Cuba hosted the Seventh meeting of the Association of Caribbean States (ACS) last week, in the current wider ideological atmosphere of the effort of normalization of Cuba-United States relations that has been welcomed by the wider hemisphere. And it was well to remind ourselves as the Cuban leader Raúl Castro assumed the leadership of the meeting, that the foundation of the ACS had rested in a recommendation made, in 1994, by the Caricom-appointed West Indian Commission chaired by Sir Shridath Ramphal.
The recommendation indicated a deliberate urging on the part of the Commission that it was time for the anglophone Caribbean states to institutionally recognize the geopolitical implications of their location, particularly at a time of decline of the Cold War; and that institutional arrangements needed to be established for continuing consultations between the countries of Caricom, the European-held entities in the Caribbean and South America, and the long-independent countries whose borders are washed by the Caribbean Sea.
Of course, there was, naturally, consideration given to specific Cuban concerns that can be characterized as leftovers of the old Cuban-American relationship. So the summit gave support to the longstanding Cuban objective of a US departure from the long-held Guantanamo base, focusing on the current process of potential resumption of meaningful relations between the country and the United States; and indicating that in this period essentially of potential détente, “the relevant element in the process of normalization of relations between the two countries” should be “the return …of the territory occupied by the NS Naval Base in Guantanamo…through a bilateral dialogue in conformity with International Law”.
The seventh summit therefore focused on the importance of its business being conducted in an atmosphere devoid of the old confrontations of the Cold War, and alternatively defining the area of Latin American and the Caribbean as a Zone of Peace. As such, as reflected in the Havana Declaration, future relations would involve the pursuit of a collective consideration of the commonality of problems deriving from the effort of achieving persistent economic development; and in that context, accepting a continuing cooperation with countries outside the hemisphere which still maintain Caribbean colonies of various levels of autonomy.
From President Raúl Castro’s perspective then, the central task was therefore not that of re-evaluating problems deriving from the traditional differences between countries, but one of creating arrangements to deal with the challenges of a meaningful “integration and cooperation” based on “common development priorities”.
The policy directions indicated in the Havana Declaration therefore seem to well recognize the particular objectives of the Caribbean small states devoid of the instruments for engaging in geopolitical confrontations, and wishing to focus, rather, on some specific challenges of development particular to this Region substantially characterized of small states.
The Havana Declaration, from that perspective, really provides a summary of issues involved in the present period of efforts to enhance economic development in the countries of the area, and to deal with specific problems that might affect progress in that regard. A recognition of some particular concerns, not directly economic, but known to have their effects on economic development and relations with third countries and to be of concern to the metropolitan powers are emphasized, namely drug trafficking and human trafficking, even though these are really a function of continuing demand in the first world environment.
A focus on issues that involve substantial cooperation between Caribbean states, as relatively small entities, and the wider world, is given a certain prominence. The issue of disaster reduction is recognized through approval and acceptance, in March last year, of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030. Emphasis is placed on “preserving the ecological integrity” of the Caribbean Sea, and a recommendation is made that the Caribbean Sea Commission be supported in its task of preservation and sustainable use of the sea, and in that context, that the recognition in a United Nations General Assembly Resolution, of the Caribbean Sea as a “special Area in the context of Sustainable Development” be provided with the relevant wherewithal to undertake its necessary activities.
The Declaration, as is presently common, also highlights the significance for the Region of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change on which Caribbean governments placed substantial emphasis in the recent Paris Agreement. And it notes that, of course the Caribbean consists not only of islands, which can be susceptible to the negative effects of climate change, but also the so-called “low lying coastal states” including the countries of the Central American Isthmus.
The significance of the conference will have lain in the thoroughness of consideration of the variety of issues which are affecting not only small island states, but simultaneously also, many coastal states, some much larger than the Caribbean islands.
It will also have emphasized the commonality of problems which we in the Caribbean Community share with our nieghbours in Central America from the perspective of challenges to development. And it also adopted a formula utilized in the Caribbean Community that makes no distinction between the sovereign states and those entities which form part of the Caribbean Sea or Caribbean coastal mainland, but are not independent; and between the island states of the Caribbean and the coastal states of Central America, and indeed the states of the Guyana mainland.
And Raúl Castro sought to emphasise the particular interest of his country and other states in not making a distinction in terms of the presence at the summit, between independent and non-independent Caribbean territories, as well as the entities, from beyond the Caribbean Sea which exercise sovereignty over them.
