The Week in Europe
By David Jessop

Should a common history and shared values determine the relationship between
states? Is there a period of time after which a nation's post colonial
responsibility expires? Does a former colony deserve more attention from the
departed metropolitan power than other nations and if so is the weight that
should be placed on such relationships to be determined by morality or
pragmatism? Are there circumstances that demand without question the
involvement of third nations in the helping resolve a problem faced?

These are not abstract or rhetorical questions. They go right to the heart
of the puzzle of who should provide security, when small Caribbean states
are threatened. They relate to the extent to which any previous metropolitan
power will wish to be associated with helping make a special case on an
issue such as sugar when inevitably a challenge to the present arrangements
with Europe comes. And they address the period of time during which
development assistance will continue to be provided to the region. 

Unfortunately there are no obvious answers to question associated with
history and the extent to which it confers either rights or responsibilities
or both. 

At one end of the spectrum there are arguments which suggest that companies,
families and governments should make reparations for the damage done by
slavery and its associated evils. Further removed but just as politically
potent is the apparently insoluble issue of the repatriation of cultural
artefacts. Here the matter is whether great works of art taken during the
process of discovery and exploration or in long forgotten conflicts should
belong in their country of origin. Another more recent trend relating to
history is to apologise. Nations at the highest levels have sought to show
remorse for their previous actions. 

And then, in a very different way there has been in the bruising banana war,
some sense of history and moral responsibility. This was demonstrated,
initially at least, by the willingness of some of European states and their
Parliaments to support an industry and preferential arrangements expressly
constructed to support Caribbean and other economies as a part of the post
colonial relationship.   

The problems associated with these issues are multiple. How do you determine
rights and responsibilities in a world that has moved on? Where in time does
linkage begin or end? For instance are the British and Spanish liable to pay
for the destruction of whole races across the Americas from the fifteenth
century onwards and in any case who now speaks with legitamacy on these
issues? 

The reality is now that most of these matters are resolved by a mixture of
sentiment, national self interest, pragmatism, finding new opportunities for
trade, or in order to avoid conflict. 

While much of this may fall into the category of debate the issues suddenly
take on a sharp focus when related to border disputes: a matter which
affects a number of Caribbean nations and threatens conflict between
neighbours.

There are continuing problems between Guyana and Suriname and Guyana and
Venezuela as well as many disputes within the region in relation to the use
of offshore economic zones. Although in the case of disputes involving
Guyana, Suriname and Venezuela the previous colonial powers are indirectly
involved the probability is that the issue can be resolved or made at worst
dormant by regional mediation. The matter is much more complicated for
Belize. They are at the centre of a dispute that should concern all nations
in the Caribbean and Central America and which almost certainly will require
the involvement of Britain as well as the United Nations and Organisation of
American States.

In the week of June 12, Belize's Prime Minister, Said Musa was in London in
part to discuss with the British Government Guatemala's growing hostility to
Belize and the danger of recent border incidents escalating into real
conflict. He was seeking to identify what support Britain would give the
nation in dissuading its neighbour from reactivating its border dispute.
His case was practical but based on the fact that Britain has a political,
military and moral responsibility for providing support under such
circumstances because of understandings reached at the time of independence
and on the withdrawal of British forces.

As this is being written Britain's response is still awaited but here is an
issue on which Britain has a clear historic, political and moral
responsibility. Britain's forces still stationed in Belize after its
independence were gradually withdrawn in response to British domestic
financial pressures and the basis for deployment of what was known as the
Belize guardship changed for reasons relating to the UK's defence policy.
Despite this the British Government in Parliament and elsewhere has
continued to reaffirm its commitment to ensuring that Belize's national
security was not compromised.

There are those who suggest that the recent escalation of the border dispute
follows from the change of Government in Guatemala and is simply a matter of
those in and associated with its ruling party using the issue to create a
sense on national unity and identity. But Belize's politicians, quite
rightly, are not so sure and are seeking certain commitments from Britain. 

In the past Guatemala's military, those who influence its thinking and its
politicians have shown that they have no desire to engage in any action
which may cause them to be seen publicly to back down. The US, it seems, is
unprepared to do anything until a problem occurs and in any case is for
other reasons averse to altering its position in Central America. This
places squarely the responsibility on Britain to act, based on knowledge
that it is easier to deter a potential aggressor by demonstrating will in
advance of any action than by trying to respond after events unfold. 

The history of the last two decades has been punctuated by military
interventions by third nations in defence of nations that have either been
invaded (Kuwait), subject to military coup (Sierra Leone), re-establishing
human rights and order (Kosovo). While these have been under the auspices of
the UN, it has not stopped nations such as Britain and France acting
independently for reasons of history, morality and self-interest. Britain's
physical presence in Sierra Leone and its international diplomacy on
Zimbabwe best demonstrate this and its commitment to a shared history with
the people of the nation's concerend. 

Belize is a clear example of a nation with which the UK can act subtly but
decisively to demonstrate that its commitment to the Caribbean and its
integrity is real.

David Jessop is the Executive Director of the Caribbean Council for Europe.
June 23rd, 2000




%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%