At a recent gathering of Caribbean leaders in St. Kitts and Nevis, Trinidad and Tobago’s Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar deployed a local proverb that encapsulates a growing geopolitical schism: “Who vex loss.” This phrase, meaning “If you’re upset by my choices, that’s your problem,” preceded a significant development in hemispheric relations—the Shield of the Americas Summit in Doral, Florida.
The White House-organized event, focused on security, counter-narcotics, and containing Chinese influence, has drawn a selective roster of hemispheric partners. Notably absent were Mexico, Brazil, and Colombia—the three largest Latin American economies—while only two Caribbean Community (CARICOM) leaders received invitations: Guyana’s President Irfaan Ali and Prime Minister Persad-Bissessar.
This selective invitation strategy emerged immediately after US Secretary of State Marco Rubio attended CARICOM’s 50th Heads of Government Meeting in Basseterre, where regional priorities included climate finance, food security, reparatory justice, and the Guyana-Venezuela border controversy. None of these issues appear on the Doral summit agenda, which instead emphasizes Washington’s strategic priorities.
The divergence highlights a fundamental asymmetry between American interests and Caribbean development needs. While Trinidad faces urgent security concerns evidenced by rising murder rates, and Guyana confronts territorial pressures, their participation in Washington’s framework comes at the cost of sidelining collective regional priorities.
CARICOM Chairman Drew maintains the bloc remains unified, but the reality suggests fragmentation. The organization’s strength has historically derived from its collective voice, particularly evident in climate finance advocacy through the Bridgetown Initiative. Washington, however, benefits from engaging individual states rather than confronting a unified regional position.
Historical precedents offer cautionary tales. Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado, once celebrated by the Trump administration, was swiftly sidelined after offering her Nobel medal to the former president. Similarly, a former Homeland Security secretary who implemented controversial immigration policies was eventually dismissed to a ceremonial role.
The central question for Caribbean nations remains whether bilateral engagement with superpowers ultimately serves long-term interests. While immediate security and economic concerns drive some leaders to accept Washington’s terms, the region must consider whether this approach sacrifices the leverage needed to address existential threats like climate change and economic vulnerability.
The true cost of participation in hemispheric power dynamics may be measured in silence—the inability to advocate for issues that will determine whether future generations inherit viable nations.
