CARICOM’s Council for Foreign and Community Relations is not delivering

It should be clear by now to CARICOM watchers that notwithstanding the effervescent pronouncements that emanate from time to time from various sources about the accomplishments of CARICOM, all does not look too well within the regional integration body.

Appearing as though it has distanced itself from the demands of public diplomacy, the Council for Foreign and Community Relations (COFCOR), the body within CARICOM tasked with the responsibility to coordinate foreign policy among member states, has evolved apparently and is now a loose and fragmented body.

Generally unknown to the public, COFCOR is viewed by CARICOM watchers as lethargic and unambitious at a time when quite the opposite is needed, having regard to the global situation characterized as unstable and unpredictable, and more specifically, when political divisions in the U.S. and across the globe seem starker than ever.

At the opening of 26th Meeting of COFCOR held on May 18, 2023 in Kingston, Jamaica, CARICOM Secretary General Carla Barnett put the efficacy of COFCOR this way;

“In this environment where geopolitical balances of power are in a period of great flux, the Region’s leadership on matters of global import remains essential. Over the next two days, this Council’s agenda will address how best to position the Community on the hemispheric and global stages and advance a coordinated and strategic approach to strengthen our external relations.”

The only “leadership on matters of global import” that we Guyanese know about is the Ali administration’s leadership on food, energy and climate security.

However, all things being equal, just as we were in the dark at the end of 2023 as to “how best’’ the community had ‘’positioned itself on the hemisphere and global stages”, with the community already one month into 2024, we are no the wiser as to how COFCOR will position itself “to advance a coordinated and strategic approach to strengthen the community’s external relations.”

From all indications, save for a few examples, it seems as though CARICOM’s external relations agenda is set in motion more by external factors and occurrences rather than by inborn regional initiatives aimed at influencing global developments.

Elements that make up the region’s international agenda can hardly be described as rooted in originality. In other words, no landmark initiative of recent vintage impacting

global problems and supported by UN member states can be ascribed to the community. It is high time that COFCOR formulates and makes available to the public across the region its strategic vision and implementation approach towards 2030.

Questions have been asked why COFCOR appears not to be favourably disposed to informing the public in the jurisdictions of member states about the results of its decisions and recommendations reached at their regular or informal meetings irrespective of whether they were face to face, via zoom or in a chat group.

Generally, the public is not interested in ball by ball happenings at COFCOR meetings, they are more likely to pay attention to decisions and recommendations arising from such meetings especially as regards Guyana /Venezuela relations. In the absence of any useful information, stakeholders, and particularly the press, are likely to engage in all kinds of speculations.

Criticisms of COFCOR’s modus operandi are not without merit. Three examples will suffice; Israel’s war on Gaza, the November 1st meeting in St. Vincent and the Grenadines and the case currently before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v Israel).

Throughout the region, non-state actors have expressed their disappointment over the fact that only Guyana and Suriname, based on their membership in the Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC), appeared on a list of 60 plus nations who joined South Africa in its historic, legal battle at the ICJ.

CARICOM’s relations with South

Africa have endured over the years. During the era of apartheid member states adopted strong positions against apartheid at all major international fora. At the bilateral level, governments rarely wavered in respect to solidarity with peoples around the world fighting against inhuman suffering under suppression or repression in any shape

Following the presentations by the South African legal team at the ICJ, the deputy Attorney General of South Africa briefed the media. He made several references to the African Ubuntu philosophy in the context of the war on Gaza stating that self exists in relation to others and that Ubuntu represents a new way to look at ethics, morality and freedom.

Looked at through the prism of South Africa’s presentation at the ICJ, the Palestinian people have a general expectation to be treated fairly; they are inclined to reasonableness and yearn to have their problems addressed in a timely and impartial manner under international law. Any violation or non-implementation of their legitimate rights and expectations are viewed with suspicion, as deceptive and immoral.

To many viewers, the South African defence team at the ICJ made a strong case purporting that a fixed mindset exists in the heads of those who currently hold power in Israel and that it is reflected in the belief that their talents and intelligence are inborn, fixed and unchangeable.

International public opinion has changed dramatically in favour of the Palestinian cause. Guyana is on the winning side by supporting the Palestinian people’s just demands. All Guyanese must speak out in favour of upholding international law.