by Ian Baptiste
Below, I attempt to describe and assess 4 sets of responses (camps) to Trump’s request to install military assets in Grenada.
I admit that the camps I have created are theoretical, and as such, individuals may not fit neatly into them. I try to make the camps mutually exclusive, but there may be some overlap. Some of you may see yourselves in more than one cam,p and some of you may not see yourselves in any of the camps. From my observations and interactions, so far, I have identified the following 4 camps:
- Absolutely yes
- We don’t have a choice
- We don’t have the infrastructure, and
- Absolutely no
Camp #1: Absolutely yes
People in this camp wholeheartedly buy the narco-terrorist rationale provided by Trump. They believe (or project that they believe) that Venezuela is a narco-state and that force (military intervention) is the only reasonable recourse. Trinidad and Tobago’s Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar exemplifies this position.
This position lacks credibility for 2 important reasons: (1) it has not been demonstrated that Venezuela is a narco-state; and (2) even if it were true that Venezuela was a narco-state, it has not been demonstrated that all other non-violent options were explored. In fact, The Guardian reported on 17 October 2025 that Trump has claimed that “Maduro is willing to give ‘everything’ to ease US tensions.”
Camp #2: We don’t have a choice
Members of this camp believe that Grenada doesn’t have a choice. The US is too powerful to say no to. Accordingly, our only sensible recourse is to turn the request into an opportunity for Grenada. Give Trump what he wants in exchange for something(s) in return, e.g., lower or no tariffs, easier and greater access to US visa, etc., etc.
By claiming that Grenada has no choice, members of this camp sidestep the morality issues — de facto supporting a lie, betraying a friend (Venezuela), and ignoring the safety and security risks to Grenada and the rest of the region.
Camp #3: We don’t have the infrastructure
Most members of this group do not buy Trump’s narco-state rationale. They know it’s a ruse to get control of Venezuela’s oil and other minerals. And they are fully aware of the potential risk to Grenada and the rest of the region. But they believe that saying an outright NO is not wise. A better strategy, they argue, is to say that we are not technically capable, i.e., we lack the infrastructure necessary to accommodate the request.
I think this argument is a slippery slope. Because it implies that once Grenada becomes technically capable, it would be okay for us to grant the request. Answer this: How difficult would it be for the US to provide the technical capabilities Grenada needs to accede to the request?
Camp #4: Absolutely no
Those who hold this position, myself included, believe that this is a MORAL, not a TECHNICAL issue, a matter of right and wrong. We are unable to conceive of any scenario or condition under which it would be right or appropriate to say yes. Because saying yes goes against some of our most fundamental values — including standing up to bullies, peacemaking, loving our neighbours, loyalty to friends, freedom, dignity, and sovereignty.
NOTE: I am well aware that there may be grave economic and material consequences for saying NO. But I maintain that if we stand by our principles (our values) only when it’s convenient, then convenience is our ONLY principle/value.
