Just in case anyone believes that Caricom states are still capable of consistently clever diplomacy, then think again. The statement issued at the end of the recent UK-Caribbean Ministerial Forum in Grenada expressing support for the right of the Falkland Islanders to self-determination might have been regarded as an attempt by Caricom to move towards a more nuanced position on the sovereignty of the South Atlantic islands claimed by Argentina and the UK. However, the declaration by the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our Americas (ALBA), signed onto by three Caricom members last weekend, would have put paid to any such notion.
At the 11th ALBA Summit in Caracas, the Prime Ministers of Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica and St Vincent and the Grenadines joined their Latin American colleagues of the radical left to “reiterate their firm support for the legitimate claim of the Argentine Republic to sovereign rights over the Islas Malvinas, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands and the surrounding maritime areas.” This echoes the position taken by Caricom countries at two Latin American and Caribbean summits in February 2010 and December 2011, but appears to contradict that taken by Caricom foreign ministers at the Grenada Forum, in that there is no mention of the principle of self-determination.
Some may wish to read the ALBA statement as an attempt by the three prime ministers to distance themselves from the position of their foreign ministers, but then again, Baldwin Spencer is both Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of Antigua and Barbuda.
The prime ministers also endorsed the decision of “the countries of the region” – the ALBA communiqué does not specify which region – to block any ships flying the Falkland Islands flag from their ports. This has been interpreted by some as an agreement by St John’s, Roseau and Kingstown to ban Falkland flag carriers, which would be fairly meaningless since there is no direct trade between the Falklands and the Caribbean. This may, however, be a misinterpretation of the statement.
The real issue at stake is the contrary position vis-à-vis the UK once again being taken by the three Commonwealth Caribbean countries. If the prime ministers in question wished to reflect a burgeoning Latin American and Caribbean solidarity with regard to the last vestiges of colonialism in the Americas, they might find a sympathetic audience in the region. If they wished, further, to show their unhappiness at the intransigence of the British Chancellor of the Exchequer in the face of vigorous lobbying against the UK’s discriminatory Air Passenger Duty on travel to the Caribbean, they might win kudos in some quarters.
On the other hand, by one day endorsing, along with the rest of Caricom, Argentina’s “legitimate rights” in the context of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC), then the next day showing themselves receptive to the British argument in respect of self-determination, only to revert to the Argentine position within the ALBA framework, they win no plaudits for their flip-flopping on the Falklands.
We already commented in last Friday’s editorial on the profound implications of the colonial era claims of our Latin friends with respect to the territorial integrity and maritime zones of certain Caricom member states, most particularly Guyana. We alluded to Caricom’s inability to adopt and adhere to coordinated positions in the face of the entreaties of their international partners. Now, in the apparent absence of a carefully enunciated guiding principle and with this blatant disregard for a position taken a mere two weeks ago, the leaders of the three ALBA/Commonwealth Caribbean members have not only sown more confusion over Caricom’s collective position but also raised some fuss in their own countries.
One recognises that states have a right to pursue their national interests. But positions taken at the regional level and in international forums should demonstrate consistency and should, moreover, conform to Caricom’s stated objective, as enshrined in the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas, of “enhanced co-ordination” of foreign policies.
Sadly, however, it seems that the three prime ministers were simply unable to withstand President Hugo Chávez’s charisma and hospitality in Caracas, much less his largesse. Such behaviour runs the risk of bringing not only the three countries but Caricom itself into disrepute.
Where once there were principles in the conduct of Caricom’s external relations, even when taking controversial and oppositional stances, there is now a lack of coherence and credibility.
More pertinently, with ALBA’s decision to recognise St Lucia and Suriname as “special guest members” and Haiti as a “permanent guest,” Professor Norman Girvan is warning that ALBA “poses the urgency of revitalising Caricom, and if Caricom continues to be relatively moribund in its economic integration aspect, then inevitably ALBA will become an attractive alternative for more and more Caricom states.” If we are not careful, ALBA may yet prove to be the undoing of Caricom. But that is a subject for another discussion.
