Jamaica does not need to stand up to America. Jamaica needs to stand up for Jamaica. This distinction lies at the heart of an essential conversation about sovereignty, foreign policy, and good governance.
The United States is Jamaica’s most important external partner in many respects. Our countries share deep historical, economic, and cultural ties. Millions of Jamaicans have family members in the United States. We cooperate on security, trade, tourism, and many other areas.
That relationship matters and should be protected. But friendship does not require subordination.
A genuine partnership allows one country to say: “We understand your concerns. Now let us discuss Jamaica’s concerns.”
Whenever a powerful nation makes requests or demands of Jamaica, our first question should be: Does this advance Jamaica’s national interest?
The proper sequence should be: Request, assessment, negotiation, and decision. Never: Request and compliance.
This is a call for mutual respect, mature diplomacy, and good governance. A government’s first responsibility is not to satisfy foreign governments but to protect and advance the interests of the Jamaican people.
The controversy surrounding Jamaica’s memorandum of understanding with the United States on third-country nationals illustrates why this principle matters. International cooperation on migration, security, and humanitarian issues is both legitimate and necessary. But such cooperation must also be transparent and demonstrably serve Jamaica’s interests.
The circumstances surrounding the agreement have raised legitimate public concerns. Questions remain about when it was signed, who signed it, what obligations Jamaica accepted, what benefits were secured, and what safeguards exist to protect Jamaican citizens.
Conflicting public statements by government officials have only deepened the uncertainty about the agreement’s scope and implementation. Former Prime Minister Bruce Golding captured one of the central concerns when he asked why individuals expected to remain in Jamaica for only 30 days would not instead remain in the United States until they could be sent directly to their final destination.
Civil society organisations have called for the MoU to be tabled in Parliament, and the Jamaica Council of Churches has urged that negotiations be paused until Parliament has debated the matter and the public has been properly informed.
These are not unreasonable demands.
RIGHT TO KNOW
When agreements affect migration responsibilities, national security, public resources, or Jamaica’s international reputation, citizens have a right to know what commitments have been made on their behalf, who bears the costs, what protections exist, what oversight mechanisms apply, and, ultimately, whether the agreement serves Jamaica’s national interest.
Transparency does not require that every operational detail be disclosed immediately. Governments sometimes have legitimate reasons for confidentiality. But confidentiality must never become a substitute for accountability.
Jamaica’s decision to end its decades-long medical cooperation programme with Cuba provides another illustration of why transparency matters.
For almost half a century, Cuban medical professionals served thousands of Jamaicans, particularly in rural and underserved communities.
The Government explained that the arrangement no longer complied with Jamaican labour laws and international labour standards. Cuba, however, argued that the decision resulted from pressure by the United States over its overseas medical missions. Former Prime Minister Bruce Golding expressed concern that Jamaica was “being forced to contribute to the strangulation of the Cuban people who have helped us in so many ways”.
Whether one accepts the Government’s explanation, Cuba’s explanation, or some combination of both is, ultimately, not the main point. The larger issue is that Jamaicans deserve sufficient evidence and information to understand why major policy decisions affecting national welfare are made, what alternatives were considered, and how the substantial adverse consequences would be addressed.
These issues largely remain unaddressed.
These controversies are not fundamentally about the United States or Cuba but about the quality of Jamaica’s governance and overall transparency.
A country’s ability to negotiate confidently and communicate effectively depends not only on its economy or diplomatic skill but also on the integrity of its public institutions.
Small countries inevitably possess less economic and geopolitical leverage than major powers. Yet their greatest vulnerability often comes not from external forces but from internal weakness.
Where public officials are vulnerable because of corruption, undisclosed conflicts of interest, improper relationships, or personal financial pressures, a country’s ability to make independent decisions may be compromised. Integrity, therefore, is not merely an ethical issue. It is a national security issue.
STRONGEST DEFENCE
Every nation must guard against improper influence. Its strongest defence is robust institutions.
Jamaica must continue to strengthen its integrity framework through effective financial disclosure laws, conflict-of-interest rules, transparent procurement, independent oversight institutions, and meaningful parliamentary scrutiny of major agreements. Breaches must attract timely and meaningful consequences so that accountability becomes not merely an aspiration but an established practice.
Transparent governments are harder to manipulate. Accountable governments are harder to pressure. Strong institutions give even small nations greater confidence and greater negotiating leverage.
Some will argue that Jamaica’s best response to global pressures lies in CARICOM.
Regional cooperation remains indispensable. Jamaica’s strength is closely linked to the strength of the Caribbean. Yet regional unity requires more than shared institutions. It requires political courage and coordinated action. Too often, Caribbean governments have struggled to translate common concerns into common positions, making individual countries easier to influence.
Jamaica should, therefore, continue to strengthen CARICOM while never relinquishing its own responsibility to defend its national interest when regional consensus proves elusive.
The guiding principle should be simple: Collectively where we can, independently where we must, and the Caribbean always.
Jamaica will never negotiate from strength because of its size. It negotiates from strength when its institutions are trusted, its leaders are accountable, and its people have confidence that every important national decision begins with one overriding question: What best serves Jamaica?
Kay Osborne is a good-governance advocate and civic commentator. Send feedback to kmosborne1990@gmail.com.
