THE WAY FORWARD FOR THE CARIBBEAN AS A REGION

Sunday Herald, 17 July 2011 04:51 

By Robert Stephens

Let us admit the fact that as individual islands and certainly in the case of Jamaica, if we continue down our current insular path of Governance and Economic Under-Development we will not survive as a sustainable society.
Norman Manley and those who proposed a Federation as the path to sustainable development were correct over 50 years ago and the concept seriously needs revisiting. 

If that opening salvo has not got your attention then here are some simple facts:

1. Sun Sea and Sand are at the center of our economies in terms of Tourism for the majority of the Islands but instead of nurturing the rare beauty and fabulous environs, which make us so attractive our approach to development is slash and burn then landscape and we even import flora and fauna from outside the region to landscape.

2.Energy except for Trinidad and Tobago that have utilized the oil they discovered to subsidize development, is a very high cost input into our operations of business reaching a rate of almost US$.40 in some islands when our cheapest source of energy, the SUN is the first that we recognize for tourism but we fail to utilize for energy. The entire region needs to liberalize the energy sector to allow the use of the natural sun, sea (wave energy) and wind to become the main sources of energy, which will be the least polluting of our beautiful environment.

3.Caribbean Culture, which includes our music, food, rhythm, dance, theatre, and essentially our warm and captivating personality as a people must be as central as sun sea and sand to our Tourism product and in fact is what separates us from the rest of the world as a region.

There are so many people of the world, who would love to be able to talk, walk, run, dance and generally have a lifestyle like us but we do not fully appreciate and understand the value of what we have. Our entire focus especially regarding Tourism must put our culture on par with our sun, sea and sand in terms of developing and sustaining our competitive edge in tourism.

4.Our Natural Environment must be regarded as sacrosanct and we must preserve and protect it with every ounce of our strength. Man in harmony with nature, which is at the core of why we love our region and because it is so fabulous we invite the rest of the world to visit us to share our natural beauty, is what separates us from other regions. Why are we so hell bent on destroying our own beautiful islands if we seriously recognize this fact or is it that we are totally undereducated and really are intent on destroying the very reason why we love what we have? Our entire approach to development and planning for future survival must put the natural environment and its protection front and center.

5.Sustainable Economic Development must be approached as a long-term regional philosophy and we must have regional policies, which support the concept. Our spices, rum, and regional delicacies must be developed as Caribbean brands which though they may have the unique flavor of our individual islands really must be within the context of regional policies, which encourage and support our development.

Clearly the short-term approach of our regional governments whose horizon is on winning elections every four to five years is really backward and is often detrimental to sustainable economic development as "spending "to win an election is usually more important than the bigger picture longer term approach.

This is not at this stage intended to be a comprehensive dissertation but I have just touched on one or two items, which are intended to begin a serious discussion of the way forward for the Caribbean as a region.
Robert Stephens is president Pragma Consultants Ltd.

Professor Norman Girvan on Existential Threats to Caribbean Countries

I had the privilege of attending the C.L.R. James Memorial Lecture, hosted by the Oil Workers’ Trade Union of Trinidad and Tobago (OWTU) and the Ciprini Labour College last Thursday, where I heard a very interesting presentation by Professor Norman Girvan. Professor Girvan spoke of the life and work of the late CLR James which inspired and motivated me immensely, but it was his presentation on Existential Threats in the Caribbean: Democratising Politics, Regionalising Governance that so impassioned me, I had to write this piece.

Professor Girvan spoke on what he called existential threats, which he defined as:

 “systemic challenges to the viability of our states as functioning socio-economic-ecological systems; due to the intersection of climatic, economic, social and political development”.

From the presentation, one main theme stood out and rang loudly in my ears: Professor Girvan was essentially saying that should things continue the way they do today in the region, then sooner than we think CARICOM States, and by extension the West Indies as we know it will cease to exist.  As ominous and apocalyptic as this sounds, -and I am sure the CMCE-isinclined to agree with him.

Professor Girvan noted in his presentation that devastating hurricanes have become a permanent, recurrent phenomenon in our reality. He goes as far as to call it an integral feature in Caribbean development. And he is right. We can look forward to at least 1-3 devastating hurricanes per year, leaving economic wreckage in their wake as they move through our islands. Barely are some countries able to recover from a previous hurricane before they are hit by another.

