We live in the era when all nations, particularly those in the Caribbean, are dispensable with the collapse of communism. We live in the era when the socialists no longer believe in socialism and are moving towards capitalism, when all man is for himself and God for us all. Third world countries are not "underdeveloped" but over-exploited. The gap between developed nations and third-world countries in the Caribbean is noteworthy. While developed nations would like to have us believe that its so-called undertakings in the region are in the best interest of the people in the region or for their enjoyment in economic and social development, its rhetoric has richly earned it a reputation for exploiting the region.

This article will prove how and why Developed nations exploit Caribbean economies through trade policies, foreign policies, and aid policies.

Capitalism to Developed nations is the only route to social and economic progress, and therefore, any policy they pursue, be it foreign or otherwise, will be a means to achieving enhanced capitalism. This attitude has significance not only for Developed nations but the rest of the region. The essence of capitalism is the accumulation of wealth and profits, and the best way to accumulate wealth is not to work hard but to get others to work hard for you. The primary objective of Developed nations capitalists is private gain, not social need, for as the chairman of Castle and Cooke blatantly put it, ``We are in business for making profit. We are not in business primarily to satisfy society.... So profits are our number-one consideration....". While apologists for Developed nations' imperial capitalism in the Caribbean try to present Developed nations' corporations as the apostles of progress, the people are realizing ever more clearly that their countries are at stake, because Developed nations' corporations are ready to sacrifice entire nations if it will bring them additional profits. Investing in the Caribbean is done solely for: a lack of competition, large cheap labor pool, the near absence or absence of safety and environmental regulations and corporate taxes and the marketing of products at monopoly prices. Corporations relish having a wide selection of third world countries in which they can carry out their exploitation. For example, Harry Magdoff explicitly said: ``What matters to the business community, and to the business system as a whole, is that the option of foreign investment (and foreign trade) should remain available. For this to be meaningful, the business system requires, as a minimum, that political and economic principles of capitalism should prevail and that the door be fully open for foreign capital at all times...``

Clearly, both Magdoff and the Chairman at Castle and Cooke do not meet on a regular basis to strategize on how to exploit the people in the Caribbean inparticular. However, it shows a pattern of their aspirations.

are no less dangerous than any other form of exploitation, for they all carry the same sentence of exploitation. A large sum or all of these trade policies are not done in the interest the Caribbean but in Developed nations's. Similarly, a majority of trade policies are tokens of quid pro quo between Developed nations' leadership and corporation. For example, when a corporation donates large sums of campaign donations to political campaigns, the elected leader is expected to return the favor. An example of that is the banana crisis in the Caribbean which began in 1993. The European Union implemented a policy that favored the small banana growers of its former colonies in the Caribbean by imposing trade barriers on the banana grown in by Dole, Chiquita, and Del Monte. The fact that these U.S. companies controlled two thirds of the world banana market, compared to 3% for the Caribbean growers and these same companies controlled 42% of the market in the European Community, compared to 8% for the Caribbean growers, it did not deter them from heavily lobbying Washington. With disregard to the fact that it had slashed aid to the Caribbean 90%, from $226 million in 1985 to $22 million in 1995, Washington heeded the call by the companies.

The St. Lucia Banana Growers Association managing director, Rupert Gajadhar, said to a United States trade delegation, ``You are conducting the worst kind of economic warfare against a defenseless people. You take away our bananas and leave us with no alternative but misery, strife, and suffering.`` The United States does not export bananas, and only a handful of U.S. jobs were at stake, so the U.S. had little direct interest in the issue. So one asks himself, could there be another reason why the White House vigorously pursued the case? Well certainly there is. Between 1993 and 1996, Chiquita and its chairman, Carl Linder, donated more than $1.1 million to the Democratic Party, enough to earn him a night in the White House in early 1995. Carl Linder contributed more than $1.4 million to the Republican Party since 1994, he also contacted Bob Dole, who used a Linder owned plane during the 1996 presidential campaign. The White House launched a complaint with the World Trade Organization (WTO) on behalf of the three companies. In 1997 the WTO ruled against the EU requiring it to dismantle its preferences. This is an example of many cases of quid pro quo motivated trade policies.

Trading blocks are another venue for exploitation, for it divides regions and produces regional non-military hostilities among countries while the more powerful country dominate the smaller countries. An example of that is the Developed nations Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) which puts Mexico in the position to defend itself against accusations by Caribbean countries that it steals all their manufacturing jobs.

In the words of President Julius Nyerere of Tanzania, the strategy of the developed countries has been a ``...tatic to gain time, divide us, and talk us to death....`` No matter what form the policy take or what it may be dressed-up to look like, it still smells like exploitation.

Foreign policies are another tool used to exploit Caribbean countries whether it be curbing nationalist governments or flirting with repressive regimes. For example, despite the brutal repressive dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet in Chile, the United States had generally voted in favor of International Financial Institution (IFI) loans to Chile. In response to the loans to Chile, Elliott Abrams, U.S. Assistant Secretary for Inter-American Affairs said, ``The Chilean government's free-market oriented policies have helped eliminate some of the traditional rigidities in the Chilean economy and have helped establish a base for effective implementation of this loan.`` Clearly, he has no regard for the previous democratically elected socialist government of President Salvador Allende Gossens, for he referred to it as causing ``traditional rigidities`` in the economy. Mr. Abram went on to say, ``Denying the people of Chile international financial resources would deepen the country's problems, exacerbate social and political tensions and weaken...Chilean society.`` Mr. Abram is saying that U.S. aid should continue to flow into Chile despite Chile's human rights violation. Make no mistake, the concessions to Chile was a result of the neo-conservative economic theory practiced in Chile.

