Be wary of caving in to US pressure
Let's assume that Bruce Golding decides to turn the Christopher 'Dudus' Coke case over to the courts, and they, after careful deliberation, decide to grant the extradition request. What then?
Would we be prepared to deal with the possible repercussions of this decision? Would we have to deny some human rights as a preventative mechanism?
reports, while there is yet a link between area leaders (dons) and politicians, the dependent party is not the area leader - only where legitimisation is concerned. But is legitimisation the main concern of these individuals?
I want to see the end of crime and corruption in Jamaica. And while aspects of the US's call and pressure resonate with this desire, I'm not certain that we can and should move at their required pace. This position may seem to favour other persons who may enjoy some amount of protection and benefit if Coke stays. The question again is, are we prepared to deal with his going?
The garrison phenomenon
According to the articles in
The Sunday Gleaner
of March 7, we're told that the garrison phenomenon goes back to the 1960s, and has evolved to where it is now. To correct this problem is bigger than the mere extradition of a reputed don. Dons come, dons go, and other dons arise to replace them. There are systemic problems with Jamaica's political system, which create the fertile ground for garrisons to emerge.
The solution to our problems must come from within, and must not merely seek to bring known criminals to book, but must also correct the flaws in the system that nurture "donmanship".
I am wary of what may happen to Jamaica, if the US has its way on its terms, given what normally happens to countries when they intervene. Do I then understand why Mr Golding is dealing with the situation the way he currently is? Might it be more than merely protecting his interest? Questions, questions, questions.
I am, etc.,