Caribbean Sovereignty

The concept of sovereignty theoretically suggest that states are equal with one another and each have the distinct right to implement policies and laws as they view them to be necessary for the wellbeing of their state. In reality, however, the global political arena is characterised by either direct or indirect control of weaker states by stronger states. A reality illustrated by the history and contemporary political economy of the countries known collectively as the Commonwealth Caribbean. The term, Commonwealth Caribbean is used to refer to the English speaking islands of the Caribbean that were part of the British colonial empire until the 20th century. These countries found themselves colonized and exploited as part of a European mercantilist

It is accurate to say that the Commonwealth Caribbean finds itself in a precarious position as it attempts to balance sovereignty and legitimacy in the global political arena. An arena where sovereignty is being blurred due to a recent stride towards internationalism termed globalisation. Such strides have significant implications for the states and their ability to implement policies and laws without intervention by foreign entities. Such intervention is further encouraged by the concept of globalization; both contested and supported it encompasses “…all those processes by which the peoples of the world are incorporated into a single world society.” These processes are encouraged by international trade, investment and information technology and result in the integration and interaction among people, governments, cultures and economies. Such interdependence and interconnectedness creates complications for sovereign states who in their rightful capacity are entitled to act independently and autonomously on the world stage. Globalization seeks to hamper this by fostering the creation of supranational organizations who have the ability to supersede the sovereign power of states. Thus globalization not only impacts governance but it also presents significant implications for culture, economic development and the human capital of states.

Neoliberalism endorses free markets and favours corporations and the wealthy elite. These polices are disseminated through the main supranational financial institutions which are recognized as the International Monetary Fund, World Bank and endorsed by other international creditors who require the two aforementioned to give their ‘seal of approval’ before giving aid, as well as the Word Trade Organization. Cheryl Payer states that, “Since its founding at the end of the Second World War, the IMF has been the chosen instrument for imposing imperialist financial discipline upon poor countries under a façade of multi-lateralism and technical competence.” These policies have proven incapable of combatting the economic problems in developing states, rather they have encourage the global divide and proven a problem in encouraging development. Neoliberal policies seek to encourage market forces and commercial activity but shun the role of the state and discourage government intervention into economic, financial and even social affairs. The process of economic globalization is driven by the idea that removing borders and barriers between nations will allow market forces can drive the global economy and prove beneficial for all. This mandate for economic growth is the perfect platform for corporations, which, as a result, have grown rapidly in their economic activity, profitability and political influence. Yet this very