After comparing Chile and Grenada, a chilling conclusion was drawn. The Grenada trouble began in 1983 when the Grenadian Army, under the direction of former Deputy Prime Minister Bernard Coard deposed Prime Minister Maurice Bishop. Coard was a hard-line Marxist who was close to the Soviet and Cuba. The U.S. saw the coup as a threat to its domination in the region, but it cited the martial law on the island and possible danger to American students on the island as its reason for sending in the troops. But how could anyone believe such frivolous excuse when Reagan made his objective known back in 1979 by saying, ``The Caribbean is rapidly becoming a Communist lake in what should be an American pond, and the United States resembles a giant, afraid to move.`` Immediately after Reagan took office his administration implemented hostile policies towards Grenada which led then Prime Minister Bishop to say: ``From the first days of coming to power, the U.S. pursued a policy which showed no respect for our national pride and aspirations, and sought consistently to bring the Revolution to its knees...such an attitude exist principally because Grenada has taken a very firm and decisive step on the road to genuine national independence, non-alignment, and self-determination."

Nationalist movements like the Grenada Revolution made it clear they wanted to improve the lives of peasants and workers through a course independent of the economic interest of Developed nations. This policy was in direct conflict with Developed nations's objective, for it spared no efforts to preserve its economic and political interests, wherever threatened. The third world countries in the region forwarded a new plan for a more equitable world order at the United Nation. In 1980, the leaders of the third world were adamant that they do not trust Specialized Agencies, such as the International Monetary Fund and their decision-making power over the new plan because of failures in the past two decades. The Canadian government blocked the move and endorsed a decision to refer the issue over to the Specialized Agencies of the U.N. The power of North Amercia to defend its interests in these agencies has been clearly established through the distribution of votes according to economic contributions and the right of veto. Evidently, the region has very little power, if any at all, in these Specialized Agencies at the UN and would be at a disadvantage to protect their interests.

Exploitation through aid may come in many forms whether it be humanitarian or foreign aid. In 1981 the Canadian International Development Agency (C.I.D.A.) President Marcel Masse announced an increase in bilateral aid to the Caribbean from $38 million to $55 million. Significantly, aid was increased to Jamaica from $9 million to $34 million immediately following the defeat of the socialist-nationalist government of Michael Manley in 1980 by the business-oriented Edward Seaga. Marcel`s explanation to the decision on Jamaica was that ``...whereby we are helping countries that are close to us....`` Mr. Marcel went on to explain how the ``...new policy would mean increased investment and security assistance.`` Was the Canadian policy a matter of economic aid to the Caribbean, or was it a pattern that was evident during the Grenada Revolution when the United States expanded economic and military aid to the nations of the Eastern Caribbean, except Grenada?

Minister of External Affairs Michell Sharp in 1970 said ``....we of the free world are losing this humanitarian aspiration. We have got ourselves into an international rat race using aid in an effort to win friends, influence customers and outbid the communists.`` The external affairs minister's top official at C.I.D.A. himself said ``....It would be naive to deny the political and commercial motives behind foreign aid by whatever name we choose to call it....`` Furthermore, confidential document prepared by C.I.D.A. in 1969 which listed the objective of aid a political goal: ``....to establish within the recipient countries those political attitudes or commitments, military alliances or military bases that would assist Canada ...to maintain a reasonably stable and secure international political system....Canada's aid programs would serve not only to help increase Canada's influence within the developing world, but also within the western alliance.``

Clearly, the Canadian government's objective were no different from that of the United States. Humanitarian aid is also a tool for exploitation, for it discourages self-reliance and handicaps domestic production. For example, after an earthquake in Guatemala in 1976, the U.S. shipped free corn to Guatemala, even though the country was enjoying one of its best harvests ever. Prices dropped, and local farmers could not earn the cash needed to rebuild their homes. They could not compete with free or low-cost food shipments from abroad. Similarly, free food from the U.S. was widely sold illegally in markets next to Haitian farmers` own crops which drove down prices received by Haitian. In 1980 a development consultant told the U.S. Congress ``Farmers in Haiti are known to not even bring their crops to market the week that U.S. food is distributed since they are unable to get a fair price while whole bags of U.S. wheat are being sold.`` The bottom line is that these policies hurt and exploit more than anything else.

In conclusion, this essay has impeached Developed nations, for it has clearly established a pattern of exploitation and trickery. If Developed nations are committed to helping the Caribbean region then such help must have a spotless character that is not clogged by agendas and eclipsed by rhetoric. Capitalism practices are once again brought to question. Could it be the explanation behind Developed nations's undertakings? The chilling conclusion drawn after examining the trade, foreign, and aid policies of Developed nations is that they all had hidden agendas that have the potential, and are on the way, to destroying the fabric of societies in order to achieve their goal. It is disappointing that Developed nations refuse to take heed from Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) when he said, ``The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have more: it is whether we provide enough to those who have little." Instead Developed nations reject FDR's warning but have chosen to condemn the Caribbean region to a state of misery and strife through its ceaseless exploitation of their economies through trade, foreign, and aid policies. I've always been a strong opponent to regional integration in the Caribbean. However, I must admit the time to give serious consideration to this topic is at hand because we will not survive. GOD BLESS DOMINICA. UP

would welcome

your mail.