As I sat to write this article, it had been approximately 16 hours since I first saw a news broadcast of President Trump and Vice-President Vance of the United States of America verbally dressing down President Zelensky of Ukraine in the Oval Office. It’s possibly the most embarrassing event I’ve ever seen replayed on prime-time television; certainly more so than when Will Smith slapped Chris Rock in the face a few years ago. But the implications are far-reaching. From my point of view, a world war is more probable than ever before, or Ukraine will concede even more of its resources than it had bargained for during preceding negotiations with the USA.
President Trump is reputed to be an expert deal-maker. I view yesterday’s show of force as a delay tactic - one that, if both sides aren’t careful, they could live to see a bolder Putin as a result. It’s, however, the presence and role of Vice-President Vance during that news conference that intrigues me.
It could be true that US vice-presidents take on an active role in these sorts of events. I do not have a reference point from which to dispute this. Vice-President Vance’s involvement reminds me greatly of the concept of the “Stranger in the Room” and how many seemingly well-intentioned negotiations are scuttled in their concluding phases.
The Stranger in the Room is nothing more than a person who, initially unrelated to and uninvolved in the scope of the meeting or negotiation, is seemingly invited to observe or “lightly” participate in the later or concluding rounds of negotiations. They tend to be in attendance at the invitation of the party that seeks to kill or critically delay the outcome of the negotiation. They intervene eventually during the course of deliberations, offering some intervention that calls the outcomes into question.
They do this either deliberately, as planned with the inviting party, or unintentionally, as it is their nature to disagree with the outcomes for whatever reason. The benefit to the inviting party is that they can portray a need to withdraw from negotiations because someone they trust has made a pertinent intervention. This is done to avoid making the party look as bad as possible given the decision to walk away or postpone at such a late and concluding stage.
My gut tells me that, yesterday, Vice-President Vance was indeed the Stranger in the Room. Let’s not spend any more time exploring why I saw that to be the case. I’m motivated to write about why I think the concept can damage small island economies when it comes to opportunities to develop themselves.
Let us assume that most very large-scale investment projects are designed through the use of rigorous levels of analysis and with certain access to financing. It would be incorrect to believe that small island governments will have a difficult time valuing or accepting the economic or developmental impact. Furthermore, since the project has great all-round potential benefit to these states, why are the majority of such projects always delayed in implementation?
First thoughts would have you thinking of a lack of political will. But that isn’t logical because such projects promise the ability to grow foreign exchange earnings; improve physical infrastructure (while maintaining historic and cultural value) with minimal environmental impact risk; and create jobs. All of these are success factors for a developing economy, so a government should prioritise the successful and timely completion of such projects.
My experience has shown that, if you look and listen long enough across all aspects of media, you will see several strangers in the room emerging as said projects are in marginally advanced stages. I would be the first to say that many of the points they make have immense merit but, once more, my experience has not shown that those concerns tend to outweigh the benefits to the country. Again, that is if the projects are defined by the conditions that I previously mentioned.
The Hyatt Project is a perfect example, excluding the clear concerns about environmental impact. The law is clear about government’s right to eminent domain. Any challenges to that must be addressed at the constitutional level and are beyond the scope of any such project. Barbados, back then, was in need of the short-term boost of construction as a remedy to flagging GDP. My personal view on the matter is quite different than you’d expect , but for the reader’s sake, I wish to make clear that I am speaking as a logical and professional observer.
Apparently, all remaining success factors were there. Capital was ready for deployment and, on the government’s side, all the necessary permits were either granted or close to completion. Yet, the project was stalled, and it is my belief that this was the result of a mixture of two factors: the media and the court system. Government has since changed, and that project still has economic benefit. But benefits derived later do not always result in greater benefit. In other words, the economy now might have been even bigger and/or more developed had that project not been stalled. To this day, I believe that no real blame has ever been attributed to those who benefited immensely from the delay. Overall, the country has not.
This brings me to the much-embattled sale of the Holetown Civic Centre to a locally-resident Canadian entrepreneur. According to all reports, he plans to make a more than US$150 million investment into the construction of an 80-room hotel on the site. Personally, I am consistent in saying that I am never in support of more hotels on the island, as I do not see material or sustainable benefit in doing so, especially when considering the cost to government by way of subventions and grants, nor the environmental impact. I also have not followed much of the debacle surrounding the debate in both Houses of Parliament regarding the sale.
On the plus side, I see it as being no different to the motivation behind Prime Minister Owen Arthur’s decision to sell the Barbados National Bank (BNB) just over 20 years ago. On the negative side, I can see the legacy results as being fairly similar to those emanating from Prime Minister Arthur’s decision to divest the government’s majority stake in the BNB back then. I know that you, the reader over 35 years old, understand exactly what I mean here.
My main point is that all development comes with both good and bad. The objective is that the benefit must outweigh the cost. So while I am personally against tourism being placed as the driver of the country’s growth in the fashion in which it is done, I am realistic when it comes to the political objectives that government finds itself balancing with the economic.
To that point, once certain covenants surrounding the historic character and the wider environment were agreed upon and maintained, I would not offer opposition. Besides, it is too late for me to be a Stranger in the Room. There was one, who I supported their right to intervention and disagreement, but it seems that the cost of their actions outweighed the benefit of doing so.