Caribbean Blog International

The geopolitical realities of the twenty-first - 21st century

2026-10-12T04:21:06.853-07:00

The emerging international order

THE DECLINE OF IMPERIAL INTIMIDATION: THE WORLD IS MOVING BEYOND THE POLITICS OF DOMINATION

October 11, 2026

By Dr Kevin Turnquest Alcena

Nassau, The Bahamas

The rise of a multipolar world, the limits of coercive power, and Africa’s historic demand for two seats at the United Nations, will happen.

The global order is undergoing a profound transformation. For decades, economic sanctions, military superiority, financial dominance, and political pressure have served as instruments through which powerful nations have attempted to influence the behaviour of others.

Yet the world is increasingly demonstrating that possessing overwhelming power does not automatically translate into political submission.

The United States’ use of sanctions against international judicial institutions raises fundamental questions about the relationship between power, international law, and accountability.

When powerful states use economic or political pressure against institutions tasked with upholding international justice, concerns arise about the independence of those institutions and the consistency with which international rules are applied.

The central argument is not that American influence has disappeared, nor that sanctions have become meaningless. It is that imperial intimidation is no longer a universally reliable instrument for securing obedience.

Nations are increasingly willing to resist external pressure, diversify their international partnerships, and defend their right to determine their own political and economic futures.

Machiavelli and the traditional architecture of power

Niccolò Machiavelli captured one of the enduring principles of political domination in The Prince:

“It is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be dispensed with.”

— Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince, Chapter XVII.

For centuries, this logic has informed the exercise of political power. Fear, punishment, and the threat of consequences have been used to discourage resistance and reinforce hierarchies. In international relations, economic sanctions, military deployments, and diplomatic isolation can function as instruments of coercion.

But the critical question confronting the modern world is whether fear alone can sustain international dominance when targeted nations develop alternative economic relationships, strengthen domestic resilience, and establish strategic partnerships with other powers.

The answer is increasingly complicated. Sanctions can inflict serious economic damage, but economic pain does not invariably produce political capitulation. Military superiority can deter adversaries, but it does not automatically secure their cooperation.

Financial dominance can create leverage, but that leverage may diminish when countries develop alternative markets, payment arrangements, and trading relationships.

A superpower may command armies, influence financial systems, and impose sanctions, but it cannot automatically manufacture the consent of nations determined to defend their sovereignty.

Machiavelli also observed the difficulty of establishing a new political order:

“There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things.”

— Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince, Chapter VI, in a common English translation.

This observation speaks directly to the contemporary international transition. Moving from a system shaped predominantly by a handful of powerful states towards a more representative, multipolar arrangement will not happen without resistance.

Existing institutions, strategic interests, and established concentrations of power do not disappear simply because the world demands change.

Nevertheless, the growing insistence on sovereign equality, institutional reform, and a greater distribution of global influence demonstrates that the existing order is being challenged.

The limits of American pressure: Iran and China

Iran’s long-standing resistance to American pressure illustrates the limits of coercive diplomacy. Decades of sanctions have imposed substantial economic costs, yet they have not compelled Iran to abandon all of its strategic objectives or simply submit to American demands.

This is an important distinction: resisting pressure does not mean escaping its consequences. Rather, it demonstrates that the relationship between economic coercion and political outcomes is more complex than the assumption that the stronger state can always dictate the result.

China presents a different dimension of the changing international landscape. Its economic scale, industrial capacity, expanding diplomatic relationships, and growing role in international trade have contributed to a world in which American predominance faces greater competition.

These developments do not mean that the United States has ceased to be a major global power. They do, however, illustrate why international influence can no longer be understood solely through military supremacy or the ability to impose economic penalties.

The emerging global reality is that power can impose costs without necessarily securing compliance.

The lesson is not that every country resisting American pressure will prevail, but that the outcomes of international confrontations increasingly depend on economic resilience, political legitimacy, strategic alliances, and the willingness of states to absorb the costs of resistance.

Voltaire and the politics of justification

The French Enlightenment philosopher Voltaire offered a warning about the dangers of unquestioned political narratives:

“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.”

— Voltaire, Questions sur les miracles (1765), commonly translated into English.

This quotation offers a useful lens through which to examine how political power is justified.

Throughout history, domination has frequently been defended through narratives that portray the interests of powerful states as synonymous with international stability, security, or civilisation.

Yet a genuinely rules-based international order must be measured by whether its principles are applied consistently, including when those principles challenge the interests of powerful states.

International law cannot command lasting legitimacy if states are expected to respect institutions only when their decisions are politically convenient.

Nor can global justice remain credible if accountability appears to depend on the relative power of those involved.

The issue is not whether every international institution is beyond criticism.

It is whether disputes should be addressed through lawful processes, institutional reform, and consistent standards rather than through the assumption that the most powerful actors should determine the limits of accountability.

The question facing the international community is therefore straightforward: can a system claim to uphold universal principles while allowing geopolitical power to shape how those principles are respected?

Africa must claim its rightful place in the global order

For Africa, the transformation of the international system represents a historic opportunity.

The continent must not remain a spectator while decisions affecting international peace, security, finance, trade, and development are made in institutions where its representation remains inadequate.

“Africa’s exclusion is not only unacceptable, unfair, and grossly unjust; it also undermines the very credibility of the United Nations.”

— William Ruto

Africa’s demand for two permanent seats on the United Nations Security Council is central to this struggle.

The Security Council was established in the aftermath of the Second World War, and its permanent membership reflects the distribution of power at that historical moment.

The geopolitical realities of the twenty-first century are considerably different. Africa’s population, regional significance, economic potential, natural resources, and contribution to global affairs make the question of its representation increasingly consequential.

The African Union’s Ezulwini Consensus calls for two permanent African seats and five non-permanent seats on a reformed Security Council. Questions concerning the selection of representatives and the exercise of veto rights remain important elements of the reform debate.

This is not simply a demand for prestige. It is a demand for a more legitimate international system in which African states have a meaningful role in decisions that affect their security and development.

Africa must not remain a spectator in the making of the world order. A continent that has contributed profoundly to human civilisation must have a meaningful voice in shaping humanity’s future.

The transition towards a more multipolar world will not automatically resolve Africa’s challenges. The continent must strengthen regional integration, develop productive capacity, expand intra-African trade, improve governance, and coordinate its diplomatic positions.

Greater representation must be accompanied by the institutional strength and collective strategy required to exercise that influence effectively.

A permanent seat is not an end in itself. It is part of a wider struggle to ensure that the international system reflects the principle of sovereign equality in practice rather than merely in rhetoric.

Imperialism is losing its power as a universal instrument of intimidation

The deeper transformation taking place is not the disappearance of power, but the changing relationship between power and obedience.

Military capabilities remain consequential. Economic sanctions continue to influence the behaviour of states. Financial networks and strategic alliances still shape the international environment. But none of these instruments guarantees submission in every circumstance.

Countries increasingly assess external pressure against their own national interests, domestic political realities, and alternative international relationships.

Some resist, some negotiate, and others adjust their policies in response to the costs imposed on them. The outcomes vary, but the assumption that power always produces obedience is no longer sufficient to explain international relations.

This is where the traditional logic of domination encounters its limits. A world in which more countries can pursue independent partnerships and coordinate their responses to external pressure is a world in which coercion must compete with diplomacy, legitimacy, and cooperation.

The challenge is not to replace one dominant power with another. It is to build an international system in which no country assumes that superior military or economic strength grants it an unrestricted right to dictate the choices of others.

The true measure of global leadership should not be how effectively a country can intimidate other nations, but how effectively it can build partnerships, earn legitimacy, and sustain cooperation.

Conclusion: A new era of sovereign equality

The world is not yet beyond imperialism, nor has geopolitical coercion become obsolete. Powerful states continue to possess instruments of influence that can impose substantial costs on weaker countries, for example Cuba’s conflict with America.

But resistance to those instruments, alongside the growth of alternative economic and diplomatic relationships, demonstrates that their effectiveness has limits.

The emerging international order is being shaped by a contest between concentrated power and wider representation, coercion and cooperation, inherited hierarchies and demands for sovereign equality.

For Africa, this moment demands strategic clarity.

The continent must press for meaningful reform of the United Nations Security Council, pursue its claim to two permanent seats, and strengthen the collective institutions necessary to translate its demographic and economic significance into diplomatic influence.

The objective should not be to humiliate one power or celebrate the rise of another.

It should be to establish an international system in which international law is respected, accountability is applied consistently, and the voices of developing nations carry greater weight.

Imperialism may retain its instruments, but those instruments do not guarantee submission.

The defining question of this new global era is whether power will continue to dictate the rules of international life, or whether nations will build a more representative order founded on sovereignty, mutual respect, and meaningful cooperation.

The future will not be determined by military and economic strength alone. It will also depend on legitimacy, resilience, alliances, and the capacity of nations to shape their own destinies.

Africa and Cuba must be ready to help shape that future.

“There can be no political independence unless there is economic independence.”

— President Fidel Castro, UN General Assembly address, September 26, 1960.

Source / Comment

A Significant Question in Reference to (One Billion Dollars) $1,000,000.00 in Public Money of the National Investment Fund (NIF) - Spent by The Bahamas Government

2026-09-28T20:19:55.020-07:00

A Truly Defining Moment for The Bahamian People and The Bahamas

A Moment That Must be Documented for Posterity

By Lynden R. Nairn
Nassau, N.P., The Bahamas

I do not recall there ever being a question involving as much as $1 billion in The Bahamas with so few answers. This moment in our history requires documentation for posterity:

1. What is the Government saying? The Government speaks loudest when it is invited to speak but it remains substantially silent.

2. What is the Official Opposition saying?

3. What are other political parties saying?

4. What is civil society saying?

5. What are individuals of goodwill saying?

This period will mark us.

It is likely to emerge that the Government will have satisfactory answers to many questions that are being raised.

However, in my judgment, it is without question that many questions are likely to remain unanswered.

And for those, myself included, who once thought a sovereign wealth fund was a brilliant idea, we will be incredibly shocked to see what this all means for that concept...aborted before birth. Perhaps that is the saddest part of all.

Source / Comment

Nassau, The Bahamas: A National Investment Fund (NIF) is Not a Political ATM

2026-09-20T19:28:38.743-07:00

The Bahamas is in Need of a Prudent Fiscal Culture

Deo Adjuvante, Non Timendum

“With God as My Helper, I Have Nothing to Fear”

Nassau, The Bahamas

By Dr Kevin Turnquest Alcena

The Bahamas Is Not the Government’s Bank Account

“The practice of funding has gradually enfeebled every state which has adopted it.”

— Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations

More than two centuries later, Adam Smith’s warning still cuts through the noise.

One of the greatest tragedies of the developing world is not necessarily a lack of resources. It is the failure to turn resources into lasting national wealth.

Countries can have oil and remain deeply indebted. They can have gold and remain poor. They can have copper, gas, diamonds and vast natural resources and still struggle to provide their citizens with the prosperity those resources should have generated.

Nigeria is a powerful example. Angola is another. Zambia’s experience with copper and sovereign debt is another.

The lesson is uncomfortable:

Natural resources do not make a country wealthy. Good institutions do. Fiscal discipline does. Sound investment does.

And that is why The Bahamas needs to have a very serious conversation about the sovereign funds , national investment funds, debt, regulation and the growing role of the state in the economy.

Because there is a fundamental principle that every government should understand:

Winning an election does not mean you own the country. You have been entrusted with it.

The Treasury does not belong to the political party in office. The country’s assets do not become the property of the government because voters gave one party a mandate. And national investment funds should never be treated as a convenient political bank account.

THE DEBT SHOULD MAKE EVERY BAHAMIAN PAY ATTENTION

The Bahamas has made real progress since the fiscal disaster of the pandemic. That fact should be acknowledged.

The IMF says the country’s fiscal position has strengthened, with the primary balance remaining in surplus for a third consecutive fiscal year in FY2024/25. The economy has also recovered strongly, largely because of tourism and construction.

But here is the part we cannot ignore:

Central government debt remains around 74 percent of GDP. The IMF estimates central-government debt at 74.1 percent of GDP for FY2025 and 72.7 percent for FY2026. The Fund says additional fiscal consolidation is still necessary to reach the government’s own medium-term target of 50 percent of GDP.

That is not a reason for panic. It is a reason for discipline.

The Bahamas is a small, open economy. We are extraordinarily exposed to tourism, global economic conditions, international interest rates and natural disasters.

The IMF specifically identifies a global slowdown that could hurt tourism, tighter financial conditions and natural disasters as downside risks to the Bahamian economy. So we should not behave as if money will always be available. It won’t. Interest rates change. Tourism changes. Hurricanes come. Recessions come. Financial crises come. Governments change. And when the next crisis arrives, the country will wish it had preserved more fiscal space. Fiscal responsibility is not about being cheap. It is about being prepared.

A GOVERNMENT IS A CUSTODIAN, NOT THE OWNER

This brings us to the National Investment Fund. Let’s get the facts straight. The Bahamas’ old Sovereign Wealth Fund Act was repealed and replaced by the National Investment Funds Act, 2022. The legislation created a framework for national investment funds and explicitly allows funds to be used for purposes including national development and infrastructure.

The Davis administration was quite explicit about this. In presenting the legislation to Parliament, Prime Minister Philip Davis said The Bahamas Resilient Infrastructure Fund would include a Growth Fund for Family Islands infrastructure, including airports, ports and maritime infrastructure. The government also said the funds were intended to mobilize private capital and partnerships rather than rely entirely on government revenues or borrowing.

And in 2025, the government confirmed that $265.3 million was transferred into the National Investment Fund, with funds allocated toward capital works at New Bight Airport, Arthur’s Town Airport and Governors Harbour Airport. The government said the transfer had been authorized by Parliament and that the associated borrowing remained recorded on the government’s balance sheet. Those are the facts.

So the argument should not be that the government secretly stole money from a sovereign fund or that the law prohibits airport investment. It doesn’t.

The much bigger question is:

Should scarce national capital—including borrowed money—be placed into a government-controlled investment vehicle and directed toward infrastructure without an exceptionally rigorous test of economic return, risk and opportunity cost?

That is a legitimate question. And it deserves an answer.

A NATIONAL INVESTMENT FUND IS NOT A POLITICAL ATM

This is where the principles matter. The government’s own presentation of the 2022 legislation said the National Investment Funds framework was designed around the Santiago Principles, which emphasize transparency, accountability, ethical standards, independence, auditing and public disclosure. Those principles exist because governments face an enormous temptation.

Politicians think in electoral cycles. Investment funds must think in decades.

A politician can look at a fund and see money available for a project. A professional investment manager should look at that same money and ask: What is the return? What is the risk? What is the opportunity cost? Is this investment commercially viable? Could private capital do this? What happens if revenue projections are wrong? Does this investment preserve or destroy long-term national wealth?

That is the difference between managing national capital and spending national capital. And it is a distinction we cannot afford to lose.

BORROWING MONEY TO INVEST IS NOT THE SAME AS CREATING WEALTH

This is particularly important. The government has explained that money was borrowed and then placed into the National Investment Fund for strategic infrastructure investments. It also says the debt remains fully recorded on the government’s balance sheet.