Hurricane Thomas in St Lucia, 2010

Added to this, is the depressing economic situation faced by the region; in his presentation, Professor Girvan quoted some recent statistics:

“there is still a significant level of poverty (in Caricom) despite the middle level per capita income that has been achieved. The level of poverty was reported to be 27 percent in St Kitts, 15.9 percent in Nevis, 37.7 percent in Grenada, 18.4 percent in Antigua and Barbuda, 14.5 percent in Jamaica, 28.8 percent in St. Lucia, and 16.7 percent in Trinidad and Tobago.

If this level of poverty keeps rising then we are indeed headed for big trouble; and further existential threats seem determined to get us there. One such threat he spoke about is food security; and rightly so. The region is a net importer of food. We import most of what we eat, or what we use to make our food. According to the Professor:

Food imports is one of the fastest growing items in the overall import bill and at $3.5 billion, are about three times the value of exports of agricultural products. The recent spike in the prices of food commodities in international markets, due largely to speculative purchases, has left most countries without a cushion and created severe political pressures.

Indeed, food security has become an extremely critical matter for CARICOM countries in light of global occurrences beyond our control, and its gets even more serious. According to one article of the Foreign Policy online magazine( found here), it reads:

Already in 2011, the U.N. Food Price Index has eclipsed its previous all-time global high; as of March it had climbed for eight consecutive months. With this year’s harvest predicted to fall short, with governments in the Middle East and Africa teetering as a result of the price spikes, and with anxious markets sustaining one shock after another, food has quickly become the hidden driver of world politics. And crises like these are going to become increasingly common. The new geopolitics of food looks a whole lot more volatile — and a whole lot more contentious — than it used to. Scarcity is the new norm.

Now this is what I call ominous. With a steady increase in food prices internationally, and scarcity becoming the new norm, more of our people will be thrown into dire poverty, especially those who are already poor and spend the majority of their income on food. We do not have to be reminded of the effect the increase in oil prices in 2008 had on the price of food here in the region. Now, oil prices are not the only issue we have to grapple with where food prices are concerned, we are starting to grappling with the scarcity of food itself.

The world’s population is increasing beyond sustainable levels, as an additional 219,000 mouths turn up at the dinner table every night. This increase in population is starting to take a toll on the environment, and is already starting to severely diminish its capacity to produce adequate food. In the meantime farm lands are already giving way to housing projects, even in the Caribbean context. 

Farm Lands being bulldozed by the Trinidad and Tobago Housing Development Corporation

Droughts, great forest fires and severe heat waves are also becoming a permanent feature of our global reality- recall the severe drought and forest fires of Russia in 2010, which drove up the price of grains, wheat and cereals. We can be sure that such occurrences are here to stay, especially since addressing climate change is not a current priority for many world leaders such as the United States, the biggest contributor to greenhouse gases.

Great fires are also becoming a permanent feature of our global reality

What will happen to us if countries stop selling us their food, and keep it to feed their own citizens? We saw it when Russia banned the export of grains in 2010 in order to feed its own people during the severe drought, resulting in a shortage and a spike in the price of grain food products on the international market.

As “independent” nations, we have allowed ourselves to become totally dependent on other countries for the very food we eat. The price of gas, political turmoil, environmental catastrophes- any of these events in other countries can cause us in the region to go hungry, triggering mass social unrest. This should give us good enough reason to be thoroughly ashamed of ourselves.

And what of regional tourism, the breadwinner of many Caribbean economies? With no diversification from the sun, sand and sea offering to tourists, CARICOM countries dependent on tourism will be left bereft of a source of income with the continued rise in sea levels. The issue was taken to the UN Climate Conference in Cancun, where is was suggested that:

with a sea-level rise of one metre, which is now regarded as highly likely by the end of the century, the Caribbean would see at least 149 multi-million dollar tourism resorts damaged or lost and would also see loss or damage of 21 of the Caricom airports, and the inundation of land surrounding 35 of the region’s 44 ports.

