Feb 15
Schengen Visa exemptions: first class and second class Caricom citizens? Norman Girvan
24 Comments »
I must confess to being conflicted by the news that Schengen visa requirements are soon to be lifted for four Caricom countries.. Like many others who have had to apply for a Schengen visa for even the shortest of visits, I find the procedures onerous, intrusive and demeaning. So I cannot but be happy for those citizens of Antigua and Barbuda, the Bahamas, Barbados and St. Kitts and Nevis who will henceforth not be required to endure them if they wish to travel to Schengen zone countries.
One the other hand, I wonder whether the measure is not a further step towards the establishment of of first and second class citizens, and even of first and second class countries, within Caricom…
Also in Stabroek News, June 1, 2009
Dear Solange,
My understanding is that the majority of Caricom states have implemented the six-month permission norm for entering Caricom nationals–a decision of the Caricom Heads of Government. Barbados is one of those that have not done so. Your experience in Barbados to conforms to my own expereince and that of many others I have spoken to.
What is revealing is your statement that someone entering Barbados on a British passport is given more favourable treatment than Caricom citizens. To me this the kind of double standard is unacceptable; and brings discredit to Caricom in the eyes of ordinary citizens. Can anyone imagine a situation in which a Caribbean person entrering the EU is given more favourable treatment that an EU citizen?
Norman Girvan
Your article struck a chord with me as I have a similar personal experience and a ‘second class CARICOM citizen’ perfectly depicts how I felt.
I am a Jamaican final year student in the Faculty of Law at the Cave Hill Campus of the U.W.I. I was selected to represent the University at the World’s Universities Debating Championship held this past December in Cork, Ireland. The team comprised of 3 Barbadians, 1 Tobagonian, 1 Vincentian, 1 Grenadian and myself, the lone Jamaican. To cut a long story short, I was the only one required to obtain a visa to enter Ireland. As a result of this, the university administration was very lax with my visa application. Having sent in my application late, I did not receive my visa in time.
The requirement of a visa deprived me of an opportunity that I was fully entitled to. While I had worked just as hard as my counterparts, I was subjected to a requirement that they were not. It hindered my development and I truly felt like a second class CARICOM citizen. Ireland, in requiring Jamaicans to obtain a visa and not all my Caribbean neighbours made me expendable in the eyes of the U.W.I.
I share my experience as they say that universities are a microcosm of society. This new Schengen policy will only thwart the economic development and social progress of the already marginalised countries within CARICOM while providing further benefits to the already privileged few. Having studied European Union Law, the idea that the respective
CARICOM governments could accept such state of affairs is absurd and disheartening. You correctly opine, that “the EU is introducing the very kind of distinction within Caricom that it is seeking to abolish within the EU itself”.
I believe that this is a blow to CARICOM. It is another illustration of the fact that our governments do not have the will to make the full establishment of the CSME more than just a fading dream. They preach a particular rhetoric but then their actions run counter to that. I long for the day when our governments will set aside their individual ambitions for the collective good of the region.
The reputation of Jamaican nationals as it pertains to criminal activity has become legendary. Famous for padding jails in the US, practicing their drive-by shootings in Toronto and maintaining their penchant for wreaking vengeance on the families of those who offend them in London, Jamaicans, through their acceptance of high murder rates in their own country, have become the new pariahs and personae non grata in many countries. We are undesirable immigrants; we are known internationally as trouble-makers.
Any government looking on at Jamaica’s violent culture, a frightening lack of urgency and no real interest in ending a carnage that now characterises us, would want to prevent us from landing on their shores. They know only two well that crime is now our biggest export, and they certainly do not want any of our carcinogenic cells coming to multiply and mestasize in their countries. We are safer from a distance, quarantined within our own borders.
-Kadene
It just goes to show that unity is a fleeting ideal, especially when the matter of individual economic advantage is thrown into the mix. Over and over again we have seen examples where Caricom states have different objectives, different imperatives and different outlooks on many key points of basic common interest.
Geography is not in our favour. Jamaica, the Bahamas and Haiti; which together have the majority of the Caricom population, are isolated from the rest. We have more boots on the ground but are significantly less connected to the heartbeat of Caricom. The Eastern Caribbean states are very small, compared to Jamaica or Trinidad–the Parish Councils in these countries often have greater responsibilities and a larger population to manage.
The kind of Caricom which is practical and worthy of pursuing, is the type we started off with before pancaribbeanists hijacked the intent of the Treaty of Chaguaramas intent. I am referring to the UWI, Cricket, Carifesta and CTO. Let’s stick to and improve on these. Our commonalities are more cultural, social and historic: our Spanish, French, English and African heritage; our plantation legacies; our language similarities. The economic realities of a St Kitts are not likely to be of much concern for Barbados, to say nothing of a Bahamas or worse, a Jamaica. And the reverse is true too. So to think that St. Kitts is not going to act or vote for a measure in which it sees an economic advantage for itself – yet fully knowing that fellow Caricom sister Jamaica is going to be excluded, disadvantaged even – is fallacy.
