There was to have been another Caricom guest, Prime Minister Patterson of Jamaica, but he said perhaps a diplomatic no, pleading prior commitment to his party’s congress.

There is no mistaking why the four will be at the President’s breakfast. It is the White House acknowledgment of their readiness to accede to US wishes in a matter of vital interest to the US, namely to enter into bilateral agreements with Washington to exempt US nationals from the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC).

The four Caricom Heads should be aware that they have not only broken ranks but to this has now been added a measure of identification with the US administration. As such, this latest development will only deepen the confusion and suspicions which had dogged Caricom Heads of Government in their approach to Caricom’s relationship with the US at the Montego Bay Summit.

From the Caricom side it points to the very limited value if not meaninglessness of the movement’s efforts at coordination of foreign policy. The annual outings of Foreign Ministers at the meetings of the Council for Foreign and Community Relations (COFCOR) are it seems little more than a pleasant ritual marked by communiqués with fudged paragraphs on the major issues as for example, on the ICC. Had there been consultation and an exchange of views on the breakfast invitation? Or was it treated as a secret? In this period of rapid change and instant communication surely coordination must mean continuous exchange of information and views, as in the European Union, and which is possible in these days of the internet for even the smallest state.

The ease with which the US could flout Caricom by selecting without consultation its invitees is let us face the facts, based on US perceptions of the demonstrated tendency of some Caricom states to go it alone, chance their arm, break the rules, see what they can get for themselves. Recall Jamaica signing an Air Services Agreement with the US despite Caricom commitments. Ponder Trinidad and Tobago’s initial decision to enter into negotiations on its own to join NAFTA. And there are other examples of such dalliance. Add to these dilutions in the Caricom commitment the systematic penetration of US foreign policy and it would not be difficult to envisage the dismemberment of Caricom.

The Bush administration in pursuit of its interests has shown little respect for the integrity of groupings and organisations. Witness the efforts to divide Europe before the `Iraq war’. While picking off certain Caricom states as willing clients might serve US short term interests, it is fraught with risks and dangers for the US itself. Caricom unity is the only viable basis for promoting security and development and stability within the sub-region. Destroy the movement and the US may well find unacceptable turbulence in its own back yard.

Once they had accepted the invitation it would not have been easy for the four Caricom Heads to have second thoughts. But the Caricom Heads could tomorrow morning despite their position on the US bilateral treaty take a stance to maintain the integrity of Caricom. President Jagdeo as the senior member may, for example, take the opportunity to explain to President Bush why Caricom states attached the highest importance to the ICC as Prime Minister Manning had been mandated to do at the Montego Bay Summit, if President Bush had agreed to see him. The Caricom four could also make certain that no undertakings are given which might further widen the rift in Caricom. And they can report back to the other Caricom Heads as soon as they return.

More importantly, they can reaffirm in their forthcoming addresses to the UN General Assembly their commitment to Caricom and its important role in regional and international relations.

Is that too much to ask of them so that the torn fabric of unity may be repaired.