Context is everything. In social relations, a statement uttered in times of calm and good relations among groups of people may be taken as harmless and allowed to pass. In times of personal or social uncertainty, the same statement may give rise to contention and feelings of offence and hurt by those who think it is hostilely directed to them.
In these times of economic crisis, consequent policy challenges, and fears about the future in the world as a whole, Caricom countries, and their leaders are unlikely to be exempt from feeling upset and taking umbrage, about statements made about them. The suddenness of the global recession and its present and potential consequences for us, induce governments to take various kinds of preemptive and extraordinary action, and to justify them as necessary in extraordinary times. And how the leaders of such governments formulate such justifications, is prone to elicit different kinds of responses – some understanding, some considered hostile.
To take one example, in the last three years or so, the issue of LIAT’s operations – a matter with much popular resonance – has, from time to time, given rise to contentious statements by this or that head of government, leading to resentment by others. And the very difficulty of finding solutions to the problems of the company has been prone to increase governmental frustration, and lead to outbursts of blame.
More recently, however, the issue of immigration into Barbados has elicited similar responses. Earlier in the year, the Prime Minister of St Vincent, no doubt in a fit of what he would have taken to be considered ill-temper, lashed out at what he described as “unfair, unconscionable and discriminatory treatment by some immigration authorities within member states of Caricom.” The reference was, clearly, mainly to complaints about alleged recurring circumstances in Barbados, but could in the more general context of complaints also be emanating from other sources about the deportation of Caricom nationals from Antigua and Barbuda.
Prime Minister Gonsalves’ assertions were not received kindly in Barbados. But as is now well known, they came to be reinforced by strong statements from Guyana and other parts of the region, that a new policy on the treatment of non-Barbadian Caricom citizens, requiring the immediate departure of illegal aliens, was being put in train in Barbados. This, it seemed to be felt, was being done without any indication by the new Thompson government of that country, of prior information to, or consultation with, Caricom states likely to be most concerned.
The furore in some Caricom states, not least Guyana, following the active implementation of the new immigration policy has been surprising to some observers. The Barbados government has reacted with vigour, emphasizing its right to conduct an autonomous immigration policy, a policy justified by Prime Minister Thompson in a speech in July this year to representatives of the media in Georgetown, in which he quoted former Prime Minister Errol Barrow speaking at a Caricom Heads of Government Conference in Guyana in 1986: “I should like to believe that we are all committed to the principle of mobility and people interaction… And that we have an obligation to think and go on thinking out ways how such a principle might be applied without imposing on any territory a greater strain than its resources are able to support.” But some, of course, may take the view that when Barrow spoke in this way, referring to the obligation that “we have,” that “we” would have been referring not simply to individual governments but also to the collectivity of Caricom governments. It appears that, in some measure, the Barbados government has now conceded this point.
The to-an-fro of comment from sources both in Barbados and in other countries of the region has not been pleasant, or particularly complementary to the region as a “community of peoples.” Various commentators have been recalling statements of other Barbados government ministers that have been essentially negative towards other Caricom nationals. And some have recalled that the original context of the present situation seems to be found in the political contentions in Barbados arising during the campaigning in the country’s last general elections. Then, Mr Thompson’s Democratic Labour Party emphasized the fact that there were up to 30,000 non-Barbadian Caricom nationals in the country, many of them illegals, and that the then government of Prime Minister Owen Arthur had done nothing about it. No doubt it was felt at the time that the introduction of this issue in the campaign would have a certain positive political resonance. And recent assertions that a local poll has indicated a 70% support for the government’s line would seem to indicate a Barbados government belief that popular support is the substantial basis for its election policy on immigration and subsequent statements. Some might well feel, however, that it is not entirely regionally politic that a policy line felt to be useful in the election debate between the two contending parties, should now be allowed to contribute to a regional furore with its public spilling of bad blood all around.
The danger indeed can well be a conclusion that Caricom is only worthwhile if we benefit in a direct economic sense from it. But such a conclusion makes us reminisce about Errol Barrow’s same, now quoted 1986 speech, in which he reminded us that Caricom regional integration was not simply about “taking in each other’s washing” – not simply about how much we could sell to one another.
It is regrettable that the current controversy has now engulfed as distinguished a Caricom son of the soil, as Sir Shridath Ramphal, himself a Guyanese, and apparently inducing the comment from the Barbados Prime Minister, seemingly directed at persons living in Barbados that “enough is enough,” and that “I have had as much as I am willing to take as far as the unfair and unwarranted maligning of Barbados and Barbadians by those to whom we have extended a welcoming hand is concerned… there is precedent for such ingratitude.” Harsh words indeed, from one who reminded the Guyanese journalists recently that his paternal grandfather hailed from Guyana.
Can we ask for a truce on all of this? We understand the significance of the politics of immigration in Barbados, especially as the opposition Barbados Labour Party has been critical of Prime Minister Thompson’s stance. We understand also the sensitivities of a Guyanese government under attack for the substantial migration that now characterizes the country’s existence. We can already feel the sensitivities of other Caricom nationals in Barbados that the controversy is going to shed what they consider an unwanted negative light on themselves. And we know the difficulties of balancing the sensitivities of nationals against the sensitivities of ‘strangers’ who in today’s world are accepted as having certain civil rights. But we need to recall what we already all know: that history is replete with lessons about how dangerous it is for political contentions relating to minorities to get out of hand.
We hope that our governments will hold their hands on this issue for the time being. Let us wait, in temporary silence, for the elaboration of the new Barbadian policy on immigration of Caricom persons. And as we do so, let us hope that the Barbados government will seek to intimate in advance to Caricom governments, the basis and implicatioins of that policy, even as the government insists on its sovereign right to make its own, unqualified policy on the matter.