Funny that this preferred status for the fortunate few is happening just about the time we are all issuing Caricom passports – so we all may be one! Shouldn’t the Caricom passport mean something at a bordered entry in Europe? So if Caricom passport holder A is being treated different from Caricom passport holder B, what then is the value of the Caricom passport? Why don’t we just show up with our proud national passport as usual, since that is really what determines our status at the border anyway? And if we say oh, it’s just for Caricom travel, then curious what fate betides the poor Guyanese on their next visit to Barbados – Caricom passport in hand!
This is perhaps a harder blow for the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States (the OECS) than it is for CARICOM. The countries of the OECS form a much more integrated community than those of CARICOM. Our shared institutions (such as the Eastern Caribbean Central Bank), currency, and serious movements towards economic and political union ahead of the CSME are well known. What is less known — and what really hits me about this situation — is that the OECS has joint diplomatic missions to three places: Canada, Switzerland and the European Union. How did this happen when we have a single ambassador in Brussels heading a joint mission to the European Union?
I have always been more proud of the OECS than of CARICOM. This news disappoints me greatly.
Kamal Wood
UWI, Cave Hill
As a Barbadian residing in England, I was ofcourse thrilled to hear the news of the visa exemption for Europe. In the past I’ve had to miss out when my European friends were going on last-minute jaunts across the channel as visa requirements did not allow me to join them.
The fact is that the main benefit to me is that my relatives can visit me and accompany me on visits across the pond, since I’ve recently become a UK/EU citizen.
However, reading this article has somewhat tempered my elation. The article raises some excellent points about how this move could divide the Caribbean. I wish the Caribbean would’ve united itself before entering into agreements such s these.
I think we all understand why the agreement was not extended to all the Caribbean, though.
Something that did cross my mind as I was reading the comments is that Trinidad and Jamaican citizens are the ones that now see themselves as being relegated to 2nd-class Caricom.
But history, as was taught to me, tells that these same two countries once saw themselves as first-class and above all others and did not want to be burdened by the ‘small countries’. So rather than stick with a Federation, they went off on their own – prospering due to oil and natural resources – and condemned the West Indies Federation to failure.
That is probably the most defining time in Caribbean history. It’s interesting to see that now the tables could be completely turned.
JA and TT are after all the largest countries and economies. But it seems we only want equality and unity when there’s something to be gained.
One of the things that really struck me about this article, was the question raised about the underlying motives of certain countries in their urgency to sign onto the EPA. This, coupled with certain statements above highlight to me two things.
One: That Caribbean unity is going to be difficult to achieve, if persons continue to hold onto the ‘each man for himself, God for us all’ mentality cultivated in part by the divide-and-rule tactics implemented during our colonial era. This, in my opinion, is a detrimental way of thinking(to the social,political and economic development of the region) hiding under the banner of ‘sovereignty’ and a national flag. Rene being denied a visa, despite the fact that she is a university law student, attending an international competition to represent not her country, but her REGION, because of where she was born says a great deal. (Ironically, the 2006 winner of the World debating Championships was from UWI Cave Hill, and was a Jamaican). Talking about crime in Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago is irrelevant to the point, and serves as no justification for this issue.
Two: In my observations of the global political arena, I have learnt/ realised that nothing is done by a more powerful global actor for merely out of the ‘goodness of their heart’ and great generosity if you will. Thus, while the lifting of visa requirements for these four countries are seemingly wonderful and most convenient, vigilance needs to be undertaken, more so now than ever with this global financial crisis. One needs to ask the question, What’s in it for THEM?
I found your article most interesting,especially since it was only recently that I applied for a Schengen visa through the French Embassy. ” Intrusive and demeaning” is what it really is. I called for clarification of the health insurance requirements and was directed by the receptionist to American Home Assurance for specific insurance coverage i.e. Schengen Plus/Schengen B which includes repatriation coverage. With American Home Assurance that health insurance is combined with travel insurance. I therefore had to purchase insurance from the day of travel out of Jamaica to the end of travel even though my main stay is in London and does not require any kind of insurance. The health insurance/repatriation component covered only 5 days stay in France. This is really what I could afford.
Upon submission of the insurance to the French Embassy I was advised that I would be granted a visa for the specific 5 days of the health insurance coverage and not a multiple visa. This would not work for me. Not that I had reasons to be in France for more than 5 days but what if I had reasons to change the date of entry . It was then that I was made to understand that if I have health insurance with Sagicor that would give me more flexibility.
