Dear Editor,
Prime Minister Dr. Ralph Gonsalves of St. Vincent and the Grenadines is no stranger to Guyana nor Guyanese politics.
Guyanese from all walks of life would recall with deep admiration his timely and decisive intervention in our electoral process following the 2020 election when the APNU+AFC tried brazenly to thwart the will of the electorate.
In an interview at a local radio station in Kingstown, on June 11, 2020, PM Gonsalves in addressing the situation in Guyana following the election said: “St. Vincent and the Grenadines stands firmly for democracy and reflecting the will of the people…Caricom is not going to tolerate anybody stealing an election… if you lose, you take your licks like a man.”
One month after, as efforts to ‘stop the steal’ in Guyana style dragged on, PM Gonsalves was bold enough to declare:
“A rogue clique within Guyana cannot be allowed to disrespect or disregard, with impunity, the clear unambiguous ruling of the CCJ. The time for decisive action is shortly upon us.” (S/N 15.7.20).
The Prime Minister’s critics had a common criticism; he was ‘interfering in the internal affairs of a sovereign state’. He was ‘advised’ by those who had determined to stay in power by any means necessary to ‘leave Guyana alone.’ The rest is history, we Guyanese are now living it.
To Dr. Gonsalves, Guyana is a special place. It is to this country he travelled frequently to meet and exchange ideas with Cheddi Jagan while the latter was Opposition Leader and General Secretary of the PPP and to ground with other Guyanese academics, political and social activists.
As a well credentialed connoisseur of political maneuvering, PM Gonsalves is the only Head of Government of the Caribbean Community to be democratically re-elected to office for a fifth consecutive term.
In urging his colleague Heads not to attend the just concluded Summit of The Americas, PM Gonsalves’ letter of May 11, 2022 conveys both a strategic and tactical approach to the question of Caricom’s participation. He outlined in his letter, four basic reasons against participation and reinforces them with five principles which he considers to be ‘timeless.’ Further, he suggested that these principles ‘are at stake, so, too, practical relating to Caricom itself.’
In an interview aired on Al Jazeera cable network on the eve of the Summit, PM Gonsalves argued that; “The Summit of the Americas is supposed to be inclusive not exclusive …” and that St. Vincent and the Grenadines is not attending “because of the failure and refusal” to include Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela, the trio who have been on the radar of the US for some time.
Incidentally, it is apposite to note that the population of the three excluded countries amount to approximately 47 million, or 14 per cent of the US population of 332.4 million. Caricom has a population of 18.8 million.
All things being equal, the PM must have reasoned that to exclude three countries with a population of 47 million only adds to the deficit in hemispheric governance and closes the space that would have helped help dissipate festering hemispheric tensions giving way to interdependence and genuine partnership as the way forward.
That aside, PM Gonsalves must have considered the decision to deny the trio an opportunity to interact with their counterparts as not just an ideological but a philosophical one, and that their exclusion will only serve to push them closer to China, Russia and Iran who the US see as anathema to them globally much less in their own ‘backyard’.
Responding to a question as to whether the region is now divided, the Prime Minister demurred diplomatically stating; “It is really a tactical approach… the matter is so large a principle that we ought not to have gone …”
“Friends” he said “should indicate to each other when they have erred and the US has made an error” by not inviting the three named countries, casting the exclusionary approach in the context of “fighting 20th century battles in the 21st century.”
The aforementioned reasons and principles articulated by Prime Minister Gonsalves looked at through the prism of his world view, which he disclosed publicly at various fora, can be construed as the ‘Gonsalves Doctrine.’ Thus, it appears that, solidarity with countries whose leaders’ world view and statements of principles coincide with his, is probably what influenced the Vincentian Prime Minister to adopt the position he took in defence of the excluded and by extension, his country’s non-attendance.
PM Gonsalves’ letter and interview raises certain fundamental questions from both a tactical and strategic perspective in respect to principle versus self-interest as they relate to small economies in general and small-island developing states in particular. But more importantly, they raise once again, questions about how to reconcile individual with collective national security interests and how to arrive at common positions within the meaning of treaty obligations in a broad sense, and in a narrower sense, with the United States, with whom there appears to be more convergence than divergence at this point in time.
But there is one important lesson in Caribbean history that should never be forgotten since it remains relevant in today’s context.
It is to be recalled that in 1972, at a time when the cold war was still raging, Barbados, Guyana, Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago took the decisive step to establish diplomatic relations with Cuba. That united act by its very nature, helped protect, and at the same time, advanced the individual and collective interests of the region as a whole.
Ever since then, notwithstanding its exclusion from the Los Angeles Summit, Cuba is embraced by, and enjoys support and solidarity from almost all members of the United Nations especially when the world’s most prestigious summit is held in September every year in New York City.
In the final analysis, the fundamental question to be asked in the light of what has been ‘not one of Caricom’s prouder moments’, is, who will be the proven few to have principle and practicality on their side and who will be on the right side of history knowing that chronicling of historic events is a work in progress.
Yours faithfully,
Clement J. Rohee
