The position of Prime Minister Andrew Holness on foreign policy, he states, is to keep us safe and, as such, avoid rubbing the bigger powers the wrong way, and he has stated that it has been successful for Jamaica. All this was shown to be as strong as tissue paper when the US, on 13 January, announced that it would be stopping visa applications for persons wishing to live in the US from 75 countries, including Jamaica.
That single announcement from the great north has shown the futility of the principled neutrality that the Administration practices.
We have been hit with this hammer blow for one of two reasons: either it is because we still maintain a contingent of Cuban medical workers (in opposition to the US’s wishes), or because we have not openly and vocally supported aggression against Venezuela (we have been eerily quiet on the military buildup in the Caribbean and the coup against Maduro).
It is one thing to sully Jamaica’s reputation for taking principled positions on global issues and denigrate its position as a leading nation in diplomacy in the global south if there are benefits. In terms of realpolitik; if that were happening, people like me who are complaining about the positions taken would not be listened to. However, when we sacrifice our good name, take positions which turn their back on our historical positions, throw friends and oppressed people under the bus, and we get no benefits, people like me who complain will be listened to.
Anyone who understands how an empire works would have told the PM that the position he was taking would not be enough to appease the US, that nothing short of total capitulation would be accepted. We are in a new cold war, just as with the old one; neutrality is not an option. We either side with the US all the time every time vocally, or we take a stance against them. This middle-of-the-road position that we seem to have taken benefits no one and actively harms the country and the individuals who are impacted by the retaliation we face.
This neutral stance we are taking is not a respectable one, and it is far from neutral, more a passive endorsement of the situation. Our silence on Gaza, our feigned neutrality in calling out both sides for violence, is a Zionist position, which equates the violence of the sufferer with that of the assailant. It is a position endorsing colonial violence. Our refusal to condemn the kidnapping of a sitting head of state and the murder of almost 100 people in the process is a tacit endorsement of that action and a green light for more of those actions.
It is both unprincipled, a betrayal of what we are, and it is non-beneficial; we get nothing positive from it and are harmed by it. We cannot afford to live in a world where might is right. We are a small, vulnerable island nation, and we need rules that are followed for our own good. We cannot accommodate unprincipled positions or neutrality because the impacts of such stances will be felt by our children for decades to come.
This neutrality, which this Administration is carrying out as it relates to foreign policy, is clearly a failure. Be it making deals with nations credibly accused of genocide, or being silent on actions in your own region, it is not protecting us as nations feel less bound by international law. We have abandoned our principles and what is right and sacrificed them for nothing. Families are now wrenched apart, and we have nothing to show for it. What will be the PM’s response when people ask why we are on the list? Will it be more muddying of the waters, or will he admit that the positions he is taking, counter to even the Jamaica Labour Party and its past leader, are duds and put us back on the principled path?
If you are going to get boxed for any position you take that is not subservience, you may as well take the principled position. Getting boxed for neutrality is silly; it makes more sense to get boxed or defend your principles. To put it another way and to quote our national hero Sam Sharpe, “I’d rather die upon yonder gallows than live in slavery”.
