The views expressed herein are solely those of the writer.
By Dr. Emanuel Quashie.
Contributor: Emanuel Quashie is a Lecturer for International Relations in the Department of Government at the University of the West Indies, Mona campus. He is the author of two academic books that explores the issue of terrorism broadly and specifically within the Caribbean context as well as the author of IR-related peer-reviewed journal articles including one on US foreign policy titled: Rethinking the Caribbean Basin Initiative: A case study of US foreign policy toward the Caribbean
Realism has dominated the studies of international relations over the past fifty (50) years. Most notably, Hans Morgenthau and Kenneth Waltz, have towered over the field during that period (Mearsheimer, 2002). The theory of realism predates the discipline of IR as its philosophical footing can be founded in writers such as Thucydides, Thomas Hobbes, Niccolò Machiavelli. For example, Thucydides writings about the war between Sparta and Athens (The Peloponnesian war) gave birth to the “Athenian thesis” regarding human nature (Palmer, 1995, pg. 340). The Athenian thesis was coined by Thucydides on the account of speeches given by the Athenians regarding the war (Palmer, 1995, pg. 340). This, however, became Thomas Hobbes theoretical position and the position of modern day neorealist (Palmer, 1995). In support of this, Hans Morgenthau asserts that “competition between states arises from human lust for power,” which he coined as animus dominandi (Morgenthau 1946; Waltz, 1979; as cited in Walt, 1997, p. 932).
Thucydides scripts regarding the Peloponnesian War, primarily focused on the causes of conflict, specifically war, power politics and fear. Although Thucydides had originally set out to write about the causes of war ensuing from a set of “particular grievances” with emphasis on the role played by the Corinth, he later changed his mind to acknowledge that it was “Athens’ power and Sparta’s fear of it as more important than the particular grievances” (Rhodes, 1987, pg. 158). Thomas Hobbes, author of the Leviathan, provided a staunch critique of Christian political ideology in the early modern century, for instance, Hobbes posits that the sovereign ‘‘has the right both to decide which opinions and doctrines are inimical to peace and to forbid their being taught” (De Cive6.11; Leviathan 18.9 as cited in Stauffer, 2010, pg. 868).Thomas Hobbes writings of the state of nature lends support to realism and the concept of anarchy. For example, Michael Smith posits that “Hobbes’s analysis of the state of nature remains the defining feature of realist thought” (Williams, 1996, pg. 213).
Anarchy?
Kenneth Waltz book, Man, the State, and War explored how balance of power result not from the malevolence of men or of states, but from the condition in which all states exist – anarchy or international anarchic structure/system.
To quote Waltz (2001):
“In anarchy there is no automatic harmony. . . A state will use force to attain its goals if, after assessing the prospects for success, it values those goals more than it values the pleasures of peace. Because each state is the final judge of its own causes, any sate may at any time use force to implement its policies. Because any state may at any time use force, all states must constantly be ready either to counter force with force or to pay the cost of weakness. The requirements of state action are, in this view, imposed by the circumstances in which all states exist.”
Realist argues that the international system is “anarchy” and “survival” is a key ingredient in this “self-help” a system. Therefore, states will want to increase their power (which includes enhancing their defensive capability) in order to survive in this international anarchic structure. Anarchy here refers to the absent of a common power, no hierarchy or world government that sits above states and thus, states must enhance their power because they can only rely on themselves for protection this is self-help system. It is this anarchic condition that also leads to “war’ between or among states out of “fear” of another states power. For instance, in putting forward his argument that realism offers a more complete understanding of the problem of international cooperation as opposed to its liberal challenger, Joseph M. Grieco (1988) writes:
“ Realism’s identification of the relative gains problem for cooperation is based on its insight that states in anarchy fear for their survival as independent actors. According to realists, states worry that today’s friend may be tomorrow’s enemy in war, and fear that achievements of joint gains that advantage a friend in the present might produce a more dangerous potential foe in the future. As a result, states must give serious attention to the gains of partners.”
Hence, in such a self-help international anarchic system weaker states like CARICOM member states who do not have the military capabilities to efficaciously defend themselves on their own and can only exert very little influence in the international sphere as a valuable ally or potential ally to a great power will often find themselves engaging in a balancing act on the most pressing issues regionally and internationally. Therefore, small island developing/weak states foreign policy choices tend to lean towards allying themselves with great powers power (‘bandwagon’ [Walt 1990] as cite in Braveboy-Wagner, 2010) or they might ally with other small and weaker states (Rothstein 1968), or maintain their neutrality (the historical stance of European small states) or, in the postwar period, resort to nonalignment, a strategy that eschewed Cold War alliances and permitted countries to exploit superpower rivalries (e.g., Martin 1962; Jensen 1966 as cited in Braveboy-Wagner, 2010).
