Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar has vowed to allow U.S Forces access to Trinidadian territory to defend the people of Guyana.
The Prime Minister in a statement also said her government fully supports the US Government’s deployment of American Military assets into the Caribbean region to destroy the terrorist drug cartels – YouTube
Has Kamla Persad-Bissessar crossed the line?
Discover more from Barbados Underground
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
79 responses to “Has Kamla Persad-Bissessar crossed the line?”
-
Initially the invasion of Afgan was not to remove the Taliban but to go after and dismantle Al queda that was responsible for the 9/11 attack
-
Don’t lose your soul
I need a magnifying glass to look for my last comment
it was at the top of the page but has gone away
It is lost like the souls in the carnivals of Barbados
Rotten souls
Rotten goalsAre you a part of the problem
Are you a part of the solutionJah Jah Kingdom Come
Politicians
Illusionists
ConfusionistsJah Rastafari Kingdom Come
Jah Rastafari will be done
In Heaven as it is in EarthPolitical Confusion Political Illusion
I give the order for the new orderI give the order
One God
One World Order
RepentTell this to your God of War
Tell this to your God of Greed
The Dollar Kingdom FallWhat is the solution
Weapon of Mass Deception
No Weapon of Mass DestructionOne God One Judgment To All
All over the world all over the globe
One order from Abba Father Jah -
For those of us who only follow CNN, BBC, and Fox.
Note that ‘one-smart’ ALWAYS ends up at “two-smart’s” door… -
“Still waiting to hear which military is superior to USA.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~If Bushie’s YouTube video is accurate, then the ‘Chinese military is superior to that of the USA.’
-
The US military strike on suspected drug boat in Caribbean has been labelled illegal.* Strict Law Enforcement does not allow execution of criminals without due process.
However this allegation against US military is now being removed from the internet / search engines and is being relabeled as ‘War against Terrorism’.
-
Check the sexy Chiney women soldiers
‘Make love and not war’ say the hippies and the dreads who nice up the dance
‘Be a lover not a fighter’ as Michael Jackson would saySuzie Wong I live in Miami
She live a Hong Kong
She a eighteen, but me past twenty one
And every weekend she call me long distant
I’m talking on the phone, I want some corporation
She whisper inna mi ear, mi temperature get strong
Last night she a tell me is the only oneSay, Danny Dread, a weh you get the sound from?
Him say, him get it from the general, the man Skengman
Him send it come, Jah man, fi rule the island
Nicodemus, Super Cat, and Burro Banton
We come fi separate, mi say, the boy from the man -
Artax
I like that you began with “if”
Remember when Russia was boasting about their hypersonic missile that no known air defense could stop? Until of course Ukraine did just that with an American patriot system .
Technology wise china and USA not too far apart.
Google military rankings View the numbers/ equipment
Also consider outpost / logistics and equipment battle
tested. -
Today, I had to take a backseat. I wanted to comment but as I was in full agreement with J2 I had to stop and recalibrate.
It amazes me that a man that is often so wrong can see this matter so clearly.
I see others are still engaged in wishful thinking. Never dislike ‘a man’ so much that you lose your grip on reality.
👍🏽J2👍🏾
I see you.
—*—
Let me see if J2 really has 20-20 vision
J2, what about the 10,000 houses, HOPE houses and steal houses? -
John 2 and Theo both think they are yanks and have forgotten where they come from and don’t know where they are going
“Google military rankings View the numbers/ equipment
Also consider outpost / logistics and equipment battle
tested.”Good Googly Moogly
Google is shit shit shit
Google is the white boys network
Chinese have their own networkSeptic Tanks and Yid Army have been committing genocide field testing shit in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Palestine since 1990 killing brown people like killing was going out of style
but there are only 4% of world population in Amerikkka
and white people are only 10% of the worldso why worry about them when you can pray them away
No weapon formed against you shall prosper,
And every tongue which rises against you in judgment
You shall condemn.
This is the heritage of the servants of the Lord,
And their righteousness is from Me,”
Says the Lord. -
Dub.
Will never forget where I came from.
I like to give jack his jacket. I agree which the0 on this one. I also agree with Donna that USA is the great satan. -
Refreshing comment from Joseph on the matter at hand.
Kamla – a voice from neo-colonial era
THE STATEMENT issued by Prime Minister Kamla Persaud-Bissessar of Trinidad and Tobago, and its “poking” at CARICOM, following the dispatching of US naval vessels to the coast of Venezuela, has quite correctly been ignored by progressive CARICOM leaders.