That clarification is important. But it raises another question. What is the return on the investment?

If government borrows $100 million at a certain cost and invests it in an asset that produces a higher risk-adjusted economic return, there may be a rational investment case. But if the investment produces a return lower than the cost of capital—or requires continuing government subsidies—then the country has not magically created wealth.

It has simply transformed one financial obligation into another asset. That may still be justified for infrastructure with significant public benefits.

But then the government should show the numbers. Show the projected return. Show the assumptions. Show the risk. Show the alternatives. Show the opportunity cost. Show the public exactly why this is the best use of national capital. “It’s an investment” is not an economic analysis.

LOOK AT NORWAY

Norway offers an important lesson. Norway’s Government Pension Fund Global exists to manage petroleum wealth for the long term and to ensure that the wealth benefits both current and future generations. Its fiscal framework governs how much can be transferred from the fund into government spending, with the long-term guideline based on the fund’s expected real return.

The principle is simple: Preserve the capital. Invest the capital. Earn returns. Protect the future.

That is fundamentally different from treating a national fund as an extension of the government’s annual budget. The Bahamas does not have Norway’s oil wealth. But we can learn from Norway’s discipline.

A national fund should be designed to outlive political administrations. It should not be structured around the spending priorities of whichever party happens to hold office.

Because the government of today is temporary. The assets belong to generations.

THE REAL DANGER IS POLITICAL CONTROL OF CAPITAL

This is where the discussion becomes more uncomfortable. The greatest danger may not be the airport itself. The greatest danger is the precedent.

Once politicians become accustomed to controlling large pools of national capital, there is a natural temptation to expand the number of things government believes it should finance, own, regulate or manage. One project becomes another. One fund becomes another. One government enterprise becomes another. One strategic investment becomes another.

And gradually, government becomes not simply the referee of the economy, but one of its biggest players. That should concern us.

A healthy private economy needs government to establish the rules and enforce them fairly. But government should not become the regulator, investor, employer, developer, lender, owner and allocator of opportunity all at the same time.

Because when government controls too many economic levers, political power can become economic power. And that creates another problem: political clientelism.

POLITICAL CLIENTELISM: WHEN GOVERNMENT BECOMES THE GATEKEEPER OF OPPORTUNITY

Political clientelism is the practice of exchanging targeted benefits—such as jobs, contracts, resources or other advantages—for political support. It has been documented across developing democracies, including parts of Africa.

And the danger is not that elections disappear. The danger is that elections remain while the economic system increasingly revolves around who controls the state.

The cycle becomes: Win the election. Control the government. Control public resources. Control appointments. Control contracts. Control licenses. Distribute benefits. Build political loyalty. Then fight to remain in power.

That is not the kind of institutional democracy The Bahamas should aspire to. Democracy should mean that a Bahamian can succeed regardless of which party is in office.

A business should win a contract because it is competitive. An entrepreneur should succeed because the business works. An investor should invest because the economic fundamentals make sense. A citizen should not need political connections to navigate the economy. Government should be the referee—not the prize.

AND THEN THERE IS REGULATION

This is where the Bahamas needs to be particularly careful. Nobody is arguing for a lawless economy.

Good regulation is necessary. We need financial regulation. We need environmental protections. We need consumer protection. We need building standards. We need proper oversight of businesses that pose genuine public risks.

The issue is not regulation itself. The issue is regulation without discipline. Because governments often look at regulations individually.

One new license doesn’t seem dangerous. One new fee doesn’t seem dangerous. One additional reporting requirement doesn’t seem dangerous. One additional approval process doesn’t seem dangerous. One new tax doesn’t seem dangerous. One new government agency doesn’t seem dangerous.

But put them all together and the picture changes. The entrepreneur doesn’t see ten harmless regulations. The entrepreneur sees ten more reasons to think twice before investing. And this is where The Bahamas could make a very serious mistake.

CAPITAL HAS OPTIONS

The Bahamas is not operating in a vacuum. We compete with other Caribbean jurisdictions. We compete with international financial centres. We compete for tourists. We compete for businesses. We compete for investors. We compete for entrepreneurs.

And capital is mobile. An investor does not have to invest in The Bahamas. A company does not have to establish its regional operation here. An entrepreneur does not have to build a business here. They have choices.

And if the cost of regulation, taxation, bureaucracy and compliance becomes too high relative to the return, investors can simply take their capital somewhere else. They may never publicly complain. They may never criticize the government. They may simply say: “Let’s invest somewhere else.”

That is the silent danger. The country may not see businesses leaving in dramatic headlines.

It may simply see fewer businesses arriving. Fewer startups. Fewer investments. Fewer expansions. Fewer jobs. Fewer opportunities. And by the time policymakers recognize the problem, the damage can already be done.

IF GOVERNMENT CONTINUES TO REGULATE EVERYTHING, PEOPLE WILL STOP WANTING TO DO BUSINESS HERE

This is the warning that policymakers need to hear. If The Bahamas continues piling regulation, taxes, fees, licensing requirements and bureaucratic procedures onto businesses without constantly asking whether each measure is justified, we risk making the country less attractive as a place to do business.

Not because The Bahamas suddenly becomes a bad country. Not because investors stop loving our beaches.

But because businesses ultimately make economic decisions. They calculate costs. They calculate risks. They calculate returns. They calculate uncertainty. And then they choose where to put their money.

The Bahamas cannot assume that investors will stay simply because we are The Bahamas. Investment is not sentimental. Capital goes where the risk-adjusted opportunity makes sense.

That is why the objective should not be “no regulation.” It should be smart regulation. Regulate where there is a genuine public interest. Eliminate regulations that no longer serve a purpose.

Digitize government services. Set clear deadlines for approvals. Reduce unnecessary paperwork.

Make fees transparent. Prevent arbitrary enforcement. Give businesses predictable rules.

And before introducing another regulation, ask one simple question: What problem are we solving, and what will it cost the economy to solve it this way? Because every regulation has a cost.

Sometimes the business pays. Sometimes the consumer pays through higher prices. Sometimes workers pay through fewer opportunities. Sometimes investors pay by earning lower returns. And sometimes the country pays because the investment never happens.

THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD WANT MORE PRIVATE CAPITAL, NOT MORE GOVERNMENT CONTROL

The irony is that The Bahamas needs investment. We need investment in energy. We need investment in infrastructure. We need investment in housing. We need investment in tourism. We need investment in agriculture. We need investment in technology. We need investment in the Family Islands. We need investment in small businesses.

But the answer cannot always be: Government will finance it. Government will own it. Government will regulate it. Government will manage it.

The private sector has capital. The private sector has expertise. The private sector can take risks that government should not.

And when government creates a predictable environment, private capital can multiply what the public sector is capable of doing. Indeed, the Davis administration itself made this argument when it introduced the National Investment Funds legislation, saying that public-private partnerships could expand the number and scale of infrastructure projects while reducing the need for government to finance every project itself. That principle is worth preserving. The government should use its limited capital to catalyze private investment, not crowd it out.

THE TAXPAYER CANNOT ALWAYS BE THE ANSWER

The Bahamas already depends heavily on taxation to finance government. And the IMF’s current assessment says additional revenue-enhancing measures and expenditure reforms may be needed to achieve the government’s medium-term debt target. Those measures could include replacing the business-license fee with corporate income tax, introducing personal income tax, rationalizing tax exemptions, raising VAT and reducing transfers to state-owned enterprises.

Those are IMF recommendations, not laws that have necessarily been adopted. But they demonstrate the dilemma.

When government spends more, someone ultimately has to pay. If it isn’t the taxpayer today, it may be the taxpayer tomorrow. If it isn’t the taxpayer, it may be the holder of government debt. If it isn’t either, it may be the next generation through reduced fiscal space.

There is no such thing as free government money. There is only money that comes from somewhere else.

THE BILL ALWAYS COMES DUE

That is why Adam Smith’s warning matters. Debt can make government spending look painless. The project is visible. The ribbon is visible. The press conference is visible. The new building is visible. The airport is visible.

The taxpayer’s future interest payments are not. That is the political temptation of debt. The benefit is immediate. The cost is delayed. And the people paying the ultimate bill may be people who never voted for the government that incurred it.

That is why fiscal responsibility is not simply an accounting exercise. It is a moral obligation to future generations.

THE BAHAMIAN PEOPLE ARE THE OWNERS

This is the principle that must never be forgotten. The government is not the owner of The Bahamas. The government is the custodian.

The national assets belong to the Bahamian people. The investment funds belong to the Bahamian people. The natural resources belong to the Bahamian people. The country’s future belongs to the Bahamian people.

Politicians are temporary. The nation is permanent.

That means every government should be asking itself not: “What can we spend?”

but: “What can we build that will still benefit Bahamians 25, 50 or 100 years from now?” That is the standard.

THE MOST DANGEROUS SENTENCE IN GOVERNMENT

Perhaps the most dangerous sentence in public finance is: “We have the money.”

The correct question is: “Should we spend it?”

And the question after that should be: “What is the opportunity cost?” Could the money earn a return? Could it reduce debt? Could it strengthen reserves? Could it attract private capital? Could it protect the country from the next crisis? Could it generate wealth for future generations? Those are the questions of serious government.

Not simply: Can we do it?

But:

Should we do it?

THE BAHAMAS NEEDS A FISCAL CULTURE

We cannot build a strong country simply by passing another budget. We need a culture of fiscal responsibility. We need stronger institutions. We need independent oversight. We need transparency. We need professional investment management. We need clear rules for national funds. We need proper assessments of public-private partnerships. We need serious scrutiny of state-owned enterprises. We need regulatory reform. We need to make it easier—not harder—for legitimate businesses to operate. And we need governments that understand that restraint is sometimes more valuable than spending.

Anybody can spend money. Anybody can borrow. Anybody can announce a project. Anybody can cut a ribbon.

Leadership is knowing when to say: No. No, we cannot afford it. No, the return isn’t high enough. No, the government shouldn’t own it. No, the private sector can do it. No, we shouldn’t borrow for it. No, we shouldn’t raid national capital for short-term political gratification. No, another regulation isn’t justified. No, another tax isn’t the answer. No, the government does not need to control everything. That is fiscal discipline.

THE BAHAMAS WILL OUTLIVE EVERY GOVERNMENT

The Progressive Liberal Party will not govern forever. The Free National Movement will not govern forever. No prime minister will govern forever. No cabinet will remain forever.

But the Bahamas will. The national debt will remain. The national assets will remain.

The consequences of today’s decisions will remain. That is why every administration has a responsibility to leave the country stronger than it found it.

Not simply more buildings. Not simply more programs. Not simply more government.

Stronger institutions. A more competitive private sector. Lower fiscal vulnerability. Greater national wealth. More opportunity. And a government that understands the difference between owning power and exercising responsibility.

THE CHOICE IS BIGGER THAN ONE GOVERNMENT

This argument is not ultimately about the Davis administration alone. It is about the kind of political system The Bahamas wants to become.

Do we want a country where government increasingly becomes the centre of economic life? Or do we want a country where government creates the conditions for citizens and businesses to flourish independently? Do we want national investment funds governed by long-term investment principles? Or do we want political administrations to have increasing discretion over national capital?

Do we want regulation that protects the public while allowing businesses to breathe? Or do we want a bureaucracy so complicated that entrepreneurs eventually decide that it is easier to invest somewhere else?

Do we want future generations to inherit assets?

Or obligations?

These are not partisan questions. They are questions about the future of the Bahamas.

Because there is a simple truth that every government should remember: The country is not its treasury. The treasury is not the government’s personal bank account. And winning an election does not give anyone ownership of the Bahamas.

The government is only the custodian. And a custodian has one fundamental responsibility: Leave the house standing. Not just for the people living in it today—but for the children who will inherit it tomorrow.

The Bahamas does not need governments that simply know how to spend. It needs governments that know how to preserve, invest, build, regulate wisely and say no. Because once national capital is consumed, it cannot be spent twice. Once an investor decides to go somewhere else, that investment may never return. Once a business closes because the regulatory burden becomes unbearable, the jobs disappear with it. And once a generation inherits a mountain of debt, no political speech can make the obligation disappear.

The bill always comes due. The only question is: Who will be left to pay it?

Source / Comment

Serious Questions and Concerns about the National Investment Fund (NIF) of The Bahamas

2026-09-18T14:46:54.900-07:00

Nassau, The Bahamas: Was there LEGAL authority to channel money to an account in the name of the National Investment Fund and use those monies for those purposes - without the express approval of the board and investment committee as required by Bahamian law

By Marlon Johnson

The REAL Critical Question:

The question here is not what the money was spent on.

There already exist mechanisms for government to invest in roads and court houses etc - those things for which the Minister indicated that the lion's share of the money was used .

We have been doing that as a country for decades and decades now through the established budgetary and treasury mechanisms.

The question is whether or not there was LEGAL authority to channel money to an account in the name of the National Investment Fund and use those monies for those purposes - without the express approval of the board and investment committee as required by law. No account has been set up by the NIF and no approvals have been granted by the NIF.

Because if there is no lawful authority, then why exactly would the government be doing this? What would be the legitimate reason when the government could use the established budgetary and treasury processes to facilitate the roads, courthouses, and airports?

And if we can all just ignore the laws when it is convenient to do so, then why do the laws exist in the first place?

Source / Comment

The Caribbean is not ready for Artificial Intelligence (AI)

2026-09-17T15:24:38.264-07:00

POLICY ADVICE NOTE 306-26: Re: WE CARIBBEANS ARE NOT READY FOR ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE!

By Professor Gilbert Morris

In our typical fashion in the Caribbean everyone has a strong uninformed opinion about something we don’t make… and despite those strong opinions… the best we can do is say “AI is coming”, “we need to be ready”, “we must gain AI skills” then when foreigners and the manufacturers of AI retreat in fear - as they are doing now - we come with further empty phrases, like “we need to be careful with AI”.

Be careful how with something we don’t make, that we’re forced to use without knowing it… and which - because we like shiny foreign things - steals our data and life processes for sale beyond the reach of our debt ridden systems, stuck in the plantation modes we never reforms or changed?

AI is none of our business!

Before we go tongue galavanting through the usual empty talk and cliches, let’s at least try to grasp what’s actually happening to us:

1. We have been the first guinea pigs for AI since its inception. Do you really think American Airlines or Mastercard or Amazon would waste money paying employees to service us?

No: automated systems have been used for decades because - we love foreign peoples things - we never reformed our economic and social systems toward innovation… and so… we depend on their systems and can’t complain when those systems fail us. Therefore, our first line of of contact with automated systems forced us to conform to the system, rather than the system being cultivated around our needs.

Now today, these automated systems are digital with the same effects; except now, it collects our data: drive a Tesla… that’s a data collection device; have Starlink… that’s a data collection device; have Alexa…that’s a data collection device; your mobile and iPads…data collection devices.

In Europe, Singapore and South Korea, they have systems, methods and rules to prevent their people depending on foreign digital systems. China built a separate internet space with no Facebook, Amazon, Google, TikTok or Instagram. Everything is Chinese. People live in the Chinese WeChat system and no one collects your data for sale.

