September 18, 2000

JAMAICANS UNITED AGAINST POLICE BRUTALITY 

 Dear Friends,

 Below is our response to Nadi Edwards’ concern about our threat to call for a boycott of tourism if the Jamaican government refuses to end state support of police executions.

  For the benefit of those newly added to our list we include our original press release to which Nadi responded.  We made further comments to which Nadi responded and these are attached as well.

  We look forward to your comments.

  Until our website is officially launched this is our discussion format.

  Lloyd D’Aguilar
  Coordinator
  Jamaicans United Against Police Brutality

  Dear Nadi,

  Our press release merely says that if the government continues to ignore calls for an end to police executions then those who live abroad (Jamaicans and concerned friends of Jamaica) might very well have to call for an international boycott of tourism as a way of putting pressure on the government.

  One of the goals of our upcoming rally at Medgar Evers College in Brooklyn is to raise money to publish our petition to the prime minister as full-page ads in the Jamaican newspapers.  Our main demand is that the Coroner's Court must hear ALL cases of police killings so that a determination can be made as to whether the killing are justified or not.

  At the moment the police kill with impunity since they rarely have to give any answers other than to issue a press release saying that the person they killed was part of a shootout. We also remind the government knows of its legal and moral obligations to end this practice since no one doubts that police executions are explicitly and implicitly sanctioned by state and government.  As a further step, if government continues to ignore our demands  (shared by local and international human rights organizations and individuals) then we reserve the right to call for a boycott of the tourist industry.

  There is therefore a big gap between publishing our petition, agitating for our demands and taking the final step to advocate a boycott of tourism.  Many of the things you have mentioned would certainly have to be taken into consideration because we would want such a move to have support among the Jamaican people first and foremost.  We have no disagreement about that at all.

  What I think you fail to appreciate however is that we live in this so-called global economy and short of gunboat diplomacy the easiest way to influence a political situation in another country is through the use of economic leverage. Jamaicans outside of Jamaica help to keep the economy afloat with their remittances. The politicians are aware of this. Jamaicans are not so aware however how much leverage this gives them were they politically organized. It is only logical therefore that whenever Jamaicans finally get their political act together this is one of the options they are going to use or consider in order to get results.

  As brave as is the British government's decision to hold up the delivery of 500 guns to the police I do not think that it is possible to sustain any pressure re an arms boycott of Jamaica's security forces. Jamaica is not in a civil war and there is no big demand for weapons by the state.  I can't imagine why they need 500 guns in the first place. They have enough to keep on killing for quite a while. At this point, the British decision is merely an irritant.

  Baroness Scotland (black british member of Parliament and member of Blair's government) is on her way to Jamaica and the odds are that she will work out a deal with the Jamaican government. Prime Minister PJ Patterson and KD Knight (minister of national security) will tell her about the dangerous conditions under which the police operate, the alleged firepower the criminals have, the wonderful changes they have instituted to check police abuses, and how much of a democratic country Jamaica really is because we have freedom of the press.   A lot of crap we all know.  But Britain has more in common with Patterson and company than they have differences, and the Baroness will tell them to go and sin no more and the guns will soon be on the way.

  Calling for a boycott of tourism, on the other hand is to start a propaganda war, at a minimum, with Jamaican businessmen such as Butch Stewart, and the ruling class in general.  This national schizophrenia about image is real as is evidenced by frenetic tourism campaigns abroad after each national crisis. (Gas price demonstrations, street people affair, increase in the crime rate etc.)

  Above all, we need to begin a national discussion about who benefits from tourism. Issa? Butch Stewart? Or those who literally sell themselves to the tourist in order to stay alive?  The resources commanded by these handful of moguls, as they are proudly and affectionately called in the Jamaican media, not to mention state subsidy generously lavished on them, is the real reason for marginal dependency of the many. These filthy rich men are by no means indispensable to the operation of the tourist industry and the sooner the industry is democratized the better the chance there is for the industry to have meaning to those who have been devastated, not helped as we are brainwashed into believing. I do not therefore see tourism as some sacred cow!

