SSP Diaries | Consistent in inconsistencies

A simple definition of ‘sovereignty’ is as follows: “A political concept that refers to a dominant power or supreme authority. In a monarchy, supreme power resides in the ‘sovereign’, or king. In modern democracies, sovereign power rests with the people and is exercised through representative bodies such as congress and parliament.” It has a direct bearing on the responsibilities of those authorised to conduct the affairs of a state, based upon the collective wishes of a people.

The matter of how this translates itself into reality is what concerns me today. Those put in charge of our affairs have been consistently displaying inconsistencies in the way in which our foreign and other relations are being conducted, to the extent that there is a difficulty in understanding where exactly we stand as a nation, what are the principles that we uphold and can be counted upon to defend.

When the US lost favour with the Maduro regime in Venezuela, we hastily presented ourselves at the White House, at the behest of the US president, to support his sanctions of that country, a country that provided us with critical support for ages. We denounced the Maduro regime, using the typical ‘sound bytes’ provided by the US. Now that the global dynamics have changed and the US has returned to the table with the Maduro regime in order to satisfy its own interests, we need to know exactly what our Government intends to do.

In recent times, the intent to remove ourselves from the British Commonwealth has become more vocal. The lead taken by Barbados, I think, has provided the catalyst to move us along a path long contemplated but never actioned. At the same time that we were making this clear to the recently visiting ‘Royals’ and the world, generally, we were, in a manner of speaking, trying to ensure the longevity of the monarchy by providing a candidate for the position of Commonwealth secretary general. This is being pursued in earnest as we support the UK government’s desire to have the incumbent, another Caribbean national, removed from office. What is the signal being sent? Under the circumstances, isn’t there a better way of doing this, rather than appearing to be satisfying the yet-to-be-substantiated desires of the UK prime minister?

Then there is the Summit of the Americas. The US has unilaterally decided who constitutes the Americas. It has nothing to do with geographical positions, traditions and cultures, but everything to do with who the US deems as its allies and who isn’t. For those countries attending, especially at the prime ministerial and presidential levels, how do you justify the exclusion of your other counterparts from the Americas? If there are differences of policies, politics, ideologies, how are these to be addressed, if not through the dialogue to be initiated while under the same umbrella and with equal recognition and mutual respect? If we, as a world, refuse to engage one another in this manner to resolve perceived differences and be able to agree to disagree, where necessary, then we are inviting confrontations and conflicts. We will be no different from the actions of US, EU and Russia in Ukraine.

It seems to me that we don’t have a mind of our own. We appear to be caught up in the rhetoric and threats of developed states, to the extent that there is a fear of being excluded from considerations by our larger neighbours to the North. We are associating our perceived survival to a linkage with a country that has perpetually demonstrated that what you enjoy is directly related to the amount of interest that is had in you for the time being. On the other hand, we are championing the end of control by a monarch, while still singing ‘God Save the Queen’, and in doing so we will continue to ensure the survival of the realm.

Strange though it may seem, it appears that we are still being subjected to the old principle used by our colonial masters, that of divide and rule. Are these the outcomes that the Jamaican people want? Have all the angles been satisfactorily considered? From these examples, can we be satisfied that our leaders are working in our best interest as a sovereign State? What does sovereignty really mean to us if we play to every tune called by the piper?