opinion

The Greater Caribbean This Week...

The military action against Iraq has provoked a wide range of reactions within the Greater Caribbean region. Statements on the political aspects have been issued and assessments of the likely economic consequences are being made. This weekís column surveys some political reactions to the crisis.

Regional governments have been united in calling for Iraq's full and unconditional compliance with United Nations (UN) Security Council resolutions on eliminating weapons of mass destruction and cooperating fully with United Nations inspectors. There is strong commitment to the principles of multilateralism and for working through the United Nations system for the peaceful resolution of disputes.

Some divergences are evident with respect to the controversial issues of (i) whether the UNMOVIC/IAEA methods were working and should be allowed more time; (ii) whether military action outside of the UN framework was called for; and (iii) whether the international mission should extend to the goal of bringing democracy to Iraq (regime change). These are the same issues that have divided the international community on the question.

Some countries were of the view that the inspection process was working should be given (or should have been given) more time to be completed in achieving the common goal of verifiable elimination of WMD. In this position the only legitimate military action under international law is that which is specifically authorised by the UN Security Council under the UN charter. Since existing UN resolutions do not have regime change within their remit, these countries are wary of adopting this as an objective of international action, whatever their views of the government in power in Baghdad.

The statements emanating from CARICOM Heads of Government, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Mexico and Venezuela are generally in line with this position, although differences in emphasis are notable, which is to be expected.

Other countries, while supporting the United Nations process during the build-up to military action, also to refer to the Declaration of Azores issued by the United States, Britain and Spain on March 16, 2003 as a point of reference. The Declaration essentially held that Iraq was not in compliance with UN resolutions and that further delay in enforcing implementation would be dangerous and unjustified. It also referred to the goal of bringing democracy to Iraq and called for an international humanitarian effort to assist the Iraqi population.

The statement from Colombia and the joint statement of the Presidents of El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua and Panama refer to the Azores Declaration in the context of implementation of UN resolutions that have not been complied with. They also refer to the internal human rights situation in Iraq and/or the responsibility of the international community to help the Iraqi people to build a better, democratic future.

Costa Rica's statement reiterates the country's long-standing commitment to peace and neutrality and to UN resolutions, finds Saddam Hussein to be non-cooperative in the disarmament process, and supports the call by the Arab League and the US for him to leave Iraq. Absent this, it holds the Iraqi leader responsible for the military conflict.

The subtle differences in stated positions mirror, in large measure, the deep schisms within the international community provoked by the crisis. Yet there is no reason why they should be allowed to undermine the carefully woven fabric of regional functional cooperation that is being set in place.


Professor Norman Girvan is Secretary General of the Association of Caribbean States. The views expressed are not necessarily the official views of the ACS. Feedback can be sent to mail@acs-aec.org