McNair Paper Number 54, Chapter 3, October 1996
THE CHANGING STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENT
The world witnessed dramatic change and turbulence as the 1980s gave way to the 1990s. The changes critical to the Caribbean are examined in this section. But before doing this it is important to offer a commentary on the subject of security.
MEANING OF SECURITY
Security has long been a highly contested concept with a variety of definitions and usages, founded mainly on traditional realist theory. Hence, the traditional approach to security emphasizes the military variable, focuses on the state as the unit of analysis, and sees states as rational actors pursuing their national interests. Threat orientation is mainly external, and the utility of security countermeasures is measured largely in military terms. Security is considered part of a country's "high politics." Traditional realism has long been challenged, but the end-of-Cold War turbulence has led scholars to question increasingly the validity of the realist conceptualization of international politics generally, and of security in particular. (Note 1) Consequently, advocacy for a postrealist definition of security has developed.
Postrealists believe that nonmilitary developments can pose genuine threats to long-term security and quality of life; that traditional concepts of sovereignty cannot cope with torrential transborder flows of narcotics, money, AIDS, arms, and immigrants; that no single country can combat these threats alone; and that new regional and international rules and institutions will be needed to cope with the nonmilitary threats facing most countries.(Note 2) They do not exclude the military variable from the security matrix, but the economic, political, and, for many, the environmental variables are considered as equally important. Postrealists posit that internal security issues are important in their own right, complicating and sometimes aggravating external ones. Indeed, circumstances often are such that the distinction between "internal" and "external" threats and apprehensions is blurred. Moreover, not only are states no longer the only critical actors in the international arena, nonstate actors abound, and some of them wield considerable power, oftentimes more than states.
This new approach to security is progressively being embraced by professional military officers, (Note 3) and not just by security scholars. Yet understandably, not all security analysts support it. Moreover, this Anew thinking" does not represent a total debunking of traditional realism, for as Richard Falk has noted correctly,
To challenge to centrality of realism does not imply its total repudiation. States do remain important actors, war does remain profoundly relevant to international relations, and many international settings can better be understood as collisions of interests and antagonistic political forces. (Note 4)
If one adopts the postrealist approach to security, there are three structural and operational features of the still-transforming global environment with direct implications for the region:
GLOBAL MILITARY AND POLITICAL POWER
The collapse of world communism and the concomitant end of the Cold War are at the center of the transformation in the first area. The bipolar character of global military-political power has been replaced by the reemergence of a multipolar global system. Not only is there evidence of multipolarity, but some scholars point to the development of the multidimensional basis of global power. One reputable scholar, for example, discerns the development of different currencies of power affixed to different poles of international power: military, economic and financial, demographic, and military and economic. He sees the poles varying in their productivities, with demographic power as more of a liability than an asset, and the utility of military power being reduced. (Note 5) Another respected scholar views the structural and operational aspects of world power differently. He sees the distribution of power being "like a layer cake," with the top (military) layer being largely unipolar, the economic (middle) layer as tripolar, and the bottom layer (transnational interdependence) showing a diffusion of power. (Note 6)
This post-Cold War structural-operational transformation has at least two major implications for the Caribbean, both of which pertain to the realities of U.S. geographic proximity, power, and interests. The first is that U.S. policy and action toward the Caribbean will be shorn of the previous East-West ideological cloud, thereby altering the character, if not the scope, of United States-Caribbean relations. Although it is true that, so long as Fidel Castro is able to remain adamant in the pursuit of communism in Cuba, there will be some U.S. concern about an ideological threat, "the Communist threat" is virtually nonexistent, partly because of regional changes in Nicaragua, Grenada, Guyana, and elsewhere.
The previous East-West military-political fixation of the United States not only colored its relations with Caribbean countries on a bilateral basis, it influenced multilateral relations as well. During the Cold War, the interests and conduct of some Caribbean countries caused them to suffer the consequences of U.S. displeasure, while others received the benefits of its approbation in the context of institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, and the Inter-American Development Bank (IADB). However, there is already evidence that the end of the Cold War has led to appreciable change in U.S. attitudes and behavior toward Caribbean countries in these multilateral arenas.
