Curaçao is currently going through a very serious economic crisis. It is therefore understandable that not many people listen to any kind of solidarity with the many Venezuelans who have fled to our country.
But is it wise not to show solidarity with the victims of the catastrophe in Venezuela? Would it not be better, for example, to think of a temporary work permit? Below are some reasons why that is also in the interest of Curaçao.
Life expectancy: The costs of public services in a country like Curaçao are high. Financing this is becoming increasingly difficult for two reasons. First of all: the local population growth is shrinking. This is due to emigration, especially to the Netherlands, and a low fertility rate of on average 1.7 children per woman during her lifetime, while that must be 2.1 on average to keep the population stable.
The other reason is the increase in life expectancy: it is 78 years on Curaçao and continues to rise. It goes without saying that having fewer people of productive age and the increase in the number of retirees poses financial problems without increasing taxes. The alternative is to levy taxes on those who do not pay taxes as follows: the average age of people who have arrived from Venezuela in recent years is between 25 and 40 years. That is an age where people are in their most productive phase of life. An ideal group to contribute to taxes without incurring excessive health or pension costs.
But in Curaçao there is a fear that these Venezuelans will take the jobs of the local population. A survey by the International Organization for Migrants (IOM) at the turn of the year shows that almost all of these Venezuelan migrants are already working. Only they do not pay taxes, because that would be more attractive for employers. The same research shows that a high percentage of them want to return to their country as soon as the circumstances change. Perfect candidates for a temporary work permit, and perhaps a residence permit without building up residence rights.
The cost of detaining someone in the barracks for “illegal immigrants” costs Curaçao 350 guilders a day, according to the minister of justice. In addition, there are costs for the immigration service and for the deportation of immigrants.
Wouldn’t it be better to use those resources to increase security on our island? Don’t forget that various international organizations and countries finance a large part of the costs of hosting Venezuelan refugees such as Brazil and Colombia. A good humanitarian plan in Curaçao can also count on such financing.
No country is safe: The people who are currently leaving Venezuela do not simply do so because they are looking for better economic or social opportunities. They do so in order to survive because they leave a country that, even though it is not at war, does have all the characteristics of an armed conflict.
A few years ago, no one could imagine that such a situation could occur in a country with as much wealth as Venezuela. Unfortunately, no country is safe from a similar collapse, either for natural or political reasons.
A migration crisis such as that of the Venezuelans is a problem for all humanity. This is also seen by various UN organizations that have published about this crisis. Unfortunately, Curaçao is not doing well in terms of human rights protection in these reports. It is high time to do the right thing.
Alfredo Limongi
Curaçao
Dear Editor,
St. Maarten was blessed with a strong commercial branding in its early years of tourism development. This branding was achieved by a natural talent by its people in the field of hosting, marketing by a range of commercial interests, a collaborative government and a smart choice of content: “The Friendly Island” together with the French-Dutch story.
In those early years, competitive destinations were not yet spending money developing their brands. There were also less active tourist destinations. Today, destinations are competing more actively and more financially in promoting themselves.
We have also learnt that in the case of pure commercial branding there have been many lessons learnt about brands declining as they are not actively supported. We have learnt that brands decline in recognition numbers as they are left unattended, and not supported by regular support activity. There are many commercial examples.
We are all dependent on the brand “St. Maarten” in all its forms. Everyone on the entire island is dependent on the strength of this brand, because it is a factor in the choice of potential visitors that could trend both up and down.
It is a brand that is grounded as a geographical reference, but, that by itself does not make it a brand (The Falkland Islands are well known but not as a tourist destination.) For the branding to be effective for us, the brand “St. Maarten” needs to link to the potential visitors’ concept of what is attractive for a tourist. Our communal task is to ensure that the brand “St. Maarten” holds all the positive associations that will ensure a strong tourist economy.
There are many ways to keep this branding at a high level. The most cost-effective ways will be found by creative parties with a good understanding of the communication issues. It can be achieved through media purchase, media management, events, content management and a fast-evolving variety of methods that online options have precipitated. Branding is like a plant; it needs care and stimulation.
Are we ensuring our valuable and crucial brand remains strong?
