Our editorial on Tuesday on last week’s Caricom summit clearly raised more questions than answers about the health of our regional integration process. In this regard, we suggested that one of the issues that was particularly “opaque” in the communiqué released at the end of the meeting was the principle of “variable geometry.” Given the continuing uncertainty as to what this means for the future of Caricom, we wish to revisit it today.
The term “variable geometry” has obviously been borrowed from the language of mathematics and mechanical engineering. One of the most famous examples of variable geometry in engineering is that of an aircraft wing that may be swept back and then returned to its original position during flight, allowing the pilot to select the correct configuration for either high or low speed. Inherent then in our understanding of variable geometry is the notion of adaptability, flexibility and different speeds for changing circumstances.
“Variable geometry,,as it applies to the politics of regional integration, is most commonly associated with the European Union, especially in the context of its massive enlargement since 2004 and the possibility that as many as eight countries in south-eastern Europe might also accede if and when they meet certain rigorous political, legal and technical conditions. Enlargement has inevitably presented particular challenges for European integration, many of them associated with differences in size, political maturity, economic development, language and culture. Different countries will therefore meet the criteria for membership and deeper integration at different speeds. Hence the talk of “variable geometry.”
The definition of “variable geometry” in the glossary of the official EU website is, however, somewhat unfortunate: “‘Variable-geometry’ in Europe is the term used to describe the idea of a method of differentiated integration which acknowledges that there are irreconcilable differences within the integration structure and therefore allows for a permanent separation between a group of Member States and a number of less developed integration units.”
Maybe something has been lost in translation, but at first glance, the phrases “irreconcilable differences” and “permanent separation” would appear to lead straight to an overly negative interpretation, with depressing connotations for any integration process.
A nuanced understanding and application of the term would therefore seem more desirable. It is perhaps in this light that Caricom’s politicians and technocrats have embraced “variable geometry” in reaction to the problems associated with the pace of integration. This is, in effect, the subtext of the gobbledegook of the paragraph in the communiqué, which we highlighted on Tuesday:
“Heads of Government identified several achievements, challenges and responses and agreed that among the strategic directions for future sustainability included strengthening relations with traditional partners while cultivating new ones, strengthening governance arrangements in the Community while ensuring that variable geometry should be viewed as a positive aspect of the Region’s development.”
Political leaders and their diplomatic representatives are expected to accentuate the positive. But as we suggested the other day, this supposed agreement on “strategic directions” appears to be nothing more than spin, with the end result that the issue is hopelessly obfuscated.
It is difficult to imagine that those who glibly speak of “variable geometry” in the region, including the crafters of the communiqué, intended, wittingly or unwittingly to invoke the EU’s official definition above. To do so would obviously have been to sound the death knell for the current phase of regional integration and the Caribbean Single Market and Economy (CSME).
Indeed, as used in the accompanying Declaration of Dickenson Bay, the heads affirmed their “support for a variable geometry of integration which would allow for variation in the pace of accession to the integration arrangements.” This is somewhat clearer language.
It is therefore reasonable to infer that the official Caricom understanding of “variable geometry” reflects an endorsement of a flexible and pragmatic approach to integration, whereby different countries might accede to or participate in the process in keeping with their political will and/or capability. It obviously allows for differing levels of cooperation and differing depths of integration.
This would be along the lines of the EU’s currency arrangements, whereby most members use the euro, but some like the UK retain their own currency. Or like the Schengen single visa space, which the UK again has also opted out of.
There is however a real fear that “variable geometry” is blithely used to refer – perhaps with a nod and a wink – to the community’s inability or unwillingness to adopt adequate governance mechanisms, because of local politics in individual members, to ensure progress in real time towards the overarching objective of the CSME.
The EU, even with or because of variable geometry, works. It is rich, big and powerful, and ultimately, the desire to build peace and prosperity in the aftermath of the Second World War and the Cold War is irresistible.
For Caricom, moving at the pace of the slowest has been frustrating and unproductive. Variable geometry is therefore being viewed as an improvement, but it will not be a panacea if governance arrangements, especially with regard to the implementation of decisions, are not addressed more urgently.
Variable geometry and the continued insistence that Caricom is a “community of sovereign states,” without due regard to the need – obvious to all but our heads apparently – for a diminished emphasis on national sovereignty, will only bear fruit if there is a subsuming of the national, and in some cases personal, ego, in the interest of the collective good.
The Caricom craft does not resemble a sleek jet fighter with variable wings, capable of supersonic speeds. It is in danger of being likened to an old jalopy with two speeds – dead slow and stop.
