McNair Paper Number 54, Preface, October 1996

As the 21st century approaches, the international community continues to grapple with the consequences of major shifts in the security environment. The world we now live in is a paradox: political integration and community fragmentation; expanding transnationalism and rising nationalism; unimaginable wealth and unspeakable poverty; high-tech militaries and low-tech conflicts; decreasing military spending and expanding use of defense resources. In this complex environment, the United States is debating its global role and security priorities for the 21st century.

The United States' evolving security priorities must include a workable relationship with our neighbors in the hemisphere, particularly the sovereign nations and European territories in the Caribbean.

Before we embark on a new Caribbean policy, it would be constructive to reflect on past U.S. "policies" toward the Caribbean. Such reflection is necessary to understand the contextCand biasesCof past policies, and the legacy we live with as a result of those policies.

The United States has had a long, yet inconsistent, security interest in the Caribbean. In fact, America's security relationship with the Caribbean predates the early days of the War of Independence. The American colonists relied heavily on weapons and gunpowder purchased from sympathetic Dutch merchants on the Caribbean island of St. Eustatius to keep their fledgling rebellion alive. On November 16, 1776, St. Eustatius became the first foreign territory to recognize the rebellious 13 colonies as a legitimate independent nation when the U.S. Brig-of-War, the General Sheehan is Commander in Chief, U.S. Atlantic Command, and Supreme Allied Commander, Atlantic.

Andrew Doria-carrying a copy of the Declaration of Independence to deliver to the island's Governor and flying the red-and-white striped flag of the Continental Congress-fired the traditional salute while entering the port of St. Eustatius. Under the Governor's orders, the guns of the island's fort returned the salute in ritual response.

Since that day, American and Caribbean security interests have been linked. For most of that time, the United States has viewed the Caribbean as a possible arena for subversion or larger conflicts involving nonregional powers-British, French, Spanish, German or Soviet. That paradigm remained from our War for Independence, through the days of the Monroe Doctrine, to the Spanish-American War, the U-boat campaigns in both World Wars, and finally the Cold War and the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Despite concern about subversion by extra-regional actors, there had been a realization among U.S. policy makers that our greatest interests lay in the economic and political development of this hemisphere. However, from 1917 on, the fear that European powers-either German or Soviet, or their proxies-might establish a military foothold in the region, dominated our concerns and thus our hemispheric security policy. Some of the most significant events of this century that occurred in this hemisphere were the result of these global power struggles:

• The Zimmermann telegram that convinced the U.S. public that Germany was seeking Mexico's aid against the U.S. in return for assistance in helping Mexico regain its lost U.S. territory.

• Deadly Nazi U-boat attacks in the Caribbean, which in 1942 alone sent 336 allied merchant ships to the bottom.

• And, of course, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the closest the superpowers ever came to nuclear conflagration.

Until quite recently, most of Washington's Caribbean policies fell under the spell of our Cold War containment strategy, contributing to a legacy of U.S. military interventions in the Caribbean island nations. Today, with the exception of Cuba, we all enjoy democratic governments. This fact, together with the end of the Cold War, provides us an opportunity to develop a common vision of security that supports our mutual interests.

Fortunately, the United States now recognizes that the greatest threat from the Caribbean is instability. Obviously, the United States cannot ignore an unstable region on its periphery. While instability takes many forms, it usually has a political, economic, environmental, and criminal dimension. And, the most prominent symptom of instability is large-scale legal and illegal migration. In addition to the massive 1994 migrations from Cuba and Haiti, there are signs that migration is a regional problem. Using 1992 data, Elliott Abrams estimated the number of Caribbean Basin foreign nationals living in the U.S., as a percentage of total population from selected countries, varied from a low 1.5 percent for Costa Rica, to a high of 18 percent for Grenada. Five other Caribbean Basin countries-Belize, Guyana, Antigua & Barbuda, Barbados, and Jamaica-had figures of or near 15 percent. Obviously, this trend cannot continue indefinitely, and it is clearly in U.S. interest for all Caribbean nations to succeed economically and politically.

In February of 1995, President Clinton unveiled the new National Security Strategy of Engagement and Enlargement. In this important document, President Clinton highlighted the December 1994 "Summit of the Americas" in Miami as the stimulus for a new Caribbean Strategy. I attended the Summit of the Americas as Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Atlantic Command. It was impressive to see representatives from this hemisphere's 34 democratic nations agree to a detailed plan of cooperative action in such diverse fields as health, education, counter-narcotics, environmental protection, information infrastructure, and the strengthening and safeguarding of democratic institutions, in addition to mutual prosperity and sustainable development.

