by Wendy C Grenade
In Part 1, I offered some historical reflections on Caricom. I will now focus on some achievements, limitations and lessons as we commemorate Caricom Day on 4 July 2023.
How should Caricom be assessed? As a regional integration grouping, Caricom has 4 pillars: functional cooperation, economic integration, foreign policy coordination and security cooperation. Therefore, any objective assessment of Caricom must take into account those four pillars. First, as we review the record, there is no doubt that Caricom has performed relatively well in the area of functional cooperation to enhance human and social development. In the areas of health, education and disaster management, there is a network of institutions and associate institutions that have brought tangible benefits to Caribbean people. For example, the Caribbean Public Health Agency (CARPHA), the Caribbean Disaster Emergency Management Agency (CDEMA), The University of the West Indies (The UWI), the Caribbean Examinations Council (CXC), the Caribbean Development Bank (CDB) and the Regional Security System (RSS) — comprising the OECS countries, Barbados and now Guyana — are among the regional institutional arrangements, along with the Caricom Secretariat, that have been the glue that has sustained Caricom over the years.
Yet, despite the gains in the area of functional cooperation, there are several limitations. For instance, there is need for what I often refer to as ‘integrative integration’. This refers to a process of regionalism that is designed to create synergies, promote cohesiveness and ensure coherence in the work of various regional institutions and associate institutions. Another major limitation is Caricom’s approach to integration, which is as a Community of sovereign independent states. While this approach has some advantages (each member state can protect its national interests and Caricom can benefit from 14 votes in the international arena), a narrow nationalistic understanding of sovereignty can undermine the pace and quality of integration and impede collective action. Caricom’s minimalist approach to governance can also hinder implementation of decisions. In fact, the 1992 Report of the West Indian Commission bemoaned the fact that an ‘implementation paralysis’ was a ‘chronic Caricom deficiency’ and recommended an Executive Commission as an implementing body. There is still much work to be done to strengthen regional governance.
However, another major accomplishment is the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) which was established in 2001 with two jurisdictions. The Original jurisdiction is to interpret the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas, which governs the Caribbean Single Market [and economy] and the Appellate jurisdiction to replace the London-based Privy Council. All Caricom member states are members of the CCJ in its Original jurisdiction. One of the objectives of the CCJ in that jurisdiction is to have exclusive and compulsory authority to interpret and apply the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas. In essence, the CCJ determines how the Caribbean Single Market functions and settles disputes arising among parties. The Shanique Myrie case (2013) proves that Caribbean people can access justice as they seek to travel hassle-free throughout the region. However, there is still some unfinished business with the Appellate jurisdiction of the CCJ. To date, only Barbados, Belize, Dominica, Guyana and recently St Lucia have acceded to the CCJ in its Appellate jurisdiction. In 2009, 2016 and 2018, respectively, citizens in St Vincent and the Grenadines, Grenada and Antigua and Barbuda voted ‘No’ to constitutional amendments which were intended to replace the London-based Privy Council with the CCJ. This, in my view, was a missed opportunity. The failed referenda brought to the fore the tensions between democratisation and regionalisation in the Caribbean. Regional integration assumes consensus and compromise. Yet, the adversarial political culture within member states does not sufficiently allow for consensus among political parties on large national issues, such as constitutional reform.
I will now turn to economic integration, which is a core dimension of regionalism. An objective assessment of Caricom reveals that economic integration through the CSME remains its weakest pillar. Unlike the OECS, which has a common currency, one central bank and an economic union, where all classes of OECS nationals can travel and work freely throughout the sub-region, the Caricom Single Market [and economy] remains incomplete. As I have argued elsewhere, “Economic integration is generally problematic for every regional scheme. It requires sacrifice since costs are incurred in the short term while expected benefits are accrued over a longer period. Regionalism also simultaneously generates poles of growth and poles of stagnation creating ‘winners’ and ‘losers’.”
While some progress has been made since the launch of the CSME, there are several challenges and limitations. At 50, whither Caribbean transport? Much work needs to be done to ensure Caribbean transport is accessible and affordable to enable Caribbean people to engage in travel and trade throughout the region. The CSME will continue to be a fledging dream if Caribbean transport remains the nightmare that it is. There is also need to remove administrative and technical barriers to intra-regional trade, complete contingent rights, and create public awareness about the benefits of the CSME.
Beyond functional cooperation and economic integration, in the realm of foreign policy, Caricom has a mixed scorecard. Throughout its 50-year journey, despite the relative small size of member states, at various historical periods, Caricom states have stood tall in their ‘smallness’. In particular, in the early 1970s and 1980s, Caribbean countries, for the most part, pursued an activist foreign policy that was anti-colonial, anti-imperialist and anti-apartheid. The foreign policies of several member states of Caricom stressed non-alignment, social justice and solidarity. The bold step by the founding fathers in 1972 to establish diplomatic relations with Cuba is positively etched in the annals of history. Errol Barrow’s famous ‘friends of all and satellites of none’ remains a key principle to guide small states’ foreign policy. Maurice Bishop’s ‘in nobody’s backyard’ reflected boldness and self-determination and encouraged Caribbean people to face the world with dignity.
