CARICOM's silence on Indo-Pak conflict, shows a lack of international concern

CARICOM’s silence on India-Pakistan conflict shows just how far behind it is on the road to becoming internationally significant.

For those hoping to see a stronger CARICOM with a significant presence on the international stage, the 30th Inter-sessional Meeting held in St.Kitts could not have started any more promisingly than it did. The opening speeches were strong, emotive and clear in their signals with the outgoing Chair, the Honourable Andrew Holness, PM of Jamaica, highlighting the benefits and necessity of the strengthening of the CSME (Caribbean Single Market and Economy) and pointing out how CARICOM was ready to build multilateral ties with partners. His announcement followed Secretary General Irwin Larocque’s blistering attack on the European Union for its censoring of CARICOM nations over tax regulations and position on Venezuela. The opening addresses were concluded by the new Chair and Honourable Prime Minister of St.Kitts and Nevis, Dr Timothy Harris who called for CARICOM nations to “harness our collective wisdom” and “confront the inequities being visited upon us by forging strong alliances”. So far, so good.

But by the end of the meeting, there was an all too familiar picture. After a lot of strong rhetoric calling for greater unity and strength across CARICOM, there was little of substance. The Multilateral Air Services Agreement, though signed by nine Member states, remained unsigned by a significant number which raises questions as to how effective and efficient transportation across CARICOM nations will really be.

To their credit, the reaffirmation of CARICOM’s position on the Venezuelan crisis was strong and signalled clearly that CARICOM had its own place in international diplomacy. It was not ready to be pushed around by the international powerhouses of the United States and the European Union.

That said, the strength of this position was based largely on Venezuela’s intimate ties and geographical proximity to the Caribbean. If you want to have genuine significance in international relations, you must look beyond your interests and build allies across the world. An essential part of this is keeping an interest in developing situations. It is in this respect that the CARICOM leaders missed a trick.

The India-Pakistan conflict represented a great opportunity to show CARICOM as a leading international bloc. Granted, the freshness of the conflict in relation to this conference made it difficult to arrive at a detailed position, but for truly powerful and united blocs, this is not a problem. The Prime Minister of Britain made a reference to this in Parliament within hours of the latest incident taking place, the US released a statement with equal speed and the EU had given a detailed response on what Pakistan needed to do to stop terror groups alongside a call for dialogue.

Had CARICOM with a statement on the conflict and a show of support to facilitating its resolution – however general a statement this may have been - CARICOM would have emerged as an international player. It would have been a part of an important discussion and this would no doubt make the interested parties take notice of the bloc. When our correspondent asked for a statement at the press conference, the response was far from inspiring.

Allusions to the limitations of time and constraints on the agenda are indications of CARICOM’s current lack of flexibility and foresight to become a powerful international bloc of countries. Great international powers are quick to react to events and flexible with their agendas. If Mr Harris’s response is to be applied as a rule of thumb, if a major international incident such as a terrorist attack or an earthquake were to take place during a CARICOM conference, then we would not see a statement from the leaders either. This is clearly not good enough and such a stance will stunt the growth of CARICOM as a figurehead in international diplomacy. Dr Harris and Mr Larocque’s failure to give even the most general of statements is a mark of how great the distance between rhetoric and action currently is.

As it later transpired, CARICOM leaders did not react because they were not even aware of the latest developments in the conflict and both Dr Harris and the Honourable PM of Antigua and Barbuda, Mr Gaston Browne, asked our reporter to reveal what had happened when asked for a response to it.

Away from CARICOM’s international standing, the lack of response on this issue also represents a neglect of duty. “The emphasis was on matters that were of particular interest to the people of the CARICOM community at this time,” said Dr.Harris in response to our reporter’s question at the press conference. But this response ignores the large contingent of people with ties to the two countries that reside in or are citizens of, CARICOM Member states who would have been following developments and hoping for some reassurance. To his credit, St.Kitts and Nevis’s Foreign Affairs Minister, Mr Marc Brantley gave a much more reassuring response saying “[W]e have had good relations, excellent relations over the years with India, we play cricket with Pakistan and with India – regrettably they beat us more than we would like. The truth is we have a long tradition of sport and cultural and other interactions of multilateral and bilateral elements with both countries and we want to see peace.” That said, he did say he could only speak as St.Kitts and Nevis’s representative and “not for CARICOM”.

All of this shows that there is much work to be done for CARICOM to realise its ambitions of being a bloc the world takes notice of. The powerful rhetoric against the EU and a strong position on Venezuela are big steps in the right direction, but for CARICOM to be seen as an international bloc worthy of respect and giving counsel, it must be quicker on its feet and take an active interest in issues beyond its obvious interest. This was an opportunity lost. We will have to wait and see whether it will be capitalised on in the future.