Clear economic plan needed

STUART Young could not have been caught unprepared for the US government’s revocation of licences allowing this country to monetise gas fields in Venezuela. True, Marco Rubio had assured him, on March 26 in Jamaica, that the US would do no harm. But Marco Rubio is Marco Rubio. It is not the US Secretary of State who runs America. It is Donald Trump.

“I am not surprised,” a crestfallen Mr Young said on April 8 as he announced this country’s latest economic setback at Whitehall.

Yet, his disappointing vagueness when asked to state the government’s contingency plan suggested that, in fact, he was.

Said the PM: “We don’t have it yet. Every time there has been some adversity presented, I have found a new plan and we will now put in place a new plan. We will also be talking about the diversification plan we have, but don’t give up.”

“Will now put in place,” “talking about” – one got the impression that Mr Trump’s destruction of the global economic order is news to Mr Young. It might not be fully accurate to suggest the government has been placing all its eggs in one basket, but this kind of talk from the PM certainly does little to dispel that notion.

In the event the current administration has not been completely guilty of betting too highly on one outcome, Mr Young and company have certainly been far too myopic by placing faith in secondary characters like Mr Rubio. Mr Trump is the protagonist. Under his uncouth rule, US governance has been rendered into a crude one-man show. Tariffs and licence revocations are merely the latest chapters in a grotesque narrative.

However, it’s not only the PNM that has adopted a narrow vision.

“We told the government they had to do things properly with these licences and the new Trump administration,” said the UNC’s David Lee on April 8, as if “the new Trump administration” is in any way regular.

And Kamla Persad-Bissessar, on March 10, asserted, “Stuart Young went to Venezuela, not once, not twice, 13 times. He and Rowley are the sole causes of any US sanctions.” The UNC leader sees this country’s interaction with our closest neighbour as “causes” for retaliation; sovereignty thus yields to the caprice of a figure who respects no country.

As April 28 approaches, both the PNM and UNC need to admit that within the Trumpian paradigm, the logic of cross-border collaboration is anathema.

Both sides need to outline clearer economic plans. Mr Young cannot treat diversification as an aside and stick to only Sandals. Ms Persad-Bissessar cannot leave funding sources and timelines for her proposals hanging. Both had ten years to prepare. They should say more.