1st World Caribbean?

[Bill Cameron]

Gents,

I'm not going the touch the Anglophone bit because that's just a red herring.

I am going to suggest that you're all trying to do this with PODs set to far in the past. Seriously.

First, Ikaika wants the Caribbean to be "primarily" in the 1st World. "Primarily" to my mind means a majority and not a super majority either. So, we've got to juggle things so that a majority of the Caribbean's population lives in 1st World or near 1st World standards.

Second, aside from Singapore please point to a current 1st World nation in the tropics. Don't worry, I can't point to one either. That's why I believe we're all looking for PODs too far in the past. We'll need modern technology to pull this off, even post-WW2 technology, because we're going to need air conditioning, telecoms, stable international banking, and reasonably free trade.

Third, Singapore. That's our model in this endeavor. Poor in every resource but people and, if you know what you're doing, people are the only resource you need. It is not even a democracy in the Western sense, but it is stable and possesses the rule of law which is all that investors and business people need to see.

Pick an island or islands, small will be better than big, so the likes of Cuba, Jamaica, and Hispaniola are out. After 1945, have the Caribbean version of Lee Kuan Yew come to power. Have a technocrat, an engineer, a pragmatist, come to power and not the usual ideology besotted lawyer/poet/labor leader/professor assclowns or comic opera military buffoons who have combined to destroy nations and peoples across the 3rd World with their deeply held fantasies and personal greed.

Put someone in charge who knows how to work, can discern his anus from a hole in the ground, is apolitical, is reasonably honest, fairly aesthetic, and then them keep him there for a few decades.

After that, follow the Asian Tigers' development trajectory.

By the 1970s our Caribbean Tiger(s) will be doing well enough to spawn imitators and other Caribbean nations should begin adopting policies with varying degrees of success. Throw in access to the US via more MFN treaties (or an early and/or expanded NAFTA), plus more access to the EU via the usual "Sorry We Made You Colonies"v hand wringing, and these Caribbean Tigers and Semi-Tigers will be better situated to trade with the 1st World than their Asian counterparts.

Clone Singapore in the Caribbean and you may have shot of pulling this off.


Bill

 

[Alex Richards]

Possibly combine what Bill's said with a more succesful West Indies Federation to create the oppurtunity for many islands to do a Singapore

 

[Hendryk]

Oh yes, British influence would solve everything. Because Belize, Jamaica, and Guyana are such shining examples of First World economies.

I have to share the puzzlement over the utopian view a lot of people on this forum seem to have when it comes to British imperialism. Want a place to turn out better than in OTL? Make it a British colony! Never mind that countries like Pakistan, Bangladesh, Burma, Sudan, Zimbabwe, etc., were all British colonies, and what shining examples of successful development they now are!

I'm also deeply skeptical about the "annexation by the USA" solution that has been suggested to make Caribbean island richer. The USA were in charge of Haiti in OTL, how has that turned out? An American Cuba would basically be Alabama with more coastline. I fail to see the improvement.

So, by default, I second Bill Cameron's suggestion. The problem is that it's not just a question of putting the right person in charge; you also need reasonably high levels of human capital to get started with. Singapore worked out because it had an educated, business-savvy population.

 

[Mr.Wigglemunch]

I have to share the puzzlement over the utopian view a lot of people on this forum seem to have when it comes to British imperialism. Want a place to turn out better than in OTL? Make it a British colony! Never mind that countries like Pakistan, Bangladesh, Burma, Sudan, Zimbabwe, etc., were all British colonies, and what shining examples of successful development they now are!

Its true, people have a very rose-tinted view of the British Empire, however if you look at the British Empire I believe a far higher percentage of their colonies turned out better than other colonial Empires. These include Malta, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Hong Kong, Singapore, Malaysia and if I wanted to be a tease I could chuck in the USA.

I also believe Papua New Guinea although 1/3 under the poverty line ( primarily because they live in rural villages wishing to keep to their ancestral ways thus not getting medicine easily ) could be argued as doing well as a country even though it is not of the first world although it could transition into a Holiday paridise in the near future bringing in the big bucks.

