Last week was an interesting one, though largely unnoticed, for Caribbean diplomacy. Our states like the rest of the international community, were required to adopt a position in a United Nations forum on an issue arising from the continuing Israeli opposition to the recognition and seating of Palestine in the organisation, and the now increasing persistence of the Palestine Liberation Organisation in seeking to persuade a majority of the international community to ignore Israeli entreaties. At the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (Unesco), a few weeks following Palestine’s contentious pursuit of representation at the UN General Assembly, the states of the international community as a whole divided again, and the pattern of voting made for interesting reading.
In the region, what has been remarked on by some observers were the varying positions taken at Unesco by the Caricom member states, though there is some indication in the voting patterns that more substantial states than our own in other regional political groupings reflected somewhat similar patterns. Our regional commentators have tended to be largely critical of the division in our ranks. For while no Caricom country voted against the Palestine request, only Belize, St Lucia and St Vincent and the Grenadines and Suriname voted in favour, being joined in the wider Caribbean by the Dominican Republic. On the other hand Guyana, Dominica and Antigua absented themselves from the roll-call, and Barbados, Bahamas, Haiti, Jamaica, St Kitts and Nevis and Trinidad & Tobago abstained. No Caricom country actually voted against the Palestinians.
Although Caricom has, as one of its institutions, a Foreign and Community Relations Ministerial Committee (Cofcor), there seem to be no strict rules about consultation on a singular position in advance of votes of this kind. We do not know whether there was in fact any consultation and what might have been the grounds for the differing positions taken by member states. There will, no doubt, have been some states taking the view that it is now time for a regularization of the Palestinian issue, and that as a matter of principle, they should vote for the resolution. On the other hand, there has sometimes tended to be a view since our states became independent, that small fry should not meddle in contentious issues involving major powers. This has tended to lead mainly to abstention. But what seems clear from the vote is that the position of Israel vis-à-vis the Caricom states, in terms of aid and trade, is insufficiently strong to make them feel inclined to make even a gesture of collective support of that country’s position; and we have to assume that the issue is itself not sufficiently significant for the United States to incline it to exert major pressure on these small entities of the Caribbean.
So from a United States perspective, those not supporting will feel the effects of the country’s withdrawal of its Unesco contribution. But smaller states will probably be thinking that the greater flexibility of present-day global politics and economics, means that others can take up the slack, and their situation will not be too affected by the old Cold War mentality of two rigid sides with no space for independent actors in between. Already there are suggestions that various Middle Eastern or Muslim states can fill the void likely to be created by the American suspension of funds to Unesco.
What, however, is interesting in the recent vote, and might well give Caricom states some solace, allowing them to reject accusations of division and inability to take collective decisions on major issues, is that the voting of other regions has seemed to be not too far from the Caricom situation. To take one of the larger regions, voting among the European Union states seems to have displayed a variety, rather than a uniformity of positions, not unlike the Caricom region. Voting against the Palestinian application, and therefore adhering to the US position were France, Germany, Sweden and the Netherlands, while the United Kingdom, Portugal, Denmark and Italy abstained, with Norway voting in support.
Obviously, the vote at Unesco did not have, for these states, the political salience of the debate on the placing of Palestine as a member of the General Assembly, and therefore the same rigidity of support for the United States. And it is noteworthy in that regard, that France, which took a somewhat different position on the UN General Assembly issue of Palestine recognition, but voted in favour of the Palestinians on the Unesco issue, has now indicated that when the Security Council meets on the recognition issue this Friday she, like the United Kingdom, will abstain (and it appears that Germany will be following their lead). Obviously on that issue, there is recognition by these two countries that for the major Middle Eastern states, it is a more significant one than the Unesco issue.
In the increasingly multipolar world emerging, reflected in the construction of a G20, developing countries are likely to have to make more and more judgements that will give the appearance of disparity. Already within the Caricom, the Libyan issue suggested differences between those who have been recipients of Libyan assistance and those who have not. In our own region and hemisphere, there are obviously differences of view of relations with Chávez’s Venezuela, even though more or less all states are beneficiaries of the PetroCaribe fund and related Venezuelan assistance. So there seems to be an emerging consensus that some issues will permit divergence of views and voting, while others may require the search for a Caricom consensus. The situation is a not unfamiliar one for us. We need to recall that in 1972, the heads of government of the four major English-speaking Caribbean states were able to come to agreement on diplomatic recognition of the Cuban government of Fidel Castro, in spite of the fact that there were known to be ideological differences between them.
The search for regional unity on global issues is likely to become more difficult for us, as the world fractionalizes itself in this period of change in the economic strength and diplomatic statuses of states. Whom we support – or as some would say, whom we choose to attach ourselves to on some major issues – will pose new problems of seeking Caricom diplomatic convergence. So that our positions, in terms of what we require from the complex configuration of states, will require more collective consultation, rather than less. The Economic Partnership Agreement, its disputes, and then a patched up Caricom reconciliation, were only a beginning.
