,000 native Chagossians to make way for the American outpost.

READ FULL TEXT HERE