In February this year, the Antigua and Barbuda diplomat, Sir Ronald Sanders wrote ‘CARICOM’s ability to coordinate foreign policy – once a source of strength in the 1970s – has also deteriorated’.
He argued then that on crucial geopolitical matters, the 15 member regional integration movement had ‘become vulnerable to external influence, easily divided by powerful nations seeking bilateral advantage’.
He said none of this is in CARICOM’s interest, ‘especially now, when small states face existential threats that require a united regional front’.
In a 2011 paper entitled ‘Caribbean Regional Integration,’ a group of academics at the Trinidad-based Institute of International Relations (IIR), including the late Professor Norman Girvan, said that ‘CARICOM is central to any movement forward in the regional integration agenda.
‘It is clear from our analysis that there is huge support throughout the region for the integration process, and this needs to be harnessed for the benefit of all,’ they wrote.
Divisions within the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) is not new.
One CARICOM diplomat told the Caribbean Media Corporation (CMC) that the question now confronting the region is how will these new differences be mended to hold the regional integration grouping together.
‘February 2026 heads of government summit must attempt to address the issues that have emerged as threatening the survival of CARICOM,’ the diplomat said, adding that ‘ issues of trust and where self-interest prevails over regional solidarity must be high on the agenda’.
The diplomat is suggesting that when he leaders meet in St. Kitts and Nevis, February 25-27, they should seek to invite United States President Donald Trump ‘for a caucus meeting, frank no hold bar engagement and let us use that opportunity to cement the historic bond of friendship, cooperation and shared democratic principles between CARICOM and the US.
‘Clearly CARICOM has entered a new geopolitical era where ideological positions must be reviewed and how will the US support the region to cope with its developmental challenges n what is an unstable global multiplex,’ the diplomat told CMC.
The ideological conflicts surrounding the Grenada Revolution hindered Caribbean regionalism and almost led to CARICOM’s collapse. Prior to 1979, when Maurice Bishop led his New Jewel Movement (NJM) in overthrowing the then Sir Eric Gairy regime, CARlCOM, which was established in 1973, had not attempted any mediating role in the internal political affairs of the states of the region.
Indeed, CARICOM heads rarely met, so strained and bitter was the relationship among some of its key members who gave all sorts of reasons for not attending meeting ranging from pending elections to settling into office.
CARICOM leaders didn’t completely fail to meet in the 1980s, but meetings were often tense and unproductive due to deep ideological divides, especially concerning Bishop’s People’s Revolutionary Government (PRG) and United States influence, leading to fractured decision-making and undermining regional unity, with some states even supporting the 1983 US invasion of Grenada despite CARICOM’s official stance.
In 2019, during his first term in office, President Trump succeeded in getting the leaders of five CARICOM countries-The Bahamas, Dominican Republic, Haiti, Jamaica and St. Lucia -to meet with him in Florida, at a time when Washington was pushing Juan Guaido, to replace Nicolas Maduro as the president of Venezuela.
Prior to the meeting, the White House stated ‘President Trump’s meeting with the Caribbean leaders will reaffirm our strong friendship with and commitment to these countries, and signal the importance of the Caribbean to the hemisphere. The President will discuss his vision for our diverse relationships in the Caribbean and the potential opportunities for energy investment.
‘The United States remains a good friend to the Caribbean and seeks to build on a proud legacy as the region’s partner of choice,’ it added.
Jamaica’s Prime Minister Andrew Holness told his Parliament later that the meeting provided an opportunity for a different dialogue with leaders of the region and to explore ways of strengthening the bilateral and regional relationships.
Holness said the invitation was extended on a bilateral basis and that Trump ‘wanted to hear the leaders’ perspectives on a range of issues, including the current economic outlook from each country in attendance and for the region generally; areas in which the US could offer greater support; the situation in Venezuela; and the respective perspectives of the leaders who attended, on Cuba’.
Holness said that Jamaica had not given any commitment to the United States that it will be a party to any activity to change the government in Venezuela.
