COLUMN As I See It: In defence of CARICOM – Part 1

In any debate, there is always someone who appoints themselves the devil’s advocate, masking it as an effort to help others refine their arguments. They claim it prepares them to engage with opposing views outside their echo chamber. Yet, these individuals often shield their outlandish statements with disclaimers like, “I’m not saying I believe this, but have you ever considered…?”

In my experience, such debaters usually do believe their own provocations, judging by their other remarks on the subject. Worse, some refuse to take any clear position, preferring instead to stir controversy. The problem with the devil’s advocate is that in their quest to be “radical” or “daring”, claiming to voice what others won’t, they derail nuanced discussions. They shift focus from complex multifaceted debates to fringe ideas, refusing to engage with sound, logical arguments that emerge.

In politics, populist figures seize every chance to make extreme statements, knowing controversy attracts media attention and rallies their base. Supporters hail such rhetoric as “bold” rather than illogical, regardless of its merit. In these moments, reasonable thinkers must not retreat but respond, joining the debate with clarity and conviction.

The recent question posed by Allen Chastanet, Leader of the Opposition, at the OECS Assembly – “Is it time to consider withdrawing from CARICOM?”– follows this exact playbook.

To his credit, Chastanet correctly identified some of CARICOM’s flaws: persistent trade imbalances, the marginalisation of OECS states like Saint Lucia, and a lack of responsiveness to their concerns. His frustration is understandable. But his leap to withdrawal as a solution rests on an illogical assumption that severing ties would magically erase these asymmetries and replace them with better arrangements.

It ignores the administrative, technical and financial burdens of negotiating new bilateral agreements, a costly endeavour Saint Lucia can ill afford. Withdrawal is not a pen stroke away from prosperity; it’s a leap into uncertainty, abandoning the very framework that could be reformed to address these issues.

Chastanet is right about one thing: CARICOM suffers from implementation deficit disorder. Agreed policies often languish on paper due to weak enforcement mechanisms. But withdrawal doesn’t fix this. The solution lies in political will, persistent advocacy from smaller states, and reforming CARICOM’s governance structure – not abandoning it.

What CARICOM Is and What It Is Not

CARICOM operates on functional cooperation; it can only act as far as member states allow. Decisions require unanimity, respecting each nation’s sovereignty. Unlike the EU, there is no central authority to enforce compliance. When states fail to implement agreements, CARICOM lacks the power to compel them.

The answer isn’t withdrawal but deeper integration: persuading states to cede some sovereignty to a stronger regional body, making decisions binding rather than optional. While political appetite for this is lacking, the recent Protocol on Enhanced Cooperation offers a middle path. It allows subgroups of willing nations to integrate further regarding trade, education, or other areas without the approval of member states who are not interested.

So why withdraw when we can push for progress within CARICOM while strengthening bilateral ties? The real question is: What are we doing to wrestle in the playground of regional integration and make it work?

The Benefits We Risk Losing

CARICOM’s successes are often overlooked. Take freedom of movement under Article 45 of the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas, which grants Caribbean citizens visa-free travel and six-month stays in member states. The Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), another CARICOM achievement, upheld this right in Shanique Myrie v. Barbados, ruling as a trade court that nationals cannot be denied entry arbitrarily and must be treated equally.

In circumstances where there is a denial of entry, the offending country must provide reasons as well as appropriate avenues to review the decision. Tamika Gilbert v. Barbados also notes that freedom of movement is not limited to entry into the country, but the freedom to move within the country and to depart the country without impediments, subject to the usual exceptions. Freedom of movement is also extended to workers under Article 46 of the treaty, i.e., once a national of a participating member state has attained a CSME Certificate, they can move to another country to seek employment in certain categories of work.

The system isn’t perfect: bureaucratic delays, xenophobia and unfulfilled promises of full labour mobility persist. But withdrawal would worsen these issues by reintroducing visas, work permits and stricter migration controls. Who benefits? Certainly not ordinary citizens. The elite may navigate new deals, but the average Saint Lucian would lose hard-won freedoms.

CARICOM has flaws, but dismantling it isn’t the answer. Just as we wouldn’t burn down a house to fix a leaky roof, we shouldn’t abandon regional integration because it’s imperfect. The better path is to fight for reform – engaging, negotiating and demanding the CARICOM we need.

Certainly, our own government structure has some of the same challenges that the regional body does, but I do not see anyone suggesting that full destruction is the only solution.

Rahym R. Augustin-Joseph is a 24-year-old Saint Lucian pursuing his Bachelor of Laws at UWI Cave Hill, after earning first-class honours in political science and law. The current Commonwealth Caribbean Rhodes Scholar and a former UWI valedictorian, he is dedicated to using law and politics to transform Saint Lucia and the wider Caribbean.