The Conduct and Management of Caricom Foreign Policy

Abstract

Caricom policy making, including foreign policy making, has traditionally carried a strong executive stamp. However, the need for skilled foreign policy bureaucrats and for an efficiently managed diplomatic machinery has grown as Caricom countries have become more aware of and embroiled in the increasingly complex international environment. In earlier chapters, it was noted that small states, constrained by limited resources, have found it useful to work collectively to achieve economic and diplomatic goals. Yet, despite policy and strategic advances in regional and intra-global south collaboration, the management of foreign policy in the Caricom region remains highly nationalistic and idiosyncratic. Financial and human resource limitations have been major constraints on the efficiency and effectiveness of the foreign policy bureaucracy. Beyond that, what distinguishes these small states from larger ones is the fact that the operations of foreign ministries are very tied to the executive’s perception of their usefulness and willingness to invest in improvements in infrastructure and skills. It is true that what small states lack in numbers and finances they have somewhat countered by diplomatic skill. The visibility of Singapore’s diplomats is an example of this. But within Caricom, despite the skill exhibited by individual diplomats and the region’s overall successes (considering its size) in placing its diplomats in relatively high international offices, diplomatic services have been plagued by problems both human—that is, shortages of trained personnel—and technological. In terms of the latter, clearly one important development for small states has been the advent of new forms of diplomacy triggered by communications advances. Yet by the first decade of the 2000s, Caricom states were lagging in the proactive use of information technology as a tool of diplomacy. This chapter examines the nature of the diplomatic machinery in Caricom states as well as various factors that hinder or facilitate the effective management of their foreign policies.