Caricom and related issues

Monday was Caricom Day, and as is the norm for these occasions the senior politicians of the land, beginning with President Irfaan Ali, gave voice to warm sentiments in respect of the regional organisation. It was probably mostly sincere, although the PPP has not always been so comfortable with the Caribbean Community. However, times and circumstances have changed quite radically, and the governing party will no doubt not forget the critical role Caricom played in the aftermath of 2020 election in ensuring the ascendancy of democracy.

“We are a Community committed to the rule of law, democratic values, and the promotion and protection of human rights,” the head of state was quoted as saying. He then went on to observe that “Nationals of the Community have rights that can be legally protected and enforced through the Caribbean Court of Justice,” a reference to the regional institution which had a significant part to play in Guyana’s political crisis last year.

In enumerating some of the other achievements of the Community the President included an allusion to the current pandemic, saying that despite the fact the region had been the worst affected economically by it, Caricom had fared better in managing its impact than many other nations which were more amply endowed in terms of economic and human resources. At the back of his mind too, no doubt, was the memory of the generosity of Barbados which donated 3,000 vaccines to Guyana in February this year.

For his part Minister Todd echoed much of what the President had to say, while adding a foreign affairs perspective by stating, “Guyana recognises the strategic importance of Caricom to the achievement of our nation’s foreign policy goals, as it is for other Member States of the Community”. Exactly what was meant by this is perhaps open to question. Certainly, if it is intended to imply that foreign policy goals are common to the Community’s members, then that is a position which cannot be fully sustained.

If there was any uncertainty about this there was the vote on Nicaragua at the OAS last month

to banish all doubt. While we do not hear a great deal about Nicaragua and its leader Daniel Ortega in this part of the world, it is nevertheless the case that he has now abandoned all pretence of democracy. As leader of the Sandanistas who fought the US-backed Contras in the 1980s, Ortega eventually became president, but was voted out of office in 1990. He made his return quite legitimately in 2007 via the ballot box, to emerge thereafter as an elected autocrat. Facing an election in November, he has now become a dictator, calling to mind Anastasio Somoza, the man he fought to remove so long ago.

In 2018 there was a popular uprising against Ortega’s regime, which was suppressed with brutality. His latest act was to arrest a number of opponents to his regime, including members of

the independent media and five presidential hopefuls, one of whom is Cristiana Chamorro, the most popular politician in Nicaragua. Her mother Violeta had defeated Ortega in the poll of 1990. It was the arrests in particular which earned the Nicaraguan government a vote of censure in the OAS on June 15, where Guyana, to its credit, voted with 25 other members of that organisation to condemn this development. The government in Managua was also exhorted to implement reform measures which would ensure the elections later this year were free and fair. As we noted in our report earlier this week, the resolution was in keeping with previous statements, resolutions and mandates by the OAS since 2018 supporting the restoration of democratic institutions and calling for respect for human rights in Nicaragua.

Among other things too, the OAS resolution strongly urged Nicaragua’s government to implement without delay both legislative and other measures which were required for the holding of free and fair elections in November, including accepting OAS and other international observers. It might be thought that given the principles involved, all Caricom members with the arguable exception of Haiti, would have voted in favour along with Guyana, but this was not so. And Haiti, it might be added, did vote in favour, as did Antigua and Barbuda, The Bahamas, Barbados, Grenada, Jamaica, St Kitts and Nevis, St Lucia, Suriname and Trinidad and Tobago.

But what of the other Caricom members? Dominica and Belize abstained, while St Vincent and the Grenadines voted against. The stance of the lastmentioned territory will be a certain source of puzzlement to Guyanese, since its Prime Minister Ralph Gonsalves was so voluble on the subject of democracy and the constitution during the five-month interregnum here last year.

He was reported as saying in an NBC broadcast last July: “The leaders of Caricom, including St Vincent and the Grenadines, cannot and must not appear to be indifferent to, and detached from, what is happening in Guyana ...

“Today, Caricom defends democracy in Guyana; we defend the voters of Guyana; we are on the side of the angels in the stand-off between those who reject the people’s verdict and those who insist, properly, on its observance, recognition, formal declaration, and implementation.”

But not, it seems, on the side of the voters of Nicaragua despite the St Vincent Government’s commitment to Caricom’s Charter of Civil Society. St

Vincent is a member of Alba, the regional grouping formed by the late Hugo Chávez with the aim of facilitating the social, political and economic integration of Latin America and the Caribbean. Its philosophy mirrors the socialist views of its founder, as well as member nations like Cuba and Bolivia. In the absence of any other explanation, therefore, it must be assumed that St Vincent’s vote reflected its allegiance to the Chávez-inspired organisation of which Nicaragua is a member, as opposed to the principles enshrined in the Charter.

Another Alba member, Dominica, abstained, probably as a way of not being obliged to choose, and so did Belize, which is not a member of that organisation. All other Alba members, namely, Antigua and Barbuda, Grenada, St Kitts and Nevis, St Lucia and the guest country of Suriname voted in favour.

For all of that, Caricom countries without exception, their relations with Alba and the fact they were beneficiaries of PetroCaribe notwithstanding, have always given support to this country on the controversy with Venezuela, support which has not wavered over the decades. It is the one unambiguous area where there is genuine unanimity on an issue of foreign affairs. Not surprisingly, both the President and Foreign Minister laid great emphasis on the Community’s backing in relation to Guyana’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.

President Ali and Minister Todd also expressed commitment to the Caricom integration process, although with the vexed question of the single market and economy still ongoing, and a lack of concord on foreign policy, that might involve a long wait. That said, Caricom’s longer-term direction is hard to read, given the geopolitical changes in the world, especially the likely dominance of China, the unpredictable consequences of the pandemic and at a local level, Guyana’s changed economic status. If it is not altogether clear what the ultimate path is that Caricom will take, it can be said that in a world of giants, small territories will need the cover of such an organisation.