David Salmon | Pragmatic foreign policy is not moral bankruptcy

A new sport has emerged among commentators where each battles to see who can repeat trite comparisons between Prime Minister Dr Andrew Holness and Barbadian Prime Minister Mia Mottley. Sometimes this game takes an even more ridiculous turn when comparisons are made between Dr Holness and his predecessors, most notably former Prime Minister Michael Manley.

These comparisons serve the primary purpose of discrediting Jamaica’s current approach to foreign policy. For instance, a recent column by Jalil Dabdoub in the Sunday Gleaner savaged Jamaica’s stance regarding the crisis in Gaza. Dabdoub contended that Jamaica’s response was not merely a failure to “speak truth to power”. In fact, it represented a dishonouring of justice, international law, and basic decency, values which Jamaicans have traditionally held in high regard.

POST-INDEPENDENCE FOREIGN POLICY

But, opprobrium aside, arguments like this belie a fundamental misunderstanding of our history and an attempt to misconstrue or even misrepresent the country’s long-standing approach to foreign policy. The reality is that Jamaica has consistently adopted a pragmatic strategy to its foreign relations that balances maintaining its international position alongside advancing its national interests.

Foreign policy specialist, Jacqueline Braveboy-Wagner, notes that to compensate for their small size, Caribbean states have used their foreign policy to achieve three goals: security, development and prestige.

In Jamaica’s case, this balancing act achieved success quite early. Within a decade after Independence, Jamaica spearheaded the proposal to have 1968 declared the International Year of Human Rights. It also managed to attract crucial investments in sectors such as manufacturing and mining, in order to propel its economic growth. Therefore, achieving both economic development and global prestige has been the unmistakable approach adopted by successive governments.

NO EXCEPTION

Even the 1970s was no exception, as Michael Manley was committed to pragmatic foreign relations. While Manley was noted for taking views that differed from the United States, most notably with Cuba, his positions were often underpinned by practical economic engagements.

Through his partnership with Cuba and other Eastern European countries, scholarships were provided, schools were built, and professionals from these countries gave assistance to Jamaica. Manley’s regime also finalised the first Lomé Agreement which gave local sugar and banana producers duty-free access to the European market. Rather than cease ties with the “West”, as advocated by some intellectuals, these results illustrate how tangible considerations have always underpinned our foreign policy.

Manley’s commitment to “third-world solidarity” was also flexible enough to break with his Caribbean colleagues when it served Jamaica’s interests. The Financial Times, on November 6, 1975, wrote, “It is [Manley’s] wooing of both Mexico and Venezuela which has alienated the other regimes of the English Caribbean, particularly Dr Eric Williams in Trinidad. Both Latin American countries are now deeply involved in major Jamaican investment projects.”

While the popular discourse has remembered Manley as the paragon of South-South solidarity, even he was not above eschewing his relationship with a regional ally if it meant gains could be made elsewhere. Foreign policy must produce results.

Mia Mottley is not an ideologue as some may like to believe. Barbados recognises the importance of balancing international advocacy with national interests. Internationally, Mottley has been a leading voice for sustainable climate financing. In 2024, this advocacy yielded dividends as the nation negotiated a US$300 million debt-for-climate swap to support infrastructure improvements while simultaneously lowering its debt obligations.

On the other hand, Jamaica has sought to use its position to advance international security. For one, it is among the countries that have contributed to the deployment of a Multinational Security Support Mission to Haiti. Most recently, Dr Holness, in his address at United Nations General Assembly, called for a “global war on gangs”, citing their pernicious impact on global security. Taking such a position on Haiti when the world previously remained silent is not a case of moral bankruptcy. Instead, it shows a commitment to multilateralism and our own interests.

In a previous column, I expressed concern around Jamaica’s engagement with Haiti: “The global community has looked at Haiti and has waved its hands in the air saying ‘not my problem’. In our exuberance, the Caribbean must not become tied down in Haiti.” While these reservations remain, credit must nevertheless be given to Jamaica as, through its advocacy, the UN Security Council approved a gang suppression mission to support Haiti. This is a win for Jamaica’s international reputation and its security.

PRAGMATISM VERSUS IDEOLOGY

There can either have an ideologically driven or a pragmatic foreign policy, not both. The attempt to pursue ideological posturing will inevitably get caught up in performing mental gymnastics, creating word salads, or remaining silent on selective issues.

What that looks like is emphatic pronouncements on Gaza made by the Opposition spokesperson on foreign affairs, Donna Scott-Mottley. This can be contrasted with the comparative silence of the People’s National Party when Venezuela overtly threatens to annex portions of Guyana.

Then foreign affairs spokesperson, Lisa Hanna, stated this when Jamaica adopted the position not to recognise Venezuela’s president, Nicolás Maduro: “The government seems intent on joining others in their hostile attitude towards a country and government which has extended goodwill to us.”

Does Jamaica take a firm principle, or stay silent because our vote has been bought by historic goodwill? What this underscores is that attempts to pursue ideologically driven approaches to foreign relations will inevitably lead to confusing and contradictory positions.

Concerns should be raised about Jamaica’s absence from key votes, a case can be made for that. But Jamaica shouldn’t abandon its commitment to pragmatism to satisfy the clamour of a vocal minority.

Before we repeat stereotypes and regurgitate selective historical events, it is important that we maintain a position that balances the preservation of our international reputation and a commitment to our national interests.

David Salmon is a public commentator, development specialist and a Rhodes Scholar. Send feedback to davidsalmon@live.com or on X @DavidSalmonJA.