I think its these examples that people want the likes of the Carribean to follow ( excluding Papua ). But yes I completely agree with Bill Cameron, however I think if it goes along the lines of Malaysia rather than Singapore you have a greater chance of getting a "Carribean Federation".

 

[bastian]

I think that the best option is an early independence of Cuba at the same time of the rest of Iberoamerica.

 

[Julius Vogel]

Well, it is a matter of analysing the sucessful colonies and seeing if there is an actual pattern - so in Australia/NZ/Canada etc you could say that it could be any number of a combination of:

1) Mass British settlement rather than just rule, 2) Long term, easy access to British capital and technology, 3) Equal/ respectful treatment of the settlers on a legal/political and economic basis by the colonial power, 4) strong focus on education in the early settler periods, 5) strong colonial government led infrastructure investment, 6) easy transference of working political/social/legal models to the colonies, 7) Provision of active military support for external defence, 8) External guarantee of the developing constitutional order during the vulnerable period - by this I mean Britain would not have allowed any kind of obvious coup in the three named examples during their first century of development (this is hugely important), 9) constant two way communication/transference of ideas, people and culture and 10) Shared etho-cultural identity amongst the dominant colonising population

But what exactly worked and what can be copied in other places is not quite so certain

 

[Lusitania]

My idea is that the Canadian confederation happens in the mid 1840s at the time of the Upper and Lower Canada Rebellion. Then during the American civil war the British Caribean falls under Canadian controll which eventually results in they becoming 4 seperate Canadian provinces by 1900.

 

[Corbell Mark IV]

I have to share the puzzlement over the utopian view a lot of people on this forum seem to have when it comes to British imperialism. Want a place to turn out better than in OTL? Make it a British colony! Never mind that countries like Pakistan, Bangladesh, Burma, Sudan, Zimbabwe, etc., were all British colonies, and what shining examples of successful development they now are!

I'm also deeply skeptical about the "annexation by the USA" solution that has been suggested to make Caribbean island richer. The USA were in charge of Haiti in OTL, how has that turned out? An American Cuba would basically be Alabama with more coastline. I fail to see the improvement.

So, by default, I second Bill Cameron's suggestion. The problem is that it's not just a question of putting the right person in charge; you also need reasonably high levels of human capital to get started with. Singapore worked out because it had an educated, business-savvy population.

Well, shockingly enough, I agree!

Mostly.

Although I think in order to get a majority 1st world it would be better with a bigger country like Cuba.

Also perhaps some lobbying to hinder development of gambling in the US, so all the money that goes into Vegas goes into Havanna.

Although I realize that tourism and gambling have a lot of attendant problems, it is still a crapload of money to pour into a country (even if a lot of it doesn't stay there).

 

[Nikephoros]

-snip-

I think a problem you need to overcome to get a Singapore analogue is the relative lack of shipping lanes going through there. The Panama Canal has a good number of routes going through there, but not nearly as much as the Malacca Strait. I think the need an island that sits astride those routes, and can serve as an important port, like Singapore.

EDIT: It seems that there is nearly the same amount of lanes, but I still think the Straits of Malacca has the lead in traffic.

 

[Alex Richards]

On the subject of whether British Imperialism = benefits:

Clearly there is never a case where every former colony of a nation will be great. However we can talk about the general case. In doing so I've complied something of an attempt at ranking, from worst to best.

Belgium- Only Colony was the Congo. Now DRC, Rwanda and Burundi. Don't need to expand on that.
Italy- Somalia and Libya. True Somalia owes more to US intervention in TWOT, but still a valid point.
Germany- Tanzania, Namibia and Samoa are all right, though given what happened in SW Afrika that seems more likely to be due to British Influence after WWI.
Spain/Portugal- Interchangeable. Clearly there are issues with the South American Nations. How much of this is down to the colonial regimes is a matter of debate. Too difficult to tell really.

The top 4 are pretty much interchangeable to an extent.

France- Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco are fine, bad examples in Gabon and Indochina.
US- Allright, but did the military presence in Haiti, Cuba etc. actually do long term good?
Britain- Many good examples, many bad. Seeing as ex-British colonies make up the largest single group in the G-20 (excluding or including the US), there must be something good going on. The sheer size meant that there were bound to be a good number of bad examples though.
Holland- Indonesia, Antilles, Suriname. None of them seem to have done too badly at all.

