Chasing Red Herrings | THE STAR

There is an old phrase that a photo or painting is worth a thousand words; I assumed the same would be true with emoji’s and how young people communicate.  Last week when seeking consent to reference my daughter, I sent her a draft of the article to read in between her romance languages homework.  Her response was ? for which I quickly realised I did not understand emoji.  So much for these pictures being worth a thousand words.  Nonetheless, when we did speak, she offered her consent as follows; ‘sure dad, I like how you mentioned me and I am now going to be famous.’

In the last article, I discussed the consistency of US policy that was, and essentially remains expansionist, neo-colonial and unapologetically self-serving.  But I do appreciate the self-portrait presented is one of benevolent support and regard, supposedly grounded in a strict adherence to the principles of modern diplomacy.  Again, the reality differs from the picture painted.  The question posed from last week, which I know I am yet to answer; is what can we do in response to Trump 2.0 policy initiatives?  Like the emoji from my daughter that I did not understand, for the benefit of those who do not have a background in international relations, I hope now to build a shared understanding.

To appreciate policy prescriptions, let us begin by achieving a shared definition of three important concepts: foreign policy, globalisation and soft power.  We start with foreign policy. Britannica offers some guidance in this regard by noting that “the development of foreign policy is influenced by domestic considerations, the policies or behaviour of other states, or plans to advance specific geopolitical designs.”  In other words, foreign policy begins with the domestic agenda that is internationally articulated, while adapting for the character and motivations of other States.

Globalisation “in international relations, refers to the increasing interconnectedness and interdependence of nations, driven by the flow of goods, services, capital, information, and people across borders.”  But in summary, globalisation means that the world trades and States rely upon one another other. 

Due to globalisation that creates interconnectedness and the flow of people, ideas, culture, and goods across borders, it results in one State’s ability to influence policy in another.  In the 1980s, Joseph S. Nyr Jr. titled this ability to influence “soft power.”  In simpler terms, soft power is the ability to indirectly manipulate or control the attitudes and circumstances of other states to [your] benefit. While there is an etymological debate on the differentiations or lack thereof between power and influence, and whether soft power actually refers to influence; for the purposes of this article, I will not be adding to that discourse here.

Foreign Policy, Globalisation, & Soft Power

Ultimately, the national agenda of Small Island Developing States (SIDS) has invariably remained economic development.  As such, the objective of foreign policy within this context is to manage the variables of globalisation and soft power, and therein execute policy in the better interest of the state to achieve economic development.  Given this goal and understanding, let us now examine how the pursuit of economic development is impacted by another State’s exercise of soft power to enhance its own policy execution.

Earlier, I stated that the US’s self-portrait presented was one of “benevolent support and regard, grounded in a strict adherence to the principles of modern diplomacy.”  Unlike my daughter’s use of an emoji, we have long been taught by the US to view them benevolently, due to their exercise of soft power, and the attending neo-colonial ties that bind us through globalisation.  But let us examine how and why a State cultivates a reputation, and motivates another to act contrary to its own best interests.  This is achieved through the use of Official Developmental Assistance (ODA), controlling access to finance, controlling of the media and the flow of information, and through cultural dominance.  But most important is the perpetuation of the belief that working together is in the common interest.  Too seldom has there been independent consideration, whether the collective goal is actually shared, and even when not shared, we toe the line because we dare not offer a dissenting voice lest we jeopardise attending benevolence.

Official Developmental Assistance, the benevolent gratuitous contributions to another State’s development.  What is less known are the complex conditionalities that somehow saw in many cases a large percentage of these funds return to the donor country.  Curious how that would happen?  Take, for example, the United Kingdom.  The now defunct Department for International Development (DfID) was found, following a 2012 Sunday Telegraph, that the organisation was paying hundreds of millions of pounds to a group comprising primarily of UK-based consultants, some of whom earn six- or seven-figure incomes and, as former government employees, did the same in the consultancies as when previously employed with the department.

