BY Marlon Anatol Sunday, April 26 2009

While it is clear that all eyes and ears were on the Summit last week, we need to be cognizant of the fact that the world still turns. More importantly, we need to acknowledge that the hosting of the Summit does not in, and of itself solve our developmental quagmire. The glittering lights are fine to admire, the pomp and ceremony comical to observe, and the posturing pitiful; but we do have more serious issues on the ground that need our immediate attention.

We still have to deal with our problems of trade constriction due to the downturn in the global economy, and as such, a fall in the price of our primary exports; as well as a reduction in the amount of trade occurring locally. While some financial pundits will banter over when the global economy will rebound, the fact remains that one needs to be economically prudent in these times, and as such, adopt sustainable policies and in many cases (unfortunately) create new strategies and programmes to protect the livelihood of the most disadvantaged in society.

Though this sort of diligence may not be on the agenda of certain ‘parties’ locally, globally we notice the trend of governments getting involved in the economies at levels never seen (or that have never been necessary) before; and at the same time preparing their economies for what the future holds.

We saw this clearly with the G-20 summit, and while they may be the most developed nations internationally, we must recognise that our economies and indeed, economic survival is hedged to their success in solving the global financial crisis.

This begs the question, one that I have posed before, of what policies and programmes are being developed locally and indeed regionally to deal with our realities and possibility of survival.

It has been said that Trinidad and Tobago has been trying to revive ‘integration’ in the English speaking Caribbean; and while I would like to consider myself an integrationist that means a lot more than mere ‘old talk’. Neither the glitter nor the pomp impresses or confuses me.

Integration movements are premised on common principles and ethos that are communally accepted by the consenting parties to such a movement. It ought not to be, or some argue that it cannot be forced upon unsuspecting, or in some cases, unwilling actors. The financial crisis allows the region to re-prioritise and re-strategise; as a region, and not as a number of disparate states. If this is not done, one may very well find himself or herself in a region that is even more vulnerable after the more developed nations have ‘fixed’ the global financial dilemma. After all, if one fixes a problem, I think it fair to assume that it will be fixed in the interest of the ‘fixer’ with less attention or consideration given to the needs of the ‘fixee’.

As the old adage goes, ‘the proof is in the pudding’. It would seem that this is the perfect opportunity for the CARICOM nations to forge deeper ties for their mutual survival. The leaders had the opportunity to make common representation on a number of issues, including unified developmental strategies, environmental sustainability, poverty reduction, common representation, trade strategies and their position in relation to Cuba. And while some commentators have hailed the Summit hosting by Trinidad and Tobago as an undeniable success, I am somewhat more cautious.

While there were some inherent advantages to be gained, such as attention being given to the nation, I do not share the view that there will be more investments coming to the country as a consequence of paying for the Summit. Also I believe that if this was a foreign policy strategy, that the goals need to be clear, the evaluation of its success or failure must be objective and the methodology of evaluation above suspicion. If these things cannot be achieved, then once more we may be looking at all the glitter and thinking that it’s all gold.

Foreign policy objectives must be clearly defined and evaluated, while at the same time it needs to be somewhat flexible to deal with the changing realities of the international system.

If the crafters of said policy are not flexible in their approach or open to new concepts, then what is left is a rigid and ineffective foreign policy; which will eventually weaken our position regionally and internationally.

How we plan to proceed after the Summit is just as, (if not more) important as how we conducted our affairs approaching the Summit.

While there will be undoubtedly commentaries on the successes and failures of the event, let us keep our attention focused on the critical issues of sustainability, prudent fiscal policies, the development of our social programmes, adopting a culture of good governance, regional co-operation (if only in the form of functional co-operation), proper international representation, poverty reduction, environmental responsibility and more participation in the governing of the country.