Jamaica foreign policy and the Monroe Doctrine
RECENTLY there have been questions in the popular media about Jamaica’s foreign policy, especially as it relates to Venezuela. Earlier this year, the Government announced that it would forcibly retake Venezuela’s 49 per cent stake in the Petrojam oil refinery because both sides couldn’t agree on a price for the buy-back. In March 2019 Jamaica closed its embassy in Caracas, but did not break diplomatic relations. The Government of Jamaica insists that the decision wasn’t political but driven by logistical and security concerns. Coincidently, this announcement was made just before Jamaica’s Prime Minister Andrew Holness, along with leaders from Haiti, the Bahamas, and St Lucia, attended a meeting with US President Donald Trump at Mar-a-largo.
Minister of Foreign Affairs and Foreign Trade Senator Kamina Johnson Smith has defended the Government’s position in the face of strident criticism. One editorial has described Jamaica’s recent foreign policy concerning Venezuela as schizophrenic. Minister Johnson has made it clear that the Government of Jamaica continues to vote on principle in multilateral fora, and that Jamaica is still widely respected in the international community.
Despite the explanations given by Minister Johnson Smith, it can be argued that another principle appears to be guiding Jamaica’s decision making — the Monroe Doctrine. The Monroe Doctrine was first articulated in 1823 but has since evolved into what is called a regional exclusion doctrine. A regional exclusion doctrine is defined as an explicit and unilateral foreign-policy announcement by a regional hegemon which states that powers external to the region are not welcome. In the western hemisphere, the unquestioned hegemon is the United States. One of the prominent self-asserted rights of the hegemon is the right to determine foreign relations of member states within the region. In the entire western hemisphere, for example, the United States may “suggest” that countries within the region consult with them on third-party foreign relations, formal military alliances with extra-regional powers, purchase or acquisition of arms beyond a defined maximum and diplomatic recognition of governments hostile to the US. The US, for instance, will feel almost obliged to interfere in
Jamaica’s or any other regional country’s domestic affairs.
Besides the US, several regional and global powers have tacit or explicit regional exclusion doctrine. These include China in the South China Sea and the Russian Federation in eastern Europe. Countries within these regional zones are dominated by the regional power and tend to have nominal sovereignty. These regions are analogous to a garrison in Jamaica but scaled up hemispherically and or globally. The regional power is the don. The don ensures obedience through a number of instruments of power, including bribery, intimidation and coercion. Defying the don, and especially courting or harbouring external powers, will have severe consequences. In the 1970s the Michael Manley Government declared non-alignment, embraced democratic socialism, and pivoted towards Russia and Cuba. The consequence was a near civil war in the 1980 General Election. There are several other examples; however, the current renegade is Venezuela, who has forged strong relationships with countries considered hostile to the US, such as China, Russia, Iran and Cuba.
The US has tacitly declared war on Venezuela using a hybrid warfare methodology. The Russians used this method effectively against Ukraine, which ended with the annexation of Crimea. Global Security Review (GSR) defines hybrid warfare as a strategy that employs conventional military force supported by irregular and cyber warfare tactics. Unlike traditional warfare, in which conflicts are defined by a sequential progression of a planned strategy by opposing sides, hybrid warfare is the simultaneous deployment of multiple, complementary military and non-military warfare tactics. The US has not formally invaded Venezuela; however, it is employing psychological, economic, political, and cyber assaults.
Venezuela is a case study in hybrid warfare. The USA has attacked the critical functions of Venezuela. Politically on January 23, 2019, the leader of the legislature, Juan Guaidó, declared himself acting president and said he would assume the powers of the executive branch from there onwards. The president of the USA Donald Trump immediately recognised Guaido with several regional and extra-regional countries following suit.
Economic: In February the USA announced economic sanctions against Venezuela’s oil sector, which is responsible for 90 per cent of the Government’s revenue. This was in addition to previous sanctions targeting government officials and certain sectors of the economy.
Technology: The electricity grid has been hacked several times. As a result, there have been ongoing blackouts and water shortages. There are also food and drug shortages and hospitals are unable to function.
Militarily: It is safe to assume that the US has special forces, Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) personnel and mercenaries on the ground in Venezuela. Because of the synchronisation of these several different instruments of power and the ability escalate pressure, hybrid warfare has been described as death by a thousand cuts. The consequence of these actions by the US is the ongoing unrest in Venezuela and imminent coup d’etat of the Nicolas Maduro Government.
Let’s be clear, warfare has changed in the 21st century. Under international law, war is waged by states or state-like entities and is defined as contention between two or more states through their armed forces. The proliferation of the Internet and the reliance of countries on their information communications and telecommunications infrastructure have changed the methodology and practice of warfare. The definition of war will need to be changed to fit the realities of the 21st century.
Although the Monroe Doctrine is almost 200 years old, it still dominates US foreign policy in this hemisphere and beyond. This is evidenced by John Bolton’s, US national security advisor, recent reaffirmation to the doctrine in announcing new sanctions against Venezuela. In addition, Trump has declared his “America First” policy and demonstrates a transactional approach to foreign policy. It is within this context of the Monroe Doctrine, America’s First, the transactional nature of US foreign policy, and its ability and propensity to retaliate when countries step out of line.
In 2015, when US President Barack Obama visited Jamaica, his public relations machinery gave the impression that it was a feel-good visit; “Wah a gwaan Jamaica?” He, however, came with the Monroe Doctrine and a big stick; note the subsequent de-emphasis on the logistics hub. One man’s logistic hub is another man’s naval base. The Jamaica, China, USA foreign policy triad will be watched with interest.
Foreign policy is exercised in an interdependent world. Jamaica and the region are dominated by the USA and are therefore subject to pressure, meddling, interference, and sovereign inequality. As it relates to Venezuela, recent Jamaican actions are based on us being a pawn in a hybrid warfare. Therefore describing Jamaica’s foreign policy as schizophrenic (an unfortunate characterisation), despite the inconsistencies, is entirely logical. Lapdog diplomacy however is a totally different issue.
Professor Paul Golding is dean of the College of Business and Management at the University of Technology, Jamaica. Send comments to the Observer or pgolding@ utech.edu.jm.