 

[Atreus]

On the subject of whether British Imperialism = benefits:

Clearly there is never a case where every former colony of a nation will be great. However we can talk about the general case. In doing so I've complied something of an attempt at ranking, from worst to best.

Belgium- Only Colony was the Congo. Now DRC, Rwanda and Burundi. Don't need to expand on that.

True. A lot of the regions problems can be traced back, on some level, to the belgians

Italy- Somalia and Libya. True Somalia owes more to US intervention in TWOT, but still a valid point.

Really? The somalian civil war started in the early 90s, and the American intervention had little or nothing to do with fighting terrorism (the grounds were humanitarian or business interests, depending on whom one believes).

Going by Somalia and Libya's pasts, I would say that Italian colonization wasn't terrible, but not exactly beneficial. Foreign meddling didnt exactly help either.

Germany- Tanzania, Namibia and Samoa are all right, though given what happened in SW Afrika that seems more likely to be due to British Influence after WWI.

What happened to SW Afrika, by the same token, is due in large part to South African occupation. Rwanda and Burundi were also German colonies, later administrated by the Belgians, so make of that what you will. Cameroon and Togo were as well, then divided between Britain and France, and didnt turn out great. Honestly, hard to say too many good things about German colonization's impact, but given how long it lasted, hard to really say much at all (one has to assume, based on pre-WWI policies).

Spain/Portugal- Interchangeable. Clearly there are issues with the South American Nations. How much of this is down to the colonial regimes is a matter of debate. Too difficult to tell really.

I want to question the interchangeable part, but that's another discussion. Spanish colonies in Latin America haven't fared incredibly well, and part of the blame does fall on the political, economic, and social structures under colonial rule (power concentrated in the hands of a few, divisions along racial, social, economic lines). On the other hand, some of the blame falls on unstable political structures, and foreign intervention.

As for Portugal, well, Angola is a mess, due in part to that little civil war, and in part to colonial government. Hard to tell where the blame falls here; the continuous war since before independence makes it hard to determine whether a more peaceful transition of power would have changed things (though I doubt it would have made too much difference). Mozambique faced a similar situation, but is sorting itself out decently.

The top 4 are pretty much interchangeable to an extent.

France- Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco are fine, bad examples in Gabon and Indochina.

The french colonial experience was rather broad, but overall their former territories are something of a mixed bag, although I cannot think of any true success stories among them.

US- Allright, but did the military presence in Haiti, Cuba etc. actually do long term good?

In a word, no.

Britain- Many good examples, many bad. Seeing as ex-British colonies make up the largest single group in the G-20 (excluding or including the US), there must be something good going on. The sheer size meant that there were bound to be a good number of bad examples though.

Same issue as with the French example. A few decent showings, a few failures, and everything in between. About what you expect with the sheer number of colonies that they had.

Holland- Indonesia, Antilles, Suriname. None of them seem to have done too badly at all.

Indonesia is improving these days, but it still is hardly a utopia.

Overall, I just want to say that I don't think one can learn anything telling from this sort of comparison. Yes, some nations turned out better than others. yes, some colonial administrations differed. We can debate the merits and flaws of the differing colonial philosophies between countries, and how they effected the colonies. But one cannot say that one nation's imperialism is necessarily better than another's. For instance, the british had a fair number of relative successes, but also their share of failures. That's what happens when you have that large an empire. Far more important, and telling, are other factors, such as the way that decolonization was handled, the country's political situation, foreign intervention (and the shape that it takes), demography,...

 

[SRT]

Alex Richards; did you forget about French and British involvement in the Middle East? I'd argue that their handling of the situation after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire led to many of the current problems in that part of the world -- but, of course, so have a number of other factors.

