Elizabeth Morgan | Formulating Jamaica’s foreign policy in challenging times

We learned on Monday that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Foreign Trade is convening a Heads of Mission meeting here in Kingston this week. Today, Jamaica has in-person diplomatic representation in about 13 countries on four continents. Jamaica has diplomatic relations with about 176 countries and is a member of a significant number of regional and international organizations. Jamaica has a very small foreign service. It should manage its resources well.

CHANGING TIMES

Although this column is titled, Trade Policy Briefings, it deals with foreign policy issues as international trade is a component of foreign policy. Since this column started, it has been dealing with the geopolitical and economic changes occurring in the decade starting in 2016, which includes Donald Trump as US president, not once in 2016, but twice, returning in 2024, and the impact of changing US policies and attitudes; the continuing rise of China as a world power; climate change; technology; Brexit - Britain leaving the European Union; governance issues in Venezuela; the COVID-19 pandemic; war in Europe initiated by Russia against Ukraine; war in Gaza, and challenges to multilateralism.

DEFINING FOREIGN POLICY

The definition of foreign policy given by several sources state that it is a strategic framework of goals, decisions and actions employed by a state to manage its relationship with other states, in international organizations and with non-state actors. Foreign policy is intertwined with domestic policy as it is employed to achieve domestic goals, particularly development goals. It is noted that foreign policy is complex and can be exercised through hard and soft diplomacy. Hard diplomacy being the use of coercive tactics, such as threats, economic sanctions and military force. Soft diplomacy is employed to influence relations with other countries through the use of overseas development aid, cooperation programmes, disaster relief, cultural exchanges, sports, and health and educational programmes with the aim to foster friendships, build partnerships and change policies. The major powers generally employ a combination of hard and soft diplomacy.

WHAT HAS BEEN JAMAICA’S FOREIGN POLICY?

Countries like Jamaica, which are in the middle tier and really middle income developing countries, cannot employ hard diplomacy, but must seek a middle path. They are usually on the receiving end of coercive diplomacy. They are the countries which valued the rule of law and multilateralism, which allowed them a voice in the regional and international space.

To get a sense of Jamaica’s foreign policy through the years, one has to review policy statements delivered at the UN General Assembly, UN voting records and explanation of votes, statements delivered elsewhere and in Parliament when this was a more regular occurrence, and Ministry Papers.

With self-government in the 1940s and 1950s, Jamaica’s foreign policy was framed and influenced by Britain. Thus, the West and the Commonwealth were important. Yet, Jamaica stood against South Africa’s apartheid policy as morally objectionable. The Government supported self-determination for countries.

At independence in the Cold War era, Jamaica saw its future as with the West - Britain, the USA and the bloc of countries supporting democracy. Yet, in the 1960s, Jamaica supported general principles of self-determination and development. Jamaica joined other developing countries in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) to advocate for development carve-outs for developing countries. Jamaica also joined the call for the establishment of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) and the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO). It is known that Hugh Lawson Shearer proposed the Human Rights Year.

In the 1970s, Jamaica was involved with other developing countries in the effort to advance the causes of developing countries. These countries were seeking their right to development and better trade arrangements. Jamaica was involved in establishing the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), and the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) Group of States to establish partnerships. In this Cold War period, leaders sought shelter for their countries in a group such as the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) promoting non-interference in the affairs of other states.

The USA was certainly not pleased with a leftward turn in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) and especially with Jamaica when diplomatic relations were established in 1972 with China and Cuba, and in 1975 with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). The US saw LAC as its sphere of influence.

Thus, Jamaica’s foreign policy was in sync with that of developing countries in the UN. Shelter was sought within wider groups, such as NAM and the G77.

PRINCIPLED OR PRAGMATIC DIPLOMACY

The question has been raised about principled versus pragmatic diplomacy, whether in fact, this is an either/or, or the employment of both. This was addressed in this column. This debate is even more relevant today in this era of President Donald Trump when more than ever, the USA is overtly employing hard diplomacy and has downgraded its soft diplomacy, note the closure of US AID. It has reaffirmed the Western Hemisphere as its sphere of influence, and its opposition to the multilateral system.

Are we now in a period when foreign policy is primarily determined by dependence, fear and obeisance, which puts principle on the backburner?

So, in terms of foreign policy, we are told today that the focus must be on economic growth and development to achieve economic independence, and thus, the political cannot be allowed to jeopardise acquiring economic goals. What this says is that to gain economic independence, Jamaica must surrender what little political independence it had. It must ignore actions that are morally objectionable and lawless. The maxim to be implemented is “see and blind, hear and deaf”. It was hoped that a partnership on foreign policy could be found in CARICOM. It was recognised early that this might not be possible, as a governing maxim on more sensitive issues would be “each man for himself and God for us all”.

It was also the hope that solidarity and partnership might be found with Latin America and the Caribbean and with Africa, but if many countries in these regions are following the same path, it is difficult to see solidarity and partnership being realised in present circumstances.

Jamaica, at this point, really needs to examine its foreign policy to determine who makes it; identify its economic and political goals; determine what it wants to achieve from current relationships; and how this will be achieved or not.

One would hope that Jamaica’s foreign policy will not be shaped completely by dependence, fear, and obeisance. One would hope that principle and pragmatism could be a joint venture. This Heads meeting is timely.

Elizabeth Morgan is a specialist in international trade policy and international politics. Send feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com.