Kissing regionalism goodbye

It was agreed that a regional court would replace the Privy Council as the court of last resort for member states. This idea surfaced since the 1970s. After a lengthy gestation period, the CCJ was officially inaugurated in April 2005 in Trinidad and Tobago. The maelstrom that now threatens the court’s existence is swirling because of its presence in that country and the lack of usage by member states. Trinidad’s financial obligations towards the CCJ are now becoming a problem, since the country does not use it.

So far, Guyana, Barbados and Belize have being using the court as their final court of appeal. Trinidad still uses the Privy Council. Under the administration of Basdeo Panday, Trinidad had committed to replacing the Privy Council with the CCJ, but is yet to do so. Newly-elected Prime Minister, Kamla Persad-Bissessar, recently shook Caricom by stating that a referendum would have to be held to determine whether the country should delink from the Privy Council. The Trinidadians would favour the Privy Council, thus shutting out the CCJ. As a result, some are questioning why Trinidad should put money into a court with no appellate jurisdiction in the land.

Five of the region’s luminaries have warned against these troubling statements coming out of Trinidad. They say that Trinidad “had fought forcefully for the headquarters of the court” and with that came certain financial obligations. Therefore, they were concerned about the “distortions regarding Trinidad and Tobago’s financial obligations to the court and related innuendos about the country’s withdrawal from the process”. This is a cause of concern, indeed.

Persad-Bissessar seems to be subtly hinting that her country is not interested in using the CCJ. Where accountability is concerned, Trinidad would not be wrong to question monies going towards something it is not using. Such an argument, however, would take a backseat, especially since Trinidad had committed itself to the financial obligations of having the court’s headquarters. As the five luminaries said, that expense and decision were not foisted upon the country. Moreover, the country had committed itself to the authority and use of the court. The controversy should not have been centred on expenditures of the court, but on why Trinidad is seemingly backpedalling on an earlier commitment.

Trinidad’s move is signalling how precarious regionalism is. If our regional leaders, who are still feigning ignorance that regionalism is under threat, need any more proof that it is, then this is it. It goes back to what we have been saying all the time: Caricom is serving little purpose, has achieved little over its 37 years of existence, and is faced with a real threat of disintegrating. Our leaders are the only ones who seem not to have recognised this. Perhaps they have, but they rather not accept it lest it, reflects on their leadership.

The CCJ is one of Caricom’s prized accomplishments, but it faces the threat of collapsing because of the individualistic mentality that pervades this group of leaders. If countries have developed an aversion to the CCJ, it is logical to question why they agreed to establish the court in the first place and are now playing games with it. The CCJ cannot be divorced from Caricom. It was part of the plan to foster deeper integration. Member states were not meant to have a choice in accepting the court as the final appellate court of Caricom. Member states agreed they all would use it upon its establishment.

So controversies over the CCJ are not about finance, as we are led to believe, but about the selfish nature of some countries which seem to want to pursue development on their own. If leaders do no keep their heads on and avert a possible disastrous outcome for the CCJ, we can kiss regionalism goodbye.