While it is clear that the militarised nature of the US (United States) deployment, the absence of any regional police-oriented collaborations, and the history of US hostility to the socialist regime in Venezuela, belie the “drug interdiction” explanations for the deployment, this did not stop Persaud-Bissessar from willingly echoing the US narrative.
Significantly, Persaud-Bissessar’s statement was less a comment about Trinidad’s “autonomous” position on the US deployment but more a provocation of CARICOM. Thus, she made it clear that “the Trinidad and Tobago government has not engaged and has no intention of engaging CARICOM” and that “each member state can speak for themselves on this issue”.
Given that no CARICOM leader responded to Persaud-Bissessar is sufficient evidence of the “seriousness” attached to her statement. Her comments fell like a leaf in autumn.
Given the long, dark history of US intervention in the Caribbean, her comments sounded like a stale “cut-and-paste” of the bygone Cold War age when novice Caribbean leaders first began to dip their toes into international politics.
Weak foundation
Persaud-Bissessar was unable to provide an internally coherent, Trinidad-specific justification for her support of a US invasion of Venezuela. Her claim that “the only persons who should be worried about the activity of the US military are those engaged in or enabling criminal activity,” was the clearest indication of the weak foundation upon which her position was based. Thus, she sought a quarrel with her CARICOM neighbours, none of whom were “implicated” in US action against Venezuela.
This is why the commentaries which have described the current situation as representing a “CARICOM crisis” are clearly overstating the case. After several years of experience of neo-colonial Caribbean leaders unperturbed by US intervention, the Caribbean leadership was unruffled by a newly elected leader, eager to posture as a “disruptor” as a substitute for a genuine development agenda for her country.
The hard reality is that the comments by Persaud-Bissessar can neither advance nor retard the designs by the US government to overthrow the socialist government in Venezuela. The only force likely to disrupt US imperialism in the Caribbean is the unified and disciplined organisation of all the progressive parties, movements and peoples of the Caribbean, Latin America and Venezuela itself.
In the face of such a movement Persaud-Bissessar’s will exist as an insignificant footnote.
Tennyson Joseph is Associate Professor of Political Science at North Carolina Central University. Email tjoe2008@live.com
-
Guys and gals, I have written it at your level of comprehension ….
Isn’t it funny that after all of this talk of shared interests, co-operation and of a Caribbean community, we see one leader jumped into the arms of the USA and at the same time shout “every man for himself”.I am certain that she is doing what is best for her country, but I hasten here to tell her that kissing that ugly frog (Trump) will not make him a prince. And yet, at the same time, I see that the Chinese ambassador whispering sweet nothings in the ears of Barbados.
I will sit here and watch these romantic overtures, but I know that at some stage the panties have to come off. Since the US has already inserted a big dick (warships) into the region and with Trump willingness to ‘grab them by the pussy”; we we know the insertion is not a limp dick. I am betting on the US to get ALL of the ‘p*ssy”. Trinidad has already given it up. Who’s next??
-
In all honest, the ‘ dick’ imagery is taken from one of my favorites he
I know you know yourself. -
@J2
“the0”!!!!???
That was unnecessary. Triple zero (000-my hero) was the first to use that “0′.
I extended an olive branch and got a slap as a repayment.
But on the US matter, you are right. -
What folks do not realize is that the US under Trump is a different beast. Throw Afghanistan, Vietnam and all other recent wars out of the window. What we have is a man who right or wrong is determined to win; forget about humanity, being considerate or compassionate or all other as those qualities are now out of the window.
Because I like the blogmaster I will give him this warning … Please have a white flag flying in the wind as you sail your rubber tube down the mighty Constitution River. We have to look out for each other.
Needless to say, if there is an incident, I will not believe the cover story of you smuggling human or drugs. I will take to the streets. I have already printed up placards and stand ready to march. You go bro
-
I continue to believe that the US action is meant to shorten/blunt/reduce China’s footprint in the region. J2 articles convinces me even more.
No doubt the US sees this arrangement of Venezuela and China as a step too far.
It should not be surprising if a rig is accidentally struck. China would get the message and Venezuela would be faced with a clean-up.
Footprint reduced.
Again, I urged you to throw away your old models as we now have a demon in the Whitehouse. Great evil should be expected.
You read it here first
-
‘Hell is empty and all the Devils are here’ – William Shakespeare, The Tempest
What is the difference between Trump and Americans and America?
Are they all the same?
