Cobb: "Fighting each other all the way does not work."
United States Ambassador to Jamaica, Sue Cobb, will demit office early next year after being here for more than three years. She recently spoke with Earl Moxam about the experience.
EM: Ambassador, you have been in Jamaica for three years. Let's start with your impressions of the country before you arrived.
SC: I had only been to Jamaica one time before and it was immediately after Hurricane Gilbert (1988). At that time my husband was Under-Secretary of Commerce in the U.S. Govern-ment and was designated by President Reagan to come help do an assessment as to how the U.S. might be helpful after that hurricane. So, I'd have to say that the vivid impression in my mind was of the island in a state of destruction. The next vivid impression of Jamaica was simply a Sandals advertisement how beautiful it was. It wasn't until the Caribbean came into my life as a possibility for a spot to live and work that I really studied what was going on in the Caribbean.
EM: So upon arriving in Jamaica would you say that the contrasts that were conjured up in your mind became real?
SC: Yes, both. And by the time I came, I had already spent several months studying the whole environment and understood a great deal better than my initial very brief impressions. When I got here it wasn't as if anything was a surprise. I knew the general environment and I knew the general issues, and a lot of that has borne out to be the case.
EM: What would you pick out as the one or two most significant experiences for you?
SC: I was thinking about this actually in the context of our elections in the U.S. and of upcoming elections in Jamaica at some point in the not too distant future, and in terms of the United States engagement in Iraq and Afghanistan the world picture. What we will see on November 2, (will be) a snapshot. Here's where we are on this day. Now, if the U.S. elections were held today there would be a certain result. If the U.S. elections were held six months from now there could well be a different result, or a year from now, or two years from now. That's one of the things in the Parliamentary system (as in Jamaica) you have the opportunity sometimes to select when those elections occur to try to influence the results, I would say. So, to take a three-year period is just not long enough to say one thing was the most important or the most significant, and again, in an evolving world things change, radically, in two to three to five years... Everything is changing.
REFLECTING ON GLOBALISATION
EM: Relate that to Jamaica. How are we changing?
SC: Well, Jamaica also is changing, but I would be very hesitant to say exactly what the changes are in four years, because I think it is too short a time frame. However, I think it is fair to say, at least in my view, that there has been a strong effort which we are pleased to see at increasing investment in Jamaica to help raise the standard of living of the country.
There has been a strong effort to reach out to the Diaspora. I am one who believes after dealing with Jamaicans now for almost four years that once a Jamaican, always a Jamaican it doesn't matter where you are living. So bringing them into the family in a more formalised way is a good move.
This takes me to globalisation. Jamaica has to face the fact that we are in a globalised world! We all have to face that fact. Now, every single economic study will tell you that the aggregate benefits in a country on an economic basis, from every level, from the poorest to the richest, improves. They will also say that the distribution from the global effect is somewhat uneven. But globalisation is here and it's one of those situations where you can never put the genie back into the bottle.
EM: But some would suggest that there are forces in your country trying to put that genie back into the bottle. So, for example, as Jamaica loses economic opportunities in some areas like agriculture, and it tries to embark on new avenues such as the call centre operations, there are forces in the U.S. that would want to turn that back. And, therefore, that aggregate benefit of which you speak, countries like Jamaica find it difficult to grasp these new opportunities that arise.
SC: It's very fundamental, don't make it complicated! The people in the U.S. who seek to turn it back. There are definitely those who exist, but you've got to remember, that's pretty much a snapshot. The whole thing about globalisation is education, productivity and technology. Simple as that!
Focus on education and bring people to a point where they can make decisions and influence the future in a manner in which the rest of the world is looking at. It's largely technology-based.
Globalisation is threatening to a lot of people, obviously! And it's not just because people don't like change, that's one reason. But, as I stated earlier, the effects of globalisation are uneven. There are winners and losers, so clearly those who are in a position where they might lose what they have been used to, and might not have the opportunities for education, that's a serious problem. They're going to want to protect what they have, that's the way it works! Now, when we look at the economic structure of the world, we are very integrated, and I can't imagine how that could be unwound, all those strands, and that includes Jamaica and the U.S. on a bilateral basis.
ECONOMIC ADJUSTMENTS
EM: How impressed are you with Jamaica's efforts to adjust its economy to meet these realities?
SC: I guess I have mixed feelings about that. I think a lot of steps are really quite good and heading in the right direction. But these things don't change quickly. Again you have to be careful about looking at today as opposed to working through it for a period of time. I would have liked to see Jamaica moving more quickly three years ago on some of these things that are now going on.
