The Myth of Non-Interference

THE doctrine of non-interference in the affairs of other states is a myth invariably used as a defence by those who for some reason or other don’t want to take a position that obviously should be taken on a particular matter.

For the nations of the world have at the United Nations and in other more limited fora repeatedly, and quite properly, passed essentially moralistic resolutions on a variety of countries and topics including South Africa, Israel, Afghanistan and Chile. And some of these resolutions call for active steps to be taken such as embargos.

There is really no excuse for the behaviour of Caricom on Haiti. To their credit, Barbados, Trinidad, and Saint Lucia have expressed distinct positions of their own. It was depressing to read that the Haitian delegation was kept out of the Caricom consultation for five hours as a result of queries as to their locus standi raised by our Foreign Minister. As Mr. Louis Dejoie indicated, both the individuals and their organisations were well known both within and outside of Haiti and the whole object of the exercise was to take a decision on events in Haiti which made it desirable to be as well informed as possible.

It was quite clear that the poll in Haiti would not be carried out under proper conditions and in the interest of democracy a much stronger resolution than the one eventually requesting secrecy of the ballot, clearly impossible in the circumstances, should have been passed. Caricom has missed a glorious opportunity to make its voice heard on an important matter. Obviously it could not take steps to enforce the resolution but nor can other organisations on other issues on which they pass resolutions.

The eventual farce in Haiti was entirely predictable and the government that emerges can in no way be said to represent the Haitian people. Caricom as a

body has been found wanting in its own zeal for democracy.