On the matter of sovereignty.

 

Recently, as is traditional every year in the first week of August, we celebrated our national festivals of Emancipation and Independence. This normally a time when pride in the black, green and gold is at its height, when we all get into that patriotic spirit of revelling in what it means to be Jamaican and to enjoy the trappings of nationhood.  Yet there are those who would make the claim that Jamaica is not sovereign and they’re not saying because they think are economically trapped with high debt nor are they saying it because they think we are under some kind of siege from some violent external force. Their sole reason for asserting that Jamaica is not fully sovereign is because we do not have a president.

Why this the standard that these people choose for determining who has sovereignty and who does not?  The logic behind it rests on the assumption that the world only recognizes a country as sovereign if it has a president. This of course is not even remotely true as I can point to several countries where that is most certainly NOT the case. Take for example Taiwan, a country which has had presidents since 1949 yet majority of the world denies that Taiwan is sovereign due to the One China Policy that requires them to recognize that Taiwan is part of China, the fact that they have a president makes no difference. Then there is South Ossetia, a country in eastern Europe which has had several presidents since 1991, yet their sovereignty is also in dispute, again the fact they have a president doesn’t not guarantee them international recognition as an independent state.  There is also Catalonia which had declared its independence from Spain unilaterally and tried getting the world to recognize it as a sovereign nation. It should be noted that Spain does have a monarchy, but the Catalans choose not to recognize King Felipe VI as head of state but opted instead to have a president. This fact made no difference whatsoever to the internationally community who could care less that Catalonia had a president, it still was not counted as a marker of sovereignty.  And of course, I could not help but bring up the case of Palestine, a country recognized by some but not all. A country that is fighting not only for recognition but its very existence. The Palestinian Authority which in theory has jurisdiction is again not universally recognized notwithstanding the fact it has republican structure headed by a president.

Now that we have established that merely having a president, does not sovereignty make, let us look at the alternative that they wish to replace i.e. the governor-general. The so-called common wisdom goes that by having a governor-general we are telling the world that we are not fully independent. But is that so? Currently, there are only 14 countries that have a governor-general and all of them are members of the Commonwealth.  These countries range from extremely larger nations such as Canada to very small countries such as Saint Kitts. Yet one thing they have in common is the fact they are all recognized as sovereign in the international community. We saw this clearly when President Trump threatened to annex Canada and make it America’s 51^st state. Such sentiments drew wide condemnation within Canada and around the world as tonnes of nations immediately affirmed their recognition of Canadian nationhood, not British sovereignty over Canada, but Canadian sovereignty as its own unique thing in the world. This was further underscored when the Canadian government invited King Charles to open parliament in person and he did so, not as a representative of anything British but as King of Canada, opening Canada’s parliament upon the free invitation of Canada’s government. No one then dared claimed that Canada was British territory or a US State, its sovereignty was fully underscored not by a president (be it Trump or any other) but by rejecting presidencies entirely in favour of the Crown. And so it is there, so it is with every other country in the Commonwealth that has a governor-general, it is not and has never been a symbol of partial sovereignty instead only fully independent members of the Commonwealth have a governor-general and those who claim otherwise have no evidence to back up such claims.

So now that we have firmly cemented that having a president doesn’t make you a sovereign state and lacking a president doesn’t deny sovereignty, let us now look at that qualifications of what are the components that define full sovereignty to see if Jamaica fulfils these criteria. For this we turn to international law.  The quintessential authorised document used by legal and academic minds is the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, which gives a pretty good grasp of how to understand this subject as even countries that are not signatories to it still use its definitions. According to Article 1 “The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.”  It is plain as day that Jamaica unequivocally ticks all 4 boxes.

