I was particularly moved by the words of the iconic
Guyanese diplomat Rudy Insanally recently when he spoke of the chances our tiny
but potentially mighty region is missing out on, if only because of a lack of effective
application of our sheer numerical strength on the international stage.
It is my firm view that opportunities to influence
the global and hemispheric agendas are not as much stymied by the fact of
occasional displays of disunity as by a problem of low self-esteem.
 |
| Amb. Rudy Insanally |
Certainly, short-sighted displays of disunity are
heavily influenced by delusions about individual self-importance on the part of
micro-states surviving purely on their wits and the goodwill of imperialist
powers past and present. However, occasional grand-standing at the regional
level is heavily tempered by a lack of self-confidence on the international
stage.
One current discourse being almost absolutely
ignored by the 14 independent Caribbean Community (CARICOM) member states of
the OAS is the attempt by several Latin American countries to water down the
influence of the Inter-American human rights system – the focus of critical
debate by countries such as Brazil, Ecuador and Venezuela (which is now set to
leave the human rights system entirely in September this year). These are
countries that have not enjoyed the best relationship with either the inter-American
Commission or the Court.
There is little doubt in the minds of most
reasonable people, that the strategy being devised by what is now appearing to
be a majority of Organisation of American States (OAS) countries is to weaken
the reach and influence of an independent-minded set of institutions – the Inter-American
Commission on Human Rights and Inter-American Court of Human Rights – in order
that the abuses of a number of recalcitrant states may continue unrecognised and
unpunished.
Our small 15-member grouping (Montserrat is not
independent and not a member of the OAS), has the power to dramatically
influence this discussion.
Instead, it appears as if Jamaica is the only
country keeping close tabs on the process – holding an albeit lukewarm position
on the central issues through Amb. Stephen Vasciennie, an accomplished human
rights attorney and professor.
When I spoke at a special civil society consultation
of the OAS Permanent Council last December, Prof. Vasciennie was the only
senior Caribbean diplomat in the chamber at the time. My own Trinidad and
Tobago ambassador, Neil Parsan, was absent and though my participation in the
consultation had been announced before-hand through the CARICOM caucus within
the OAS, nobody seemed to think it was important enough that a lone Caribbean
organisation had taken the time and trouble to make its voice heard on this
issue.
 |
| OAS Building, Washington DC |
Amb. Insanally’s remarks at the launch of his latest
work on diplomacy resonate throughout this particular episode in the life of
CARICOM participation in the inter-American system.
Or is it that we have countries among us with
leaders who believe that having strong hemispheric oversight over issues of
human rights is a bother that needs to be addressed?
Regrettably, I think this might well be the case.
My own efforts through the Association of Caribbean
MediaWorkers (ACM) to loosen the state grip on press freedom and freedom of
expression over the years have amply prepared me to deliver a verdict on this.
It does not surprise me that so many of our
countries would rather turn the other way, or hold their noses while chronic
human rights offenders in this part of the world run rough-shod over a system
we all agreed would help bring us into the international mainstream of respect
for the rights of our people.
But this, of course, is not only a matter for national
governments. The malignant neglect reflects negatively on the work of Bar
Associations throughout the region – impotent bands of self-interested and
greedy professionals who are more and more turning their backs on issues of
human rights.
Where, for example, is there a functioning Caribbean
human rights association? Why is it, that apart from Jamaica and Guyana (to a
lesser extent) there are no effective national human rights organisations which
survive the election of their chief advocates to government?
Why is it, that on the question of the erosion of
the influence of the inter-American human rights system, the ACM – a press
freedom organisation with extremely limited resources – remains a solitary
Caribbean voice in the human rights wilderness?
The worst-case scenario is that Caribbean
authoritarian cultures will coalesce too comfortably with the remnants of Latin
caudillismo
at the expense of freedoms our societies sacrificed so much to possess.
The
OAS discussions will paint a much clearer picture as we go along.
