Hidden behind the SOFA

Paolo Kernahan

THE PM found himself feuding with the media, yet again. Rowley’s raging at a news conference over a discomfiting headline was another reminder of his inability to self-regulate.

Lost in the melee was the clarity the media sought on the offending subject.

This administration has proven time and again its conviction that the cure for poor communication is more confusion.

According to Newsday's coverage, the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) is one of two agreements that would facilitate, with permission from the TT government, the hosting of US troops here should there be a conflict with neighbouring Venezuela.

Understandably, this would inflame the PM’s unstable reactor, given that Venezuela is the basket in which we’ve placed all our eggs.

The Prime Minister had every opportunity to head off the "offending" headline, but studiously avoided this.

The signing of SOFA (and others agreements) was, from my understanding, a photo opportunity. This event should have been a presser at which journalists could have asked questions about details of these agreements. That was the first error of omission.

The Newsday texted the PM with a follow-up question; one which may have been a soft opener for others. That entirely innocuous overture asked the PM to comment on the significance of these agreements for TT.

Mind you, Rowley was present at the signing so it was appropriate for questions to be addressed to him. In his typically brusque fashion, the PM reportedly responded that the question should be directed to the minister who signed the agreement.

That was the second opportunity to clear up any likely misunderstanding (if indeed there was one).

The minister to whom the PM referred, Fitzgerald Hinds, couldn’t be reached for clarification on the clause.

So the PM then held a news conference ostensibly meant to clear up a mess of his own making.

Here’s my lukewarm take: the clause or clauses in the agreements to which the Newsday’s headline drew reference either exist or do not.

Dr Rowley pulled the pin on some tangential grenade about TT’s role in promoting and brokering peace in the region – none of this had any bearing on the provisions in the agreements.

A Newsday reporter at that briefing displayed uncommon valour in the face of blistering, unhinged attacks from the PM. The attack strategy usually works, with reporters shrinking in their seats as the Prime Minister resorts to higher volume to counter scrutiny of his administration. It didn’t work this time.

Dr Rowley referred to the way the reporter "chose to interpret" the information.

As the reporter correctly pointed out, this wasn’t about interpretation.

Throughout their tortuous exchange, the PM didn’t deny the existence of the clauses in the agreement, saying only that "his government would not support any plans by the US to place troops here in the event of a conflict with Venezuela."

That doesn’t answer the question. Furthermore, government supporters pointed out that Kamla Persad-Bissessar, in signing similar agreements during her term in office, told the media, "There are no plans for the establishment of a US base here."

Who said anything about a base? Nowhere in any news coverage of the subject was a US base mentioned. It’s possible to host US troops in a country without there being a formal base.

Dr Rowley was determined to portray the headline as an erroneous and mischievous interpretation of the clause or clauses in the agreements. If the clauses don’t exist, then the PM could easily have said the Newsday published outright falsehoods, but that didn’t happen.

The paper was right to have singled out this aspect of the agreements. It was the only newsworthy bit of the signing ceremony. It’s doubly so in the context of enduring geopolitical tensions between the US and Venezuela – a nation considered a rogue state by Washington and the receptacle into which all our hopes and dreams have been disposed.

My only thoughts on what Newsday could have done differently was to seek a legal opinion or that of someone with expertise in foreign affairs to add further context to the story.

Whether TT is committed to the preservation of peace in the region is moot. When the US dictates you obey. Why sign a document which opens the door to potential violations of a peace with which you so lavishly shroud yourself?

A dedication to peace in the region but war at home was the only clarity to emerge from that news conference.