Caribbean Trade Law and Development

Tag: Rahym Augustin-Joseph

  • Trinidad’s Troubling Invitation of War to Caribbean Shores

    Trinidad’s Troubling Invitation of War to Caribbean Shores

    Rahym R. Augustin-Joseph (Mr.) (Guest contributor)

    Early last week, the Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago, Hon. Kamla Persad-Bissessar, indicated via Press Release, that, her government unequivocally supported the deployment of American Military assets into the Caribbean Region in order to destroy the terrorist drug cartels.

    Interestingly enough, the Prime Minister noted that it was not the government’s intention to engage CARICOM, as the foreign policy of each CARICOM state is within their sovereign domain and must be articulated for and by themselves. After all, one’s foreign policy is indeed based on one’s national interests, values, pragmatism, ideology, et cetera.

    Albeit, accurate in theory, but not truly in praxis, particularly when a country is within a regional integration movement and history has shown that greater results emanate from the Caribbean speaking as one voice within the global political ecosystem, by virtue of their bargaining power as a bloc which eclipses our size constraints. In fact, some naysayers will argue that when the foreign policy dictates of a country is not solely influenced internally, it is reflective of a reduction in sovereignty. But sovereignty is also an action which permits the island’s foreign policy to be in sync with other countries.

    Thus, the utilisation of polar opposition positions within the Caribbean, encourages a colonial ‘divide and conquer’ strategy for developed countries which only elevates their position and agenda, at the expense of the interests of the Caribbean.

    Of course, there has been many instances of Caribbean disunity propagated by the USA, such as the Ship Riders Agreement in the 1990’s, debates over permitting the US invasion of Grenada, inability to support one candidate in the Commonwealth SG Race of 2022, recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, Venezuela- USA Debacle under President Trump, among others.

    What is generally done, is the major powers co-opt CARICOM States to be against each other or pick them off one by one through inducements such as aid, financial and technical aid et cetera. It is for this reason I support the Golding Commission’s Report Recommendation 26 which suggested “a review of the procedures for foreign policy consultation and coordination in order to avoid as far as possible, the types of conflict and embarrassing positions that have emerged from time to time among CARICOM members depriving it of the collective force it is capable of exerting.”

    While the Prime Minister is accurate that CARICOM countries, reserve the sovereign authority to articulate their individual foreign policy position, it is a known fact that her unilateral position undermines one of the core pillars of the regional integration movement, i.e., foreign policy coordination, as noted in Article 6 (h) of the RTC which notes in part that one of the Community’s objectives is “enhanced co-ordination of Member states’ foreign and foreign economic policies.”  It is where countries within the Caribbean Community, seek to find common ground on our individual national positions on these myriad of hemispheric and international issues of great importance to the Caribbean Community, such as the Venezuela- Guyana Dispute and the infiltration of overseas drug cartels which affect Trinidad and Tobago and the wider Caribbean.

    But what is also ironic and confusing about the Prime Minister’s position, is that she, without the concurrence of her CARICOM colleagues endorsed the American deployment in the ‘Caribbean Region’, not only in the waters close to Trinidad and Tobago, but the Caribbean, while quickly denouncing her Government’s intention to engage CARICOM on the subject matter.

    But, even beyond this foreign policy vernacular, Trinidad and Tobago should not make decisions under the guise of the sovereign name of Trinidad and Tobago when these decisions have life and death implications for the wider Caribbean Region peoples without consulting CARICOM.

    Thus, the invitation of war to the shores of the Caribbean, with wanton disregard for the potential effects on human life, through the permitting of US military operations which can have counter-military responses within the small landmass in the Caribbean region potentially affecting multiple Caribbean countries is a decision that should not be taken as fiat by one Caribbean country.

    As one online commentator noted, decisions about war are not akin to putting on the call of duty video game, but requires careful deliberation, analysis, consultation, respect for international law et cetera.

    It is as if the Prime Minister, in the absence of the Chair of CARICOM is speaking for the region without their concurrence, while still attempting to confine her foreign policy position to Trinidad and Tobago.

    But, the articulation of such position should have been even more circumspect, because under the Quasi-Cabinet of CARICOM, Prime Minister Bissessar is the Lead for Security (Drugs and Illicit Arms). As such, when she speaks and takes definitive positions, both for Trinidad and Tobago and implicitly for the Caribbean, it is as akin to a response from the CARICOM, which makes it even more problematic, questionable and worrying. After all, CARICOM is one of the bastions of Caribbean sovereignty.

    As such, if the regional Quasi Cabinet works anything like our domestic cabinet, Prime Minister Bissessar has just articulated a policy position of CARICOM, while admitting ‘boldfacely’ that she would not be consulting with her CARICOM colleagues.

    But one would believe though that such a request for the deployment of military assets has already been made to the Government of Trinidad and Tobago, which prompted this press release. But, instead, the Prime Minister indicated that, no requests have ever been made by the American government for their military assets to access Trinidad and Tobago territory for any military action against the Venezuelan regime.

    But, still, she offers it, citing that should the Maduro regime launch any attack against the Guyanese people, her government will provide the access if required to defend the people of Guyana against Venezuela.

    What is also concerning about this policy position by Bissessar is that at the domestic level, it is a confining and narrowing of liberal democracy to the political elite, such that the people of Trinidad and Tobago have not been given any meaningful opportunity to form any opinion on whether they are supportive of the utilisation of foreign military assets by the USA, to fight drug cartels and/ or, as a launching pad for war against the Venezuela regime, with significant potential for retaliatory measures against Trinidad and Tobago which will affect their peoples.

