Trinidad and Tobago’s vote against a United Nations General Assembly resolution calling for an end to the United States embargo on Cuba may prove to be one of the most significant foreign policy decisions the country has made in recent decades. For the first time in more than 30 years, this nation broke with a consistent voting record and with the position traditionally adopted by most of its Caricom partners.
Since 1993, T&T had voted in favour of the annual resolution calling for an end to the embargo, joining regional neighbours in support of Cuba, a country that has long assisted the Caribbean, particularly in healthcare. On Wednesday, however, T&T joined the United States and a small group of countries in opposing the measure. The vote also highlighted divisions within Caricom, with member states taking different positions on the issue.
The decision should not have come as a surprise. The Government has signalled a desire to strengthen ties with the administration of US President Donald Trump and has defended its vote on the grounds that Cubans deserve greater political freedoms, including free and fair elections and freedom of expression.
Yet, the democracy argument raises questions. If democratic standards are the determining factor in foreign policy, then consistency would require similar scrutiny of T&T’s relationships with other countries whose political systems do not fully align with those principles. Foreign policy has rarely operated on idealism alone. More often, countries act according to their interests.
Former British prime minister Lord Palmerston expressed this reality succinctly in 1848, when he observed that nations have no permanent friends or enemies, only permanent interests. That principle appears to be guiding T&T’s decision.
The Government has pointed to several potential economic opportunities linked to closer relations with Washington, including the restart of the Point Lisas iron and steel plant, development of data centres and a possible deal involving the Pointe-a-Pierre refinery. Any US support for energy projects involving Venezuela and T&T would further strengthen the economic case.
There is nothing improper about pursuing national interests. Small states must often make difficult choices in a world shaped by larger powers. However, potential benefits must be weighed against the risks of aligning too closely with any single administration.
Political circumstances in Washington can change quickly. Elections alter priorities, administrations come and go, and commitments that appear firm today may look different tomorrow. Even close allies with deep economic ties have discovered that friendly relations offer no guarantee against abrupt policy shifts.
T&T is entitled to pursue stronger relations with its most powerful neighbour. But diplomatic alignment should not be mistaken for assured economic reward. The opportunities currently being discussed remain largely prospective, while the diplomatic consequences of this week’s vote are immediate.
The Government must therefore ensure that any benefits expected from its closer ties with Washington are real, measurable and sustainable. For a small nation dependent on international partnerships, maintaining room for independent decision-making remains the surest safeguard of its long-term interests.