Hence, it is not surprising to me to see some CARICOM member states (though, I do not agree with their position)seems to have allied with the US on some of the most pressing regional issues – like, for instance, when Jamaica allied with the US against Venezuela. In fact, there is also currently a matter — arbitration — before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in relation to the matter of how much Venezuela should be compensated for its 49% shares in Petrojam — Jamaica’s state-owned oil refinery. This resulted from the forceful acquisition of Venezuela’s company, Petroleos de Venezuela (PDVSA) 49% shares in Petrojam in 2019 following Prime Minister’s Andrew Holness tabling a bill in parliament for the compulsory acquisition of the shares. The reason that was given at the time was to avoid US sanctions imposed on Nicolas Maduro’s regime. Jamaica, along with the US also supported Guyana in its border dispute with Venezuela while other Caribbean countries took a more neutral position and partook in a dialogue.
This dialogue manifested in the Argyle initiated by the Most Hon. Dr Ralph Gonsalves, Prime Minster of St Vincent and the Grenadines and the then-Pro-Tempore President of the Community of Latin America and Caribbean States (CELAC)and the Prime Minister of the Commonwealth of Dominica, the Most Honourable Roosevelt Skerrit who facilitated talks between the President of Venezuela Nicolas Maduro and the President of Guyana Mohamed Irfaan Ali. The summit resulted in a Joint Declaration of Argyle for Dialogue and Peace between Guyana and Venezuela ending with Venezuela and Guyana agreeing to: “. . . directly or indirectly, will not threaten or use force against one another in any circumstances, including those consequential to any existing controversies between the two States.” This, of course, is in keeping with international law, particularly the customary rule of Article 2(4) of UN Charter, which “prohibits the threat or use of force and calls on all Members to respect the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of other States.”
They also agreed “that any controversies between the two States will be resolved in accordance with international law, including the Geneva Agreement dated February 17, 1966.Committed to the pursuance of good neighbourliness, peaceful coexistence, and the unity of Latin America and the Caribbean.” The joint declaration also “noted Guyana’s assertion that it is committed to the process and procedures of the International Court of Justice for the resolution of the border controversy” as well as noted “Venezuela’s assertion of its lack of consent and lack of recognition of the International Court of Justice and its jurisdiction in the border controversy.”
In another current case example, Trinidad and Tobago has seemingly allied with the United States after publicly expressing its support for the Trump administration’s military presence in the Caribbean as well as military action against Venezuela within the context of targeting drug traffickers whether perceived or real. For instance, the newly elected Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago, Kamla Persad-Bissessar praised a recent US illegal strike on a boat that the Trump administration claimed were carrying 11 Venezuelan gang members from the Tren de Aragua cartel that was loaded with drugs bound for the US. In her fiery statement in support of the Trump administration’s actions, she said:
“I, along with most of the country, am happy that the U.S. naval deployment is having success in their mission. The pain and suffering the cartels have inflicted on our nation is immense. I have no sympathy for traffickers; the U.S. military should kill them all violently.” The Trinidad prime minister also stated that: “Our country has been ravaged by bloody violence and addiction because of the greed of the cartels. The slaughter of our people is fueled by evil cartel traffickers.”Some might be inclined to agree or even support Kamala Persad-Bissessar position, given the burgeoning gun violence that has rocketed the region in the past few years. However, the data says otherwise on this matter. For example, in a recent peer-reviewed journal article published in the European Journal of International Security by Dr Yonique Campbell, Professor Anthony Harriott, Dr Felicia Grey and Dr Damion Blake titled From the ‘war on drugs’ to the ‘war on guns’: South–South cooperation between Mexico and the Caribbeandiagnoses the burgeoning gun violence epidemic permeating the Caribbean is as a result of the illegal trafficking of guns stemming from the illegal trafficking of guns from the US, given that an “estimated 60–90% of guns used in criminal acts in LAC are trafficked from the United States”. The article also offers practical solutions — such as a “ban on the sale of military-grade weapons to civilians” and “punitive measures against legitimate carriers that convey illegal weapons across national borders as well as monitoring and performance reviews.” Hence, the Trump administration should also declare a War on the illegal trafficking of guns from the US that is responsible for the bloody violence ravaging our communities and destroying and slaughter of our people as the Prime Minster of Trinidad and Tobago Kamala Persad-Bissessar stated in which she seems to blame the issue solely on “evil traffickers”.
