New directions in diplomacy
Editorial
Stabroek News
May 28, 2003
When Caricom Foreign Ministers met earlier this month in the Sixth Meeting of the Council for Foreign and Community Relations (COFCOR) held in Kingston, St Vincent and the Grenadines, two matters in particular dominated their agenda, first the relationship with the USA and second and closely related to the first, the situation of Caricom foreign policies within the hemisphere. While the first concern is of overarching relevance, especially in view of the difficulties which ensued over the Iraq war, the second is significant because it represents a paradigmatic shift in Caricom perspectives on the world. It will be recalled that the initial mode of Caricom foreign policy was the external assertion of an identity through establishing linkages with Afro-Asia. Forbes Burnham and Michael Manley sought to play dominant roles in the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) and other Third World movements and Eric Williams went on his famous multi-state tour of Africa. In this connection NAM which had held its 13th Summit earlier this year in Malaysia attended by over 100 countries received only a two-line reference in COFCOR's Communique.
The section of the Communique dealing with "Relations with the USA" states that "Ministers acknowledged that there will always be issues on which Caricom and the US will take divergent positions. Caricom however remains committed to engaging the US on all issues. In keeping with the sentiments expressed recently by the US Secretary of State Colin Powell to the Caricom Foreign Ministers, it will do so "in an open and robust dialogue befitting our close ties and common values."
Elsewhere in the Communique the careful language on several issues likewise reflects the awareness, in view of recent difficulties, of the pervasive presence of the US in the background to all regional foreign policy. Thus in dealing with Iraq, the Foreign Ministers recognising that their position was "at variance with that of members of the Coalition which includes some of Caricom's closest allies... concluded that these differences of opinion should not lead to prolonged tension or damage to the excellent relations which the Caricom democracies have with these major partners." The awareness is similarly reflected in the assertion of the place of the UN in the process of multilateralism and in the protection of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of small states. But nowhere are US concerns more powerfully implicit than in the language and scope of the Foreign Ministers' Statement on Recent Developments in Cuba.
Against the background of Caricom's own long-standing tradition of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, adherence to the rule of law and to the effective practice of representative democracy, the Foreign Ministers expressed their concern at the conduct of the trials by the Cuban Government, urged that Government to ensure greater transparency in its criminal justice system, strongly appealed for clemency to be shown towards those recently imprisoned and for the promotion of more open debate and discussion. At the same time the Foreign Ministers firmly rejected a proposal to censure Cuba within the OAS, pointing out that the OAS forum would be inappropriate as Cuba is therein deprived of its right to present its position. The Ministers reaffirmed their conviction that engaging Cuba and pursuing dialogue with its Government at the highest level are in the best interest of the Cuban people.
It is a statement reflective of Caricom diplomacy at its highest level. Yet the open dialogue of which Colin Powell speaks, and careful and balanced public statements may not be sufficient to ensure the sympathetic understanding of the foreign policy stances of Caricom states whose vulnerabilities and smallness on the one hand, must compel their leaders to seek Special and Differential Treatment (S&D) in trade negotiations as a matter of economic survival, but whose highly literate and politically aware electorates expect these same leaders to take principled public positions on global issues which may be seen by the very countries from which S&D treatment is being sought as unhelpful or even hostile.
To advance its foreign policy objectives in Washington, Caricom needs to maintain a continuous flow of information to and dialogue with the foreign policy-making centres of power in the US administration. In this connection the annual meeting with the US Secretary of State is only a partial mechanism. In the US system, the Secretary of State and the State Department do not have the comprehensive responsibility for foreign policy-making as in the traditional British system on which so many Commonwealth - including Caricom - states are based. In the Washington complex, separate foreign policy is often initiated, sometimes in contradiction to the State Department, by the National Security Adviser, powerful groups like the White House "hawks," the Chairmen of Senate Committees and others. It is imperative that such groups and persons should be steadily aware of Caribbean dilemmas.
Shortly before the St Vincent meeting, St Lucia's Foreign Minister, according to a BBC Caribbean report, had contended that Caricom needs strengthened representation in Washington. However, the Communique does not record whether this far-sighted proposal was discussed and decided upon. It may be that Caricom should establish a small support unit in Washington to work with the grouping of Caricom ambassadors towards wider and deeper representation.
The above proposal is in keeping with current developments in Caricom diplomacy. The Communique is replete with references to new diplomatic mechanisms, the effectiveness of which have been recognised, eg, the Quick Consult Mechanism with Spain, the Caricom-UK Transmission Mechanism which the Communique notes is a valuable two-way channel of communication. In the case of the Community's evolving relationship with the Russian Federation, a proposed draft Protocol aims to establish a Political Dialogue Mechanism. In reviewing the recent activities of the Rio Group, at the last meeting of which in Greece Caricom was represented by Foreign Minister Insanally, COFCOR noted that the Group remained an effective mechanism for political consultation. The new
salience of such diplomatic mechanisms is clearly based on the recognition of the limitations of the bilateral diplomacy of small states.
As noted earlier the Communique reflects Caricom's growing commitments in hemispheric affairs. COFCOR at its St Vincent meeting reviewed relations with Cuba, Central America, Chile, Mexico and Canada. In addition the Ministers paid particular attention to hemispheric security and to the special security concerns of small states, and committed themselves to full participation in the OAS Special Conference on Security to be held in Mexico later this year. Regarding the next summit of the Americas (SOA) also to be held in Mexico, they saw in it an opportunity to advance regional issues and to re-engage the hemisphere at the highest political level in a shared vision. In considering preparations for the next session of the OAS General Assembly which is to be held in Santiago, Chile twelve days from now, the Ministers recorded their view that this assembly is taking place at a time "when the effectiveness and relevance of the Inter-American system are increasingly being questioned."
Now that the traditional lines and bonds with the former metropolis and the post-independence linkages with regions of ancestral origin are of diminished importance, there is a growing realisation that Caricom states must, so to speak, 'live' within this hemisphere, seeking within the region both markets and security. The time may therefore be ripe for Caricom to play a crucial role in revitalising the OAS. Although not originally welcome in what was a Latin club, Caricom states now number almost half of OAS membership. The very recent division of support in the OAS on the proposal to censure Cuba shows that there is a diplomatic opportunity for the Caricom group to exercise decisive leverage.
Structurally Caricom is well placed to play a mediatory role, situated as it is midway within the larger region and sharing with Latin America problems of underdevelopment and with North America language and institutions. There is need for serious thought and policy formulation as to whether the OAS should become the major focus of Caricom diplomacy such as the Non-Aligned Movement and the UN General Assembly once were.
There are clearly new ideas astir and new directions being pursued within COFCOR. All of which again points to the inescapable need to strengthen, through the reallocation of resources, the Caricom Secretariat division dealing with the coordination of foreign policies. If the Caricom Single Market and Economy (CSME) are implemented, Caricom will undoubtedly be stronger with probably better levels of living. But unless Caricom gets its external representation right with enhanced relevance and effectiveness, its markets will be rapidly eroded, tourism will dwindle, the flow of investment and economic assistance will dry up and among other things regional airlines will cease to fly. Caricom states will no longer be viable.
