Caribbean Trade Law and Development

Tag: US

  • Is CARICOM Complicit in the United States and Trinidad’s Unlawful Partnership?

    Is CARICOM Complicit in the United States and Trinidad’s Unlawful Partnership?

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

    Rahym R. Augustin-Joseph

    CARICOM countries must always be lauded for their international advocacy at the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) among other global forums, as the “conscience of the world” as aptly put by Prime Minister Mia Amor Mottley of Barbados, on Geopolitical Issues, Climate Change, Reformation of the International Economic and Political Architecture, AI regulation, Threats to Democracy, Reversal of Modern forms of Imperialism and Neo-colonialism, et cetera.

    But they must also be bemoaned for their cognitive dissonance and inertia. Most CARICOM Countries in the recent week, when discussing the recent actions by the United States of America in the destruction of the Venezuelan “drug cartel” vessels in the Caribbean Sea, contrary to International Law and in flagrant disregard for the sovereignty of the Caribbean Region, and consequent permanent stationing in the Caribbean Sea to respond to crime and violence, skilfully omitted the explicit acceptance and endorsement of the above mentioned by our own sister island, Trinidad and Tobago.

    It is as if the United States of America on their own, without explicit endorsement determined this security position.

    Most countries who discussed the issue only sought to dedicate two lines in their speech to the issue and sought to lay the blame solely at the feet of the United States of America.

    It is as if the Caribbean Leaders have forgotten that Imperialism always has benevolent friends, aiders and supporters, who mask their support for imperialism in domestic interests and particularly national security, at the expense of others who are a stone’s throw away. Moreover, they utilise the victimised electorate (whom they have not consulted) and are affected by crime and violence as their justification, for ‘action’ contrary to the rule of law, international diplomacy, peace and established democratic principles.

    Obviously, it is impolite, and certainly not diplomatic courtesy for the CARICOM member States to drop our dirty laundry in public, appear fragmented, and bemoan actions of others within the CARICOM grouping at a public forum. This is certainly not the central thesis of this Article.

    It is certainly prudent for us to settle our internal diplomatic and political differences (and defend the guardrails of regional integration internally).

    But, in the absence of any notable action on the latter, as evidenced through the radio silence of the hierarchy of the Secretariat, Chairman of CARICOM- Hon. Andrew Holness of Jamaica, Institutions of CARICOM et cetera, it raises cause for some concern as to whether the former or the latter is being undertaken.

    Should the states have also addressed the issue in a fulsome manner at the UNGA, or should they also be addressing it internally?

    However, I am more concerned, with the lack of dialogue, conversation and action internally within the Community to address actions by Trinidad and Tobago that are not in concordance with the objectives, principles, spirit, and positions of the regional grouping as a whole. I interrogate the extent to which CARICOM as an institution can rein in a member who possibly violates the Community principles. And if they are unable to, due to the constrains of functional cooperation, which permits sovereignty of foreign policy, what tools can the regional grouping equip itself with in order to respond to these instances?

    Dismissing Some Myths

    Now, this is not to suggest nor propose that there is any requirement on any state in CARICOM to sing at the same tone, pace, and volume on every international issue, as the RTC provides not for a ‘unified singular foreign policy’, but ‘coordination on foreign policy’ as noted in Article 6 (h) of the RTC.

    So, the Prime Minister is accurate when she suggested that it is her ‘sovereign’ right of her country to articulate their foreign policy position. But, where I disagree is that the unilateral position of Trinidad and Tobago, is certainly at odds with the core pillars of the regional integration movement i.e., foreign policy coordination, as this policy does not contemplate nor advance any type of common ground, deliberative or consultative approach within the region on the resolution to the issue through the utilisation of the American military to supposedly reduce the infiltration of overseas drug cartels which affect Trinidad and Tobago and the wider Caribbean.

    Moreover, it is certainly at odds with the long held customary principle within the Region that the Caribbean Sea must always be a zone of peace.

    Even as a practical matter, Trinidad actually manages and earns money from the airspace for the Southern Caribbean and is the repository of all flight information for every craft flying in and through the space. As such, their obligations are both essential to our safety and evidence-based posture as a zone of peace.

    But the reclaiming of this “lost ideal of a zone of peace” as evidenced by massive murder rates, interregional gang networks and organised crime, as noted by Hon. Kamla Persaud Bissessar from Trinidad and Tobago in her recent UNGA Address, is certainly not going to be achieved through the stationing and utilisation of American Military.

    It may see short term results, as evidenced in the ‘neutralisation of supposed threats’ of Venezuela, but the ends may not be successful overtime as this measure is unsustainable, an avenue for retaliatory measures by other countries which can affect the lives and livelihoods of the Caribbean peoples, and a victim of the fleeting geopolitics of the four-year term of the US Presidency. It is also not directly responsive to the research which suggest that a huge percentage of illicit trafficking of firearms and drugs which cause crime and violence originate in the USA, by virtue of their liberal Constitutional gun laws. It is akin to a thief assisting you to look for the stolen goods elsewhere, knowing that they possess it.