So what do you think AI would bring to us that’s new?

Nothing!

EXCEPT: it would collect more of your data and manipulate you into sharing more, until nearly all the country’s data is held externally… biometrics, click-patterns, finance and payments, all your texts, emails and photographs… all held abroad… but analysed and massaged to determine how to turn you into a product.

What's the point of telling people in that condition… don’t get left behind by AI? It’s nonsense of the first water and reveals a cluelessness that’s astounding.

In 1997, as a professor at George Mason University, I won the “Technology Across the Curriculum Award” for doing something no one else did: everyone tried to determined how technology could be used in the classroom. I tried to show how technology would eliminate the Univeristy itself… by running dozens of simulations… long before AI existed. What I saw for the university, one can see now for small states.

So what can we do?

We make nothing… we’re broke… we have the wrong concept of technology since technology is just jewellery to us; we are just users…!

1. We must build a “digital wall” around our country as Estonia and China have done. Without this, we are just lunch meat for tech companies.

2. Once we build that digital wall, we must develop a new biometric based alpha numeric identity and kill off all previous identification numbers.

3. Now following 1-2 above, (there are some constitutional issues to consider), we would have cut off foreign tech, service and credit card companies from our new IDs!

4. We must allow no foreign companies and no technologies inside that digital wall!

So how do we communicate with the outside world?

We develop interoperability protocols, permissioned APIs and QR code access that transmits our black-boxed identities without revealing the root biometrics. That means when you buy on Amazon or pay a credit card bill or a school fee or buy an airline ticket, an external code is generated that keeps your unique ID code protected.

Every Caribbean nation must adopt this model over the next three years.

Where does AI fit into all this?

Well, even with your “genetic code” outside the digital wall, foreigners will use AI, but we’ll be protected.

Inside the national digital wall, we can us AI for work flow management, for research, for data analysis, but these would not be connected to the world beyond our digital wall.

Don’t see how this streamlined thinking because now we know we must train 10,000 cyber security professional across the region and place them where?

ON THE DIGITAL WALL!

This is the only sovereign or independent future available for us and we are late and not a single CARICOM nation has the right combination of people or programmes to make this a reality. Not a single country is managing this directly from the leader’s office as a national priority the failure of which risk national catastrophe.

Not one!

CARICOM has no 24/7 initiative aimed to driving the region with a second CARICOM digital wall as a second tier of strategic protection of its member states.

We blundered our independence when we failed to reform the systems we inherited. Digitalisation is an even more critical moment; will we rise to the occasion or babble along trying to appear knowledge about what we can’t make?

Source / Comment

Mission PAWsible in The Bahamas

2026-09-04T17:53:41.999-07:00

Questions about Mission PAWsible from an Animinal Owner in The Bahamas

By Jessica Robertson

Nassau, The Bahamas

Let me start by saying I’m grateful we as a country are finally taking long overdue steps to begin addressing this situation. Penalties are now in place… let’s hope there’s some actual enforcement because we know how we generally lack in that area.

But none of the news stories nor this post by the Ministry provide key information that can lead to compliance -

My biggest question is what’s the purpose of getting a dog licensed other than putting $11 into the general fund? How does my filling out a form for my dog and putting a numbered tag on their collars actually solve the problems we have with stray dogs, dogs not properly secured in homes, dogs not being properly cared for?

Then the basics:

Where does a dog owner go to register their dog?

What information is required?

This post at least lets us know it’s $11… do you take cash or is it credit card only?

What are the hours?

Given that there is this push for compliance are there evening or Saturday sessions since many Bahamians can’t get away from work during the week to run personal errands?

Are you doing pop ups across the island to accommodate owners who don’t have cars and can’t easily get to your office (wherever that actually is)

Is the license actually valid for a year from purchase or do these expire at the end of the calendar year?

And now….

It’s 2026. Why is this not an online process?Mygateway has worked perfectly well for so many other ministries, departments and processes.

Or Why not set it up so that licensing is done through veterinary clinics so we know these dogs actually exist and are being cared for.

Also, We have a whole new innovation ministry…. Surely they can knock together a better system.

Source / Comment

August 31, 2026 - Nassau, N.P., The Bahamas: Today marked the official launch of Mission PAWsible; a national initiative of the Ministry of Agriculture & Marine Resources focused on responsible pet ownership, public education, compliance, enforcement, animal welfare and safer communities.

The campaign represents a shift from reacting after incidents occur to putting stronger preventative measures in place. Through education, community outreach, partnerships and enforcement of the Animal Protection and Control framework, Mission PAWsible will work to reduce roaming and stray dogs, strengthen responsible ownership, and protect both people and animals across The Bahamas.

A key part of Phase One is a 30-day amnesty period from September 1 through September 30, 2026. During this period, dog owners are being encouraged to become compliant, with dog registration/licensing available free of charge. After the amnesty period ends, the licensing fee will be $11, and citations will begin to be issued for breaches of the law, including offences relating to unlicensed dogs, roaming dogs, lack of identification, unleashed dogs in public places and other violations.

The press conference brought together senior Ministry officials, Animal Control, veterinary professionals and key animal-welfare partners, including:

Hon. Jomo Campbell, Minister of Agriculture & Marine Resources; Janice Miller, Permanent Secretary; Evette Evans, Under Secretary; Julianna Braynen, Deputy Permanent Secretary; Dr. Jason Sands, Director of Agriculture; Dr. Suzette Lyn, Senior Veterinary Officer; Pearline Jones, Officer in Charge of Animal Control / Police Reserve K9 Unit; Kevin Laing, Senior Animal Control Officer; Lissa McCombe, BAARK; Percy Grant, Bahamas Humane Society; Kim Aranha, President, Bahamas Humane Society; Dr. Peter Bizzell, Veterinary Medical Board; Dr. Daniel Katz, Director, Bahamas Humane Society; and Dr. Somatie Inderdeo, Director of Veterinary Services, BAHFSA.

Mission PAWsible will continue to expand through public education, school and community engagement, veterinary and pet-supply partnerships, and stronger enforcement measures designed to encourage compliance and responsible animal ownership.

Source / Comment

A Socialist and Capitalist World

2026-08-26T06:42:45.956-07:00

EVERY COUNTRY IS SOCIALIST AND EVERY COUNTRY IS CAPITALIST!

POLICY ADVICE NOTE 306-26 Re: GOLDING’s “SOCIALISM TURN” NEED NOT BE TO MANLEY’s

By Professor Gilbert Morris

Socialism and Capitalism are the two Ghosts of political science and economics: people who think they believe in either speak the resolve of ole time religion about the virtues of one and the vices of the other: both of them - as I would tell even PhD students - talk mostly nonsense.

EVERY COUNTRY IS SOCIALIST AND EVERY COUNTRY IS CAPITALIST!

Britain made its money by Elizabeth I sending Sir Francis Drake - her cousin - to steal the resources which were stolen from native peoples by the Dutch, Portuguese and the Spanish. Colonialism and enslavement is literally theft in a grand scale. In Britain’s entry into China they became the largest drug dealers in the history of the universe, selling Opium to destabilise China; which succeeded for a time…just as the U.S. did in the Afghanistan invasion; facilitating the Northern Alliance in selling Opium!

In 1898, for no reason the U.S. invaded Philippines and Cuba, stole Puerto Rico and Hawaii…tried to steal Panama. Controlled much of south and Central America all for a few families. Senator Mitt Romneys family made their money through Bain Capital in this manner as did the Dulles family etc. They stopped to invade Haiti and steal its resources. And since WII - if you think that’s too far in time - Britain wanted Iranian oil. So it got the U.S. to overthrow a democratic Iran to steal its oil. The entire Cold War was a psych-op in which it was a hot war for third world resources. During this time, the US, UK, Canada, Japan, France-Germany all used protectionism to prevent competition and violence against third world nations that sought to advance.

Where is the capitalism there?

Manley’s socialism was half baked nonsense…much as we all loved him. Utter nonsense. Mishmash of pan-Africanism, misunderstood Marxism, all run in a plantation colonial economic model, he never bothered to change. And that’s the difference between those post-colonial nations that thrived and those that didn’t: the ones that thrived changed the system they inherited; just as Boukman Dutty - a Jamaican - told Toussaint L’Ouverture in 1791!

The best countries in the world are social democracies of varying degrees and none of them are in the G7: Switzerland, Singapore, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Nw Zealand (Cayman is amongst their number as a well run country…but less of a social experiment).

In everyone of those countries, you would have a better life than wherever you are now in the Caribbean. Lee Kuan Yew insisted that he was a Socialist and a limited Social Democrat. People forget, Malaysia was supposed to be the name of the Malaya-Singapore Federation: SIA added to Malaya was for Singapore: the Malaysia!

The reason Singapore and Malaysia split is because Lee Kuan Yew demanded that all policies must life everyone at the same time and Malaysia wanted dominant ethnic groups to dominate. Lee Kuan Yew said no! He insisted that the only for a small nation to become exceptional was for everyone to share in the propensity. Singapore is not a Christian nation or a religious one. Yet it adheres to Matthew 25 gospel - feed the hungry, clothed the naked, visit the sick and the poor - more than any Christian nation on earth. The U.S. tears itself apart over affirmative action, but Lee Kuan Yew built Affirmative Action into its constitution, with the goal that everyone must share in prosperity.

Just yesterday, Singapore’s Prime Minister Lawrence Wong announced that between birth and 18, every Singapore family will receive $70,000 per child. Many families in the Caribbean don’t earn that amount in 10 years. Singapore got its independence about the same time as Jamaica. Yet Singapore is nearly 40 times richer than all of CARICOM combined…when we take its GDP and its Sovereign Fund together with its national savings GLC and Provident Fund. This is all from a socialist nation that is clearly capitalist in the best way…as is Netherlands, Denmark, Norway and Sweden all of which are 10 times of more richer than all of CARICOM and has a better quality of life and standard of living better health, education and lower crime than all of Europe, the U.S. and the Caribbean.

So if Hon. Mr. Golding MP is talking about Singapore, Switzerland, Norway, Estonia, Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands socialism, get the old Soviet Union out of your head.

I challenge my students on this all the time. I say what make you say China is Communist…what does it mean. China has better education and healthcare, cleaner better cities, greater technologies, better infrastructure, people own their homes and pay property tax once when they buy it..and live in low crime… areas with parks and increasingly alternative energy…so what is communist. They say well, it’s the politics. I say alright. I grant you that in the Politburo, leaders are appointed, not elected. But China has more elections than the rest of the world combined and those leaders have to perform. Every member of XI Jinping’s cabinet has managed a province larger than the U.S. and successfully.

This does not mean we can’t debate the merits of systems. But in most cases, it’s the mix of systems we are debating without admitting it.

If Hon. Mr. Golding MP is referring to social democracies which are the best managed most prosperous, most democratic nations in the world - with Singapore leading the way - he should say so!

Source / Comment

Questions for The Bahamas Power and Light (BPL)

2026-08-14T15:27:38.045-07:00

A Timely Call for Executives of The Bahamas Power and Light (BPL) to Account to The Bahamian People and Nation

TO BAHAMAS POWER AND LIGHT WHICH IS OPERATED BY THE CORRUPT GOVERNMENT:

By Charlotte Green
Nassau, N.P., The Bahamas

Kyle Wilson should not be the primary person explaining BPL’s payroll system. He is the union president. He can defend his members, explain working conditions, and speak to why workers may have been required to work extensive overtime. But he does not control BPL’s payroll, approve the corporate budget, or run BPL’s internal financial controls.

The people that Bahamians should demand answers from are:

1. Toni Pratt, BPL CEO — she should be front and centre. BPL itself identifies Pratt as CEO as recently as June/July 2026.

2. Christina Alston, BPL Executive Chairman — the board has governance and oversight responsibility. BPL identifies Alston as Executive Chairman in its 2026 material.

3. Daphne Simmons, Director of Human Resources — HR should explain the overtime rules, approval process, limits, and whether the hours complied with BPL policy. BPL identified Simmons as HR Director in April 2026.

4. Chandrice Ferguson, CFO — Finance should explain how hundreds of thousands of dollars in overtime passed through payroll and financial controls and who authorized those expenditures. BPL identified Ferguson as CFO in 2026.

5. Chantal Williams, Chief Audit Executive — Internal Audit should be able to say whether the payments were audited, whether appropriate controls were followed, and whether any irregularity was actually found.

6. Anthony Christie, COO and the relevant operational managers — because somebody in Operations would have had to determine that these employees were needed for those extraordinary hours. BPL identifies Christie as COO in its 2026 releases.

7. Minister JoBeth Coleby-Davis, as the minister whose portfolio includes relations with BPL, should answer the broader public-policy and governance questions surrounding a state-owned utility.

And here is the big question I think Bahamians are missing:

Don't ask Kyle Wilson, “Why did you make that much overtime?” Ask BPL management: “WHY DID YOU NEED AN EMPLOYEE TO WORK ENOUGH OVERTIME TO EARN THAT MUCH MONEY, AND WHO APPROVED EVERY HOUR?”

Because if the overtime was authorized, documented and legitimately worked, then the bigger story isn't necessarily the employee collecting it. The bigger story becomes BPL's management and staffing: Why was that level of overtime necessary? Why weren't additional employees scheduled? Was there a shortage of skilled workers? Were repeated outages, emergencies and generation problems driving overtime? Who signed the overtime sheets? What controls were in place?

And before anybody labels these employees corrupt or thieves, BPL needs to tell the public whether there was actually fraud, falsification or unauthorized payment. A large number alone does not establish any of those things.

BAHAMIANS! That's where WE should put the pressure: CEO. Board. HR. Finance. Audit. Operations. They have the records. They approved the system. THEY need to answer.

Kyle is not the one to question. Stop being distracted because yall are distracted especially if you are not questioning the chain of command or holding them accountable and asking the right questions to the right people.

Source / Comment

The Blessed and Eternal Spirit of Fidelism Universally Honoured

2026-08-13T10:44:16.340-07:00

The Birth and Life of Fidelism in Our Awesome World...

Deo Adjuvante, Non Timendum

“With God as My Helper, I Have Nothing to Fear”

August 13, 2026

Nassau, The Bahamas

FIDELISM

Happy birthday Papi!

By Dr. Kevin J. Turnquest-Alcena

Fidelism, an enduring ideological phenomenon, was born nearly a century ago, completely transforming the geopolitics of the Caribbean, Latin America, and Africa. It irrevocably altered Cuba’s trajectory: over 3,000 institutions originate from this legacy and stand today as monuments of resilience, progress, and visionary leadership.

Fidelism demands reverence, admiration, and a salutation gilded in gold, echoing across time like a clarion call to solidarity. This is not merely political doctrine; it is a metaphysical brotherhood and an unbreakable solidarity, unparalleled anywhere else in the world. It springs from love for humanity, fused with sterling wisdom and geopolitical sagacity, giving birth to an enduring ideology that strides alongside us even now.

Cuba evokes fascination, a nation shaped, as myth tells it, in the Yucatán Mountains of Mexico, a mystical crucible giving rise to an unmistakable creation: a pillar forged of Teflon-like strength, impervious to erosion, resonating with perpetual excellence. The spirit of Fidelism persists in perpetual motion, immortal in ethos.