  The role of the intellectual is to seize opportunities to engage in more accurate public education rather that to fall prey to the false ideology spread by the Stewart and Issa pimps and their cohorts in the state and the media.   In any struggle sacrifices are inevitable. There is no need to hide that from people who are already poor and struggle every day of their lives. The poor in South Africa were willing to endure more pain in order to bring down the apartheid regime. Jamaica is not South Africa. But I would like to remind you that in the 1980s when the police sometimes killed over 300 people, this was on a per capita basis as high or higher than the killings, which were taking place in South Africa, then in the midst of a civil war. There was no civil war in Jamaica then. There is still no civil war in Jamaica and they are killing an average of 150 young men each year.  So we must be careful how we dismiss the seriousness of our own situation and how it measures up to other places.

  In Jamaica, there is no movement comparable to the ANC but maybe we should try to build one not bemoan its lack thereof.  It is an absolute non-starter trying to build such a movement to bring about social change and to begin by harping on the negatives. In such a campaign we need to inspire by showing what can be accomplished by struggle and sacrifice and that there are always alternatives to the present conditions. Bob Marley said it well that when one door is closed many more are opened.

  Finally, it is clear that the government has no intention of abiding by those abstract, simplistic civilized principles of human rights such as the right to life. (That was the tone of sarcasm in your letter.)  Patterson says that homosexuals will continue to live their lives at their own risk; Patterson appoints a Commission of Enquiry to absolve the state of any wrongdoing in the kidnapping of street people; Patterson is upset about the privy council's reprieve of those on death row; Patterson appoints notorious Renato Adams to continue the police siege in the inner cities; Patterson gets Amnesty International to help him get his guns from the British; and on and on. We are in for a big fight to bring dignity to the lives of Jamaica's poor.

  It is going to require a protracted mix of strategies and tactics to change what we have inherited from our colonial past. Most important at this stage is remove the intellectual cobwebs. To overcome our mortal fear of the ruling class and develop the necessary confidence in, and appreciation of the people's ability to run tings.  In that way we will be bold in our actions and thoughts without any need to cower. That is the only way.

  Lloyd

   PRESS RELEASE

  Thursday September 14, 2000

  Jamaicans United Against Police Brutality welcomes the decision of British authorities to suspend shipment of guns to the Jamaica Constabulary Force pending assurances about improved human rights practices. In particular,  the JCF is notorious for its policy of executing innocent young men in inner city communities.  During the ‘90s an average of 150 people have been killed each year and almost each killing has been contested by eyewitnesses who dispute police stories  about shootouts.

  Responsibility for the police rests with the Jamaican government and there have been absolutely no expressed  concern about this systemic practice of executions. Nor have there been any attempt to deal with other aspects police corruption. The fact that few policemen have been brought before the courts, much less convicted for these murders, can only lead to the conclusion that the government is the architect of this gross abuse of citizens' right to life.  A separation cannot be made between the government and the policeman who pulls the trigger.

  JUAPB is calling for an international campaign of outrage against the Jamaican government. Specifically, we are asking for a suspension of all arms shipment to Jamaica's security forces. Education is a much worthier and productive way of spending taxpayer's money.

  If the Jamaica government continues to defiantly ignore the criticisms of its citizens, Jamaican human rights organizations and activists, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, the US State Department, and now the British, then we believe that it is in order to call for an international boycott of Jamaica as a tourist destination.

  The right to life is the most fundamental tenet of any civilized society and where a government does not respect this right then all means necessary must be used to ensure compliance with  civilized norms and practices.

 NADI'S FIRST LETTER

  While I thoroughly abhor the deplorable human rights record of  the  Jamaican security forces, I suspect that a call for a tourism boycott of  Jamaica ignores certain realities that can lead to unintended negative  social and economic consequences. The road to hell is always paved with  good intentions, and good intentions are always suspect especially when  their consequences will not be felt by those who propose and implement  them. With all due respect, I think that the boycott proposal needs to be  replaced by more creative measures that can pinpoint the offending  institutions rather than subjecting an already impoverished population to  economic sanctions ( which is what a tourism boycott amounts to, given the  importance of tourism to the Jamaican economy).  I don't want to see  Jamaica subjected to the kind of punitive sanctions regime that will offset  any attempts by a poor, struggling country to stand on its feet.  Impoverishment is not a good way to conduct a human rights campaign.  Poverty only increases the chances of violence, greater social instability,  and more repression.

