The Caribbean Community (CARICOM) is experiencing a difficult foreign policy-related moment, which variously impacts its 14 sovereign member states. America’s use of military force in the Caribbean since September 2025 drew two disparate strands of reaction from these states, testing the bloc’s unity.
At this juncture, CARICOM’s leadership is taking steps to address this concern. In doing so, it is mindful inter alia of the seemingly implacable goals of the so-called “Donroe Doctrine” and pressure from concomitant US policy toward the regional grouping’s sovereign members.
The powers-that-be in CARICOM will have their work cut out to move the needle on what ostensibly amounts to a cohesive foreign policy response to Trump 2.0’s take on American power, which leans into spheres of influence and strategic rivalry-related thinking.
The signals, so far, are that the associated interests of two sets of CARICOM member states diverge, having been framed in stark contrast to each other.
For that reason, public messaging-related restraint qua threading the needle has informed the bloc’s collective reaction to date to the United States’ recent targeted military strikes in Venezuela. (Instructively, several Latin American countries – such as Brazil – have not held back in condemning this US-orchestrated development.)
Characterized by President Donald Trump as “a large scale strike against Venezuela and its leader,” this US intervention – to which US authorities have also attached a law enforcement operation narrative – resulted in the ouster of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, with plans afoot for the United States to “run the country”. (Secretary of State Marco Rubio qualified this Trumpian characterization, focusing instead on regime management in post-Maduro Venezuela.)
BARBADOS’ AND TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO’S RESPONSE
Of note, there is a stark difference in the respective responses of two leading CARICOM member states to this high-profile, consequential development. Those countries are Barbados and Trinidad and Tobago.
In this moment, Barbados is emblematic of the set of member states that embraces the bloc’s traditional foreign policy-related ethos. For its part, Trinidad and Tobago has pursued a radical break with many of its sister CARICOM member states’ foreign policy-related dispositions.
Consider that with an eye to the associated risks both for small states and the international rules-based order, Barbadian Prime Minister Mia Amor Mottley did not pull any punches in her assessment of the implications of the January 3 US military action in Venezuela.
Mottley’s statement was not far removed from that of the spokesperson for United Nations (UN) Secretary General António Guterres in respect of the development in question. This is apt, considering the UN’s outsized place in CARICOM’s diplomatic playbook.
Guterres is said to view that military action as “a dangerous precedent”. He has also cautioned that, stemming from this turn of events, there is a “risk of deepening instability, regional repercussions and a dangerous precedent for relations among States.”
Guterres’ viewpoint on these matters comports with Mottley’s foreign policy ideals, which also resonate with those of virtually all CARICOM member states’ leaders.
Yet Trinidad and Tobago sees the matter at hand differently, underscoring (yet again) “that the concept of real regional peace has been elusive within the Southern Caribbean.” Moreover, in recent days, Port of Spain also reaffirmed its commitment to Washington’s logic of intervention.
That said, Trinidad and Tobago’s Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar was quick to distance her country from the recent US military operation against Venezuela.
Nonetheless, Trinidad and Tobago has come under the spotlight due to its prominent role in US pressure brought to bear on Venezuela under the aegis of ‘Operation Southern Spear’.
This role has raised concerns within CARICOM, not least because US interventionism in Latin America and the Caribbean is seemingly making a comeback.
THE PARAMOUNTCY OF INTERNATIONAL LAW
Much to the concern of CARICOM member states, too, the United States – which stands as the world’s pre-eminent superpower – is withdrawing from a number of international organizations, conventions and treaties. (Having largely brought about the liberal international order over 80 years ago, the US is now seemingly turning its back on it and attendant international regimes.)
In the conduct of their international relations, these post-colonial small states rely on the UN, associated international organizations and norms and principles – all of which undergird processes of international cooperation and multilateralism. These processes help to amplify their voices and safeguard their interests in the anarchic international system, which the discipline of International Relations frames (for the most part) as hinging on “a lack of a common superior in an interaction domain”.
Under such systemic conditions, and as the historical record shows, large states may well resort to the power of war as a go-to agent for change and means of securing their interests qua security in international relations. Depending on the circumstances, such action may end up subordinating international law and, by extension, smaller states.
This is why CARICOM member states characteristically frame their interests in terms of the paramountcy of international law, which dovetails with their robust support for UN-anchored multilateralism. For example, in a statement published on January 4 on the ‘present situation in Venezuela’, The Bahamas emphasized the following sentiment: “Of particular importance to The Bahamas is that all parties involved act in accordance with international law.”
Indeed, this view echoes Guterres’ standpoint on the recent US military action in Venezuela that affirms “respect for international law must remain the guiding principle.” He has also voiced concern that “the rules governing the use of force have not been respected in the 3 January military action.” The UN Charter, Guterres recalled, “explicitly prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State.”
It is also noteworthy that at the UN Security Council meeting held shortly after the January 3 US military action in Venezuela, Trinidad and Tobago saw fit to call attention to its track record as “a long standing advocate for peaceful coexistence and the rule of law”.
Among CARICOM member states, as far as the Trump administration’s roll-out of aspects of ‘America First’ foreign policy is concerned, there is a serious rift that adds urgency to the Fiftieth Regular Meeting of the Conference of CARICOM Heads of Government – carded for next month. (A proviso is in order here: CARICOM member states have found common ground on certain elements of the aforesaid foreign policy. For example, a growing number of them are at varying stages of talks with the US to host deported migrants from third countries.)
Accordingly, and having regard to the disparate regional thinking on issues in the mix, the following question arises: Will this summit live up to such an expectation?
Only time will tell.
As CARICOM’s leadership weighs how to see the way forward for the summit vis-à-vis the central insight of the foregoing analysis, it has likely already come to the realization that this high-level meeting is a test that the bloc cannot afford to fail.
This likely means that at this summit, given that the stakes are high, CARICOM faces a unity-defining moment.
– Nand C. Bardouille, Ph.D., is the manager of The Diplomatic Academy of the Caribbean in the Institute of International Relations at The University of the West Indies (The UWI) St. Augustine Campus, Republic of Trinidad and Tobago. The views expressed here are his own. Email feedback to [email protected]
