In one of what must be a record number of Heads of Government meetings in a half a year, our heads of government meet again this week in their regularly scheduled formal annual meeting, and it seems that they certainly have a lot of talking to each other to do, and some talking to do to us, the citizens of Caricom. There seem to be rumblings all around the community about decisions taken, disputes among the heads themselves as to whether decisions taken are the right ones, and contentions about the extent to which Caricom, as an institution, is actually working.
This time last year heads of government, at their conference in Barbados, were patting themselves on the back about their new, or perhaps renewed, devotion to functional cooperation as an important aspect of the community’s work – they now referred to it as the “fourth pillar” of the system. They congratulated themselves on a renewed commitment to health as an important priority of the region.
They congratulated themselves on what was deemed to have been a successful meeting with United States President George Bush, having forcefully enunciated to him the importance that they attached to a new or continuing formal trade agreement with the US, and their concern about the effects of the transfer of deportees from the US to Caricom states. At the same time, they promoted the view, well acceptable to President Bush, that the security of our countries and the security of his, are now more or less indivisible.
Importantly too, they congratulated themselves on a now firm commitment to the Single Market, promising the Single Economy in 2015. They congratulated themselves also on the actual working of the security and free movement arrangements for Cricket World Cup, when, it seemed Caricom citizens got an ‘ease’ from various restrictions and harassments as they have sought to move around the region – even though this was a bi-product of our desire to ensure the free movement of non-Caricom nationals wishing to have hassle-free-travel from one cricket ground to another.
But in the course of this year we have seen a stepped-up concern in some states about the movement of Caricom citizens from one island to another. Barbados – a country whose residents have been, historically, among the most free to migrate to countries in the Eastern and Southern Caribbean, seems now to wish to have some form of regulation of persons entering that country. And we are left to take them, as of now, at their word that such arrangements will be non-prejudicial.
The movement of people has now been inextricably linked with the issue of the security of the states of Caricom and of security of passage between the states, and between the states and foreign states, in particular the United States, European countries with jurisdictions in the Caribbean and the states of Venezuela and Colombia. The recent Special Session of Heads in Trinidad reinforced their concerns about all of this, accepting President Bush’s description of our sub-region as the Americans’ third border – at least, we suppose, an improvement on the traditional one of ‘backyard.’
As is obvious in other parts of the world the movement of people, within and between regions, is now intertwined with the necessity to protect the very citizens of the regions from narcotics movement and its association with money laundering, the harbouring of persons wanted in other jurisdictions, the security of investments, and the now notorious post Cold War phenomenon of ‘terrorism’ as defined by the United States. Of necessity, well-thinking Caricom citizens must share our states’ concerns. But there does appear to be a growing feeling among citizens of the region that given the nexus between stricter regulation of their movement, and the priority attached to inhibition of terrorism and narcotics movement, they might well get squeezed. And that the increasing freedom of movement which the Revised Treaty promises them, may get circumscribed by higher necessities and priorities. Perhaps at the end of this conference, heads could take some time to speak to the citizenry about these matters, and reassure us that freedom of movement will apply to ‘us people’ as well as to capital, so that we may feel easy about using this principle to move our goods around without impediments.
Then, the euphoria about the Single Market seems to be disappearing under a cloud of concern as to what effect the recently signed Economic Partnership Agreement with the European Union will have on the cohesion of the Single Market, and on particular countries within the Single Market. We witness differing interpretations among the heads themselves and a certain vituperation against those who think that the real promise of the EPA may not be as currently promised. Unfortunately, even some of our editorial pages in leading regional newspapers seem to feel free to engage in the latter vituperation against those with whom they disagree.
But even those who support the agreement loudly, like Jamaica and Barbados, have indicated concerns about the potential benefits for some of the small countries. And none of our heads will, so far, answer the question about the significance of inclusion, or the lack of significance, of a “development dimension,” originally thought to be an important element of any agreement. It appears that the OECS countries, for example, are being told that the CSME’s Regional Development Fund must suffice, along with what is left over from the Cotonou dimension.
Is it too much to ask our heads of government to come to some understanding among themselves by the end of the conference on this issue of the EPA? Can the current agreement not be seen as a beginning rather than a conclusion of our discussions with the European Union – especially as we are still to see the evolution of their discussions with major countries of the, now defunct it seems, African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) grouping? And apart from all of this, is it not obvious to all who wish to see, that the contretemps among heads on this matter is giving a very bad impression of Caricom’s cohesion and institutional stability? So is it not appropriate that Caricom citizens should have, at the conclusion of this conference, some clearing of the air on this issue? For after all, surely we deserve to be treated not as the outsiders of a private club of heads, but as insiders of the Caricom movement?
Next, on the eve of conference, we have heard Prime Minister Ralph Gonsalves’ description of our Caricom institution as a “ramshackle system.” And we note that the Prime Minister was not speaking off the cuff, but giving a formal address to an OECS meeting on the progress of the OECS Economic Union initiative.
It surely is not sufficient to suggest, as some would be wont to do, that the Prime Minister is “trying a diversion from his troubles at home.” Could his remarks be related to a decision taken by heads, at their recent meeting in Trinidad, to apparently reject the proposals set out in the Report of the Technical Working Group on Governance which they had seemed to broadly accept at their previous meeting? Gonsalves had been integrally involved in the discussion of this issue since 2003, and would appear to be disappointed at the result. If it is true that Jamaica and the Bahamas led the veto, should we not be told so, and why?
It would hardly surprise if it turns out to be the case that he perceived just a bit too much diversity among heads on the critical issues of the day, including this one, and an obviously too weak governance system to contain issues, and has chosen this spectacular description of Caricom to highlight his perception. The recent controversies over the effectiveness of the Caricom Regional Negotiating Machinery would simply add oil to the fire.
Should our heads not also think it necessary and useful to provide the Caricom citizenry with an update on this issue of governance? After all, the continuing consultations since 2003 cost money which could have been spent in other areas of benefit to us?
We say again: We deserve to know about all these things. We deserve to be treated not as camp-followers, but as autonomous citizens in a 21st century when participation in decision-making is accepted as the norm, and with participation, the provision of the information that makes it effective.