The Trump Evolution sequel seems like a horror movie
but it just proves what everyone thought about Americans and America -
Great evil from the USA is the norm. Read a history book or two, even recent history! Hell, even a news item from this year! Genocide Joe left the White House on January 20th!
-
The0
Enjoy the 0. Have be 0ing u now for over a year when I switched RonnieO to Ronnie0
On the bright side u only have to accumulate two more 0s to become like ur hero. That should be easy to do ( u will never achieve 🤫 )
-
See Donald Trump declare his intention to seize the oil.
https://www.youtube.com/live/6XUbm3-OwWU?si=N85H_qz2qoSw17TD
-
Dear me!
I see that I ,have abbreviated your name incorrectly. Henceforth, you will be J00 (J two zeros) where the J can stand for Joker or John. Triple (000) zero is a rare state and is awarded only to those who have tortured someone
—-*—-
More seriously, I made the mistake of making the US/Venezuela conflict a two dimensional problem. Let’s take it one step at a time… The issue is oil…. Later we will include china as a variable.This reminds of how we tackle the Dwight Sutherland situation. It is or is not a resignation. Meanwhile, promises are not kept, the spending of money that was allocated cannot be fully explained.
Soon we will have cuhdear passing by and saying.. “I know he! He come from a good family. He walked to school with my son. He is a good boy. The job of an MP is a tough one and he resigned because he was just tired”.
Heaven help us all.
-
White criminals coming to the Caribbean
Black History Brown History White History
Black Present Brown Present White Present
Blacks will have to become radical panthers“We didn’t come as immigrants we came in chains”
#america #blackhistory
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Zh8yGRVl1kY -
Trinidad’s Troubling Invitation of War to Caribbean Shores
Written by
caribbeantradelaw in TradeRahym R. Augustin-Joseph (Mr.) (Guest contributor)
Early last week, the Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago, Hon. Kamla Persad-Bissessar, indicated via Press Release, that, her government unequivocally supported the deployment of American Military assets into the Caribbean Region in order to destroy the terrorist drug cartels.
Interestingly enough, the Prime Minister noted that it was not the government’s intention to engage CARICOM, as the foreign policy of each CARICOM state is within their sovereign domain and must be articulated for and by themselves. After all, one’s foreign policy is indeed based on one’s national interests, values, pragmatism, ideology, et cetera.
Albeit, accurate in theory, but not truly in praxis, particularly when a country is within a regional integration movement and history has shown that greater results emanate from the Caribbean speaking as one voice within the global political ecosystem, by virtue of their bargaining power as a bloc which eclipses our size constraints. In fact, some naysayers will argue that when the foreign policy dictates of a country is not solely influenced internally, it is reflective of a reduction in sovereignty. But sovereignty is also an action which permits the island’s foreign policy to be in sync with other countries.
Thus, the utilisation of polar opposition positions within the Caribbean, encourages a colonial ‘divide and conquer’ strategy for developed countries which only elevates their position and agenda, at the expense of the interests of the Caribbean.
Of course, there has been many instances of Caribbean disunity propagated by the USA, such as the Ship Riders Agreement in the 1990’s, debates over permitting the US invasion of Grenada, inability to support one candidate in the Commonwealth SG Race of 2022, recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, Venezuela- USA Debacle under President Trump, among others.
What is generally done, is the major powers co-opt CARICOM States to be against each other or pick them off one by one through inducements such as aid, financial and technical aid et cetera. It is for this reason I support the Golding Commission’s Report Recommendation 26 which suggested “a review of the procedures for foreign policy consultation and coordination in order to avoid as far as possible, the types of conflict and embarrassing positions that have emerged from time to time among CARICOM members depriving it of the collective force it is capable of exerting.”
While the Prime Minister is accurate that CARICOM countries, reserve the sovereign authority to articulate their individual foreign policy position, it is a known fact that her unilateral position undermines one of the core pillars of the regional integration movement, i.e., foreign policy coordination, as noted in Article 6 (h) of the RTC which notes in part that one of the Community’s objectives is “enhanced co-ordination of Member states’ foreign and foreign economic policies.” It is where countries within the Caribbean Community, seek to find common ground on our individual national positions on these myriad of hemispheric and international issues of great importance to the Caribbean Community, such as the Venezuela- Guyana Dispute and the infiltration of overseas drug cartels which affect Trinidad and Tobago and the wider Caribbean.
But what is also ironic and confusing about the Prime Minister’s position, is that she, without the concurrence of her CARICOM colleagues endorsed the American deployment in the ‘Caribbean Region’, not only in the waters close to Trinidad and Tobago, but the Caribbean, while quickly denouncing her Government’s intention to engage CARICOM on the subject matter.
