The Kamla apology and commitment

A.J. Nicholson, Contributor

The apology of the prime minister of Trinidad and Tobago for the expressed hurt that was caused by her statement concerning the twin-island republic's assistance to sister Caribbean Community (CARICOM) territories in the wake of the Hurricane Tomas devastation is certainly encouraging.

Her words might have been misinterpreted; they might have amounted to diplomatic misspeak; they might have been taken out of context and misrepresented. Regardless, they caused hurt and discomfort across CARICOM and that impelled the prime minister to tender a full apology on the RJR evening talk programme, hosted by Dionne Jackson-Miller.

A specific report, it is said, of Kamla Persad-Bissessar's initial statement undoubtedly sent out wrong signals and unneighbourly vibes, but for me, what occasioned a great deal of nervousness was her subsequent reference, in an attempt to explain, to the benefits that the United States was destined to reap from its invasion of Iraq. That later statement tended to give substance to the cry of the Opposition leader, Keith Rowley, that her initial declaration betrayed colonialist thinking.

Since, however, I am firmly wedded to the doctrine of the sincere apology, I am obliged to accept the prime minister's expression of regretful acceptance that much hurt had been caused, with the hope that her subsequent utterances and actions will not amount to any misplaced trust and confidence having been placed in her words of apology.

Ill-timed use of words

In that same Jackson-Miller interview, she made a valiant attempt to explain away the now infamous ATM reference that she had made here in Jamaica when she attended her first CARICOM meeting as head of government. That statement had served to strengthen the deep disappointment that was felt as a result of the post-Tomas assistance declaration. It is hoped and expected that the prime minister would have benefited from the reaction to that ill-timed use of words, and also that her deputy, the minister of works, has come to understand that governance is a far cry from the management of a football fraternity, even though tact and adroitness are mightily powerful attributes to carry into both undertakings.

Kamla Persad-Bissessar, like several other heads of government within the Caribbean Community, continues to trumpet her "commitment to the integration movement". This, she proceeded to do, once again, in the RJR interview. Like others before, and some of her present colleagues, there is no question of missing a beat when it comes to declaring that commitment in the strongest terms. They do so, in the same breath as they refer to their CARICOM counterparts as mendicants, or immediately preceding or following the terms in which she recently spoke. It should be no surprise, therefore, that those emphatic declarations of commitment to the integration process are received with widespread skepticism.

Perhaps, the starkest example of this type of unfortunate and far-reaching flip-flop has been the approach of the political party which the Trinidadian prime minister now leads, to subscribing fully to the Caribbean Court of Justice. Lest us recall that the Sir Sridath Ramphal-led West Indian Commission, which had as its members some of the finest minds with which the region has been blessed, and which presented its report in the early 1990s, projected that institution, armed with both an original and an appellate jurisdiction, as "one of the pillars of the integration movement".

In the mid-1990s, the CARICOM heads of government mandated a preparatory committee to develop an agreement that would underpin the establishment of that integration pillar, and whose membership would consist of the attorneys general of Barbados, Guyana, Jamaica, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia and Trinidad and Tobago, where the political party of which Kamla Persad-Bissessar was a senior member held the reins of power. The attorneys general of Barbados and Jamaica were to be the chairman and deputy chairman respectively of the preparatory committee, which would receive strong support from the CARICOM Secretariat.

Caribbean Court of Justice

That committee sought and received ideas and recommendations from several bodies and stakeholders within the Community and beyond and, after in-depth research and consultations over time, signed off on an agreement which was acceptable to the heads of government and the stakeholders. The modus adopted in the Agreement Establishing the Caribbean Court of Justice for the selection of the judges, with a separate protocol for the sustained financing of its operations, has been hailed within the European Union as a singularly effectual means of ensuring the indepen-dence of the judiciary in the practice of democratic governance. The insulation of the judiciary from the influence of the political directorate and other operators within the system is said to be firmly in place.

During the deliberations of the preparatory committee, the issue of where the headquarters of the court was to be sighted came up for discussion. Barbados presented strong submissions in its call for Bridgetown to be that place.

However, the points placed on the table by Trinidad and Tobago, with the expressed unsolicited pledge to finance the appropriate reconstruction of a building in Port-of-Spain in a manner befitting such an institution, won the day, with Barbados expressing its solid agreement. And, that recon-struction was undertaken and completed to the satisfaction of the entire Community.

The Agreement, itself, was signed by the heads of government at a ceremony in Bridgetown in 2001. Soon, a falling out within the then ruling party in Trinidad and Tobago led to Kamla Persad-Bissessar replacing the attorney general, who had been their representative on the preparatory committee and who had helped to lobby successfully for the headquarters of the court to be in Port-of-Spain. Eventually, that party was removed from power, and soon proceeded to proclaim that it was not in support of Trinidad and Tobago subscribing to the appellate jurisdiction of the court to replace that of the United Kingdom-based Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.

Commitment to integration

The then leader of the opposition who, as prime minister, had also loudly trumpeted his commitment to the integration process was one of the heads of government who had mandated the preparatory committee to develop a mechanism for the establishment of "one of the pillars of the integration movement", and whose government had successfully lobbied for its headquarters to be sighted in Port-of-Spain. And now that Kamla Persad-Bissessar is prime minister, she declares herself to be "firmly committed to the integration of the Caribbean Community".

What, then, is her view of Trinidad and Tobago subscribing to one of the "pillars" of the process? Without the strength and utility of that pillar, where does that leave the integration movement and her commitment? It was the commitment of European leaders to the integration movement that led to the establishment of the European Court of Justice. They saw it as the kind of institution that is necessary for the proper handling of trade and commercial matters, the development of their jurisprudence, and the proper administration of justice within the Union. Sadly, in the Commonwealth Caribbean, some of our leaders mouth their commitment, and continue to turn their backs on the efficacy of one the pillars on which the integration movement must be erected.

That issue has long been lost on the radar of the present administration in Jamaica, whose prime minister now steers the ship of the CARICOM integration movement. Of course, the commitment of the chairman of such a body to putting in place one of the pillars of the movement should hardly ever be in doubt. But, an abundance of space is found on that radar, for constitutional change to be made to limit the term that a prime minister can serve, and to pursue some nebulous change to the extradition-treaty regime.

Erratic approach

This erratic approach of some of the leadership within the Caribbean Community, including in the private sector, has not amounted to a display of "commitment to the integration movement". The truth is that the people of these challenged territories welcome sincere apologies, particularly when hurt is occasioned by the utterances or conduct of their political leaders. But they also expect and deserve leadership that shows commitment, not just proclaim it, allowing the words to fall almost meaninglessly from their lips.

For, consider this: a pillar of the CARICOM integration movement is firmly in place in Port-of-Spain; we have heard no doubts expressed by those who should know concerning the strength of the institution; that pillar is being financed by the member states; it was erected to replace the jurisdiction of a court which is in a country whose government has stated, in terms, that it would be best that we de-link from their court and make use of the pillar for which we are paying.

And yet, there is no urgency or indication even, that those circumstances feature on the 'commitment' radar of the heads of government. Even more, we expect to be taken seriously when we proclaim our independence, our keen sense of judgment, our visionary thinking and our commitment to CARICOM. Would that the dedication and spirit of that Caribbean cultural pilgrim, Professor Barry Chevannes, come to take hold of some of our commitment-shouting government leaders!

A.J. Nicholson is Opposition spokesman on justice. Feedback may be sent to columns@gleanerjm