Having gone through this experience the conclusion is:
It should be explained to persons enquiring about health insurance requirements that your regular Sagicor Health insurance (which usually have overseas health coverage) is acceptable by the Embassy. This only requires a standard letter from Sagicor to the Embassy stating such. Please note that getting this letter is hassle -free and at no extra cost and usually have 30 days coverage. Besides many persons do have health insurance coverage from this company. American Home Assurance makes sense only if the applicant is not already covered for overseas health insurance to the tune of 30,000 Euros and if they wish to have travel insurance.
As mentioned previously, American Home Assurance does not offer health insurance only for this purpose. It costs in excess of US$100 for coverage for a period of 5 days. This is non-refundable and there is no allowance for changes. You cannot get some kind of document to suggest your intention to purchase similar to an itinerary from a travel agency. Therefore if for any other reason you are refused the visa your money goes up in smoke. In the same way travelers are advised by embassies not to purchase tickets in anticipation of getting a visa, they should not be encouraged to purchase health/travel insurance policies that are non-refundable.
I since received a 30 day multiple visa. I found the experience tedious, especially since I got a Schengen visa four years ago and was not aware of the new requirements. What is more all the embassies issuing Schengen visas have a stipulation that you should not approach them for a visa if their country is not the first Schengen state you plan to enter. So for us with Jamaican passports who wish to hop around Europe, you need to have a clear understanding of what is required and take a very careful approach when planning your itinerary. I was a bit taken aback to learn that the Swiss thinks it is okay for us to send our passports to Cuba (with a turnaround time of 3 to 4 weeks) if we wish to apply for a visa to visit their country. I await the intervention of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on all counts.
All the best.
Colleen Hunt, Jamaica
What an interesting article and thread. We’ve all made some very valid points above and I’m quite please to see that the thread hasn’t degenerated into a cyber shouting match which can so often be the case.
This topic is very dear to me as I’m a Barbadian living in the UK and like Shaunette above have missed out on a few last minute trips to the Continent by friends; and when I do manage to get a visa, my costs are invariably higher than my UK/EU citizen friends as I have to pay for the visa application and frequently a trip to a london based embassy.
I think we are all fooling ourselves if we think that Citizens of Caricom as it is today will be, or should be treated the same by the European Union with regards to Border Control when there are such vast differences between us, despite underlying cultural, ethnic and linguistic similarities. For that to happen, we will have to work together to try and achieve some degree of socio-economic parity between Caricom member states.
Norman, I would say that there are some restrictions for newer members of the European Union who are for example restricted from automatic settlement in the UK, claiming benefits and more which citizens of older EU states are permitted to do without any questions asked. What I’m getting at here is that the differences are too wide. The economy and the level of poverty in Jamaica is much worse than that of the Bahamas, Jamaicans are generalised (quite wrongfully) as being drug-trafficking, murdering thieves, and a Trinidadian is (reportedly) likely to kidnap someone and charge a high ransom for their return. I’m afraid it is up to the government and people of Jamaica or Guyana or wherever and not Caricom, to change the realities and international perceptions of their countries. We could co-operate a lot more within Caricom to make this happen, for example a Caricom country with a well-established tourist industry should be doing all it can to help one that is trying to establish one, and surely we can work together to find a solution to the crime situation in Jamaica which is completely out of hand. For Caricom states to be treated the same on an international stage, Caricom has to be a well-oiled machine, where we help and learn from each other to improve the plight of the so-called second class states as this in the long run will benefit all of us.
While we all wait patiently for Caricom to stop being just a name with little real benefits for its citizens, I will make good use of the visa exemption when it comes into force as these things can be taken away just as easily as they are granted.
I agree with the submissions above and really admire the civility in the responses. We can not fault the EU for deciding as a matter of policy which countries should be exempted and which should not, after all that is their soverign right. But as a Caribbean grouping and the oldest regional grouping maybe consideration should be given for a common visa policy. But then again what will happen to the Haitians…Something to think about.
Of course it is relevant that Jamaicans have a bad reputation worldwide, same as it is relevant that Haitians have a reputation for overstaying. Countries make their visa requirements based on statistical, and in some cases anecdotal, evidence as to whether it is in THEIR best interests to require visas or allow entrance without them.
Nationals of a country with very rich citizens, a thriving economy, a peaceful place, with a sterling international reputation will almost certainly be allowed to enter without visa, because the host country has much to gain (in terms of tourist dollars and/or international trade) and little to fear of them. Think Switzerland, Canada, the UK, etc.
