Shooting ourselves in the foot... Again!

Havelock Brewster, in his 2003 article titled: The Caribbean Single Market and Economy: Is it realistic without ccommitment to political unity? concluded with a sentiment that we share.  Brewster’s conclusion is reproduced below for easy reference.

Caribbean governments since 1989 have undertaken deep and far-reaching commitments to establish a Single Market and Economy, representing a major advance over the Common Market. However, very little has actually been achieved in terms of implementing these commitments. The root cause of the situation can be found in the fact the most of the CSME commitments are premised on the existence of higher degrees of political integration than currently exist. While a mode of intergovernmental cooperation, by way of discretional State-by-State progressive market liberalization, legislative harmonization and ratification, may have been more or less workable for Common Market arrangements, they are unlikely to be effective for the purposes of creating a single market and economy. The experience of the only grouping of States that has attempted such a transition indicates that it is necessary to move beyond intergovernmental cooperation to selective forms of supranational action. Two initial priority areas for the application of this conclusion in the Caribbean Community would be the program of legislative harmonization and arrangements for financing the Community institutions. (Article available here

          

We would examine Brewster’s conclusion and explain our concurrence.  A number of poignant  issues were raised by Brewster which may have been lost on many.   We shall briefly address three:

1.      A Single Market is NOT a Common Market

2.      Legislative harmonisation is essential

3.      Politics must be more inclusive  (National Sovereignty?)

The first point Brewster makes, which many in the Community need to understand is that the concept of a Single Market is different from that of a Common Market.  The Single Market is an internal market i.e. an enlarged space without internal frontiers, in which persons, goods, services and capital can move freely.  A common market on the other hand is an arrangement intended to eliminate or markedly reduce trade barriers among its members, while maintaining frontiers.   CARICOM has maintained internal frontiers making the single market nothing more than a continuation of the previous common market arrangement.

The second issue we wish to highlight is the need for legislative harmonisation.  The slow progress on harmonisation is one way to ensure that the internal frontiers are maintained.  There cannot be a single market and economy without legislative harmonisation.  All the institutional arrangements of the CSME require some measure of harmonisation.   The Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas calls for harmonisation in the following areas:

• Consumer protection
• Customs
• Competition policy
• Anti-dumping and countervailing measures
• Banking and securities
• Regulation and labelling of food and drugs
• Intellectual property rights
• Standards and technical regulations
• Sanitary and phytosanitary measures
• Commercial arbitration

   

These are not simple matters.  For any forward movement on the CSME, there must be common legal ground on all these issues.  This however, cannot be left to disparate governments.  There must be a collaborative regional approach to legislative harmonisation.

The third issue which may have slipped us is regional politics.  The greatest challenge to the full implementation of CSME commitments may actually be political will, or the lack thereof.  There is a direct link between the implementation deficit and the deficit in political will.  This however, may be a bit unfair to our leaders as they have demonstrated strong political  will in preventing the achievement of regional integration.  They have shown that they have the political will to desperately clutch sovereignty.  That they possess the political will to preside over the fragmentation of the Community.  It is incomprehensible that our leaders can, for decades, manage to preserve fragmentation and disunity while spending millions of dollars on talk shops, discussing something they are not committed to.  If there was collective commitment, integration would have been far advanced.  

The main stumbling block with our leaders is their desire to hold on to sovereignty.  For them, ceding any measure of sovereignty is anomalous.  There seems to be a culture of comfort with the status quo.  They are happy with things the way they are.  This is why it is now the responsibility of CARICOM people to rise up, speak up and act up to make regional integration a true reality.

Yes there are challenges to integration.  There are real challenges to full and fast implementation of commitments   These include size, capacity and the structure of Caribbean economies, among others.   However, these challenges are in fact excellent reasons for deeper integration.  For CARICOM, the issue of sovereignty seems to be the greatest obstacle.   We hold on to something that is guaranteed to prevent success.  Unless we release the stranglehold on sovereignty, we will be witnesses to our painful demise.  Our leaders talk integration but act sovereign.

When one considers the European  Treaty of Maastricht, the language is clearly meant to cement  the union.  The term ‘shall’ is used frequently as opposed to ‘may’ used in the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas.  There are EU laws which are enforceable and set down via EU directives.  These (EU directives) lay down certain end results that must be achieved in every Member State. National authorities have to adapt their laws to meet these goals. (Source: European Commission).  No such authority exists in CARICOM.  Decisions made at the level of the Conference of Heads are not enforceable and domestic law may be inconsistent with them.  This is a recipe for chaos. 

The problem is that parliamentary support is needed to carry out many of those decisions.  That support is slow in coming and linked to some form of quid pro quo. As Brewster pointed out: most of the CSME commitments are premised on the existence of higher degrees of political integration than currently exist.  What is required therefore is a higher degree of political integration and a  system which does not put the Community at the mercy of politicians who, for selfish reasons, choose to hold millions of CARICOM nationals to ransom.  We need a system with inherent parliamentary consensus.  This can only be achieved by bipartisan support for amendments to domestic laws, giving CARICOM decisions binding power at all levels.  In essence we are suggesting a supranational organ which can issue CARICOM directives


Alexander Gittens
On behalf of the CMCE