    But, additionally, it does not deal adequately with the guns and drugs already present within the country, which can be utilised for continuous crime and violence. Nor does it engage in the development and utilisation of technology to track and destroy transnational criminal networks, that do not utilise the ‘sea’ or originate from Venezuela as their route of access to the Caribbean.

    But it also does not respond to the local economic and social disenfranchisement among people which fuel crime and violence. Certainly, the USA and Trinidad and Tobago cannot execute ‘all criminals’, in order to respond to crime. As such, other measures must be contemplated and utilised. Those that are in conjunction with the rule of law, international law and other rules-based systems.

    It means that overtime the crisis will not dissipate.

    Moreover, the literalistic text- which is the cushion upon which these decisions sit does not confines foreign policy in the hands of the individual governors but should always be analysed and assessed in the context of the unspoken conventions and practices from our own individual countries and the CARICOM. As such, the coordination of foreign policy within the Community, is always optimised when countries within CARICOM are singing from the same page of the hymnal, because as I noted in another Op-Ed, history has shown us 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. 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.”

    Certainly, one must remember, even at the most basic example, when in December 2011, the government of Trinidad and Tobago was forced to change the venue of the CARICOM-Cuba summit from the Trinidad Hilton Conference Center to the National Academy for the Performing Arts (NAPA). The reason for the change of location offered was that even though the government of Trinidad and Tobago owns the Hilton Hotel plant, the U.S.-owned Hilton Company manages it. Delegates to the conference were all expected to stay at the Hilton Hotel; however, the presence of Cuban president Raul Castro posed a problem for the hotel. This is in contradistinction to other parts of the world where this was tried by the United States and the respective companies and governments protested the actions, on the basis that engaging in the decision of the USA would be enabling discrimination on the grounds of nationality.

    Instead, if the interests of the Caribbean were at the forefront of the mindset of these partners or actors- there would be an engagement of CARICOM as a bloc, through a deliberative, consultative and transparent process in order to arrive at a regional agreement on mechanisms and methods to respond to overseas drug cartels infiltrating the Caribbean.

    As such, one is only reminded of the 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.”

    One of the best examples of the abovementioned philosophy in practice is not only the statement of Kissinger, that “America has no friends or enemies, just interests”, but instead the remarks by Abrams- who held foreign policy positions during the Raegan and George Bush administrations, when commenting on the Ship Riders Agreement after the objections raised by Jamaica and Barbados noted that: But the anti-colonial mind-set, and the insistence on full independence, that marked the 1960s should be relegated to the past. Development in the world economy, and indeed, international criminal activity, have made full independence tantamount to full vulnerability for the smallest states. Far more valuable would be a relationship with the United States that helped guarantee prosperity, security, and liberty.”

    But, even beyond that, she identified the underlying ethos of the United States foreign policy when she noted later on that, “ostensibly the Shipriders Agreement is an integral part of the strategy for restructuring American hegemony within global capitalism, national states and sovereignty.”

    But, even beyond the legal and historical examples, there is an unspoken convention in the Caribbean that we will always advance the causes that are based on a core set of pillars that have been denied from our peoples for a long time through enslavement i.e., human rights, democracy, the rule of law, people-centred development, and an advancement of resolving the inherent vulnerabilities of small states in the world.

    Dr. the Hon. Kenny D. Anthony, as a former leader within CARICOM words must he remembered when he said that “we [must] see our democracy as the main defence against recolonisation. Without it, we would have no choice but to bow to the dictates of global economic forces, which are neither accountable to our populations nor constrained by popular intervention and choice.”

    But this unspoken conventions, which CARICOM must protect, even if it means bemoaning or intervening when one of their members acts at odds with it, is buttressed by the fact that all the “CARICOM countries have committed their countries to the Charter of Civil Society, which is a firm statement of the determination to uphold human rights and the pursuit of good governance. As part of this process, there is also an agreement to establish National Monitoring Committees to ensure compliance to the principles of the Charter.”

    As such, the actions of Trinidad and Tobago may be contrary to the non-binding Charter of Civil Society i.e., the permitting and encouraging the destruction of vessels and summary executions of peoples in the Caribbean Sea on the suspicion of drugs and crime without criminal due process and respect for human rights. 

    This is particularly relevant in circumstances where Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago, as Lead for Security in the Quasi Cabinet of CARICOM, has noted in effect at her UNGA Address that, forceful and aggressive action must be taken in order to respond to the evil drug cartels, and because they believe affected nations will always unreservedly resort to morals and ethics and human rights considerations which they blatantly flout and disregard. We will thus fight fire with fire “within the law” because they do not adhere to these values.

    This is not only problematic and dangerous language because it defies the domestic, regional and international conventions and laws that Trinidad and Tobago have signed unto.

    But the tacking on, almost grudgingly and forgetfully “within the law”, at the end of the statement of fire, is certainly not occurring presently because of the breaches of various conventions and treaties. As a matter of fact, it would be interesting to ascertain what “the law” provides in these instances, and whether there are any legal safeguards for the military intrusion, which are being followed?