I think it's hard to say "being colonized by Empire X instead of Empire Y would've been better for colony Z." Colonization is a brutal and ridiculous process, but it also depends on a number of other post-independence factors. For example, Jamaica was doing pretty good due to its trade agreements with Britain; they exported their bananas there, meaning they had a reliable customer and Britain had a reliable source of bananas (okay, this isn't exactly a strategic resource but still)

But then, when Britain terminated these agreements, the Jamaican farmers couldn't make fruit as cheaply as the giant American companies working in Central America; along with a few other examples of things like this, there's a reason Jamaica has a lot of problems today; but when independence was originally achieved, they were doing pretty good for themselves. (for the specific subject of Jamaica, but also just as a movie that talks about decolonization and economics, I'd recommend the film Life and Debt)

 

[Tobit]

In OTL Sir Francis Drake enlisted the help of Cimmarroons (or runaway slaves) for his raids. Perhaps during this time raiding. Instead of being a pirate, he is given orders to totally destroy Spanish power in the Caribbean. Besides just doing hit and run raids all over the world he focuses on bringing an end to Spanish power on Puerto Rico, Hispanolia and Cuba. On these islands the Spanish constantly had to fend off attacks from mountain communities. Not to mention the Creole peoples who were always looked down upon by the Spanish. This would have to mean some form of Confederation of Palenques or King of All Cimarrones.

It would be possible that a Cimarrone nation might fall back on African royalty, but that might break down the united front of the new nation. Gaspar Yanga is an example of an African King who claimed power in Mexico.

 

[DuQuense]

DuQuesne, you might also need one more thing: an earlier anti-racism campaign. Otherwise, it'd all be a bunch of little South Africas.

I think the much earlier abolition of Slavery, with British encouragement of Native Business, would prevent this.

In the 1920's~1930's Italian Somalia was considered one of Africa's bright Success Stories.

 

[Nugax]

A super version of Marasmiellus stenophyllus evolves, destroys sugar cane economy sometime in the early-19th century (so sugar beet can take over the slack).

Colonial powers now pretty much leave the Caribbean alone, and crop diversity develops whilst the populations are well below the overstraining level, islands develop slowly but surely using adjacency to US and European markets. With much more relaxed development and freedom (as the colonial powers now hardly care about them) they come into the twentith with solid but boring political establishments, then use the cheap light industry/assembly model of the Asian tigers (with tourism as well) to boost into a 'lower-tier first world' standard of living.

 

[Chris S]

Oh yes, British influence would solve everything. Because Belize, Jamaica, and Guyana are such shining examples of First World economies.

I'd prefer the Japan solution: Keep everything European out except technology. The best way would be a military defeat killing either Columbus or Cortes, followed by an Aztec or Taino nation that only allows skilled Europeans to immigrate there.

So you group Belize with Jamaica and Guyana? I take it you've never been to any of the three places then?

Belize is most certainly not in the same category as the latter two and the latter two became economic basket-cases due to their own unrealistic economic policies as independent countries (read: borrow money to pay off debt as a way of living) not because of anything Britain did. In fact, it could be argued that they went down the tube economically because they moved away from the original British influence and then went on to get populist leaders who implemented ruinous economic policies. Yes Belize may fall within the same economic range, but it has about half the population of Guyana (but double the PPP per capita) and about 1/9th of the population of Jamaica (and has a GDP growth rate which fluctuates from being the same or at times higher overall and a nearly equal PPP per capita). Obviously Jamaica and Guyana are the ones underperforming.


As for the Caribbean, well let's look at the economic situation of the countries in the region today:

2008 GDP (PPP) per capita according the IMF:

1. Bahamas - $27,735 (higher than South Korea and New Zealand according to the same list)
2. Trinidad and Tobago - $20,338 (higher than Hungary in the same list)
3. Antigua and Barbuda - $19,340 (higher than Lithuania and Croatia in the same list)
4. Barbados - $18,977 (same as Lithuania in that list)
5. St. Kitts and Nevis - $13,826 (higher than Romania on that list)
6. Grenada - $11,464
7. St. Lucia - $10,750 (higher than Brazil on that list)
8. St. Vincent and the Grenadines - $10,163
9. Dominica - $10,133
10. Jamaica - $8,967
11. Dominican Republic - $8,619
12. Suriname - $8,188
13. Belize - $7,954 (note that this is just below Tunisia and higher than Algeria. The highest placing ex-French colony is Lebanon with a PPP per capita of about $13,000 and this list doesn't even include places like Seychelles, Botswana, Malaysia which were all above that).
14. Guyana - $4,090
15. Haiti - $1,317

Cuba was not on the list, but the CIA World Factbook 2008 estimate for it's PPP per capita was $9,500 which would place it about 10th after all those ex-British colonies.

