So many things to write about with so little time. There is this urge to join the chorus of concerned individuals who are annoyed with the Ministry of Education’s latest initiative meant to validate the cost of providing public education to Barbadians. I have to fight it because, honestly, there is a larger concern that remains in the background.
I worry immensely about the build-up of military assets to our south-west. Many of those who care for me have asked that I not comment on the matter. Their presence, however, has significant potential impacts on every economy within the southern Caribbean.
Most people do not understand war. I cannot claim to have experienced the more fatal side of it. But that is the issue: the average person seems not to relate even to the non-fatal aspects of war. The international media has done exceedingly well to ensure that recent events have been branded, at worst and solely, as excursions or campaigns against narco-terrorism. Every person who has lived extensively in the Caribbean knows of its reputation as a major transhipment point for illegal drugs and human-trafficking victims. It makes no sense to deny this. However, I am still at a loss as to what is meant by narco-terrorism.
Whatever the rationale for eradicating narco-terrorists in nearby international waters, the point I wish to establish is that it is of no benefit to us in the Caribbean to view these exercises as anything less than establishing the grounds of war. Not for war, but of war.
A war can be understood through Precursors and Triggers. A Precursor is the characteristic of an environment that gives rise to the prospect of war. Some rudimentary examples follow: 1) forming of new alliances; 2) a rise in nationalism; 3) large shifts in power bases; and 4) campaigns to acquire more resources through force or unfavourable terms of trade. There is no war while these exist.
Triggers, however, signal the start of the war. Most are not violent but imply an immense rise in tensions. These often indicate the commencement of war and include: 1) ultimatums and diplomatic crises; 2) formal mobilisation of military assets; 3) border skirmishes; 4) assassinations; and 5) invasions. I can guarantee that the majority of you, the readers, can identify the first four as having occurred in recent months through American military actions. Bureaucrats have even gone as far as to state that land campaigns may begin in the near term – technically a call for an invasion.
The region is essentially a battleground, but, again, the international media has spun the situation to our benefit in the near term – somewhat. In Barbados, for example, we are at the cusp of what looks to be another record-breaking tourism season. Everything seems to be trending in that direction despite a war occurring at our doorstep. I anticipate that a landfall by American military forces, or, worse yet, a significantly fatal retaliation by Venezuela will bring a sudden halt to those gains.
I have an issue with sentiment in Barbados. Generally, it reeks of the oft-applied head-in-the-sand approach that Caribbean societies are known for. Our country cannot avoid or influence the actions or outcomes of the two nations in conflict. We can, however, learn from the control of narrative by international media houses. In my view, it makes more financial sense for our in-season marketing material to factor in how likely it is for the intensification of war to truly affect Barbados. I am not denying that it will, especially if there is even the threat of nuclear assets being employed. There is, however, no sense in failing to educate the global community about our perspective. If the country loves the tourism industry the way it says it does, then the Government of Barbados should probably commit significant financial resources towards promoting this education.
There is benefit in ensuring that the international community knows the distance the island lies from the potential mainland targets in Venezuela. For emphasis, Barbados is much further away and upwind from Caracas (approximately 469 nautical miles) than Tel Aviv is from Gaza in Israel (less than 60 nautical miles or so). The tourism industry in Israel is obviously struggling and for good reason. But at ten times the distance from what early indications suggest is the likely location of significant assets in Venezuela, there is something that we can do to avoid the situation in Tel Aviv. Furthermore, early indications suggest that Barbados itself should not be a target for either side. War is, however, a complex issue, and many an alliance tends to be struck in times of immense need. Who knows what role any island will play.
What I do know is that, one way or another, opportunity cost comes into play. Barbados will either have to spend money to support a somewhat beneficial educational campaign (propaganda), or lose billions of dollars of tourist spend starting in the height of the season should the conflict intensify. With knowledge of Bayesian probabilities (this is spelt correctly) you can easily conceive that there is, at worst, a 50 per cent chance of either outcome occurring if you believe either to be at least possible. Logic suggests, then, that spending the money on the educational campaign is the wise choice at this time.
The country will garner some control over the situation, reassuring, at the very least, seasoned travellers to the island. We still bank significantly on repeat tourism despite the immense growth of our American market. I do believe that Americans will opt to stay away from this part of the region if fatalities begin to mount on both sides. There is still time, whatever the situation, to assess how resilient this market is. I doubt it, though. The breakout of the fatal phase of this war will ensure that Barbados loses closer to BB$10 million per day, by my calculations, until well after it simmers down. For reference, nuclear fallout guarantees losses of BB$60 million per day.