    But it is dangerous and problematic because it positions war and military interventions as the solution to crime and violence, ignoring the potential innocent death toll and destruction of war as evidenced in history, the length of war without results, and the inability of Trinidad and Tobago to make a definitive statement on the Caribbean Sea and by extension the Caribbean region, without consultation with other CARICOM members. Trinidad and Tobago cannot willingly invite war to the Caribbean, with significant implications for other countries based on geography and a possible spin-off for immigration et cetera, without the buy-in from these respective countries.

    But it is also dangerous and problematic because it positions fundamental human rights and international law as being conditional on the actions of criminals, such that if they do not respect human rights, we must not in our response.

    But, implicit in this argument is a question of the extent to which this thought, if adopted by every political official, and every citizen, who is also armoured with the power of a military, believed and actualises this, whether you would have any peace, people or prosperity in the respective countries. It is akin to the commencement of a dictatorship where the centre will ultimately determine who and what is worthy of life and death.

    This is a slippery slope. The words of Martin Niemoller is thus instructive when he reminded us that “First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.”

    Applied in our context, it would possibly mean, that they came for ‘criminals’, ‘immigrants’ and then, the list goes on.

    Permitting the application of human rights, which everyone should be entitled to, by virtue of their humanity to be subject to the whims and fancies of political officials is dangerous as it does not create clear, accessible, verifiable, and equal treatment of individuals. But, implicit in the statement is also a suggestion that by utilising the law to dismantle gangs in its current form will only render countries “in name, but without substance.”  It is as if, there are not formulae which shows us that both the rule of law and suppression of gang violence cannot coexist.

    It is as if there is an absence of laws and processes which can be utilised to suppress and destroy gangs in the Caribbean and the wider world, without resorting to an eye for an eye mechanisms. As a matter of fact, it only signals that we are no different from them and have lost any ingenuity required for responding.

    But, even beyond the bemoaning and identification of the problematic areas of the foreign policy position of the Government, there must be an interrogation and assessment of some of the tools within the arsenal of CARICOM which should be equipped to respond to these stances by a member state.

    For example, implicit in the role of the Chairman of CARICOM is the underlying obligation to provide definitive statements and a position of the Heads of the Community on major issues facing the Caribbean Region. Obviously, this position and particular response by the Heads of Government and wider Caribbean, must be provided after a deliberative, engaging and consultative process, among themselves even outside the limitations of the scheduled meetings of Heads of Government. Certainly, any division among the Heads of Government, marked by differing voices or deafening silence undercuts the foreign policy coordination objective of CARICOM.  It also permits a repeat of history where developed countries continue to employ a divide and conquer strategy, pitting the heads against each other at the expense of the Caribbean people’s safety and maintenance of our democratic traditions.

    With the ubiquitous nature of technology, the Heads of Government and specifically the Chairman, cannot thus argue that the lack of a statement is because of the inability to have a forum to receive a common position on the abovementioned.

    Certainly, the late Ramphal is instructive when he noted that “we have become casual, neglectful, indifferent and undisciplined in sustaining and advancing Caribbean integration: that we have failed to ensure that the West Indies is West Indian and are falling into a state of disunity which by now we should have made unnatural. The process will occasion a slow and gradual descent from which a passing wind may offer occasional respite; but, ineluctably, it will produce an ending.”

    However, to date, and particularly prior to the UNGA, and even within the UNGA, the Chairman of CARICOM, Hon. Holness has tiptoed and circumvoluted around the particular issue, while still notably ringfencing the action by the USA when he noted that “Jamaica welcomes cooperation with all partners in this fight, including the interdiction of drug trafficking vessels, provided that such operations are carried out with full respect for international law, human rights, and with the coordination and collaboration of the countries of the region. The Caribbean has created regional security mechanisms, but these efforts alone cannot match the scale of the threat. What we need is a unified front with the same urgency, resources, and coordination the world has applied to terrorism. Only then can we turn the Caribbean and indeed the wider region into a true zone of peace.”

    As such, since the Prime Minister was assertive enough to identify that he will only support actions that respect international law, human rights and collaboration. I take this to mean that he could not thus support these interventions by the United States and aided by Trinidad and Tobago.

    But, he does not say that!

    But one can glean that since these actions are in flagrant disregard for international human rights law and other international treaties that both these states and others in the Caribbean have signed, that they would be condemned by the Chairman and other Heads of Government.

    Certainly, it is clearly evident that these strikes are at odds with (i) due process of law that the ‘drug dealers’ require wherein they must be charged, arrested and be prosecuted in accordance with the relevant criminal laws as opposed to being executed summarily in the seas, (ii) the rule of law which also suggest that everyone must have a fair trial, and that states must comply with their international obligations, which do not provide for summary execution of suspected drug dealers, such as the UN Convention on Narcotic Drugs, which suggest that under Article 35 that individuals who are believed to be engaging in illicit trafficking of drugs, shall be liable to adequate punishment particularly by imprisonment and other penalties of deprivation of liberty, provision of reporting mechanisms and procedures to ensure that the interdiction of the parties are being done in accordance with international best practices and standards, or that the principle of no one being above the law such that these states cannot be the judge, jury and executioner without due process, et cetera.

