Ronald Sanders

The recent meeting between US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and the foreign ministers of seven Caribbean countries gave rise to many questions. But the US seeking to “divide Caricom” should not be one of them. External forces can try as they wish to divide the members of the 15-nation Caribbean Community (Caricom), but only those Caribbean nations can cause the division. So, there should be no blame attributed to the US for dividing Caricom by the invitation to some foreign ministers of its 14 independent member states to attend a January 22 meeting hosted by the Jamaican government. The US, like every other government in the world, has the perfect right to invite to a meeting any governments with which it wants to confer.

If, indeed, there is an issue, it is with those Caricom governments, particularly the host government, that agreed to the meeting without insisting that no Caricom government should have been excluded from a rare opportunity to consult a US representative as high-level as the secretary of state. After all, the meeting was held in the Caribbean, under the auspices of a Caricom government. It was not held in the US under the control of the US government, as occurred when President Donald Trump invited five Caribbean leaders to Mar-a-Lago, his estate in Florida.

At the very least, it was within the Jamaican prime minister’s capacity to advise the US Government that it would be both prudent and beneficial for representatives of all 14 independent Caricom governments to be invited to what Mike Pompeo’s own State Department described as “a round-table discussion” with the named foreign ministers of the invited Caribbean countries.

It should be noted that, in addition to the six invited foreign ministers from Caricom countries, the Dominican Republic was also an invitee as it was to the Mar-a-Lago gathering with Trump.

In the past, whenever any Caricom government has hosted a leader of a major nation, it has been the general practice to invite all Caricom governments to be present for discussions. The wider Caricom meeting with such leaders did not preclude a bilateral meeting by the host government with the invited leader. Indeed, it was the norm that a meeting be held between the host and guest leaders, followed by the wider consultation with all Caricom governments. In this context, the off-the-cuff remark by Jamaican PM Andrew Holness at a press conference with Pompeo, that, “If anyone wanted to attend, they just had to signal,” was unfortunate. Holness is a decent man. Undoubtedly, had he prepared his response, it would have been more considered and less dismissive than it sounded.

No Caricom country should have to ask for an invitation between a representative of the world’s superpower and representatives of Caricom countries.

A separate collective Caricom meeting with Pompeo would not have deprived the Jamaican government of discussions on matters of peculiar interest to Jamaica. However, apart from specific national interests, Jamaican concerns that are shared with all other Caricom countries would have been bolstered by Pompeo hearing the collective voice of the 14 independent member states. That opportunity was lost at the January 22 meeting.

It is for the other five Caricom countries that readily attended the meeting to consider whether they should have accepted an invitation that excluded eight of the countries on whose support and solidarity they depend in global affairs. Would the arguments that they advanced not have had greater effect if Pompeo had heard them from 14 countries, rather than six, especially as among the remaining eight would have been Trinidad and Tobago, Guyana and Suriname—three countries that possess resources that are of considerable interest to the US?

At the heart of this matter is that Caricom countries have never harmonised their external relations, as have the (still) 28 countries of the European Unions. Caricom governments have clung to the notion that Caricom is “a community of sovereign states”. In affirming this position in their external relations they have placed the rights of “sovereignty” over the obligations of “community”, allowing each of them to pursue short-term “benefits” from external sources at the expense of the longer-term gains they would get from being seen, indeed, and in fact, as a solid and unshakeable group.

Make no mistake, external forces will always try to break any solidarity of Caricom countries if it is in their interest to do so. Caricom countries should consider what they lose individually and collectively by fragmenting themselves, instead of acting in solidarity.

As for the Jamaica meeting, I believe Pompeo had one overriding objective: to secure the support of the seven attending countries to vote for Luis Almagro to be re-elected as head of the Organisation of American States. The US has concluded that he does not have the 18 votes required to be re-elected. There is nothing wrong with the US government promoting a candidate it favours — many countries in the Lima Group and in the Caribbean are also promoting the candidates they back.

The fundamental issue is whether Caricom will allow itself to be divided. Maybe, at the Caricom Heads of Government Meeting in February, in Barbados, the 14 heads of member states should lock themselves in a room, without anyone else, and thrash out this issue.


THE Ministry of Labour and Small Enterprise Development recently rolled out the first series of a roadshow entitled “Maternity Matters at Work”.

ONCE AGAIN, Trinidad Carnival has ploughed through multiple convulsions of anxiety to make it safely onto the road.

Reparations for native genocide and enslavement of continental Africans are raised in the Americas and Africa by descendants of native peoples and by descendants of enslaved Africans, and their surviving generational lines of relatives in Africa. Reparations are being sought against native genocide, the wholesale theft of enslaved labour power and suppression of the self volition of Continental Africans, from 1501 – 1865 and beyond.

The hostility expressed by some people on social media and YouTube to “Welcome to Chinatown” by Singing Sonia can be best described as twisted irony or perhaps someone can explain the difference between picong and racism as far as calypso is concerned.

ONE would have hoped that Justice Vasheist Kokaram’s quite thoughtful judgment would have encouraged the Prime Minister to abandon his politically aggressive attitude and apply some statesmanship in dealing with the Law Association’s case for impeaching the Chief Justice.