DURING the preparatory meetings for the landmark UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Brazil in June 1992, a group of Caribbean negotiators appointed by CARICOM Heads of Government coined the term “Small Island Developing States (SIDS)” to capture the unique circumstances of such States.
It’s a fact that SIDS are at a significant disadvantage when compared to large states, because their location, small land masses and micro populations make them naturally vulnerable to external social, economic, and environmental shocks such as pandemics, extreme weather, sudden changes in the prices of vital imports—like energy, cement, flour, medicines, and food—as well as critical exports like tourism. We know from harsh experience that many, if not all these shocks can severely affect several sectors at the same time. The Covid-19 pandemic is a powerful reminder of this fact. Similarly, a surge in oil prices can make our tourism and non-tourism exports even more uncompetitive. For example, when airlines raise airfares—as has happened since the pause in the pandemic—there’s nothing Caribbean destinations can do to soften the effects of that increase on visitor arrivals and/or on the cost of imports. We can only hope visitors will come anyway and that fuel prices will drop and inflation as well.
The small size of internal markets in SIDS is also a serious handicap, especially for medium, small, and micro businesses. It’s difficult, if not impossible, for them to profitably compete with their larger domestic and foreign counterparts on price; and so, their only option is to try to compete on quality, which invariably is costly. In such tight markets, there’s just not enough “business” to keep all businesses afloat; and so, those that can’t compete on price and/or quality will struggle and ultimately fail.
Small land masses can also worsen the effects of natural disasters. We remember that Hurricanes Ivan (1994), Tomas (2010) and Maria (2017), brought the economies of Grenada, Saint Lucia, and Dominica respectively, to a standstill for several weeks. By comparison, when Hurricane Sandy hit New Jersey in 2012, the rest of the US economy continued to churn along. Moreover, the closeness of mountains to the sea and narrow coastlines means that land-based sources of pollution in SIDS can quickly harm important coastal ecosystems, like reefs and sea grass beds that serve as nurseries for fish and help reduce the effects of storm surge and coastal erosion.
Smallness also complicates governance. Writing in his “Agony of the Eight” Sir Arthur Lewis cited various political social and cultural characteristics in small states that can severely weaken governance. He wrote:
“In a small state, it is very difficult to prevent political abuse. Everybody depends on the government for something, however small, so most are reluctant to offend it. The civil servants live in fear; the police avoid unpleasantness; the trade unions are tied to the party; the newspaper depends on government advertisements; and so on. This is true even if the political leaders are absolutely honest.”
It’s highly unlikely there are international development actors who are unaware of the developmental challenges that SIDS routinely face because of their size. While sometimes these facts need to be restated by government officials, it is concerning when this is done mainly as a pitch for more aid. There does not appear to be coherent and convincing messaging guiding our engagement with the international community. The message seems to be: “Help us for we are weak and vulnerable,” when it ought to be: “Help us so we can do more to help ourselves.”
Two Messages
The difference between these two messages could not be starker. The first shares a mind-set of mendicancy while the second sends out a message of self-reliance. Having worked in international development for several decades, it is impossible to overstate the positive difference the latter message creates both from a “sender” and “receiver” perspective. For starters, it means that a small state (sender) will likely have a time-bound development plan with clear, measurable results that the international development partner(receiver) can buy into.
It’s depressing to recall the many occasions when Caribbean government officials would turn up at meetings with international development partners, with no clear plan to support their requests for assistance. It is always distressing when partners make a similar observation. It’s not that plans don’t exist. They do! They can be found in countless national, sub-regional (OECS), regional (CARICOM), hemispheric (OAS, PAHO) and international development (Commonwealth, UN) level strategies.
The non-expression of a self-reliant posture for our region overseas has caused some international development actors to write off our region as a grouping of beggar-countries with no real desire to help itself. More will be said on this in an upcoming book, entitled, “Multilateralism & Me.” For the moment, I will posit that a major part of the problem is that often, senior government officials attend meetings totally unprepared, and with no clear idea of what they wish to accomplish at these events.
Three Examples
Three examples will suffice. The first relates to a major Ministerial hemispheric meeting. At the request of a Minister from Country (X), a detailed Cabinet Brief is prepared justifying his attendance and that of his Permanent Secretary at the meeting and the benefits to be gained therefrom. The Brief achieved its purpose, and the Cabinet authorized the attendance of these officials. Imagine therefore the shock when these officials approached me before the start of the meeting to ask: “So Director, what are we looking to get out of this meeting?”
Here’s the second example. The scene is the final session of a two-day meeting of Environment Ministers from SIDS being hosted here in the Caribbean. Invitation letters and the agenda leave no doubt about the purpose and intended outcome of the meeting. The chair is about to close the meeting when this Minister from Caribbean country (Y) flags his desire to speak. The gathering is anticipating the usual statement of gratitude to the hosts, but is stunned when after straightening his tie and clearing his throat, the Minister asks: “Madam Chair, what is SIDS?”
Thirdly, at an international meeting held about a decade ago, it was alarming to hear a senior Caribbean official chastise the European Union (EU) for not doing enough to help the region, when in fact millions of dollars in EU aid sat unused in a bank account in her country because no projects had been presented to the EU.
It cannot be said that all Caribbean officials are doing our region a disservice. Instead, I will say that those who are not taking their roles seriously are undermining the heroic efforts of all who do. Those who turn up only for opening and closing ceremonies and/or arrive late for afternoon sessions with bulging shopping bags and those who travel thousands of miles to meetings and say absolutely nothing, are hurting the region’s cause.
Posture of Weakness
This posture of weakness, meekness and unpreparedness of some Caribbean officials is totally at odds with the positive image that our region built for itself in the immediate post-Independence period. Then, our officials pridefully and confidently shared the region’s vision and strategy for the development. Then, even while we acknowledged our weaknesses, we projected strength in unity, offering innovative ideas and demonstrating firm resolve to make our way in the world. Then, we showed the world that our smallness was not an illness (piti kò pa maladi), and that we could punch way above our size. Caribbean nationals so impressed the world that they were elected to lead international entities like the Commonwealth of Nations, the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) and the UN General Assembly. With leadership from the likes of Hon. Rashleigh Jackson and Sir Shridath Ramphal, former Foreign Ministers of Guyana, the Caribbean helped to establish the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) as a powerful countervailing force to the ambitions of powerful, industrialized countries in the North. I imagine if the NAM was alive today, it would have dared to mediate in ongoing global conflicts such as the war between Russia and Ukraine.
Our people need to be encouraged to “think big” again; to push the boundaries of intellectual ferment and foment a la mode Laureates Sir Arthur Lewis and Sir Derek Walcott, luminaries like C.L.R James, Michael Manley, Dr. Eric Williams, Dr. Walter Rodney, Sir William Demas, and others too numerous to mention but too outstanding to forget.
Small size is not a death sentence. In this regard, we can draw inspiration from Singapore, which shares many of the natural vulnerabilities of SIDS. It is smaller than Jamaica and about 50 square miles bigger than Saint Lucia. Granted that its population of approximately 5.4 million gives it a domestic market about the size of CARICOM. However, it is Singapore’s sound governance, its culture of self-reliance and enterprising vision that has enabled it to build its resilience to many of the external shocks that affect other SIDS.
I charge our new generation of leaders—Mia Mottley, Philip J. Pierre, Dickon Mitchell et al –to set a bold vision and strategy and to move aggressively and unapologetically to unleash a re-energized Caribbean civilization that can regain and retain the admiration and respect of the world.