    Further, for example the United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, also notes under Article 17, that respective parties must board, search, and take appropriate action if illicit drugs are found on the vessel. It certainly does not contain any provisions which permit the execution of drone strikes on the vessel. Implicit in this convention also is the satisfaction that there are illicit drugs on the vessel, which in accordance with international best practices must be safeguarded for the evidentiary basis for prosecution of the criminals. But this is not occurring as the drone strikes destroy any ‘evidence’ of drugs and fuels constructive cynicism and lack of trust for political officials among peoples who question whether there were any drugs to begin with. Or, whether these drone strikes are only for strategic geopolitical reasons or only done to justify the earlier position of having the US military stationed in the Caribbean Sea.

    As I argued in the other piece on this subject, there must be the provision of appropriate safeguards i.e., reporting, ensuring adequate and accurate intelligence is received and communicated to the political officials and the wider Caribbean Community, proper accessible policies and procedures that provide us with some information on the authority to engage in such intervention and the four corners in which it is occurring, and other requisite communication with other geographically closer member states to prevent unforeseen harm and damage. In effect, these safeguards are to ensure that the objective of the mission is met and is also in accordance with International Law, the rules-based order and best practices. 

    But certainly, there must be the utilisation of the corridors of power to articulate that view or the public platforms in the Commonwealth Caribbean, in a clearer way to permit the citizenry to be aware of the clear position of the Chairman of CARICOM and by extension the CARICOM itself. Moreover, beyond the speeches at the United Nations, the Chair of CARICOM must provide some definitive position and work towards providing and resolving some of the issues that arise from this intervention as I have identified above.

    But, what of the purpose of the Bureau established by CARICOM, which is made up of the former, current and future Chairman of CARICOM, as per Article 12 of the RTC. 

    Albeit its role is textually limited to focusing on the assistance in the implementation of the decisions of CARICOM, in order to cure the malaise of the implementation deficiency disorder, there is an argument to be made that, their role in “providing guidance to the Secretariat on policy issues, or initiating proposals for development and approval by the Ministerial Councils” can be interpreted as an opportunity to ensure interrogating, analysing, and development of solutions to the question of whether the USA should be utilising our seas to intercept alleged Venezuelan drug dealers, without any due process of law and protection of the law. 

    As a matter of fact, notwithstanding the RTC does not explicitly specify a role for the Bureau in resolution of disputes, the Bureau has provided leadership along with the Secretary General in the past, in for example, seeking cooperation between two member states, Guyana and Suriname, over the disputed Tigri Area.

    As such, the bureau’s informal powers can be utilised again to assist in this resolution, and the agency must have the internal conviction and courage to hold members accountable internally for their actions.

    But the problem is not only that of the Leadership but inclusive of the Ministerial Councils, such as the Council for Foreign and Community Relations (COFCOR), which is made up of Ministers responsible for Foreign Affairs of Member States, and is responsible for ensuring that there is a coordination and articulation of a clear position on the subject matter. As noted in Article 16, the Council is responsible for establishing “measures to co-ordinate the foreign policies of the Member States of the Community, including proposals for joint representation, and seek to ensure, as far as practicable, the adoption of Community positions on major hemispheric and international issues. Further, “to coordinate, in close consultation with the Member States, Community policy on international issues with the policies of States in the wider Caribbean Region in order to arrive at common positions in relation to Third States, groups of States and relevant inter-governmental organizations.”

    As it currently stands the abovementioned has been otiose.

    There is also a case to be made for the quietness of Ministerial Councils, such as the Council for National Security and Law Enforcement (CONSLE) which is responsible for “the coordination of the multi-dimensional nature of security and ensuring a safe and stable community.”

    More particularly, Article 17(a), provides an impetus to promote the development and implementation of a common regional security strategy to complement the national security strategies in individual member states, and establish and promote measures to eliminate threats to national and regional security, which also include the mobilisation of resources to manage and defuse regional security crises, of which this is certainly included. These among other responsibilities are included in Article 17(a).

    But, even as recent as this year where the CARICOM Heads of Government signed in Jamaica, the Montego Bay Declaration for Organised Transnational Crime and Gangs. Yet still, the resolution to the ‘infiltration of drugs from Venezuela to the Caribbean’ is not being enacted through the principles and practical steps that is provided in this Declaration.

    It provided that one of the main aims would be to “renew our commitment to strengthening the Region’s response by implementing effective measures to monitor new trends in illicit firearms trafficking, enact robust legislation to include stringent penalties for firearm and gang-related offences, and to strengthen public awareness on the issues relating to the prevention and prosecution of all forms of organised criminal activities.”

    But more importantly, it responded in text to one of the burning desires to maintain sovereignty while still responding to these ordeals, through the strengthening of the regional institutional security structures, to include CARICOM Implementation Agency and implementation of programmes such as the Caribbean Basin Security Initiative (CBSI), to effectively enhance collaboration and sharing of information, to disrupt criminal networks, as well as, leverage shared resources to enable law enforcement and support border security efforts.

    However, the Chairman and by extension CARICOM, has only paid lip service to this Declaration and have not engaged in the above which can be assistive in responding to the ordeal. Instead, the regional institutional security structures have been ignored and sidelined in favour of military assistance by the United States, with many disastrous trade-offs that has not been debated, distilled, or get consensus, under the aegis of “ensuring that the friends in the Caribbean are safe.”

