11 August 2014

Cooperation Agreement between Curacao and Republic of Colombia



Asjes in Colombia
WILLEMSTAD – During his stay in Bogota, the Prime Minister of Curaçao, 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 Curaçao 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 Curaçao government was able to sign this important agreement after both Curaçao and Colombia has been working on it for some time now. “As it is known, Curaçao 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 Curaçao and Colombia,” the Prime Minister said.
Asjes in Colombia
To achieve more cooperation on the areas discussed in the MoU, the governments of Curaçao 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 Curaçao 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

28 July 2014

CARICOM Reparations Commission calls for Reparatory Justice for the crime of slavery in presentation to UK House of Commons

ADDRESS DELIVERED BY PROFESSOR SIR HILARY BECKLES
CHAIRMAN OF THE CARICOM REPARATIONS COMMISSION

to the

HOUSE OF COMMONS, 
PARLIAMENT OF GREAT BRITAIN
COMMITTEE ROOM 14  
JULY 16, 2014



Madam Chair, the distinguished member of Parliament for Hackney North and Stoke Newington, Diane Abbott, other distinguished members of the House of Lords, and House of Commons, Excellencies of the Diplomatic Corp, colleagues at the head table, Ladies and Gentlemen.

I speak this evening, in this honourable chamber of the House of Commons, as Chairman of the CARICOM Commission on Reparations. My colleagues of the Commission are tasked with the preparation and presentation of the evidentiary basis for a contemporary truth: that the Government of Great Britain, and other European states that were the beneficiaries of enrichment from the enslavement of African peoples, the genocide of indigenous communities, and the deceptive breach of contract and trust in respect of Indians and other Asians brought to the plantations under indenture, have a case to answer in respect of reparatory justice.

The case of genocide is not only in respect of our decimated native community. It is also important to recognize the genocidal aspect of chattel slavery in the Caribbean.

British slave ships brought 5.5 million enslaved Africans into their Caribbean colonies over 180 years. When slavery was abolished in 1838 they were just 800,000 persons remaining. That is, a retention/survival rate of 15%. Jamaica received 1.5 million Africans. Only 300,000 remained at Emancipation (20%). Barbados received 600,000 Africans. Only 83,000 remained at Emancipation (14%). The regime of enslavement was crafted by policies and attitudes that were clearly genocidal.

This case is for the CARICOM governments to present on behalf of its citizens. I am sure that in its presentation there will be due regard for the principles of diplomacy and development cooperation - for which they have long distinguished themselves. This process will bring honour and dignity to the people of the Caribbean as well as to the people of Great Britain and Europe.

CARICOM governments, like the government of Great Britain, represent nations that are independent and equal. As such, they should proceed on the basis of their legitimate equality, without fear of retribution, in the best interest of humanity, and for a better future for us all.

I am honoured to be asked to speak in this historic parliament of the people of Great Britain. Like you I am aware that this Parliament prepared the official political basis of the crimes that defined the colonial past. It is here, in this House, that the evil system of slavery, and genocide, were established. This House passed laws, framed fiscal policies, and enforced the crimes that have produced harmful legacies and persistent suffering now in need of repair. 

This House also made emancipation from slavery and independence from colonialism an empowering reality. It is in here, we now imagine, that laws for reparatory justice can be conceptualized and implemented. It is in here, we believe, that the terrible wrongs of the past can be corrected, and humanity finally and truthfully liberated from the shame and guilt that have followed these historical crimes.

We must believe in the corrective power of this Parliament to respond positively to this present challenge, and in the process free itself from the bondage of its own sins and crimes. Without this belief our journey here this evening would be lacking integrity, and without a doubt, would be a useless exercise.

But I speak in this honourable House this evening, not only as Chairman of a rightfully constituted commission that is peopled by some of our finest Caribbean citizens, and who have been selected by our distinguished Presidents and Prime Ministers, but as a Caribbean person with an affinity for this country. I was raised and educated here. I came from the Caribbean to this country as a child; I grew to maturity here; and was educated here in a fine university that has distinguished itself in the Liberal-Progressive pedagogy of the nation.