So obscene was the ODA “fraud” that the consultants in question were commonly titled “poverty barons.”  In essence, the consultancy fees at inflated rates became the larger portion of the assistance package staying within the donor country.  (Somehow the concepts of lacking good governance and corruption only seem to apply to the Caribbean and Africa!)  Nonetheless, another strategy is to require that all the raw materials and contractors be from an approved list of suppliers from the donor country.  So ingrained and commonplace had the idea of ODA benefitting the donor country, we within the region practiced the same.  One may recall a known politician within the region saying in 2010 that Trinidad and Tobago expected to get something back for any aid given to CARICOM colleagues following a natural disaster.

Another means to manage perception is through media manipulation.  We watch US news every night, listen to foreign music, we even become emotionally invested in US politics, expressing preferences—sometimes with greater passion than demonstrated by US citizens.  We are influenced in our purchasing patterns and habits by advertisements on US television and other media, and we are socialised into values not of our own.  The more advanced in years among readers will recall how US news told us our coconut oil was particularly unhealthy.  Our coconut industry thereafter died an unnatural death as we rushed to the supermarkets to purchase imported seed and corn oils produced in the US because, presumably, they were a superior product because they were foreign.  So common has been the pattern, that now we note that any coconut-based product fetches premium prices in Europe and North America—and their value to good health declared to be far beyond the ordinary. 

These new revelations, all after our industry is no more.  Bob Marley popularised the concept of “mental slavery,” which finds appropriate parallel in appreciating the efficacy of soft power, and the debate of whether we as a people suffer from a misplaced identity.  Permit me a tangent of two rhetorical questions; 1) how would we describe ourselves as a people or a nation if shown the current picture of ourselves?  2)  Would that description be of our own accord, or one programmed into us to regurgitate it?

Still on the topic of the exercise of soft power, an important aspect to controlling wishes, wants and thoughts, is the financial control that results (some have termed this a form of financial recolonisation).  Ironically, financial independence remains an elusive goal when the national agenda and primary focus of foreign policy is economic development. Especially within a globalised economy.  This fact has for decades been the logical backbone of proponents for localised or “South/South” cooperation programmes and partnerships that give life to a multi-polar reality.  The fact of the Eastern Caribbean dollar being pegged at a fixed exchange rate to the US dollar fuses our financial destiny to that of the United States.  While there has been political criticism of this, the macro-economic logic of a currency being pegged to that of its largest trading partner assures the consumer some protection from cost fluctuations and balance of payment issues that may arise, and is generally a sound policy decision. 

It should, however be noted that a pegged currency does not offer insulation from inflation.  The topics of “financial colonisation,” South/South cooperation, and BRICS will be more exhaustively discussed in future articles.  They are mentioned at this point only for reference.

We have discussed the role of the media, ODA and the exercise of soft power in meaningfully forging policy alignment. Let us also quickly now examine how further exposed are our economies and how susceptible we may be to foreign influence, or in many cases, control.  We would have read or heard about the use of financial tools such as banking standards, reporting requirements, and corresponding banking relationships that are necessary to facilitate global integration, and loom ominously as our Sword of Damocles.

Standards are not an inherently a negative thing, they are certainly necessary, but if standards are not democratically determined as through the largely marginalised United Nations General Assembly (UNGA), evidence suggests that the goal tends to benefit the powerful few who determine these standards (Bretton Woods countries).  Saint Lucia’s International Financial Services, and now the Citizenship by Investment (CBI) are all threatened due to our lack of control or a democratic say in our financial destinies.  For clarity, I do not believe any State is independent.  Rather, we are all interdependent.  Accepting our interdependence, there are nonetheless many lessons to be learned from answering the question, what can be done to inoculate our economies and countries from undue external interest at our expense?

Under Trump 2.0, the reality of globalisation is not changing. Rather, the veneer of benevolence that previously shone brightest appears to be disappearing.  The “tariff war” with China (and the world) highlights the fact of how interconnected we are and that we to need to insulate our economies from arbitrary tariff impositions, as we continue to purchase from the US that stopped being a major producer a long time ago.  I was asked before committing to do these articles, ‘why is a US tariff on Chinese goods affecting the price we pay in Saint Lucia?’  The short answer is that the goods in question are likely being purchased from a US-based wholesaler or retailer, who in turn purchases from the People’s Republic of China.  Related to this, current shipping routes and the availability of port facilities as alluded to in the previous article, and the fact that transportation routes we subscribe to are defined to benefit the hub of Florida, and not the Caribbean region.