    Certainly, Bissessar has shown that the people of Trinidad and Tobago, at the recent ballot box, engaged in what Jean Jacques Rosseau calls a simultaneous exercise in, and surrender of sovereignty, such that the very moment they made the x, was the same moment they surrendered their sovereignty to her, such that all decisions of national importance are only decided by the political elite. They remain excluded from engaging in the political lives of their society and have surrendering all of their power to their representatives.

    Of, course the common retort of her colleagues and supporters would be that ‘the people voted for a promise of the reduction of crime and violence’ and provided the government with the latitude to engage in measures such as this to pursue the outcome.

    A typical example of the ‘ends justify the means’ only that in governance the means, more than ‘the ends’ matter. How and why, you do what you do matters in politics.

    But this position is also at odds with other positions taken in Trinidad and Tobago, in the past under Dr. Eric Williams, where in response to internal turmoil with the Black Power Movement, the USA entered the territorial waters; in order to quell the uprising and they were not welcomed by the Government.

    But the policy position is also bewildering because is the administration providing their support for the ‘stationing of military assets to destroy drug cartels’ which emanate from or do not emanate from Venezuela?

    Or is it to provide the Americans with the launching pad for war against Venezuela if they attack Guyana? Or is it both?

    Under the latter, such a retaliatory response under collective self-defence as per International Law, can only be invoked where there was indeed an ‘armed attack’, the victim state must have declared itself to be under attack, and must request assistance, and that this assistance should still be necessary and proportionate.

    It apparently is both because days later, we then see video footage of American military assets destroying an alleged Venezuelan vessel on the waters which was allegedly carrying drugs. What this confirms is that there seems to possibly be a request by the Americans for deployment, contrary to the Prime Minister’s assertion which was accepted by the Prime Minister. Further, the aim of the deployment is not only to respond to the Venezuelan state against Guyana, but to also respond to drug cartels emanating from the state of Venezuela.

    In any instance, both are problematic.

    Certainly, the former is because, notwithstanding  the realities that Trinidad and Tobago faces, wherein the data suggests that there has been an infiltration of violence because of the Venezuelan political and economic crisis, it also places Bissessar in a diplomatic chokehold and at odds with the regional position which also recognises that the influx of unlicenced firearms are due in part to the second amendment right under the USA constitution, to bear arms.

    Such that, guns continue to be rampant in our countries, which allegedly also come from the USA without the necessary support from the USA, to revisit their internal background checks and support stronger border control to reduce the influx of firearms.

    As noted, in a recent peer-reviewed journal article published in the European Journal of International Security by Dr Yonique Campbell, Professor Anthony Harriott, Dr Felicia Grey and Dr Damion Blake titled “From the ‘war on drugs’ to the ‘war on guns’: South–South cooperation between Mexico and the Caribbean” diagnoses the burgeoning gun violence epidemic permeating the Caribbean is as a result of the illegal trafficking of guns stemming from the illegal trafficking of guns from the US, given that an “estimated 60–90% of guns used in criminal acts in LAC are trafficked from the United States”. Further, the article also notes that some of the necessary pragmatic solutions include a “ban on the sale of military-grade weapons to civilians” and “punitive measures against legitimate carriers that convey illegal weapons across national borders as well as monitoring and performance reviews.” 

    As noted in an instructive piece assessing this situation through the lens of realism, in International Relations Theory, by Dr. Emmanuel Quashie, lecturer in International Relations, notes and he is quite accurate that, “the Trump administration should also declare a War on the illegal trafficking of guns from the US that is responsible for the bloody violence ravaging our communities and destroying and slaughter of our people as the Prime Minster of Trinidad and Tobago Kamala Persad-Bissessar stated in which she seems to blame the issue solely on “evil traffickers”. 

    Sidestepping this reality, repeating of the American narrative shared by Vice President Vance which does not apportion responsibility and culpability for the crime and violence in this region equally, and not factoring the American complicity into the policy and diplomatic response and engagement is certainly antithetical to the reduction of crime and violence.

    As a matter of fact, it continues to sidestep and pass the difficult task of reduction of crime and violence to the United States of America, ignoring the internal national efforts that Trinidad and Tobago could engage in to reduce crime and violence.

    As no amount of warships parked outside of Trinidad can fix the issues of trust in the institutions, corruption of the police force, court backlogs, income inequality, lack of youth opportunities which provide an environment for crime to fester, broken education system which creates tiers of citizens, broken family and community structures, border control which reduces the influx of illegal firearms, et cetera.

    After all, crime emerges as the data has shown, not simply out of the existence of drugs and guns i.e., manifest tools of crime and violence. But there is an economic, social and political explanation, which lies in the government’s inability to adequately provide for the majority of citizens. Thus, government inadequacy, which cannot be replaced with warships in seas of foreign vessels, must be blamed and responded to.

    It is a short-term knee jerk reaction to appease the West and to remove culpability on the nation-state’s complicit role in festering crime and violence through inaction in a time when long-term sustainable actions are necessary.

    But the decision is also at odds with prevailing data from the US itself, which notes that as per academic and departmental research, that 84% of the cocaine seized in the US comes not from Venezuela, as they are not a cocaine producer, but from Colombia.” In fact, the major cartels that pose a threat to the USA according to the U.S. DEA are the Sinaloa Cartel, and the New Generation Cartel from Mexico. As such, Dr. Quashie argues and he may be accurate that this position has less to do with Trinidad’s benevolence and altruistic foreign policy in advancement of Guyana’s self-determination, or alternatively in reduction of violence in Trinidad and Tobago, but in the destabilisation of the Maduro regime which may result in their view in a return of the Oil market for Trinidad and Tobago, which was obliterated with the Petro-Caribe Initiative.

    But, the naivety of the Prime Minister, unless this is exactly what it was meant to be, seems to be unaware that regime change only benefits the USA’s self-interest of reduction of communism, socialism and other ‘isms’ and is a continuation of their entrenched doctrines in the Caribbean.