Professor Girvan also touched on the issue of crime, and spoke of its adverse effect on our economies. In further research we have come to learn that crime and violence is weighing heavily on the national budgets of countries such as Trinidad and Tobago and Jamaica. In a recent report, Jamaica spends U$S385 million, or J$33 billion a year, on indirect medical and other costs related to crime and violence.  It goes on to state that:

“These costs are comparable to estimates of the cost of civil war. Based on growth base lines for cross-country panel date in the last 50 years, researchers estimate the costs of civil wars to range from 1.6 percentage to 2.3 percentage of GDP per year of violence. For the average country affected by violence, these effects, compounded over time, can cost the equivalent of up to 30 years of missing GDP growth.”  Read more

Crime in the streets of Jamaica

Crime is also destroying our countries’ private sector, without which our countries cannot survive in a neo-liberal globalised age. According to the Private Sector Organisation of Jamaica (PSOJ): “The worst effect of crime is certainly the loss of lives, but crime is also costing the country investment, jobs, economic growth and a better quality of life for all. Read More 

The murder of Ricardo Balentine who was stabbed in the neck  in broad day light in the streets of Port of Spain, Trinidad, led Gregory Aboud, President of the Downtown Owners and Merchants Association, Port of Spain, to lament that: this type of lawlessness threatens Port of Spain, threatens the tens of thousands of jobs that Port of Spain still provides, threatens the reputation of our country and threatens the future of the capital of our country. Days after this incident, another man was gunned down in broad day-light in Down-town, Port of Spain.

Crime in the streets of Trinidad

The drug trade and trafficking in fire-arms is contributing enormously to a far more dangerous and resilient form of crime, which threatens not only these two countries, but the entire region.  Said Baldwin Spencer, Prime Minister of Antigua and Barbuda last week: organised crime has created a great deal of fear, uncertainty and anxiety amongst Caribbean people already having to deal with the uncertainties occasioned by the global economic crisis. 

Organised crime has transcended national borders to become a regional problem. Our large un-manned coastlines, as well as our strategic position in the hemisphere makes us prime transhipment routes for narcotics and fire-arms. Increased income inequality, poverty and youth marginalisation are also contributing to the problem. Increasingly, we are witnessing young, poverty stricken, marginalised and vulnerable young men being sucked into the drug trade, fighting over drug turfs.  According to Professor Girvan: we are all aware of the alarming increase in gun-related violence associated with the proliferation of criminal gangs warring over the drug trade in several regional countries. 

Our energy dependence is also another issue we must address. According to Professor Girvan, most CARICOM countries are energy-dependent and have only survived the spike in energy prices in the 2000s thanks to the generosity of Venezuela through PetroCaribe. No one knows how long this will last. 

He is absolutely correct. Lets bare this in mind: a change in political leadership in Venezuela could mean the end of Petrocaribe; political turmoil or social unrest in that country could also mean an end to the arrangement.  What will certainly end Petrocaribe eventually, is the end of Venezuela’s oil reserves, or at least when it reaches level where the country can no longer afford to share, or have preferential arrangements with countries such as ours. Let us be reminded that oil is a finite resource.

Political turmoil and the burning of oil fields

Another issue which the Professor spoke of, which CARICOM states must deal with is its debt. As of 2009, the public debt of most of the English-speaking Caribbean countries has exceeded levels that could in any way be defined as sustainable. According to Professor Girvan, except for the Bahamas, Suriname, and Trinidad and Tobago, at the close of 2009 this subregion showed levels of public debt that ranged from 60% of GDP in Saint Lucia and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, to almost 120% in Jamaica. He went on to quote a study conducted by the Economic Commission of Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) which demonstrates that:

Barbados, Belize, Guyana and Jamaica would have to post primary (fiscal) surpluses of between 2.3% and 3.9% of GDP over the next 20 years in order to reduce their current public debt to 40% of GDP, a level considered to be sustainable…In every case, it is important to bear in mind the marked recessionary effects of such fiscal adjustments, as well as their economic and social costs, which would be magnified if the current recessionary climate and economic slowdown resulting from the international crisis were to continue.

We predict that further indebtedness will be incurred by many CARICOM countries, as we struggle to recover from the global financial crisis. Since the crisis hit, four CARICOM countries have already entered into International Monetary Fund (IMF) programs.

Energy dependence, food dependence, national and transnational crime, debt, poverty and climate change all amounts to what Professor Girvan refers to as a “lethal cocktail”, which WILL  significantly worsen our current situation if steps are not taken immediately to correct it.

One would not be surprised to learn that millions of dollars has been spent, consultants have been hired, studies have been carried out and reports and recommendations made toward fixing ALL of the above mentioned issues that are plaguing CARICOM countries.

