The Prime Minister cometh

Britain's P.M. Tony Blair and wife, Cherie.

Stephen Vasciannie, Contributor

BRITISH Prime Minister Tony Blair will arrive in Jamaica for a 10 1/2-hour visit during the course of a three-nation tour to the region.

He comes with confidence: his Conservative opponents in the British House of Commons appear to be in disarray, and the Liberal Democrats, if that is still their name, have precious little impact on the British political scene at this time.

As a sign of the significance of the Blair visit, seven CARICOM Heads of Government are reportedly coming to Jamaica to meet with the British Prime Minister. But really, why should so much fuss be made for Tony Blair? Have we not all witnessed in this generation the passing of rule Britannia, and the sharpening of efforts to shatter the diverse elements of the colonial legacy? And, if we have indeed overcome the shackles of history, why then the arrival of seven CARICOM leaders to meet with one visitor?

Perhaps the answers lie in the obvious: despite the forward march of history, we remain, in some senses, intricately linked to Britain, and, though we may be reluctant to admit it, our links with the former colonial power may still redound to the economic benefit of particular Caribbean countries. So, we are keen to meet Tony Blair to talk, probably, about preferential access to European markets, assistance in crime-fighting, the proposed abolition of appeals to the Privy Council, and to examine investment and trade prospects more generally.

Benefits to them

But, before considering how this process may work to our advantage, an initial query: is there anything in this for Tony Blair's Britain? For, clearly, if the bilateral relationship between Britain and particular Caribbean countries is exclusively to our benefit, then our talks with the British Prime Minister and others from the metropole will be little more than sophisticated exercises in mendicancy: the former colonial seeking help from the "mother" country under headings designed to mask the reality of our patron-client relationship.

That, however, would be an unduly harsh characterisation of our underlying relationship with the British ­ though it may have some elements of truth. Strictly speaking, Britain benefits from its Caribbean connection in at least three ways.

First, there is the general, somewhat vague, but correct, conception that we all live in a global community, with each state being interdependent upon the other for the full satisfaction of its economic needs. So, whether it is for sugar, rum, bananas, tourism, or reggae music, some British citizens benefit from trade linkages with us. Of course, this is not a zero-sum game, so there is no inconsistency in believing that although they benefit from trade with us, we probably benefit more substantially from trade with them.

Secondly, and no doubt more controversially, Britain needs us to help them overcome the burden of history. They came, they saw, and in the case of Jamaica, they stayed for 307 years. In the process, they established a slave system (and dismantled it), they engendered an indentured labour system (and abandoned it), they created an oligarchic social structure based on racial features (and denied it), and then, having exploited our resources to their satisfaction, they told us that we were ready for Independence.

Despite this historical background, however, the British authorities wish to retain our friendship. They do not want us to tell them, as Gandhi once did, that British civilisation would be a good idea. Rather, their preference is for us to move beyond the past: our friendship with them at the Governmental level, notwithstanding the historical realities, helps to confirm the idea that the British are fair. This is good strategy, and to the extent that our relations are now mutually respectful, the British stand to benefit from having exchanges from those who they once perceived as their underlings.

Thirdly, Tony Blair's Britain also benefits on the world stage from Caribbean friendship. Britain's permanent membership on the United Nations Security Council, perfectly justifiable at the end of World War II, could be perceived as anachronistic today given that the country is far less imperial and powerful than it was 57 years ago.

Similarly, in other arenas, the "special relationship" between Britain and the United States in not an alliance of equals, while, within the European Union, the British economy cannot always match German or French prowess.

Britain therefore benefits from linkages that acknowledge that the old lion still has some vigour. And, one good place for that acknowledgement must certainly be among the former colonies. Thus, British political leadership is an intrinsic component of the Commonwealth, our reliance on the Privy Council demonstrates our respect for British justice, and when we seek their assistance in matters concerning preferential access to Europe, we implicitly give credence to Britain's status as a world power. Again, this is not a zero-sum phenomenon: both Britain and the Caribbean can benefit from this acknowledgement of London's place in the world.

On the other side, we could possibly benefit from Tony Blair's visit in more tangible, less symbolic ways. There is nothing new to be said about the banana issue and preferential markets at the upcoming summit, but sometimes there is virtue in repetition of the region's dilemma in the wake of globalisation and the emergence of WTO liberalisation. And, bearing in mind the likely impact of the Genoa debacle on big power deliberations, the time may be right for a reiteration of Caribbean fears concerning transitional arrangements to facilitate the inexorable move from preferential arrangements to free trade.

Human rights frankness

From a purely Jamaican standpoint, the presence of the British Prime Minister at the finals of the Prince's Cup Competition for inner city youths, should also help to cement the impression that Britain is not only aware of, but also concerned about, the seemingly intractable realities of tribalism and violence that prevail in this country.

But, to be frank, awareness and concern are only a part of the picture. Sometimes one wonders how much pressure Britain feels free to exert in their deliberations with our authorities. True, they have to be careful, for charges of political interference in the affairs of a sovereign state ­ and hypocrisy ­ are easily made in the present state of international relations.

However, as a long-standing source of assistance to Jamaica, and as a friend, Britain must have some amount of latitude, at least privately, to indicate its perspectives on inner city conditions, political tribalism, and above all, human rights violations. I hope Tony Blair will not talk his way around these questions. In 10 1/2 hours, one must be frank.

Back to Commentary