    Her support as a friendly host will not result in any benefits for the peoples of Trinidad and Tobago and the wider Caribbean but only be a lesson in the realist nature of geopolitics and the international political economy of war and conflict as noted by Dr. Emmanuel Quashie.

    Haile Sellasie words are thus instructive when he lamented the inaction of the League of Nations, during the League of Nations address when his country was defeated by the Italian army of Mussolini, that “today it is us, but tomorrow it will be you.” 

    Dr. Quashie is also thus also instructive and accurate when he noted that, “thus, the idea that the US military presence in the Caribbean will result in a reduction in illegal guns, drugs and violent crimes is to have a fanciful and superficial understanding of Us foreign policy. Plain and simple, it’s about Venezuela’s oil, because they hold the largest oil reserves in the world and nothing to do with supposed “drug cartels,” or “narco-terrorists” or even the issue of illegal guns that actually comes from the United States and are the main source of the burgeoning gin violence that is ravaging our Caribbean communities.”

    But it is important for citizens to not be distracted by the Prime Minister’s utilisation of the trauma of the victims as an excuse for diplomatic prostitution, as she implicitly suggest that it is an all-or-nothing approach. Such, that, if the USA warships are not stationed in the waters, crime and violence cannot be solved.

    Scholar Lowenthal is thus accurate then as he is now, when he said that “it is a deceptively attractive policy because it seemed cheap and simple, but it is a dangerously short signed, since it amounted to putting out the fires while doing nothing to remove the flammable material.”

    The actualisation of the position was thus seen in the US illegal strike on a boat that the Trump administration claimed were carrying 11 Venezuelan gang members from the Tren De Aragua cartel that was loaded with drugs bound for the US which resulted in the destruction of the vessel and the killing of the individuals. The Prime Minister’s response praising the military operation “that the US Military should kill them all violently” is an affront to the rule of the law, due process, right to a fair hearing, proportionality, among other human rights safeguards enshrined in domestic Constitutional and international human rights treaties.

    Certainly, in Trinidad and Tobago and within the USA, these offences are not meted out with ‘death’ ‘vigilante justice’ or an ‘eye for an eye’. There is no legal penalty for drug trafficking which is summary execution without due process, i.e., being arrested, charged, provided with a trial and permit the prosecution to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. In fact, even in circumstances where guilt is proven, or plead by the perpetrators, the penalty is not death by execution as witnessed over the last few days.

    As such, why should this be the policy position on the waters by these states, in flagrant disregard for domestic and international law?

    Instead, in these countries, which boast and are rated highly their admiration for the ‘rule of law’ officials could have simply conducted maritime interdiction of the drug shipments utilising their intelligence, and the subsequent processing, charging, prosecuting and sentencing of the individuals without attacking the vessel’s occupants.

    In some reports, they have noted that in most instances, those transporting the drugs are not big drug traffickers, but rather very young poor people from the region utilised for the enhancement of the drug trade.

    But, in typical Caribbean Prime Minister fashion, anyone who interrogates the policy is somehow an enemy of progress, the state, unpatriotic and not a law-abiding citizen, as opposed to embracing critics who question the rationale, nature, safeguards et cetera of the policy position. And hosting forums, conversations among other forms of public engagement meant to address these concerns and invite people into the confidence of the decision making of the political elite.

    Patriotism and active citizenship is certainly not clothed in selling Caribbean sovereignty to the highest bidder, but in being self-reflective and interrogating the societal issues and the responses by the political elite.

    But the policy position is also problematic because it lacks the necessary details, which can cause citizens to possibly rally and interrogate the position.

    It reeks of an unquestioning endorsement of the Ship Riders Agreement, such that the USA can continue to deploy and operate their coast guard outside their territorial waters, to respond to terrorism and other related activities.

     So, it is important to ask:

    1. What of any benefit is the parking of warships in the Caribbean Sea, and how will it actually seek to reduce crime and violence?
    2. Under what conditions are they present?
    3. How can any ordinary fisherfolk be certain that with the mechanisms utilised they too would not be randomly killed by military arsenal from the US, as young black men are killed in America, by killing first and finding out they do not possess any weapons after? After all, there have been many cases where some Jamaican fishermen have been subjected to abusive measures by the US Coast Guards who accused them of drug smuggling, burning their boats, stripped searched, and shackled like slaves as noted by Bekiempis in a 2019 article published on the subject.
    4. For how long will they remain the Caribbean Sea?
    5. What are the safeguards in place to ensure that they will only pursue their purpose?
    6. What have the two states and the Caribbean region agree should not be done during this military deployment, such as killing of children, women, among other ‘rules of war’, or is it summary execution of every boat on the seas?
    7. What if any are the ramifications if the conditions are breached?
    8. How does the Caribbean people reconcile the history of the West, of utilising our waters and countries as pawns for their own political agenda, at the expense of our small island interests?
    9. Does the President truly mean his friends in the Caribbean will not be terrorised by Venezuela, or is that there is an ulterior motivation of staving off communism as has been embedded within the US-Caribbean relations?
    10. Moreover, as one saw with the recent attack, how can one be assured that the intelligence of the USA and Trinidad and Tobago is accurate such that they are indeed attacking drug cartels, and not just immigrants?
    11. How can we be assured that the execution of the policy is in response to a genuine threat or merely a response to the critics to show that there is a threat?
    12. When the Prime Minister noted that “all traffickers” should be killed violently, how will they ensure if they engage in summary execution that the individuals killed are traffickers as opposed to the trafficked?
    13. And, also, what of the diplomatic courtesies of notification and other forms of engagement with neighbouring states when actions will have regional impacts, or is the Prime Minister still of the insular belief that Trinidad’s actions have no impact elsewhere?
    14. How does the Prime Minister countenance the potential of a return of the US ships and the possible retaliation by Venezuelan authorities on Trinidad and Tobago and potentially the Caribbean region?
    15. Has the Prime Minister engaged in any analysis of the international law surrounding the abovementioned and satisfied herself that it is being followed, or is there just a disregard for law and order?
    16. How does this alter the Caribbean philosophical position of being a zone of peace?

