The con­tro­ver­sy sur­round­ing the radar in­stal­la­tion in To­ba­go has be­come a mat­ter of pub­lic ac­count­abil­i­ty, trans­paren­cy and the Gov­ern­ment’s oblig­a­tion to clear­ly ex­plain mat­ters of na­tion­al im­por­tance to the cit­i­zens it serves. 

Prime Min­is­ter Kam­la Per­sad-Bisses­sar has de­scribed the com­pound cap­tured in Guardian Me­dia’s drone im­ages as “sup­port of­fices” for the radar sys­tem, in­sist­ing the pic­ture is “self-ex­plana­to­ry.” Con­cern, un­ease and spec­u­la­tion amongst mem­bers of the pub­lic, how­ev­er, sug­gests that some clar­i­ty will be help­ful.

Drone footage tak­en at the radar in­stal­la­tion site shows mul­ti­ple ve­hi­cles, tem­po­rary struc­tures, tents, and portable toi­lets, which have raised con­cerns about the na­ture and ex­tent of US mil­i­tary in­volve­ment in To­ba­go.

Na­tion­al se­cu­ri­ty mat­ters can be sen­si­tive, but sen­si­tiv­i­ty does not negate the need to com­mu­ni­cate clear­ly and con­sis­tent­ly.

The grow­ing pub­lic con­cern should not be ig­nored, par­tic­u­lar­ly in To­ba­go, where there is in­creas­ing un­ease about the radar in­stal­la­tion and the po­ten­tial for con­flict. Fear thrives in the ab­sence of clear and cred­i­ble in­for­ma­tion. To pre­vent such anx­i­ety, Gov­ern­ment should ex­plain, in broad and ac­ces­si­ble terms, what is tak­ing place and why.

For­mer Coast Guard Lt Cm­dr Nor­man Din­di­al has warned that the US mil­i­tary “foot­print” in T&T may grow, po­ten­tial­ly in­creas­ing the coun­try’s ex­po­sure in the event of re­gion­al con­flict. For­mer na­tion­al se­cu­ri­ty min­is­ter Gary Grif­fith, mean­while, ar­gues that any US pres­ence serves as a de­ter­rent and en­hances na­tion­al se­cu­ri­ty. That these op­pos­ing views, which deal with the com­plex­i­ties of the is­sue, are be­ing dis­cussed in the pub­lic do­main, un­der­scores the crit­i­cal rea­son why cit­i­zens de­serve to hear clear facts from the Gov­ern­ment rather than frag­ments of ex­pla­na­tion.

Ac­count­abil­i­ty does not mean re­veal­ing clas­si­fied de­tails or com­pro­mis­ing op­er­a­tional se­cu­ri­ty. It does mean an­swer­ing fun­da­men­tal ques­tions: Is there a for­eign mil­i­tary pres­ence as­so­ci­at­ed with the radar? If so, what is its scope, du­ra­tion and le­gal ba­sis? Who con­trols the fa­cil­i­ty? What safe­guards ex­ist to pro­tect Trinidad and To­ba­go’s sov­er­eign­ty and safe­ty? These are amongst the ques­tions be­ing asked by cit­i­zens, who need to feel as­sured by and con­fi­dent in the de­ci­sions tak­en on their be­half.

The ab­sence of a uni­fied, au­thor­i­ta­tive ex­pla­na­tion al­so risks dam­ag­ing trust in in­sti­tu­tions. When dif­fer­ent nar­ra­tives cir­cu­late—sup­port of­fices, mil­i­tary base, tem­po­rary pres­ence, grow­ing foot­print—the pub­lic is left to guess which ver­sion is ac­cu­rate. That un­cer­tain­ty weak­ens con­fi­dence not on­ly in the Gov­ern­ment but in the coun­try’s over­all se­cu­ri­ty pos­ture.

Strate­gic com­mu­ni­ca­tion is a cor­ner­stone of good gov­er­nance. In times of height­ened re­gion­al ten­sion, lead­ers are ex­pect­ed to steady the pop­u­la­tion with res­olute as­sur­ance, calm and clin­i­cal in­for­ma­tion. Ac­count­abil­i­ty, af­ter all, is a du­ty owed to the pop­u­la­tion.

The con­cerns of the pub­lic over the radar is­sue will not dis­ap­pear through dis­missal or de­flec­tion. The longer clear an­swers are with­held, the more sus­pi­cion and anx­i­ety will grow. If the Gov­ern­ment is con­fi­dent that its ac­tions serve the na­tion­al in­ter­est, then trans­paren­cy should not be feared. On the con­trary, open and con­sis­tent com­mu­ni­ca­tion is the strongest tool avail­able to main­tain pub­lic trust. 

In the end, ac­count­abil­i­ty is not con­cerned with win­ning any ar­gu­ment. It is about en­sur­ing that cit­i­zens un­der­stand de­ci­sions tak­en in their name—es­pe­cial­ly when those de­ci­sions touch on sov­er­eign­ty, se­cu­ri­ty, and the safe­ty of the na­tion.