On August 13, 1926, Fidel Alejandro Castro Ruz was born in Birán, Cuba. On November 25, 2016, he departed this world, yet his presence remains undiminished. On his birthday, the Commander in Chief salutes comrades past and present, his strategic insight forever priming us to defeat any adversary. In the spiritual realm, he salutes those who stood with him, for true brotherhood transcends death itself.

Voices of Praise and Solidarity

From Africa came unwavering praise. As Nelson Mandela profoundly expressed in 1991:

“What other country has such a history of selfless behavior as Cuba has shown for the people of Africa?… What country has ever needed help from Cuba and has not received it?”

This sentiment was echoed by Thomas Sankara, who saw Cuba and Fidelism as sources of inspiration, sending hundreds of Burkinabé youth to Cuba for education and professional training.

Fidel Castro himself declared:

“A revolution is a struggle to the death between the future and the past.”

Marcus Garvey reminded us:

“A people without the knowledge of their past history, origin and culture is like a tree without roots.”

On brotherhood, we recall the timeless words of Henry van Dyke:

“A brother is a friend given by Nature.”

This is the essence of Fidelism, brotherhood not born of blood, but of shared struggle, sacrifice, and purpose.

Culminating Invocation

You must recognize that the enemy will relentlessly peddle propaganda against the great nation of Cuba, but the unwavering spirit of Fidel, grounded in stoic endurance, will never allow them to strangle or derail the indomitable Cuban spirit of success. There is a mystical order guarding Cuba’s destiny, one forged in history, faith, and sacrifice.

We thank Fidelism for educating the Caribbean, Latin America, and Asia; for training our engineers, teachers, and doctors; for advancing computer science, fostering global strategic partnerships, and leading in biological research. Cuban brigades came to our aid during COVID, faithful even under the criminally cruel embargo.

Fidelism is not simply a movement; it is a living phenomenon. Cuba can never be defeated, for the spiritual world protects her, and the blood of her people forever acknowledges the country’s sacrifices for the betterment of humankind.

Fidelism will never be defeated. Solidarity will never perish. Happy Birthday, Papi, your spirit still breathes among us.

Source / Comment

The Poor Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ)

2026-08-12T17:31:05.906-07:00

THIS WAS BOUND TO OCCUR: NONE OF OUR COURTS ARE RESPECTED IN OUR HOME JURISDICTIONS. THEY ORIGINATED BY ACCIDENT OR CIRCUMSTANCE AND THE CARIBBEAN COURT (CARICOM COURT) IS A WORSE VERSION OF OUR POORLY STRUCTURED NATIONAL COURTS! AND SADLY - DESPITE OUR HABIT IN THE CARIBBEAN OF JUST CLAIMING SOMEONE IS A GREAT JUDGE - NO ONE ON THAT COURT HAS THE GRAVITAS TO HEAL THIS SITUATION BECAUSE NONE HAVE ARCHIVED ANYTHING UPON WHICH THE PUBLIC CAN ANCHOR SUFFICIENT INSTITUTIONAL TRUST!

POLICY ADVICE NOTE 304-26 Re: THE PROPER ESTABLISHMENT OF REGIONAL COURTS

By Professor Gilbert Morris

The eastern Caribbean court has distinguished itself as productive of insight judgements of superior judicial integrity. The Caribbean court - a creature of CARICOM has not!

Why?

Both courts were poorly established:

1. In CARICOM, there is no a single member state in which the courts are regarded highly by citizens

2. The mantra for establishment was not we have a new judicial insight…so let’s build a court on that. Rather it was a negative default posture that said, instead of the Privy Council, let’s establish a court!

3. But that is not a proper philosophical or rational ground upon which to establish a court; as a default mode from the colonial system.

4. What is CARICOM Jurisprudence…what is the new philosophical thinking and what are its 3 or 5 principles that - as a starting point - distinguishes it from what was there before?

The reason CARICOM could not distinguish a new jurisprudential model is that in none of the 15 member states have the national courts established a judicial mantra that is distinct. There are no distinct, law journal articles or law books in the region of sufficient depth to initiate and announce a new jurisprudence.

Mr Justice Benjamin Cardozo of the U.S. Supreme Court 1932-1938, wrote “The Nature of the Judicial Process” extended from his Yale Lectures, where he outlined four modes for judicial interpretation:

The Four Methods of Interpretation

1. Method of Philosophy: Follows the path of logical progression and legal consistency, extending past rules to their logical conclusions.

2. Method of History: Traces the historical origin and evolution of a legal rule to see how past traditions should guide current meaning.

3. Method of Custom: Looks at community habits, social standards, and business practices to shape rules that reflect everyday behavior.

4. Method of Sociology: Prioritizes social justice, community welfare, and public utility, allowing the judge to act somewhat like a legislator when filling gaps in the law.

Before that, Blacks Law Dictionary in the English Legal Tradition was the foundational test for English law.

Where is our text that gathers up our experience and judicial insights in a single or series of documents?

What judicial philosophy are we following and what judicial formulas are we cultivating in our judgements?

We have no clue!

We just wanted a court based on racial ideology and this is exposed in the shocking irony that we establish a court merely to reject the British Privy Council, but in the new court our judges carry British titles.

Therefore, we want to reject the British courts but we are not sufficiently confident to establish our own titles to the extent that we need them, which exposes a fundamental insecurity to the point of schizophrenia!

We know that in CARICOM member states, 90 plus percentage of cases against governments fail, the opposite of what happens in the legitimate system like New Zealand, which has the finest court system in earth followed by Australia.

In our systems, governments ignore the courts, there is no leverage for the courts to compel compliance because of our corrupt systems and the citizen is thus disadvantaged by a government that disobeys the courts.

What if instead, before we established courts like the Caribbean Court of Justice (it should be “CARICOM Court of Justice”), we:

1. Commissioned an audit of the court systems of the 15 member states…so that the clams, complaints and concerns of citizens are assessed transparently? That would have generated an immediate trust factor for the courts.

2. Commissioned a series of forensic articles on the assessment and a theory of CARICOM constitutional law and Jurisprudence?

3. Collected those articles into a book and follow that by inviting CARICOM graduate scholars to write research papers on those papers and the book. That would have produced a deep intellectual foundation for a CARICOM Court of Justice”

4. Now imagine we established at UWI, a CARICOM judicial college, at which all those articles, books and research papers became the curriculum? That would unify a judicial philosophy as the foundation of a new court system based on a CARICOM social and institutional perspective, rooted in the citizen’s experience with our judicial culture: that is literally the meaning of “jurisprudence”. Failing to do that means we are just hacking through with no anthropological or cultural foundation to our institutional basis for the court except we want our own tings…and yet with British titles.

5. If we followed my proscription, when it was time to seek judges for the ‘CARICOM Court of Justice’, we would cross examine them in some CARICOM wide judicial hearing, determining whether they adhered to our judicial philosophy and how they adhered. This cultivates trust in the institution and by this means, the CARICOM Court feels owned by CARICOM citizens. We failed to take this approach because of our slapdash method of doing things, which is a reprobate and retrograde approach to institutional establishment.

I’ll not entertain the nonsense we usually prattle in which we say “oh I know judge so and so, he’s my friend and I can speak for him”. How the devil is your private perspective or delusion sociology? It is exactly that character of institutions that they don’t depend upon and cannot be defended by personal opinion.

CARICOM member politics is strickened by patronage, partisanship, economic oligarchy and plutocracy.

We are a series of cronyocracies!

As such, and implicitly, any legitimate CARICOM court would almost necessarily begin with astonishingly clarifying rulings against our governments, clearing out the old plantation structures which we never changed and constituent with a new judicial thinking…founded on our own texts and philosophical writings…we would remaking CARICOM societies according to a new judicial model as happened in the U.K. in the Somerset Case in 1772 and in the U.S. in Marbury V. Madison 1803.

Until we learn the meaning of institutional development and the process of anthropologising our institutional establishment, we’ll merely copycat existing institutions by default, right down to copying their titles.

Professor Gilbert Morris

Source / Comment

FIDELISM Celebrated

2026-07-24T13:33:11.620-07:00

Happy 100th Birthday in advance, Comandante Fidel Castro Ruz (1926–2016). Your place in history remains secure

Deo Adjuvante, Non Timendum

“With God as My Helper, I Have Nothing to Fear”

FIDELISM- CENTENARIAN

By Dr. Kevin J. Turnquest-Alcena
Nassau, N.P., The Bahamas

“All the glory in the world fits in a kernel of corn.” — Antonio Maceo

As the world approaches the 100th anniversary of the birth of Fidel Alejandro Castro Ruz on August 13, 2026, humanity is presented with an opportunity to reflect upon the endurance of a man whose stoicism, conviction, and unwavering resolve continue to provoke admiration and debate across continents.

Whether viewed through the prism of history, geopolitics, or social transformation, Fidel Castro remains one of the most consequential figures of the twentieth century.

Congratulations are extended in anticipation of his centenary birthday, while acknowledging that his steadfastness under extraordinary pressure has earned recognition from millions throughout the global community.

Today, more than ever, the Republic of Cuba must remain resolute.

Nations that refuse to surrender their sovereignty often attract those who circle like vultures, waiting for weakness, isolation, or collapse.

Yet Cuba has endured decades of adversity through discipline, sacrifice, and national resilience.

The international community should recognize Cuba’s contributions to medicine, disaster relief, education, scientific advancement, and international solidarity, while seeking constructive engagement that enables the Cuban people to prosper in dignity.

As José Martí wisely declared, “The homeland is humanity.”

That timeless principle reminds us that the welfare of one nation ultimately contributes to the welfare of all.

The legendary Zulu King Shaka kaSenzangakhona is traditionally credited with the maxim: “Never leave an enemy behind, or it will rise again to fly at your throat.”

Though born from military strategy, it also illustrates an enduring truth about vigilance, perseverance, and preparedness in the face of relentless challenges.

Fidelism, an enduring ideological phenomenon, was born nearly a century ago, completely transforming the geopolitics of the Caribbean, Latin America, and Africa.

It irrevocably altered Cuba’s trajectory.

Thousands of institutions, schools, hospitals, research centres, and international partnerships emerged from this legacy and continue to symbolize resilience, progress, and visionary leadership.

Fidelism demands reverence, admiration, and a salutation gilded in gold, echoing across time like a clarion call to solidarity.

It represents, to its supporters, more than political doctrine.

It is an expression of fraternity, sacrifice, and international cooperation.

Rooted in a belief that nations should assist one another beyond political boundaries, Fidelism has influenced generations throughout the developing world.

On August 13, 1926, Fidel Alejandro Castro Ruz was born in Birán, Cuba.

On November 25, 2016, he departed this world, yet his historical presence remains unmistakable.

As his centenary approaches, many continue to reflect upon the legacy of a leader who inspired admiration, criticism, and passionate debate across the international community.

Voices of Praise and Solidarity

Nelson Mandela observed:

“What other country has such a history of selfless behavior as Cuba has shown for the people of Africa?… What country has ever needed help from Cuba and has not received it?”

José Martí reminded us:

“The homeland is humanity.”

Marcus Garvey declared:

“A people without the knowledge of their past history, origin and culture is like a tree without roots.”

Martin Luther King Jr. taught:

“The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.”

Kwame Nkrumah proclaimed:

“The forces that unite us are intrinsic and greater than the superimposed influences that keep us apart.”

Patrice Lumumba affirmed:

“History will one day have its say.”

Thomas Sankara encouraged Africa to pursue dignity through self-reliance, education, and courage, principles that inspired cooperation with Cuba in the training of students and professionals.

Fidel Castro himself declared:

“A revolution is a struggle to the death between the future and the past.”

Culminating Invocation

History demonstrates that powerful nations often become the subject of intense criticism, political rivalry, and competing narratives.

Cuba has experienced this reality for decades.

Nevertheless, its resilience, its educated people, and its enduring contributions to medicine, education, and international humanitarian missions continue to command the respect of many around the world.

We acknowledge Cuba’s assistance in training doctors, engineers, teachers, scientists, and other professionals across the Caribbean, Latin America, Africa, and beyond.

Cuban medical brigades rendered assistance during global crises, including the COVID-19 pandemic, while scientific institutions advanced biotechnology and vaccine research under exceptionally difficult circumstances.

As Fidel Castro’s 100th birthday approaches, history invites both reflection and thoughtful dialogue about his legacy and Cuba’s place in the modern world.

Whatever one’s political perspective, few can deny the profound influence Cuba has exercised upon global affairs over the past century.

Fidelism, to its adherents, remains more than a political philosophy.

It is a continuing expression of solidarity, resilience, and national determination.

Happy 100th Birthday in advance, Comandante. Your place in history remains secure.

24 July, 2026

Source / Comment

The Political Contempt of Bahamian Teachers in The Bahamas

2026-07-13T16:59:02.383-07:00

Discourteous Politics in Public Education in The Bahamas

The Bahamas Government Disrespectful to Bahamian Teachers. A slap in the face!

The Deputy Prime Minister in his dual role of Minister of Education announceed that the government has negotiated a partnership with the government of Ghana for the Bahamas to receive 300 Ghanaian teachers. This is a slap in the face to teachers across our nation.

The very fact that the Bahamian public in general and the Bahamas Union of Teachers in particular became aware of such an agreement via a social media post of a foreign diplomat speaks to the lack of consultation and fundamental disrespect the government continues to show our educators. Additionally, Bahamian teachers are still waiting to be hired and compensated for benefits owed to them and the government in this current budget has not adequately funded the Teacher Cadet Programme.

The government has executed an educational policy without consulting with strategic Bahamian stakeholders. Further, there is no clarity or communication on costs to the Bahamian people and no clear understanding of the parameters of the policy including teacher placement, assigment of subject matter or location.

The government has a duty and responsibility to consult and not dismiss important partners in our national educational discourse and development. “Progress” demands consulation, transparency but most of all respect.

Sunday 12 July, 2026

From Shanendon E. Cartwright

Deputy Leader of the Official Opposition in The Bahamas - Free National Movement (FNM)

The concurrence of Justice Brett Kavanaugh in Trump v. Barbara (2026)

2026-07-06T05:38:05.785-07:00

JUSTICE BRETT KAVANAUGH’S TEASE: THE ILLUSION OF STATUTORY SUFFICIENCY

Justice Kavanaugh's Concurrence in Trump v. Barbara and the Structural Limits of Legislative Power Over the Citizenship Clause

By: Professor Gilbert N.M.O. Morris
Nassau, N.P., The Bahamas

Constitutional Jurisprudence Series

Abstract

This article examines the concurrence of Justice Brett Kavanaugh in Trump v. Barbara (2026), decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on June 30, 2026, and the popular misreading of that concurrence as a legislative shortcut around the Fourteenth Amendment's Citizenship Clause.(1) The prevailing account, circulated widely in political commentary following the decision, holds that Congress may now, by ordinary statute, narrow birthright citizenship without recourse to Article V. This article argues that such an account confuses three distinct constitutional operations, that Justice Kavanaugh's own language forecloses the reading given it, and that the arithmetic of the Court's five-justice constitutional majority renders any statute of the kind proposed presently unsustainable.