    Naturally, the Caribbean people could remember the pretence of the USA, when they claimed they were ‘saving medical students in Grenada’, only to realise that it was an attempt to destabilise and destroy the Revolutionary Government led by Maurice Bishop. Or one only has to remember the USA’s interventions in Dominican Republic, Guyana, among others to maintain their hegemonic status and stave off potential communism in their backyard, i.e., the Caribbean.   

    But, even today with the onslaught of attacks on Grenada’s ability to retain Cuban medical professionals, under the false pretence of solving human trafficking, only to further isolate Cuba’s medical internationalism, is another apt example of the USA utilising their big stick for their own foreign policy outcomes.

    History can repeat itself, only if we are not conscious enough to know it and take corrective action. And even if it does not repeat itself, certainly this is a rhyme.

    But, in all of these instances, it is important for the defenders of Caribbean freedom and sovereignty to be conscious of how embedded within the US foreign policy has been the Monroe Doctrine, Big Stick Policy, Platt Amendment, among others which advance the USA first interest, and an assumption of an innate hegemonic status in the Western hemisphere.

    Such that, any political squabbles in another state would be interpreted as a hostile act against the USA, that they must respond to. Further, that the region continues to be their backyard, such that any action that is taken, must be in consonant with their underlying interests.

    It is in contradistinction to the Barbados foreign policy position, which other CARICOM leaders have supported, and seem to adopt at their own, at Independence by Prime Minister Errol Barrow, when he said that “we should be friends of all, and satellites of none.”

    But this position by the Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago is also a satellite position because in the latter, it advocates pre-emptively responding to war, as opposed to advocating for the Caribbean sea to continue to be a zone of peace.

    Prime Minister Bissessar could have taken the opportunity instead to play a leading role in the Caribbean Region to enhance dialogue over preparation for war. As done in the previous Arnos Vale Accord, Venezuela and Guyanese parties were brought together for dialogue with the ultimate goal of peace. More particularly, the Summit resulted as you know in a Joint Declaration of Argyle for Dialogue and Peace between Guyana agreeing to: “.. directly or indirectly not threatening or using force against one another in any circumstances, including those consequential to any existing controversies between the two States.” This, of course, is in keeping with international law, particularly the customary rule of Article 2(4) of UN Charter, which “prohibits the threat or use of force and calls on all Members to respect the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of other States.”They also agreed “that any controversies between the two States will be resolved in accordance with international law, including the Geneva Agreement dated February 17, 1966.

    And that the talks have not completely yielded peace, does not provide an impetus for the preparation and support of war.

    Or are we so satisfied with being the choir singers of the West that we believe that the more we support the West interest and imperatives, we will be included in the ‘America First’ policy, especially with the endorsement of President Trump, that we are his friends and he will protect us.

    The words of Prime Minister Mia Amor Mottley of Barbados in one of her first UNGA Speeches in 2019 are instructive and should be followed by other Caribbean leaders when she noted, “The time for dialogue, the time for talk, my friends can never be over in a world that wants peace and prosperity. We do not take sides, but what we know is that you cannot propel war over dialogue.”

    Eternal vigilance is truly the price of liberty! Let us advocate that peace and good sense prevails!

    Rahym Augustin-Joseph is the 2025 Commonwealth Caribbean Rhodes Scholar. He is a recent political science graduate from the UWI Cave Hill Campus and an aspiring attorney-at-law. He can be reached via rahymrjoseph9@ gmail.com and you can read more from him here.

    Photo credit: WordPress AI-generated image

  • Denial and Banning of Dancehall and Trinibad Artists across CARICOM : Compatible or Incompatible with Regional Integration Law

    Denial and Banning of Dancehall and Trinibad Artists across CARICOM : Compatible or Incompatible with Regional Integration Law

    Rahym R. Augustin-Joseph (Mr.) (Guest contributor)

    Overtime, there has been a discernible increase in the denial of entry or even banning of certain dancehall and Trinibad artists, who were scheduled to perform in Caribbean countries in 2024 such as K-Mann 6IXX in Antigua and Barbuda and DJ Punz in St. Kitts and Nevis.    

    Earlier, in 2022, Skeng was denied future permits for any show he was scheduled to have in Guyana, after the Baderation event he had, was disrupted by gunfire and bottles turned missiles. In response, the Guyanese Government therefore noted that they would no longer issue permits to skeng or other artists whose lyrics included violence and public disorder to perform in Guyana. In 2024 however, it appears that this position was reversed as Skeng performed in Guyana.

    But these refusals and banning of artists from other Caribbean countries is not a new phenomenon, as in 2014 Jamaican artiste Tommy Lee Sparta, or Cabral Douglas was denied entry into Dominica, where he was supposed to perform, but it raised concerns for public safety. In 2010, Vybz Kartel was issued a performance ban in Saint Lucia and Barbados, citing his lewd lyrics and raunchy performances, and in 2009, Bounty Killer was also denied entry into Trinidad and Tobago, allegedly without reasons, while Vybz Kartel his reputed rival was allowed to enter and perform. There are many more examples of the denial of entry and banning of artists in the Caribbean.