Nationals of a country with poor citizens, a horrible economy, a violent place, with a bad international reputation will almost certainly be required to seek visas, because the host country has very little to gain and much to fear from them–its main concern being economic migration through overstays turning into illegal immigration. Think Haiti, North Korea, Cuba, Zimbabwe, etc.
Just by statistics and common sense, it is much more likely that a Zimbabwean national will overstay in your country than a Canadian national will. So if the Schengen countries make an assessment that nationals of certain Caribbean countries should no longer require visas, what is that saying about them as compared to the rest who did not gain the privilege? It is saying that, at least in the opinions of the Schengen countries which made the assessment, that these countries have their act together much better than the other ones, so to speak.
In that case, for all those Jamaicans complaining about the situation, I can only say that I sympathize with your specific situation, but that really you have no further to look than inside your own country to lay the blame for this situation. Do not fault the Bahamas, Antigua and Barbuda, St. Kitts, and Barbados for “running ahead of you.” If they waited for you to catch up to them, they might be waiting 10 or 20 years, or God knows how long, before your Jamaican economy, reputation, etc. reached up the the level that the Schengen countries would allow you to enter without visa.
Why should they penalize their own citizens for those next 10 or 20 years while they wait on you to get your own act together? Even if you do get your own act together to reach the Schengen countries’ visa-free status requirements, should then Bahamas, A & B, St. Kitts, Barbados, and Jamaica STILL have to wait another 10 or 20 or 50 years AFTER THAT for Haiti to catch up? The more you consider this line, it is obvious that these 4 countries have achieved a level of international respectability and economic success that at least in the eyes of the Schengen countries which made that assesssment, the others have not. Let the nationals of these countries have their just rewards for their hard work in achieving this status, and use their progress as an example for you to work change in your own countries. Instead of trying to drag everyone down to the lowest common denominator level, why not try to work all the harder to catch up them?
For those Jamaican law school students at Cave Hill, I encourage you to go back to Jamaica after you get your law degrees and play an active part in your country’s economic and political future so that in the future, you will be able to say that your country has achieved a better status in the world and in the eyes of the Schengen countries, so that you will also be allowed visa-free access in the future. On the alternative, if you believe that it is completely impossible to achieve such a change in your country, then simply settle for second-class status and realize you will need such a visa, or immigrate to a country with a better status in the future.
Until then, please realize exactly where the problem lies for why Jamaica did not get this privilege while certain other countries did, and try to be happy for these other countries’ citizens instead of browbeating them for alleged nonsolidarity. Solidarity is one thing and A&B, Bahamas, St. Kitts, and Barbados are not stupid; they will be waiting from now ’til Christmas 2025 ’til Jamaiaca, and certainly Haiti and the such, will be granted visa free access to the Schengen zone. Why should they hold up on helping who can be helped while they are waiting for you to catch up, too?
Of course everyone is rooting for you to catch up as well–it would be a lovely thing indeed if Jamaica and T&T and Haiti and the like all improved their countries’ status and repuration levels enough to enjoy the same benefits. Of course we want you to achieve this, too! Common sense just says that we might be waiting a while for this, and they don’t wish to punish their own citizens while they wait, that’s all.
“Having sent in my application late, I DID NOT RECEIVE MY VISA IN TIME.” -Rene
“Rene being DENIED a visa, despite the fact that she is a university law student, attending an international competition to represent not her country . . .” -Melissa
NOTE that the original quote says that the visa was applied for LATE and that was the reason it was NOT RECEIVED IN TIME. The follow up quote says that she was DENIED A VISA. Huge difference. Of course a visa sent in late will not be received on time. This is true in any embassy in any country in the world for which you are trying to get a visa, regardless of your nationality. You cannot blame this on Ireland at all.
* * * * *
“Talking about crime in Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago is irrelevant to the point, and serves as no justification for this issue.” -Melissa
With respect to Rene’s specific approval or denial of her visa, of course it is irrelevant, because the consular officer should look at the individual’s PERSONAL characteristics in deciding whether to grant a visa. But it was never said that the visa was DENIED. In fact, if it had been sent in on time, and there was good justification that it was for going to a law university competition by a law student as part of an international team, it is almost undoubtedly the case that it would have been approved for this purpose. The visa was NOT RECEIVED IN TIME by the applicant because of NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF THE APPLICANT (or in this case, the applicant’s sponsor) in applying late.
So, the real issue appears to be the contention of whether it was just that Rene would need to apply for a visa AT ALL, while the other members of the team would be able to enter visa-free.
In this case, of course it is absolutely relevant where someone was born and what nationality they hold, as visa and travel restriction policy guidelines are set worldwide by nationality. You will find this occuring in any host country. Of course it is discriminatory, but it is done with one thing in mind: to protect the HOST COUNTRY’S BEST INTERESTS.
