An upside down Jamaica

Stephen Vasciannie

SOMETIMES, JAMAICA just proceeds on an upside down basis. And here, I am not necessarily accusing the Government of anything; nor am I suggesting that everything has gone haywire in our society.

However, it does seem to me that, on a regular basis, we just go about our business in a way that defies rational explanation, giving play to confusion and mystery, when, with a moment's reflection, good sense could prevail.

At the level of foreign policy, for instance, there are, of course, complexities that require detailed and technical analysis, often defying first impressions. In contrast, though, some positions suggest themselves quite readily.

For some years now, Jamaica has been perceived both by nationals and foreigners as having a drug problem.

So, for example, the United States Department of State began its 1997 review of Jamaica's drug situation with the simple, and correct, proposition that: "Jamaica is a producer of marijuana and an increasingly significant cocaine transshipment country" (International Narcotics Control Strategy Report, March 1998). Similarly, at ground level, even casual observation suggests that the level of cocaine use in some segments of society is on the rise, while there are unsubstantiated rumours abroad concerning how cocaine is actually transmitted from Colombia, via Jamaica, to the American market.

In the face of this drug threat, Jamaica has quite appropriately introduced legislation to deal with drug proceeds (such as the Money Laundering Act and the Forfeiture of Proceeds Act) and has sought to tackle the actual transshipment process by its involvement in the Shiprider arrangement.

But now, the confused thinking. Two or three weeks ago Jamaica entered into a treaty with Colombia designed, at least in part, to encourage commercial ties between both countries. A moment's thought should indicate the pure folly inherent in this treaty arrangement.

Colombia is the world's leading producer and distributor of cocaine, as well as a leader in heroin supply. Its state structures have, from time to time, been overrun by the power of narcotraffickers and, as a result, it is sometimes difficult to distinguish between legitimate members of the executive or the judiciary from drug traffickers in suits. At the same time, Jamaica's trade relations with Colombia have generally been insubstantial. Why then should we wish to increase our commercial contact with Colombia at this time?

This treaty will raise suspicion as to Jamaica's commitment to tackle drug trafficking, and create a foundation of legitimacy for suspect packages imported into Jamaica from Colombia. No offence is meant to law-abiding Colombians and their representatives in Jamaica, but, given the currency and seriousness of the drug threat, we should cultivate a studied distance from Colombia in commercial matters at this time. A moment's thought from K.D. Knight should have cut off this commercial treaty at conception.

And, speaking of conception, a moment's thought would probably have avoided the confusion that has developed concerning the Labour of Love Birthing Centre. Clearly, the State has a responsibility to protect Jamaican women if they are being misinformed as to high-risk pregnancies, and if this misinformation has caused problems for mothers at a time of special vulnerability.

Nevertheless, the Ministry of Health seems to be drifting through a field of banana peels in low-tech roller skates. If the Ministry is so keen to give legal force to its 'Guidelines' on the treatment of high-risk pregnancies, why not take the relatively simple step of converting those Guidelines into law? And, if the Labour of Love administrators are so careless with delivery procedures, why not issue a detailed, written statement setting out the evidence to this effect?

The Chief Medical Officer has, by his work over the years, gained our respect. In this case, however, he seems hard-pressed to explain why Labour of Love was closed down in such a summary manner, with their files seized, and with problematic arrangements being made for clients of Labour of Love who are close to the point of delivery. This is clearly a situation in which patient dialogue could have avoided confusion.

More generally, implicit in the Labour of Love position are two propositions that require a more substantial response from the authorities. One is that women should indeed have the right to choose how they wish to have their babies delivered (subject to financial considerations). But closure of Labour of Love bars not only high-risk deliveries, and therefore amounts to overreaching in a way that denies the rights of low-risk mothers. This may be inevitable in the circumstances, but the Ministry should have explained why this is so.

Secondly, the Labour of Love concept has been attractive to many women in Jamaica precisely because of the problems at the Victoria Jubilee and other public hospitals. The cost of private delivery in more upscale institutions is prohibitive for many mothers (and the delivery process quite impersonal in some cases), while public institutions may best be described as inadequate. So, Labour of Love fills a need, and against that background, the Ministry's summary closure seems short-sighted (at least without further explanation).

Other instances of upside down Jamaica may be briefly mentioned. Hope Road and parts of Old Hope Road are considerably improved, and travellers forget the inconvenience and diversion, because the progress has a price. And then what? A few months later, a part of Old Hope Road is subject to extravagant digging: couldn't the thing be done one time to avoid double confusion?

And again: we continue to keep the death penalty on our books, but we do not apply it. Surely, a moment's thought would reveal that we should either take it off the books, or implement the ultimate sanction, for when laws are completely disregarded this merely serves to undermine the entire concept of the rule of law.

Of course, we also demonstrate confused thinking in our assessment of political activities. Minister Knight and/or the Commissioner of Police need to respond to the implied Daviesian proposition that area leaders are necessary for the maintenance of law and order in some communities; does Minister Knight regard this as an acceptable state of affairs, or as a model to be applied in Upper St. Andrew, for instance?

Stephen Vasciannie, attorney-at-law, teaches at the University of the West Indies

Back to Commentary