But to further cement the point let us explore further. Article 4 states the following ‘States are juridically equal, enjoy the same rights, and have equal capacity in their exercise” This is important as it now calls into question as to whether Jamaica is equal to other states within the global community of nations. Can say for example, Trinidad do certain things in the international sphere that Jamaica cannot because they have a president and we don’t?  Is Dominica (a country younger than us by 16 years) more recognized among sovereign nations than we are, because they have president and we don’t? I would love to see the evidence for that.

What about Article 8 of the convention, which says “No state has the right to intervene in the internal or external affairs of another.”? It has been a common parlance among both the ignorant who don’t know any better and the wilfully dishonest trying to push an agenda, to claim that the governor-general is an agent of the British in Jamaica. Not only does that violate the convention but violates our own constitution. So let me make this clear, the governor-general of Jamaica is NOT an agent of the British, he represents the King OF Jamaica, IN Jamaica, let me point to some excerpts from our constitution to underscore that. In Section 32, subsection 1 it says, “The Governor-General shall act in accordance with the advice of the Cabinet or a Minister acting under the general authority of the Cabinet in the exercise of his functions”. Further on in subsection 5 of the same section 32, the constitution refers to the governor-general acting on advice of the prime minister after consulting the leader of the opposition. In fact, every single time that the constitution mentions the governor-general acting on advice or on directive, it is ALWAYS in reference to a Jamaican. There is not a single clause in the constitution that directs the governor-general to act on the basis of any authority that isn’t Jamaican, those who claim otherwise need to reread our constitution, they’ll find no proof to support their assertions.

There is zero evidence whatsoever that declaring ourselves a republic will raise our standing in the world as there is not a single country that does not already recognize Jamaican sovereignty. The only people who are loudly proclaiming that Jamaica isn’t already a free, sovereign and independent nation are those inside with agenda to overthrow our constitution and replace it one of their own making. Jamaica’s independence was declared on August 6, 1962, and contrary to the untruths put out by republicans, it wasn’t a mere stepping stone on a stage to “true independence” but rather it was and still is our true independence, that proud day when our glorious flag was raised and our soul stirring anthem was played. That night on midnight August 6, we sent a message to world, Jamaica is here, a full-fledged nation, a parliamentary democracy, a constitutional monarchy and a proud member of the community of nations through our membership of the UN, The Commonwealth, The OAS, CARICOM and a host of other international organizations. The idea spread by some that having a governor-general instead of a president makes us less of a nation, is frankly incredulous at best and treasonous at worse since it is their way of attempting to get us the Jamaican people to question who we are.

At the end of day, we Jamaicans already know who we are, we have never needed a president to confirm it before, and we don’t need one now. Some say becoming a republic will honour our ancestors, but I would remind them  that it was those same ancestors who drafted the constitution that we have now. We honour our fore-parents therefore not by turning away from their legacy but by embracing it. If they wanted a republic, they had a chance to do so and the fact they rejected it should tell us of the wisdom of their choice. I can think of no better way to honour their memories than to keep what they gave to us. What they did to get us to independence was well done and to suggest that it wasn’t, is an insult to their memories. Their struggle was to make Jamaica, free, sovereign and independent and they succeed. Our struggle on the other hand is to make Jamaica, safe and prosperous, to create a Jamaica that is full alignment with the Sustainable Development Goals, and I dare say objectively speaking, a presidency is nowhere on the list of priorities, nor should it be.

Again, I reiterate my point, every single country which has a problem getting the world to recognise that they are sovereign is already a republic and already has a president. In contrast none of the 14 countries that have a governor-general acting as head of state has any issues with the world recognising their full independence. Jamaica’s sovereignty is not partial, but it is a real and complete, both in law and in fact. No platitudes from The Crown’s adversaries can change that fact, no matter how many times they claim otherwise. The lack of a presidency should not be the cause of an identity crisis, so let’s not allow those with an agenda to stir up one. There is no evidence whatsoever to claim a presidency raises our standing in the world. Everybody on the planet already knows and accepts Jamaica to be a real country, and that is a fact of which every single Jamaican both at home and in the diaspora should be immensely proud.