By Courtney Lindsay, Keston Perry and Alexander Gittens
The Caribbean Movement for Civil Empowerment:
Even though the West Indian Commission’s report was completed since 1992, it is simply amazing how applicable and sensible its contents still are in light of the current situation facing CARICOM countries. However, something about it is rather troubling.
The West Indian Commission emerged as a result of significant challenge to the region’s Heads of Governments (HoGs) in 1989 to act quickly in order to prevent the region from being left behind in the “main current of human advance in the 21st century”. The Commission was charged with the responsibility of devising some strategic options for CARICOM countries as they forge ahead in the post-Cold War era, and prepare for the challenges of globalization.
The report of the Commission was well received, and in fact, received rave reviews from many. However, we believe that with specific reference to one of their recommendations, i.e. the setting of a CARICOM Commission, those at the helm of the Commission missed a very important step in setting CARCIOM on a path to true prosperity and deeper integration.
This report spoke to the region’s crippling implementation deficit. This recommendation they believed was the answer to this perennial problem which characterized the region then, and still plagues us now. It was believed that we needed this “central authority, freed of national, domestic responsibilities and allegiances, and appropriately empowered to implement CARICOM’s decisions”. However, the proposed purpose that this “central authority” should serve, and how it should operate was, in our opinion, incredibly weak to the point where it seemed impractical and naive.
Why do we say this? The Commission proposed that this permanent CARICOM Commission be set up, and delegated executive authority to implement CARICOM decisions. However, the Commission declared that this proposed body “cannot over-ride national action”. In fact, the Commission explicitly stated that “we do not go for a radical restructuring of political organisation in the region…” which is enough to lead one to conclude that the recommendation lacked innovation, and was in fact more of a capitulation.
It would seem that the Commission knew what needed to be achieved, but grossly watered-down the necessary proposals that would make it effective. For example, it identified “a need for a central authority, freed of national, domestic responsibilities and allegiances, and appropriately empowered to implement CARICOM’s decisions,” yet the Commission said of the CARICOM Commission: “...it will enunciate the decision in terms that are operational; but it will not itself have the force of law” (Overview, 1992:29).
The Commission must have felt it necessary to restrict their recommendation to a solution which left the operationality of their proposed CARICOM Commission up to the whims and fancy of each Head of Government of the region when they said: “we do not create a governmental apparatus at the centre, with power to over-ride national action- and we are not proposing this-we must proceed on a consensual basis, and that must imply that member states will respect and cooperate in giving fulfilment to decisions taken in CARICOM by due process” (Overview, 1992: 29).
This is where we felt the Commission lost a great opportunity to lead regional integration unto a renewed and dynamic path for CARICOM’s efficient functioning. In retrospect, one might wonder whether the Commission was somewhat afflicted with the drunken obsession and false notion of sovereignty which characterized the Heads of Governments (then and now) who mandated them to carry out their work. Either this or they were concerned about stepping on toes.
What can also be surmised is that they were then being contradictory in their own report, for the Commission itself dubbed the idea of sovereignty within the region as being nothing short of mythical, yet in their proposal they sought to inconsequentially preserve it.
HoGs must have felt they had to cater to their national and domestic responsibilities and allegiances, and probably thought they needed room to do so. They therefore felt they could not be bound to adhere to any policy counter to their aspirations even for the sake of regional integration. The recommendation of the Commission -- the establishment of a CARICOM Commission -- would have ensured that they would not have to effect such drastic yet need changes, even though it spoke out against self-centredness.
The commission called on the creativity and imagination of HoGs to make regional integration work, but not on their discipline, dedication, sacrifice and humility. There can be no creativity and imagination in dealing with political leaders unwilling to cede political power even to a watered-down version of a regional executive authority. They wanted to remain supreme decision-making authorities for their tiny pieces of rock. It is thus tempting to think that the Commission was sympathetic to their cause.
Surprisingly, HoGs discarded the recommendation for a permanent CARICOM Commission, and proposed something that was even more pathetic, but speedier on the journey to failure. This and every other initiative proposed up to 2010 (Commission of Ambassadors) have not seen the light of day.
What is further disappointing is that some still think the CARICOM Commission with its executive authority is still the answer to CARICOM’s implementation problem. We disagree. If accepted in its current state as per the report’s recommendation, it still shows an obsession with sovereignty and would fail. Why? This proposed Commission was at best bereft of the ability to force member states’ action toward implementation of the CSME. The Commission did nothing more than propose an organisation lacking in supranational scope and today, we are still left wanting.
We need to avoid the CARICOM Commission in the form recommended by the WI Commission, especially since history has taught us, in the words of Louis Henkins, “sovereignty does not encourage cooperation, it breeds going at it alone”. The last thing we need is another organisation which encourages the “solidifying”, but not “ceding” of sovereignty. This will get us nowhere.
What we need in this region is exactly what the West Indian Commission was avoiding, and exactly what HoGs do not wish to entertain, let alone sign unto. What we need is a supranational organ.
The European Union is the paradigm of successful regional integration, and an analysis of the European project indicates one of the single most important ingredients in the achievement of economic integration among sovereign states is an independent supranational body that drives policies and enforces utilitarian measures.
Therefore we strongly advocate for the immediate establishment of a supranational body, as this is critical for any forward movement within the region. We need to build the home while we occupy it, and the foundation is a supranational organ to ensure that the work is carried out in a timely manner, where all workers conform to the building code and stay true to the blueprint – a CARICOM region that would be prosperous, resilient and sustainable into the future.
May 24, 2011
caribbeannewsnow
Caribbean Blog International
available in: 