The Professor outlined the:

• Strategic Plan for Regional Development (now being finalised)
• Regional Food Security Plan
• Jagdeo Initiative for Agriculture
• Regional Agri-Tourism Project
• Renewable Energy Project
• Regional Task Force for Crime and Security, and
• Framework for Promoting Climate Change Resilience

What he did not mention, were the myriad of regional organisations that have been sucking up tax payers’ and donors’ money to address these problems; organisations such as the CARICOM Implementation Agency for Crime and Security (IMPACS), as well as the Caribbean Community Climate Change Centre (CCCC) are just two examples.

With regard to the initiatives mentioned,  in the words of Girvan, most if not all were never implemented, or have been only partially and unevenly implemented. They keep being re-cycled. Spinning top in mud! As far as the organisations go, they are ineffective to say the least.

We agree with the Professor when he noted that it's not that these problems definitely will mean CARICOM countries becoming failed states (a term he despises).  Nor do they have to spell the end of CARICOM and the West Indies as we know it. He notes that the problem we have in this region which is preventing us from correcting these problems and moving ahead is one of an implementation. See earlier post where we spoke at length concerning this thorn in our flesh.

In my own opinion, that we have an implementation problem in this region that has been plaguing us for years is cause for not only concern, but suspicion. What I believe, and what the Professor might be too polite or politically correct to state, is that regional heads of governments are deliberately consipiring against its peoples, determined to keep us in poverty, determined to see us suffer. if you think I am going psycho, or becoming a conspiracy theorist, then I am not the only one.

Well-known and highly respected trade specialist, James Moss-Solomon of Grace Kennedy and Company Limited questioned in the Jamaica Observer yesterday (speaking of the Jamaican Government) whether keeping people poor is not a cleverly orchestrated strategy…

Nothing else can explain why proposals after proposals have been made, why studies after studies have been done, why millions of donor and tax payers’ money has been spent, but CARICOM governments refuse to implement decisions that will move us forward.

CLR James once said: the most backward elements in the West Indies are the politicians; they are the deadweight on the West Indian people. Over 50 years later, Mr. James words still ring true. But he went on to give us a solution to this problem; he said: I have always believed that all progress in the West Indies depended upon the mobilisation of the population, and the building of a (regional) party.

It is time for us as a people to rise up and take a stance against our governments, and demand that our future and the future of our children be attended to. Corruption, party politics, ego, self interest are all getting in the way of a sustainable future for all of CARICOM citizens, and it is time we stand against this. In Trinidad and Tobago, the issue of Reshmi Ramnarine, and that of missing pianos are taking precedence over food security.  In Jamaica,  the Manat and Phelps issue involving the Jamaica labour Party trumps the eradication of poverty. We cannot leave our future up to our heads of Governments, for as CLR James said, political leaders in the West Indies discuss everything else other than serious politics.

The presentation made by the Professor Norman Girvan can be found here.

Courtney Lindsay 

On Behalf of the CMCE 

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

Our Condition is More One of Powerlessness, Than of Power…

One particular paragraph struck a chord in us, as we embarked on the reading of the Overview of the Report of the West Indian Commission- Time for Action. It goes:

“The fact of us being a Community of Sovereign states must  not detract from our need to be a ‘community’ first and foremost – for it is the reality of community that enlarges our prospect as sovereign states. Keeping a sense of community to the fore calls for more than structures of unity. It will avail us nothing to gear up for the world of market economies and liberal democracy and simultaneously gear down by clinging to old habits of self-centredness. There is no magic in the symbols of ‘community’; they must be reflected in our way of life”  (West Indian Commission, 1992).

Even though the West Indian  Commission was completed and reported since 1992, it is simply amazing how well it speaks to the issues affecting the region; how poignantly it points out the problems that needs to be fixed fix, as well as how applicable and sensible some of its recommendations still are. However, something about it is rather troubling.

The West Indian Commission emerged from a challenge to the region’s Heads of  Governments (HoGs) in 1989 to act quickly in order to prevent the region from being left behind in the “main current of human advance in the 21st century” (Payne and Sutton, 2007). The commission, led by Sir Shridath Ramphal, was charged with the responsibility of coming up with some strategic options for CARICOM countries as they forge ahead in the post cold-war era, and prepare for the challenges of the neo-liberal 21st century.