    What should have been pursued is the strengthening of IMPACS, in order to assist in the identification and interception of the illicit trafficking of drugs, in accordance with International Law and other best practices.

    And in circumstances where the abovementioned cannot be pursued, the partnering with the US agencies to ensure oversight and that the objectives of the mission are met and the appropriate safeguards are included in the intervention.

    For example, is there a regionally produced satellite mapping of the placement and movement of the American Vessels? Are we certain that these vessels are actually ‘striking’ Venezuelan Vessels and peoples carrying illicit drugs and firearms? Have we agreed on some of the rules of engagement that is sensitive to immigrants, women and children, who may be coerced and trafficked along with the drugs? What is the intelligence utilised to determine whether these interceptions do not disastrously affect Caribbean fisherfolk, especially when Vice President of the United States, JD Vance felt the idea of collateral damage of peoples funny, when he noted “I wouldn’t go fishing right now in that area of the world.”

    And how do we alleviate and address the fears of ordinary people on the seas and in communities across the region, who may fear that the Indians would not come to their rescue as suggested by the Minister but agonise over the destruction of their communities with retaliatory strikes by any of the respective parties? Certainly, it is not as tranquil as Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago suggested that it is only those who are criminal masterminds who should be afraid.

    All of these could have been components of a collaborated effort between IMPACS and other agencies. Or even alternatively, a new deal could have encompassed equipping IMPACS with these competencies to address the abovementioned, in accordance with International Law.

    However, this willing transferring of sovereignty to the USA, is certainly reflective of what Lamming describes as “the staggering nature of the region to resolve the contradiction of being at once independent and neocolonial, and the struggling of new definitions of itself to abandon the protection of being a frontier created by nature, a logistical basin serving some imperial necessity and struggling to move away from being a regional platform for alien enterprise to the status of being a region for itself, with the sovereign right to define its own reality and order its own priorities.”

    The abovementioned concerns are those of ordinary peoples across the Caribbean, which must be addressed by their leadership across the Caribbean, even while they fear local gangs and crime and violence.

    But the RTC under Chapter 9: Dispute Settlement, does however also provide some recourse for CARICOM Member States to rein in the actions of the Government of Trinidad and Tobago, which may contravene the objectives of the Community or prejudice the object and purpose of the Treaty, required by Article 187(a).

    As such, should any CARICOM country feel compelled to act, they could utilise good offices, mediation, consultations, conciliation, arbitration and adjudication as their modes of dispute settlement as noted by Article 188 of the RTC, cognisant that should any of the methods prove unsuccessful, they can easily resort to another mode to arrive at a resolution.

    Under good offices, the member states could easily engage the Secretary General of CARICOM or a third party, as required by Article 191. Should they consider mediation as the better mode, they can also agree on a mediator or request one from the Secretary General who will appoint one from the list within CARICOM as noted in Article 196.

    Moreover, a member state can also request consultations, where they assert or allege that the actions taken by the other member state constitutes a breach of obligations arising from or under the provisions of the Treaty. After which, they must comply with all of the procedural requirements for consultations established in the Treaty.

    Should the Member States assert that these mechanisms are insufficient, they can also resort to the more formal mechanisms of arbitration or conciliation, which establishes commissions and tribunals for adjudication, and provides for an empanelling a list of arbitrators or conciliators, and permits third party intervention, reports, evidence, expert advice et cetera. Recognising the significance of the issue, member states may be tempted to engage in this mode but must be cognisant of the ability of this mode to potentially fracture the inter-Caribbean dialogue and unity because of its ability to become acrimonious and combative. Notwithstanding the above, some member states have still demonstrated diplomatic maturity and Community comradery, even when they have brought each other before the CCJ to adjudicate on matters arising from the Treaty. This option pursuant to Article 211 of the RTC though is also always available to the member states on this matter, should they be able to conjure an argument of a violation of a treaty provision as opposed to the lofty ideals of ‘objectives’ and ‘principles.’ It not only provides that the CCJ has compulsory and exclusive jurisdiction regarding the interpretation of the Treaty, between member states who are parties to the agreement, but also provides the court with the ability to issue an Advisory Opinion, concerning the interpretation and application of the Treaty should a member state request it.

    However, one should be more amenable to one of the earlier modes of dispute settlement at the commencement of this process as opposed to the latter.

    CARICOM’s silence in the face of Trinidad and Tobago’s endorsement of U.S. military intervention in the Caribbean Sea exposes a deeper crisis of coherence, conviction, and courage within the regional movement. For decades, our leaders have spoken boldly on the global stage yet hesitated to confront contradictions at home  invoking sovereignty when convenient and overlooking its erosion when politically expedient. This selective diplomacy undermines both the credibility and moral authority of the Caribbean voice in international affairs. If CARICOM is to remain the “conscience of the world,” it must also have the courage to be the conscience of itself: defending international law, sovereignty, and the Caribbean Sea as a genuine “zone of peace,” not a theatre for external militarisation disguised as partnership.

