David Jessop
Over the last two weeks, I have participated in a number of meetings, both small and large, in the Caribbean and in Europe.
They were quite different from those that had gone before. Each had as its theme or subtext the need to prepare for the future and find practical ways to address the challenges the region faces.
The issues covered ranged from climate change through food security, the role of tourism-led development and how best to enhance competitiveness in preparation for the economic partnership agreement (EPA).
Was the Caribbean, one provocative event asked, sinking, surviving or prospering?
Each, it seemed, had been triggered by a sense that the Caribbean was at a watershed in its history.
The region was having to come to terms with a very different world: One that accepted the inevitability of economic globalisation, recognised the need for new relationships with emerging nations and sought new ways to organise economic activity and the institutions of government.
All were attended by a mix of Caribbean ministers, Opposition figures, academics, private sector leaders, plus others from outside the region, including the diaspora.
At each, the participants almost without exception spoke positively about the opportunities they saw in services, in energy, agriculture and international relations, expressing new thoughts and approaches.
Practical solutions
For the most part, they did not try to hide the many difficulties the region faced but offered practical solutions about how some of these might be addressed.
Jamaica's Minister of Agriculture, Dr Christopher Tufton, spoke at length about the construction of a new agricultural model, and experts on energy discussed the opportunities for oil and gas off Guyana and the islands of the Eastern Caribbean.
A minister from Barbados shared his views about the changing nature of the region's international relationships; Cabinet ministers from St Vincent and St Lucia were positive and specific about addressing the challenges facing their nations.
Jamaica's Prime Minister Bruce Golding and Tourism Minister Ed Bartlett described their vision of tourism integrated fully with the nation's economy; private sector leaders recognised the opportunity that the EPA offered; and academics made pointed remarks about the need for change.
It is a list that could go on. But what follows is not about what was said but rather, why these conferences were unlike other events held even six months ago, and why new thinking is starting to emerge.
By coincidence or design, in almost every case, those speaking came from a younger generation.
For the most part, they had a first degree from within the region and had then gone on to study in Canada, the US or Europe.
Most, if not all, of the ministers and opposition figures had private sector experience and recognised that talk and present administrative structures had not served the region well in recent years.
They wanted change and the implementation of the ideas that they had seen take root in other parts of the world.
Second, the change in tone reflected the appearance of new governments across the region. It provided evidence of a comment made by a friend close to the leadership of a Caribbean party recently consigned to Opposition. His view is that there is a time in the life of all political parties when they should lose elections if they are to renew their thinking and leadership.
The wisdom of his remarks showed as ministers new to government and previously free from the everyday constraints of a portfolio identified well-thought-through approaches to old problems
Next, there was a clear awareness of the ways in which the world had changed and that the region's relationships with Europe, the US and others would never revert to what had been. There was a related sense that what was left in terms of preference and special treatment was eroding fast and that no matter how inequitable or difficult this might be for small nations, new ways had to be found to compete. This meant engaging more closely with nations like India, China, South Africa, Brazil and others. Accepting open economies and encouraging foreign investors meant ceding aspects of economic sovereignty, recognising that in the absence of a strong, well-integrated regional economy, this would require education and careful political and commercial oversight, and having faith in the resilience of Caribbean culture.
Fourth, there was an assumption that where the Caribbean now found itself was to some extent its own fault.
At one meeting, the view was expressed that because no action had been taken to modernise regional institutions in the 1990s following the Ramphal report, A Time for Action, institutional and other change was now being forced on the region by developments such as the EPA.
The argument ran that because the Caribbean had failed at that time to establish its own development model and related institutions, this had meant that they had then had little option other than to acquiesce to the 'Washington consensus'.
As a consequence, it was felt, the region was now trapped into being reactive to change and driven by the economic and political thinking of others beyond the region. The conclusion was that this left the Caribbean with little option but to revitalise it institutions rapidly and try to guide the force of externally led change in ways that better resonated with Caribbean aspirations.
There was also a view - admittedly discussed quietly in the margins of one conference - that the emergence of new academic institutions in higher education, the growing separation between the campuses of the University of the West Indies, and the rise of business schools and think tanks, while not doing much for regionalism, brought a welcome element of competition and new ideas.
The 'other' Caribbean
And finally, there were the voices of the 'other' Caribbean: Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Haiti and the Overseas Territories. The EPA and other arrangements to come, it was observed, will be with Cariforum. This meant that despite possible discomfort, the full involvement of the Dominican Republic and Haiti in some areas of regional decision making was unavoidable.
It was also noted that the presence of representatives from the Overseas Territories operating advanced constitutions pointed to the possibility of Caribbean success without budgetary or development support. The overall view was that all Caribbean nations, including Cuba, were now faced with finding solutions to the changing economic environment in which they found.
Many critical issues were not addressed - halting the rising tide of violence and narcotics-related crime across the region; the migration of skills; the need for a much-better-informed media; or the problems created by the absence of any supra-national decision-making body - but the overall sense was one of optimism about the future.
In the coming months, the Caribbean will have to take some hard and far-reaching political, economic and institutional decisions largely driven by the implications of signing the EPA with Europe. If the positive and practical view of the region's future heard over the last few weeks prevails, there are good signs that some governments and a wide range of partners in society are prepared to build a new Caribbean agenda.
David Jessop is director of the Caribbean Council. Email: david.jessop@caribbean-council.org.