    On the one hand, a wide cross section of the Caribbean peoples listen and engage with the music of these artists, and see it is a citadel of modern Caribbean culture. However, political leaders and technocrats have noted that these artists and their music are in the main, vulgar, misogynistic, crude, and have a major influence in the increased crime and violence in our society. It is their view that this music is contributing towards the increase in gang recruitment and violence, as people continue to be influenced by the lyrical component and call to action elicited by this music. Young people are therefore not seeing this music for its ‘creative expression’ but instead seeing this music for its literal meaning.

    One only has to listen to the words uttered by Dr. Mohamed Irfaan Ali of Guyana, when he noted during the 46th Regular Meeting of the Conference of the Heads of Government of CARICOM. He urged leaders to prevent the proliferation of violent music in their respective nations. “We do not need lyrics that promote violence in this region, We have the ability to promote positive lyrics that inspire people to think, act, and behave positively. As leaders, we must take this matter seriously and ensure that the region’s lyrics reflect the positivity embodied by Bob Marley and encourage positive living and change.”

    This debate however is to be had at another time, and within our respective countries, wherein one can examine properly whether the music which portrays violence has been having an effect on the perpetrators of violence within the Caribbean, such that if it is reduced, curtailed or banned across various mediums, that it would reduce violence significantly. This is a task for researchers across the region, which political leaders must take their cues from if they are to sustain such an argument.

    But, beyond just the consumption of the music by nationals in the respective Caribbean countries, it is also being packaged and sold through concerts and other mediums across the Caribbean. As such, the banning and denial of entry of the artists has effects on trade in services, and also possibly implicates regional integration law of which will be discussed briefly here.

    So, how is the banning and denial of entry of artists to ply their trade within the Caribbean a regional integration law problem?

    As you may be aware, every CARICOM national has an automatic right of entry and stay within another CARICOM country for a maximum of 6 months pursuant to the 2007 Conference Decision of the CARICOM Heads of Government, Article 45 of the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas, and the seminal case of Shanique Myrie v. The State of Barbados. This automatic right must also be hassle free, or without harassment or the imposition of impediments. Beyond just the mere right of entry, cases such as Tamika Gilbert v. The State of Barbados also notes that the right extends to being able to move freely within the particular country without any harassment and impediments.

    In restricting such right however, the offending state can only do so on two strict and narrowly applied grounds i.e., if the individual is an undesirable or a charge on public funds. Under the first prong, the offending state must show that the individual presents a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat to national security and safety, public morals, and national health of the member state affecting one of the fundamental interests of the society. So, individuals who actually pose or can reasonably be expected to pose such a threat. It is interesting however, that the cases from the European Court of Justice also suggest that one cannot refuse an individual of another state to one’s territory by reason of or of the threat of conduct which when attributable to their own nationals, do not give rise to repressive measures or other genuine and effective measures intended to combat such conduct. One must show essentially that their own nationals who engage in the behaviour which is refused are prosecuted regularly or otherwise subjected to some legal action.  This begs the question of whether the states which have denied entry and banned artists altogether, have similarly banned local artists which share similar lyrical content in their songs?

    In the latter, one must show that the individual does not have sufficient funds, such that they will become a charge on public funds, wherein they do not have sufficient monies for the duration of their visit, lack possession of online cash and card among other considerations. Further, when refusing an individual, there are certain procedural elements that the offending country must satisfy, which include inter alia, that they must (I) inform the individual in writing why they are being refused entry, (II) state the reasons why they are refused entry (III) provide them with the right to challenge such decision, through an effective appeal or review procedure with adequate safeguards to protect the rights of the persons denied entry and (IV) allow them the opportunity to consult with an attorney or their consular official of their country.

    The probing questions is therefore whether reasons have been given to these artists justifying their performance ban, how long are these measures in effect and is there is a review mechanism for these artists to allow them to appeal against the performance ban and what do these review mechanisms look like. These are according to Dr. Waite, “serious legal and policy questions that have implications for our regional integration movement, cultural exchange, vibrancy of socio-political commentary and our community rights. In order to answer them, a probing review is necessary, not a knee-jerk emotional and moral response.”

    However, the right which the refused artists will be captured under is the Article 46 right, which is where community nationals who are skilled nationals are able to travel freely across the region to ply their skills upon attainment and presentation of their CARICOM Skills Certificate. As such, the artists or musicians should be able to travel to any CARICOM state, hassle- free, without any impediments or harassment for a period of 6 months.

    Should the abovementioned artists have their CSME Certificate, which is attained by artists after they provide, (I) copies of their portfolio work which include pictures, videos, news, reports, examples of their work, (II) letters from their previous employers which state the period of employment and a job description- which is a bit problematic of a criteria, recognising the entrepreneurial nature of most of our artists and their engagement in the gig economy, (III) letters of reference from previous individuals attesting to work previously and (IV) five invoices dated within the last six months. However, the artists can only enjoy such right of freedom of movement with the acquisition of the CSME Certificate which would validate their status as a skilled national.  As such, on a prima facie level, the banning of artists and the denial of entry into certain countries within the Caribbean already has affected and infringed on their community rights as a CARICOM citizen, wherein they can receive redress before the Caribbean Court of Justice in its original jurisdiction.

    Of course, any state, which has banned the artists who had upcoming and scheduled performances and shows in their respective countries if challenged would argue that these artists can be classified as ‘undesirables.’ As such they would argue that these artists represent a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat to their national security, safety, and public morals, and they affect one of the fundamental interests of society. Their argument would possibly be that these artists by virtue of their lyrical component of their music could or have elicited violence in their respective countries, especially with increasing crime and violence statistics and as such is a threat to the national security. Further, they may argue that the lyrics of the artists may also be against public morals, particularly violent music which encourage gun violence. Recognising that there has been no cases within the region which have touched and concerned the exceptions, with regards to the nexus of violence and national security and public morals, one has to look towards the European Court of Justice jurisprudence, which the CCJ would look to.