A major benefit of Caribbean regionalism is that Caricom member states can use their numeric advantage (14 votes), and collective exercise of sovereignty to advance their individual and collective interests in the international community. Through the years, Caricom member states, collectively and individually, have forged strategic partnerships and alliances to increase their bargaining power, enhance their voice and reach in the international system, build solidarity, facilitate access to markets and promote a sense of collective identity for the Caribbean in the world. Caribbean states have championed issues that are critical to small states, particularly in the United Nations and in the Commonwealth.
Since its establishment in 1973, Caricom member states have been able to coordinate their foreign policies in some respects and gained successes on several fronts, for example, the negotiations for the Lomé Conventions and the United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea. Caribbean nationals were also appointed to head leading organisations, such as the Commonwealth and the African, Caribbean and Pacific States. Caricom also assisted with Guyana-Venezuela and Belize-Guatemala territorial disputes. Yet, despite the gains, in recent times, there have been too many instances when Caricom leaders have failed to coordinate their foreign policy positions. This has eroded confidence in the process of integration and have weakened the role of the region in the world. A glaring disappointment is Caricom’s approach to Haiti over the years.
There is no doubt that although the world has changed drastically since the end of the Cold War and the intensification of globalisation, the structure of the world system remains constant. International relations are still conducted in the context of unequal power relations, unfair trade and unequal exchange. This is compounded for small island developing states, such as those in the Caribbean, which face a multiplicity of complexity and do not have the capacity to cope with severe and persistent threats on their own. The menace of illicit trafficking in drugs and arms, the climate crisis, cybercrimes, global health threats and other multidimensional and transnational security threats make the Caribbean a Regional Security Complex. According to Barry Buzan, this refers to Regional sub-systems consisting of “a set of states whose major security perceptions and concerns are so interlinked that their national security problems cannot reasonably be analysed or resolved apart from one another.” Within this maze, security cooperation is essential, and Caricom is making some strides in this pillar through the work of the Caricom Implementing Agency for Crime and Security (IMPACS), which is part of a wider regional security architecture. Security regionalism and global advocacy are critical for the survivability and sustainability of small states.
In the current era, Prime Minister Mia Amor Mottley’s global advocacy to ensure that ‘the needle moves’ is testament to an intellectual fortitude, which is a Caribbean tradition. What Prime Minister Mottley is doing is bringing back an activist foreign policy, in a new time, to confront global injustices. As we commemorate 50 years as a Caribbean Community, we must believe that a better world is possible. We are indeed proud that Prime Minister Mottley is lending her voice to promote global justice as she boldly defends the rights of the Caribbean and indeed the developing world on the global stage.
As outlined above, there have been several accomplishments and those must be celebrated. However, there are some glaring limitations. What currently exists is a 4Ps framework. Caricom is prime ministerial, piecemeal, paper-based and people less. While several steps are being taken to promote inclusiveness of non-state actors, there are several deficits: transportation, communication, participation, implementation and democratic deficits. Yet the responsibility for our Caribbean Community cannot be left solely to Caricom leaders and technocrats. Caribbean people must own regionalism. The formal school system, the media, the intellectual class, and civil society organisations all have a role to play to promote regionalism. There is an informal regionalism that works well among Caribbean people in our daily comings and goings. We need to capitalise on our instinctive sense of Caribbean-ness to enhance every dimension of Caricom .
As we critically reflect on Caricom’s journey, there are some lessons that we can glean to inform the way forward. First, transformative leadership at the regional level is imperative to advance the pace and quality of integration and to create a stronger platform for the region to navigate global forces. Additionally, institutions matter, as they help to operationalise regionalism by providing tangible benefits to Caribbean people. Third, the convergence of external and internal forces will constantly disrupt the best of intentions to integrate. There is, therefore, need to promote creative regionalism, which is the ability of a regional grouping to find the ‘right’ equilibrium among domestic, regional and global imperatives. A major lesson is that regional integration involves hard work, and it takes time. There is need to celebrate successes along the way, learn from missteps and engage in continuous renewal.
In the final analysis, I maintain that the glass is half full and Caribbean people and their leaders must be commended. “50 Years Strong: A Solid Foundation to Build On” is thus an apt theme to commemorate Caricom Day. Going forward, there is need for a more impactful regionalism that aligns the work of Caricom, as a Community of independent sovereign states, with the aspirations of the Community of Caribbean people. After all, regional integration is not an end in itself but it must be assessed in terms of its contribution to the overall well-being of the people of the region.
Wendy C Grenade is a Grenadian Political Scientist who is a Professor in the Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, St George’s University, Grenada (SGU). Prior to joining SGU, Dr Grenade lectured at The UWI, Cave Hill Campus, where she coordinated a MSc Integration Studies programme for several years.