I. Axiom

A constitutional command operates as the ground upon which all statutes stands. It is not one enactment among the many that Congress may set beside it, but the condition of their validity. Where a statute contradicts a constitutional norm, the statute is void from its inception to the extent of the contradiction and its logical linguistic entrails, and no legislative majority, however durable, converts an ultra vires enactment into law by the mere act of passing it.

This axiom is not original to the present inquiry. It is the axiom of Marbury v. Madison (1803), and it governs every subordinate question that follows.(2)

II. Definition

Three operations must be held apart, since the commentary surrounding Trump v. Barbara collapses them into a single undifferentiated act of "legislating on citizenship.

The first is the amending of a constitutional norm, reserved by Article V to two-thirds of both Houses of Congress and three-quarters of the states.

The second is the judicial construction of a norm's scope, which the Constitution commits to the courts alone (per Marbury aforementioned), and which the Supreme Court exercised in both the majority and the dissenting opinions of Trump v. Barbara.

The third is legislative implementation of a norm's non-self-executing particulars, exemplified by the citizenship statute Congress first codified in 1940 and carried into the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, presently codified at 8 U.S.C. - 1401(a), which gives procedural body to a substantive guarantee already complete in the constitutional text.(3) The distinction between the second and third operations is the axis on which the entire controversy turns, for a statute enacted under the third power remains at all times subject to testing under the second.

III. Proposition

The proposition advanced by the circulated commentary is that Justice Kavanaugh's concurrence supplies Congress with authority, exercised through ordinary statute, to establish exceptions to birthright citizenship for children of parents unlawfully or temporarily present, and that this authority requires no constitutional amendment. This article's counter-proposition is narrower and, I submit, more faithful to the opinion itself.

Justice Kavanaugh reasoned that the executive order failed under 1401(a) rather than under the Fourteenth Amendment, and stated that Congress could amend the statute or enact new legislation establishing such exceptions.(4) The qualifying condition attached to that proposal is decisive. The new legislation, in his own formulation, must remain consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment.(4)

Whilst I have my own questions concerning Justice Kavanaugh’s jurisprudence, the opinion does not propose that ordinary statute may contradict the Amendment. It proposes that the Amendment's own historical exceptions, the four exceptions recognized in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), ought not be treated as fixed at 1868, since treating them as a closed set is, in his words, inconsistent with the Court's longstanding approach to constitutional interpretation.(5)

A statute drafted on this theory does not override the Amendment. It attempts to occupy a category the Amendment, properly construed, is argued already to contain.

IV. Proof

The distinction bears immediately upon the arithmetic invoked by proponents of the legislative-shortcut reading. The vote in Trump v. Barbara was six to three as to invalidating the executive order, and five to four as to the constitutional ground for doing so.(6) The five justices sustaining the constitutional holding, Chief Justice Roberts writing for Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, Barrett, and Jackson, form a majority against any exception-expanding theory whatsoever. Justice Jackson wrote separately for the express purpose of rejecting a race-limited construction of the Fourteenth Amendment, arguing that the Reconstruction Amendments function as a civilisational reset rather than a race-specific remedy.(7)

Justice Kavanaugh's opinion, by contrast, stands alone in its structure, concurring in the judgment while dissenting from the constitutional reasoning.(8) Justice Thomas, joined in part by Justice Gorsuch, argued a domicile theory holding that the Fourteenth Amendment extends citizenship only to those permanently domiciled within the United States, a broader and structurally distinct claim from Justice Kavanaugh's narrower test of exceptions relevantly similar to those already recognized.(9) A future statute seeking constitutional sanction under Justice Kavanaugh's theory would therefore require the reconciliation of two dissenting positions that do not share a common doctrinal logic, and would require, further, the conversion of a single justice's concurrence into a majority holding, since a concurrence in judgment establishes no precedent binding a later panel.

V. Argument

What is noteworthy is the commentary under review - accusing Kavanaugh of holding a latch door open - performs the conflation the definitional section above was constructed to prevent. It treats a single justice's hypothesis about a future controversy, a hypothesis contingent on litigation not yet filed and votes not yet secured, as an operative grant of legislative authority already completed. This is a recognisable pattern in political rhetoric under conditions of urgency, wherein contingency is narrated in the grammar of accomplishment. The declarative structure of the Citizenship Clause itself supplies the answer the commentary elides. Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the majority, found no textual or historical warrant for reading a domicile limitation into the Clause's declarative grammar, observing that the Court's exhaustive review of the Clause's text and history identified no evidence that its ratifiers intended such a limitation.(10) Justice Kavanaugh did not dispute this reading of the Clause's declarative force. His disagreement is confined entirely to the closed-set question, a narrower terrain that leaves the sentence, ‘all persons born are citizens’, untouched as a governing rule, and contested only as to the outer boundary of its historical exceptions.

VI. Corollary

It follows that the phrase circulating in political commentary, that no constitutional amendment is necessary, is true only within the bounds of Justice Kavanaugh's own unadopted theory, and that theory has not commanded a Court. It follows further that any statute enacted on the strength of this theory would arrive before the judiciary as an open constitutional question rather than as settled legislative territory, and would face, at minimum, the five-justice constitutional majority already on record against exception-expansion, together with the structural incompatibility between Justice Kavanaugh's relevantly-similar test and Justice Thomas' domicile theory, which cannot be harmonized into a single five-vote coalition without one side abandoning its own reasoning; a fear which seems to lie at the feet of Chief Justice Roberts…who has built a reputation of incongruent rulings, coming into coherence only after some unthinkable justice mischief has been done…such as gutting the Voting Rights Act or ceding disfiguring immunities to the Executive.

VII. Measured Restatement

Congress retains no power, under any opinion issued in Trump v. Barbara, to enact a statute directly contradicting the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of citizenship to persons born within the jurisdiction of the United States. What Justice Kavanaugh's concurrence opens is a narrower and considerably more precarious avenue: legislation framed as an extension of the Wong Kim Ark exceptions, sustainable only if a future Court, differently constituted in its reasoning from the present one, adopts his characterisation of those exceptions as an open rather than closed category.

This is a wager upon future adjudication. It is not a completed transfer of constitutional authority to the legislature.

VIII. Conclusion

Justice Kavanaugh's concurrence supplies a fourth analytical strand for the constitutional jurisprudence of Trump v. Barbara, distinct from Justice Thomas's domicile theory and Justice Jackson's genealogical method, and it exhibits, in miniature, the pattern this author has identified elsewhere in Chief Justice Roberts's jurisprudence this term: formal resolution of the judgment before the parties, joined to an unresolved structural lacuna, here the undefined boundary of the phrase relevantly similar, left open for future litigation to fill. The lacuna is not a defect of careless draftsmanship. It is the characteristic form by which this Roberts Court, term after term, resolves the case before it whilst declining to resolve the doctrine beneath it, a form worth naming; since a jurisprudence built upon the studied deferral of its own foundational questions is a jurisprudence that governs the present at the cost of cogency in the present and the coherence of the it’s constitutional future.

References

1. Trump v. Barbara, No. 25A-___ (U.S. June 30, 2026) (slip op.), as reported in "Trump v. Barbara," https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_v._Barbara (accessed July 3, 2026)

2. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803).

3. 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a); Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, Pub. L. No. 82-414, 66 Stat. 163; Nationality Act of 1940, Pub. L. No. 76-853, 54 Stat. 1137.

4. Scott Bomboy, "Supreme Court Strikes Down Trump's Birthright Citizenship Executive Order in Landmark Decision," National Constitution Center (June 2026), https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/supreme-court-strikes-down-trumps-birthright-citizenship-executive-order-in-landmark-decision

5. "The Alarming Split in the Supreme Court's Birthright Citizenship Ruling," Salon (July 2, 2026), https://www.salon.com/2026/07/02/the-alarming-split-in-the-supreme-courts-birthright-citizenship-ruling/.

6. "Trump v. Barbara," supra note 1.

7. "Supreme Court Reaffirms Birthright Citizenship Under the 14th Amendment in Trump v. Barbara," FindLaw (June/July 2026), https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/supreme-court/supreme-court-reaffirms-birthright-citizenship-under-the-14th-amendment-in-trump-v-barbara/.

8. "Trump v. Barbara," supra note 1; SCOTUSblog, "Breaking Down the Birthright-Citizenship Decision" (2026), https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/06/breaking-down-the-birthright-citizenship-decision/.

9. FindLaw, supra note 7.

10.National Constitution Center-supranote 4

11.National Constitution Center, supra note 4 (reporting the decision's length at 194 pages).

Source / Comment

Wrong, Justice Clarence Thomas!

2026-07-04T04:46:11.358-07:00

MR. JUSTICE CLARENCE THOMAS IS WRONG!

By Professor Gilbert Morris
Nassau, The Bahamas

When ideologues read the law, they do not seek the law. They seek confirmation of what they wish the law to be. Take domicile: within Anglo-American jurisprudence, it has never named a fact of mere LOCATION; it has named an ACT OF WILL conjoined to a FACT OF PRESENCE.

Mr. Justice Story, in his “Commentaries on the Conflict of Laws”, designated the union of ‘factum’ and ‘animus manendi’, the bodily residing and the intention to remain.

Therefore, to possess domicile, in the technical sense Justice Thomas’ dissent invokes, is to be capable of an act of SELECTION, ELECTION, DIRECTION, VOLITION, DECISION…which is to say: AN ACT OF WILL and to be present.

A juridical capacity to choose one’s place and to be recognized by law as having chosen it. This capacity presupposes legal personhood: the standing, before the sovereign, to perform acts the sovereign will count as one’s own.

In context, the enslaved person, under the law that governed slavery in the United States before 1865, was precisely excluded from this capacity. Slave codes throughout the South denied the enslaved person standing to contract, to sue, to marry with legal effect, to choose a place of abode against the will of an owner and domicile, being itself a species of legal election, cannot be exercised by one to whom the law denies the power of election. The enslaved person’s location was assigned, as a wife’s or a minor child’s domicile was assigned under coverture, by the will of another; it was, in the vocabulary of the doctrine, a derivative domicile, never an acquired one.

One need not travel far for confirmation; the Court’s own decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford, (1857), rests on EXACTLY this denial: that the enslaved person and his descendants stood outside the category of persons inherently capable of the juridical acts, citizenship among them, that domicile presupposes.

The Reconstruction Congress - which Thomas mentions - did not legislate against an empty premise. It legislated against a settled doctrine in which the very people the Fourteenth Amendment meant to enfranchise had been denied, by the law of slavery itself, the legal personhood from which domicile in the technical sense flows.

Here a transition from constitutional history to a question of logical form becomes necessary, and I mark it as such:

1. If a domicile-based test for citizenship requires antecedent legal personhood

2. If legal personhood is the very thing slavery withheld,

3. THEN….necessarily…a domicile-based test cannot, by its own internal logical criteria, secure citizenship for the freed slave without first smuggling in, by exception or by retroactive fiction, the personhood - the power of will - that the test elsewhere presupposes as already given. The test would have to suspend itself in the one case it claims to have been written for.

Thomas’s own citizenship as an American is secured, not by an “act of will” as Dred Scott promulgated…it is secured by presence; which the Fourteenth Amendment secures to him by birth on American soil independent of any domicile inquiry whatever once jus soli is the governing rule, as the majority held.

It is rather a defect internal to the structure of the domicile theory itself: that the theory, applied with any rigor to the historical condition of the enslaved, dissolves the very class it was offered to protect. This is the structural form of the objection Madam Justice Jackson raised in concurrence, when she noted the discord between Thomas’s professed colorblindness and a theory that requires racial particularity to do its remedial work.

The difficulty is not biographical but architectonic. Rather, it belongs to the shape of the argument and not to the person of Justice Thomas.

Source / Comment

Patois Ban in Jamaica

2026-05-31T14:37:08.039-07:00

THE REST OF THE WORLD STRUGGLES TO UNDERSTAND WHY JAMAICA REFUSES ITS OWN CULTURE!

By Gilbert Morris

Why would the Jamaican parliament ban the world’s favourite vernacular patois?

Why?

In cultural linguistics there is something called “code switching”. Our older politicians did it well. No one in the current Jamaican parliament speaks English better than Michael Manley and yet Manley switched between English and patois beautifully. Sir Lynden Pindling did the same between British university English and Bahamian dialect.

No one is saying come to Parliament and carry an entire debate in Patois (although, Patios and Jamaican Patti (before they started putting that green mucus into it), are amongst my favourite things in this world.

Jamaica has given more to the world than any country: Boukman Dutty…who inspired the Haitian Revolution; Marcus Garvey who is the father of all black freedom movements; Bob Marley, the greatest musician of all time; all my elementary school teachers in The Bahamas; Merline Otty…the most beautiful woman in the history of humanity; and Usain Bolt a star even amongst stars; Butch Stewart who taught the entire region to do business; Dr Nigel Clarke…the finest Minister of Finance in history; street slang and the language of cool…and just Jamaicaness…which is the world’s most vigorous spirit of self-expression:

Why the hell would one ban the language that expresses that?

Jamaica keeps doing this: Bob Marley is under appreciated. Even Usain Bolt was mistreated trying to acquire a home and finally robbed by an institution meant to prefect his wealth!

Why does Jamaica fail at home to celebrate what the world loves most about Jamaica?

It’s ridiculous, shameful and sad!

Banning patios outright is not only self-hating, it’s banning folklore in the heart of an institution that’s supposed to be representative.

Nothing could be more beautiful than hearing after a long debate in plain English the Opposition rising and saying: “What-a gwan.

This ban should be lifted and code switching, using popular patois phrases should be welcomed.

I say always: Turks and Caicos is my mother, The Bahamas is my wife - but Jamaica is my sweetie: it shouldn’t take a TCI-Bahamian to remind Jamaica what’s beloved about it!

Source / Comment

Venezuela and the Perils of Ceding Sovereignty

2026-05-23T06:03:51.481-07:00

US imperialism is “not to be trusted even a little bit,” much less considered a “partner” in a “cooperation agenda.” - Che Guevara

By Ricardo Vaz

On January 3, the US bombed Venezuela’s capital region and kidnapped President Nicolás Maduro. The unprecedented attack represented the culmination of a quarter-century of imperialist hybrid war, including devastating unilateral sanctions, mercenary incursions, “color revolution”-style insurrections, media disinformation, and NGO infiltration.

The four months since have brought a flurry of developments, from renewed diplomatic ties with the US to an overhaul of key legislative pillars of the Bolivarian Revolution. Additionally, the Trump administration established semi-colonial control over Venezuelan oil revenues, with the amounts and timings of disbursements back to Caracas left entirely at US officials’ discretion. The arrangement is similar to the one Washington has forced on Iraq since the 2003 invasion.

This compromised sovereignty is a catalyst for other issues. On the one hand, it makes it tougher for the Venezuelan government to improve living standards without challenging business interests. On the other, the burden of Venezuela’s external debt might see Washington attempt to impose an IMF loan that will bury the country in debt and dependency for decades.

