On mere suspicion

The statement last week by the Economic and Commercial Officer at the United States Embassy, Duncan Walker, that Trinidad and Tobago officials suspected of being involved in corrupt activities in this country could have their US visas revoked, is an unfortunate example not only of American interference in the internal affairs of another State, but of US arrogance.

We wish to make it clear that we have consistently opposed corruption both in the public and private sectors, and will continue to do so. However, we have equally insisted that action taken against corrupt officials should be consistent with the Rule of Law. This includes the gathering of evidence and the individual being charged and taken to Court on the basis of this evidence. And if the person is found guilty then, and only then, he or she should be punished. Apparently, the United States, on the basis of “where there is smoke” there is fire, is prepared to conduct its own investigations, reach its own conclusions and take any action it deems fit. What is troubling is that the US diplomat, who had been addressing a breakfast seminar hosted by the American Chamber of Commerce of Trinidad and Tobago, made no reference to due process.

Mr Walker has given an example of the revoking of a United States visa. In December of last year, the American Ambassador to Nicaragua simply went to the home of the former President of Nicaragua, asked for his passport and revoked his US visa. If what the locally assigned US diplomat has said is a faithful record of what transpired, and we have no reason to believe otherwise, then it represented cavalier treatment not only of a former Nicaraguan Head of State, but of the country itself. Would it not have been better for the United States to have advised him that his visa privileges had been withdrawn? Mr Walker, apparently unable to conceal his delight at the action taken against the former President of the Central American country, spoke of the “big headlines” it had made in Miami, “where a lot of Nicaraguans” live.

What would have been the reaction of the United States Government had another country sent its Head of Mission to the home of Richard Nixon, the disgraced late US President, demanded to see his passport, revoked the relevant visa and publicised the action? Another question arises. What if the visa of a senior Trinidad and Tobago Government official should be revoked, the action publicised in the United States and following on this he or she is cleared of all charges in a Court of Law? Which would take precedence as far as the United States is concerned, its conclusions based on unproven allegations or the findings of a properly constituted Court of Law? Would the United States be prepared to apologise to the official for its actions, or would it dismiss the Court findings as irrelevant and therefore inconsequential? What we find repugnant about Mr Walker’s statement is that the US, paragon of freedom and human rights, has no problem in dealing with outsiders in a manner that violates all its own celebrated principles. What if TT and other countries decide to treat US citizens in the same hearsay fashion?