THE Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) continues to jinx itself when it comes on to the PetroCaribe agreement between Venezuela and Jamaica. Were it not for my disdain for political sorcery, I would recommend that the JLP seek some “healing in the balm yard” to cut loose itself from its perennial short-sightedness.

As a compromise, however, the JLP should heed the following words from Governor General Sir Patrick Allen: “We must believe in our ability to be the difference we seek…We must resist the shackles of negativity that have held us back…We must use what is right with Jamaica to fix what is wrong with Jamaica…”

Simply put, political effectiveness does not mean that a party has to be first to comment on every issue, however precipitately. For, like a lizard on a limb, the JLP continues to expose its vulnerability and willingness to step out ahead of itself on issues that require serious thought, collaborative discussions, and sensible analysis. Political effectiveness does not require a party to sow seeds of doubt and discord on every open lot, especially when it knows that dissonance and suspicions are the very reasons for it remaining as an observer in the political pavilion. Instead, the JLP would serve itself well by rediscovering the benefits of having a credible foreign policy, and recovering its sense of pragmatism and optimism because its survival depends on them.

On the issue of foreign policy and diplomacy, the People’s National Party (PNP) continues to outfox the JLP. It has landed many good returns, despite howls of protest over PNP prime ministers’ foreign travels. Undoubtedly, the benefits from many of these trips and relationships continue to have a positive impact on the lives of the majority of Jamaicans.

This brings me to the PetroCaribe deal and attempts by the JLP to pour cold water over the current debt-buy deal. The JLP can say what it wants about the “incompetent” and “do nothing” PNP governments of the 1970s, 1990s, early-to-mid-2000s, and even current. However, and truthfully, the PNP used its good friendship with Former Venezuelan President Carlos Andres Perez during the mid-70s and early 90s as the basis to cement mutually beneficial ties with Venezuela — ties that eventually gave birth to the PetroCaribe Agreement under the late Hugo Chavez.

Jamaica has always had a more robust foreign policy and international profile under PNP governments than under JLP governments, except with the Americans during the Cold War era. For, whether it was its relationships in Socialist International, or the late Dudley Thompson’s defence of Jomo Kenyatta of Kenya during the “Mau-Mau” trials, Jamaica, through the PNP, has always elevated its profile on the world stage.

We should not allow politics to cause us to deny the beneficial links that the PNP fostered in the Non-Aligned Movement and the South Commission, especially under the leadership of Julius Nyerere of Tanzania. Nor should we underestimate its role in creating Caricom. These were all noble actions done in pursuit of Jamaica’s advancement and national interests.

Certainly, it is not just securing the PetroCaribe deal, but by leveraging the various relationships, that successive PNP governments have managed to haul in hundreds of billions of dollars in grant-aid from the European Union and elsewhere.

History is not a one-sided affair. For while forgiveness is divine, forgetfulness is a perilous endeavour in both politics and political discourse. The JLP is famous for “drawing bad card” with respect to the PetroCaribe Agreement. We must never be shy to highlight this truth. It was not by happenstance that on September 6, 2005, the JLP, under the leadership of Bruce Golding, carried out an islandwide demonstration against the PNP Government. The demonstrations occurred on the same day that former Prime Minister P J Patterson was hosting Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, Cuban President Fidel Castro, and senior delegations from Caricom states, the Dominican Republic, and Montserrat for the signing of the PetroCaribe agreement in Montego Bay. Yet, the JLP continues to “draw bad card” on PetroCaribe a full year later.

Lest we forget, former Prime Minister Bruce Golding, while speaking at an Area Council One JLP meeting at the Scouts Headquarters on Camp Road in Kingston, on Sunday June 11, 2006, issued a stern warning to first-term Prime Minister Portia Simpson Miller. Golding said, “We must not sell out the foreign policy interest of this country because of a few barrels of oil…” In fairness, Golding issued the warning within the context of Venezuela’s push for a seat on the United Nations Security Council and the need for Jamaica to preserve its long-standing relationship with the USA. Nothing is inherently wrong with that advice. Even so, context or no context, Golding continued, “I, as prime minister, would never allow Jamaica to be conscripted into an anti-US crusade and campaign. We don’t have no oil in Jamaica to back us up when the consequences of that hit us…” Guess what, the JLP won the 2007 elections, Golding became prime minister, but the PetroCaribe deal remained in place and completely unmolested.

