Several decades ago when I was in high school I had the privilege of representing my school in an inter-school debating competition. One of the topics had to do with the Organization of American States (OAS) and its ability to function as a democratic institution that could fulfil its mandate of promoting democracy in the Region. I certainly do not remember how the topic was framed, or on which side I argued at the time. What I do remember very well is the reference to the OAS then as the “shark among the sardines”, reflecting US power and control of the OAS and the extent to which it promoted a model of governance among members that functioned in accordance with its understanding of its role in the western hemisphere.

Over the years, nothing has changed, and so today the power relations have become even more marked. The issue in all of this is how do nations determined to be sardines — and even defined in more derogatory fashion in recent years — maintain their sense of integrity and self-determination and independence in this scenario?

In pursuing this path some nations have experienced political insurrection facilitated from without, the overthrow of governments, and the extradition of their elected leaders. As a nation, we too have seen how these power relations have been operative at various points in our history. How then do we pursue a path that is not just one of submission to sardine status but a people who have integrity, dignity, and self-respect?

To respond in a way that affirms the latter elements calls for the affirmation of certain values which find expression in the positions affirmed and defended within the nation and at the regional and international levels. Values also inform the moral positions that are determined to be representative of what we stand for and on what basis decisions are made. It seems, however, that the national position has become one of pragmatism. As a former leader of this nation asserted, “A nation without a moral conscience is a nation without a soul.” Pragmatism has been defined as a philosophical tradition that emphasises the practical consequences of ideas and actions as the basis of their meaning and truth. This philosophical position is not informed by any a priori set of values beyond the calculated perceived practical outcomes and the benefits to be derived from the same. The danger in the pursuit of such a position is that, even in the affairs of daily governance, values of social justice, equality, respect for all human beings, and the pursuit of the common good, can become secondary considerations in the interest of some perceived pragmatic end.

In recent weeks the world has seen such a demonstration on our part as a nation in the stance we have taken toward the barbarity and genocide taking place in Gaza at the hands of the Israeli Army at the direction of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. There is no question about the barbarity of the violence that was demonstrated by Hamas in their October 7, 2023 attack on Israel. And while Israel had a right to defend itself and to seek the return of all hostages, the response has horrified the world and broken international laws governing the conduct of war. The manner in which the war has been conducted with the targeting, killing, and maiming of over 60,000 civilians, especially women and children, as well as the destruction of the institutions of Gaza, including hospitals and educational institutions, all compounded by a deliberate starvation of citizens, is entirely reprehensible. In addition, while all of this has been going on there have been overt and covert conversations of total displacement of the Palestinians and Gaza being turned into a resort development for the rich, as well as affirmations by Netanyahu that there will never be a Palestinian State.

Jamaicans who have watched these things have been horrified by what they have been seeing and would expect that our national stance in the international forum would be one of objection to what is taking place, joining with the majority of the world that have called for the immediate ending of the war, while condemning the genocide that is taking place. We could not have expected any less of our nation, having been among the first nations to condemn the apartheid regime in South Africa in the 1960s and a blockade of trade and sports with its people as a way to bring down the racist regime. So effective and transparent was our stance that one of the first overseas visits made by Nelson Mandela after the fall of apartheid and the establishment of full adult suffrage was to Jamaica.

As a nation that has experienced hundreds of years of imperialism, enslavement, and colonialism, we should be ever conscious of the fact that our story was never told during this period because we were not the ones controlling the narrative. Thus, for example, the notion of Caribbean history did not become something of authentic value and worthy of discussion before the 1950s. The seeds were present in the philosophical reflections of Marcus Mosiah Garvey, but it took someone like historian and Prime Minister Eric Williams to give it early articulation. I would therefore caution us as a nation in seeking to understand and engage the war between Israel and the people of Gaza, and the Palestinians in general, to give due respect to the people involved, and allow each side the respect and dignity to tell their own stories of their history and their identity.

Today, as Jamaica looks over its shoulders to see what could be the next move of the shark with an eye on the national cash register, we have opt for pragmatism, absenting ourselves from crucial votes being taken at the UN in relation to Gaza, opting instead to be very much present to hear and be lectured by Netanyahu on the virtues of the war he has undertaken in Gaza.

