Reprinted from the Nation News
by TONY BEST
"I THINK Sir Shridath Ramphal should consider withdrawing his words."
Sir Courtney Blackman, the first Governor of Barbados' Central Bank and a former ambassador in Washington, was referring to Sir Shridath's use of the term "ethnic cleansing" to describe the effects of Barbados' immigration policy, meaning the deportation of scores of illegal immigrants from the country, especially of Indo-Guyanese descent.
But why should he withdraw the remarks?
Reasons abound, according to Sir Courtney.
For one thing, "ethnic cleansing" is routinely used to describe racially motivated violence and the killings such as what took place in the Balkans by the Serbs more than 20 years ago, or the rampage in Darfur in Africa.
It can also be applied to the actions of the Germans in central Europe during World War II and the killings of hundreds of thousands of people in Rwanda.
For another, the former central banker added, immigrants living in a foreign country must abide by the law, and if they fail to do that, then they can be deported. Living and working in a country without legal permission breaks a nation's immigration law and Barbados has a right to enforce its rules and regulations.
But Sir Courtney, a strong backer of regional migration, was quick to insist that the movement of Caribbean nationals into Barbados had brought benefits to his birthplace and should continue, provided immigrants obeyed the laws.
"We have benefited from that movement," he said from his home in Maryland, just outside of Washington DC.
Still, he insisted, Sir Shridath should pull back his words.
"I think Sir Shridath should take a leaf out of the book of President Obama."
The United States president recently apologised to a white Cambridge, Massachusetts police officer who had arrested black Harvard University professor Henry Louis Gates Jr on a charge of disorderly conduct. Obama said that the police had "acted stupidly" but later pulled back his remarks after they sparked a national uproar.
Rickford Burke, president of the Caribbean Guyana Institute for Democracy in New York, and a vocal critic of the Barbados immigration policy, agreed.
"There is no evidence to indicate that the Barbados policy is race-based and no violence has been associated with its implementation," Burke said. "Ethnic cleansing cannot be an appropriate or justifiable description in the case of Barbados."
The Oxford Dictionary defines ethnic cleansing as "the mass expulsion or killing of one ethnic or religious group in an area by those of another".
Sir Shridath's comments were shocking because a public figure of his vast experience and stature should know better.
As a former Commonwealth Secretary-General he should been aware that the use of such emotive language borders on slander of a country and a people, if untrue.
To suggest that Bajans would sit idly by and allow "ethnic cleansing" to occur without an outcry and demands to end it demeans the island.
But where is the evidence to support his contention?
Absolutely none.
Sir Shridath might have to explain why he was seemingly silent on the deportation of Afro-Guyanese from Antigua, Trinidad and Tobago, the United States, Britain and Canada, because they broke those countries' immigration laws but turned to incendiary language when scores of Indo-Guyanese were sent back home from Barbados for doing exactly the same thing?
Is the status of Indo-Guyanese any different from that of the Blacks who were born in that coastal state?
In the United States for instance, Guyanese and other Caribbean immigrants, both Blacks and East Indians, are regularly arrested late at night or early in the morning, picked up at work or at home and ultimately deported for being in the United States illegally. But Sir Shridath hasn't accused Washington of ethnic cleansing.
They have also been deported from Britain where he lived for decades but he didn't descend to such depths.
Why is he treating Barbados in such disrespectful tones? Why would he bring race into an issue where it doesn't belong?
These are legitimate questions which Sir Shridath should answer now that he has improperly brought race hatred into a matter where it should remain out of bounds.
Unfortunately, a somewhat similar thing has happened in Trinidad and Tobago where Dr Tim Gopeesingh, a parliamentarian, recently charged that "ethnic cleansing" of East Indian doctors was taking place at the Port-of-Spain General Hospital after some of them had not been offered contracts to retain their services.
Both the Express and Newsday, two leading dailies in Trinidad, condemned Gopeesingh for his comments. Newsday called the remarks a "gross distortion of events and tarnishing, however unwittingly, of the internationally acknowledged good name of Trinidad and Tobago".
The Daily Express complained that he "was more interested in the political effect than semantic accuracy" in his use of the term.
Clearly Sir Shridath and Dr Gopeesingh can't back up their unfounded allegations and should withdraw them.
July 31st, 09
