In his most recent ‘The view from Europe,’ David Jessop, one of the more astute external observers of regional affairs, pulls no punches in stating the growing view that a “dysfunctional regional integration process” now prevails in Caricom. Regardless of the fact that the momentum towards deeper integration may have been slowed by several changes of government in the region, the signs have been pointing this way for some time now.
Consider, for example, the region’s foreign policy and external economic relations. If one were to focus solely on the controversy over the Economic Partnership Agreement with the European Union and the increasing tendency by countries hard pressed by external factors to accept aid wherever it is on offer, one would have to conclude that there is a worrying lack of coherence at the regional level.
But, perhaps, ’twas ever thus, for in a commentary dated January 30 on Dominica’s unilateral decision to sign on to ALBA, Professor Norman Girvan had pointed out that this was “by no means the first time that a Caricom member state had acted in a way that might be at variance with its regional commitments and responsibilities,” citing, among others, Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago’s individual attempts to qualify for NAFTA parity with the United States in the early 1990s.
In two editorials a fortnight ago, we had commented on the opaqueness of some of the pronouncements emanating from the most recent meeting of Caricom heads. Readers will recall that we were particularly concerned with the embrace of variable geometry by our leaders as an apparent substitute for taking hard decisions and moving expeditiously towards deeper integration.
In last week’s editorial on Petrocaribe, we referr-ed to Professor Girvan’s view of the Venezuelan energy initiative as a key element of President Chávez’s “Bolivarian” vision and suggested that the geopolitical implications for Caricom were deserving of further consideration.
In our editorial of July 8, ‘Caricom’s latest conclusions,’ another of the issues that concerned us was that, in their deliberations on relations with Latin America, heads were reported to have “reiterated the need and importance for member states, in the context of the emergence of new development partners and the outreach efforts by third countries, to respect and honour the provisions of the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas.”
We surmised that this was a shot at Dominica’s adherence to ALBA, and perhaps Antigua and Barbuda and St Vincent and the Grenadines in light of their ever closer relations with Venezuela. Or it might simply have been a reflection of the principle of variable geometry as applied to the foreign policy of individual members of Caricom.
Whatever the sub-text, we thought that the heads (or the drafters of the communiqué) would have done better to have communicated their considered opinion of the position on ALBA and Petrocaribe taken by the 11th Meeting of the Council for Foreign and Community Relations (COFCOR), held in Antigua in early May, based on a paper by none other than Professor Girvan.
The language in the communiqué emerging from that meeting was, if anything, only slightly more informative than that employed by the heads. It was reported that in considering policy responses to new geopolitical and economic changes and challenges, “as well as new initiatives which have emerged and which could assist countries of the Region in meeting these challenges, among them… ALBA,” foreign ministers “agreed that Member States should continue to pursue and explore all opportunities available to them for their social and economic development, recognising at all times their obligations under the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas.”
Tellingly, this particular agreement makes no mention of the need to act collectively or to develop a coordinated policy. And the COFCOR only manages three paragraphs later, almost as a footnote to this green light for pragmatic, but divergent and potentially divisive policies, to emphasise “the importance of coordination of the Region’s Foreign Policy, given the small size and vulnerability of CARICOM Member States and the constantly changing nature of the international system.”
This is a worrying development in itself, but perhaps of greater concern are the unofficial reports from Antigua that there was very little in-depth discussion by foreign ministers of the geopolitical implications of Venezuela’s heightened engagement with Caricom, in the wider context of hemispheric relations and the emerging challenges to US hegemony, and in the regional context of Venezuela’s own territorial ambitions vis-à-vis Guyana and the Caribbean Sea. It seems that the new pragmatism dictates that there should be an unquestioning acceptance of Venezuelan largesse, without any attempt to forge a regional consensus and strategy on how to respond beyond gratitude for President Chávez’s generosity.
Perhaps this was due to the fact that the 11th COFCOR was being attended by a new cohort of foreign ministers, some of them dangerously new to foreign policy and some of them meeting each other for the first time. Perhaps the dynamics were not right for a free-flowing, intellectually challenging debate. Or perhaps it was simply because ministers opted to hold their cards close to their chests out of national self-interest. The real truth may not be known for a while.
However, while Professor Girvan’s argument that ALBA and Petrocaribe do not run counter to the provisions of the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas is, from the legal and technical perspectives, correct, there are serious overriding political considerations.
Indeed, the potential for division and disunity, not to mention the emergence of a new dependency syndrome, would appear to be a very strong argument for heeding the exhortation of Secretary General Edwin Carrington in his opening remarks to the COFCOR meeting on the fundamental mandate “to coordinate the foreign policies of the member states of the community… and to seek as far as practicable, the adoption of community positions on major hemispheric and international issues.” In this respect, he noted that “the success of the community in this latter regard, has been one of the greatest strengths” of Caricom and warned that “a departure from the pursuit of that obligation will significantly weaken our community.”
The old adage that in unity there is strength is as relevant as ever. Otherwise, member states will be picked off one by one, starting with the weakest and most vulnerable. This is not a new strategy and it is already happening. It is a profoundly worrying scenario.