Maroc - NEWSDAY.CO.TT - A la Une - 24/Dec 11:53

When sovereignty becomes a doormat

THE EDITOR: Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar has declared that the US has an unquestionable right to act in its own best interests – even where those actions harm other sovereign states – and that affected countries must simply “accept the consequences.” That may sound tough. It is not law. And for a small state, it is an astonishingly reckless position to endorse. Let us start with basics. Sovereignty does not mean “do as you please.” It never has. Since 1945, sovereignty has existed within a legal order precisely designed to restrain the strong and protect the weak. Every state’s freedom ends where another’s begins. The International Court of Justice has repeated this principle so often it is almost trite – including in cases involving the US itself. Economic coercion, extraterritorial punishment, and policy intimidation are not expressions of sovereignty. They are violations of it. If powerful states were free to impose their preferences on others simply because they could, there would be no international law worth naming, only hierarchy. The issue here is not whether the US may regulate its own borders. Of course it may. The issue is whether it may penalise other countries for lawful domestic policies it dislikes – such as citizenship-by-investment programmes that breach no treaty, no convention, and no rule of international law. That is not border control. It is interference, dressed up as security. Caricom’s response was orthodox, restrained, and legally sound. It recognised US sovereignty while asking for consultation, clarity, and respect for the rule of law. That is exactly how small states are supposed to behave in a rules-based system. To dismiss this as weakness is to misunderstand how small states survive at all. What makes this episode genuinely alarming is that it comes from a prime minister who styles herself a Senior Counsel – a title she conferred upon herself while in office. That fact alone should demand a higher standard of reasoning, not a lower one. Instead, the thinking on display is profoundly defective. Sovereignty is misdescribed as an unlimited licence; coercion is rebranded as consequence; and international law is treated as optional etiquette. This is not a respectable disagreement about doctrine. It is a failure to grasp first principles. Such confusion would not pass muster in a competent undergraduate essay. From a self-appointed holder of silk, it is indefensible. The irony is brutal. If the Prime Minister’s doctrine were correct – that powerful states may freely step on the toes of smaller ones in pursuit of their interests – then TT would have no protection at all. Under that logic, sanctions, blacklists, trade restrictions, and financial pressure would all be legitimate tools against us whenever we became inconvenient. Small states rely on law because power does not favour them. Caricom is imperfect. Regional institutions always are. But undermining collective diplomacy while applauding unilateral power is not realism. It is abdication. Sovereignty is not a doormat. And TT should stop pretending that being trampled is a sign of strength. MOHAN RAMCHARAN via e-mail The post When sovereignty becomes a doormat appeared first on Trinidad and Tobago Newsday.