CARICOM in a Globalising World- My 2 cents

.
DEFINING TODAY’S WORLD- Globalisation in Perspective

What relevant elements distinguish the contemporary era from previous reality? In Fareed Zakaria’s latest book, The Post-American World, he explores “the three tectonic power shifts over the last five hundred years, fundamental changes in distribution of power that have reshaped international life- its politics, economics and culture”. These being the 15th century rise of the western world, followed by 19th century rise of the United States of America as a global hegemon and now the “rise of the rest”. This current power shift is arguably as a result of a more integrated and interdependent world economy which no single state or organisation can truly control or navigate alone. In like vein, in her book, The Death of Distance, Frances Cairncross predicts that the death of distance will be the single most important economic force shaping all of society over the next half century.


Therefore, globalisation may be described as the process whereby many social relations become relatively de-linked from territorial geography so that human lives are increasingly played out in the world as a single place- Martin Albrow’s ‘Single World Society’. This intensification of worldwide social relations has brought with it liberalisation, that is, steady progression to a borderless world economy through the removal of barriers to the movement of goods and capital between countries and internationalisation characterised by increased interdependence amongst countries.


Consequently, if it is accepted that in some ways the process of globalisation erodes sovereignty then regionalism presents itself as the logical response by offering some measure of preservation and a buffer between the state and the process. Indeed, as Wendy Grenade puts it: “[a]s the forces of globalisation continue to reconfigure the global landscape, sovereign states are finding it increasingly difficult to cope with common problems alone. Hence, regional arrangements are multiplying across the international system.”


Additionally, what is distinct about this current era is the growing recognition that it ought to be remembered that sixty percent of the world’s territories have less than ten million people. And perhaps more importantly, seven of the largest states in terms of population – China, India, Indonesia, Brazil, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Nigeria – are developing states that are highly relevant to northern interests; chief among which is the realist focal point of security.




THE CARIBBEAN RESPONSE

To quote Camillo Gonsalves, Permanent Representative of St Vincent and the Grenadines to the United Nations:

[W]e live in a fundamentally different and rapidly changing world; and we in the Caribbean are no longer cockroaches in a global fowl fight. We are, and can be, savvy practitioners of foreign policy and the instruments of our sovereignty [can be used] as tools for our development and our ennoblement.

This underscores the point that in a rapidly evolving geopolitical environment, state policy simply cannot be shaped by colonialist and neo-colonialist interests but rather must be approached by reasoned indigenous responses to international events. Such is the thinking driving the region’s ‘integrationalist’ administrations both in and out of power such as the Manning led government of Trinidad and Tobago and Dr Kenny Anthony’s opposition party of St Lucia. But what of the thinking of the people? Alas, a truly ‘integrationalist’ people of the region seems yet afar off.


Nonetheless, today's post-unipolar world recognizes the emergence of other nations, powers, and non-state actors such as non-governmental organisations and the wider transnational civil society, with whom States can partner to more capably address our external environment in the interest of our people's own development. This avenue is currently aggressively pursued by St. Vincent and the Grenadines, for example, who has thereby secured significant tertiary educational opportunities and infrastructural development such as the construction of the Argyle International Airport. This mode of international relations is akin to Barbados’s Late Prime Minister Errol Barrow’s “friends of all, satellites of none” approach which translated into shrewd developmental decisions for which Barbados is better today.


Therefore it seems that some Caribbean states have embraced the concept of fluid use of sovereignty more so than others. However, our ‘smallness’ dictates that the longer we take to grasp this as a region the worse off we will be. Thucydides said: “The strong do what they have the power to do and the weak will accept what they must accept”- that is both realism and reality. Therefore, as globalisation spreads, demanding changes in approach and thinking, so too must the understanding of the concept of sovereignty evolve.


Recently, the Caribbean has become more than a ‘sphere to be influenced’ or ‘a backyard’ to be owned and has instead sought to carve its place internationally. Arguably, these strides would not have been possible without the collective bargaining strength our regional grouping provides. But as Ronald Saunders highlights in his article ‘Overcoming Smallness’:

[T]he greatest challenge for CARICOM countries is overcoming smallness. This observation applies as much to Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago with their respective populations of 2.8 million and 1.04 million as it does to St Kitts-Nevis and Antigua and Barbuda with populations of 50,000 and 80,000...“Smallness” is not just a matter of physical size, it is also psychological. There are countries in the world whose physical size is much smaller than many Caribbean countries, yet they are more prosperous economically....The psychological impact of smallness shows itself in two ways in most Caribbean Community countries.

1. Fear of each other

2. Self- perception in relation to larger countries

Thus CARICOM states’ failure to grasp how individual sovereignty is compatible with regional identity impedes the efficacy of the grouping in the international sphere. This is both the biggest threat to surviving the adversities of globalisation as well as the biggest impediment to regional reaping of the benefits it may hold. If the stronger States that comprise the EU can see this, why can't we?



CONCLUSION
As Henry Kissinger rightly put it, the bargaining position of a country depends on the options it is perceived to have, therefore our ‘give a little to gain a lot’ approach to sovereignty ensures that the region has options. And as has been established, the ability to choose is the ultimate manifestation of sovereignty. Hence, whether it is sovereignty itself that has changed or simply the world applying, it is undeniable that there is a need to revisit the concept’s traditional definition in favour of one more relevant. In fact by embracing the fluid nature of sovereignty we overcome many of the obstacles to international relations, which have for far too long been plagued by the seeming incompatibility between sovereignty of State, regionalism and globalisation.

Essentially the way forward is to respond to the evolution of sovereignty and the world instead of simply reacting to it. A paradigm shift in approach is essential, in that, comprehending the potential of sovereignty is perhaps more indispensable in a globalising world than comprehending the concept specifically.

That said, the attitudes towards integration of the individual member States of CARICOM need to change or be changed. The world will not wait, the time is now.

ONE LOVE.