    Within the ECJ, Catherine Barnard in her text, The Substantive Law of the European Union, Four Freedoms has noted that, the court grants member states a certain latitude and margin of discretion to determine what constitutes national security or public security in light of the national circumstances. It would therefore vary from one member state to another as noted in Van Duyn v. Home Office [1974]. Moreover, the courts provide the relevant national authorities an area of discretion within the limits imposed by the treaty, particularly as it does not provide a uniform set of values related to conduct which may be considered contrary to the national security interests of a country. However, the court still maintains its overarching view that there must be a genuine and sufficiently serious threat affecting the fundamental interests of the society.

    However, the court has noted in Shanique Myrie, which is a slight departure from the abovementioned, when they noted that public policy cannot be used as a justification for derogation from the fundamental principle of freedom of movement and hassle-free travel of community nationals wholly or unilaterally be determined by each member state without being subject to control by the major community organs, in particular the conference and ultimately by the court as the guardian of the RTC.

    The unfortunate or fortunate thing about the law and the decision by the court is that it forces a ‘culture of justification’ as coined by the South African public law scholar Etienne Mureinik, albeit post-law and decision making, wherein our officials must justify their decisions utilising evidence, logical reasoning as the court does not provide a carte blanche to the decision maker, which is critical for policy making and decision making. While members of the public may see it as being heavy handed, Article 211 of the RTC, provides the CCJ with this exclusive and compulsory jurisdiction to interpret and apply the RTC.

    As such, questions which have been posed by Dr. Neto Waite, on this subject are instructive and worthy of repetition here, when he asked whether it is right to argue that salacious lyrics undermine public morality and national security, is it true that lyrics about violence and rebellion against government harm public order? Has it ever posed a serious and sufficient risk and if so what does such intelligence tell us? Is the performance ban the best mechanism to deal with it, is it not too draconian and shouldn’t adult concertgoers be left to decide for themselves what sort of lyrics they wish to enjoy? In addressing whether the concern is minors being exposed to such music, he also argues correctly, whether it would be more appropriate for the government In consultation with civil society, implement a parental rating system for concerts based on the lineup of artists which can protect minors and respect the agency of adults to determine what types of music they want to listen to.

    However, from the reports in the media, it appears that save and except for Tommy Lee Sparta or Cabral Douglas, of which the CCJ has ruled on, the artists are not being denied entry after they have attempted to enter the respective countries. Instead, they are being banned from before. This does not mean they are not captured under the abovementioned. It just means that existing domestic Immigration legislation is being utilised to preclude entry which has been addressed in Maurice Tomlinson v. The State of Belize and Trinidad and Tobago. The court has therefore noted however that the mere existence of incompatible legislation, which suggests that there are categories of individuals who may not be eligible to enter the respective country, without it being harmonised with community law is not ipso facto, incompatible. Instead, the court will assess the state practice of the particular state to decide whether the legislation is incompatible with regional integration law.

    Therefore, this denial and banning of dancehall and trinibad artists would be assessed on a country-by-country basis in order to assess whether the individual country has a history of banning of dancehall and trinibad artists, which would be determinative of the legislation and state practice being incompatible. As such, countries such as Guyana, St. Kitts and Nevis among others may be found inconsistent, and the artists can make a claim even prior to entering that they will be denied entry, because of the legislation and also the application of the legislation with the banning of the artists. The artists would therefore have a claim before the CCJ in its OJ.

    However, CARICOM countries should take heed of the warning of the CCJ, who noted in Maurice Tomlinson, “that the court does not condone the indefinite retention on the statute book of a national law which in appearance seems to conflict with obligations under Community Law, and member states must ensure that national laws, subsidiary legislation and administrative practices are transparent in their support of the free movement of all CARICOM nationals and there should be harmonisation of the legislation with Community Law. If there is any permanent or indefinite discord between administrative practices and the literal reading of the legislation, then the rule of law requires clarity and certainty especially for nationals of other Member states who are to be guided by such legislation and practice.”

    Another right of the Artists, which may be affected is the right to not be discriminated on the grounds of nationality, as per Article 7 of the RTC. Essentially, in refusing entry to the artist, the offending state cannot discriminate on the artist solely on the basis of their nationality. Essentially, the artists must therefore show that similar individuals i.e., individuals who sing music similar to them have not been denied entry and that these individuals have no separate distinction other than their nationality. The unfortunate hurdle that they will face however is the high and unreasonable evidentry burden, as noted in Shanique Myrie v. Barbados, where the court noted that to show discrimination one has to show that there is statistical data which shows discrimination against the particular nationality that the individual artist has come from. It does not allow discrimination to be seen on a case-by-case basis, with the evidence being solely attributed from the particular case.

    The last right however which may affect the artist is the right to provision of services under Article 36 of the RTC, which is connected to the right to freedom of movement as noted in Shanique Myrie v. Barbados. Cabral Douglas v. The State of Dominica notes that an individual can be a service provider, if they satisfy condition precedent in Article 36 which is that (I) it must be within an approved activity in an approved sector, which music and performances are, (II) It must be supplied cross-border, which is satisfied as the artists are moving from one country to another. This would be different from Cabral Douglas, which has been critiqued, where the court held that he could not show that he was providing services because he was from Dominica attempting to provide services in Dominica and therefore the cross-border element was not satisfied. Thirdly, the element of temporary nature will be satisfied as they are travelling for a concert or some other performances which would be temporary. Finally, there must be renumeration as they are going to benefit from the payment by the patrons among other forms of income arising from the concert.