Let us do a quick recap: foreign policy is derived from our domestic agenda and common realities.  To execute a foreign policy, we need to take into consideration the fact of globalisation.  Noting that each country seeks its own better interests (as they should!) they seek through soft power to influence the domestic agenda of other States that in turn impact the strategic alignment of these States’ foreign policies to match their own.  History is replete with a plethora of examples that illustrates the fact that it has more been the illusion of strategic alignment that has prevailed, rather than real partnerships.

The news that the US and the People’s Republic of China had agreed a 90-day easing of the tariff debacle, has afforded us relief that we can continue doing little of substance to mitigate against possible future action.  However, the reality of the situation should compel us to accept that circumstances have irrevocably changed, and that we can ill afford to ignore the impending doom that lay in wait.  This reality includes the fact that Saint Lucia maintains a trade deficit with the US, and the People’s Republic of China is our second largest trading partner for whom we have no direct trading routes.  Curiously, we are familiarly again not party to the negotiations, but make no mistake about it, we are, and will be impacted by the outcome.

Too small to matter

What are our response options when we have repeatedly been told that we are too small to matter, and under most circumstances that may be begrudgingly true?  Smallness of size does not however mean that appropriate steps to mitigate against insignificance are impossible.

Let us use an analogy to catalogue the arguments presented against proactivity.  If we are travelling from the south to the north of the island, and learn of a traffic build-up in Castries, would you not use an alternative route to by-pass the traffic congestion?  I doubt the response would be to console oneself with the fact that hours must be spent in traffic wasting petrol and say, ‘it’s probably raining up north so I might as well be delayed until the rain stops.’  This clearly is not common thinking, so why should we embrace a foreign policy that justifies inconvenience with thanks, and where and how did the rain up north come into this discourse.?  The ‘rain up north’ that magically found itself a factor in decision making are the ‘red herrings’ used to derail effective third-party foreign policy.  I will not go into what these red herrings have traditionally tended to be now, as I am sure any I list will detract from the thematic solvency of this article, but nonetheless an example would be “enslaved Cuban medical professionals.”

Better Together

Having discussed foreign policy, globalisation, and the various means by which soft power is exerted, and the compelling need to proactively engage, I offer some solutions that would secure a more independent policy and future, and are reflective of native considerations. Some of the recommendations are not new. Some things we previously had and now have lost.

Aware that the list will provoke emotional and even visceral responses, I nonetheless commend them here as follows:Indigenously owned regional transport by air and sea.

Freedom of movement of capital and people. (Follow the lead of the OECS.  The wider CARICOM needs to actually catch up but the idea of 1 from 10 equals 0 remains a debilitatingly divisive concept keeping us apart.) Coordination of foreign policy (CARICOM Council on Foreign Relations (COFCOR) needs to serve a greater purpose). Respect other State’s domestic affairs and stay out of it – a basic principle of international relations and a key aspect of the US’s 1933 Good Neighbour Policy. Diversify our trading partners and in most cases attempt to cut out the middle man/country.  Diversify does not mean moving all eggs into the proverbial single different basket, it means simultaneously having more than one basket of eggs in different hands, and in most cases requires expansion. Manage the risk of pegging the EC$ to the US$ to reflect the need for diversified trading relationships and the de-dollarisation trend. Develop a regional food/nutrition safety board. Invest into renewable technology changing the primary function of energy providers to transmission, storage & management, and emergency back-up power generation

The policy recommendations are many, from broad categories.  In my next feature I will delve into some of the recommendations by explaining their historical antecedents and why they were offered as viable options to achieve the required policy flexibility. Earlier in this article I rhetorically questioned how would we describe ourselves as a people or a nation if shown the current picture?  Unlike the emoji from my daughter that I did not understand, we have over the years been taught to see ourselves and our foreign policy options in a manner and light that requires reassessment.  I should hasten to note the current administration is actively investigating opportunities and options, for which I offer my best regards.

I wonder what my daughter’s advice or comment will be when I consult her on the next article.  Maybe she should be my co-author.  Whichever it is, I will be certain to let you know.

About the Author:  Tafawa Williams is a political analyst and international public policy professional with a 27-year record of leadership in innovation and service to the international community.