The acting Rodríguez government’s tenure has been marked by accelerated political and economic transformations. On the international front, Caracas has restored diplomatic ties with Washington and recently resumed dealings with the US-controlled International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank.

Domestically, Rodríguez has changed key cabinet and military posts, while pushing through the National Assembly a number of reforms with the explicit goal of making the country more attractive for private sector investment, especially from Western multinationals.

Plans to reform pension, tax, housing, and the landmark 2012 labor law are in motion. Mining and hydrocarbons have already undergone pro-business overhauls, with slashed fiscal responsibilities, decreased oversight, and disputes subjected to international arbitration. In contrast to Chávez’s reassertion of oil sovereignty, which underpinned the massive sociopolitical achievements of the Bolivarian Revolution, the reformed energy law brings back the old concession model that puts operations and sales in the hands of private corporations.

In tandem, the Trump administration has issued licenses to pave the way for Western conglomerates to return to Venezuela, and several have already struck deals under the new highly favorable conditions. The licenses maintain and even double down on US sanctions by barring dealings with China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, and Russia and mandating that all Venezuelan state revenues from oil and mining be deposited in US Treasury-run accounts.

The subordination to US impositions saw Venezuelan authorities extradite former diplomatic envoy and minister Alex Saab to face charges in the US with little to no explanation. The move was shocking but not out of context. In recent weeks, there has been a succession of ceremonies at Miraflores presidential palace where Trump officials get the red-carpet welcome and escort corporate executives to sign contracts under the new pro-business incentives. Far-right tech moguls, including Palantir founder Peter Thiel, are already taking advantage of Trump’s leverage to establish a lucrative foothold in the country. For his part, the US chargé d’affaires holds regular publicized meetings with Venezuelan cabinet ministers.

Caracas’ technocratic and pragmatic approach has dovetailed with a corresponding shift in discourse. On foreign policy, the anti-imperialist rhetoric has all but vanished. As Trump unleashes a savage war against Iran and threatens to “take over” Cuba, Venezuelan leaders have refrained from condemning the escalating imperialist aggression while emphasizing their desire to build good relations with Washington. At the same time, references to Maduro have drastically decreased, as documented in a recent investigation. Domestically, the central focus has become macroeconomic stability and attracting foreign investment. Both Acting President Rodríguez and her brother, National Assembly President Jorge Rodríguez, acknowledged receiving “recommendations” and “suggestions” from oil majors amid the recent hydrocarbon overhaul.

Rodríguez and the Bolivarian leadership, under ongoing US pressure, are betting that the pro-business opening will lead to accelerated economic growth that will trickle down into improved living conditions, thus allowing the government to rebuild social legitimacy and political prospects. However, this plan faces serious roadblocks.

The first issue is that the acting authorities may not have a lot of time to improve the living conditions of the Venezuelan people.

Over the previous seven years, with the economy asphyxiated by the US economic blockade, the Maduro government prioritized macroeconomic stability and reduced inflation first and foremost, through a strict monetarist policy package. While the approach, coupled with a modest oil industry recovery, did lead to slowed down inflation and modest economic growth, it came at a price of freezing wages, consumer credit, and public spending. The minimum wage, last raised in 2022, is now worth less than US $1 per month, with further increases replaced by non-wage bonuses that cheapen labor costs for employers.

Though these bonuses have increased periodically (the income floor is now $240/month for public sector workers), they are still far from covering living costs. On May 1, Rodríguez ignored growing calls for a minimum wage hike, the conversion of bonuses to wages, and the restoration of collective bargaining rights, instead doubling down on the bonus policy. With government officials announcing a labor reform soon, it is likely that the return of the minimum wage will come alongside a significant erosion of workers’ rights and employer responsibilities.

However, apart from its commitment to fiscal discipline, the Rodríguez acting government has little room to maneuver because of its lack of direct management over oil revenues. At the mercy of the Trump administration to return export earnings in the amount and timing of its choosing, Venezuelan authorities are unlikely to commit to anything that might unsettle the budget. Rodríguez herself warned that wage increases must be “responsible.”

There is a delicate balance to strike. To implement the current pro-business agenda, not to mention the US rapprochement, the government needs social peace, and only improved material conditions for the working-class majority can ensure that in the short term.

It is not just the pressure for better living standards that looms large on Venezuela’s economic front. There is a growing expectation that creditors will soon reengage with Venezuelan authorities to collect on a sizable external debt: a combination of defaulted bonds, unpaid loans, and arbitration awards that, with interest accrued over years, may amount to as much as $170 billion. The Venezuelan government recently announced the launch of a debt restructuring process, while Washington issued a license allowing the hiring of financial and consulting services.

Given the recent overtures to foreign capital, Venezuelan leaders will be hard-pressed to honor whatever commitments necessary to render the country a favorable investment climate. Nevertheless, a major chunk of this debt is illegitimate.

On the one hand, debt ballooned in the mid-2010s as Venezuela’s credit rating was unjustifiably downgraded and borrowing costs went up, as Washington slapped its first rounds of sanctions on the Caribbean country. The Maduro government made a strategic choice to prioritize debt service as the economy reeled following a collapse of global oil prices, hoping that this “discipline” would stave off a scenario where the country was shut out of financial markets. It turned out differently.

Venezuela was gradually locked out of global finance after the Trump administration’s 2017 financial sanctions. Bonds defaulted one after another and have been accruing interest ever since. And the notoriously corrupt US-backed “interim government” also played its part in running up Venezuela’s liabilities and pilfering state assets abroad.

The diverse group of bondholders and corporations owed arbitration awards is sure to receive the backing of the White House, which holds the purse of Venezuela’s export proceeds. This mechanism could be utilized to directly transfer Venezuelan state income to creditors in what would effectively amount to international wage garnishing. Given how Venezuelan bonds have risen in recent months, investors are eagerly eyeing a significant windfall.

Venezuela’s unsustainable debt burden opens the door for further US imperial predations. Even if there is an agreement to pay 50 cents on the dollar for Venezuela’s $170 billion debt for a period of 15 years, that comes to $5.6 billion a year, roughly a quarter of the present budget. It is simply unpayable.

While Caracas may be able to settle with some creditors by privatizing Venezuelan state assets, it will not amount to much. Venezuelan leaders will stress that, with the recent reforms and US opening, the economy will grow tremendously, and they will be able to honor all commitments. But creditors are not willing to wait when they can cash in now, especially given Venezuela’s weak bargaining position. The government cannot maintain a functioning country in the short term with a huge debt burden. As a result, the US might take advantage of the crisis to impose a major loan from the IMF or some lending coalition.

An IMF or similar loan program is more than just an agreement to lend some amount under certain repayment conditions. It is an opportunity to impose neocolonial arrangements on Global South countries. In Venezuela’s case it is even more symbolic: it would mean exacting the proverbial pound of flesh for Chávez’s revolutionary audacity to challenge US hegemony in the Western hemisphere.

An eventual long-term credit program would surely come alongside a structural adjustment package of mass privatizations, gutted social expenditure, and all-around liberalization of the economy. Given the current leverage over Venezuela, US officials may attempt to further entrench the rollback of the Caribbean nation’s sovereignty.

Between the growing domestic demands for improved living conditions and the specter of debt renegotiation, the acting Rodríguez government will find it increasingly difficult to walk the tightrope of maintaining social peace while continuing to make one concession after another to monopoly capital and the Trump White House.

With the limits of US imperialism nakedly exposed in Iran, Trump needs a victory in Venezuela. But that victory does not entail a buoyant economic recovery with social justice, let alone the survival of a sovereign and revolutionary project. Victory for the US is a dependent country, mired in debt and underdevelopment, where Western corporations plunder natural resources and geopolitical rivals are kept at bay.

Ultimately, any long-term plan for sovereign development needs to start from the fact that US imperialism, to echo Che Guevara, is “not to be trusted even a little bit,” much less considered a “partner” in a “cooperation agenda.” It will undoubtedly be a major hill to climb. But thankfully, even if it means starting over, the Bolivarian Revolution is not starting from scratch.

Source: Sovereign Media

The Council of State of the Republic of Cuba condemns the infamous accusation against leader of the Cuban Revolution, Army General Raúl Castro Ruz, leader of the Cuban Revolution

2026-05-22T18:48:53.563-07:00

The Cuban People want Peace

"The General of the Army is Cuba, and Cuba must be respected"

By The National Assembly of People's Power - Cuba

The Council of State of the Republic of Cuba, representing the National Assembly of People's Power, strongly condemns the recent infamous accusation by the United States Department of Justice against Army General Raúl Castro Ruz, leader of the Cuban Revolution.

Likewise, it endorses the Declaration of the Revolutionary Government regarding this illegitimate and despicable act, a blatant act of dishonest and political manipulation, which distorts the facts that led to the downing, in February 1996, of two aircraft operated by the terrorist organization Brothers to the Rescue, based in Miami, over Cuban airspace.

The members of this body denounce the fact that the United States government uses legal institutions to orchestrate its genocidal policy against the Cuban Revolution. In doing so, it disregards the principles of International Law and violates the sovereignty and dignity of our nation.

At the same time, the Council of State categorically repudiates the executive orders issued by the President of the United States and other unilateral coercive measures of the Trump Administration, including the recent mendacious and immoral accusations against high-ranking Cuban state and government officials; these have the perverse aim of intensifying the illegitimate blockade and its policy of suffocation against our heroic people.

The anti-Cuban rhetoric of hatred and aggression from the U.S. executive branch will once again be shattered by the unwavering conviction of Cubans to preserve our independence, certain that the Homeland and its Socialist Revolution will be defended. Always onward to victory!

Cuba wants peace!

Havana, May 21, 2026.

"Year of the Centennial of Commander-in-Chief Fidel Castro Ruz."

Source

Does The Haitian Constitution Trumps The Bahamian Constitution in The Bahamas

2026-04-09T12:55:00.000-07:00

DOES THE HAITIAN CONSTITUTION TRUMPS OUR BAHAMIAN CONSTITUTION?

From Speak Up Bahamas:

I’m trying to understand something… and maybe someone can explain it logically. Why are some Bahamians now arguing that the Haitian Constitution is more powerful than the Bahamian Constitution?

The Haitian Constitution says that once you are born to a Haitian parent — whether mother or father — you are Haitian, and that citizenship cannot be renounced.

But let’s be very clear… We are in The Bahamas, governed by OUR Constitution. The Bahamian Constitution clearly states that if a Bahamian married to a Haitian woman, and they have a child, that child is Bahamian — with the full rights of a Bahamian, including the right to vote, and it doesnt mattter how fluent they are in the English language.

So the real question is: Which Constitution governs The Bahamas? Are we seriously saying that a foreign constitution can override our own laws, our own sovereignty, and our own identity as a nation?

That would mean we are no longer in control of our country — and that simply cannot be the case.

You cannot pick and choose when to respect the Bahamian Constitution and when to ignore it.

This is not about emotion, politics, or division — this is about law, sovereignty, and national identity.

Bahamians must decide:

👉 Do we stand on OUR Constitution?

👉 Or are we now allowing foreign laws to dictate who is Bahamian and who can vote? Make it make sense.

Speak Up Bahamas. 🇧🇸

Source / Comment

Bahamian Constitutional Attorney - Craig Butler, Esq., Answers:

I’m answering the question and authoritatively so:

👉🏽 I’m the constitutional expert.

👉🏽 if you think you’re smart take me on Peter.

The Bahamian Constitution governs The Bahamas. Full stop.

No foreign constitution overrides it, dictates it, or displaces it.

But that is not the real issue here.

The confusion is coming from a failure to understand how citizenship actually operates in law.

There are multiple pathways:

• Citizenship by descent (through a Bahamian parent)

• Citizenship by birth with entitlement to apply (e.g., persons born in The Bahamas to non-Bahamian parents applying at 18–19)

• Registration and naturalisation

So when people raise the Haitian Constitution, they are not saying it overrides Bahamian law. They are pointing to the fact that another country may also recognize that person as its citizen.

That creates dual nationality issues, not constitutional supremacy issues.

And here is the key point many are missing:

A child born in The Bahamas to Haitian parents does not automatically become Bahamian. They have a constitutional right to apply for citizenship between ages 18 and 19.

Many have exercised that right. Lawfully.

Once granted, they are Bahamian citizens—under our Constitution.

So let’s not distort this.

This is not about Haiti overriding The Bahamas. This is about people misunderstanding:

• how citizenship is acquired,

• how dual nationality arises, and

• how our own Constitution actually works.

If there are concerns about abuse of the system, then address enforcement and administration.

But do not invent a constitutional conflict that does not exist.

Source / Comment

Political Issues in The Bahamas

2026-04-04T18:22:00.000-07:00

Politics in The Bahamas

THE BAHAMAS: ELECTORAL REALITY, HISTORICAL STRUGGLE, AND THE WORK AHEAD

Saturday, 4 April 2026

4:07 PM Eastern Standard Time

Nassau, The Bahamas

By Craig F. Butler, Esq.

Today marks 58 years since the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in Memphis, Tennessee — 4 April 1968.

He was killed standing on a balcony.

But what he represented was never killed.

Because the struggle he spoke to — dignity, justice, legitimacy, and the structure of power — did not end in Memphis.

It continues.

And we must be honest enough to say:

It continues here.

I. THE CONTINUITY OF STRUGGLE

We like to think of the African struggle as something external — something that happened “over there,” in America, in South Africa, in the streets of history.

But we are confronting our own version of that struggle right here in The Bahamas.

Not in the same form.

Not with the same violence.

But with the same underlying question:

👉 Who controls power?

👉 How is that power exercised?

👉 And who benefits from it?

II. THE PRESENT MOMENT — EMOTION VS LAW

Right now, the country is agitated.

People are speaking about:

• the voters’ register

• citizenship concerns

• passports

• electoral integrity

• governance and spending

And much of that concern is real.

But we must separate two things:

what is emotionally compelling

and, what is constitutionally possible.

III. THE LEGAL REALITY🇧🇸🇧🇸

Let me state this plainly and finally:

👉 The Prime Minister has exercised the prerogative to dissolve Parliament.

👉 The House is prorogued.

👉 The election is called.

That power is spent.

It is not reversible by public pressure.

It is not undone by commentary.

It is not halted by applications that do not meet constitutional threshold.

So let the Bahamian public understand clearly:

There is nothing — short of war, catastrophic disaster, or a true national emergency — that is going to stop the general election scheduled for 12 May 2026.

Not the courts.

Not politics.

Not outrage.

IV. THE HARD TRUTH

We have been talking about these issues for years.

Not one election.

Not two.

Multiple election cycles.

The voters’ register concerns are not new. Citizenship questions are not new. Administrative weaknesses are not new.

They are systemic.

So let us stop pretending that this moment created the problem.

It did not.

V. THE REAL ISSUE🇧🇸🇧🇸

This is where the country must mature.

The election is going forward.

👉 Votes will be cast

👉 Results will be declared

👉 A government will be sworn in

That is going to happen.

So the real question is no longer: “Can we stop this election?”

The real question is:

👉 Why have we allowed this issue to persist for so long?

👉 And what are we going to do to fix it after the election?