International data and even the US government own data do not support the Trump administration’s claim that Nicolas Maduro “is one of the most powerful drug traffickers in the world and a threat to the national security” of the United States, declared US Attorney General Pam Bondi after announcing a USD $50 million reward for information leading to the arrest of the Venezuelan President. As accusation Nicolas Maduro outrightly and publicly denied; however, within hours, the administration deployed more than 4,000 US military personnel to the Caribbean waters. It is important to note that the US General Attorney General Pam Bondi presented no conclusive empirical evidence to support the administration’s claims about Nicolas Maduro. In fact, Venezuela is not even a cocaine-producing country, according to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC),and nearly “all coca crops – the main ingredient of cocaine – are concentrated in Colombia, Peru and Bolivia. Colombia in particular – has seen its cocaine production grow dramatically in recent years, due both to an increase in cultivation area (almost 100,000 hectares more since 2020) and, more significantly, because of higher yields in refining the product, according to UN researchers,” writes CNN analysis Stefano Pozzebon (2015). Stefano (2015) also wrote in the article that even US investigators from the US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) reached similar conclusions in their annual report published in March that “84% of the cocaine seized in the US comes from Colombia”. In fact, the two cartels that pose the most significant drug trafficking threats to the United States, according to the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), are the: Sinaloa Cartel that was formerly led by Joaquín “El Chapo” Guzmán, and is considered one of Mexico’s oldest and most powerful drug trafficking groups with considerable influence in the Mexican government and public institutions. The other is Jalisco New Generation Cartel (CJNG), which “splintered from Sinaloa in 2010 and is among Mexico’s fastest-growing cartels, with operations in some two-thirds of the country. It is also present in more than three dozen countries and all fifty U.S. states” (Council on Foreign Relations, 2025).
So, if the data does not support the Trump administration claims nor does the administration’s military actions in Caribbean waters is in agreement with international law, why is Trinidad and Tobago [as a state] is enthusiastically in support of the US’s military presence in Caribbean waters? If we place it within the realist framework, as we have already done in terms of weaker states allying with more powerful states, we can also add that Trinidad might also be pursuingits own self-interest – economic self-interest given that the late Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez’s sale of subsidized oil to the Caribbean through the Petrocaribe initiative had pushed “traditional supplier Trinidad and Tobago out of the region in search of new markets,” as Trinidad had even cited concerns that the Petrocaribe programme would compete with its sales, according to a Reuter news article written by y Linda Hutchinson-Jafar in 2008. The article also noted a quote from Kenneth Allum, Petrotrin Vice President for Refinery and Marketing before it eventual shut down in 2018 saying: “We lost market in the (Caribbean) region, but the displaced products are now going into other markets” including the United States. Perhaps, Trinidad and Tobago Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar fervent support for US military presence in the Caribbean and acts of aggression against Venezuela is also brewed out of old-fashioned realism with a view that Trinidad and Tobago may once again fill regional market demands for oil if Nicolas Maduro is removed from power and resulting in the end the Petrocaribe initiative.
However, removing Nicolas Maduor through military intervention may not work in Trinidad’s favour, given the US has its own interest in the region to remain the dominant power – a goal it has long pursued that dates all the way back to the Monroe Doctrine (1823). A doctrine that I argued in my 2023 peer-reviewed journal article published by Latin American Policy titled, Rethinking the Caribbean Basin Initiative: A case study of US foreign policy toward the Caribbean have been revamped through the Caribbean Basin Initiative, “with the explicit purpose of helping revitalize and diversify Caribbean Basin economies through the provision of a set of trade preferences on a range of tangible commodities. Yet, it has failed to accomplish its primary goal because structural problems have made it difficult for Caribbean basin countries to take full advantage of the benefits offered through the initiative.” Hence, why I urged the Trump administration to rethink the CBI programme through the elimination of the programme’s “unilateral nature” and to include some services, allow for more value‐added goods, among other things.Nevertheless, the Petrocaribe programme has been embraced by many Caribbean countries because it without a doubt enabled them to meet their energy needs as well as empower those who joined the initiative to begin to develop their economies more efficiently and independently of the US. While the US has failed for many years, to offer an alternative to Petrocaribe, granting Venezuela the opportunity to emerge “as a powerful counterweight to U.S. power in the Caribbean” leaving officials in Washington to face “the possibility that formerly dependent countries would break free from the U.S. orbit,” writes Edward Hunt in Foreign Policy in Focus, a Think Tank and a project of the Institute for Policy Studies. Hence, the removal Nicolas Maduro is more likely to serve US hegemonic self-interest than it would Trinidad and Tobago’s.
The Caribbean Basin Initiative also did not work because its real goal was about countering the threat of communism in the region. This was enunciated by the late President Ronald Reagan who initiated the programme in his CBI address at the Organisation of American States on February 24, 1982:
“A new kind of colonialism stalks the world today and threatens our independence. It is brutal and totalitarian; it is not of our hemisphere, but it threatens our hemisphere, and has established footholds on American soil for the expansion of its colonialist ambitions…. A dark future is foreshadowed by the poverty and repression of Castro’s Cuba, the tightening grip of the totalitarian left in Grenada and Nicaragua, and the expansion of Soviet‐backed Cuban‐managed support forviolent revolution in Central America ([Reagan, 1982], Quashie, 2023).