If Irish policy makers assess that Jamaican citizens are more likely to cause trouble or to overstay in their country as compared to Barbadians, Tobagonians, etc., then so be it. Do you think there is a justified reason for this, or are those Irish policy wonks just out to get Jamaicans? Anyone using common sense will realize that the national policy set by Ireland about who needs to apply for visas there has nothing to do with them liking or disliking Jamaicans more or less than Tobagonians. It’s simply that they perceive Jamaicans to be of more risk than Tobagonians. Risks for overstays. Risks for crime. Risks for problems in general.
So the Irish set a national travel policy based on that, and then if you are a Jamaican, they will look at your individual personal characteristics when you apply for the visa. That is the purpose of the visa application process. If you apply late, then you lose this chance. Here apparently your sponsor university applied late, so your anger should be directed at them if at anyone, and after that at the situation in your own country Jamaica for why they have such a bad reputation (in the eyes of Irish public policy makers at least) as compared to Tobagonians, Grenadians, Barbadians, etc.
Do you expect Ireland should lower its standards for you?; or maybe Jamaica should work on improving its own internal economy, rule of law, government, anticorruption measures, budget deficits, antiviolence measures, etc. so as to bring itself up to meet Ireland’s standards for visa-free entry. To reach a level that Grenada and T&T and Barbados have apparently earned. What a brilliant idea!
That said, I do sympathize with your position. It IS completely unfair that simply because you were born in one place, which determined your nationality, you have certain restrictions that others do not. But this element of unfairness is unlikely to change, because EVERY COUNTRY DOES IT. Ha, look around–even Jamaica does it!
Will a North Korean citizen need a visa to visit Jamaica as compared to an American? Will a Cambodian visitor get the same time stamped in his passport as a Canadian visitor to Jamaica? Of course Jamaica discriminates against certain nationals when deciding on visa policy and entry requirement policies, too! And they do so based on what? . . . On nationlity. And they do this by making a realistic assessment of, in THEIR OPINION, whether the Canadian or the Cambodian will be a better guest in their country Jamaica.
Hmmmmm . . . So, if it’s unfair, it’s just a fact of life. Everyone is doing it. Even your own country is doing it. Everyone has always done it.
So if you feel that you are “better than the average Jamaican” and something along the lines of “it’s hard to soar with eagles when you are surrounded by turkeys!” and that you are unfairly associated with the violent reputation of Jamaican thugs and the overstaying of Jamaican illegal immigrants, then that is EXACTLY what the visa process is for. For you PERSONALLY to differentiate yourself from the crowd and show the consular officer that YOU PERSONALLY are SAFE to be a good guest in his country, regardless of how the rest of the Jamaicans act or are alleged or imputed to act by those “crazy Irish policy wonks” who made these disciminatory rules.
And you seem to have a fine case for a visa! I am sure you would have succeeded 100% if your application was in on time, because you WOULD BE a good guest in Ireland, being a law student and not only that, a apparently a TOP law student, too. Well, I guess, in the future, you or your sponsor simply needs to get the application in on time, that’s all, and you’ll be approved.
“Having studied European Union Law, the idea that the respective
CARICOM governments could accept such state of affairs is absurd and disheartening. You correctly opine, that ” the EU is introducing the very kind of distinction within Caricom that it is seeking to abolish within the EU itself.” -Rene
* * * * *
An extremely misleading comment. The author claims, because of studying EU law, to find that there is an analogy in EU law to that of the current situation talked about in this thread. In fact, there is no such analogy at all.
There are about 27 or so countries in the EU. Of these, there are widely different standards as to how outside (nonmember) countries treat their nationals as far as visa-free travel status goes. For example, the USA visa waiver program allows nationals of about half of these countries to enter the US visa-free for periods of 90 days or less for pleasure travel purposes. These countries include the UK, France, Spain, Germany, etc. And there are about another half of these countries which the US does require visas for entry. These include such countries as Lithuania, Latvia, Romania, Poland, etc. And the EU is making no attempt to abolish this differentiation/discrimination on the part of the US. No attempt at all.
The EU does not see it fit or practicable to lobby as a zone for the setting of nonmember country’s visa policies to be identical for all of its 27 member countries. And you have got to be kidding me if you think for one second that the likes of the UK, France, Spain, Germany, etc., who have the US visa-free waiver program benefits, have ever suggested that,
“Hey, you know what, this is just really unfair that we share this extra benefit that our brothers the Lithuanians and Poles and Latvians don’t have. Wow, ya know, we should just sacrifice that privilege, and tell the Americans that we will have ALL of us British and Spanish and Germans and French have to start applying for visas UNTIL those crazy American government officials decide to give all of us 27 countries together the SAME visa free travel access to the USA, because we are solid as one zone and we care just as much about our brothers the Poles and Latvians and Romanians as we do about ourselves . . . so take that, America, we don’t want your visa-free access program at all unless it’s done our way!”