One can't count Guadeloupe and Maritinique and French Guiana since those areas are integral parts of France - more integral with France in fact than Puerto Rico is with the USA and much more integral than places like Bermuda and the BVI are with the UK. Take France (guaranteed EU market) away and who know how far those 3 would fall economically.

So in one sense there is already a First World Caribbean country as the Bahamas are definitely First World unless we count South Korea and New Zealand as Third World.

Note that on that list Jamaica is a major underperformer as it originally pulled out of the West Indies federation because it didn't want to support the 'poorer' islands and at the time it's economy was miles ahead of the rest. Likewise Guyana was not always so poor. It had experienced 15 years of economic decline starting in the mid-1970s and prior to that was one of the areas desired to have been part of the British Caribbean federation (alongside Belize/British Honduras) in order to help support the whole thing financially and after it refused initially, both major parties in the federation at the time apparently had wooing British Guiana into the federation as part of their campaign platforms. Naturally 15 years of non-stop economic decline though would change that picture.

I have to share the puzzlement over the utopian view a lot of people on this forum seem to have when it comes to British imperialism. Want a place to turn out better than in OTL? Make it a British colony! Never mind that countries like Pakistan, Bangladesh, Burma, Sudan, Zimbabwe, etc., were all British colonies, and what shining examples of successful development they now are!

Like AmIndHistoryAuthor, you are using poor examples. What were these countries like immediately after independence as compared to what they are like now? Every one of them was much, much, much better off except Burma (which immediately veered away from any colonial heritage and so can't be an example of how British imperialism made it worse since it got worse all on it's own) and Sudan (which got independence under terrible circumstances with both the British and the now independent Egyptians basically at loggerheads over Sudan as a whole and neither side aware enough to let northern and southern Sudan determine their fates independently). Bangladesh is a poor example since it was long a part of Pakistan and it's current situation must certainly have more to do with Pakistani neglect from 1947 to 1971 and it's own history of unsavory politicians than what Britain did or did not do. Pakistan was not nearly as unstable as today upon independence, but even so Pakistan was originally part of India and the original British intention was for an independent, united India but then partition once the local politicians couldn't see eye to eye. Zimbabwe has to be the worst example. It was once an outcast colony of Rhodesia which declared unilateral independence and was second only to apartheid South Africa in terms of pariah status in the region. Then Mugabe and his gang won and Britain only governed again for like a year before Mugabe and ZANU won. However it was Mugabe (not Britain) that made Zimbabwe the way it was today. Had he stepped down earlier, Zimbabwe's name wouldn't even be mentioned.


Both of you may be puzzled, but I'm puzzled as to how that could be since, even a cursory glance at economic stats would show ex-British colonies for the most part performing way better than their ex-French, ex-Portuguese and especially ex-Belgian counterparts. Even outside of economics, one only has to look at the countries which are on the EU's visa free list to see the difference: No ex-French, ex-Dutch, ex-Portuguese (unless you count Brazil which got independence long before the other Portuguese colonies) or ex-Belgian colonies are yet to make the list, but somehow Antigua and Barbuda, the Bahamas, Barbados, St. Kitts and Nevis, Malaysia, Singapore, Brunei, Seychelles, Maritius and of course Canada, Australia and New Zealand. We could even throw in the USA into that list and count all the ex-Spanish colonies and the Portuguese colony of Brazil (lost around the same time as those Spanish colonies) and from that alone one could argue that it was better to be a Spanish, Portuguese or British colony than a Belgian, French or Dutch one.

The fact that Britain was the second imperial power after Denmark to end the slave trade and was the first imperial power to completely abolish slavery in it's possessions (after Portugal banned the practice in Portugal and Portuguese India but not Brazil and Africa and after France abolished and then reintroduced slavery) must surely count for something as to why people appear starry-eyed over British imperialism. Plus Britain did it without revolution (ala France) or civil war (like the USA).