In defence of peaceful few

ON SUNDAY, about 200 souls found themselves in Woodford Square to support the ideal of the Caribbean as a "zone of peace."

Mostly, the message from the Warao Peoples, the Rastafarian community, Hindus, Muslims, Indians, Africans, and civil society groups was an affirmation of the unifying spirit of peace and love.

Sunday’s main concern was the amassing of excessive US military power in the Caribbean, and the historically unprecedented and extrajudicial way that its firepower is being wielded.

Such a stance may be labelled as anti-government or lacking in strategy. I agree that people who never said a word for ten years are suddenly critics, and multiple political agendas and limited effectiveness may indeed be part of citizen gathering, but can anyone really oppose those saying "no" to war and "yes" to peace?

From the comment section on social media, apparently so: “Where are the vigils for crime and protests for high food prices in TT?”; “How much money they got paid by the PNM?”; “So saying yes to human trafficking, narcotics and illegal guns is okay?! Coz that’s what all who are gathered there are agreeing to!!!!!!”

There is clearly a population that believes the US missile-killings will end human-, illegal gun- and narco-trafficking. This is not possible unless, at the very least, US drones and missiles become deeply embedded in our national security and coast guard apparatus over a long term. Maybe that’s what is happening.

The prime minister’s description of Sunday’s gathering as a "dismal failure" also reflects the effectiveness of divisiveness in public discourse. Our vulnerability to this signals a society that is not listening to or even understanding each other, has very different understandings of the current moment, and engages through misrecognition, stereotype, and insult. Social media shows that this is where our deepest problems might lie.

That said, all governments are loath to affirm protests, and actively dismiss and discourage them. To have recognised any call for peace as “successful” would have meant acknowledging its validity, and that would be tricky given TT's alliance with the US’s pro-killing approach. However, the PM also missed the chance to "take win."

Under Patrick Manning, a maxi of police in full riot gear would regularly descend on peaceful citizen gatherings. None of this happened on Sunday despite the state of emergency. A savvy communication strategy would have highlighted this unless the savvy communication strategy is to demean dissenters and entrench sides.

It is possible that many of the citizens present on Sunday sincerely hope that the UNC would be better than the PNM, which is not hard, and that “Kamla” – with her campaign of care and love – would be better than “Rowley,” who was known to berate and insult citizens.

Being politically astute about maintaining landslide support, the PM might therefore have affirmed all citizens’ right to participate in public life. In a strong democracy, we can peacefully disagree. Avoiding insult would have in no way undermined her authority over foreign policy.

History, however, is on the side of those championing peace.

In 1979, co-sponsored by Grenada, an Organization of American States (OAS) resolution called on all states to recognise the Caribbean as a zone of peace. It expressed deep concern over increases in military activity in the region, rejected the Caribbean being subordinated to the interests or influence of any power, and supported ideological pluralism and peaceful co-existence.

Over time, Caribbean countries affirmed that they would not be a base for intimidating their neighbours (like Cuba). In the words of Barbados PM Errol Barrow in 1986, “I do not believe that size is necessarily the only criterion for determining these matters. It is important to let people know where you stand…in what is a moral commitment to peace in our region.”

In 2014, the Zone of Peace Declaration was unanimously adopted in Cuba and included Latin America and the Caribbean, recognising that “peace is a supreme asset and a legitimate aspiration of all peoples.” The Honourable Kamla Persad-Bissessar was the nation’s representative to this commitment to "uproot forever" the threat or use of force in our region, not intervene in the affairs of another state, and respect the principles of national sovereignty.

Today, the PM argues that US militarism is the fix to our violence. Citizens, meanwhile, have a right to oppose escalating normalisation of weapons of war. It is no dismal failure to express a moral commitment to peace. This principle is not more or less valid because we – crowd or region – are small in size.

Diary of a mothering worker

Entry 568

motheringworker@gmail.com