Great Britain, therefore, is my second home and I care for it as I care for my first home, the Great Caribbean. I wish for Great Britain, as I do for the Great Caribbean, peace and prosperity. I wish that their shared past, painful though it has been, will be transformed into a moral force of mutual respect and development cooperation. 

It is for these reasons that I have joined the Caribbean and global movement for reparatory justice. I believe we can settle this case within the context of diplomatic initiatives that are consistent with our status as equal nations.

The crimes committed against the indigenous, African, and Asian peoples of the Caribbean are well documented. We know of the 250 years of slave trading, chattel slavery, and the following 100 years of colonial oppression. 

Slavery was ended in 1838, only to be replaced by a century of racial apartheid, including the denigration of Asian people. Indigenous genocide, African chattel slavery and genocide, and Asian contract slavery, were three acts of a single play – a single process by which the British state forcefully extracted wealth from the Caribbean resulting in its persistent, endemic poverty.

I wish to comment, as a result, on the 1833 Act of Emancipation, and how this august Parliament betrayed the enslaved people of the Caribbean by forcing them to pay more than 50% of the cost of their own emancipation. This is an aspect of the history long hidden from public view.

We know, for example, that this Parliament in 1833 determined that the 800,000 enslaved people in the Caribbean were worth, as chattel property, £47 million. This was their assessed market value. We know that this Parliament determined that all slave owners should receive just and fair compensation for the official taking away of their property. We know that this Parliament provided the sum of £20 million in grants to the slave owners as fair compensation for the loss of their human chattel.

And we know that this Parliament determined that the enslaved people would receive none of this compensation. The argument made in this House was that ‘property’ cannot receive property compensation. This Parliament, in its emancipation Act, upheld the law that black people were not human, but property.

What this Parliament has hid from the world is that it also determined that the remaining £27 million would be paid by the enslaved people to their enslavers, by means of a 4 year period of free labour called the Apprenticeship.

This period of additional free labour by the emancipated represented the enforced extraction of £27 million by the state. It was a cruel and shameful method of legislating Emancipation by forcing the enslaved to pay more than 50% of the financial cost of their own freedom. The £20 million paid the enslavers by this Parliament was less than the £27 million paid by the enslaved to the enslavers as dictated by this House.

I wish now to engage the argument of the British Government that the slavery and other colonial crimes were ‘legal’, and that they took place ‘a long time ago’, and are beyond the border of adjudication.

Allow me, Madam Chair, to breach protocol and to interject myself into the discourse, in order to demonstrate how very contemporary and current this exploitation of the Caribbean people is and has been.

Upstairs this chamber sits the Earl of Harewood. He is an honourable member of the House of Lords. But does Lord Harewood know that my grandfather after Independence in Barbados in 1966 labored on this sugar plantation, as did his father and forefathers, going back to the days of slavery? Does the goodly Lord know that as a child I took lunch for my grandfather into the canefields of his sugar plantation? Lord Harewood, and my family, go back a long way, from slavery right into the present.

Take also the very aristocratic and very distinguished Cumberbatch family. It has now produced the brilliant young actor, Benedict Cumberbatch [who I would love to meet one day]. Benedict’s grandfather owned the estate on which my beloved great grandmother worked all her adult life. They enslaved my family on their Cleland plantation in the parish of St. Andrew. My great grandmother, who helped to raise me, and who we all called ‘mammy’, carried the name Adriana Cumberbatch. The actor and academic are joined therefore by a common past and present, and maybe, common blood!

My case is but one of ten thousand such cases. Everywhere across the Caribbean the presence of our enslavers can be identified in our daily domestic lives. This history is not remote. It is alive and pressing upon our daily affairs. 

And what have our people and governments been doing with respect to this legacy since we have gained national independence? The truth is, the people of the Caribbean have been very courageous in their effort at self-development and self-help in respect of this terrible history and enduring legacy. 

Our citizens have faced this past head on, and have established a vibrant culture of community self-help and sustainable regional development mobilization. We are not beggars! We are not subservient! We do not want charity and handouts! We want justice! Reparatory justice!