But that position did not prevent the then St. Vincent and the Grenadines prime minister Dr. Ralph Gonsalves from stating that the meeting was not in line with the agreed mechanisms recognised by CARICOM.
‘None of those governments can speak for anybody but themselves. Certainly, they can’t speak for CARICOM or St Vincent and the Grenadines.’
Antigua and Barbuda Prime Minister Gaston Browne said he felt ’embarrassed for those weak-minded leaders who allowed themselves to be used by carrying out the agenda of others.
‘CARICOM must continue its sustaining position by standing on principle without inducements or fear of reprisals,’ he wrote in a statement published on social media, warning that there were who were intent on undermining CARICOM’s solidarity so as to relegate the region to history.
Now in his second term as President, Trump has been able to divide the region.
The Jamaica Gleaner newspaper had in an editorial noted that when Trump won the US presidential election more than a year ago, it stressed the good sense of CARICOM ‘coordinating their policies to avoid, as much as possible, having their interests subverted by Mr Trump’s muscular assertion of America’s power.
The paper said that Trump has pursued his so-called America First agenda and undermined institutions on which small states depended for some cover, and that while CARICOM has, to some degree, attempted to leverage its numbers and collective voice, in defence of its concerns, for instance, that the Caribbean should remain a zone of peace in the face of Trump’s military muscle-flexing against Maduro ‘the region’s principled stance on this issue, unfortunately, hasn’t been unanimous’.
Trinidad and Tobago’s Prime Minister Kamla Persad Bissessar has left no doubt where she stands on the issue and has disagreed with the CARICOM position that the region should remain a zone of peace, supporting Washington’s so-called war on drugs in the region, even as political observers say Washington’s main aim is to institute regime change in Caracas.
The Jamaica Observer newspaper notes that the ‘diplomatic expertise of the Caribbean Community must be stretched seriously thin trying to stave off the worst impacts of geopolitical events which have made 2025 one of, if not the region’s toughest year in recent memory’.
President Trump has amassed a formidable armada in the international waters near Venezuela, bombing several vessels he claims are engaged in the illegal drugs trade and in the process killing almost 100 people.
‘These attacks – and their mounting human cost – are unacceptable. The US must halt such attacks and take all measures necessary to prevent the extrajudicial killing of people aboard these boats, whatever the criminal conduct alleged against them,’ the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Volker Turk, said in a statement, in what is seen as the first condemnation from United Nations organisations over the strikes on the vessels.
For its part, CARICOM in August issued a statement regarding the increased security build up in the Caribbean and the potential impacts on member states, reaffirming ‘the principle of maintaining the Caribbean region as a Zone of Peace and the importance of dialogue and engagement towards the peaceful resolution of disputes and conflict’.
‘CARICOM Heads of Government reiterated their continued commitment to fighting narcotrafficking and the illegal trade in small arms and light weapons which adversely affect the region. They underscored that efforts to overcome these challenges should be through ongoing international cooperation and within international law. ‘
But Trinidad and Tobago ‘reserved its position’ on the matter, with Persad-Bissessar being on record earlier as saying that those involved in the illegal drugs trade should be killed ‘violently’.
Guyana’s President Irfaan Ali, in supporting the United States crackdown on illegal drugs trade in the region, said his administration ‘has absolutely no sympathy for drug traffickers’.
But he acknowledged that ‘ we support the region being a zone of peace,’ and that while he cannot speak for other countries in the region that have spoken out against the US operations in the southern Caribbean, he was also mindful of the aggression and threats Guyana is facing from its South American neighbour, which has laid claims to a significant portion of Guyana.
‘You know that we have a peculiar situation in Guyana. We just had Venezuelans being charged for terrorist activity in Guyana that claimed the life of (a) young person. We have a border situation to manage (whereby) we have an active threat from Venezuela on the sovereignty of this country.
‘And my responsibility is to keep Guyanese safe, to keep Guyana safe, and to work with all our allies and partners in doing that. And I intend to continue to work strongly with our allies in doing exactly that,’ President Ali said.
