It is not surprising that many people, including some regional governments, are having second thoughts about the Caribbean Community’s (CARICOM) endorsement of Trinidad and Tobago for a non-permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council. There are more than whispers that this support should be reconsidered.
While The Gleaner fully understands these concerns, it would not be in CARICOM’s interest to withdraw its endorsement. Doing so would cause irreparable damage to the community, potentially even triggering its collapse, or at the very least leading to Trinidad and Tobago’s withdrawal during the life of the current administration.
In keeping with Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar’s stated insistence on transparency in CARICOM, leaders who have misgivings about Trinidad and Tobago’s likely posture on the Security Council should openly express their concerns to her. This approach echoes the recommendation of former St Vincent and the Grenadines prime minister, Ralph Gonsalves.
However, doubts about Trinidad and Tobago’s candidacy should not be conflated with Port-of-Spain’s claim that the reappointment of CARICOM Secretary General Carla Barnett did not follow proper procedures and is therefore null and void. The Barnett issue is fundamentally technical and legal in nature, and one that CARICOM may choose to resolve politically. The Security Council seat, by contrast, is strictly a political matter requiring a different approach.
The 10 non-permanent members of the Security Council are elected for rotating two-year terms. Trinidad and Tobago has long coveted a seat and secured CARICOM’s endorsement – during the tenure of former prime minister, Keith Rowley – to replace Panama when its term ends in December. The election is slated for June.
So far, Trinidad and Tobago faces no challenger. Earlier this month, its foreign minister, Sean Sobers, claimed the backing of more than 100 countries. That support, however, could erode if CARICOM’s endorsement is perceived to have weakened, potentially prompting another Latin American and Caribbean (LAC) country to enter the race.
REGIONAL OUTLIER
The souring regional mood, particularly in the Eastern Caribbean, is understandable. Since the United National Congress (UNC) returned to office a year ago after a decade in opposition, Ms Persad-Bissessar has belittled, insulted, and alienated regional partners, while vigorously embracing Donald Trump’s controversial Caribbean policies.
For example, when the US president ordered the military to destroy suspected drug-smuggling vessels in the Caribbean Sea – effectively the summary, extrajudicial execution of criminal suspects dressed up as acts of war – Ms Persad-Bissessar cheered him on, urging him to “kill them violently”.
When CARICOM leaders reaffirmed the long-standing declaration of the Caribbean as a zone of peace, she ridiculed the idea as fanciful. She also labelled CARICOM an “unreliable partner” and a failing institution whose members prioritised dictators over partners. She supported Mr Trump’s capture and rendition of Venezuela’s president, Nicolás Maduro, and reportedly made her territory available to the United States to assist the effort.
When the Americans imposed visa restrictions on Antigua and Barbuda and Dominica over concerns about their citizenship-by-investment programmes, Ms Persad-Bissessar mocked those governments for “bad-mouthing” the United States and warned her own citizens to “behave yourselves”.
The public row over the Barnett matter has further cemented perceptions of the Trinidad and Tobago prime minister as a regional outlier, even if some of her underlying ideological positions – stripped of caricature – may be shared by others in the Caribbean. Nevertheless, it has fuelled growing questions about whether Trinidad and Tobago can be an effective steward, or an appropriate representative of CARICOM, on the Security Council, even though the seat would be held in its own right.
UNIQUE CHALLENGES
Dr Gonsalves has noted that it is customary for CARICOM states to endorse each other for positions in international bodies, but that the Security Council bid presents unique challenges.
“The way Kamla and the Trinidad and Tobago government have gone and become the principal cheerleaders for Donald Trump, CARICOM has to get clarification from her at the highest level,” Dr Gonsalves said this week.
He continued: “You can’t support Trinidad and Tobago on the understanding that it will help craft resolutions at the Security Council and then have discussion when they are in the chair supporting the blowing up of boats, or marching in lockstep with every position of the United States, contrary to CARICOM’s interests. If she is an outlier on fundamental questions of global foreign policy and security, and within our hemisphere, she cannot be CARICOM’s candidate.”
Dr Gonsalves articulated openly what others have thought or whispered. Some have reasoned that the veto power of China and Russia would limit potential damage from Trinidad and Tobago’s automatic alignment with the United States.
However, the value of CARICOM and the regional integration project is too great for this issue to be ignored or allowed to fester. CARICOM cannot do an about-face. But it can engage in frank discussions about shared fears, principles, and alignments.