    Recognising the above, it would be advisable that these artists troubleshoot their cases in the OJ of the CCJ in order for the court to provide a definitive ruling on this matter, to guide or instruct states as to how to treat with these artists as a collective, ensuring state decisions are compatible with community law, as individual states believe they may be affecting their public morals, national security among other fundamental interests of the society.

    This is particularly opportune as there are further promises to increase freedom of movement in the region. The region cannot continue to address these matters in isolation and also ignore the trade and possible incompatibility implications of the individual countries with the RTC.

    Rahym Augustin-Joseph is the 2025 Commonwealth Caribbean Rhodes Scholar. He is a recent political science graduate from the UWI Cave Hill Campus and an aspiring attorney-at-law. He can be reached via rahymrjoseph9@ gmail.com and you can read more from him here.

    Photo credit: WordPress AI-generated image

  • What Trump 2.0 Could Mean for the Caribbean Region

    What Trump 2.0 Could Mean for the Caribbean Region

    Rahym R. Augustin-Joseph (Mr.) (Guest Contributor)

    Rahym R. Augustin-Joseph

    On November 5th the Caribbean watched with bated breath, the outcome of the US Elections, knowing that the results of the global superpower, would have significant and decisive implications for the future of the Caribbean, because of America’s tremendous influence and leadership in global multilateralism. Of course, the common refrain is that ‘if America coughs, the Caribbean catches the cold.’

    Notwithstanding, both the candidates lacking any particular and comprehensive plans for our region particularly in the trafficking of illegal firearms which is causing havoc in our streets, the Caribbean watched with a keen eye.

    But, as it was clear that Donald Trump had won the US Presidency, for the second time, Caribbean leaders such as Prime Minister Mia Mottley, Andrew Holness, Philip J. Pierre, Philip Davis and others, posted their congratulations, in signs of diplomacy, most noting that their countries remain committed to strengthening the close and enduring friendship and partnership with the US. The diplomatic niceties however could not obfuscate the questions they have, and the Caribbean people have about what it would mean for us and the stability or instability of the global international order.

    As such, what will Trump 2.0 mean for the Caribbean?

    Climate Change

    While we don’t know for certain what policies the Trump administration will pursue internally on climate change in light of increased climate-related disasters across the US, and the fact that the Inflation Reduction Act has continued to pour over $390 billion into EVs, and other climate resilient technologies, which have created millions of jobs and other benefits to Republican affiliated states. These may all disappear if he repeals sections of the Act. However, If this has impacts during the midterm elections, he may not be as keen to repeal.

    But his global actions will have disastrous impacts for the Caribbean, particularly since he has promised to withdraw the US again from the Paris Agreement, and possibly to withdraw from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which is the multilateral framework for the reduction of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the world, and which also provides financial and technical assistance for developing countries like the Caribbean to mitigate climate change through a shift to renewable energy, and to adapt to its impacts and respond to the loss and damage it creates.

    When these are coupled with his denial of the existence of climate change as a ‘hoax’, and his intention to ‘drill baby bill’ and ‘frack, frack, frack’, like never before,  increasing the fossil fuel stock of the US, which some have suggested would not only roll back the gains by President Joe Biden, but contribute an estimated 4 billion tons of additional CO2 emissions by 2030 and 25 billion tons by 2050, then these increases would significantly increase the vulnerability of the Caribbean to extreme weather events, more ferocious hurricanes, devastating droughts and floods, and deadly heatwaves, which can continue to plummet our GDPs, increase poverty, destroy infrastructure and roll back any gains made in our climate recovery processes.

    As we know, our Caribbean countries are low-lying and heavily exposed to rising sea levels, which erodes coastlines, and displaces populations and industries. Any withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, which is meant to reduce greenhouse gases (GHGs), will increase the emissions of these gases, thereby exacerbating the climate crisis and affecting our ability to protect lives and livelihoods. Of course, it is a no brainer that with warmer ocean temperatures that increase the intensity and ferocity of our hurricanes, the US exit will increase the levels of financial and technical support needed to bolster the climate recovery effort. Such an exit is even more egregious when you add the fact that the US, together with the other developed countries, are the ones that have created this existential climate crisis. The Caribbean may unfortunately be in for some hotter months, longer droughts and more devastating floods.

    What is needed now is not an increase in GHGs, which fuels the extreme weather patterns, which Trump promises, but a radical decarbonization of the US and other global economies. Caribbean leaders should therefore be prepared to dialogue with the President on these critical issues, but also to engage other European counterparts to step up and not bend over backwards to try and mould the climate regime around the vagaries of the US political currents.

    These countries, together with China, must now play leading roles in reducing the climate crisis. This is not to suggest however that when the US exits, the climate movement is ‘trumped’, but it is only morally appropriate that due to their overwhelming historical and current contributions to global GHGs, that the US contribute towards reducing the effects on developing countries. Additionally, they must meet their financial obligation, not just to the USD 100 billion per annum that was promised from 2020 by developed countries, but to a higher New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) on Climate Finance, which was one of the UNFCCC’s Twenty-Ninth Conference of the Parties (COP 29) outcomes held in Baku, Azerbaijan. It is one thing to withdraw from the Paris Agreement, like Trump did during his first presidency, but it is another thing entirely to commit to increasing greenhouse gas emissions by expanding oil and gas exploration, given the severe impacts that Caribbean and other SIDS are already experiencing from the climate crisis.

    Immigration

    Trump’s immigration policy, according to him would see the largest domestic deportation operation in human history of millions of illegal immigrants.

    For the Caribbean, and Haiti in particular, this is troubling, because Trump’s inward-looking policies will devastatingly affect all who flee from war, climate crises, strife, political upheavals and the collapse of their states in search for a better life or the American dream, which has sustained the economic prosperity of America. This use of excessive force against already vulnerable and marginalised populations is testament of Trump’s disregard for human dignity and rights.