  I think that it would be better to call for continuing sanctions against  all kinds of arms and militaristic training for the security forces, with  the proviso that the latter would have to immediately effect a human rights  oriented recruiting, training, and dismissal programme.  Any proposals  regarding the curbing of state violation of human rights must also address  the question of people's social and economic rights, since human rights  cannot occur in a vacuum. I think that the issues of landlessness, the  asymmetrical distribution of resources, the deplorable state of legal and  judicial institutions, the cost of legal representation, the pervasive  acceptance of a code of violent retribution, and the medieval penal  regimes, all need to be put on the table.  Human rights will remain an  abstract term, if it cannot be located within these concrete social issues.  Instead of proposing a tourism boycott, why not propose a concerted  rethinking of current international assistance to the Jamaican security  forces. No more arms, no more paramilitary training, only assistance  guaranteed to reshape the police force into an institution that sees itself  as part of and the defender of civil society.

  To demand a total overhaul of the force is not as sexy as the immediacy of  direct action,  but its effects will be more substantive. A boycott can  generate negative backlash among the populace who might interpret it as a  call to back national sovereignty against interfering do-gooders. The  majority sentiment in Jamaica , at the moment, while opposed to police  brutality, is still very much in favour of hanging, and a significant  minority support the extrajudicial executions of  suspects. Any upsurge in  crime tilts the balance toward calls for more aggressive and repressive  police actions. Furthermore, a few cosmetic changes here and there could  result in the lifting of the boycott, after which things will return to the  normal pattern of brutality.

  Without being cynical, I also need to raise the concerns of  those who  point out the hypocrisy of Britain and the U.S -as nations that routinely  supply repressive regimes and security forces with weapons and training.  Jamaicans are not a naive people, and I have heard people mention the moral  inconsistencies of policies that can condemn Jamaican police brutality  while supplying the murderous Columbian military with massive amounts of  aid, aiding the misogynistic oil-rich Gulf states, and implementing  genocidal sanctions against Iraqis, etc;. All of these factors can lead to a  total distrust of humans right measures that are premised on international  boycotts and sanctions. This is not to say that the British and American  concerns and measures are wrong. On the contrary, I think that they are  totally accurate. But the question of situational ethics will haunt  national perception of any proposed economic boycotts.  Sanctions that are  not supported by the Jamaican populace will ultimately fail. ( Just look at  the collapse of the EU sanctions against Austria).

  I am heartened by the fact that organizations like JUAPB exist to carry the  torch of conscience. A friend of mine was executed, along with two other  men, by the police in 1985.  Their deaths and those of the many other  victims of police brutality in this country have gone unmarked and   unpunished. Hopefully, JUAPB will reverse this trend, but it is important  to recognize the complexities of struggle. The vocabulary of civility,  civilized, and civilization, can sometimes be too simplistic, especially in  the Caribbean context which has seen the barbarism of civilizing  missions.  I  am not a believer in such absolute terms, but I want to see  the issues of justice, dignity, peace, equality before the law, shelter,  food, education, and health all brought to the table in any attempt to  redress the callous bloodletting that currently passes itself off as  national security.

  Thank you for bringing this matter to my attention. I look forward to your  work on behalf of human rights, and I hope that my comments might, at the  very least, stimulate some thinking and rethinking around the kinds of  measures needed to force the government to address the matter.

  All the best in your striving for justice

  Nadi Edwards

OUR COMMENTS 

Dear Friends,  Below is the response of Nadi Edwards to our September 14 Press Release calling for a suspension of any more international shipment of weapons to the Jamaican Security forces. Nadi takes exception to our belief that if the Jamaican government does not take timely and concrete steps  to end state practice of police executions then it might be necessary to call for an international boycott of Jamaica as a tourist destination.