That excursus notwithstanding, let us fast-forward to present day, but specifically to the US$1.5-billion PetroCaribe buyback deal that the Government has negotiated as part of a bigger US$2-billion bond placement on the international bond market.

Bad card number one: Before ink could dry on the deal, a battery of JLP spokespersons on finance, led by internationally renowned financial expert, Teacher Higgins, but with the affable Audley Shaw, Aubyn Hill, Fayval Williams, and the irrepressible Andrew Holness following closely, started to discredit the deal by calling it ‘a bad deal’. Shaw, for his part, and as expected, said: “The deal is bad for Jamaica because the Government should have sought multilateral funding at cheaper interest rates…” On the face of it, that suggestion would have been reasonable had Shaw taken time to familiarise himself with the restrictions these multilaterals (namely, the World Bank, the Inter-American Development Bank, and the International Monetary Fund) placed on their institutions with respect to the maximum amount of money they would lend Jamaica. Shaw’s first theoretical straw man came tumbling down, and in embarrassing fashion, after information hit the street that we have already, or are close to maxing out our available credit with these multilaterals.

PetroCaribe bad card number two was as fluffy as theoretical straw man number one was. Upon realising that he was giving himself and his party the proverbial basket to carry water by continuing to see a good deal as “bad”, Shaw dropped the multilateral funding gig. He suddenly realised that the buy-back deal was bad because “the Government is ‘deceptive’ and should have brought the deal before Parliament for discussion…” Again, and on the face of it, the suggestion would have been a reasonable one had Shaw refreshed his diary. Parliament went on summer break on Tuesday, July 21, 2015; the deal was brokered on July 23, 2015. Parliament resumes its sittings in September.

The JLP has no compunction to be repeatedly wrong in its assessment of the PetroCaribe buy-back deal as being “a bad deal”. And, besides its best efforts not to appear to be constantly “opposing, opposing, opposing”, it is proving itself to be doing just that and nothing more.

The third theoretical straw man and PetroCaribe “bad card” the JLP has drawn, is that the deal is a bad one because “the PetroCaribe debt does not trouble anybody…” All debt, cheap or expensive, is a bother to both debtor and creditor alike. Yes, it is true that the US$3-billion PetroCaribe debt is largely self-financing and cheap, but it is not gratis. Yes, the lower interest rates of between one and two per cent are mathematically more favourable than the new 6.75 per cent and 7.878 per cent. However, the higher interest will be levied on a 51 per cent lower principal amount — Jamaica is replacing a US$3-billion debt with a US$1.5-billion one, this is a massive debt discount and is deserving of celebration.

The fourth PetroCaribe “bad card” the JLP has drawn is as silly as the third theoretical straw man it constructed on the argument that the deal will create “unnecessary cash flow pressure at a time of austerity…” In fact, there will be a cash flow positive. The deal is good because the new bonds will effectively lower the amortisation costs associated with the PetroCaribe debt. Jamaica will pay less money for debt service of over US$250 million, principal and interest repayments combined, and in spite of the difference in interest rates between the funds raised on the international capital markets and those paid under the PetroCaribe Agreement.

The PetroCaribe buy-back deal is a good deal for Jamaica. The JLP has not proved it to be otherwise, despite its many efforts to call it and make it appear “bad” for Jamaica. Debt sustainability is one of the key measurements that international investors and lenders use in assessing whether or not to invest or lend. Therefore, to the extent that Jamaica has an opportunity to reduce its consolidated national debt by 10 per cent of GDP, the Government would be derelict not to grab the opportunity — short-term pain notwithstanding. Jamaica is a US$15-billion economy with a debt-to-GDP ratio of 135 per cent, which is high by international standards. This buy-back deal could help the country become more competitive; increase investor confidence, economic activities, and growth.

Burnscg@aol.com