Robbie Ferron
Dear Editor,
A year ago, in “Routing the Globalists: Rescuing the Nation-State” (The Daily Herald, June 29, 2018), I posited that the Mueller investigation was “engineered by senior officials in President Obama’s Justice Department to render the Trump Presidency untenable.” In the wake of the Mueller Report, it looks as if that was, indeed, the case.
Senior officials of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) succeeded in obtaining warrants from the FISA court for a groundless investigation, seemingly in order to frame Mr. Trump, to falsely prove him guilty of a crime: “collusion with Russia.” Those implicated in this effort appear to be persons who harbored animus towards the President and were involved in the “2016 Email Affair,” the FBI’s investigation of Mrs. Hillary Clinton, the former Secretary of State in the Obama administration, the candidate of the Democrats in the 2016 presidential election.
The groundless investigation of collusion with Russia was conceived and set in motion in order to run the new President out of office by driving down his popularity rating (manufacturing consent: a consensus) that would force him to resign, or would render him vulnerable to impeachment. This was a masterly planned and executed “coup d’État”; a crafty, duplicitous “insurance plan” designed to “[...] stop it” (Agent P. Strzok): to “stop” a Trump presidency. This is evidenced by the testimony of FBI Agent Lisa Page, a trial attorney on the Mueller team and by phone messages sent to Agent Page by Agent Peter Strzok the (now fired) former Chief of the Counterespionage Section at the FBI. The phone messages were exchanged between August 15, 2015, and December 1, 2016.
It is crucial to note and consider that Agents Strzok and Page, along with their superiors in command, Andrew McCabe and James Comey, had all been involved in the FBI’s Hillary Clinton email investigation, by all accounts a “whitewash,” a coverup that candidate Trump had riled about during the 2016 presidential campaign.
With the complicity and assistance of the media, of CNN, MSNBC and the New York Times in particular, a posse of conflicted Mueller investigators embarked on their probe. ABC, CBS, NBC, the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post, and multiple other news providers were also on board with the investigators. A few independent journalists and some of the reporters and commentators at Fox News were the exception. But for the crass partisanship of the media, the Mueller investigation would not have been possible. It would not have been launched. If initiated, such a groundless inquiry would have been scuttled, nipped in the bud.
It is now quite obvious that Robert Mueller, the feeble and confused “registered Republican” who was appointed Special Counsel of that investigation by a conflicted member of the cabal, was a mere figurehead. He was the perfect cover for a posse of conflicted investigators/lawyers under the real leadership of the infamous and highly conflicted Andrew Weissmann, the likely true author of the so-called “Mueller Report.” The “Weissmann Report” may be a more accurate name for the report of that fishing expedition. Investigations into the origins of the Mueller Investigation are underway. Soon, we should learn how those warrants were obtained from the FISA court, the sooner the better.
In his latest best seller Unfreedom of the Press, Mark R. Levin is spot on when he maintains that the American press has abandoned the pursuit of impartial thinking, of all notions of fairness, of integrity, of any sense of responsibility towards liberty and the civil society. Indeed, nowadays distinguishing facts from opinions, trying to present an emotionally detached view of the news, striving for some fairness and balance appear to be obsolete, mere journalistic relics. Today’s media wallow in tribalism (group think), in bias and in omission, in fake narratives (fake news); in the manufacturing of consent: propaganda and power politics.
I venture that very few politicians would have withstood the onslaught visited on this President by such a cabal of elite federal agents and conflicted investigators, aided and abetted by the manufacturers of consent: the American media. President Trump is an exceptional individual. He is also a very lucky man, for the “coup d’État” almost succeeded. It failed because the President and a handful of his supporters fought back ferociously and were able to defeat the cabal and the media in that joint effort to drive down the popularity rating of the President: to manufacture a consensus for impeachment.
Sadly, unfortunately, CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times and too many other news providers seem to have learned nothing from their participation in this failed attempt to frame a duly-elected President. They appear to be blinded by their hatred for Mr. Trump, the man and the President.