VI. THE DANGER

Too many of our people are locked into budget politics:

- Who gets contracts

- Who controls spending

- Who distributes the billion dollars

That is not governance. That is access to power disguised as democracy.

And until we confront that honestly, we will continue to recycle the same problems.

VII. THE WAY FORWARD

If we are serious, the work is clear:

• structural reform of the registration system

• modernization and digitization

• legal accountability where wrongdoing exists

• continuous audit — not election-time outrage

• and sustained national discipline beyond party politics

Because shouting at the moment of election will never fix a problem that has been growing for decades.

VIII. CLOSING

Dr. King fought for justice, but more importantly, he fought for structure — for a system that could sustain dignity, not just promise it.

That is the lesson.

Not emotion. Not outrage.

Structure.

So let us be clear:

👉 This election is happening.

👉 These problems are not new.

👉 And the real work begins after the vote, not before it.

Because if we do not fix the system, we will be right back here again.

With Professional Respect Asé

CRAIG F. BUTLER ESQ.

Constitutional Theorist

Pan-African Methodology

Commonwealth of The Bahamas

Source / Comment

Why did the British Empire Collapsed?

2026-03-15T14:57:00.000-07:00

The British Empire Didn’t Collapse in War — It Collapsed Through Its Currency

By Robert Kiyosaki

Most people think the British Empire fell because of war. That’s wrong.
Britain won World War II.

But it lost something far more important afterward: Its money. And once a country loses its currency, it eventually loses everything else.

Let me explain.

1945: Britain “Won” the War… But Was Bankrupt

When World War II ended, Britain was still standing militarily — but financially, it was broken.

- Massive war debt

- Destroyed infrastructure

- Rationing that lasted into the 1950s

- A shrinking industrial base

To keep the country running, the British government did what governments always do when they’re broke:

They borrowed.

They printed.

They spent.

And they told the public everything was under control.

Sounds familiar?

THE SLOW DEATH OF THE POUND

Unlike hyperinflation stories like Germany or Zimbabwe, Britain’s collapse was quiet.

No wheelbarrows of cash.

No overnight wipeout.

Instead, the pound died slowly.

1949

Britain officially devalued the pound by 30% against the U.S. dollar. The public was told it was a “necessary adjustment.”

1967

Another major devaluation — again about 14%.

Each time, British citizens lost purchasing power. Each time, their savings bought less. Each time, the government promised stability would return. It never did.

THIS IS HOW EMPIRES REALLY DECLINE

Britain didn’t collapse in one dramatic moment.

It declined through:

- Chronic deficits

- Currency devaluation

- Loss of global confidence

- Capital fleeing to stronger currencies

- Rising cost of living

- A shrinking middle class

By the late 1960s, the pound was no longer trusted as a global reserve currency.

The empire didn’t fall with bombs.

It faded with inflation.

Here’s the part schools never teach: Britain’s economy didn’t stop working. People still had jobs. Markets still functioned. But life got harder every year.

- Wages lagged.

- Savings eroded.

- Assets became unaffordable.

The system didn’t “collapse.” It quietly transferred wealth away from people who trusted the currency…to people who owned real assets.

Americans keep asking: “Why does the economy feel terrible if the country is still strong?”

That’s exactly what British citizens asked in the 1950s and 60s.

The answer was simple then — and it’s simple now:

The country isn’t collapsing.

The currency is being devalued.

And when that happens:

- Savers lose

- Wage earners fall behind

- Asset owners move ahead

Britain learned this the hard way. Empires don’t usually die loudly. They die slowly… while people are told everything is fine.

Britain went from global superpower to secondary player not because it lost wars — but because it lost monetary discipline.

History doesn’t repeat. But it rhymes perfectly.

And if you understand how the British pound fell… you’ll understand exactly why life feels more expensive today — even when the headlines say everything is “strong.”

That’s the cost of a dying currency.

And it’s always paid by the people who trust it the most.

Source / Comment

It's Time for The Caribbean’s Sovereign Rail

2026-03-03T17:12:00.000-08:00

For fifty years, the global financial system ran on a single dominant rail. That era is over

THE WORLD AS IT IS — PART XVIII

Tuesday, 3 March 2026

7:35 AM Eastern Standard Time

By CRAIG F. BUTLER, ESQ.

There are moments when commentary is no longer sufficient.

Part XVIII is not commentary. It is construction.

For weeks we have examined fractures — war, sanctions, mineral leverage, security realignment, the Great Repricing.

Now we move to rails.

The question is no longer who strikes, who sanctions, or who aligns. The question is: who settles?

Because in a multipolar world, settlement systems are power.

For fifty years, the global financial system ran on a single dominant rail. That era is over.

Sanctions have been weaponized.

SWIFT has been politicized.

CIPS has matured.

BRICS Pay is forming.

CBDCs are operational.

The world is fragmenting into monetary corridors. And in that fragmentation lies opportunity.

Part XVIII makes a disciplined argument:

The Caribbean is no longer a peripheral financial basin. It is positioned to become a sovereign settlement corridor.

The region now sits on a tri-layer architecture:

• Middle-power stability (British regulatory credibility, Canadian banking continuity)

• Sovereign currencies (Bahamian, Jamaican, Eastern Caribbean, Trinidadian, Barbadian)

• Operational digital rails (Sand Dollar, Jam-Dex, DCash)

No other small-state region in the world has this configuration.

What is missing is not currency. It is clearing. It is interoperability.

It is a sovereign settlement system that reduces dependence on external rails and anchors the Caribbean in the Age of Consequences.

Part XVIII identifies the gap — and the build.

It argues that:

• Settlement defines sovereignty.

• Clearing defines leverage.

• Digital rails define independence.

• Small states with stability become strategic.

The Bahamas is uniquely positioned to anchor this rail. Not as rhetoric. As architecture.

This chapter is not about nostalgia. It is about infrastructure.

The Caribbean’s sovereign rail is no longer theoretical.

It is the next structural move in a world no longer ruled from one capital.

Part XVIII begins now.

PART XVIII — THE CARIBBEAN’S SOVEREIGN RAIL

Digital money, regional clearing, and the emergence of an independent settlement system

I. The World Is Moving Away From Single‑Rail Finance

For fifty years, the global financial system ran on one dominant rail: SWIFT. That world is gone.

The U.S.–Israel–Iran rupture, the weaponization of sanctions, the rise of BRICS, and the emergence of digital currencies have fractured the monetary landscape. Today, the world runs on multiple rails:

• SWIFT (U.S.–EU)

• CIPS (China)

• BRICS Pay (emerging)

• CBDCs (state digital currencies)

• private rails (Visa, Mastercard, fintech networks)

In this environment, small states cannot rely on a single system. They need sovereign rails — systems they control, not systems they borrow.

The Caribbean is now positioned to build one.

II. The Caribbean’s Monetary Architecture Has Three Layers

Part XVII established the middle‑power scaffolding: Britain and Canada.

Part XVIII builds the sovereign layer above it.

The Caribbean’s monetary architecture now has three distinct layers:

1. Middle‑Power Stability (External)

• British regulatory credibility

• Canadian banking infrastructure

2. Sovereign Currencies (Internal)

• Bahamian dollar

• Jamaican dollar

• Eastern Caribbean dollar

• Trinidad & Tobago dollar

• Barbadian dollar

3. Digital Sovereign Rails (Emerging)

• Sand Dollar (Bahamas)

• Jam‑Dex (Jamaica)

• DCash (ECCB)

This is the foundation for a Caribbean settlement system — a rail that is:

• sovereign

• digital

• regional

• interoperable

• independent of great‑power politics

No other small‑state region has this combination.

III. The Sand Dollar as the Prototype Rail

The Bahamas did not simply launch a digital currency. It launched the first operational CBDC in the world — and in doing so, it created the prototype for a Caribbean monetary rail.

The Sand Dollar provides:

• instant settlement

• offline capability for outer islands

• regulatory clarity

• financial inclusion

• resilience during shocks

• a sovereign payment channel

In a world where:

• correspondent banking is shrinking

• sanctions are expanding

• SWIFT is politicized

• global rails are fragmenting

…the Sand Dollar becomes a sovereign shield.

It is the first Caribbean rail that is not dependent on external powers.

IV. The Region Is Quietly Becoming a Digital Currency Cluster

Three CBDCs in one region is not coincidence. It is architecture.

The Bahamas — Sand Dollar

The world’s first fully deployed CBDC.

Jamaica — Jam‑Dex

A retail CBDC designed for inclusion and micro‑commerce.

ECCB — DCash

A multi‑state digital currency across eight countries.

This cluster gives the Caribbean:

• a shared technological base

• a shared regulatory framework

• a shared digital identity

• the ability to build interoperability

Interoperability is the key. It is how a region becomes a monetary bloc.

V. The Missing Piece: A Regional Clearinghouse

The Caribbean has:

• currencies

• digital currencies

• banks

• offshore centers

• middle‑power scaffolding

What it does not yet have is:

• a regional clearinghouse

• a sovereign settlement system

• a cross‑border CBDC corridor

• a non‑SWIFT payment rail

This is the gap. This is the opportunity. This is the sovereign project.

A Caribbean clearinghouse would:

• settle trade within the region

• settle Africa–Caribbean flows

• reduce reliance on U.S. correspondent banks

• insulate the region from sanctions spillover

• create a Caribbean “alternate rate”

• anchor the region in the Great Repricing

This is the rail that must be built.

VI. The Bahamas as the Anchor of the Sovereign Rail

The Bahamas is uniquely positioned to anchor the Caribbean rail because it has:

• a sovereign currency

• a sovereign digital currency

• a mature offshore financial sector

• regulatory credibility

• geographic centrality

• AU–CARICOM alignment

• British and Canadian stabilizers

• a reputation for compliance

• a history of financial innovation

This combination does not exist anywhere else in the region.

The Bahamas is the only jurisdiction that can:

• host the clearinghouse

• host the settlement system

• host the Africa–Caribbean commodities exchange

• host the digital corridor

• anchor the regional rail

This is the sovereign role.

VII. The Strategic Meaning in the Age of Consequences

In a fractured world:

• chokepoints matter

• settlement systems define leverage

• digital rails define sovereignty

• middle powers define stability

• small states with stability become valuable

The Caribbean’s tri‑rail system — British stability, Canadian banking, Caribbean sovereignty — becomes a zone of resilience.

And The Bahamas becomes the sovereign anchor of that zone.

This is not a regional story.

This is an Atlantic story.

This is a multipolar story.

This is a sovereignty story.

VIII. What Must Now Be Built

The architecture is ready. The moment is here.

The Caribbean must now build:

• a regional clearinghouse

• CBDC interoperability

• a sovereign settlement rail

• a non‑SWIFT corridor

• an Africa–Caribbean payment bridge

• a commodities exchange in The Bahamas

• a Caribbean alternate rate

This is the Caribbean’s sovereign rail. This is Part XVIII.

Source / Comment

Our World as It Is

2026-03-01T10:29:00.000-08:00

THE WORLD AS IT IS

PART XVI — THE AGE OF CONSEQUENCES

Sunday, 1 March 2026 — 7:40 AM EST

By CRAIG F. BUTLER, ESQ.

There are moments when analysis must harden into record.

Part XVI is not reaction. It is structural recognition.

The United States–Israel strike on Iran is not merely a regional escalation. It is an accelerant — one that forces the global system to reveal what it has already become.

For years, we have examined posture:

• carrier groups repositioned

• sanctions expanding

• alliances recalibrating

• minerals repricing

• sovereignty asserting itself

Now we move beyond signal.

This chapter addresses consequence.

What happened was not simply military.

It was valuation.

The old order assumed American force stabilized markets. The emerging order prices American force as risk.

That shift is historic.

Part XVI maps the immediate consequences:

• the collapse of automatic alignment in the Gulf

• the insurance markets repricing corridor risk in real time

• the fracture lines inside Western security architecture

• the acceleration of Global South leverage

• the strategic reweighting of Africa, Latin America, and the Caribbean

This is not ideological commentary. It is macro-structural observation.

The rupture did not create multipolarity.

It exposed it. And exposure changes behaviour.

The Great Repricing is no longer theoretical.

It is active.

Energy routes, maritime insurance, alliance cohesion, diplomatic credibility, sovereign leverage — all are being recalculated.

Power is no longer inherited. It is negotiated.

Dominance is no longer assumed. It is tested.

This is the age of consequences. And this is the world as it is.

THE WORLD AS IT IS

PART XVI — THE AGE OF CONSEQUENCES : CRAIG F BUTLER ESQ.

How the U.S.–Israel–Iran rupture accelerates the Great Repricing

I. The World After the Strike

The night the United States and Israel struck Iran did more than ignite a regional war. It exposed a truth that had been building for a decade: the global system no longer absorbs American force the way it once did. The perimeter cracked. The center shook. And the world — from the Gulf to Africa to the Caribbean — recalibrated in real time.

This is not a military event. This is a valuation event.

The old order priced American action as stabilizing. The new world prices it as risk.

That shift is the beginning of the Great Repricing.

II. The Collapse of Automatic Compliance

For fifty years, the Middle East operated under a simple geometry:

• The U.S. enforced the perimeter.

• Israel enforced deterrence.

• Gulf monarchies aligned with both.

• Iran was contained.

That geometry collapsed in a single night.

What changed:

• Saudi Arabia and the UAE refused U.S. use of their bases.

• The UK blocked access to Diego Garcia.

• Oman publicly rebuked Washington.

• Qatar, Bahrain, and Kuwait were struck by Iranian missiles.

• Israel acted unilaterally, and the U.S. followed.

This is not a diplomatic disagreement. This is the end of automatic alignment.

The world is no longer organized around American permission. It is organized around national survival.

III. The Financial Shockwave

The first markets to react were not oil or equities. They were insurance markets — the quiet barometers of global fear.

War‑risk premiums in the Gulf jumped from 0.2–0.3% to 0.5%, and for Israeli ports to 1%. Quotes shortened from 48 hours to 24. Tanker rates doubled. Underwriters began pricing the Middle East as a live theatre, not a stable corridor.

This is the real signal:

The world is repricing risk faster than the old order can manage it.

And when risk is repriced, power is repriced.

IV. The Global South Steps Into the Vacuum

The rupture did not weaken the Global South. It strengthened it.

Why:

• The U.S. is now tied down in a direct war with Iran.

• Europe is exposed to energy volatility.

• The Gulf is hedging.

• Asia is recalculating supply chains.

• BRICS is watching the U.S. expend strategic capital.

Meanwhile:

• Africa controls the minerals of the 21st century.

• Latin America controls the new oil frontier.

• The Caribbean controls shipping lanes and offshore reserves.

• The Indian Ocean and West Africa control maritime chokepoints.

The old world is distracted. The new world is consolidating.

This is the Great Repricing in motion.

V. The Return of Sovereign Calculation

The strike on Iran did not just destabilize a region. It destabilized the assumption that power flows in one direction.

The new reality:

• Power must negotiate its limits.

• Force has consequences.

• Alignment is conditional.

• Sovereignty is transactional.

• The Global South is no longer a spectator.

This is why Africa’s continental institutions matter. This is why CARICOM’s alignment with the AU matters. This is why Guyana’s oil matters. This is why The Bahamas’ strategic geography matters.