    The instruments for accountability already exist  from the Caribbean Court of Justice to the dispute-settlement provisions of the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas but they remain dormant without political will. What the moment demands is not procedural caution but principled leadership: the willingness to speak truth to power, even within our own ranks. To remain silent is to invite the gradual erosion of the West Indian spirit that once defined our integration. If the region cannot summon unity in defence of peace, law, and dignity, it risks becoming not a community of nations but a collection of states, sovereign only in name and subdued by convenience.

    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.

    Image credit: Pixabay

  • 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

  • CARICOM-US Trade and Investment Council to meet in Georgetown, Guyana

    CARICOM-US Trade and Investment Council to meet in Georgetown, Guyana

    CARICOM-U.S. Trade and Investment Council to meet in Georgetown
    (CARICOM Secretariat, Turkeyen, Greater Georgetown, Guyana – Wednesday, 11 October 2023):   The trade and investment relationship between the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) and the United States of America (USA) will come under review on Friday, 13 October when representatives of the two sides meet in Georgetown, Guyana.

    Agricultural sustainability, food and nutrition security, matters pertaining to the Caribbean Basin Initiative, trade in services, trade facilitation and good regulatory practices, are on the packed agenda of the Ninth Meeting of the CARICOM-United States Trade and Investment Council, at the CARICOM Secretariat headquarters.

    The two sides are expected to review the Caribbean Basin Initiative (CBI), the U.S. trade preference programmes for the Region and explore ways in which to enhance the trade and investment relationship between the United States and CARICOM.
     
    As CARICOM accelerates efforts to achieve the goal of 25 percent reduction in food imports by the year 2025, the discussion on agricultural sustainability and food and nutrition security would highlight the use of biotechnology and other tools to promote climate resilience in agriculture, and CARICOM’s 25 by 2025 initiative.

    On trade facilitation, officials are expected to discuss avenues for streamlined procedures to facilitate exports and the participation of micro, small and medium enterprises (MSMEs) in international trade.

    CARICOM and U.S. representatives would also examine ways to enhance engagement under the Trade and Investment Framework Agreement (TIFA). This agreement rationalizes CARICOM and Unites States’ desire to promote long-term development, expansion, and diversification of trade in products and services. 

    The Meeting will be co-chaired by HE Felix Gregoire, Ambassador of Dominica to CARICOM and the OECS, on behalf of CARICOM and by Ambassador Jayme White, Deputy US Trade Representative on behalf of the US. 
  • Assessing the Ninth Summit of the Americas: A Caribbean Perspective

    Assessing the Ninth Summit of the Americas: A Caribbean Perspective

    Alicia Nicholls

    Twenty-three heads of government and the representatives of eight other countries of the Americas gathered in Los Angeles, California, United States (US) on June 6-10, 2022 for the Ninth Summit of the Americas (CRS 2022). It was the first time the US has hosted since the inaugural 1994 Summit in Miami, Florida. The Summit of the Americas is a hemispheric summit at which leaders of the Americas gather every three years to discuss cooperation on issues of hemispheric importance. The Summit has also been the setting against which US Presidents have tended to launch major Caribbean-specific partnership initiatives, such as the Third Border Initiative (TBI) revealed by President George W. Bush at the Third Summit of the Americas in 2001 and the Caribbean Basin Security Initiative (CBSI) announced by President Barack Obama at the Fifth Summit of the Americas in 2009.

    The 2022 Summit outcomes have elicited differentiated reactions from commentators depending on their success metrics. Those focusing on a geopolitical perspective have generally panned it as a diplomatic failure for the Biden Administration (Norton 2022), a squandered opportunity (Newman 2022) and a sign of America’s declining hemispheric influence (Barry 2022).

    This article assesses the summit from a Caribbean perspective. Specifically, it looks at to what extent do the Summit’s outcomes provide meaningful initiatives for deepening US-Caribbean partnership on issues of importance to the Caribbean and in a mutually beneficial way. It is argued that while not particularly groundbreaking, there are some noteworthy outcomes from the Summit. However, the success of the initiatives announced will be dependent on several factors discussed in this article.

    The Controversy

    The Ninth Summit was postponed by one year due to the on-going novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. The Summit’s theme “Building a Sustainable, Resilient, and Equitable Future” recognizes the numerous challenges facing countries in the hemisphere, chief of which include climate change, COVID-19 and the economic fall-out from the Russia-Ukraine conflict and the consequent escalated Western sanctions on Russia.  

    The lead up to the Summit stimulated an inordinate amount of controversy not so much for its agenda, but US President Joseph Biden’s refusal to invite the leaders of three countries – Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela – which the US regards as authoritarian. This exclusionary policy sparked a backlash as several countries threatened to boycott the Summit. Some leaders, including most notably Mexico’s President Lopez Obrador, decided not to attend and instead sent lower-level delegations.

    Caribbean country leaders also expressed misgivings about this exclusionary policy both privately and in their speeches. In fact, CARICOM Heads in the communique emanating from their recently held 43rd Regular Meeting emphasised “the importance of an inclusive Summit with the full participation of all countries of the Americas”.

