Who Defines Security in the Caribbean?
By: Omar Silva – Editor/Publisher
National Perspective Belize – Digital 2026
Belize City: Wednesday 25th February 2026
As the 50th Meeting of the Conference of Heads of Government of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) unfolds from 24–27 February 2026, a deeper question hangs quietly over the summit halls:
Who defines security in the Caribbean?
Is it Washington?
Is it the Pentagon?
Is it regional governments?
Or is it an undefined concept imposed by asymmetrical power?
The presence of U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio at this historic 50th summit is no small detail. The Caribbean is strategically important to the United States — geographically, economically, and politically.
But importance does not equal equality.
And security, if externally defined, becomes enforcement — not partnership.
Washington’s Definition of Security
From Washington’s vantage point, security in the Caribbean often means:
- Narcotics interdiction
- Maritime patrol dominance
- Migration containment
- Intelligence coordination
- Strategic positioning against rival global powers
These are not illegitimate concerns. Drug trafficking is real. Organized crime networks are sophisticated. Transnational threats exist.
But the critical issue is not whether enforcement is necessary.
It is whether the region helps define the enforcement architecture — or merely adjusts to it.
When kinetic maritime strikes occur in Caribbean waters, even if justified under U.S. law or operational doctrine, the signal is unmistakable:
Security tempo is set elsewhere.
The Caribbean’s Definition of Security
For CARICOM states, security is broader — and more existential.
Security means:
- Climate resilience against intensifying hurricanes
- Food sovereignty in the face of global supply shocks
- Energy stability amid volatile markets
- Banking access threatened by compliance regimes
- Youth employment and economic diversification
- Protection of tourism — the lifeblood of many economies
In short, Caribbean security is economic survival.
And economic survival is not stabilized by force alone.
The Consultation Question
If the United States conducts maritime enforcement actions in regional waters, the core issue becomes process.
Were CARICOM governments consulted beforehand?
Was there structured dialogue on operational parameters?
Or does the region learn of such actions through public announcements after the fact?
In asymmetrical relationships, consultation becomes the currency of respect.
Without it, partnership becomes procedural — not substantive.
The Caribbean Sea: Corridor or Community?
There is a dangerous trajectory emerging.
If enforcement operations intensify without visible regional consultation frameworks, the Caribbean Sea risks being treated as a transit corridor for external security objectives — rather than a shared geopolitical space governed through cooperative regional mechanisms.
That matters.
Because perception shapes investment.
Perception shapes tourism confidence.
Perception shapes insurance premiums.
Perception shapes political trust.
Small economies absorb ripple effects first.
Migration: The Contradiction
Washington expects Caribbean cooperation on migration enforcement and deportation frameworks.
Yet migration is fueled by:
- Economic fragility
- Climate displacement
- Limited industrial development
- External trade imbalances
If security is defined narrowly — as interdiction and containment — while structural vulnerabilities remain unresolved, enforcement becomes cyclical.
And cycles erode trust.
Banking De-Risking: The Unspoken Threat
Few discussions of Caribbean security acknowledge this:
Financial de-risking is a security issue.
When correspondent banking relationships are withdrawn under U.S.-influenced compliance pressures, entire economies face instability.
Remittances slow. Trade hesitates. Small businesses suffer.
If Washington’s security doctrine overlooks financial suffocation while emphasizing maritime force, the imbalance becomes obvious.
Security cannot be compartmentalized.
The Geopolitical Crossroads
The Caribbean today sits at a multipolar intersection.
The United States remains dominant — but it is not the only actor seeking influence.
If CARICOM states perceive that their security definitions are consistently secondary, diversification of partnerships becomes rational — not rebellious.
That is not ideological drift.
It is strategic hedging.
And hedging is what small states do when power asymmetry deepens without consultation.
The Doctrine CARICOM Must Articulate
The 50th CARICOM Summit presents a defining opportunity.
The region must clearly state:
- Security in the Caribbean includes economic resilience.
- Maritime enforcement requires structured consultation.
- Climate stability is a security priority.
- Financial system access is a security issue.
- Partnership must precede force — not follow it.
If these principles are not articulated collectively, they will remain implied — and therefore ignored.
The Power of Unity
Fifteen small states negotiating separately are manageable.
A unified regional bloc articulating a security doctrine is consequential.
The question is not whether the United States has the capacity to act.
It clearly does.
The question is whether CARICOM has the cohesion to define the framework within which that capacity operates in Caribbean space.
A Turning Point at Fifty
Half a century after its formation, CARICOM must evolve from a forum of coordination into a bloc of doctrine.
Security cannot be outsourced.
It must be co-authored.
If the Caribbean does not define its own security architecture, others will.
And once definitions harden externally, renegotiation becomes far more difficult.
The 50th Summit is not merely ceremonial.
It is doctrinal.
Who defines security in the Caribbean?
That answer will determine whether the region is a partner in shaping its future —
or an observer adapting to it.
- Log in to post comments