Ha, this is the makings for a good laugh. Anyone who believes that has got to be crazy!
The author, despite being a law student, has used a bad analogy. We are talking about the response of NONMEMBER STATES’ visa policies being different for different member states, an issue the EU has not addressed at all. Similarly, when the Irish or Schengen countries set a differing visa standard for different CARICOM states, we are talking about a NONMEMBER STATE OF CARICOM setting different standards for different states of CARICOM. There has been no attempt to abolish such differentiation practices by nonmember states in the area of visa policy, especially if it means that the privileged states will have to endure a sacrifice to promote the cause of the less privileged ones.
The author seems to imply that in the interest of solidarity, that it would have been wiser for the Kittitians and Bahamians and Barbadians and Antiguans to have said, “Nah, that’s alright, we won’t take your Schengen visa-free travel benefits, because we want to wait until ALL of us in the CARICOM get this benefit together at one time, and we don’t like the way you singled us out for this nice little gift when you left our brothers the Jamaicans out and didn’t give them this present, too.” That would be akin to the British, French, Spanish, Germans, etc. giving up their visa-free access to the US in support of their EU member countries Romania, Poland, Estonia, etc. who don’t have such privilege. Is the EU really seeking to do this? No way.
HA! Go on dreaming if that is what you believe!
What the EU is trying to abolish is restrictions on nationals of MEMBER STATES traveling within MEMBER STATES. It has nothing to do with trying to create a level field for all EU nationals to have the same levels of visa requirements when they travel to NONMEMBER STATES.
Hmmmmm . . .
In response to Kamal Woods’ question, “How did it happen when we have a single EU ambassador?”, the answer is that it happened because the individual countries of A&B, SKN, Bahamas, and Barbados lobbied for it directly. There were several summits at the level higher than the ambassador level which brought about this policy change. The Prime Ministers themselves were involved in such summits. One particular summit which was pivotal in bringing this about was about a year ago. The ambassador is a fairly low-level position in that no real policy is set by this position; he or she simply executes the polices of the government and acts as the local representative there in country. All policy level decisions are made generally by the PM and Cabinet from back in the home country. This Schengen visa abolition was lobbied for PM to PM and Foreign Affairs Minister to Foreign Affairs Minister, and had been in the works for some time. Certainly the lobbying efforts and meetings at that level had already started back in 2006. The CARICOM joint amabassador really would have had nothing to do with any of these decisions.
Perhaps Ex might want to consider that s/he mightily defends the status quo. It is not enough to describe how the world works now (or one’s beliefs of such). On the question of beliefs, I do believe that in this world of imperfect knowledge, imperfect communication systems and subjectively anchored power architectures, in practice some ambassadors do set policy.
Ex might also want to explain what Schengen gained or did not lose in such an extension that would have caused relaxation of the visa requirements to Barbadians and the few others. Perhaps in those moments of contradiction might exist the way to have a world where one is not perpetually doomed to be Haitian and not human.
Guidance
A Barbadian who travelled to Schengen and also admires Haitians
I have traveled the world on my Guyana passport (including many Schenghen states). I have no intention of giving up my Guyana passport (although I have been residing LEGALLY in Barbados for the last 20 years and my parents are citizens there, and the current government seem to be on a witch hunt to exorcise the country of illegals (I have nothing to worry about except the utter disdain with which my passport is looked on and tossed about each time I enter Barbados with my CARICOM skilled national stamp in it – does it mean anything? only time will tell…
I digress – the thing is…all countries have laws and rules…I went to South Africa the other day and did not need a visa while my Trinidadian counterpart did…so while it is a hassle sometimes and it lowers the spontaneity of travel sometimes to some destinations – I love my Guyana passport, have never been denied a visa to anywhere, have traveled wherever I want to and will continue to do so and where I need a visa to I submit all required documentation and receive the visa…
I am not going to fight up about this creating first and second class CARICOM citizens – I am just wondering if there is a point to having a CARICOM passport? Is it merely a national passport with the words CARICOM on it? (I don’t have one yet) but if within CARICOM we are still differentiating then what really happens at the Heads of Government meetings?
Without a doubt, the decisions made, unfavourably as there are, is not a reflection of bias against other Caribbean islands but moreso of their portraying images – both economically and socially. THe decision of the EU to exempt these specific caricom countries is base on specific criteria suited to the EU’s requirement for exemption. This does not mean that the priviledge of visa free travel from these caricom islands will be trouble free. Indeed it will not be, as all it takes is just a few citizens from these selected islands to abuse this privilege and the hammer from the EU can easily remove the exemption back to restriction. Already, Barbados might just be subjected to further UK scrutiny and by extension probably that of the EU, because one of its citizens are in trouble with the UK law for drug smuggling.
