A SHORT AND almost inconspicuous postscript to Ricky Singh’s weekly “Our Caribbean” advised readers that after 32 years that contribution which also appears in at least two other regional papers was ending. This finale and the void it creates is worthy of comment especially as I have always admired and indeed aspire to Singh’s intimate familiarity with the politics of this region.
The politics is diverse and any writer who has demonstrated the familiarity that Singh has for more than three decades is deserving of admiration. With respect to the void created, I am mindful of my own vantage point and the fact it offers more opportunities for regional commentary than I exploit.
One noteworthy issue over these past two weeks has been that of Citizenship by Investment which has often loosely been referred to as the sale of passports. This is not a new issue, one sparked by any new revelations or incidents. Instead, it has been ignited by a CBS investigation and subsequent 60 Minutes broadcast which presents a blend of objective commentary and propaganda peddled by persons with a political objective.
At the core is the legitimacy of perceiving citizenship as a product that can be bought or sold and I must admit that I have moved considerably closer to supporting the concept over time. In the past, we have sold commodities and have indeed been sold as commodities and I am always fascinated how some of the same cultures that sold us now dictate which commodities are to be considered legitimate. As time progressed, the sale, of commodities became economically unattractive and we moved towards tourism products, while some of us developed the concept of tax havens as “products”.
In a conversation, some years ago, the Prime Minister of Antigua made comments to me that were similar to those he made to the CBS reporter. He noted that we think nothing of a government incentivizing an investor by selling lands at nominal prices, while the sale of citizenship has become controversial. The former, which is practised in all Caribbean islands, creates a far longer term relationship between the investor and the island than the sale of citizenship which attaches to that person alone, is not transferable and does not facilitate the right to vote.
It is also fascinating how and where we draw the line across the Caribbean and the world. In Barbados, we will not sell a passport or a beach, but will accommodate a high net worth investor from Australia who wants to reside and work here. That person is accorded courtesies denied the average maid from Guyana who seeks to fill a void created by our own disinterest in particular types of work. In Jamaica and St Vincent, they will not sell citizenship but will happily sell a foreigner a beach with the understanding that this individual will erect barriers to their own citizens accessing and using that beach.
It is interesting that schemes that could be considered “second cousins” of economic citizenship are also available in some of the same countries that have been critical of our Caribbean initiatives. In the United States, the EB-5 Visa is a method by which persons who have either US$1/2 million or US$1 million to spend on job creation can obtain a Green Card. Similarly, in United Kingdom, Tier 1 Investor Visa offers the option to reside initially and subsequently apply for citizenship in two, three or five years depending on whether the individual has two, five, or ten million pounds to invest. In these instances, a residency requirement is imposed; however, this minor detail masks the fact that the citizenship product is available to the investor.
The wave of citizenship by investment programmes has stripped the more convoluted processes offered in developed countries down to the essentials and marketed them as investment products which have been highly successful. The St Kitts and Nevis initiative sparked a new wave of controversy several years ago, when the government appeared to be making the facility too easy and this is where the conversation is presently. Ironically, Dominica was named in the documentary as one of the chief offenders when the reality is that Dominica’s programme has been in existence for quite some time and has always been more rigorous (although cheaper) than the St Kitts opinion that at one stage removed the requirement for a visit to the state and removed its financial administration from parliamentary scrutiny.
There will continue to be a range of critics of these programmes across the region; however, the benefits are difficult to deny as evidenced by the St Kitts scenario where the programme raised over $200 million in 2015. In an environment where we are drowning in debt and struggling to identify a developmental path that replaces sugar or tourism, one cannot easily dismiss the logic of these programmes.
Peter W. Wickham is a political consultant and a director of Caribbean Development Research Services (CADRES). Email: peter.w.wickham@gmail.com.
