UUNITY of the Caribbean has never been far below the surface of public discourse.
The collapse of the West Indies Federation in 1962 did not dampen the enthusiasm of some of the Region’s leaders but the focus changed from the political to the economic. The Caribbean Free Trade Area (CARIFTA) was established in 1965 and the Eastern Caribbean Common Market in 1968. The smaller territories of the Eastern Caribbean were not as bashful about political union as the larger countries, and in 1981, they established the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS). In 1973, CARIFTA became the Caribbean Common Market and in 2001 the Heads of Government signed the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas for the transformation of the common market into a single market and economy, and the establishment of a Caribbean Court of Justice.
The CARICOM project has stalled for some considerable time and this was recognized and formalized by a decision to “pause” the single economy at a Summit in Guyana last year. A report by a Project Management Team for discussion at the Inter-Sessional Meeting of Heads on March 8-9 in Suriname has triggered a flood of analysis about the future of CARICOM. As revealed by Rickey Singh in the Guyana Chronicle of February 21, the report confirms the existence of a “crisis” which is sufficiently “severe to put CARICOM’S very existence in question.”
This report was followed by a letter from Prime Minister Ralph Gonsalves of St. Vincent to CARICOM Secretary General, Irwin LaRoque, also revealed by Rickey Singh in the Guyana Chronicle of February 26, in which Prime Minister Gonsalves, himself a party to the decision to put a “pause” on the single economy, calls for swift action, blaming “in built lethargy of our political leadership” and “bureaucratic inertia” for the “crisis.”
Responding to the pressures, Secretary General Irwin LaRoque said in a speech to the Manufacturers Association that the Region had “set over-ambitious and unrealistic targets” which he described as a mistake. Ron Sanders, a writer on regional affairs, retorted that “surely the mistake was not setting ambitious targets; the mistake was not taking action to resolve them.”
In the meantime, Professor Norman Girvan, pressing the same view in “Cari-Crisis…again” expressed déjà vu. He quoted “Time for Action – Report of the Independent West Indian Commission which spoke at length about ‘Implementation Deficit’ as the Achilles Heel of CARICOM.” He quoted himself seven years ago: “The pessimistic scenario is for fragmentation of the Community and eventual abandonment of CSME as an objective. This could result in loss of momentum…..and implementation fatigue.” This article was posted on Professor Girvan’s website just below “Re-energising CARICOM Integration: The Thomas Report” with the comment “ignored by the Heads of Government at their Retreat in May 2011.”
The Thomas Report, by Prime Minister Tillman Thomas of Grenada, proposed a way forward as follows: “One of the underlying reasons for the Implementation Deficit is the absence of a legal basis for decisions of the Conference; supplemented by institutional machinery with the requisite legal authority to effectively discharge responsibilities for implementation of these decisions.” Citing the European Union and OECS in support, PM Thomas argued that “Heads have already agreed in principle, in the Rose Hall Declaration of 2003, to adopt such an arrangement.” PM Thomas’s proposal is eminently non-threatening to any country which fears a loss of sovereignty. It is modelled on the European Union and allows countries to opt out of a decision or postpone implementation. No one appears to have been impressed by it.

CARICOM’S promise of economic progress has not materialized for most of the peoples of the Region and Guyana and Suriname are increasingly looking south to Brazil and UNASUR. Some countries are looking to ALBA and others to CELAC, their hopes for development absorbed by the new international institutions. In this rapidly changing and advancing regional and international environment, CARICOM cannot afford to “pause.” This means moving backwards. Its institutions will degenerate.

The saga of the Caribbean Court of Justice is a prime example of the dysfunctional, internal, political wrangling that has retarded progress in all other aspects of regional affairs. Unanimously supported and established, with Trinidad and Tobago volunteering itself as its home, the then Trinidad PNM Opposition rejected the court in its appellate jurisdiction. When the Trinidad Opposition became the PNM Government, and changed its mind, the new Trinidad UNC Opposition, previously the government which had supported the court in its appellate jurisdiction then changed its mind and withheld support.

Trinidad, which canvassed heavily to be the seat of the court, is not a member of the appellate jurisdiction! Neither is Jamaica. The failure of the larger countries to support the court’s appellate jurisdiction results in the continuing suspicion of it by the smaller countries. And there is no doubt about the quality of the court’s work which is manifest to all.

There will be two new governments at the Summit – Guyana and Jamaica. Both Guyana’s PNCR and PPP Governments have been traditionally supportive of the CSME and so have been PNM Governments. JLP Governments, and now the People’s Partnership Government of Trinidad and Tobago, which objected to being the “ATM” for the Region, have always been cool to the CARICOM idea. The PP Government of Trinidad and Tobago may well have also adopted that posture after Prime Minister Persad-Bissessar’s notorious and heavily criticized statement about Trinidad not willing to continue to be the “ATM” for CARICOM.
Is there any hope for CARICOM? This article is written before the Summit. By the time it is published, we should know. (www.conversationtree.gy).