The minds of many in the region are being exercised by the growing economic importance of Petrocaribe and the apparent appeal of President Hugo Chávez’s Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas (ALBA). Some, this newspaper included, have expressed concern at the scope for an enlarged Venezuelan political footprint in the Caribbean. Others have simply chosen to be grateful for President Chávez’s generosity, turning a blind eye to the geopolitical and economic implications of Venezuela’s outreach to and growing influence over individual Caricom states.
In the absence of a coherent Caricom response to the current energy crisis and the region’s economic woes, economic pragmatism would appear to have trumped unity and long-term strategic thinking. And while the concessionary terms of Petrocaribe may appear to be too good to ignore, especially in the absence of relief and comparable assistance from other sources, the long-term price to be paid may not be fully appreciated for some time yet.
Our editorials have consistently dealt with different aspects of Venezuelan foreign policy in the region and focused on Mr Chávez’s aspirations as they relate to Guyana’s territorial integrity, our national development prospects and the unity and cohesiveness of the Caricom project as a whole. And even though some readers think that we have an obsession with Mr Chávez, we make no apology for maintaining the spotlight on our neighbour’s intentions and their potential for undermining our already fragile Caribbean unity.
We are not alone in monitoring developments in and relations with the Bolivarian Republic. Among regular commentators on regional affairs, David Jessop, Professor Norman Girvan and Sir Ronald Sanders, have all written on the more assertive role being taken by oil-rich, revolutionary Venezuela.
It is also instructive to consider that in addition to Professor Girvan, two other respected Caribbean academics have written almost simultaneously about Venezuelan petro-diplomacy in the region, namely, Professor Anthony Maingot of Trinidad and Tobago, Professor Emeritus in Sociology at Florida International University (FIU), and Professor Anthony Bryan, another Trinidadian and a Senior Associate at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.
Professor Girvan, in a paper entitled ‘LBA, Petrocaribe and CARICOM: Issues in a New Dynamic,’captures the essence of his presentation to the 11th Meeting of the Council for Foreign and Community Relations (COFCOR), in Antigua in early May. He argues strongly in favour of Petrocaribe as an economic necessity, but glosses over the geopolitical implications of Venezuela’s insertion into Caricom affairs. In all fairness, however, he does point to the “value of coordinated CARICOM policies” whilst signalling the “difficulties of agreement… in a Community with divergent interests.”
Professor Maingot’s presentation to a conference on Venezuelan foreign policy at FIU, on May 29, ‘Responses to Venezuelan Petropolitics in the Greater Caribbean,’ also recognizes the economic constraints and challenges faced by the countries of the Caribbean Basin, but somewhat disappointingly offers a rather simplistic argument in favour of economic and diplomatic pragmatism, trusting to the “sophistication of Caribbean diplomats” in dealing with the particular challenges presented by Mr Chávez’s policies and intentions. Unfortunately, Professor Maingot presents no empirical evidence to support his intriguing claim of Caribbean diplomatic “sophistication.”
Professor Bryan’s paper, ‘Petrocaribe and CARICOM: Venezuela’s resource diplomacy and its impact on small state regional cooperation,’ which also first appeared in May, is perhaps the most helpful contribution to the debate. In analyzing Petrocaribe in the context of the global dynamics of resource diplomacy and the “ad hoc and individual” Caricom responses, he concludes that, notwithstanding the obvious economic benefits of Venezuela’s initiatives in the region, “the issue for the longer term is the extent of cohesiveness of CARICOM foreign policy, as globally new configurations alter old allegiances and traditional diplomatic positions unravel.”
For Professor Bryan, the Petrocaribe model of regional energy cooperation, “based on the primacy of Venezuelan oil, current largesse, and the use of ideology as a strategy for regional cooperation… is not a model for the future.” It smacks too much of dependency, both economic and political.
Professor Bryan therefore goes a step further than his distinguished colleagues and offers specific recommendations to guide the regional response. He calls on Caricom heads to establish a mechanism for understanding the interrelationship between energy security and geopolitics, in conjunction with the development of a “clear vision of regional energy cooperation or integration.”
In addition, Caricom relations with Venezuela should be managed from a regional perspective, even as the case is made for “more flexible and dynamic models of regional integration that could include various levels of cooperation.”
A Caricom response along these lines, informed by experts in all relevant disciplines, would perhaps be the real proof of the sophistication of Caribbean diplomats and policymakers.
