Dear Editor,

Some time ago, I suggested that it would be understandable, and indeed commendable, if the administration’s representations to the United States government on the Christopher Coke extradition case were intended to prevent severe social and economic repercussions for the Jamaican society and people. The caveat was that it could not be an attempt to prevent extradition, unconditionally, but to accede in a way that would protect against probable destructive consequences locally. Apparently, there is now further evidence alongside the prime minister’s passing allusions in the House and the Minister of Justice’s spirited defence in the Senate (minus the caveat), to give this point of view some credence.

The problem is that the artless way in which the entire extradition affair was handled, weakens the case for credibility, especially if Mayor McKenzie did indeed present Mr Coke as an essential collaborator and partner in the government’s strategic plan to fight crime. For not only cynics and detractors are likely to conclude that he was arguing against extradition, without concomitant assurance that the allegations of criminality would be prosecuted in the Jamaican courts.

All of this, linked with reports of the meeting between the PM’s wife and the US embassy, betray unfamiliarity with the way diplomatic relations are conducted. There is really nothing inherently wrong or unusual in these types of contact, back channel or otherwise. But, to be done professionally, these need careful strategic and tactical planning. Foreign diplomatic representatives must be recognised as trained and adept at what they do. Even informal interactions with them must be seen in this way, for they are assumed to report home on their activities while seeking, in all sorts of circumstances, to gather and interpret information. There is a fine line – if any – between representational and friendly social contacts.

The least we can hope for is that any such approaches in the future will be preceded by careful preparatory briefing on objective, content and skilful presentation, with debriefing to follow by those competent to do so. This is necessary for strict consistency with government’s policy on the subjects to be discussed and how they are to be presented to ensure “remaining on message”. Otherwise, we run the dangerous risk of being seen as clueless, and worse, might even compromise national interests.

In addition to clearing up the ambiguities in the case as presented by the Government, the question of process is one area on which the commission of enquiry into the extradition issue could throw some light.

H Dale Anderson

hdaleanderson@hotmail.com