Resolving CARICOM’s Leadership Impasse

By Sir Ronald Sanders

As with all my commentaries, this one is strictly in my personal capacity, drawing on more than fifty years of engagement with Caribbean affairs and a lifelong commitment to the cause of regional integration. I do not speak on behalf of any government or institution.

Recent developments concerning the future tenure of Dr Carla Barnett as Secretary-General of CARICOM have brought into focus an issue that goes beyond any individual. It touches the essential requirement of cohesion and mutual confidence among the Heads of Government who guide the Community.

It is now evident that at least one Head of Government of a founding member state, Kamla Persad-Bissessar, does not support a continuation of Dr Barnett’s tenure. That reality, in my view, raises a serious question about the practical effectiveness of the office going forward.

The office of Secretary-General depends not only on formal authority, but on the full confidence and cooperation of all member governments. Where that confidence is materially in doubt, the capacity of the office to function effectively is inevitably diminished.

In those circumstances, and speaking solely for myself, on April 14, I said in a television interview in Antigua that, were I in Dr Barnett’s position, I would consider it untenable to continue in the role in the face of such opposition, particularly from a member state whose engagement is central to the work of the Community. For that reason, were I in Dr Barnett’s position, I would withdraw from consideration for a further term. I repeated this position when I was interviewed on April 15 on TV6 television in Trinidad.

My opinion is not a judgment on Dr Barnett’s service, which has been carried out with professionalism and dignity. Rather, it is a recognition of a larger principle. No individual, however capable, should become the point around which division among member states coalesces.

I am aware that my view is shared by some other advocates of regional integration. The Gleaner newspaper in Jamaica, in its editorial of April 15, addressed the impasse in CARICOM, stating: “Dr Barnett, on the grounds that she does not wish to become a distraction from CARICOM’s need to manage profound internal and external challenges, could announce that, notwithstanding the vote of confidence from heads of government, she will leave the secretariat at the end of her current term in August”.

The Gleaner went on to explore legal options that could be pursued. However, CARICOM Heads of Government are not confronted by a legal problem; the issue is political, requiring a political solution. Seeking a legal solution from the Caribbean Court of Justice amounts to asking the Court to resolve a political problem which is rightly the responsibility of Heads of Government. Should such a legal process be pursued, it would be impossible for the parties involved to conduct business as usual in the Councils of CARICOM. The CARICOM institution, the regional integration movement, and the collective interests of the people of the Community would suffer.

The political solution must start with the withdrawal by Dr Barnett from consideration for another term in office when her present term ends in August. She should withdraw not because she has erred in any way, but because her effectiveness would be severely compromised.

Thereafter, the Heads should establish a transparent system leading to the selection of a new Secretary-General. It should include nominations by member states and a transparent election at which the two candidates with the highest number of votes undergo a run-off. The candidate with the largest number of votes would be declared the winner.

All member states would be bound by the process and the result. During the process, each candidate should have the opportunity to present his or her case for election to all member states. This is the process used in the Organization of American States and the Commonwealth. The essential difference between the two bodies is that, in the OAS, the election process, including the voting, is public and webcast globally. In the Commonwealth, the meeting at which the election is to take place, including its date and venue, is announced to all member states and to the media, but the election itself is conducted behind closed doors by Heads of Government, who elect the candidate with the greatest number of votes and declare that decision unanimous and binding on all member states.

Such a process, accepted at the outset by all CARICOM member states, as all the independent member states accept in the OAS and in the Commonwealth, would eliminate any doubt about participation, voting, and acceptance of the result in electing the Secretary-General.

However, while this system would improve the present procedures in CARICOM and solve the immediate impasse, major problems still have to be confronted and resolved by our Heads of Government. Division in CARICOM serves the interests of no CARICOM country.

It is worth recalling that in the mid-1970s, CARICOM integration did not merely slow; it stalled. Trinidad and Tobago’s leader Eric Williams fell out with Forbes Burnham and Michael Manley, the leaders of Guyana and Jamaica, over the ideological direction of the region. For seven years, there was no meeting of CARICOM Heads of Government and no sustained policy direction for the regional movement, which did not resume until 1982.

In the meantime, the rest of the world had galloped ahead, and CARICOM did not begin to try to catch up again until 1989, when A.N.R. Robinson of Trinidad and Tobago led the Grand Anse Declaration that reset the regional effort, taking another three years for plans to be formulated by the West Indian Commission in 1992. This lesson is not obscure. Another period of paralysis in CARICOM will gravely reverse its fortunes.

CARICOM leaders have to rebuild trust among themselves and in their capacity to act together in their individual and collective interests. But it must start with those, who do so, ending the practice of talking to each other through the press and social media. There is no substitute for sincere dialogue, careful listening, and a readiness to find joint solutions to shared problems.

This includes recognising the Zone of Peace, declared by all Latin American and Caribbean countries in 2014, while also acknowledging that there is no contradiction between that designation and the sovereign right of individual states to enter into security arrangements with friendly countries. Such arrangements, properly framed, are entirely consistent with the maintenance of peace, particularly where they are directed at safeguarding national territory, reducing terrorist threats, and protecting vital resources.

At a time of considerable global turbulence and uncertainty, when small states must rely more than ever on unity, coherence, and collective strength, it is essential that the leadership of the Community facilitates that unity. CARICOM should be focused on the greater struggle to build capacity and resilience to grave external factors that are materially affecting our people’s lives.

_(The writer is Ambassador of Antigua and Barbuda to the US and OAS and Chancellor of the University of Guyana. The views expressed are entirely his own.)_