    Of course, it is easy for us to sit in comfort and say that ‘they should enter legally now or that they should return to their countries.’ That is a privileged position as our countries are not facing the life-threatening issues that Haiti and others do, requiring individuals to flee, as a condition of survival. Who feels it knows it!

    But have we for one moment, considered that it is also a global responsibility to ensure integration of displaced peoples, in tandem with our humanitarian and civil rights requirements, particularly in circumstances where the US has also contributed towards this destabilisation and has an opportunity to cure these wrongs? At least in Haiti’s case for certain. But, Trump may only compound the problem, making the work of the Expert Group more difficult, if he refuses to assist, but also if he increases his Haitian animus. Remember his eating the animals’ comments, and how they were poisoning the blood of America, ignoring the diversity of America.

    What is even more certain is that Trump may not provide support for the improvement of the Haitian state, such that migration is an option, and not a necessity.

    It will also now become almost impossible to gain a legal path to citizenship, as even those who have become citizens by marrying an American citizen or their child is a ‘dreamer’ are at risk of deportation, thereby further decreasing their quality of lives causing migration issues for the Caribbean.

    The implications for the Caribbean are a general sentiment of fear of migration and lack of belonging as they search for a better life, and a concomitant fear by those who voted for ‘closed borders’ of all who are not of the blood of America i.e., also Caribbean peoples. But, more directly, if there are Caribbean peoples who are ‘illegal immigrants’, working and providing remittances to their families back home, one can potentially see a massive reduction in the country’s remittances income, which contribute towards healthcare, education among other areas. The reduction will exacerbate poverty, which has wider economic impacts for the Caribbean economy. Further, there may be deeper fiscal and political strains on other Caribbean countries which would not be able to handle this sudden migration flows.

    Already, there are reports in mainstream media which suggests that certain Caribbean countries such as the Commonwealth of Bahamas, Turks and Caicos and Grenada have all denied the Trump’s transition teams proposals to deport migrants to these third countries, recognising the inability and difficulty to deport them to their home states. These countries have probably already made an analysis of the political, fiscal and ‘security’ constraints of this proposal and determined that their country is unable to handle this influx. But, even without a determination by these Caribbean leaders, there are international human rights considerations which should have been assessed prior to such requests being made. But this request and its attendant failure necessitates a rethinking of this policy position to deal with the immigration issues in a manner which is respectful to international human rights norms and laws, which ensures human dignity and protection.

    One would have to continue to follow these developments to see the extent to which this American off-shoot of the ‘British Rwandan scheme’ which met its demise in the courts and with the election of Sir Keir Stramer would extend to other parts of the world. It would be interesting to see where next will President Elect Trump turn to house the ‘deportees’ and what the American people who have voted for such immigration policies believe of the early indications of this policy failure?

    But, these issues of immigration should never be divorced from the underlying race relations, which as a region whose population is predominantly black should still be of concern to the Caribbean, particularly as President Trump in his last term was apathetic in his condemnation of these incidents which sparked the BLM and is ignorant and tone-deaf to institutionalised racism in the United States.

    The Caribbean region as a whole through their political leaders need to engage the President on the abovementioned.

    Foreign Aid

    In Trump 2.0, particularly with his isolationist ‘America First’ philosophy, there may be less pushback to aid cuts as there were in Trump 1.0, and it could mean that key developmental programmes and agencies within the Caribbean could receive less funding, particularly in areas that are not favourable to the Trump administration. It means that the Caribbean should now utilise the opportunity to continue forging new relationships with new nations, as opposed to confining itself to looking North.

    Trade

    As Trump seeks to reduce the US trade deficit, ensuring manufacturing jobs stay within the US, and ensure a baseline global tariff for imports, it has the potential to affect Caribbean exports to the US, making it more difficult through stricter trade regulations. Should there also be a modification of the Caribbean Basin Initiative (CBI), which provides certain duty-free access to the US market, in favour of US production, it could also reduce the competitive advantage of Caribbean goods in US markets. But, recognising the large trade deficit with the US, the Caribbean poses no real threat to US jobs, and its beneficial nature to US industry might prove helpful to its continuation.

    Global Peace and Solidarity

    In global peace and solidarity, the wide cross section of people in the Caribbean, in addition to Caribbean leaders have echoed their Pro-Palestine support as noted through protests and online commentary, that there should be a two-state solution in which the two peoples can coexist. However, both the Biden-Harris Administration and now President Trump, has declared their unwavering support for Israel and their Prime Minister Netanyahu. They have suggested that Israel has a right to defend itself under International Law, but ignored that, while true, the acts of retaliation must not go beyond proportional self-defence where the actions must be defensive rather than punitive.  In this case, these actions have gone beyond. As such, a Trump presidency would see the continued support of Netanyahu, which is at odds with the position of the Caribbean in the main. The implications therefore is that Caribbean countries must dialogue with the US and other countries, in order to echo an approach of Middle East peace. Of course, one does not have to explain the approach which will be taken to the Caribbean’s friend, Cuba with the continued embargo.

    In the end, Caribbean leaders and people should never see the election of Donald Trump as far removed from impacting the Caribbean region but heed the words of David Rudder, the Trinibagonian Calypsonian, when he said that “they’re trying to pass all laws to spoil our beauty, but in the end we shall prevail. We must take a side or be lost in the rubble, in a divided world that don’t need islands no more. Are we doomed forever to be at somebody’s mercy, little keys can open up mighty doors. Rally!”

    Rahym Augustin-Joseph is the 2025 Commonwealth Caribbean Rhodes Scholar. He is a recent political science graduate from the UWI Cave Hill Campus and an aspiring attorney-at-law. He can be reached via rahymrjoseph9@ gmail.com.

    Image by Barbara from Pixabay