This Week in Europe, 23 June 2000
Executive Director of the Caribbean Council for Europe
Should a common history and shared values determine the relationship between states? Is there a period of time after which a nation’s post colonial responsibility expires? Does a former colony deserve more attention from the departed metropolitan power than other nations and if so is the weight that should be placed on such relationships to be determined by morality or pragmatism? Are there circumstances that demand without question the involvement of third nations in the helping resolve a problem faced?
These are not abstract or rhetorical questions. They go right to the heart of the puzzle of who should provide security, when small Caribbean states are threatened. They relate to the extent to which any previous metropolitan power will wish to be associated with helping make a special case on an issue such as sugar when inevitably a challenge to the present arrangements with Europe comes. And they address the period of time during which development assistance will continue to be provided to the region.
Unfortunately there are no obvious answers to question associated with history and the extent to which it confers either rights or responsibilities or both.
At one end of the spectrum there are arguments which suggest that companies, families and governments should make reparations for the damage done by slavery and its associated evils. Further removed but just as politically potent is the apparently insoluble issue of the repatriation of cultural artefacts. Here the matter is whether great works of art taken during the process of discovery and exploration or in long forgotten conflicts should belong in their country of origin. Another more recent trend relating to history is to apologise. Nations at the highest levels have sought to show remorse for their previous actions.
And then, in a very different way there has been in the bruising banana war, some sense of history and moral responsibility. This was demonstrated, initially at least, by the willingness of some of European states and their Parliaments to support an industry and preferential arrangements expressly constructed to support Caribbean and other economies as a part of the post colonial relationship.
The problems associated with these issues are multiple. How do you determine rights and responsibilities in a world that has moved on? Where in time does linkage begin or end? For instance are the British and Spanish liable to pay for the destruction of whole races across the Americas from the fifteenth century onwards and in any case who now speaks with legitamacy on these issues?
The reality is now that most of these matters are resolved by a mixture of sentiment, national self interest, pragmatism, finding new opportunities for trade, or in order to avoid conflict.
While much of this may fall into the category of debate the issues suddenly take on a sharp focus when related to border disputes: a matter which affects a number of Caribbean nations and threatens conflict between neighbours.
There are continuing problems between Guyana and Suriname and Guyana and Venezuela as well as many disputes within the region in relation to the use of offshore economic zones. Although in the case of disputes involving Guyana, Suriname and Venezuela the previous colonial powers are indirectly involved the probability is that the issue can be resolved or made at worst dormant by regional mediation. The matter is much more complicated for Belize. They are at the centre of a dispute that should concern all nations in the Caribbean and Central America and which almost certainly will require the involvement of Britain as well as the United Nations and Organisation of American States.
In the week of June 12, Belize’s Prime Minister, Said Musa was in London in part to discuss with the British Government Guatemala’s growing hostility to Belize and the danger of recent border incidents escalating into real conflict. He was seeking to identify what support Britain would give the nation in dissuading its neighbour from reactivating its border dispute.
His case was practical but based on the fact that Britain has a political, military and moral responsibility for providing support under such circumstances because of understandings reached at the time of independence and on the withdrawal of British forces.
As this is being written Britain’s response is still awaited but here is an issue on which Britain has a clear historic, political and moral responsibility. Britain’s forces still stationed in Belize after its independence were gradually withdrawn in response to British domestic financial pressures and the basis for deployment of what was known as the Belize guardship changed for reasons relating to the UK’s defence policy. Despite this the British Government in Parliament and elsewhere has continued to reaffirm its commitment to ensuring that Belize’s national security was not compromised.
There are those who suggest that the recent escalation of the border dispute follows from the change of Government in Guatemala and is simply a matter of those in and associated with its ruling party using the issue to create a sense on national unity and identity. But Belize’s politicians, quite rightly, are not so sure and are seeking certain commitments from Britain.
In the past Guatemala’s military, those who influence its thinking and its politicians have shown that they have no desire to engage in any action which may cause them to be seen publicly to back down. The US, it seems, is unprepared to do anything until a problem occurs and in any case is for other reasons averse to altering its position in Central America. This places squarely the responsibility on Britain to act, based on knowledge that it is easier to deter a potential aggressor by demonstrating will in advance of any action than by trying to respond after events unfold.
The history of the last two decades has been punctuated by military interventions by third nations in defence of nations that have either been invaded (Kuwait), subject to military coup (Sierra Leone), re-establishing human rights and order (Kosovo). While these have been under the auspices of the UN, it has not stopped nations such as Britain and France acting independently for reasons of history, morality and self-interest. Britain’s physical presence in Sierra Leone and its international diplomacy on Zimbabwe best demonstrate this and its commitment to a shared history with the people of the nation’s concerend.
Belize is a clear example of a nation with which the UK can act subtly but decisively to demonstrate that its commitment to the Caribbean and its integrity is real.