Last Updated on December 17, 2025 6:38 pm by Editor
At Issue
Ever since the government of Trinidad and Tobago voiced its support for the United States military operation against Venezuela, speculation over the potential “demise” of CARICOM has been making the rounds. That and the concept of Caribbean as a “zone of peace” have given regional leaders and podcasters alike much to talk about.
But does either narrative – the demise of CARICOM or the Caribbean as a zone of peace – have any merit? Is the evolving USA Venezuela conflict really going to split CARICOM apart?
Background
After more than a month of “deliberation” the government of Grenada has turned down a request by the USA to position a radar at the island’s airport. This comes after pressure to refuse such a request from some CARICOM heads of Government and certain factions of the Grenada society.
The government of T&T (Trinidad & Tobago), on the other hand, recently approved the positioning of a US radar on the island of Tobago. That is in addition to previously allowing the USA to use its airports for logistical purposes, a move which drew severe criticism against the Trinidad Prime Minister, Kamla Persad Bessessar.
To make matters even more interesting, the government of Guyana, another member of CARICOM, recently signed a military co-operation agreement with the USA.
Citing a release from the Office of the President of Guyana, Stabroek News a Guyanese news agency, indicated that the Statement of Intent signed provides for expanded joint military cooperation “with full respect for the sovereignty and laws of both countries”.
The signing of such an agreement should come as no surprise since Guyana has a longstanding territorial dispute with Venezuela whose military is far superior to that of the Guyana Defence Force. It is matter of survival.
Analysis
It is not our purpose here to do an academic analysis of CARICOM as a group but it would be remiss of us to let the speculation pass without trying to bring some level of rationality to the situation.
CARICOM, like any other group, can be analyzed by reference to principles of human networking or group dynamics, a subject on which there is a large volume of research.
What some in the Caribbean are speculating about is referred to in group dynamics as “cohesion”. A fairly standard definition of group cohesion is “the degree to which members are attracted to and motivated to stay in the group”.
Of the dozen or more factors that influence group cohesion, three in particular can help us do a “quick and dirty” assessment of the level of cohesion in CARICOM and the prospects of its demise. Those factors are: (1) similarity of attitudes and values (2) shared goals and (3) interdependence.
So, what is the assessment? Will CARICOM survive?
Caribbean Cohesion
Subsuming “similarity of attitudes and values” under the broader theme of “shared identity”, we have one of the more powerful forces of cohesion shaping the continued survival of CARICOM.
Our history, although nuanced, our common economic plight and our common mixed ethnic background are a few of the perceived common identity elements that favour continued cohesion.
The common goal of trying to better the social and economic lives of the people of our several societies is yet another factor that favours the continued survival of CARICOM. And this is true notwithstanding the fact that in some respects, for example, in the area of tourism, we compete with each other. There is no perfect union.
That segues nicely into factor #3: our interdependence. In its efforts to achieve common goals CARICOM has clearly recognized in its founding treaty that cooperation and coordination are important given our relatively small individual size and miniscule individual international influence.
Given the serious difficulties the institution of CARICOM has had in reaching this point in its development it is unlikely that members will opt to dissolve the organization. However, it faces and will continue to face threats both internal and external as it is now with the US-Venezuela conflict.
Prognosis
What then is the future of CARICOM in the context of the US-Venezuela conflict? How should we view the current conflict? Here some facts and perceptions that podcasters and alarmist fake news artists overlook that might help us reorganize our thinking.
- The US has no real intention of effecting a “hard” militarily invasion of Venezuela. According to some military analysts, despite what is on show, the US does not have the assembled fire power in the region to do so. In any event, an invasion of Venezuela might mean an active and prolonged kinetic war especially if Columbia and Cuba become involved. Neither the President of the United States nor the American people appear to have a stomach for such a war.
- The US military action is a classic case of brinksmanship which is the practice of “trying to achieve an advantageous outcome by pushing dangerous events to the brink of active conflict”. Given the “microwave mentality” and alarmist politics prevalent in Caribbean, few seem willing to exercise patience to see how each move plays out.
- The US is theoretically self-sufficient in oil. However, it continues to buy the heavier Venezuelan oil which is used by refineries on its Gulf Coast. Reportedly it “manages” the payments to help defray Venezuela’s massive debt. However, Venezuela is actively helping Iran to avoid oil sanctions by using “ghost ships” one of which was recently seized by the US.
- According to Maria Corina Machado, 2025 Nobel Prize winner and Venezuelan opposition leader in exile, Venezuela has already been “invaded” by China, Russa, Iran and the terrorist group Hezbollah. A little commonsense tells us that such a state of affairs (no pun intended) is NOT favourable to the Caribbean being a zone of peace.
Conclusion
We in the Caribbean need to learn how to choose between the lesser of two evils. The problem is that the average person does not know or cares to know enough about complex issues to be able to make such choices. Spreading popular but often half-true or outright untrue narratives is the lazy and dangerous choice habitually made by many.
The US-Venezuelan conflict has brought two choices sharply into focus: (1) tacitly supporting the expanding terrorist-associated trilateral consortium of evil in the form of drug trafficking, gun running and human trafficking with its epicenter in communist Venezuela and (2) the opportunity to break up the influence of the consortium on Caribbean societies with the help of the United States.
For those who are closely following developments across the world AND are not communist sympathizers AND care deeply about the future of our societies, the choice is a no-brainer.
About the Author