  We would like to invite your comments and begin a discussion as to what ought to be done.  At this time our only response is to ask whether international sanctions wasn't one of the major reasons why today we have a black government and basic democratic rights for the South African black majority. We strongly believe that the human rights of citizens who live in the inner cities of Jamaica are undermined by the police siege under which they live and until this siege is lifted any notion of Jamaica being a democratic society is  a cruel hoax. Those Jamaicans and others (friends of Jamaica) who live outside of Jamaica must make a decision as to the best way they can contribute to  bring this deplorable and criminal practice to an end.

  What do you think?

 I note your comment re my response, and I would just like to say that in  the South African case, the Black majority supported the sanctions against  the apartheid regime.  Why not put the matter to the test and try to  generate public support for sanctions in Jamaica? At least the folks here  should be given an opportunity to state their position about proposals that  will directly affect them. If there is popular support for sanctions here,  then I won't have any problems with a tourism boycott. But democracy must  be practiced, not merely preached. Of course, police executions compromise  the nature of democracy in Jamaica, but that doesn't mean that JUAPB must  not attempt to at least propose measures that have the support of the populace.

  Analogies between South Africa and Jamaica must be rooted in concrete  historical and social realities on the ground.  While there are certain  similarities, there are also absolute differences that cannot be simply  shunted aside merely to make a moral argument. There were liberation  movements on the ground that also influenced the apartheid state's  decisions, and the ending of the Cold War  removed South Africa's  usefulness as an anti-communist bulwark  in sub-Saharan Africa. The  morality of JUAPB's cause is certainly beyond question, but the rightness  of a cause does not necessarily guarantee a positive outcome. My point is  that there are enough examples of ruinous sanctions regimes to make us  think twice before we call for such policies. The Jamaican economy is in no  way or form comparable to that of apartheid-era South Africa, the strongest  economy on the African continent.

  Has JUAPB started a grassroots campaign in Jamaica to mobilize support for  its proposals? Has it tried to canvas the opinions of people who work in  the tourism sector about their feelings regarding such a boycott? Has it  conducted surveys of the likely economic impact on Montego Bay, Ocho Rios,  Negril, and the North Coast in general? These are not rhetorical questions.  They cut to the heart of the matter regarding the issue of moral causes and  the strategies and tactics used to effect humanitarian activism. I want to  know if you know how the people you want to help feel about the methods  that you propose to use. Perhaps, people in these communities might support  your proposals, or they might offer other solutions . The point is that to  call for a boycott without their input amounts to a kind of missionary  arrogance that may well backfire and result in more support for repressive  police tactics.

  I can tell you that the situation on the ground here in Jamaica is somewhat  complicated in terms of how citizens react to police brutality.  Most taxi  drivers froth at the mouth if you oppose the death penalty. They also  fervently support heavy handed police tactics against alleged criminals,  because taxi drivers have been victims of a wave of robberies, murders, and  kidnappings.  On the other hand, they vehemently denounce what they see as  police harassment of taxi drivers. Similarly, an inner city community will  denounce police killings of  its members, but there is little solidarity  shown when people from a rival community are similarly gunned down by the  police. The fractious and factional nature of  social divisions, urban  rivalries and turf wars has so far prevented the emergence of a unified  front on the issue of police brutality. There is also a disturbing pattern  of citizens lynching crime suspects. Given the pervasive presence of  violence and the acceptance of violence as a tool for resolving conflicts,  JUABP needs to do its work on the ground, at the grassroots level, in order  to generate some kind of consensus about the strategies and tactics that  can best force the state to reform the police force.

  I can tell you that the Jamaican government will of course bow to any  pressure exerted by an international boycott. But state implemented  measures will always be cosmetic unless the institutional culture of the  police and the use of violence as the way to solve social problems are also  changed. Within a year or two, the police will return to their old ways,  and it will be the Wild West again in the streets of Kingston. What then?  Another boycott? We need to think carefully and creatively when choosing  tactics because the latter , unlike moral positions, require complexity,  nuance, and fine tuning.

  Best...

  Nadi 
 

Click here to return to Jamaicans United Against Police Brutality homepage.