United we stand; Divided we fall

by David Comissiong, Citizen of the Caribbean Community

In recent times, we have been hearing the curious notion being peddled that it is not necessary for Caribbean Community (Caricom) member states to have agreement or convergence on their foreign policy positions, and that — in the currently prevailing precarious geo-political condition — it is, in fact, a strength for Caricom member states to pursue separate and different foreign policy positions.

Well, I beg to differ, and I am fortified in my contrary opinion by the actual text of our Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas! The Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas clearly outlines what is expected of our Caribbean Community (Caricom) in the arena of foreign affairs when it provides as follows:

Article 6: Objectives of the Community

The Community shall have the following objectives:

(g) the achievement of a greater measure of economic leverage and effectiveness of Member States in dealing with third States, groups of States and entities of any description

(h) enhanced coordination of Member States’ foreign and foreign economic policies

Article 16: The Council for Foreign and Community Relations (COFCOR)

3. COFCOR shall:

(b) establish measures to coordinate the foreign policies of the Member States of the Community, including proposals for joint representation, and seek to ensure, as far as practicable, the adoption of Community positions on major hemispheric and international issues

(c) coordinate the positions of the Member States in intergovernmental organisations in whose activities such States participate

So it is very clear from the foregoing that the framers of our Treaty considered that having a collective or unified Caricom position or policy in relation to foreign powers or entities was a good and desirable thing that would enhance our strength and effectiveness in dealing with said foreign powers and entities.

In fact, this is an “ancient” Caricom insight that is rooted in the seminal October 1972 decision of the 4 founder-members of Caricom — Jamaica, Trinidad & Tobago, Guyana and Barbados — to simultaneously establish the Caribbean Community (Caricom), and to equip it with a coordinated foreign policy.

Back then, in the face of a formidable USA and OAS policy to impose an ironclad policy of isolation on “revolutionary Cuba”, the prime ministers of the 4 founder-members of Caricom stated as follows:

“The independent English-speaking Caribbean states, exercising their sovereign right to enter into relations with any other sovereign states, and pursuing their determination to seek regional solidarity and to achieve meaningful and comprehensive cooperation among all Caribbean countries will seek the early establishment of relations with Cuba…. To this end, the independent English-speaking Caribbean states will act together on the basis of agreed principles.”

And not only did the 4 Caricom founder members go on to establish diplomatic, trade and cultural relations with Cuba on 8 December 1972, but because they did so, not as separate nations, but as a seamless, unified quartet, their position was imbued with the strength that was required to effectively and safely defy the USA and OAS and to establish a progressive precedent that a multitude of other nations followed in the subsequent years!

So, the question that now arises is: “Why hasn’t this well-established principle and modus operandi been followed by so many of our Caricom nations in dealing with the current vexed question of how to respond to the USA and its unreasonable and illegitimate demand to terminate our various medical cooperation programmes with Cuba?”

When the new Trump administration first advanced this outrageous demand in March 2025, there was a commonality of response from several of our heads of government. Prime Minister Dickon Mitchell of Grenada publicly asserted that capitulating to such a demand was out of the question, and, in separate statements, Prime Ministers Gonsalves, Rowley and Mottley made it clear that they resolved to stand firm in defence of their nations’ sovereign right to engage Cuban health professionals, even if it meant suffering the loss of their visas to travel to the USA.

Indeed, Prime Minister Mottley’s statement, delivered from the Barbados House of Assembly, was perhaps the most instructive of them all, and deserves to be quoted in some detail:

“Barbados does not currently have Cuban medical staff or nurses, but I would be the first to go to the line and to tell you that we could not get through the pandemic without the Cuban nurses and the Cuban doctors. I will also be the first to tell you that we paid them the same thing we paid Bajans, and that the notion… that we were involved in human trafficking by engaging with the Cuban nurses was fully repudiated and rejected by us.

Now, I don’t believe that we have to shout across the seas, but I am prepared, like others in this region, that if we cannot reach a sensible agreement on this matter, then if the cost of it is the loss of my visa to the US, then so be it. But what matters to us is principles…

We don’t have to shout, but we can be resolute. And I therefore look forward to standing with my Caricom brothers to be able to ensure that we explain that what the Cubans have been able to do for us — far from approximating itself to human trafficking — has been to save lives and limbs and sight for many a Caribbean person.”

What Prime Minister Mottley was saying here was that our Caricom Member States should come together and not only deal with the matter collectively, but that our approach should be to hold firm to our principles and to reject the illicit and unreasonable US demand.

Indeed, Prime Minister Mottley went so far as to assert that even though Barbados does not currently have a Cuban Medical Cooperation programme and was therefore not facing the US demands and threats, that she would be willing to stand in unity on the issue with her fellow Caricom Prime Ministers — even if that stance resulted in her being stripped of her US visa by the US government! In other words, she was counselling a unified Caricom approach, in keeping with articles 6 and 16 of the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas.

Unfortunately, Prime Minister Mottley’s wise counsel does not seem to have prevailed, and we have the spectacle of individual Caricom states attempting to negotiate with the powerful US administration on their own. The predictable result has been either the outright termination or the substantial rolling back of several of the medical cooperation programmes.

In light of the clear guidance from our Treaty and the powerful message that still emanates from the historic decision of October 1972, this is very regrettable.

All of us in the Caribbean Community well know the phrase — “United we stand, divided we fall.” It is a wise saying that originates with the ancient African griot known as Aesop, and is to be found in Aesop’s fable “The Four Oxen and the Lion” (circa 6th Century BC). It is also a nugget of biblical wisdom that was conveyed to us by the Apostle Mark in the form of “A house divided against itself cannot stand” (Mark 3:25). And for those of us who are neither historians nor practicing Christians, we surely know this wise saying from the 1970s popular song “United We Stand” by the musical group named Brotherhood of Man.

My Caricom brothers and sisters: Let us reclaim and cleave to this timeless wisdom. Whenever we in Caricom have to deal with powerful outside forces intent on having their way with us, let us make every possible effort to develop a united or unified position.

And let us bear in mind that “unity is not necessarily unanimity.” As our recently inaugurated Caricom Full Free Movement Regime has demonstrated, we can have effective unity without having every single Member State on board.

In the current circumstances that we face in Caricom, it may prove to be difficult to achieve unanimity on the thorny geopolitical issues of the day, but let that not prevent us from determinedly searching for and achieving the greatest state of unity that we are capable of achieving.

And let us go forward in this current era with the clear understanding that “1 from 10 no longer leaves 0.”