When one observes the disastrous economic condition of certain European countries, and the fiscal indiscipline of the Eurozone states that has brought some of them to the brink of collapse, you begin to see similarities with Caricom governments.

Apart from the dire economic conditions of the small-island Caribbean states and the three mainland-located Caricom members, it is shameless that the Caricom situation has been allowed to reach a crisis level before one leader, Dr Ralph Gonzales, has had the fortitude to speak about the deplorable indifference to the parlous state of governance in Caricom.

The charge of indifference or implementation deficit is fair, when one considers the number of studies on governance which have been conducted; some were of a high calibre while others were without merit. Many of the Caribbean’s most learned intelligentsia have contributed to worthy initiatives: Sir Shridath Ramphal, Alister McIntyre, Professor Vaughn Lewis, Jimmy Moss-Solomon, Rickey Singh, Sir Ronald Sanders, Owen Arthur, and PJ Patterson, to name a few who comprise a wealth of Caribbean intelligence, but to little avail.

To avoid further diversion, there must be established a central purpose and method to bring the regional group back to the narrow path of governance towards unity and stability, which are basic requirements of a well organised and managed coalition of Caricom states, moving together towards the same goals. The goals set in the past, we are now being told by the Secretary General Irwin LaRocque, were “overambitious and unrealistic”. He is quoted as saying “that the 2015 target (for establishment of the CSME) will not be met”. We made then, as we continue to make now, the same mistake we made in 1989 at Grand Anse. We set ourselves over-ambitious and unrealistic targets, which by their very nature doom us to apparent failure when they are not met. He continued: “The world is not waiting on us. But what I am suggesting is that we must set targets which take into account not only the necessity and urgency of achieving the goal, but equally important, what it takes to get there and the resources available to us to do so.”

What an astounding revelation and awesome condemnation of those that comprised the Conference of Heads of Government that put their seal of approval on such flawed “over-ambitious and unrealistic targets” that were apparently doomed to fail. Where were the management tools, namely strategic planning, risk management, impact and viability studies that must have been a pre-requisite to such far-reaching and pre-eminent decisions of state? Similar concerns have been echoed in equally revealing articles by Ronald Sanders and Rickey Singh in the Sunday Observer of February 26.

Now that Caricom, like Humpty Dumpty “has had a great fall”, how do we pick up the pieces to put Caricom together again before it crumbles like the proverbial cookie? One constructive suggestion by the secretary general is for “the regional private sector in general to become more involved in partnership with governments, the secretariat and related agencies and institutions to make a reality of the primary objectives of Caricom as outlined in the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas, currently being reformed. For many years, this has been advocated but to no avail, as the conference preferred to act in isolation, and on the rare occasions that private sector representation was granted it was simply a symbolic gesture. Over the years there have been endless reports, including studies and recommendations on unification of the 15 member states, to achieve economies of scale and solidarity when dealing with third countries in a globalised world. All the recommendations, including Federation, Confederation and a Caribbean Commission, have been unacceptable. In light of this crisis, pray tell what configuration would be acceptable to the Conference of Heads of Government?

The state of suspended animation, the “pause”, does little to improve the region’s image abroad and distinctly hampers our posture in negotiations with foreign countries. Vacillation has already resulted with the region being overtaken by the world recession, thus compounding its difficulties. The region’s problems and suggested remedies have been fully and clearly ventilated in all media. What is expected of conference at their inter-sessional meeting in Suriname March 8-9 is to examine the report of the Project Management Team, which deals with the reorganisation of the secretariat, and then release it in the public domain, along with dynamic strategies to restart and re-energise the region’s forward momentum. Failure to change the status quo would create intensified regional tensions, likely to prompt fragmentation of the community, according to the maxim that if “the centre cannot hold things fall apart”.

With Brussels appointing a director to oversee Greece’s fiscal and monetary management by their officials responsible for implementing the latest bailout provisions, indicates their belief that oversight is essential given the past diversions that reflected a high degree of profligacy. The need for executive oversight is similarly seen with Brussels soon to appoint supervisors to observe fiscal and monetary activities of Eurozone countries, which has proved to be a bitter pill for them to swallow. These appointments are similar to the recommendation in the West Indian Commission report of 1992, Time for Action, which called for the appointment of a three-member Executive Commission to facilitate the decisions of the conference and drive implementation forward. It still remains the best recommendation on the table so far, and should be implemented.