In the waning days of November 2025, the Caribbean finds itself once again at the epicenter of international tension, with the shadow of U.S. military intervention looming large over Venezuela and its neighbors. The deployment of the USS Gerald R. Ford, authorized by President Donald Trump and now stationed north of Puerto Rico alongside the USS Iwo Jima and other naval assets, has intensified anxieties across the region. This show of force, widely interpreted as a threat against Venezuela, has sparked a flurry of diplomatic activity and public debate, exposing deep fissures both within the Caribbean and in its relationship with the United States.
According to reporting from Peoples Dispatch, the situation is not merely a matter of military posturing. Since September 2, 2025, U.S. strikes in the Caribbean have resulted in the deaths of eighty-three people across twenty-one separate attacks. The scale and frequency of these operations have alarmed regional leaders and stoked fears of a broader conflict with potentially catastrophic social and economic consequences.
In response, the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), the principal regional body representing Caribbean nations, issued a forceful statement reaffirming its long-held vision of the region as a “zone of peace.” The declaration, echoing similar proclamations from decades past, insisted that disputes must be settled through peaceful means, not military force. Ten former heads of government from across the Caribbean signed an open letter warning, “our region must never become a pawn in the rivalries of others.”
Former Trinidad and Tobago Prime Minister Stuart Young was among those who spoke out, stating on August 21, “CARICOM and our region is a recognized zone of peace, and it is critical that this be maintained.” Young emphasized his country’s tradition of “non-intervention and non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries and for good reason.”
Yet, in a move that stunned many of her regional peers, Trinidad and Tobago’s current Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar (commonly known as KPB) broke with the CARICOM consensus. Persad-Bissessar not only withdrew Trinidad and Tobago from the zone of peace declaration but also openly endorsed the U.S. military actions in the Caribbean, including the deadly strikes against Venezuela. Her support extended to the point of defending the violence: “I have no sympathy for traffickers, the US military should kill them all violently,” she declared following the first U.S. strike on a suspected smuggling vessel.
This stance has provoked sharp criticism at home. Opposition leader Pennelope Beckles, representing the People’s National Movement, voiced her party’s support for strong action against drug trafficking but insisted, “such action must be lawful,” and called KPB’s statement “reckless” and in need of retraction. The split highlights not only a political divide within Trinidad and Tobago but also the broader dilemma facing the Caribbean: how to respond to external pressure without sacrificing regional unity and sovereignty.
To understand the stakes, it’s necessary to revisit the region’s fraught history with U.S. intervention. As Peoples Dispatch details, since the Monroe Doctrine of 1823, the United States has intervened in more than 90 percent of Latin American and Caribbean countries, from the Dominican Republic and Jamaica to Grenada and Haiti. The “zone of peace” concept, first articulated in the 1970s and reaffirmed at various CARICOM summits, was born as a direct response to this legacy of interference. In 1986, Barbados Prime Minister Errol Barrow famously declared, “the Caribbean must be recognized and respected as a zone of peace… our territory will not be used to intimidate any of our neighbors.”
Despite this tradition, Persad-Bissessar’s recent actions signal a dramatic departure. Her political journey, once rooted in the center-left United National Congress and focused on social democratic policies, has veered sharply rightward in recent years, particularly on issues of crime and security. In 2011, she declared a State of Emergency to combat crime, resulting in mass arrests and policies that critics say mirrored harsh anti-poor campaigns seen in the Global North. Upon returning to power in 2025, KPB adopted a “Trinidad and Tobago First” stance and ramped up her rhetoric against suspected drug traffickers, aligning herself more closely with the Trump administration’s hardline approach.
But what motivates this pivot? As Peoples Dispatch suggests, Trinidad and Tobago faces profound economic vulnerabilities—heavy dependence on oil and gas, chronic foreign exchange shortages, and sluggish diversification. The country urgently needs between $300 million and $700 million annually to maintain and upgrade its petrochemical and liquefied natural gas infrastructure, and as much as $5 billion for offshore field development. The hope, some analysts argue, is that by siding with Washington, KPB might attract U.S. investment or encourage oil giants like ExxonMobil (which has already invested over $10 billion in neighboring Guyana) to expand their footprint in Trinidad and Tobago.
Yet the cost of such a strategy could be high. By abandoning the zone of peace consensus, Trinidad and Tobago risks deepening its isolation from regional partners and undermining the Caribbean’s collective stance against militarization. The problems plaguing the country—rising gun violence, transnational trafficking, and irregular migration—are unlikely to be solved by U.S. military intervention. As Peoples Dispatch notes, “U.S. military interventions do not resolve problems, but deepen dependency, escalate tensions, and erode every country’s sovereignty.”
Meanwhile, in Washington, old Cold War scripts are being dusted off. Elliott Abrams, a veteran of U.S. foreign policy in the 1980s, has re-emerged with proposals for regime change in Venezuela. As reported by Venezuelanalysis, Abrams’ approach is rooted in the belief that the U.S. has the authority to determine Venezuela’s government—a view that critics say perpetuates the “original sin” of U.S. hemispheric policy. The narrative of Venezuela as a “narco-state” is used to justify sanctions, blockades, and military threats, despite evidence from the DEA and UNODC that most cocaine destined for the U.S. travels from Colombia via the Pacific, not through Venezuela.
The U.S. has a long record of arming and supporting paramilitary groups in the region, from the Contras in Nicaragua to death squads in Honduras, often with Abrams’ direct involvement. Today, new alarms about “narco-terrorism,” “Iranian operatives,” and “Chinese influence” are invoked to manufacture a security crisis and rationalize intervention. But as Venezuelanalysis points out, the real front lines of the drug trade are in U.S. cities and banks, not in Caracas.
For Venezuela, the stakes are existential. With a population of 28 million and a national identity forged in resistance to foreign domination—especially over oil—the prospect of a U.S.-backed regime change is seen as a direct assault on sovereignty. Sanctions, far from being technical policy tools, have devastated the Venezuelan economy, causing shortages, currency collapse, and mass migration. Critics argue that these very conditions are then cited as justification for further intervention, creating a cycle of crisis and blame.
The Caribbean now stands at a crossroads. One path leads toward deeper militarization and dependency on the U.S. security apparatus; the other toward renewed regional autonomy, South-South cooperation, and the anti-imperialist traditions that have long defined its political imagination. The choices made in the coming months will shape not just the fate of Venezuela, but the future of the entire region.
