Caribbean Security in the Age of Terror: Challenge of Intrusion and Governance

• Author: Ivelaw Griffith
• Pages: 383-415

Caribbean Security in the Age of Terror 383

Today, we live in the shadow of September 11. That horrific tragedy has cast

a pall across the whole hemisphere.

Prime Minister Owen Arthur1

Small states are by their nature weak and vulnerable . . . . Sometimes it seems

as if small states were like small boats pushed out into a turbulent sea, free

in one sense to traverse it; but, without oars or provisions, without compass

or sails, free also to perish. Or, perhaps, to be rescued and taken aboard a

larger vessel.

Sir Shridath Ramphal2

Hurricanes are not the only intruders

James N. Rosenau3

taken together the three epigraphs make it tenable to suggest that the

Caribbean finds itself in an age of terror, during a period of turbulence, and

in the season of the hurricanes. Ever since September 11, 2001 (referred to

hereafter as 9-11), terrorism, the policy and operational response discourse, and

the implications of those responses for foreign affairs, security, economics and

trade, transportation, immigration and other areas have defined key elements

of the matrix of international politics and international security. One element

is that terrorism has become the fulcrum around which considerable global

institutional behaviour revolves. The kind of foreign policy and security conduct

by the United States that may have precipitated the 9-11 terrorist incidents is

beside the point; so too is the wisdom of their counter-terrorism pursuits since

then.4 Important, though, in shaping this reality is the preponderance of United

States power in the international system and its use of that power, the

transnational character of terrorism and the fact that other states – both large

and small – are subject to attack by terrorists or are vulnerable to terrorism.

So, that “we live in the shadow of September 11”, as Prime Minister Owen

Arthur posited, seems hardly in dispute. However, it is also true that,

Caribbean SeCurity in the aGe of

terror: ChallenGe of intruSion

and GovernanCe

IVELAW GRIFFITH

CHAPTER TWENTY

384 STATE, ECONOMY AND SOCIETY

notwithstanding 9-11, terrorism did not give rise to turbulence in the global

community; turbulence predated 9-11, although terrorism in some parts of the

world contributed to it. Moreover, particularly for small states, such as those in

the Caribbean, turbulence of one form or another has been an undesired but

undeniable reality of national life. The Ramphal remark of almost two decades

finds renewed relevance now, as the issue of terrorism provides added complexity

to the turbulent sovereignty and security seas Caribbean states have already had

to navigate. Thus, their vulnerability stands to become more acute.

In navigating the turbulent security seas, Caribbean statesmen and citizens

have had to contend with a variety of threats. Jim Rosenau’s use of “hurricanes”

as a metaphor for threats is quite apposite. While hurricanes have wreaked

destruction on the Caribbean, often posing a clear and present danger to state

and society, they have not been the only dangers to the region; they are indicative

of something else: the multidimensionality of the threat landscape. Further,

hurricanes represent an aspect of the security dialogue for Caribbean and other

small states that generally is absent from the traditional security discourse; they

do not constitute security threats in the traditional sense, but are certainly

relevant to the region’s survival. Noteworthy, too, is that while the term

“intruders” connotes externality, sometimes the “enemy” is within; threats

often are internal, although there can be externalities affecting their scope and

dynamics.

What, then, other than hurricanes, are some of the “intruders” facing the

contemporary Caribbean? What are some of their implications for governance?

Understandably, these are not the only questions that may be posed in probing

the nexus between security and governance. They are, nevertheless, key ones.

In attempting a modest response to these questions, this chapter examines some

of the more pressing security threats, taking the non-traditional approach to

security studies. Attention is then paid to some of the governance challenges to

which scholars and policy elites should pay attention as we cope with intrusion

in the shadow of terror and the climate of turbulence.

Identifying The IntrudersIdentifying The Intruders

Identifying The IntrudersIdentifying The Intruders

Identifying The Intruders

Examination of the security landscape of the Caribbean would profit from

a preliminary, albeit brief, comment about two matters: the larger sub-set of

states in which Caribbean states finds themselves – small states; and the broader

literature on security studies. The scholarship on small state security has changed

significantly over recent decades. First, the preoccupation with external security

has given way to recognition that internal security issues are not only important

in their own right, but they complicate, and sometimes aggravate, external

challenges. Added to this, the distinction between internal issues and external

ones often is blurred.

Second, the tendency to cast security analysis in military-political terms

has been replaced by acceptance that security concerns go beyond these to the

Caribbean Security in the Age of Terror 385

economic area and often to the environmental one as well. In addition, there

has been growing recognition of an emphasis on the link between security and

development. As Robert Rothstein noted correctly,

the traditional concern with territorial integrity and political independence

has had to be broadened to include a concern with domestic stability — and

thus also a concern with prospects for, and means of, domestic development.5

Focusing on the small states within the Commonwealth, the Commonwealth

Advisory Group noted: “The major threats faced by small states are to their

territorial integrity and security political independence and security; economic

security; environmental sustainability; and social cohesion. Some of them are

acutely vulnerable, others moderately so.”6

Security has long been a highly contested concept, with a multiplicity of

definitions and usages.7 Most of them are constructed around a few core concepts:

international anarchy, survival, territorial integrity, and military power.

Moreover, the definitions mostly share a common theoretical foundation in

traditional realism, which focuses on the state as the unit of analysis, stresses

the competitive character of relations among states, and emphasises the military

and, to a letter extent, the political aspects of security. It is also oriented to the

international arena sees states as national actors rationally pursuing their interests

in that arena and considers military power capabilities as the most critical ones.

The traditional realist views security as “high politics”.

For most of the post-World War II period, there was wide consensus among

political scientists and military theorists that traditional realist theory provided

the appropriate conceptual architecture to examine questions of security. As

might be expected, this paradigm was challenged, but not concertedly. However,

the vicissitudes of international politics since the end of the Cold War have led

many scholars to go beyond the realist paradigm in conceptualising and probing

security issues. A decade ago one scholar, himself an erstwhile proponent of

Realism, averred:

Realism, rooted in the experiences of World War II and the Cold War, is

undergoing a crisis of confidence largely because the lessons adduced do not

convincingly apply directly to the new realities. The broadened global agenda

goes beyond what realism can realistically be expected to address.8

As might be expected, the “horrific tragedy”, to use Owen Arthur’s term, has

served to further undermine confidence in the utility of the realist approach to

security. As one scholar quite presciently observed recently,

the globalization of informal violence has rendered problematic our

conventional assumptions about security threats. It should also lead us to

question the classical realist distinction between important parts of the