By Andrew Clunis
It is rather disturbing that a multiplicity of Jamaicans are taking issue with former Prime Minister Bruce Golding’s sharp remarks about American economic and political aggression towards Caribbean nations including Jamaica.
Most are concerned that any criticism of the Donald Trump administration may lead to sanctions being imposed on the country including the restriction on visa access and wider scale immigration changes which could see settled residents stripped of their right to abode.
This is indicative of the state of mind of a people who are still suffering under the weight of colonial
subjugation, where the instinct for self-preservation often overrides the assertion of national sovereignty.
The fear permeates the Jamaican socio-political landscape, creating a chilling effect on public discourse and strategic policy-making. For a nation whose economy is inextricably tied to the diaspora’s remittances and the steady flow of tourism from the North, the prospect of retaliation from Washington is not merely a diplomatic concern; it is viewed as an existential threat to the daily survival of thousands of families.
This anxiety manifests in a pervasive reluctance to challenge the inequitable dynamics of the current global order, lest the "big stick" of American policy be swung in their direction.
When a former Prime Minister speaks out, his words are measured against the potential fallout for the average citizen waiting in line at the embassy or the student relying on a J-1 exchange visa to fund their education.
It highlights a painful paradox: while Jamaica celebrates its formal independence, the structural dependencies inherited from a colonial past have simply shifted their center of gravity from London to Washington.
Consequently, the psychological shackles remain, compelling a posture of strategic silence or compliance even when national dignity and economic self-determination are at stake. This cautious approach reflects a deep-seated vulnerability, suggesting that the path to true autonomy is still obstructed by the looming shadow of geopolitical hegemony.
The wider region is largely mum on the uncomfortable realities that confront us. American Ambassador-designate Kari Lake has made it clear that Washington will seek to influence Jamaica’s foreign policy, especially as it relates to China.
This kind of hegemony should not be allowed to stand but the current world order especially in the Western hemisphere makes the environment ripe for tyranny.
The erosion of sovereign decision-making is not merely a diplomatic friction but a structural consequence of an international framework that prioritizes strategic alignment over national self-determination.
For Caribbean nations, this dynamic manifests as a coercive binary: the requirement to choose between traditional security alliances and the pragmatic economic partnerships offered by burgeoning global powers like China.
When diplomatic representatives feel emboldened to publicly dictate the parameters of a host nation’s external relations, it signals a regression to a transactional era of statecraft where small island developing states are viewed as tactical outposts rather than equal partners in the global community.
This environment of indirect governance is fortified by economic dependencies that have been carefully cultivated over decades. The threat of financial sanctions, immigration realignment, the withdrawal of development aid, or the recalibration of trade preferences serve as a silent tether, ensuring that any deviation from the prescribed geopolitical script carries a prohibitive cost.
In Jamaica’s case, the pressure to distance itself from Chinese investment ignores the structural deficiencies in Western infrastructure funding that made such partnerships necessary in the first place.
By framing these economic ties solely through the lens of a security threat, the dominant powers effectively demand that developing nations sacrifice their immediate developmental needs at the altar of a foreign policy agenda that offers little in the way of tangible alternatives.
Furthermore, the collective silence from neighboring states underscores a pervasive fear of diplomatic isolation. The lack of a unified regional stance allows for a "divide and rule" tactic to persist, where individual nations are pressured in isolation, preventing the formation of a cohesive Caribbean foreign policy that could leverage collective bargaining power.
If the current trajectory continues, the concept of autonomy will remain a rhetorical flourish rather than a functional reality, leaving the region to navigate a treacherous path where national interest is perpetually subordinated to the strategic anxieties of a distant hegemon.
True resistance to this tyranny requires more than just internal resolve; it demands a radical reimagining of regional solidarity that can withstand the inevitable repercussions of asserting one's own destiny.
Prime Minister Andrew Holness is walking on hot coal and he has to tread carefully. The Opposition Leader Mark Golding finds himself in no better position. But we can’t simply roll over and play dead.
Given a choice, what would it be. Allow America to have its way or risk visa and other sanctions? A United States visa represents economic freedom to most Jamaicans. It is sad but true and the choice is constricted and most Jamaicans would rather have access to the United States than not. We simply don’t have the fortitude of Cuba.