The world is no longer divided into “powers” and “periphery.” It is divided into those who can absorb shocks and those who cannot.

The Global South is learning to absorb shocks. The old order is struggling to contain them.

VI. The Middle East as a Mirror

The U.S.–Israel–Iran rupture is not an isolated conflict. It is a mirror reflecting the fragility of the old system.

What the mirror shows:

• Diplomacy without trust collapses.

• Deterrence without legitimacy fails.

• Power without restraint destabilizes.

• Alliances without reciprocity fracture.

• Systems built on dominance cannot survive multipolar pressure.

The Middle East is not the exception. It is the preview.

VII. The Great Repricing Accelerates

The Great Repricing is not a theory. It is a sequence.

Step 1: The old order cracks.

The U.S. and Israel strike Iran. Iran strikes U.S. bases. Gulf states refuse alignment. Europe panics. Markets spike.

Step 2: The world recalibrates.

Insurance premiums rise. Shipping routes shift. Energy markets tighten. Alliances wobble.

Step 3: The Global South gains leverage.

Africa’s minerals become indispensable. Latin America’s oil becomes strategic. The Caribbean’s geography becomes critical. Asia’s supply chains diversify.

Step 4: Power becomes distributed.

No single actor can enforce order. Balance replaces dominance. Negotiation replaces assumption. Sovereignty replaces dependency.

This is the Great Repricing. Not as aspiration — but as reality.

VIII. The World That Emerges

The world emerging from this rupture is not the world of 1991, 2003, or even 2020.

It is a world where:

• The U.S. is powerful but constrained.

• Israel is capable but isolated.

• Iran is wounded but defiant.

• The Gulf is cautious but sovereign.

• Europe is anxious but dependent.

• China is quiet but calculating.

• Russia is opportunistic but limited.

• Africa is rising but underestimated.

• The Caribbean is small but strategically placed.

This is not the end of the old order. This is the beginning of the post‑order.

A world where power is not inherited — it is negotiated. A world where dominance is not assumed — it is tested. A world where sovereignty is not symbolic — it is strategic.

This is the world as it is. And the world as it is becoming.

Source / Comment

The Brothers and Sisters in The Bahamas - Love and Support Marvin Dames 100%

2026-02-26T17:16:00.000-08:00

To Know Marvin Dames - is to Love Marvin Dames

By Laurie Dames

For most of his adult life, my brother Marvin has served this country - The Bahamasnwith integrity and courage. From his years in the Royal Bahamas Police Force to his time as Minister of National Security, his record speaks for itself.

Recently, a young man who was in business with him made a reckless and illegal decision. He was caught, and he has taken full responsibility for his actions.

Let’s be clear about something. When you operate multiple businesses and employ over 100 people, you cannot be everywhere at once. You cannot monitor every move of every partner or employee 24 hours a day. That is simply not how business, or life, works.

Marvin did not commit this act. He was not involved in this act. And it is unfair and dishonest to suggest otherwise, especially for political gain.

Those who truly know him know his character. They know his commitment to law, order, and the safety of this nation. That has not changed.

I know Marvin will continue to live and serve with the same integrity and strength he always has.

#ISTAND with MARVIN DAMES - Mount Moriah Constituency

Source / Comment

What is Cubanism?

2026-02-19T05:27:00.000-08:00

Cubanism is about solidarity

“DEO ADJUVANTE, NON TIMENDUM

“WITH GOD AS MY HELPER, I HAVE NOTHING TO FEAR”

"CUBA WILL RISE"

By Dr Kevin Alcena

Because of the seemingly growing concept of rich /poor country relationship, concerns toward development countries and their policies have experienced a tremendous leap in international arenas in a relatively short period of time.

Much of this conversation was influenced by the teachings of the counter - revolution of the late - 1950s. Clearly, it was a revolution emphasizing the importance of promoting markets whilst cautioning the hazard of government policies in negatively affecting the benefit; to promote human development policies rather than concentrating on the physical capital, and the unappealing effect of some government polices toward economic.

In the past, the underlying cause of inadequate development were thought to be found in the lack of the criminal embargo that was imposed by the USA against Cuba. Now they do not want them to have oil. Shame! It took the arrival of the counter-revolution to divert the concentration elsewhere to a specific cause, which I feel will ultimately constitute a new trend for the like of 'Cubanism.

Today is a power trip; no empathy about how a person live off $20 pesos - this is crazy, especially a family with 5 little children. Where is the outcry? It is not even the superego judging the ego. It's our own capacity for lack of empathy, increasing until it becomes a kind of compulsion -neurosis where reverence and destruction alternate, and we reverently destroy our Cuba land. We deny The Cuban people their rights like little children.

Cubanism is about solidarity. Mandate of the people’s matter. This is Cubanism. Cuba is crying, I can't breathe, I lost my job, I have no food, I can't pay my rent, and my family abroad cannot help me because of the US embargo and restrictions.

Many Mothers cannot find food, and now many brothers are begging for food. Cuba cries, I can't breathe. We need global solidarity. Oh Lord. There is no dignity in this battleground of shame by so called elite-class in United States that is attempting to choke Cuba - as simple new styles of compulsion corruption by the imperialistic agenda that has no shame.

Cubanism solidarity is a science that has crushed the neo-fascism and has put Machiavellianism deceptive and clandestine plan that is instigated by US.

The inexhaustible spirit of the Cubanism has overcome negative karma.

The Cuban so -called neo-traditional pro-quo fascist elements in the Cuba are back, and Morologists USA is benefits it is no business - where is outcry? Trying to rewrite the Cuban history. Shame!

Our western culture, self-toxified by the poisonous egocentric ideology of imperialism and neo-fascism and the neo-traditional anachronism, is the unhappy heir of the terminator attitude that has precipitated an era of relentless upheaval and intense political propaganda in the decade-long economic growth from the Cubanism outstanding achievement for Cubans.

Salvery, based upon greed control and racism. We are witnessing in the Cuban type of economic slavery - ugly and diabolical form as in Cuba’s beautiful society. They want to stop oil from coming to Cuba, is a criminal act of humanity.

Solidarity is the key in this battleground of the most recent pandemic crisis; respect the law say home we will all overcome. I salute my beautiful Cuban people. Cuba will rise out of this crisis.

Cubanism at its code is solidarity for all citizens. 2026 and beyond will be a great year for this beautiful Cuban republic.

18 February 2026

Source / Comment

The Impact of Foreign Direct Investments on The Bahamian Economy in The Bahamas

2026-02-18T07:26:00.000-08:00

The Importance of Mandatory Economic Partnerships in The Bahamas

By Jamal Moss

Foreign direct investment has long contributed to Bahamian economy. However, the structure of this investment has often marginalised Bahamian policymakers and citizens, limiting their influence over national economic outcomes. Bahamians increasingly recognise that genuine progress is achieved when citizens control their resources and determine their own economic future. Revisiting and strengthening investment laws would ensure that Bahamians are not passive participants in development but active decision-makers and long-term beneficiaries of economic growth.

Economic Empowerment and Ownership

Compulsory alliances would place Bahamian ownership and leadership at the centre of wealth creation. Local equity participation ensures fairer profit distribution and greater reinvestment within the domestic economy. This approach promotes generational wealth, strengthens local entrepreneurship, and reduces economic dependency. Ownership also develops managerial skills, innovation, and professional capacity among Bahamian citizens, allowing economic growth to translate into meaningful social mobility and long-term financial stability.

Keeping Wealth Within Bahamas

The primary advantage of compulsory alliances is the retention of capital within the country. Profits generated by companies operating in The Bahamas are frequently repatriated abroad, limiting their long-term national impact (Syed et al., 2012). We must be conservative and intentional with this because when Bahamians hold equity and decision-making authority in foreign-led ventures, dividends, wages, and reinvestment remain within the domestic economy. This strengthens local financial institutions, increases government revenue, supports small and medium-sized enterprises, and stimulates sustained economic activity across multiple sectors of society. It is just good common sense.

National Security and Economic Sovereignty

Economic control is closely linked to national security. When foreign interests dominate key industries, national priorities can be undermined. Bahamian participation in ownership and governance ensures that strategic decisions align with national interests, cultural values, and sustainable development goals. Local involvement also improves accountability, transparency, and resilience during global economic shocks, protecting the country from external vulnerabilities.

Ending Second-Class Economic Status

Reforming investment legislation sends a clear message that Bahamian citizens are equal stakeholders in their own economy. With a common sense approach, we will get common sense results. Mandatory partnerships promote dignity, equity, and self-determination. Bahamians understand that meaningful development occurs when citizens exercise control over their resources and economic direction. Strengthening Bahamian ownership through law will result in a more inclusive, secure, and prosperous national economy.

FNM St. Barnabas Candidate, The Bahamas
Jamal Moss

Source / Comment

Caribbean Blog International

The geopolitical realities of the twenty-first - 21st century

The emerging international order

THE DECLINE OF IMPERIAL INTIMIDATION: THE WORLD IS MOVING BEYOND THE POLITICS OF DOMINATION

Imperialism is losing its power as a universal instrument of intimidation

Conclusion: A new era of sovereign equality

A Significant Question in Reference to (One Billion Dollars) $1,000,000.00 in Public Money of the National Investment Fund (NIF) - Spent by The Bahamas Government

A Truly Defining Moment for The Bahamian People and The Bahamas

A Moment That Must be Documented for Posterity

Nassau, The Bahamas: A National Investment Fund (NIF) is Not a Political ATM

The Bahamas is in Need of a Prudent Fiscal Culture

The Bahamas Is Not the Government’s Bank Account

Serious Questions and Concerns about the National Investment Fund (NIF) of The Bahamas

Nassau, The Bahamas: Was there LEGAL authority to channel money to an account in the name of the National Investment Fund and use those monies for those purposes - without the express approval of the board and investment committee as required by Bahamian law

The Caribbean is not ready for Artificial Intelligence (AI)

POLICY ADVICE NOTE 306-26: Re: WE CARIBBEANS ARE NOT READY FOR ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE!

Mission PAWsible in The Bahamas

Questions about Mission PAWsible from an Animinal Owner in The Bahamas

August 31, 2026 - Nassau, N.P., The Bahamas: Today marked the official launch of Mission PAWsible; a national initiative of the Ministry of Agriculture & Marine Resources focused on responsible pet ownership, public education, compliance, enforcement, animal welfare and safer communities.

A Socialist and Capitalist World

EVERY COUNTRY IS SOCIALIST AND EVERY COUNTRY IS CAPITALIST!

POLICY ADVICE NOTE 306-26 Re: GOLDING’s “SOCIALISM TURN” NEED NOT BE TO MANLEY’s

Questions for The Bahamas Power and Light (BPL)

A Timely Call for Executives of The Bahamas Power and Light (BPL) to Account to The Bahamian People and Nation

TO BAHAMAS POWER AND LIGHT WHICH IS OPERATED BY THE CORRUPT GOVERNMENT:

The Blessed and Eternal Spirit of Fidelism Universally Honoured

The Birth and Life of Fidelism in Our Awesome World...

FIDELISM

Fidelism will never be defeated. Solidarity will never perish. Happy Birthday, Papi, your spirit still breathes among us.

The Poor Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ)

FIDELISM Celebrated

Happy 100th Birthday in advance, Comandante Fidel Castro Ruz (1926–2016). Your place in history remains secure

FIDELISM- CENTENARIAN

The Political Contempt of Bahamian Teachers in The Bahamas

Discourteous Politics in Public Education in The Bahamas

The Bahamas Government Disrespectful to Bahamian Teachers. A slap in the face!

The concurrence of Justice Brett Kavanaugh in Trump v. Barbara (2026)

JUSTICE BRETT KAVANAUGH’S TEASE: THE ILLUSION OF STATUTORY SUFFICIENCY

Justice Kavanaugh's Concurrence in Trump v. Barbara and the Structural Limits of Legislative Power Over the Citizenship Clause

Wrong, Justice Clarence Thomas!

MR. JUSTICE CLARENCE THOMAS IS WRONG!

Patois Ban in Jamaica

THE REST OF THE WORLD STRUGGLES TO UNDERSTAND WHY JAMAICA REFUSES ITS OWN CULTURE!

Why would the Jamaican parliament ban the world’s favourite vernacular patois?

Venezuela and the Perils of Ceding Sovereignty

US imperialism is “not to be trusted even a little bit,” much less considered a “partner” in a “cooperation agenda.” - Che Guevara

The Council of State of the Republic of Cuba condemns the infamous accusation against leader of the Cuban Revolution, Army General Raúl Castro Ruz, leader of the Cuban Revolution

The Cuban People want Peace

"The General of the Army is Cuba, and Cuba must be respected"

"Year of the Centennial of Commander-in-Chief Fidel Castro Ruz."

Does The Haitian Constitution Trumps The Bahamian Constitution in The Bahamas

DOES THE HAITIAN CONSTITUTION TRUMPS OUR BAHAMIAN CONSTITUTION?

Political Issues in The Bahamas

Politics in The Bahamas

THE BAHAMAS: ELECTORAL REALITY, HISTORICAL STRUGGLE, AND THE WORK AHEAD

Why did the British Empire Collapsed?

The British Empire Didn’t Collapse in War — It Collapsed Through Its Currency

Most people think the British Empire fell because of war. That’s wrong.Britain won World War II.

But it lost something far more important afterward: Its money. And once a country loses its currency, it eventually loses everything else.

It's Time for The Caribbean’s Sovereign Rail

For fifty years, the global financial system ran on a single dominant rail. That era is over

The Caribbean is no longer a peripheral financial basin. It is positioned to become a sovereign settlement corridor.

The Caribbean’s sovereign rail is no longer theoretical.

It is the next structural move in a world no longer ruled from one capital.

The Caribbean’s tri‑rail system — British stability, Canadian banking, Caribbean sovereignty — becomes a zone of resilience.

And The Bahamas becomes the sovereign anchor of that zone.

Our World as It Is

THE WORLD AS IT IS

The Brothers and Sisters in The Bahamas - Love and Support Marvin Dames 100%

To Know Marvin Dames - is to Love Marvin Dames

For most of his adult life, my brother Marvin has served this country - The Bahamasnwith integrity and courage. From his years in the Royal Bahamas Police Force to his time as Minister of National Security, his record speaks for itself.

I know Marvin will continue to live and serve with the same integrity and strength he always has.

#ISTAND with MARVIN DAMES - Mount Moriah Constituency

What is Cubanism?

Cubanism is about solidarity

"CUBA WILL RISE"

Cubanism is about solidarity. Mandate of the people’s matter. This is Cubanism. Cuba is crying, I can't breathe, I lost my job, I have no food, I can't pay my rent, and my family abroad cannot help me because of the US embargo and restrictions.

The Impact of Foreign Direct Investments on The Bahamian Economy in The Bahamas

The Importance of Mandatory Economic Partnerships in The Bahamas

FNM St. Barnabas Candidate, The BahamasJamal Moss

Most people think the British Empire fell because of war. That’s wrong.
Britain won World War II.

FNM St. Barnabas Candidate, The Bahamas
Jamal Moss