When all is said and done, our governments these past 50 years have been cleaning up the mess left behind by Britain’s colonial legacy. Our finest Presidents and Prime Ministers have been devising projects to clean up the awful mess inherited from slavery and colonization. They must be commended for this effort, but the fact is, this legacy of rubble and ruin, persistent poverty, and racialised relations and reasoning, that continues to cripple our best efforts, has been daunting.

Britain, and its Parliament, cannot morally and legally turn their back upon this past, and walk away from the mess they have left behind. This Parliament has to return to the scene of its crimes, and participate as a legitimate parliament, as a legal parliament, in the healing and rehabilitation of the Caribbean.

We cannot, and should not, be asked to do this by ourselves. We have done our part. This Parliament must now return, and do its part, within the context of reparatory justice, and within the framework of development cooperation.

I wish to give two examples of how this reparatory justice can work:

(1) Jamaica, Britain’s largest slave colony, was left with 80% black functional illiteracy at Independence in 1962. From this circumstance the great and courageous Jamaican nation has struggled with development and poverty alleviation. The deep crisis remains. This Parliament owes the people of Jamaica an educational and human resource investment initiative.

(2) Barbados, Britain’s first slave society, is now called the amputation capitol of the world. It is here that the stress profile of slavery and racial apartheid; dietary disaster and psychological trauma; and the addiction to the consumption of sugar and salt, have reached the highest peak. The country is now host to the world’s most virulent diabetes and hypertension epidemic. This Parliament owes the people of Barbados an education and health initiative.

It is the same for all our countries; the Bahamas, the Leewards, the Windwards, Guyana, Trinidad and Tobago, Belize, and beyond.

The CARICOM Ten Point Plan for Reparatory Justice addresses these development issues that are central to the case Britain has to answer. It is an invitation to Great Britain to demonstrate leadership within the legal, moral, and diplomatic culture of the world, within the Commonwealth, and within its relations the Caribbean.

There can be no escaping the importance of this exchange of views about the matter before this honourable chamber tonight.

It took all of the 19th century to uproot slavery from the Caribbean; from Haiti in 1804 to the Spanish sub-region in the 1880s. It took another 100 years to create citizenship, nationhood, and democracy across the Caribbean as a development framework. We have helped ourselves.

This 21st century will be the century of global reparatory justice. Citizens are now, for the first time since they were driven into retreat by colonialism, able to stand up for reparatory justice without fear. Their claim, their just claim for reparations, will not go away. Rather, like the waves upon our beautiful shores, they will keep coming until reparatory justice is attained.

Madam Chair, we call upon you, and all members of this House, to rise to this challenge and to assist Great Britain to be truly worthy of the title “Great”. I urge you to do the right thing, in the right way. There is no other right time, other than right now, in our time. There is so much to gain from your leadership. The Caribbean is counting on you.

In 1823, the honourable Thomas Buxton, M.P. for Weymouth and Melcombe Regis, presented a bill to this House calling for an Emancipation Act with compensation for the enslaved people. His bill and vision were defeated. Instead, ten years later, an emancipation bill was passed, not with compensation for the enslaved, but with handsome and generous compensation for enslavers. Some 40% of the national expenditure of the country was handed over to slave-owners as reparations.

The enslaved people of the Caribbean got nothing. Indeed, they were then called upon by the said Emancipation Act to give £27 million in free labour to their enslavers. The injustice and the cruelty of that Emancipation Act, remain today like a fish bone stuck in our throats.

We urge you, Madam Chair, and other members of this Parliament, to rise up and bring the Buxton vision to life. He was a noble warrior for reparatory justice; his spirit can return to this House, in both places, and the 21st century will be ours to forge a new moral order for our collective wellbeing.

On behalf of the CARICOM Reparations Commission, all my colleagues across the Caribbean who have worked with our governments in order to bring this case before you, I ask that you respond with humility and openness when your government receives an invitation to meet with our governments in summit in order to discuss this matter.

May the values and the spirit of development cooperation and mutual respect guide us all.

Thank you Madam Chair.