The report of the commission was well received, and in-fact, received rave reviews from many. One critic said, "the report was a literal source of wisdom on everything under the sun; from currency to culture; from science to human rights; from exports to cricket; from CARICOM to gender issues” (Brewster, 1993:29). For shortened version see here.

However, we can’t help but get this nagging feeling that in especially one of their recommendations, those charged with the responsibility of conducting the Commission were somewhat overly concerned and careful not to step on any toes. Either this was the case, or they were too trusting of regional heads.

In this post, we shall examine one of the recommendations made by the Commission to HoGs, to deal with the problem of the implementation deficit in the region.

The Commission noted that “we face a highly demanding challenge to imagination and creativity in making regional integration a more effective vehicle for the realization of the hopes and ambitions of our people” (Overview, 1992:25). This challenge being spoken of by the Commission relates to the regions crippling implementation deficit. The recommendation made by the Commission, which they believed was the answer to this perennial problem which characterized the region then, and is plaguing is now, is the setting up of a CARICOM Commission. They believed that we needed this ” central authority, freed of national, domestic responsibilities  and allegiances, and appropriately empowered to implement CARICOM’s decisions” (Overview, 1992: 25). However, the proposition of what this central authority should be and how it should operate was, in my opinion, incredibly weak to the point where it was impracticable and naive. It could not have possibly achieved what the Commission had meant for it to achieve.

Why do we say this?  The Commission proposed that this permanent CARICOM Commission be set up, and given executive authority to implement CARICOM decisions.  This was in recognition of  the need “to device a machinery by which CARICOM decisions can be translated into action with a minimum of delay” (Overview, 1992: 28). However, the Commission went on to say that their proposed CARICOM Commission “cannot over-ride national action”.  In fact, the Commission explicitly stated that “we do not go for a radical restructuring of political organisation in the region…”, which is enough to lead one to conclude that the recommendation lacked innovation, and was in fact more of a capitulation.

Some called this proposition radical, but we cannot agree, especially when the nature and description of the proposition came from the horse’s mouth. And the horse spoke clearly in stating that  “we do not go for radical restructuring”. In fact, the recommendation was contradictory in nature.  The Commission knew what needed to be achieved, but grossly watered-down the process for achieving it.  For example, it identified “a need for a central authority, freed of national, domestic responsibilities and allegiances, and appropriately empowered to implement CARICOM’s decisions” (Over-view, 1992: 26). Yet the Commission said of the CARICOM Commission :

“the instrument of Implementation will be declaratory, not statutory. It will enunciate the decision in terms that are operational; but it will not itself have the force of law” (Overview, 1992:29).

The Commission felt satisfied, or felt it was necessary to restrict their recommendation to a solution which left the operationality of their proposed CARICOM Commission up to the whims and fancy of each  Head of Government of the region.  And they said it:

This system will require, of course, the goodwill of Member States. If we do not create a governmental apparatus at the centre, with power to over-ride national action- and we are not proposing this-we must proceed on a consensual basis, and that must imply that member states will respect and cooperate in giving fulfilment to decisions taken in CARICOM by due process” (Overview, 1992: 29)

This is where we believe they went wrong. This is where we felt the Commission lost a great opportunity to lead regional integration unto a path of efficient operationality. A historical analysis might reveal that the Commission was somewhat afflicted with the drunk obsession, with the false notion of sovereignty, which characterised the Heads of Governments who mandated them to carry out their work. Either this or they were concerned about stepping on toes.  It is plain to see from the overview.

What can also be surmised is that they were then being contradictory in their own report, for the Commission itself dubbed the idea of sovereignty within the region as being nothing short of mythical, yet in their proposal they sought to hold onto it... quiet strange.

Karen E Bravo, Professor of Law, Indiana University School of Law,  wrote a very interesting paper titled: CARICOM, the Myth of Sovereignty and  Aspirational Economic Integration. It makes for excellent analysis of why we are in the situation we are in.

To be fair to the HoGs, they felt they had to cater to their national and domestic responsibilities and allegiances, and probably thought they needed room to do so. They therefore felt they could not be bound to adhere to any policy counter to their aspirations even for the sake of regional integration. The recommendation of the Commission-the CARICOM Commission-would have ensured that they would not have to, even though it spoke out against self-centredness.

