Dear Editor,
I was fortunate enough to be among attendees at the Sir Shridath Ramphal Memorial Lecture last Tuesday at UG, to hear Sir Ronald Sanders’ excellent presentation on the topic, “Has the Rule of Law Been Replaced by ‘Might is Right’?”. Those in the live audience on campus and the hundreds more on line were afforded an incisive review of the role and impact of Sir Shridath on the evolution of the Caribbean integration project in various aspects, which allowed Sir Ronald to segue into the current situation confront-ing CARICOM in the South Caribbean Sea.
The presentation by Sir Ronald involved the examination of a central theme, ‘that while sovereignty in the modern order is both a right and a capacity: every state holds the right, but not all possess the capacity to exercise it freely’. Hence while the bedrock principle in the multilateral system of the sovereign equality of states is manifest when states have the right, the majority, apart from the Mighty, have limited capacity to exercise it, much less enjoy it: as the presenter put it, ‘nominal sovereignty, yes…the capacity to exercise that right, no’.
In these challenging circumstances, Sir Ronald posed the option resorted to so often by groupings of small states – CARICOM, the Pacific Forum, SIDS, AOSIS – the ‘the defense of sovereignty rests…on collective action’. This, of course, represents a contradiction in terms: on the one hand, you have states proclaiming their cherished sovereignty from the mountain top to constituents both domestic and international, as manifested by every nation having a Coat of Arms, a National Anthem, a flag, why, even an Independence Day. And yet, through their resort to collective action, these same sovereign states would have to circumscribe some of these manifestations, subsuming the independence that comes with sovereignty, to the wishes of the collective.
Indeed Sir Ronald refers to this contradiction, which derives from a self-inflicted wound (my words, not his) through the Member States’ insistence on referring to our collective as a “Community of Sovereign States”; this automatically begs the question, how can states stand on ceremony in defence of their individual sovereignty, while simultaneously partaking in action as a collective? (Ask Trinidad and Tobago, for starters!)
The answer may lie in part in what was shared by European bureaucrats with a CARICOM Expert Group some years ago, when we were again trying to slay this contradictory dragon, and the Group was told that the answer lies in the “S” word, that is, sovereignty. It is a fundamental structural difference – maybe deficiency in our case – between the EU and CARICOM that Member States in the former integration movement consciously and by way of their constitutional frameworks, agreed to cede some aspects of sovereignty to the European Commission, in order to make integration more meaningful and workable for them. In our case that was never done: instead we insist on our configuration of a “Community of Sovereign States”.
But again, we seem to have a plaster for every sore that challenges the strength that comes with numbers in a collective grouping; either that or it was a healthy dose of pragmatism that influenced the drafters of the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas, in relation to Article 16 on the Council on Foreign and Community Relations. Hence the obligation in Article 16 (3)(b) to ‘coordinate the foreign policies of the Member States’, is only for them ‘…to ensure, as far as practicable, the adoption of Com-munity positions on major hemispheric and international issues’. In other words, practicality is allowed to trump collectivity.
In much the same way as the EU imposed sanctions on the sale of Russian oil, but allowed some Member States (e.g. Hungary, Belgium, France) for special reasons to continue imports of either crude oil or LNG, so too a CARICOM Member State, for reasons of economic dependence (or political expediency?) should be allowed to chart its own sovereign course among the collective. In this regard, Trinidad and Tobago should not be frowned upon for reserving its position on the CARICOM statement on the situation in the South Caribbean, although some of the other noises emanating from Port-of-Spain were arguably excessive. Particularly noteworthy was the assertion that CARICOM is not a reliable partner, when Trinidad and Tobago has perhaps benefitted the most from the trade arrangements which flow from the CSME.
In other words, Sir Ronald is on point: given the dilemma of the right to sovereignty versus the capacity to exercise
sovereignty, our default position has been to retreat into collectivity, the safe space of small states in the regional and multilateral spheres, with all the attendant footnotes and caveats. In the face of recurring instances globally of “might is right’, the challenge that lies ahead for small states in general and CARICOM in particular, is to turn our weaknesses into strengths. For most of my working life, I have been toiling in the vineyard of regional integration, involved in that exact quest – far less so than Sir Ronald. In that regard I proffer the following suggestions:
It is both necessary and expedient that we seek to have replicated as a matter of urgency, the principled positions that CARICOM is taking, as regard the Caribbean remaining a Zone of Peace, respect for international law and the right to due process. Our first port of call should be select members of the US Congress, both Republicans and Demo-crats, who share similar sentiments on behalf of their constituents who do not want to see their President – who campaigned on a ticket to end wars – send American men and women into harm’s way…or at the very least, without just cause.
In addition, CARICOM should motivate other liked-minded states that share its principled stance and can leverage their own strengths with the US – the Central African states that are rich in rare earth minerals that are needed in US factories to compete against Chinese products; Southern and West African countries that host economic and trade opportunities for the US; like-minded Latin American states that are skeptical of a new round of Yankee Imperialism – what Dr. Mark Kirton refers to in the current circumstances as “the Donroe doctrine”; and even some EU states that are uncomfortable with the manner in which the military campaign, ostensibly for drug interdiction, is being carried out off of Venezuela.
The White House, in response to push back at home on the impact on the cost of living of its own tariffs, and also on sentiments regarding the release of the Epstein files, capitulated and still will claim victory with a straight face. Similarly, if it hears the principles espoused by CARICOM emanating not only domestically from the representatives of disaffected constituents, but also abroad from other like-minded small states with which it has transactional interests in terms of their natural resources or trade, the White House would quite likely also pivot and choose the option of dialogue rather than military confrontation with Venezuela, on which President Maduro is now frantically insisting.
Such a widening of the circle of wagons should ideally be led by Guyana, the country under the most persistent threat from Venezuela. However, the diplomatic effort required by this country is not matched across its representation, to the extent that most of its Heads of Missions are political appointees not experienced in the cut and thrust of diplomacy, who have never spent the long hours in the trenches of diplomacy, which often are required to achieve a desired outcome such as this.
While our diplomatic effort at the highest levels of government in areas such as climate change, climate financing, vulnerability, debt alleviation and development financing has commendably shone the multilateral spotlight on Guyana, a push for support for our position on the maintenance of international peace and security in the Caribbean by representatives on Capitol Hill, as well as by other like-minded states, would require a different campaign, with multi-level demarches in all the major capitals and among both our friends and key non-traditional partners. I am sure Sir Ronald could share some pointers in this regard.