Caribbean caught in geopolitical crossfire

The Caribbean Sea was a battleground in the fight for European hegemony from the discovery of the “New World” in 1492 until the Battle of Waterloo in 1815. In 1823, US President Monroe declared the Americas a US sphere of influence, warning European powers against further colonisation or intervention in the Caribbean and Western Hemisphere. Historically, this policy has been used to justify military and political interventions, such as the invasion of Grenada in 1983 and Panama in 1989.

Cuba’s attempt to become a military ally of the Soviet Union in 1962 resulted in 13 agonising days known as the “Cuban Missile Crisis,” during which the world came close to nuclear war. For over sixty years, the U.S. has enforced an embargo and other sanctions on Cuba that restrict its ability to import essential commodities for its economy and population, including pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and other medical supplies. The primary purpose of these sanctions has been to achieve regime change by causing widespread hardship for ordinary Cubans, with the intent of creating destabilising conditions.

The same techniques have been employed in Venezuela. Over time, these measures have evolved from targeted actions against specific individuals to broad economic sanctions, with strategy and intensity shifting significantly between presidential administrations. The first Trump administration dramatically escalated sanctions into a “maximum pressure” campaign. Under Trump 2.0, the strategy has expanded beyond economic sanctions to include direct military and covert actions. As with Cuba, this has caused economic deprivation but has not resulted in a popular uprising to depose President Maduro.

US military forces have carried out strikes on alleged drug-smuggling vessels, and CIA covert operations have been authorised, signalling a significant intensification of pressure. Rather than a campaign to eliminate the drug trade, it is becoming clear that the real intent of the U.S. military presence in the region is to intimidate the Maduro regime with the apparent goal of forcing a change in Venezuela’s leadership.

The US strategy has had the unintended consequence of encouraging Venezuela to deepen its ties with US adversaries — China, Iran, and Russia — to further its interests. These countries have helped Venezuela bypass US sanctions and provide technical assistance, increasing both Venezuela’s oil production and military readiness. China, in particular, has strengthened ties with Latin American and Caribbean countries over the past thirty years. This brings the geopolitical tensions of a new multipolar world to our doorstep. More direct US military action against Venezuela could escalate into a wider conflict reminiscent of the Cuban Missile Crisis.

The Government of Trinidad and Tobago has been carried along by this momentum. The Attorney General and Foreign Minister have confirmed that the US 22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) will intensify joint military training exercises with the Defence Force. The AG said he was comfortable with an ally assisting, arguing that, “We have a problem with gangs, drugs, and criminal activity, including gang-related homicides, and those things are directly linked to the flow of drugs and ammunition from Venezuela.”

Drug interdiction and control fall under the jurisdiction of this country’s law enforcement agencies, not the Defence Force. US action on the high seas has only eliminated easily replaceable foot soldiers. Nor is the drug trade the source of all crime in Trinidad and Tobago. These public statements are hollow, a charade. Wholesale adoption of the US narrative increases risks for citizens.

There are no winners in a war.