The commission therefore made an error; the challenge they spoke of was not to “creativity and imagination”, it was to discipline, dedication, sacrifice and humility on the part of regional Heads of Government. There can be no creativity and imagination in dealing with political leaders unwilling to cede political power even to a watered-down version of a regional executive authority. They wanted to remain supreme decision-making authorities for their tiny pieces of rock. It is tempting to think the Commission was sympathetic to their cause.

Surprisingly, HoGs discarded with the recommendation for a permanent CARICOM Commission, and proposed something that was even  more pathetic, but speedier on the journey to failure.  And fail it did, including every other subsequent policy put in place by CARICOM Heads to correct the implementation deficit:

• The Heads rejected the CARICOM Commission in preference for a CARICOM-quasi Cabinet with allocation of portfolio responsibilities among the different Heads of Government together with a Bureau of Heads to facilitate implementation (IIR, 2011). This fell flat on its face.
• In 2003 (yes, it took them that long to do decide that an alternative mechanism to correct the implementation deficit was necessary),  with the Rose Hall Declaration, the HoGs agreed in PRINCIPLE that CARICOM decisions should have legal effect in member states and a permanent Commission should be set up to oversee implementation of CARICOM decisions.  However, up until 2010, the HoGs were yet to agree on the implementation of the Commission (IIR, 2011: 13).
• In 2010, there was an establishment of a Committee of Ambassadors to facilitate implementation of Community decisions. This Committee was seen as nothing more than a band-aid, and many were at a loss in terms of how it would function and, at best, how it could possibly serve the region. Read more here.

More disappointing is that up to this point,  some still think the CARICOM Commission with its executive authority is still the answer. We beg to disagree. Taken in its current state of the 1992 recommendation, it still shows an obsession with sovereignty and would fail. Why? The Commission was at best bereft of the ability to force member states action toward implementation of the CSME. The Commission did nothing more than propose an organisation lacking in supranantional scope and today, we are still buying into it. We are still missing the point; still fooling ourselves.

We need to avoid anything resembling the CARICOM Commission, especially since history has taught us, in the words of Louis Henkins, “sovereignty does not encourage cooperation, it breeds going at it alone”. The last thing we need is another organisation which encourages the “pooling”, but not “ceding” of sovereignty. This will get us nowhere.

What we need in this region is exactly what the West Indian Commission was avoiding, and exactly what HoGs do not wish to entertain, let alone sign unto. Clearly, their unwillingness to relinquish an amount of sovereignty necessary to cement the regional integration process has held the region back, and no amount of grand speeches, poignant rhetoric, fancy and complicated proposals (laden with big words) will get us anywhere. What we need is a supranational organ.

We do agree that Rome was not built in a day and we empathise with those who are quick to defend regional integration, and who love to point out the fact that “slowly but surely” we are heading somewhere.  What we think is ludicrous however, is for us to reinvent the wheel.  Rome took many years to build, but all we have to do to build our own Rome in less than half the time, is to borrow the blue print, and see what we can use from it.

The European Union is the paradigm of successful regional integration. According to Bravo, an analysis of the European integration project indicates that some of the minimum requirements for the achievement of economic integration among sovereign states include:

1. limited opt-out opportunities on the part of member states;
2. the direct effect of supremacy of measures intended to cause economic integration, as well as limited time and enforcement periods for implementation;
3. independent supranational body that drives policies and enforces economic integration;
4. a legitimate dispute settlement mechanism with enforcement powers;
5. a strategic planning/decision-making mechanism that defies deadlock

An analysis of CARICOM will demonstrate that these are the very ingredients we lack. The Caribbean Court of Justice might be serving as our legitimate dispute settlement body, but its existence is being threatened by member states, the majority of whom have not ratified and continue to undermine its purpose. For example, the Jamaican government suggesting the creation of Jamaica’s own Final Court of Appeal will do nothing but contribute to the further fragmentation of the region.

We are in no way stating that we should adopt in a wholesale manner the blue print of the European Union, but it would be to our benefit to see what we can utilise from it and what lessons we can learn. We would encourage HoGs to commission an in depth analysis of the European Union’s history, construct, nature and character, and see what lessons we can learn, and what methods we can adopt to expedite and make effective our own regionalism, of course, fitting into our own unique context.

However, we urge the immediate establishment of a supranational body, as this is critical for any forward movement within the region. We need to build the home while we occupy it, and the foundation is a supranational organ to ensure that the work is done timely, and that all workers conform to the building code and stay true to the blue-print.


Courtney Lindsay
On behalf of the CMCE