It is unfortunate that the current decision has placed in the minds of some right thinking caricom citizens the notion that some islands of the Caribbean are deemed first class whilst others are second class. However, with high crime associated with and specific to certain Caribbean islands it is my belief that a careful process of selection is ideal. It is therefore up to those other Caribbean island still on the negative list to review their developmental policies and strategies for the improvement of their nation and themselves.
It will be good if the Caricom passport is visa free to Schengen countries. but let there be no discrimination, I mean Caricom passport is Caricom passport, not that some countries”™ Caricom passport are accepted and others are not.
Wow i absolutely love this discussion and it is not the first time i am reading up on it, but i have been prompted to comment. I am a Kittitian and i will say bluntly that i have no belief in or support for a unified Caricom. To be honest and blunt i think it is a major waste of time given our Caribbean egos with much more talk an smoke than tangible progress worth supporting. To the contrary i am a staunch believer in the OECS and the proposed economic union, and i will now explain why. I pursued my bachelors in International Tourism Management at UWI St. Augustine in Trinidad and for 3 longs years i fought the notion of Trinidad being a big and sophisticated island state while St. Kitts was dubbed as a small an well less significant country. I can remember many class debates being led by myself of course and supported by my fellow OECS comrades trying to battle against this big island small island concept. I have also warned many of my friends who are Trinidadian to be careful about their attitudes to so called ‘small islanders’ because we were determined to move ahead through the OECS. There was once a time when Jamaica, Trinidad and Barbados were mighty and felt that the West Indies Federation was a ludicrous idea. Sayings like “oil can’t spoil and money is no problem” epitomized this sentiment and my contention is this. If you saw it fit to overlook us when we were weaker and needed support do not expect us to support you now that the mighty has fallen or is falling. The OECS survives because it is a union forged out of necessity and mutual understanding. The economies are all relatively similar in size and so if one country runs into problems the others can easily cover their back through mechanisms like the ECCB. Can you imagine the OECS trying to bail out Jamaica, Trinidad or Barbados? Pure madness, and in one swoop that would totally destroy a union that has been growing from strength to strength over time.
Now as it relates to the visa waiver i accept the notion that it is creating first and second class Caricom nations but reality dictates there have always been and still are first and second class nations. There is the big island / small island war that continues to wage, there is the negative connotation or image of some islands compared to others, and so through the direct fault of Caribbean nations some have risen, and others have fallen, and well some have fallen but still behave as though they are the best thing on the planet. I am proud that my government had the foresight to negotiate a visa waiver with the Schengen Zone. I am grateful heck even ecstatic that i can move around Europe unrestricted at my whim and fancy. To suggest that it is by some means wrong that a few nations have opted to lead because the wider Caricom was not included is pure and absolute rubbish. If we as a Caribbean people always wait for things to be just right before we act we will never achieve anything. There is nothing stopping the rest of Caricom from getting on board with this agreement, so why make those nations that have been proactive out to be traitors of Caribbean Unity? For 3 years i dealt with the notion that Trinidadians felt superior because their island was bigger, but that did not stop this ‘small island’ boy from graduating top of his class with first class honours. Now i am studying in the UK and i was in France just last week (i hopped euro star to paris) and i can’t explain the sense of national pride i felt when i handed the immigration officer my passport and he paused, he looked at me and smiled and without a word or question about a visa stamped it as cleared for entrance and bid me a lovely trip. I LOVED IT. Especially since at present i have a close personal friend from Trinidad also studying in the UK with me and is saddled with the hassel of getting a schengen visa to move around. She has been one of the very persons pushing the big island / small island notion and now on a global front look at the small island being recognized, while the ‘big island’ is weighed down with technicalities. I am not in any way saying that Trinidadians (and others) deserve the hassel of having to get a visa but i am merely pointing out that the tables do turn very quickly. But being the kind ‘small islander’ that i am, i still help her with the visa application process and have even offered to go to the embassy with her as moral support.
So the crux of the matter is this. Let”™s not blame those who shake things up in the quest for progress. Let us challenge ourselves to be better, to do better and to push harder than before. If we as Caribbean people allow our myopic mindsets to continue to hold us back then as i said before i will NEVER support the notion of Caricom. The OECS is dear to my heart because it is a symbol that against all opposition small islanders like myself can compete globally and come out on top. It is nothing to be jealous of or spiteful towards but we need to learn that everyone has something to offer.
