By Dr. Jason Haynes, Barrister-at-Law & Solicitors, and Associate Professor of Law, University of Birmingham
As St. Vincent and the Grenadines (SVG) continues to navigate economic challenges exacerbated by devastating natural disasters, the rise of international right-wing populism, and crippling tariffs, the time has come to seriously reconsider implementing a Citizenship by Investment (CBI) scheme. This initiative, already successfully adopted by several Eastern Caribbean nations, represents not merely an economic opportunity, but a reclamation of our sovereign right to define citizenship on our own terms.
Economic Imperative in Times of Crisis
The past few years have been particularly punishing for SVG’s economy. The explosive eruption of La Soufrière in 2021 displaced communities and devastated agriculture, while Hurricane Beryl in 2024 further compounded our recovery challenges. Tourism revenues remain below pre-pandemic projections, and our agricultural sector continues to struggle to rebuild.
These successive crises have strained our limited public resources at precisely the time when investment in infrastructure, healthcare, education, and climate resilience is most critical. A well-structured CBI programme could generate substantial revenue—potentially EC$150-200 million annually—providing dedicated funding for these essential development priorities without increasing the tax burden on our citizens.
Our Eastern Caribbean neighbours have demonstrated the transformative potential of the CBI programme. Dominica has leveraged CBI funds to finance an ambitious housing revolution and rebuild critical infrastructure following Hurricane Maria, while Antigua and Barbuda’s programme has contributed approximately 15% to their GDP since its implementation. These tangible benefits cannot be ignored when our own development needs are so pressing.
Citizenship in Post-Colonial Context: Reconsidering the “Genuine Link”
Any discussion of citizenship in the Caribbean must acknowledge our complex historical relationship with this concept. During centuries of slavery and colonization, Caribbean-born persons of African descent were denied citizenship rights despite possessing what would now be considered the ultimate “genuine link”—being born here, working the land, and maintaining generational ties to these islands. This history provides important context for contemporary debates about CBI programmes. The Eurocentric insistence that citizenship must be based exclusively on traditional notions of “genuine links”, rather than economic contribution, carries undertones of a troubling colonial legacy, and, indeed, violent innocence.
The European Court of Justice recently ruled against Malta’s CBI programme, determining it is inconsistent with EU treaties because it “commercialized” EU citizenship, contrary to principles of solidarity and mutual cooperation. According to the Court, “the bedrock of the bond of nationality of a Member State is formed by the special relationship of solidarity and good faith between that State and its nationals and the reciprocity of rights and duties.”
However, the Advocate General’s (a senior judicial officer who assists the ECJ by writing impartial and independent opinions on cases that the ECJ judges consider before rendering their judgments) opinion in the same case took a markedly different position, noting that a “genuine link” is not required by international law and that states retain sovereign rights to establish conditions for citizenship—a position that better respects the autonomy of nations to determine their own citizenship criteria.
Redefining “Solidarity” in the light of Caribbean Realities
The Eurocentric conception of solidarity that underpins the ECJ ruling cannot be uncritically transposed to the Caribbean context. European countries generally enjoy economic prosperity, which is unimaginable for small island developing states still recovering from colonization and regularly battered by climate disasters.
Moreover, Europe’s concept of solidarity seems selective at best when contrasted with their increasingly hostile environment toward migrants, including economic migrants. Their version of solidarity appears concerned with restricting the movement of the “other” so as to preserve the “purity” of European identity.
Caribbean solidarity, by contrast, has historically centred on shared struggle, resilience, and the movement of people across borders. Our understanding of community and belonging has been shaped by collective efforts to overcome the legacies of colonialism and build sustainable futures.
This raises a fundamental question: which version of solidarity better serves our development needs? Is it preferable to limit citizenship only to those with (largely symbolic) traditional connections who may make no economic contribution to our nation? Or should we embrace a more inclusive model that encompasses both those with traditional connections AND those willing to make substantial investments in our future?
Consider two scenarios: in one case, a person claims Vincentian citizenship through a remote ancestral connection—perhaps a fourth-generation grandparent—but has never visited SVG and contributes nothing to our development. In the other case, someone invests EC$500,000 through a CBI programme, providing funds that directly support our schools, hospitals, and disaster recovery efforts. Which better embodies meaningful solidarity with the Vincentian people?
European Hypocrisy and Caribbean Sovereignty
The European Union’s warnings about potential visa restrictions for countries operating CBI programmes reveals a troubling hypocrisy. These former colonial powers, having extracted enormous wealth from Caribbean nations for centuries, now seek to limit how we develop economically, while simultaneously refusing to provide reparations for slavery and native genocide.
The economic disenfranchisement we face today is a direct consequence of colonial exploitation. Yet, instead of supporting our efforts to build economic resilience, European nations threaten punitive measures against innovative development strategies like CBI programmes. Surely, this cannot be right.
Ultimately, citizenship is a quintessential expression of national sovereignty. Just as Caribbean nations would not presume to dictate EU citizenship criteria, European nations should not determine ours. This is especially true given the absence of reparatory justice for the historical injustices that created our current economic vulnerabilities in the first place.
Addressing Legitimate Concerns Through Regional Regulation
While the economic and sovereignty arguments for CBI are compelling, legitimate concerns about potential risks must be addressed head-on. Without proper safeguards, such programmes could potentially be exploited by individuals seeking to evade taxes, launder money, finance terrorism, or circumvent international sanctions.
However, these risks are manageable through a robust regulatory framework. The Eastern Caribbean Central Bank’s initiative to establish a regional regulatory body for CBI programmes, for example, represents a significant opportunity to implement standardized due diligence procedures, information sharing mechanisms, and compliance monitoring across participating states.
This regional approach would allow SVG to benefit from the collective experience of other ECCU member states while maintaining the highest standards of program integrity. Through enhanced vetting of applicants and close cooperation with international partners—including intelligence sharing with diplomatic allies—potential security concerns can be effectively mitigated.
A Path Forward for National Development
The compelling economic benefits of a well-regulated CBI programme, coupled with our right to define citizenship on our own terms and the emergence of a strong regional regulatory framework, present a powerful case for SVG to implement this initiative.
As we continue to rebuild from natural disasters and seek sustainable pathways to economic development, a CBI programme aligned with our national values and regional standards could provide much-needed resources for critical infrastructure, social services, and climate resilience initiatives.
The question before us is not whether SVG can afford to implement a CBI programme, but whether we can afford not to. With careful design and robust safeguards, such a programme could help secure a more prosperous and resilient future for all Vincentians while reasserting our sovereign right to determine our own development path.
The time has come to move beyond outdated objections and embrace this opportunity to strengthen our nation’s economic foundation for generations to come.
Dr Jason Haynes is a Vincentian lawyer, national scholar, Chevening Scholar, and Commonwealth Scholar. He holds an LLB with first class honours from the University of the West Indies; an LLM in International Economic Law with Distinction from the University of Nottingham; an MSc in International Human Rights Law with Distinction from the University of Oxford; and a PhD in International Law from Durham University. He is the 2021 UNESCO/Juan Bosch Laureate. He is a former Senior Lecturer in Law and Deputy Dean at the UWI Cave Hill Campus, and Senior Legal Officer at the British High Commission in Barbados. (https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/staff/profiles/law/haynes-jason)
