There are several questions being raised in the current climate as it relates to the future of CARICOM and the future of Caribbean regional integration. In some quarters it is felt that the momentum for regionalism is being swept aside. This is due to embedded insularities and the repeated failures by governments to implement agreed policies, and for regional agencies and institutions to demonstrate the requisite convergences. Prejudices and ignorance are assuming pivotal positions once held by a bond of resilience to oppression and exploitation
Moreover, it appears as though the legacies of colonialism remain riveted in the psyche of Caribbean people together with several fears and a pronounced lack of confidence in each other. These are the saddest and currently exhibited aspects that frustrate our post-colonial development. How do we as Caribbean peoples weave together the various pieces of the Caribbean fabric that traditionally have been kept separate and fragmented? In this article, I contend that political symbols are sufficient to reengage the imagination of Caribbean people so that the consequence of such an engagement culminates in the re-building of a spirit of CARICOM unity and solidarity.
Political symbols are emblems of group life. The potency of symbols rests not simply in their ability to represent, but in their ability to instigate action (Rebecca E. Klatch 1988). The Caribbean, and in particular CARICOM as an institution, needs symbols because these are collective representations of group life. Symbols can represent the common aspects of our social and political membership as a community of sovereign states. Symbols also evoke strong feelings of identification and belonging. Therefore, symbols may act as forces of integration, creating solidarity by binding individuals together into a unified whole for which we understand to be the upkeep of CARICOM.
With the subtle discontent that appears to be manifesting itself in the everyday discourses across the Caribbean, and specifically on the issue of migration and free movement of community nationals, it becomes more pressing that the social pillars of CARICOM be raised to levels that take into consideration moral and ethical signatures. These serve to alleviate the restrictive adherence to strict legal measures whilst at the same time giving pre-eminence to the struggles of the ordinary people of the region.
A main claim that I make elsewhere argues that the process of securitisation on the free movement of community nationals creates barriers to deepening Caribbean regional integration. Rather than a desecuritisation of the issue of intra-CARICOM migration and movement of people that is more likely to lead to a deepening of Caribbean regional integration, there is the process of securitisation that creates barriers to deepening regional integration.
By security, I am speaking of the ‘intersubjective and socially constructed’ move that ‘takes politics beyond the established rules’ thereby framing for example the free movement of community nationals and intra-regional migration as a ‘special kind of politics or as above politics’. It is the creation of ‘unease into a more general existential domain’ in which individual political communities such as Barbados asserts that its functional integrity as a sovereign entity is under threat.
For example, The Prime Minister of Barbados labels the ‘influx’ of CARICOM immigrants and illegal migration a “crisis,” connoting a threat or emergency. This act stirs up or draws upon people’s fears, thereby creating the basis for acceptance of particular governmental actions – namely the introduction of a new amnesty policy directed at undocumented immigrants originating from within CARICOM.
Cast in these securitised terms, the intensified policy for enforcement in response to irregular migration creates a flashpoint for anxieties about CARICOM outsiders. The sentiment is that Guyanese, Jamaicans, and other neighbours from within the Caribbean Community are encroaching upon a vulnerable inside where the legitimacy of the state as a basis for sovereign expression and rule is at stake.
Irregular migration, by its very definition, is a reminder of the centrality of the state to prevailing notions of belonging. When state authorities act to punish and deter irregular migrants they reinforce a territorial account of belonging that confirms the sovereign status of the state and its citizens against unwanted external intrusions. This practice appears to be happening in Barbados notwithstanding Barbados’ treaty commitments and its often repeated ambitions for regional integration. On the one hand, there is an enunciation of a spirit of CARICOM through proclivity to support and facilitate the movement towards a single CARICOM market and economy. On the other hand, there are actions that come across as being far too selective and referred only at times of convenience.
Against seeming discriminatory practices, we continue therefore to walk a tight rope in relation to Articles 7, 8, and 9 of the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas, not to mention Articles 32, 33, 34, 45, and 46. This argument is rooted in the distinctions made by certain Barbadian publics as it relates to Guyanese, for example, when seeking to close doors on intra-regional migration based on subtle discontentment. Yet the same publics allow a strengthening of passage for persons from third states that sit beyond the thresholds of CARICOM.
Is it not correct that the objectives of the Caribbean Community hinge upon premises of deepening regional economic integration, instilling functional co-operation, and redefining ‘functional relationships so as to enhance the participation’ for ‘improving the standard of living’ of the Caribbean peoples? My disgruntlement is not against Barbados or any other CARICOM member state, but it is against the ignorance that is allowed to perpetuate unchecked by the key political actors in the region.
If the declared ambitions as agreed upon in the Preamble to the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas form the fundamental structure of CARICOM, then why are we bypassing the political symbols that can translate messages of harmony? Political symbols that are consistent with the spirit of the region’s peoples are building blocks for progress. Combined with expressed ambitions of the people, political symbols support the ‘demands for the intra-regional movement of people’ within the member states of CARICOM.
I end this article therefore by citing the Right Excellent and former Prime Minister Barrow of Barbados. In 1986 the National Hero of Barbados told a brief but fascinating story:
If we have sometimes failed to comprehend the essence of the regional integration movement, the truth is that thousands of ordinary Caribbean people do in fact, live that reality every day. In Barbados, our families are no longer exclusively Barbadian by island origin. We have Barbadian children of Jamaican mothers, Barbadian children of Antiguan and St. Lucian fathers. And there is no need to mention Trinidad which has always been tied to us not only by the inestimable bonds of consanguinity, but by the burgeoning cross-fertilization of cultural art forms. We are a family of islands nestling closely under the shelter of the great Cooperative Republic of Guyana. And this fact of regional togetherness is lived every day by ordinary West Indian men and women in their comings and goings.
The blogmaster invites you to join the discussion.