But the Guyana-based Stabroek newspaper, said that Washington can’t pretend to the international community any longer that deploying the largest aircraft carrier in the world along with eight other naval vessels plus various aircraft is all about drug interdiction.
‘No one needs the Gerald Ford to strike narcotic boats. While the US has been targeting what it claims are drug vessels in the Caribbean and the Pacific – on highly suspect legal grounds, it might be added – most international observers are of the view that the real objective of this military build-up is regime change in Caracas.
‘. it is unlikely that all these military manoeuvres in the Caribbean absent direct hostile action will induce the incumbent in Miraflores to leave. If he doesn’t go, then the White House will be under pressure to engage in some kind of incursion if it is not to lose total credibility and appear weak.’
Last Tuesday, the United States issued a proclamation, in which President Trump announced his intention to suspend the entry of nationals of Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica and Haiti into his country effective January 1, 2026.
Trump said that in the case of Dominica and Antigua and Barbuda, the two CARICOM countries have historically had Citizenship by Investment (CBI) programmes without residency, posing challenges for screening and vetting purposes.
Under the CBI programme, several Caribbean countries offer citizenship to foreign investors in return for making a substantial investment in the socio-economic development of these countries.
Trump said both Antigua and Barbuda and Dominica have ‘historically had CBI without residency’ and that the entry into the United States of nationals of these two countries as immigrants, and as nonimmigrants on B-1, B-2, B-1/B-2, F, M, and J visas, is hereby suspended.
But after a flurry of diplomatic moves, both Roseau and St. John’s announced the suspension of the proclamation with Dominica’s Prime Minister Roosevelt Skerrit saying he believes that ‘a case of mis-communication’ could have led to the decision by Washington.
In a statement, that was later criticised by Antigua and Barbuda Prime Minister, Gaston Browne, the CARICOM Bureau made up of the prime ministers of Jamaica, Barbados and Grenada, said it had taken note of the visa situation.
It said that while it ‘recognises the right of countries to implement policies regulating entry to their borders, nevertheless, the Bureau expresses concern that this decision was taken without prior consultation, especially in circumstances of its potential adverse effects on legitimate travel, people-to-people exchanges, and the social and economic well-being of these small states’.
The CARICOM Bureau said it is concerned about the lack of clarity regarding the status of existing visas after 1 January 2026.
‘The Bureau urges an early engagement by the United States with the Governments of Antigua and Barbuda and Dominica to clarify the proclamation and address outstanding concerns, consistent with the strong and longstanding partnership between the United States of America and CARICOM.’
But Prime Minister Browne in a post on his Facebook, said despite being advised by him ‘that the issue was resolved and that it would be superfluous circulating this statement after the fact,’ CARICOM still went ahead and issued a statement.
He said the CARICOM position came ‘especially in consideration of their inertia and initial luke warm support’.
Prime Minister Persad-Bissessar seized on the opportunity to distance Trinidad and Tobago from the statement put out by the Bureau, adding that ‘CARICOM will not determine the future of her twin island republic and that it ‘is not a reliable partner at this time.
‘An organisation that chooses to disparage our greatest ally the United States but lends support to the Maduro narco-government headed by a dictator who has imprisoned and killed thousands of civilians and opposition members as well as threatened two CARICOM members is one that has clearly lost its way,’ Persad-Bissessar said in a statement.
The CARICOM Bureau is a Sub-Committee of CARICOM leaders comprising the incoming, incumbent and outgoing chairpersons of the CARICOM, identified in accordance with the approved Rotation Schedule for the chairmanship of CARICOM.
The Bureau is provided for in the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas and was established at a special meeting of CARICOM leaders in Trinidad and Tobago in 1992 when they met to consider the recommendations of the West Indian Commission (WIC) set out in its report ‘Time for Action’.
One of those Recommendations was the establishment of a CARICOM Commission to assist in accelerating the implementation of decisions , identified by the WIC as the Achilles Heel of the integration movement and in seeking to address the issue of the implementation deficit, the regional leaders agreed instead to establish a Bureau.
