Yet again the widespread extent of corruption and malgovernance in Antigua & Barbuda has been highlighted.
An article published on www.caribarena.com, dated 25 March 2010 entitled "Govt Said No to Blom-Cooper'' shows the mammoth tasks facing the investors cheated by R Allen Stanford.
According to intrepid local political commentator Ian "Magic" Hughes, Antigua & Barbuda squandered mediation offers to resolve the Half Moon Bay expropriation from respected legal luminary Sir Louis Blom-Cooper, and separately, by former US Assistant Secretary of State William Rogers.
Caribarena blames Attorney General Justin Simon for the catastrophic failure.
A letter written by Mrs Querard, Managing Director of H.M.B. Holdings Limited, the American-owned company from which Half Moon Bay was expropriated, is kindly reproduced as follows:
"Your article 'Is VC Our Daddy' and the comments offered by some of your readers in response, are the closest anyone has come to recognizing the issues and considering their consequences. That is why I feel it is important to add the following considerations to your discussion.
There is one clarification that needs to be made to the issues presented by your article: the conditions set out by the AG for what he referred to as "the re-vestment of Half Moon Bay" were considerably more heinous than the simple matter of us waiving the Company's rights to seek redress from those who smeared its Director's name.
Setting aside the argument that, in the first place, no conditions should be attached to the return of stolen property, the AG presented HMB Holdings with several onerous pre -conditions, none of which could be agreed to.
HMB Holdings was required to waive its rights to any legal relief against any and all actions taken by an unrestricted number of individuals, whose claim to such immunity would stem from the fact that they acted while employed by the Government in some general capacity.
This requirement also included our acceptance of a blanket responsibility for any third-party liability incurred by said individuals, making our Company vulnerable to any number of legal actions claiming the return of funds which may have been exchanged in any backroom deals involving our property, under whatever terms these may have been agreed to. Such open-ended liability could not be accepted.
Another pre-condition was a written iron-clad commitment to a time-table for the redevelopment of the property, which could only be adjusted by the Government. Several milestones of achievement were set. Failure to reach each target on the appointed date would automatically cause the Owners to lose the property to the Government.
With Government controlling delivery of permits, clearance of material through customs, and the vagaries of the construction process within an unpredictable hurricane season, this was an equally unacceptable condition. Trusting the Government to act with consideration and goodwill was unfortunately no longer realistic.
Yet another pre-condition, particularly ill-conceived by AG Simon, required us to sign a side--letter with the Government and lie about it to our lender, thereby committing lending fraud. The importance of this requirement, made by the country's Attorney General whose sworn duty it is to protect and uphold the Law, cannot be overstated.
It is also to be noted that two separate internationally driven efforts were initiated by HMB Holdings to build a workable bridge over the hurdles presented by these pre-conditions.
One was an offer of mediation made in 2005 by Sir Louis Blom-Cooper who was introduced to this issue by Geoffrey Robertson Q.C. This offer was rejected out of hand by AG Simon, claiming there were no differences between the parties to mediate.
The second effort was undertaken in 2006 by William A. Rogers, once Assistant Secretary of State of the United States of America, acting in concert with the U.S. State Department represented by the Honourable Mary Kramer, then U.S. Ambassador to the Eastern Caribbean States. Prime Minister Spencer welcomed both emissaries and the opportunity to resolve the Half Moon Bay conundrum out of Court.
He reviewed the Memorandum of Understanding they brought with them and saw no impediment to his signing. He then entrusted the review of the proposal to AG Simon. After a two month delay in dealing with the matter, the AG scuttled the effort by refusing to communicate with Mr. Rogers.
The point I am making here is that Prime Minister Spencer's intentions of long ago may have survived the appointment of Justin Simon as Attorney General, but had no effect against the AG's determination to oppose them and seize the Half Moon Bay property. Whatever the PM's intentions or promises, they - and he, himself - have been totally compromised.
In that regard, your article is completely correct, as is the poignant cartoon in the Daily Observer, to which you refer.
[The cartoon shows a blindfolded Baldwin Spencer being led by Justin Simon onto the track of an oncoming train, entitled Half Moon Bay Acquisition/ Stanford, with "Poorhouse" as its destination. Its caption read "Don't do anything. You just stand up there and wait."]
The wasteful and lawless flexing of sovereign muscle, exhibited in dealing with our Company during the process that led to the expropriation of Half Moon Bay, has not shown the Government of Antigua in a good light, long before the Stanford fiasco turned a stronger spotlight on Antigua.
Whether the Antiguan people realize it or not, elsewhere in the world of banking, investment and commerce Half Moon Bay still comes to mind whenever and wherever Antigua is mentioned. Unfortunately, it is no longer remembered as the beautiful spot for ideal vacations, but as a warning to one and all to stay away from dealing with Antigua -- heard by many even before the well-publicized boycott called for by the Stanford's Victims Coalition.
As you know, there are many dots that can be connected to illustrate that fact. The picture has been completed where the truth is known.
The worst of it is that it did not need to happen at all.
Although the old canards dragged out yet again by Antiguan commentators attacking your treatment of the Half Moon Bay disaster do not deserve attention, there are two corrections that need to be made to "tenman's" first comment.
First, by law, the appeal filed against the value of the property established by the Board of Assessment does not relieve the Government of the responsibility to pay the amount awarded by the Board's decision and to do so without delay. In fact, non-payment of the amount awarded is a violation of the owners' Constitutional rights.
Second, the Owners of Half Moon Bay never "abandoned" the property. On the contrary, while plans were drawn, financing opportunities searched out, and battles waged against the Government's attempts to seize the property, HMB Holdings maintained a staff of employees to clean the beach, mow the golf course, clean the roads, prepare the buildings for renovation, develop a greenhouse for anticipated landscaping and offer security for the property and other residents of the Half Moon Bay estates.
It was only after the Government took possession of the property in July 2007, that the property became truly abandoned."
It is very surprising that the recent handout of $124 million dollars being offered to Antigua by the IMF makes no mention of the debt obligation owed to the former owners of Half Moon Bay. Arguably, this is because the Government of Antigua has failed to disclose its true financial picture to the supranational body in the same manner in which it has explicitly denied expropriation of foreign-owned property to buyers of its Sovereign debt obligations and its Treasury Bills.
It appears that lending fraud is an acceptable Antiguan technique, with no consequences except that it attracts those who, like R. Allen Stanford, elevate its practice to a more "successful" level.
The arrangement with the IMF does point out "The other focal point of this engagement is the national debt. The current levels of both domestic and foreign debt constitute a major impediment to achieving financial sustainability. As long as this situation continues, it remains extremely difficult to access funding from any bilateral, multilateral or commercial creditor."
Nevertheless, questions still remain: how and for how long can the IMF continue supporting a bankrupt country which now has a history of "acquiring" foreign-owned private property, without making provision for payment for such "acquisition" and also restricting the practice of expropriation?
What is it about expropriation of American-owned properties causing a breach of international commercial treaties that the World Bank and its subsidiaries do not seem to understand or wish to deal with?
