Writing in 1969 in his book “From Columbus to Castro: The History of the Caribbean, 1492-1969,” Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago Dr. Eric Williams acknowledged that the real case for unity in the Commonwealth Caribbean countries “…rests on the on the creation of a more unified front in dealing with the outside world – diplomacy, foreign trade, foreign investment and similar matters.” He predicted that increasingly, Caribbean countries will become more aware that the goals of greater regional economic independence and the development of cultural identity will involve them in closer ties, one with another at economic and other levels.”
If Dr. Williams were alive today, he would find that the very conditions he described in his book persist and that “…the disgraceful state of fragmentation of Caribbean countries continues to make it extremely difficult for a single country to adopt a more independent and less open strategy of development.”
The fact remains that CARICOM, notwithstanding, the Caribbean does not have a united front to deal with the outside world and to respond to external shocks.
When the original Treaty of Chaguaramas was signed nearly 52 years ago, it was hailed as “a landmark in the history of West Indian people.” Sadly, that Treaty failed to make its mark, partly because CARICOM leaders did not meet for seven years between 1975 and 1982. The US’s intervention in Grenada in 1983, did not help matters. An entire decade of inaction regional economic integration was lost, for which Colonialism cannot be blamed.
In June 1992, the West Indies Commission (WIC) provided a clear and compelling blueprint with 200-plus recommendations for resilient development. The title of the Report was meant to send a clear message that it was TIME FOR ACTION. Yet, tellingly, the Port of Spain Protocol agreed at the Summit of Heads at which the report was presented, considered the report “as a landmark document in charting the course of Caribbean integration and accepts the challenge that it is time for action.” That lukewarm language previewed the inaction that has followed.
Colonialism cannot be blamed for the pitiful implementation of the recommendations in that report, nor can it be blamed for the comatose status of the Caribbean Single Market and Economy (CSME), which is the centrepiece of the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas (RTOC) adopted nearly 25 years ago. It’s supposed to facilitate improvements in living and working standards, accelerate economic development, strengthen foreign policy coordination and functional cooperation among CARICOM Member States and enhance international competitiveness. I would contend that if any of these outcomes have been achieved, it’s despite the RTOC and not because of it. Certainly, the region is no better able to withstand external shocks than 25 years ago.
It would be interesting to see how quickly Canada is able to integrate its 13 provincial economies in the wake of the social and economic challenges created by the Tariffs imposed by the US. Canada estimates that the economic benefits from eliminating internal trade barriers can more than offset the adverse effects of the US tariffs. The steps that PM Carney has announced, such as regulatory harmonization, mutual recognition, common standards, labour mobility etc., are identical to those contained in the RTOC. Of course, Canada has one significant advantage over the Caribbean in that its Constitution gives Its Federal Parliament the power to regulate trade and commerce.
Colonialism is also being blamed for the region’s vulnerability to disasters. In a recent paper, Farah Tibbs of the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, argues that this is a direct result of the exploitative systems that were forced upon the region by colonialism, including slave-based land policies, ill-suited construction and development practices, and environmental injustices. Further, she contends that colonial powers changed how Caribbean people interacted with the land, where they lived, and how they recovered from natural hazard events.
There is some merit in these arguments. However, my counterargument is that Caribbean Governments have had adequate time to take “no regrets” decisions to build their resilience to disasters including by curbing development in vulnerable areas. While a private citizen can be excused for wanting to build on land that he or she owns in high risk areas, there is no excuse for Governments wanting to do the same.
In this regard, I fully endorse the plea made by CARICOM’s Climate Change Envoy, Dr. James Fletcher at the Annual General Meeting of the Saint Lucia Hospitality and Tourism Association (SLHTA), to stop building hotels on beaches. His plea was justified by projections regarding sea level rise and storm surges associated with climate change. An often overlooked fact is that the presence of social and economic infrastructure in high risk zones, such as low-lying and/or flood-prone areas is considered by insurers and reinsurers when constructing national and regional risk profiles. It does not matter whether the hotel owner/operator on a beach can afford to pay a premium. Invariably, the number of these structures, their cost, exposure to risk, and loss history can impact insurance premiums for other property owners in an impacted area, if a catastrophe occurs.
Colonialism cannot be blamed for the region’s slow pace of investments in climate change adaptation and mitigation. It’s been reported that the US Government is considering cuts to the budgets of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Air and Space Administration (NASA). The extent to which cuts might affect the Caribbean’s disaster preparedness and response efforts will soon become clear. In the meantime, the region should prepare for the worst outcomes and consider ways in which regional, climate disaster-related institutions can continue to function. This might entail merging these institutions, as was done to create the Caribbean Public Health Agency (CARPHA).
The more determined actions our Governments take NOW to build resilience to external shocks, the less likely they will be to blame colonialism, however, justified they may be in doing so. Colonialism explains many things, but it does not explain inaction.