    The Outcomes

    Ultimately, St Vincent & the Grenadines was the only CARICOM Member which boycotted the conference. A total CARICOM boycott would not have been in the region’s best interest as the Summit provided an opportune forum in which Caribbean leaders could meet face to face with US leadership to ventilate and obtain high-level commitments on issues of specific interest to Caribbean States. Generally speaking, topics of specific interest to the Caribbean rarely make it on the agenda of these Summits and in this case, the Ninth Summit was an exception. In his op-ed after the Summit, Antigua & Barbuda’s Ambassador to the US, Sir Ronald Sanders, noted that Caribbean leaders (including the Dominican Republic) were successful in their insistence on meeting not just with the Vice President Kamala Harris, as was originally planned, but with President Biden himself. This meeting, according to Sir Ronald, was very productive and CARICOM Heads in their communique also welcomed the exchange with the US President to address some of their concerns. The read-out from the meeting referenced the proposed launch of a Caribbean Zero Hunger Plan to promote nutrition security in the Caribbean, while President Biden has also pledged US$28 million in new food security assistance to the region.

    It was, therefore, interesting that CARICOM Heads of Government also expressed concern that the outcome of the Summit “did not adequately reflect issues of significance to the Community”. These issues, they noted, include post-pandemic recovery, climate financing, debt and debt financing, energy and food security, access to financing and firearms entering the CARICOM Region. It could be that this statement in their communique was meant to reiterate that while Caribbean leaders are happy with the opportunity to raise these issues, they want to ensure there is meaningful follow-up action.

    Indeed, one particular area in dire need of action and which was raised in the bilateral meeting between Caribbean leaders and the US President and Vice President is the illegal flow of firearms into the Caribbean from the US. While Caribbean countries do not manufacture guns and have strict laws on gun ownership, the flow of illegal firearms into the region, particularly from the US, remains a driver for the escalating gun violence and crime plaguing Caribbean states. The readout from the joint meeting reveals a disappointingly limited and vague approach which simply proposes the development of national action plans to counter firearms trafficking and which would “help the US more effectively tailor support to CARICOM Member Countries”.

    The outcomes of the Summit consist of several declarations and statements touching principally on areas of health, climate change, economic recovery, governance and migration. For example, leaders agreed to reach consensus on an Action Plan for Health and Resilience in the Americas to be implemented by 2030.

    Los Angeles Declaration on Migration and Protection

    The most detailed outcome, and likely because illegal immigration is a ‘hot button’ topic in the US, is the negotiated side agreement called the Los Angeles Declaration on Migration. Over 100 million people have been forcibly displaced globally with one in every 78 people on earth being a displaced person, according to the UNHCR.  In this hemisphere alone, for example, over 6 million Venezuelan refugees and migrants have fled the political and economic turmoil in their homeland and some 80% of them have settled in countries in the LAC region, according to the International Organisation for Migration (IOM). Trinidad & Tobago, which is at its nearest is just 11km from the Venezuelan mainland, has up to January 2022 been host to some 28,500 Venezuelan migrants. Data from the Government of Panama estimates that 130,000 migrants passed through the highly dangerous Darien Gap in 2021 on their way to the US and many were asylum seekers from Haiti and Cuba. Therefore, the decision to exclude Cuba, which is one of the largest sources of irregular emigration to the US, was a short-sighted one on the Biden administration’s part as solving the migration crisis would also require cooperation with the Cuban government.

    The Los Angeles Declaration on Migration and Protection recognises that irregular migration is a hemisphere-wide problem and tackling it should be the shared responsibility of source, transit and destination countries and solving the crisis also involves addressing the root causes or push factors which lead people to emigrate. Under the agreement, both the US and several other countries adopted specific commitments to ensuring legal pathways for immigration and fostering greater protections for migrants. However, only twenty countries have signed the Declaration so far and of those from CARICOM are Barbados, Belize, Guyana, Jamaica and Haiti. US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken, when asked about only twenty countries signing on so far, was confident that more countries would sign on.

    Americas Partnership for Economic Prosperity (APEP)

    The Summit’s main economic initiative, the Americas Partnership for Economic Prosperity, is the sister plan to the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF) President Biden launched at a meeting of a dozen initial partners in the Indo-Pacific region in Tokyo Japan in May 2022. The five-pronged APEP framework would be based on reinvigorating regional economic institutions and mobilizing investment, making more resilient supply chains, updating the basic bargain, creating clean energy jobs and advancing decarbonization and biodiversity, and ensuring sustainable and inclusive trade. Many of these pillars are in consonance with the goals outlined under the prosperity pillar of the US Strategy for Engagement in the Caribbean formulated pursuant to the US-Caribbean Strategic Engagement Act of 2016, a legacy of the Obama Administration of which President Biden was then Vice President. However, the APEP consists primarily of aspirational goals rather than binding commitments, and is disappointingly vague with little specifics on timelines and how these goals would be achieved.

