Editorial | Belize and the Myrie case

While this newspaper shares Belize’s concern of its territory being used as a staging point for people being smuggled into the United States, the Belizean authorities must be mindful that the sustainable solution is not to walk away from its obligations to its partners in the Caribbean Community (CARICOM).

That only weakens the regional integration process and further frustrates CARICOM’s effort to transform itself into a single market economy, to which successive Belizean administrations, including the one headed by Prime Minister John Briceno, have said they are committed.

Put another way, strong institutions cannot be built on flexible or fairweather rules that are adhered to or broken on individual whim. If that were the case, the idea of a treaty and community law governing CARICOM would mean naught, and regional states would have no cause to pay mind to the Shanique Myrie ruling by the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), acting in its original jurisdiction in interpreting the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas.

In that regard, perhaps it is timely that the Shanique Myrie case be revisited to determine its applicability to recent events, and whether Belize can find in it sufficient purchase in support of its actions.

Earlier this month, Mr Briceno’s government imposed a rule that Jamaicans travelling to Belize must have fully paid, non-refundable hotel reservations before boarding flights to that country. With respect to Haitians, Belize went further. Haitians require visas to enter the country.

Mr Briceno defended the decision on the claim that nationals from the two CARICOM states are, with the help of people smugglers, increasingly using illegal border crossings from his country into Mexico, hoping to make their way to the USA.

RIGHT OF ENTRY

Over the past 14 months, the Belizean authorities say, of the 1,673 Jamaicans who entered their country from points other than the United States, 895 (53 per cent) were unaccounted for. During the same period, 2,095 Haitians were recorded as entering Belize. Only 121, approximately six per cent, were documented as having left.

“We have done this reluctantly,” Mr Briceno said in relation to the restrictions on Jamaicans. “We consider Jamaica a close friend and ally. Historically, we have always supported each other, but we had no choice.”

His government, the prime minister said, was open to finding other ways to deal with the problem. It is not clear what his views were on the Haitian component.

Neither have the Belizean authorities – nor anyone for that matter – said how their actions square with the Myrie ruling.

Ms Myrie is Jamaican. In 2011, she travelled to Barbados, was denied entry, and subsequently put on a flight back home. Ms Myrie complained that she was subjected to humiliating body-cavity searches.

In 2013, the CCJ ruled that Ms Myrie, as a CARICOM national, had a right of entry under a 2007 decision by the conference of heads of government on the free movement of citizens within the community, without harassment or undue impediments.

While the court acknowledged that the 2007 decision afforded member states the right to limit free movement if a person was “undesirable” and would “become a charge on public funds”, the CCJ held that the exercise of these powers should be construed as an exception rather than the rule. It warned against discrimination between citizens of member states, placed the burden of proof of the cause for exclusion on the member state, and said that people who are denied entry should be given the reason promptly in writing. They should have access to consular services.

It seems that there might be points to be argued on whether a visa regime for one set of CARICOM nationals, such as Belize has on Haitians, comports with the idea of hassle-free movement of all citizens within the community. Or more importantly, whether it is with the spirit or the letter of community law determined by the CCJ.

DISCRIMINATORY

Similarly, the economic burden imposed on Jamaicans that they must have “non-refundable reservations” for accommodations is, on the face of it, discriminatory. It locks visitors into specific accommodations, on the pain of losing their money, if, for any reason, their booked accommodations turn out to be unsuitable or not in keeping with what was promised.

The argument that early, unreported departures by guests have hurt hotels seems overstated. It is usually the case that accommodation contracts insulate hotels against such behaviour, including freeing booked rooms whose occupants have clearly skipped their obligations.

Belize has a genuine problem, which it must fix. But a solution should not start by weakening CARICOM, if the authorities in Belmopan believe it is a community worth having, and of which it wants to be a member.

It is one of those matters that should be put to the collective wisdom of the community.