Long Live the OECS, and who knows maybe one day i will join in the fight for Caricom. But until Caribbean Nations recognised each other as partners the OECS will continue to handle its business on behalf of the “˜small and less important”™ who were left to fend for themselves by the once mighty Caribbean nations.
I hope the lesson is learned.
Mr. Kennedy Pemberton
M.Sc. Student
University of Surrey
United Kingdom
The answer is simple. Jamaica my homeland although am british citizen too and trinidad needs to fix their social society and make it in lined with civility on europe. Low crime, respect for human rights, lack of corruption and decency which most jamaicans possess but govt lacks the will to enforce.
thena and only then will the EU allow free movement if they feel safe that a jamaican or tini will pass thru their waters without committing robbery or murder
I am from Antigua and agree with Kennedy from St. Kitts 100%. The OECS is the ONLY functional Caribbean institution as opposed to Caricom (talk shop) WI Cricket (Big islands only club). I do not support Trinidad joining the OECS their aim is to dump their mediocre goods on a captive market not to mention skilled and unskilled labour. I’ll go as far as to suggest that the OECS form not only an economic but a political union and become the United States of the Eastern Caribbean (USEC). As for the visa requirement you dont have to look further than Antigua where almost half the population are Jamaican and Guyanese immigrants (low skilled I might add) who put a strain on our limited social services. They visit Antigua on ‘vacation’ and never return home. Just as they do in the UK who recently had to impose visa restrictions on both countries.
Greetings everyone from East Africa (well Nairobi, Kenya). I just started to peek this thread and wanted to add my 2 cents. I was born in Barbados but left at age 8 to live in Canada (USA for 3 years) a looong time ago.
I completely agree with EX’s point of views. He/she’s right on the money. Furthermore, I do regret the burdens that fellow CARICOM nations will endure — ie. Rene’s case. I truly regret this. Again, EX explained WHY the EU saw things differently.
It’s interesting that once the EU and NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement between Canada, Mexico and the US) came into existence that many other nations & regions around the globe are pursuing similar unions. There’s no doubt that CARICOM has merit and it would be foolish for it to disintegrate (or to be reduced in collective stature) out of this visa-free thingy with the EU.
Quite frankly, I think every CARICOM state should aspire to bring said institution up to the level (in terms of governance, social responsibility, quality of life, etc. — NOT MONEYwise but in character) of the EU’s top states (Germany, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Holland, etc. — excellent educational & health services, high quality public institutions, etc.). Once we (yes, I’m still proud as heck to be a Bajan and hence part of CARICOM!) can, collectively, reach this level, then every member state in CARICOM will progress – together.
By the way, the EAC (East Africa Community) came into effect on July 1st, 2010 resulting in a marketplace of 120 million people that consists of Kenya, Tanzania (which includes Zanzibar), Uganda, Rwanda, and Burundi. I urge my Caribbean brothers & sisters to bring their culture (especially dem tasty dishes like coocoo, dumplings, ox tail soup, yams/cassava/sweet potato cookups, ackee & salt fish, etc.), knowledge and that uplifting carnival spirits that exist in every islander to these parts. There’s much we can learn from EACH OTHER…that’s for sure.
Most importantly, members of all Caribbean islands enjoy VISA FREE travel since our ancestors originated “in Africa.”
That’s why I had my aunt on the island send me a new Barbados passport a few days ago since its CHEAPER for me to travel in most African nations with it as opposed to my Canadian passport where I have to pay $30-$50 here and there for a visa.
Anyhow, its high time we started visiting and SUPPORTING each others economies so that Africa & Caribbean nations can rise & prosper together.
It”™s a shame that all these countries think of Jamaica as an Island filled with criminals, not everyone in Jamaica is a Criminal, Jamaica is a Proud country and we hold our heads high! So for all these countries to exclude Jamaica from the Schengen Visa Exemption it”™s crazy! Every country in the World has their own crime rate, If Jamaica is such a rotten country then why do these so called other countries allow their Citizens to travel to Jamaica? Yes Jamaica is not a wealthy Island, but! what we don’t have we make up in Education, our people are very talented and skilful workers and we have survived this long with the little we have, we”™re not a country born of criminals, we are nation born of strength, while other countries have terrorists, Jamaica doesn”™t, SO if all these so called countries feel the same about Jamaica then I say to you don’t come to Jamaica!….
I’m a Jamaican by birth and after reading the threads I was compelled to make a comment. Personally I do believe that some of negative comments about jamaica are un-true, biased, and without merit. If we are so ” terrible” as some people would believe, why are we not listed as a ” terrorist” state ? And why do we get in the region of “3.2″ million tourist a year basking in our sun, sea and sand ? Food for thought…..