WAYNE KUBLALSINGH

ON JANUARY 1, Mia Mottley, the Prime Minister of Barbados, was appointed chair of Caricom. This bodes well for our collective future. The following are nine suggestions for a renewed, relevant, and resolute Caricom.

First, Mottley will only hold office as chair for six months. This limited time span makes it very difficult for her to accomplish significant change.

Constitutionally, Caricom needs to be augmented. It needs a chair who will be there for at least four to five years. And that chairperson ought not to be a working prime minister because of the commitments of office in her or his own member state.

The current six-month rotational system has to be replaced. Caricom needs continuity of leadership on a more permanent basis to put into effect long-term plans and vision.

Second, in her inauguration speech, Mottley stressed the need for greater unity in Caricom. One of the reasons for the disunity is the influence or perceived threats of global imperialistic or national powers.

Some governments are pro-US and are wary about deviating from the wishes of this global power. They exercise forced self-containment and restraint, continually looking behind their backs.

The US might want to control how they vote at UN sessions, for instance. In extreme instances, they become proxies, puppets, panderers, lapdog pets, putting their national or Caricom's interest after that of the US.

Additionally, there is also disunity in perceptions towards China. China is investing in its Belt and Road initiative in various countries of the Caribbean. Some members see China as a prospective imperialist threat.

One way to deal with this form of mixed perception, and therefore disunity, is to declare Caricom's non-alignment. That is a very sound strategic move to take. Once we declare non-alignment, we are relieved of having to continually look behind our backs. We clearly state this is our position. We are not aligned.

This does not necessarily mean that we may not critique either the West or the rising Asian or West Asian powers like Russia. It gives us the freedom to critique any side, but strongly insist on our non-alignment. This constitutes a very significant strategic move towards Caricom independence.

Third, national sovereignty is not inconsistent with being a good member in Caricom. We have seen Western European nations cede their powers to the European Parliament, to NATO, to the Americans, to the European Court of Justice, and they have withered down their powers. It has basically become a federation of weak partners.

This is not how Caricom ought to be. It should be a federation of strong states; you may only have a strong Caricom if you have strong members. You may not have a strong Caricom if you have weak members; national sovereignty must be accepted; some things just have to be done unilaterally. You can be a very strong nation, a very nationalistic nation, and equally a strong member of Caricom.

Fourth, Caricom ought to draft a 40 to 50-year plan outlining our