EM: Such as?
SC: Well, prior to 9/11 even and then subsequent to it, I think that there are things that they could have done that could have taken place in the tourism industry that would have had the tourism industry in a better position to move forward now. The tourism industry is doing well now, but Jamaica has to be careful on this, in my judgement, because these things are cyclical. So you can't put all your eggs in one basket.
The efforts at diversification into the technological areas I think is good, the efforts at diversification into the energy area I think is good. Some folks in academia in the U.S. think it would be a good thing if oil went to a US$100 a barrel, because then our bright minds would focus on alternatives to oil.
And it would also mean that, in the States and possibly in Jamaica as well, every family who has three cars (would realise) they do not need all three. They would figure out how to ride together; pick each other up, car pool, whatever. So focusing on energy needs is an important thing.
Now one area in which I have been disappointed in Jamaica everybody pooling together works. Fighting each other all the way does not work. People say now that the U.S. is extremely divided. I frankly do not believe it's true. We might be divided in October over the election. That has nothing to do with our underlying values and how the U.S. views the world and how Americans will operate their lives and you see after any of our elections, people come back together immediately and start pulling for the American dream, freedom, democracy and all the things that we talk about.
EM: Let me take you now to one of the more difficult spots in your time here in Jamaica - that's relating to Haiti. Any regrets from your point of view as far as this was handled?
SC: Yes, I would say two things. Number one, I think we had a little bit of a communication gap. Where to put that blame is irrelevant. I do happen to know precisely what happened during that period of time, and as I refuse to look at things in a snapshot form, I refuse to go back and criticise. What happened, happened. I believe part of it was a communication situation and that's unfortunate.
The second thing is, I apologised to the Prime Minister for using the word 'unsophisticated' because the press and people took it as meaning that I was saying that the Prime Minister was unsophisticated, and that wasn't what I was saying. I was saying the reactions of the media, particularly in the U.S. and among certain persons was unsophisticated no analysis, no knowledge of what was happening. So, I regretted that. That's one word I used that I regretted over that Haiti situation. Otherwise I have no regrets, whatsoever, for defending our country and our leadership in the circumstances that transpired (in Haiti) in February.
EM: Today, there are continuing concerns regarding the situation in Haiti. How comfortable are you with the Latortue administration and how things are progressing there?
SC: Well, we continue to support the interim government of Haiti. What we would like to see, and what I think will happen is a stronger influx of United Nations troops. As you well know the UN has that particular responsibility right now and it is my understanding that there are something like 3,500 troops there now and right now I think we have 10 countries that are in the process of bringing additional troops in, which should help on the security side. So, are we comfortable supporting the interim government until we get to the election component? Yes, sir.
EM: There are some who suggest that this interim government is ethically challenged!
SC: I understand that some people suggest that.
EM: No concern on your part?
SC: I don't think you can characterise it as no concern. You watch all of that but you are dealing with a very difficult and complex situation. So, we watch it; we take note. You always have to what your alternatives are, you know.
EM: Let's get back to what seems to be the overriding concern for so many people, and you mentioned it earlier the crime situation. What more can be done to mitigate the situation?
SC: This is an area where I've made these statements before. Crime is a problem for Jamaica, for people in the U.S. I can tell you, look at a business here as having a three to five per cent security tax. Right off the back they know they're going to have to pay a security tax. People in the U.S. read the headlines in the newspapers.
I was in California last week and, to my surprise, when we talked about the fact that I was living in Jamaica, people feared for my safety and I assured them that I was quite safe. But the effect of the continual presentation and the headlines of the daily murders, that is not useful for Jamaica, that does not help Jamaica around the world. I'm disappointed that that continues because surely there are things of greater import that the news media could report on, that would not give a false impression.
EM: But hasn't that been institutionalised by the police force? They have come up with these weekly trotting out of murder statistics.
SC: Well, I don't know how that came about, whether it was demanded by the public or instituted by the police, and it's not constructive for me to get into details on crime. We would like to see some further prosecutions and some results when people are in fact found to be guilty of things and show the public that crime doesn't pay.
EM: As you prepare to leave Jamaica, are you going to do so with a greater level of optimism?
SC: Absolutely! I am one who believes that, given the changes occurring in the world, there are unbelievable opportunities. I also believe that Jamaica is well poised to take advantage of some of the advantages. I'm optimistic about Jamaica. The two issues, in my judgement, that would help Jamaica by leaps and bounds are to focus on continuing the crime initiatives (making sure that that's not a detriment to people visiting) and education. That's the bottom line, as everything henceforth is going to be about education.
