Editorial | No to travel threat

This newspaper fully understands that countries have sovereign control over national borders, and thus, their right to determine who and under what circumstances they allow foreigners to enter them.

We expect, too, that states will share concerns with friendly countries, especially if the matters that cause unease could threaten their domestic security.

Despite a number of actions by Donald Trump’s administration with potentially negative implications for their own interests, the countries that constitute the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) consider the United States to be a friendly neighbour and partner that would engage them in cordial discussion of any issue on which Washington needs clarity.

That appears not to have been the case with respect to a list of 43 countries – including five CARICOM members – which emerged last week, against which the United States could enhance travel restrictions over security concerns.

With respect to Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica, St Kitts and Nevis, and St Lucia, Washington’s reported concern is with their citizenship-by-investment schemes, which, apparently, it believes aren’t sufficiently robust to keep out criminals and terrorists. Presumably, they would be given 60 days to explain themselves and fix the perceived problems, or risk being lumped on one of the other lists in which receiving US travel visas would be made extremely difficult, or impossible.

Antigua and Barbuda, which disputes the implicit characterisation of its citizenship-by-investment scheme as loose, has asked the US State Department for better particulars on its supposed “deficiencies”. Which is quite appropriate.

COORDINATED STRATEGY

However, as The Gleaner has previously insisted, this issue further highlights the need for a coordinated strategy by CARICOM for engaging the United States in the current dispensation.

Indeed, while four CARICOM countries are now flagged for their citizenship-by-investment schemes, others with similar arrangements might also be targeted. For instance, Grenada operates a scheme not dissimilar to what exists in its partner states. In St Vincent and the Grenadines, the political opposition has promised to introduce one if it comes to office.

While Barbados does not offer immediate citizenship, it has a programme that provides long-term residency, with the prospect of citizenship, for people who pay for the golden visa.

Gang-related political instability in Haiti, ostensibly, may be the reason for the action against that country. Who is to say that the same argument cannot be used for other countries with high gang-related crime, even if it is not at the level, and does not have the destabilising impact as in Haiti?

Citizenship/visa-by-investment schemes are not unique to the Caribbean. They exist in several countries, such as Portugal, where an investment of €280,000 entitles a foreigner to a golden visa, similar to that of Barbados. In Greece, the requirement was an investment of €250,000, until the recent increase to €500,000.

In the United States, there is an EB-5 visa programme in which foreigners can get residency for investing around US$1 million. It attracted 8,000 in 2012.

President Trump recently floated a so-called “gold card” to attract the world’s wealthiest people to America by paying US$5 million.

PROVIDE LOOPHOLES

Critics say that these schemes can allow for money laundering, provide loopholes to escape law enforcement in other countries, and for wealthy people to avoid paying taxes in the places where they make their money.

Caribbean countries insist, even if there were early hiccups, that they are compliant with global regulations to prevent the issues that are likely to worry the Americans. In any event, Antigua and Barbuda said that it was committed to maintaining strong bilateral relations with the US and its financial regulations were aligned with the US Treasury Department’s sanctions policy. Citizenship applications were not accepted from countries on the US’s banned list, and applicants were rigorously vetted, including by INTERPOL.

It makes little sense for regional countries, in these circumstances, to individually make their cases to Washington, each hoping for special dispensation from Uncle Sam.

If he ever was an avuncular personality, much has shifted. Even as a united group, CARICOM’s voice is less than powerful. Yet the sum of the institution is still potentially greater than the product of its individual parts.

The approach, therefore, has to be clear, structured, focused, and coordinated; like the response to the intention to blacklist countries that accept Cuban medical assistance.