The Caribbean Community (CARICOM) is facing growing divisions over foreign policy and regional security, with Barbados Prime Minister Mia Mottley and Trinidad and Tobago Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar advancing markedly different approaches to international relations.
An analysis published by the Geopolitical Monitor argues that the contrasting positions of the two leaders during the 2026 United Nations General Assembly highlight competing visions for how small Caribbean states should navigate an increasingly polarized global environment.
- Advertisement -
According to the analysis by Dr. Nand C. Bardouille, Persad-Bissessar has adopted what he describes as a more “transactional” approach, emphasizing practical security cooperation and strategic relationships with major powers, particularly the United States. Mottley, by contrast, has focused on reforming international institutions and strengthening multilateralism to give small states greater influence in global decision-making.
Persad-Bissessar used her September 22 address to the UN General Assembly to highlight Trinidad and Tobago’s expanding security partnership with Washington in the fight against transnational organized crime. She endorsed U.S. military and counter-narcotics operations in the region and highlighted Trinidad and Tobago’s participation in U.S.-led security initiatives, including the Shield of the Americas and the Americas Counter Cartel Coalition.
She also emphasized that Trinidad and Tobago would take an “independent and practical outlook” during its 2027–2028 term on the UN Security Council, seeking common ground with other members while addressing issues such as illicit arms trafficking and emerging technological threats.
Mottley’s September 24 UN address took a different approach. She called for reform of international institutions, including restructuring the UN Security Council, arguing that existing structures continue to reflect an outdated post-World War II balance of power.
She also defended the Caribbean’s status as a Zone of Peace and warned against geopolitical developments that could turn the region into a centre of confrontation or unilateral military action. Her position is closely tied to Barbados’ broader push for a stronger rules-based international system and reforms aimed at improving the position of vulnerable small states.
The differing approaches have broader implications for CARICOM, whose treaty identifies coordination of member states’ foreign policies as one of the Community’s core objectives. The Geopolitical Monitor argues that disagreements over security cooperation, Cuba, Venezuela and the Caribbean’s Zone of Peace have increasingly complicated efforts to maintain a common regional position.
The divide is particularly visible in Trinidad and Tobago’s closer security relationship with Washington. The country has become involved in U.S.-led regional initiatives while several other CARICOM governments have expressed greater caution about increased military activity in the Caribbean.
At the same time, Guyana has also joined Trinidad and Tobago as a founding member of the Shield of the Americas, while Jamaica, Belize and The Bahamas have reportedly subsequently joined the initiative. This indicates that CARICOM’s foreign-policy landscape is more varied than a simple Barbados-versus-Trinidad and Tobago divide.
CARICOM itself has continued to call for greater foreign-policy coordination. At its Council for Foreign and Community Relations meeting in May, member states said stronger coordination and diversification of international partnerships were important tools for navigating geopolitical competition and protecting Caribbean sovereignty.
The contrasting positions of Mottley and Persad-Bissessar therefore reflect a broader debate within CARICOM over how the region should respond to changing global power dynamics—whether by pursuing deeper institutional reform and collective multilateral action or by strengthening strategic relationships with existing centres of power.
Bardouille argues that the widening differences could weaken CARICOM’s ability to present coordinated positions on major international security and foreign-policy issues. However, the continued participation of multiple member states in regional diplomatic and security initiatives suggests that the Community’s foreign policy remains evolving rather than uniformly divided.