The second implication is related to the U.S. military presence in the region. The character and scope of U.S. military deployment and posture in the Caribbean, part of its geopolitical game-plan for countering the former USSR, have already begun to change. This is contributing to a lesser U.S. military presence, reduced IMET (International Military Education and Training Program) assistance, and reduced arms supplies and sales to countries that were either U.S. allies in the East-West conflict, or considered otherwise important to U.S. national interests. (Note 7)
The transfer of responsibility for the Caribbean from USACOM to the Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) is further evidence of change. In keeping with changes to the Unified Command Plan (UCP) announced by Defense Secretary William Perry in February 1996, SOUTHCOM's geographic area of responsibility has been expanded with the addition of waters adjoining Central and South America, and the Gulf of Mexico. According to the Pentagon, AThis change satisfies two objectives:
The change takes place in two phases. Phase One, effective January 1, 1996, gives SOUTHCOM authority over the area adjoining Central and South America. The second phase, to take effect after June 1, 1997, will give SOUTHCOM control over the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean Sea. This move is a reflection of U.S. budgetary pressures and policy rethinking, central to which are cost-efficiency calculations for counternarcotics operations. Yet, one potential risk of this change from the Caribbean vantage point is the possibility that the Caribbean will get short shrift in the balancing of security relations between the U.S. and countries in Central and South America, and those in the Caribbean, which are smaller and relatively less important.
As Jorge DomRnguez rightly observed, the Caribbean now has lesser military importance in world affairs, although there remains some significant military issues in the region. (Note 9) Yet, the end of the Cold War does not obliterate the strategic value of the Caribbean. As was shown, the region's strategic significance is reflected in economic, geographic, and communications attributes that have transcended East-West geopolitics, even though they were affected significantly by it during the Cold War. And as will be seen, the Caribbean is not only of strategic importance to states, but also to non-state actors, notably the drug barons.
ECONOMIC RELATIONSHIPS
Allied to the military-political changes attendant upon the end of the Cold War are alterations in the structure and operation of economic power relationships. The profundity of actual and anticipated economic power changes has been such that one scholar was able to popularize a concept he coined to capture the scope and depth of economic power relations in the new global environment- geo-economics, the mixture of the logic of conflict with the methods of commerce. Edward Luttwak is convinced that the new strategic environment will be such that "as the relevance of military threats and military alliances wanes, geo-economic priorities and modalities are becoming dominant in state actions." (Note 10) He expects that both the causes and instruments of conflict will be economic.
The movement toward the formation of economic blocs around the world is one important manifestation of global economic power alteration. The European Union now boasts a unified market of 320 million consumers, and ASEAN (the Association of Southeast Asian Nations), with some 420 million people, agreed in January 1992 to create a free-trade area as a precursor to establishment of a common market. Original plans called for an ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA) by January 1, 2003, but ASEAN members are now aiming for January 2000, following the counsel of Brunei's Sultan at the September 1995 meeting of ASEAN Council of Economic Ministers. Closer to home there is NAFTA, with annual production of over $6 trillion and some 387 million consumers in Canada, Mexico, and the United States.
One appreciable consequence of this megabloc phenomenon for the Caribbean is the potential reduction or even loss of economic assistance, foreign investment, and preferential trading arrangements. Concerning NAFTA, for example, there is justified fear that the anticipated increase in trade resulting from the removal of trade barriers in Mexico will help displace U.S. trade with Caribbean countries and reduce the benefits of tariff preferences under schemes like the Caribbean Basin Initiative, the General Scheme of Preferences, and Section 936 of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code, the last of which is dying a slow death. And this is only one of several policy and institutional concerns with economic and political security implications.