The response from Jamaica’s Minister of Foreign Affairs Senator Kamina Johnson Smith, in suggesting that the path being pursued is that of diplomacy, misses the point that at some point diplomacy involves nonviolent means of applying pressure to bring about a resolution, and that is what the majority of nations of the world were demonstrating.

I must also express concern about the silence on what is transpiring in Gaza by sections of the Church. There are two things operative here. One is the level of ignorance among many Christians regarding the presence of Christians and Christian institutions in Gaza and the West Bank, assuming that the population is just one of Muslims, which means that among those massacred have been many Christians and Church workers, the destruction of churches and church institutions. The effect of this is that Christians are being effectively removed from the Holy Land. The second thing is that many are guided by a limited biblical and theological perspective that assumes that once Israel is mentioned it represents the favoured people of God, and whatever they do is representative of God’s design and will for today, forgetting that with God in Christ, there is today no distinction between Jew and gentile as the gospel is preached in the New Testament.

The Jewish community of faith has suffered anti-Semitism through the ages and it is still a current reality. The current war has complicated matters as the Jewish religious faith tradition in all it expressions is being seen as the same as the State of Israel, and which is not true. The State, while involving members of the faith community, is also a secular reality. The attack against Jews in cities across the world is unacceptable as is the attack against Christians or Muslims in such contexts. At the same time, disapproval of Natanyahu and his conduct of the war on Gaza cannot be equated with anti-Semitism.

Jamaica’s flirtation with pragmatism as a guiding principle for the conduct of international, regional and local affairs needs to be subject to greater scrutiny by citizens, and especially by the Christian community. Every morning as I participate in morning prayer as prescribed by my religious tradition, I pray for Jamaica in this way: “Lord, keep this nation under your care and guide us in the way of justice and truth.” Consistent with the national anthem, which is a prayer, what is being lifted up is the affirmation of some values which should not only define our national identity, but our humanity under God. What is of concern is the extent to which pragmatism often leads us to money and the economy as primary consideration.

For some Jamaicans this focus on pragmatism is simply an engagement in the luxury of semantic gymnastics, but for others it is a matter of life and death when practised within the daily round of the governance of the life of the nation. Thus, for example, the nation is in full support of the reduction of crime, especially murders, a situation heightened with the vicious murders of the past week. And yet, in the same week, the Independent Commission of Investigations (Indecom), in the tabling of an extensive special investigative report on planned police operations in Parliament on Tuesday, was very critical of police tactics being pursued amid a significant increase in the number of citizens killed in the exercise of planned operations. The Gleaner of October 8 in referring to the report offered the following observation: “From the low of 11 persons fatally wounded in 2021, to 76 in 2024, it represents a 591 per cent increase in deaths arising from planned police operations in 36 months.” Supported by examples of several incidents of police fatalities, it is a very troubling picture, except perhaps for those who see the end game being reduction in crime and the improvement in the business environment and a perception of an increased sense of security, unless perhaps you are members of the family of recent police fatality, Jahmar Farquharson of Cherry Tree Lane.

In recent weeks we have witnessed the conduct of war tactics in the Caribbean with the US military undertaking the bombing of what are conjectured to be Venezuelan drug smugglers in fishing boats. All of this taking place in a context in which Jamaica is party to agreements that are committed to keeping the Caribbean a war-free zone, even as there are voices within the governance of the US who have declared that the action is illegal. Is there a word that can be spoken regarding Jamaica’s position on this development and what it may mean for the Caribbean? Is Jamaica aligned with our Caricom colleagues on this matter, even as we were out of sync with their stance on Gaza? There has long been a strand of isolationism on Jamaica’s part in relation to our Caribbean neighbors and which has been used by those who wield power as part of a strategy of divide and rule. Or can we assume that the one who stays silent will be a favoured one and never be at risk?

Looking over our shoulder, opting for silence, or engaging in sterile talk may please the one who wields the power, but far from being a mature expression of nationhood and diplomacy, may be nothing short of submission and opting for the path of pragmatism.

Howard Gregory is retired Anglican archbishop of the Province of the West Indies and lord bishop of Jamaica.