Among its principal responsibilities are updating the consensus of member states on issues determined by the CARICOM leaders, namely, undertaking the necessary preparatory consultations among member sates and other stakeholders to assist regional leaders arrive at at decisions as well as facilitating implementation of CARICOM decisions, both at the regional and local levels, ‘in an expeditious and informed manner’.
But in a statement distancing Port of Spain, Persad-Bissessar said she was also advising her citizens that Port of Spain ‘is not a party’ to the statement issued by the CARICOM Bureau, even as she acknowledge the right of the Bureau ‘to express its views.
‘I hold the view that every sovereign state is responsible for its foreign and domestic policy choices and must be prepared to accept the concomitant consequences. The exercise of power by the United States of America to advance their best interests must therefore be seen as a measured response to the conduct of other nations in the realities of the current environments that they place themselves in’.
Moreover she said that her government ‘does not bind itself to the political ideologies or foreign, economic and security policies of any other CARICOM member government’ and that countries are free to make decisions in the best interests of their citizens.
‘CARICOM is not a reliable partner at this time. The fact is that beneath the thin mask of unity, there are many widening fissures that if left unaddressed will lead to its implosion. The organisation is deteriorating rapidly due to poor management, lax accountability, factional divisions, destabilising policies, private conflicts between regional leaders and political parties and the inappropriate meddling in the domestic politics of member states. That’s the plain truth. ‘
Persad-Bissessar said that CARICOM cannot continue to operate in ‘this dysfunctional and self-destructive manner as it is a grave disservice to the people of the Caribbean.
‘The Caribbean community must face the rot within the organisation with transparency and honesty. Hiding behind the glibness of diplomacy, fake sophistication and false narratives is self-defeating,’ she said, after earlier telling supporters of her ruling United Nations Congress (UNC) that criticism of Washington could lead visas being withdrawn as had been the case of Dominica and Antigua and Barbuda.
But international relations expert, Dr Anthony Gonzales, in dismissing concerns that criticising the US could result in visa restrictions, told the Trinidad Guardian newspaper that Trinidad and Tobago must be prepared to accept consequences in defence of its sovereignty.
‘If they take away your visa, so what? Well, you don’t go to the United States. That’s all,’ Gonzales said, adding that countries must be willing to accept some losses when making decisions in international relations.
‘There’s a risk involved, but we have to decide that. But this is our sovereignty,’ he said., warning that security considerations must guide foreign policy decisions.
‘We are under threat from Venezuela here. We are seven miles from their coast,’ Gonzales said, adding that international involvement in Venezuela made the situation unpredictable.
‘We are a small country. One should not get involved in something like that because you don’t know what’s going to happen,’ he said, describing developments in Venezuela as ‘regime change’ with potentially serious consequences.
Former Trinidad and Tobago CARICOM and Foreign Affairs minister Dr. Amery Browne said that the latest statement by Prime Minister Persad-Bissessar is in keeping with her position since coming to office in April this year, where she has ‘made it clear that she has taken on an assignment to divide and destroy CARICOM.
‘She has refused to participate in key meetings of the Community, she has abandoned her responsibilities in the CARICOM quasi-Cabinet, she has resiled from official CARICOM statements, and she has deliberately misconstrued and denigrated fundamental CARICOM principles such as the Zone of Peace amongst Caribbean nations.
‘This latest attack on CARICOM by the Prime Minister represents a new low point for her as the Head of Government of one of the founding member states of our regional family. Her anti-CARICOM rant is erratic, inflammatory, full of baseless rhetoric and even includes a paragraph that portends to publicly ‘explain’, in a most misleading and self-serving manner, a US position to CARICOM leaders on behalf of the United States of America. Her audacity can never be mistaken for prudence,’ he wrote on his Facebook age.
He said it is ‘now extremely important that our citizens make it clear that Kamla Persad-Bissessar is not speaking to CARICOM on behalf of the Trinidad and Tobago society,’ adding ‘no one voted for these unhinged declarations by Kamla Persad-Bissessar’.