The current Middle East war underscores the need for regional unity. Rapidly emerging economic challenges will impact Caricom states, exposing vulnerabilities and testing resilience. The longer the conflict endures, the greater the consequences.
The region is a net importer of food and energy. These are sensitive vulnerabilities, and the inflationary impact will affect all member states. Most are in a fragile fiscal position, and some are in IMF programmes, and do not have the fiscal space or buffers to protect their populations from the negative impact of inflation. Most member states are dependent on tourism, which is susceptible to rising travel costs and global instability. Only Guyana, Suriname and Trinidad and Tobago are net energy exporters and are therefore better positioned to mitigate the negative fallout.
The other challenges are safety, security and the ever-present danger of natural disaster. One hurricane can do tremendous damage and take years to rebuild, as happened in Jamaica last year. Hurricane season starts next month and represents unknown but real risks.
There are geopolitical and energy risks, as exemplified by the threats facing Cuba and Venezuela’s experience. There are significant differences in outlook and approach to addressing these geopolitical dangers among member states.
These existential dangers are best faced by a joint approach and a united front. Caricom member states are too small to have an impact on large regional players. However, they must find the space to manoeuvre around the world power that dominates the Western Hemisphere. Trade, commerce and the Common External Tariff have been beneficial to the region and are solid examples of regional coherence.
These matters ought to have been the topics that galvanised minds to develop possible policy solutions and actions to address these challenges. Instead, the aftermath of the 50th Regular Meeting of the Conference of Caricom Heads of Government, held from February 24–27, 2026, in St Kitts and Nevis, has focused on a dispute over the procedure employed to reappoint the Secretary General.
Every state has its national interests, and its leaders are tasked with articulating them and obtaining the best possible result for its citizens. This means the leaders must attend the relevant meetings to advance their country’s agenda or interests.
The key point is that Trinidad and Tobago did not attend the meeting to present a case or resolve the matter.
It is difficult not to conclude that Trinidad and Tobago’s presence at the conference was primarily to meet US Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Having met this objective, attending the caucus was not a priority.
One could speculate that this current controversy would have been avoided or alleviated had T&T been in attendance to present its case. Unlike the United States, T&T is not a regional hegemon and needs Caricom as much as Caricom needs it.
It is hoped that the tenets of diplomacy follow and that all parties concerned will find common ground to move on.