The US anti-communist policies dates back earlier than the CBI programme, which includes a deadly plan to attack a number of US cities and countries including Trinidad and Tobago and blame it on Cuba. On April 17, 1961, the US CIA-backed counter-revolutionary Cuban exile force failed Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba resulted in the US Joint Chief of Staff drawing up plans to launch a “secret and bloody war of terrorism against their own country in order to trick the American public into supporting an ill-conceived war they intended to launch against Cuba” (Abrams, 2023). A.B Abrams (2023) in his book, Atrocity fabrication and its consequences: how fake news shapes world order stated that: the proposal codenamed “Operation Northwoods”emphasised: World opinion, and the United Nations forum should be favourably affected by developing the international image of the Cuban government as rash and irresponsible, and as an alarming and unpredictable threat to the peace of the Western Hemisphere,” with recommendation to cast Cuba as a threat to Western Hemisphere and plans to develop a “Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington”. In 1963, Mr Bamford wrote that the Joint Chief of Staff also proposed secret US attacks on Trinidad and Tobago and Jamaica, both British Commonwealth countries that they were hoping if the US secretly attacked them and blame Cuba, it would lure the England into the war against Fidel Castro.
Again, historically, US’s interest in the region invariably has little to do with addressing the region’s concerns and more to do with America’s self-interest and hidden agenda. Thus, the idea that the US military presence in the Caribbean will result in a reduction in illegal guns, drugs and violent crimes is to have a fanciful and superficial understanding of Us foreign policy. Plain and simple, it’s about Venezuela’s oil and nothing to do with supposed “drug cartels,” or “narco-terrorists” or even the issue of illegal guns that actually comes from the United States and are the main source of the burgeoning gin violence that is ravaging our Caribbean communities. For instance, Venezuela holds the largest proven crude oil reserves in the world. In fact, the Biden administration tried to reach out to Nicolas Maduro to strike a deal after the administration banned the import of oil and natural gas from Russia to penalize them for invading Ukraine. In 2017, former FBI Director Andrew McCabe stated in his book, “The Threat: How the FBI Protects America in the Age of Terror and Trump” that Trump (in his first term as president) mentioned going to war in Venezuela for oil. In his book, the former FBI Director wrote: “I don’t understand why we’re not looking at Venezuela. Why we’re not at war with Venezuela? They have all the oil and they’re in our back door,” says President Donald Trump. So, if Kamla Persad-Bissessar, Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago thinks this is about our regional concerns, she might soon be in for a major lesson in geopolitics and the international political economy of war and conflict.
Final thoughts. . .
Perhaps, CARICOM member states like Trinidad and Tobago that supports US military presence in our Caribbean should take into serious consideration the US history in the regionand beyond. It might be Venezuela today, and you the next day. In addition to the obvious violations of international humanitarian law, as a Vincentian and a proud citizen of the Caribbean, I fear that I could also be insinuated by US missiles if I was traversing the Caribbean waters in a fisherman’s speeding boat. This is not hyperbole. It’s now a reality for Caribbean citizens when taking into consideration Trump’s history of violating international law, disregard for human life and unlawful detentions and mistreatment policies of innocent civilians. In fact, there’s empirical evidence to suggest that such could occur, given that this occurrence has already taken place in our Caribbean during the US so-called “War on Drugs”. There were cases whereby some Caribbean fishermen, particularly Jamaican fishermen were allegedly subjected to abusive measures by US Coast Guard and even accused of drug smuggling, stripped naked, had their boats burnt, and some were reportedly shackled like slaves, writes Victoria Bekiempis in a 2019 article published in The Guadian titled Jamaican fishermen forcibly held and abused by US Coast Guard, lawsuit says. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) had even filed a petition to the US Supreme Court on behalf of 4 Jamaican fishermen who were secretly detained at sea in 2017 on four US Coast Guard vessel for more than a month without due process and in inhumane conditions, according to a 2022 press release from the ACLU Media Office. Hence, it’s not unseemly as a Caribbean national to think that what just happened to those 11 individuals will not happen to any Caribbean citizen. They may not only target fishermen, but also passenger boats that travel between some of the smaller islands and then claimed they were all terrorists. I strongly urge a unified – not one of brewed out of realism and national self-interest – position from CARICOM member states emphatically and unequivocally condemning the Trump’s administration military presence in our region. We must reject Trump’s imperialism in the region!
END
One News SVG 