"If home is where the heart is, then Belize is my home." This heartwarming statement - one that undoubtedly reflects the appeal and innate civility of our Belizean heritage - can be found on the personal website of the richest citizen of Belize, Michael Ashcroft (www.lordashcroft.com). To the average Belizean, especially those aware of the recent legal tangos involving the Belize Bank and Belize Telemedia Ltd, the simple mentioning of 'the Lord' invokes vulgar thoughts and expressions. For many, he represents the worst attributes of Westernized capitalism and the closest living example of an economic colonial master. Based on these accepted notions of Mr. Ashcroft, it seems both absurd and unsurprising that he would refer to Belize as 'home'.
Foreign investment (FI) is essential for a country's international relations, and this truth is magnified for developing countries who find it difficult to assert themselves on the global level. The benefits of FI are numerous: jobs are created, diplomatic relations between countries are formed and strengthened, foreign exchange is circulated, import/export markets are created etc. Foreign investment also facilitates privatization of local utility companies. And yes, privatization in an ever-increasing globalized world is a GOOD thing. Why? If companies stay nationalized, the onus is on the government to ensure that those companies are providing optimum services - services that require huge investments that governments cannot afford. Hence, it is better to shift the burden on an investor, be it local or foreign, to ensure the company's continued economic viability.
So where does all this fit in with regard to Mr. Ashcroft? I think too often Belizeans have missed the boat when it comes to Ashcroft (and I can hear the gasps as I said that). Make no mistake, there have been countless occasions when 'the Lord' has taken advantage of the meager legal system in Belize. However, it is the responsibility of the government to ensure that investors like him do not reap unfair rewards from their investments; our elected officials are the stewards of our nation and we must hold them accountable for endangering the socioeconomic environment by granting too much power to investors. All businessmen, not just Ashcroft, are rational and self-interested; to expect benevolence from them would be naive. Their actions are driven mostly by the amount of dollars they can accrue. Yet, despite this, most investors of Ashcroft's caliber practice good corporate citizenship. To his credit, he distributes ten university scholarships every year, adopted a primary school through BTL, built a football stadium and other courteous contributions. Do these actions warrant our sympathy? Of course not. Not even 'the Lord' (no pun intended) can wash his dirty hands in the sea of good-will and expect to be held in good graces. My case is this: To complain about Ashcroft, as the COLA (Citizens Organized for Liberty through Action) group has done, is futile and fundamentally misplaced. Rather, it is better, more effective and more appropriate to pressure our government to ensure that our investors stay in check and maintain good business practices. When the bully at school hits you, do you get in a fight with him or tell the teacher? That seems to be the predicament Belize has found itself in with regard to Michael Ashcroft.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
And yes, Belize Watch is back. So spread the word. We love hearing comments.
Posts
