Are we included in ‘America First?’   | THE STAR

You may have heard the adage that from the mouth of babes is usually the unvarnished truth.  I was conscripted by friends to write on what is Saint Lucia and the wider Eastern Caribbean doing, and ought to do, in response to the policy initiatives of the Trump presidency.  I asked the younger of my twin daughters how I should write such a topic and her suggestion was I “start with Trump. He is topical and attracts attention, whether he is right or wrong.” She is still just 11 and obviously wise beyond her years.

I am sure most would have either seen or heard about the 100 days in office interview President Trump did, with ABC reporter Terry Moran. It started off with the President referencing whom he thought to be iconic US presidents. He included George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt, James Monroe and Ronald Reagan.  Monroe was the 5^th US President and accurately, President Trump noted that he was especially remembered for the Monroe Doctrine—which Trump declared “pretty important.”

For the purposes of this article, there are two main principles of the 1823 Monroe Doctrine of relevance as we attempt to understand US policy motivations: 1) The United States would not tolerate further colonisation of puppet monarchs in the Western Hemisphere. 2) Any intervention in the political affairs of the Americas by foreign powers is a potentially hostile act against the United States.

What the Monroe Doctrine implies is that the US assumed hegemonic status in the western hemisphere by “understanding” that any political interference in another State would be perceived as a hostile act against the US.  But with history, a singular fact, while true, must be appreciated within the fullness of other prevailing facts. In attempting to achieve a full appreciation, we should also note the articulation of Manifest Destiny in 1845 that asserted that US expansion was justified and inevitable. President Trump’s justification Roosevelt’s place of honour on his wall was that he had been a four termer, a war president, and own “a pretty serious president.” Remarkably, President Trump neglected to say that due to the articulation of the Monroe Doctrine and Manifest Destiny—and accompanying extra-territorial actions—the US put forward the Good Neighbour Policy stated by President Roosevelt in his inaugural address on March 4, 1933: “In the field of world policy I would dedicate this nation to the policy of the good neighbour—the neighbour who resolutely respects himself and, because he does so, respects the rights of others.”  

In December 1933, in keeping with presidential policy, the then US Secretary of State Cordell Hull attended the Montevideo Conference where he backed a declaration that already had majority support: “No state has the right to intervene in the internal or external affairs of another.”  If we were to misrepresent the Monroe Doctrine as support for self-determination in the Western Hemisphere, we should also ignore the fact of the Platt Amendment granted the United States the right to intervene to preserve internal stability or if independence was abrogated in Cuba. We should also ignore the fact that on 17 December 1914, US Marines disembarked from the USS Machaias in Port-Au-Prince and essentially stole the equivalent of $50 million worth of gold from Haiti’s national bank that belonged to the Haitian Government, under the pretence that Haiti may have a balance of payments problem for which there was no evidence.  Since I will make this a rational approach to understanding US policy, these important facts cannot and should not be ignored.  The examples of occurrences in El Salvador, Guatemala, Panama Grenada and in Haiti again need not be exhaustively itemised, but rest assured they lend evidence to the static nature of US involvement in the region. 

In today’s reality, we certainly have the option to ignore historical antecedents and facts by claiming the inconvenient truths to be “fake history.”  After all, worse has been done on a daily basis these days.  But let’s not too swiftly stick our fingers into our ears, or our palms over our eyes while claiming the truth to be the devil and demanding he/she get behind us.

The inevitability of the interconnectivity of globalisation was captured by former Canadian Prime Minister and friend of the Eastern Caribbean Pierre Trudeau, when he said: “Living next to you is in some ways like sleeping with an elephant. No matter how friendly and even-tempered is the beast, if I can call it that, one is affected by every twitch and grunt.” 

Maybe Trudeau was referring to the special relationship between the US and Canada.  But on 27 March 2025, before Mark Carny was overwhelmingly elected to be the next Canadian Prime Minister, he clearly stated in response to US Monroe Doctrine expansionism that Canada would become the 51^st state, that “the old relationship we had with the United States based upon deepening integration of our economies and tight security and military cooperation; is over.”

So now, let’s take stock of the US’s relationship with us in Saint Lucia and the wider Eastern Caribbean. From the 1980’s manufacturing was moving to Haiti, Mexico, and Asia.  The Caribbean Basin Initiative (CBI) and CBI+ were essentially subsumed into the notion of multilateral regional trading agreements.  Trade with other countries was largely based upon bilateral agreements seeking “most favoured nation” status or special and differential treatment within a truly globalised world that was governed by the World Trade Organisation.  

Speaking of the WTO, we should note that the US backed their multi-national companies in Central America that sought to end our trading arrangements with the UK.  Let us, for the purpose of full disclosure, recall that while our banana market share was considerably smaller than those of Chiquita, Dole and Delmonte, singularly, and especially collectively, oligopolistic market control appeared to be the goal of the US-backed multinational companies.  Also, of notable importance in understanding US policy goals, and our place within these policies, is in 2005 Antigua and Barbuda won a WTO challenge against the US for illegally attempting to control their online gambling services. Thereafter the US appeared to disregard the WTO as the body to advance the agenda of free trade that benefitted them (when rulings did not go in their favour).

We wrongly assumed NAFTA would be a successor to CBI+ but quickly learnt it was not even for our consideration.  The US has Ship Rider agreements across the region extending their ability to deploy and operate their coast guard outside their territorial waters. We in turn benefit from having our coast guard financially supported and be able to participate in US sponsored training.  But that has not happened in Saint Lucia for over a decade due to the activation of the Leahy Law that refers to a set of U.S. laws that “restrict security assistance to security forces units that have been implicated in human rights violations.”  (For now, let us avoid being distracted by references to ORC, IMPACS, etc.)  USAID is no more, and our air routes remain dependent on US carriers and decrees from the US Federal Aviation Authority.  Our shipping to, and more from the US, is controlled by the company Tropical Shipping.  (Does Tropical Shipping still sit on the board of SLASPA?) During the first incarnation of the Trump presidency, he made objectively déclassé reference to Haiti, our family within CARICOM, as a “shithole country.”  While we may be able to offer many criteria to differentiate ourselves from Haiti and the Haitian people, we should ask the important question: Do we want to delude ourselves that the US sees or treats us as any different from what was described as a shithole country?

Yes, it does seem that we have found ourselves between the proverbial rock and a harder place. Some more than others. While the father of our independence, Sir John Compton, famously managed our foreign policy at the height of the Cold War with appropriate dictum, I, as we must all, accept that the global landscape has greatly changed to a multi-polar reality that necessitates fundamental adaptations for success.  While it appears that President Trump gravitates toward the allure of past realities, a multi-polar reality necessitates that like Canada, the Eastern Caribbean must accept that the past relationship with the US may have been undeniable but “toxic.”  

There have been periods when it was good, but in the general long run there are manifest differences that require counselling.  But one thing remains undeniably true: the US has, and has continued to act in their own interest.  Again, there is nothing wrong with that. Every country does, or should act for their own better interests (even when acting collectively, the better interests is still served).

Regarding the remedial options available to us, I will address in my next article, but a phrase comes to mind. Whether attributed to Rita Mae Brown or to Albert Einstein, “Insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result,” appears accurately to describe the reality of our policy execution.  Must we also ask ourselves whether we, as an independent nation, or regional grouping, are resistant to change?  Is it possible that we may metaphorically steer away from the impending crash? Or must we just prepare for the crash, accepting it at the cost of driving on someone else’s roads? When President Trump reminds his citizens of his America First mantra, are we in the region misguided in believing that in his understanding we constitute America?

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.