    U.S.-Caribbean Partnership to Address the Climate Crisis 2030 (PACC 2030)

    Perhaps the most substantive outcome for the Caribbean was the Partnership to Address the Climate Crisis 2030 (PACC 2030) launched by Vice President Kamala Harris. PACC 2030 recognises that Caribbean small States are at the frontlines of the adverse impacts of climate change and the need for the region to build resilience as the adverse effects of global warming accelerate. While this might seem obvious, US government recognition of this immutable fact cannot be taken for granted. The previous US administration, headed by a climate change denier president, heralded a 180-degree reversal in the US’ foreign policy position on climate change. Similar to the Biden administration’s rejoining the Paris Agreement after the Trump administration left it, the PACC initiative therefore is a welcomed signal and acknowledgement that this current US administration has returned to the longstanding US position of recognising climate change as a global and hemispheric crisis and priority.

    The PACC framework has two strategic objectives: strengthening energy security and promoting adaptation resilience. It also names four pillars for achieving these objectives: improving access to development financing, facilitating clean energy project development and investment to attract private investment in clean energy infrastructure and adaptation.

    The framework contains some noteworthy commitments. The US has committed to partnering with Caribbean countries and regional institutions to promote stable access to clean energy resources and resilient energy infrastructure. It also speaks to climate finance, such as a promise to develop bankable infrastructure projects, enhancing local capacity building and deepening collaboration with Caribbean partners. The US International Development Finance Corporation will be charged with exploring ways to increase access to DFC financing for climate and clean energy projects in underserved countries. Critically on the issue of inadequate criteria for accessing concessional finance, the US government has committed to advocate for improving access to international financing mechanisms to unlock additional financing for infrastructure projects.

    Next steps

    Laudable as many of the commitments might be, they are non-binding and best endeavour in general and little will come from them without the required follow-through by both the US and Caribbean governments, as well as the meaningful involvement of the private sector, the diaspora and civil society. It is, therefore, notable that following the summit, CARICOM and Dominican Republic leaders accepted a US proposal to establish three US-Caribbean joint committees to address US-Caribbean cooperation on three fronts: finance, energy and food security. In their communique, the Heads of Government revealed that the CARICOM chairs for the committees would be as follows: Prime Minister of Barbados, Honourable Mia Amor Mottley, for the Finance Committee; President of Guyana, His Excellency Mohamed Irfaan Ali, for the Food Security Committee; and Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago, Dr. the Honourable Keith Rowley, for the Energy Security Committee. It is still unknown who will be the US co-chairs of these committees.

    The Heads of Government also noted the CARICOM Secretariat’s submission to the US of an initial list of CARICOM’s “near-term energy security, food security, and development/debt finance priorities” as advanced by the Co-Chairs of the respective Committees. It is not known publicly what is on this initial list and it is unclear why this should be treated as a confidential issue since matters of regional concern affect us all.

    There are some principal challenges for regional leaders to implement the commitments made at the summit. One is that the statements are non-binding and best endeavour non- time-bound commitments and are largely aspirational goals which need to be translated into concrete policy actions. A second is that there is the need for funding mechanisms for these proposals. Of some concern is that there was neither representation from the US Department of the Treasury nor the United States Trade Representative (USTR)’s office at the Summit, two agencies which would be central to the success of these initiatives.  

    Congressional action will also be needed to pass legislation to translate the initiatives into law and approve the funds necessary for financing the programmes emanating from these initiatives. Encouragingly, a congressional delegation from both houses, including Speaker Pelosi, attended the Summit and held a press briefing thereafter. Moreover, US Virgin Islands Representative in the US House of Representatives, Stacey Plaskett, introduced a non-binding resolution (H.Res 1168) “reaffirming the economic partnership between the United States and the Caribbean nations and recognizing the need to strengthen trade and investment between the United States and the Caribbean nations, our “Third Border”. Among other things, the draft resolution calls on the President to “prioritize and implement trade programs with the Caribbean region that promote sustainable and resilient economic development”.

    A third and not insignificant issue is the increasing polarisation and volatility in the US political landscape and whether the panoply of domestic issues facing the current Biden administration will truly allow for deeper hemispheric engagement. US foreign policy under the last administration had adopted a more insular “America first’ disposition, with limited hemispheric engagement, a rejection of multilateralism and a denial of climate change. While the Biden administration has reverted to the status quo on many of these issues, it has evinced very little appetite for the once longstanding US embrace of free trade. No doubt this more protectionist US posture is influenced by the groundswell of anti-trade sentiment among a politically important segment of the US electorate. The success and longevity of the 2022 Summit initiatives will, therefore, likely depend on the outcome of the presidential election of 2024.

    Conclusion

    The Summit of the Americas, while hailed as a failure by some and a success by others, cannot be seen in such absolutist terms. While the outcomes were not particularly earth shattering, there are some good initiatives that once fleshed out, well-funded and executed can lead to mutually beneficial outcomes for both the US and Caribbean countries.

    Alicia D. Nicholls, B.Sc.,, M.Sc., LL.B is an international trade specialist who specializes in foreign investment law and policy, global financial regulation and international business. She is the founder of the Caribbean Trade Law & Development Blog (www.caribbeantradelaw.com) and was one of the panelists at a recently held Global Americans and Caribbean Policy Consortium Webinar on the Summit whose recording may be accessed here.