Gérard M. Hunt
By Alex Rosaria
There are times when one single story makes us understand evil. This is about how a whole population was forced to live 1,600 km away while their island was turned into a secret military base. It’s about how all their dogs were killed, and the population threatened with the same fate if they didn’t leave. At this point you may think this is an article about some brutal dictator like Pol Pot. Think again. The perpetrators were the UK and the US. Neither did it happen in the dark days of colonialism, but in 1971. The victims: the people of Diego Garcia.
Diego Garcia, a small Overseas Territory belonging to the UK, once a paradise-like coral island, lies in the Indian Ocean midway between Africa and Asia. Secret encounters between the US and the UK in the ’60s led to a deal making Diego Garcia a top-secret US military base. All the 2,000 inhabitants, the Chagossians, had to be deported as part of this deal.
In response to the unwillingness of the inhabitants to leave voluntarily, they were first deprived of basic supplies. Then in 1971 all the pet dogs on the island, about 1,000 of them, were gassed to death.
The Chagossians, threatened with the same fate, had to board the ship Nordvaer with only one suitcase per person. When they arrived in the Seychelles they were imprisoned before leaving again to their final destination of Mauritius; 1,600 kilometres west of Diego Garcia. In files later discovered, the Chagossians were described by top UK officials as, “people with little aptitude for anything other than growing coconuts.”
When they arrived in Mauritius, not surprisingly cases of suicide, abysmal poverty and prostitution abounded. In 1981 each evicted islander got US $4,000 from the British Government. Their homes on Diego Garcia for a great part are now overtaken by the jungle.
Today, Diego Garcia is seen by the US as an “indispensable platform for policing the world.” It was pivotal in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. On Diego Garcia there are about 2,000 US troops, 30 ships, including nuclear-armed aircraft carriers ready to jump into action.
The British High Court in 2000 ruled that the Chagossians were wrongly evicted. But four years later this decision was nullified by the Queen.
In November 2016, a UK-US deal was struck to keep the secret military base, named Camp Justice, until 2036. In 2019, the UN affirmed an earlier 13-1 verdict at the International Court of Justice that found Britain’s rule in Diego Garcia unlawful.
The subsequent UN resolution ordered Britain to withdraw within six months. Still, the UK and the US look set to ignore the eviction orders.
No protests on any streets in the world. No Je suis Diego Garcia T-shirts. No mention of these people in the Pope’s sermon. All the Chagossians want is to go back home. The world looks on as injustice prevails.
~ Alex David Rosaria (50) is from Curaçao and has a MBA from University of Iowa. He is a former Member of Parliament, Minister of Economic Affairs, State Secretary of Finance and UN Implementation Officer in Africa and Central America. ~
By Alex Rosaria
Type the most outrageous conspiracy theory you’ve heard of into Google and you’ll find the validation for it. Be it that vaccinations cause autism, fluoride in water will turn you into a communist, some world leaders are reptiles and my favourite, the earth is flat. The Internet age readily delivers. The truth apparently depends on how many persons follow and like you on social media.
We are part of the problem. People, newspapers, media outlets and most politicians only call out the lies and gossip that contradict their own view, not the ones that support it. So long as the lies and gossips vilify our (perceived) enemies, it’s okay. We rather believe anonymous sources and people who prey on the most vulnerable than verifiable empiric data.
Voters here (and elsewhere) happily vote for those who habitually lie, so long as the lies play to their prejudices. We don’t mind lies – so long as it’s what we want to hear. And giving people the lies they want pays off handsomely at elections.
Why are some people so vulnerable? According to the Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, delusion-prone individuals, narrow-minded people and religious fundamentalists are more likely to believe lies. This is related to a failure to be actively open-minded and able to think critically.
Truth is that lies undermine democracies. Some countries have introduced legislation to curb lies and disinformation being spread on the Internet. Finland has taken another route. It believes that education and the tradition of reading books are more powerful tools. This approach requires patience, but it could be hastened, if we really want to. Quick fixes and only talk about the problem of lies and gossip, especially when it doesn’t fit our particular goals, won’t cut the mustard.
~ Alex David Rosaria (50) is from Curaçao and has an MBA from University of Iowa. He is a former Member of Parliament, Minister of Economic Affairs, State Secretary of Finance and UN Implementation Officer in Africa and Central America. ~
