The CARICOM divide over Haiti’s regime
Analysis by Rickey Singh
Guyana Chronicle
August 24, 2004
THOSE familiar with the workings of our Caribbean Community (CARICOM) would not be holding their breaths for any 'special meeting' of Heads of Government on "full engagement" with the interim Haitian regime before the 'special summit' already scheduled for the first week in November in Port-of-Spain, Trinidad and Tobago.
With precious few of the leaders still open to be persuaded one way or the other, the current divisions seem quite sharp between those dissatisfied with both the conditions and timing for seating the interim regime of Prime Minister Gerard Latortue in the councils of the Community, and the others who favour "full engagement" - sooner rather than later.
In a sentence, while all CARICOM leaders are increasingly moving toward "readiness" for the Caribbean Single Market and Economy (CSME), quite a few are still unprepared to sit with Latortue at the CARICOM table without significant initiatives for the restoration of constitutional and democratic governance.
The peoples of the Community, in whose names decisions are being made, or withheld, may be confused over the differing positions among our Heads of Government on the basis for collective 'full engagement' with the Latortue regime pending the outcome of new parliamentary and presidential elections in 2005.
As a "Community of sovereign states" any CARICOM state is free to engage, fully or otherwise, with the interim regime in Port-au-Prince, including having diplomatic relations - which Jamaica and The Bahamas, for example, had already established.
The Prime Minister of St. Lucia, Kenny Anthony, who has lead responsibility for Governance and Justice, went on record quite early in the debate in pointing to such a right and also drawing attention to the provision in the Community treaty for majority decision.
But he remains one of the strong opponents against what he views as "rushing", as a Community, to seat the Latortue regime in the councils of CARICOM.
This "sovereign right" was also recognised by the CARICOM Bureau when it met in Grenada last month (July 28) to consider an assessment report from a ministerial mission to Haiti. On the basis of that report the Bureau had recommended that Heads of Government be "fully engaged” with the Latortue administration.
In other words, avoid delaying such a decision for the forthcoming special summit in Port-of-Spain.
Barbados' Arthur
Amid the so-called "hardliners" against what they view as "the rush for engagement" before the November summit, and "accommodationists", or those in favour of this happening before November, the Prime Minister of Barbados, Owen Arthur, chose to go public with a statement last week that his government reserves the "right to engage" with the Latortue regime if collective action was not forthcoming.
Arthur's position may have suggested further widening of the cracks within CARICOM. In reality he was saying what is known to ALL member governments of the Community.
The big question is whether CARICOM can really afford a fracture in its historically proud record of unanimity in decision-making at this time when it is now much more focused in getting the CSME off the ground
It is, however, doubtful that the Community's leaders would risk dividing themselves over a now sought after "special meeting" on "full engagement" with the Lartorue regime without creating some serious problems for their scheduled November special summit that is intended to deal primarily with CSME-readiness and to coincide with the inauguration of the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ).
There is provision under Article 28 of the revised CARICOM Treaty, for majority decision on important issues if consensus seems impossible.
But the Prime Minister of St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Ralph Gonsalves, seen as perhaps the fiercest open opponent of unconditional dealings with the Latortue regime, has told CARICOM's chairman, Prime Minister Keith Mitchell, that the recommendation for political engagement with the interim Haitian administration "is not a proper one for treatment under Article 28."
‘Self-serving’ argument
Gonsalves also feels that any attempt to compare "recognition: of Grenada's People's Revolutionary Government (PRG) that had seized power from Eric Gairy in l979, with that of the interim Latortue regime would be "a self-serving attempt that cannot withstand serious scrutiny...For a start, it was not that the ousting of the Gairy regime was not a foreign-driven initiative".
No occasion can be recalled at this time when CARICOM leaders opted to sacrifice traditional unanimity in favour of majority decision on any known contentious issue of major importance as characterised by the problem over "engagement" with the interim Haitian regime.
As the saying goes, the devil is in the details; and in the case of Haiti, the conditionalities for 'engagement' with the interim regime remain the primary source of disagreement. But compromise must be reached.
Some leaders seem anxious to accept the "assurances" given by Prime Minister Latortue to the Foreign Ministers delegation that visited Haiti last month, following the 25th CARICOM Summit in Grenada.
Others are asking for proof of good faith expressions, or "bankable assurances", that could deliver free and fair competitive parliamentary and presidential elections and also evidence of actions to curb reported ongoing victimisation and political terrorism against supporters of the ousted President Jean Bertrand Aristide.
At this stage of intense behind-the-scenes manoeuvres to arrive at a possible consensus on collective "engagement" with the interim Haitian regime, it is quite doubtful that Latortue could be invited for the coming special November CARICOM Summit - whether or not a special meeting of some Heads of Government does take place before then.