CARICOM Unity Fractures Over Cuba and US Influence

By Mark DaCosta-Guyana and Trinidad and Tobago have opted to withhold their support from CARICOM’s recent stance regarding the United States’ economic and financial measures imposed on Cuba. This decision reflects an increasingly complex geopolitical landscape influenced by the new US-led Shield of the Americas initiative, a framework that positions our nation squarely in the midst of a contentious international debate.

The Caribbean Community (CARICOM) has voiced profound concern over the escalating sanctions against Cuba, labelling them as exacerbations of a decades-long embargo that has had a severe impact on the Cuban populace. The community’s Council for Foreign and Community Relations (COFCOR) underscored the humanitarian plight facing not only the Cuban people but also CARICOM nationals residing and studying in Cuba, reaffirming the need for respect for Cuba’s sovereignty and condemning the obstruction of essential resources such as fuel. However, our nation’s leaders have chosen a path of partial allegiance, opting to remain non-committal to this collective CARICOM resolution, a choice that raises questions about their political motives and the broader implications for regional solidarity.

At the heart of this decision is the Shield of the Americas project, a US-led initiative launched in March 2026 ostensibly intended to counter transnational crime, illegal immigration, and perceived foreign influence, particularly from nations like China and Russia. Rooted in the strategic aims outlined in the US’ 2025 National Security Strategy, this project manifests as a militarised alliance that, on the face of it, prioritises collective safety and collaborative intelligence-sharing among member states. The participation of Guyana and Trinidad and Tobago in this initiative reveals a shift in focus, aligning more closely with US interests over regional solidarity, thus igniting tensions within CARICOM itself.

The implications of this split are considerable for our nation. The abstention of Guyana and Trinidad and Tobago from supporting the CARICOM statement signals a potential rift in regional diplomacy, where alignment with the US, a former colonial power with a checkered history in the region, and – according to some  analysts – currently, with questionable democratic credentials, might take precedence over camaraderie among Caribbean neighbours. This could diminish the strength of collective Caribbean voices, particularly those advocating for autonomy over external pressures and interference, and inadvertently embolden the US administration’s ongoing punitive measures against Cuba.

The suggestion of military aggression against Cuba, as articulated by various officials, adds another layer of concern. Such a move would not only disregard the principles of international law but could also lead to catastrophic humanitarian consequences, destabilising an already fragile region – our region  – which has historically prided itself on peaceful resolutions and unity. It raises alarm bells that the present government of Guyana may prioritise relations with the United States over the well-being of our Caribbean brothers and sisters.

Furthermore, the apparent endorsement of US policies by Guyana’s leadership through the Shield of the Americas initiative draws scrutiny toward the government’s priorities, particularly in the context of our nation’s vast potential and needs. The decision to reserve support for Cuba could be interpreted as a capitulation to external pressures, sidelining the collective Caribbean narrative of independence and self-determination that has been a hallmark of regional politics since decolonisation.

According to analysts, the politically charged atmosphere also implies an erosion of traditional Caribbean diplomacy. The ability of CARICOM to present a united front on issues of common interest, including free trade and human rights, is jeopardised by these divergent stances. The community’s long-standing commitment to peaceful dialogue and mutual support may be undermined, creating a fragmented approach to governance in the region that could ultimately disadvantage smaller economies and vulnerable populations across the Caribbean.

As troubling as this development is for the region, it leads one to question the motivations of our government in taking such a stand. Will it benefit our nation in the long run, or is it merely a step towards deeper alignment with a security framework that prioritises US interests over our own? The Cuban scenario is emblematic of larger geopolitical tensions, and the decisions we make today could reverberate for generations.

The stance taken by Guyana and Trinidad and Tobago amid CARICOM’s statement on Cuba highlights a major discord within the region while signalling a possible shift towards closer ties with US delineations of foreign policy. Such a move raises alarm about the local government’s priorities, questioning the implications for national sovereignty and regional solidarity.