The megabloc phenomenon with its varied implications comes at a particularly unpropitious time for the region, given the cumulative impact of the global and regional turbulence, which includes depressed banana, bauxite, and sugar production, high public debt, and high unemployment. A former Deputy Secretary-General of the Latin American Economic System observed:
The dawn of a new era of heightened economic competition in which industrial countries are adopting a less concessional approach to developing countries on trade and economic matters generally coincides with an almost loss of geopolitical appeal for Caribbean countries. . . . It is important for Caribbean Community societies to recognize that the nature of the challenge goes even beyond NAFTA. . . . It relates much more to the requirements of the current global economic environment of increased competition, to which NAFTA is itself a response. (Note 11)
RETHINKING POLICY PRIORITIES
The military-political changes caused by the end of the Cold War and the megabloc phenomenon have had both causal and consequential links to the third general feature of the new strategic environment that is critical to the Caribbean: policy reprioritization by big and middle powers that once considered the Caribbean to be important to them, and or by countries on which Caribbean states placed importance. Noteworthy in this respect are the United States, Britain, and Venezuela, which is also Caribbean in the Caribbean Basin definition of the region.
Reprioritizing by these countries is the result of several factors, sometimes acting in combination. These include budgetary constraints, economic recession, shifting foreign policy focus, the demand by domestic constituencies for more attention to domestic concerns, and leadership changes which may cause policy reevaluation. In the United States, for example, the 1994 congressional onslaught by the Republicans has led to the articulation of and efforts to implement the Contract with America, a document with considerable quasi-isolationist overtones.
In tangible terms, the things just cited have meant reduced aid, aid reallocation, preferential trade readjustment, reduced foreign investment guarantees, and diplomatic downgrading of some Caribbean countries. For example, the withdrawal by the British of their military garrison in Belize was prompted by both budgetary difficulties and a review of British foreign and security policy toward Central America and the Caribbean. This action has had a dual effect: increased vulnerability of Belize to territorial and political sovereignty violation by Guatemala, and reduced Belizean capacity for credible responses to narcotics production and trafficking.
When the United States slashed its 1990 aid package to Jamaica to augment its aid to Poland, more important than the sum of money involvedC$20 million-was the symbolism of the action. Moreover, in May 1994 the U.S. State Department explained that it planned to close embassies in Antigua-Barbuda and Grenada because of the strategic insignificance of those countries, and partly "to shift resources to Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union." It took congressional pressure, especially from the Black Caucus, to reverse the decision on Grenada. The embassy there will remain open, for the time being. (Note 12) Lobbying, however, is not expected to succeed with the United States Information Agency (USIA), which announced in fall 1995 the closure in 1996 of its offices in Suriname, Belize, and Guyana. (Note 13) The Guyana office was closed in March 1996. The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has also closed its Eastern Caribbean office, which was located in Barbados.
Not all countries of importance to the region have been reducing their tangible interaction with the region, though. France and Spain are notable in this regard, although Spain's involvement has been narrowly focused, mainly on Cuba and the Dominican Republic. There are also a few countries that are taking new or renewed interest in the region, Japan and South Korea among them. Nevertheless, the value of the lost interest seems to far outweigh that of the new/renewed relationships. More than this, the Caribbean's diminished importance based on reprioritization is not limited to actions by states. Some nonstate actors, such as foundations and multinational corporations, are also acting accordingly.
A special note is needed about Canada. Although Canada has been forced to reduce aid because of budgetary problems, its trade relations with Cuba have grown over recent years. Quite understandable, then, is Canada's strident criticism of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act, popularly known at the Helms-Burton Act, which was signed by President Bill Clinton on March 12, 1996. Canada's Caribbean interests extend beyond Cuba, although Canada has long had a "soft spot" for the Commonwealth Caribbean, which forces it to strive to maintain credible levels of aid, trade preferences, and technical assistance.
The most recent reflection of this is the Communique of the Canada-CARICOM Summit, held March 3-5, 1996 in Grenada. Among other things, the Communique indicated that "Prime Minister ChrJtien confirmed that Canada was seeking from the World Trade Organization (WTO) an extension of the waiver granted from its current preferential trade agreement, CARIBCAN. He also expressed his intention to explore the incorporation into CARIBCAN of those products which are currently excluded from the arrangement."(Note 14) The Communique also identified Canada's continuing assistance in such varied areas as debt management, small business development, the environment, drugs, and regional security.
Return to NDU Homepage
INSS Homepage
What's New