Only a few years earlier, it would have been unthinkable that 34 sovereign nations in our hemisphere could agree on a common vision and a set of common principles to pursue that vision. It was clear to me that these representatives were talking about the security concerns of the twenty-first centuryCeconomic growth, free trade, environmental protection, law enforcement cooperation against drug trafficking cartels, and political stability. Gone were the major twentieth century concerns about Marxist-Leninist regimes, foreign subversion, or leftist guerrilla insurgencies. Security today means an economic and political response, with the military playing only a supporting role.

Nor was the Summit of the Americas an isolated event. Since that meeting, the themes of the Summit of the Americas have been reaffirmed in other regional forums, such as the annual Caribbean Island Nations Security Conference CINSEC in Santo Domingo in 1995 and in Barbados in 1996, and the Defense Ministerial of the Americas, held in Williamsburg, Virginia, in July 1995.

The language of the new U.S. strategy, and the tone from the conferences indicate that the United States and our Caribbean neighbors now view security in an integrated regional context, and more important, as a cooperative venture among our nations.

Although the Caribbean is a relatively peaceful region compared to the Middle East, Africa, or the Balkans, its diversity in language, history, and sociocultural characteristics make it particularly challenging for American policy makers.

While Cuba, the Dominican Republic, and Puerto Rico share a common language and history, most of the Caribbean island nations have few linguistic, cultural, or security ties with "Latin America." Rather, these nations trace their culture and history to Africa and to non-Spanish-speaking Europe, and their strongest hemispheric affiliations today are with Canada and the United States. We must recognize and appreciate these differences if we are to build the level of cooperation required to tackle the hard security issues facing the islands-illegal migration, drug trafficking, disaster relief, environmental protection, economic self-sustainment-and build regional solutions like the Regional Security System and the CARICOM Battalion. If we are to prevent regional instability and build common security goals among this diverse group of nations, we must set the tone in the region by recognizing each island nation's unique history, characteristics, and, most important, sovereignty.

The following McNair Paper by Dr. Ivelaw Griffith, one of the foremost scholars on Caribbean affairs, provides a balanced account of the events in the 1970s and 1980s that defined the U.S.-Caribbean security relationship during the later years of the Cold War. He discusses the impact of the Cold War on the U.S.-Caribbean security relationship, and Caribbean responses designed to balance cooperation with the U.S. and other regional powers in areas of mutual interest, while at the same time protecting their sovereignty.

He also shows how the end of the Cold War has fundamentally changed the way we view not only security, but also each other as partners in an emerging interdependent security relationship. Rather than a "rogues gallery" of communist dictators, revolutionaries, and terrorists, the key Caribbean actors today, with the possible exception of ruthless and well-heeled drug traffickers, are transitional and amorphous political and economic forces that lead to instability, illegal migration, and environmental destruction.

Dr. Griffith's McNair Paper, the first ever on the Caribbean, will help interested readers re-examine their views of the new U.S.-Caribbean security relationship. It suggests how the U.S., Canada, and others should work with our Caribbean neighbors to promote stability, development, and democracy, and take advantage of the historic opportunity before us to build a lasting regional security system that benefits all nations in the hemisphere.

The stakes are high for all in the region. Future generations will profit or suffer depending on how well we understand the legacy of our shared past, seize the tremendous opportunities of the present, and plan accordingly for their future. However, in these resource-constrained times, we must continue to integrate these programs to provide the most benefit for every dollar invested in the region. Fortunately, the U.S. has a number of bilateral agreements with our European and Caribbean allies on which to build. These are increasing the effectiveness of the Caribbean counternarcotics effort. Our shift in emphasis from anti-insurgency training to preparing Caribbean militaries, coast guards, and police to work together is appropriate and has already paid dividends. Soldiers from the CARICOM Battalion patrolled the streets of Haiti along with Bangladeshi, Canadian, U.S. and other U.N. forces. They provided essential support in Haiti's struggle for democracy. Caribbean peacekeepers have demonstrated their ability to play an important role as part of "a coalition of the willing" thus opening other doors to regional cooperation.

Whether or not you agree with Dr. Griffith's observations and conclusions, his analysis provides an excellent basis for further study and discussion.