But, even beyond this foreign policy vernacular, Trinidad and Tobago should not make decisions under the guise of the sovereign name of Trinidad and Tobago when these decisions have life and death implications for the wider Caribbean Region peoples without consulting CARICOM.
Thus, the invitation of war to the shores of the Caribbean, with wanton disregard for the potential effects on human life, through the permitting of US military operations which can have counter-military responses within the small landmass in the Caribbean region potentially affecting multiple Caribbean countries is a decision that should not be taken as fiat by one Caribbean country.
As one online commentator noted, decisions about war are not akin to putting on the call of duty video game, but requires careful deliberation, analysis, consultation, respect for international law et cetera.
It is as if the Prime Minister, in the absence of the Chair of CARICOM is speaking for the region without their concurrence, while still attempting to confine her foreign policy position to Trinidad and Tobago.
But, the articulation of such position should have been even more circumspect, because under the Quasi-Cabinet of CARICOM, Prime Minister Bissessar is the Lead for Security (Drugs and Illicit Arms). As such, when she speaks and takes definitive positions, both for Trinidad and Tobago and implicitly for the Caribbean, it is as akin to a response from the CARICOM, which makes it even more problematic, questionable and worrying. After all, CARICOM is one of the bastions of Caribbean sovereignty.
As such, if the regional Quasi Cabinet works anything like our domestic cabinet, Prime Minister Bissessar has just articulated a policy position of CARICOM, while admitting ‘boldfacely’ that she would not be consulting with her CARICOM colleagues.
But one would believe though that such a request for the deployment of military assets has already been made to the Government of Trinidad and Tobago, which prompted this press release. But, instead, the Prime Minister indicated that, no requests have ever been made by the American government for their military assets to access Trinidad and Tobago territory for any military action against the Venezuelan regime.
But, still, she offers it, citing that should the Maduro regime launch any attack against the Guyanese people, her government will provide the access if required to defend the people of Guyana against Venezuela.
What is also concerning about this policy position by Bissessar is that at the domestic level, it is a confining and narrowing of liberal democracy to the political elite, such that the people of Trinidad and Tobago have not been given any meaningful opportunity to form any opinion on whether they are supportive of the utilisation of foreign military assets by the USA, to fight drug cartels and/ or, as a launching pad for war against the Venezuela regime, with significant potential for retaliatory measures against Trinidad and Tobago which will affect their peoples.
Certainly, Bissessar has shown that the people of Trinidad and Tobago, at the recent ballot box, engaged in what Jean Jacques Rosseau calls a simultaneous exercise in, and surrender of sovereignty, such that the very moment they made the x, was the same moment they surrendered their sovereignty to her, such that all decisions of national importance are only decided by the political elite. They remain excluded from engaging in the political lives of their society and have surrendering all of their power to their representatives.
Of, course the common retort of her colleagues and supporters would be that ‘the people voted for a promise of the reduction of crime and violence’ and provided the government with the latitude to engage in measures such as this to pursue the outcome.
A typical example of the ‘ends justify the means’ only that in governance the means, more than ‘the ends’ matter. How and why, you do what you do matters in politics.
But this position is also at odds with other positions taken in Trinidad and Tobago, in the past under Dr. Eric Williams, where in response to internal turmoil with the Black Power Movement, the USA entered the territorial waters; in order to quell the uprising and they were not welcomed by the Government.
But the policy position is also bewildering because is the administration providing their support for the ‘stationing of military assets to destroy drug cartels’ which emanate from or do not emanate from Venezuela?
Or is it to provide the Americans with the launching pad for war against Venezuela if they attack Guyana? Or is it both?
Under the latter, such a retaliatory response under collective self-defence as per International Law, can only be invoked where there was indeed an ‘armed attack’, the victim state must have declared itself to be under attack, and must request assistance, and that this assistance should still be necessary and proportionate.
It apparently is both because days later, we then see video footage of American military assets destroying an alleged Venezuelan vessel on the waters which was allegedly carrying drugs. What this confirms is that there seems to possibly be a request by the Americans for deployment, contrary to the Prime Minister’s assertion which was accepted by the Prime Minister. Further, the aim of the deployment is not only to respond to the Venezuelan state against Guyana, but to also respond to drug cartels emanating from the state of Venezuela.
In any instance, both are problematic.
Certainly, the former is because, notwithstanding the realities that Trinidad and Tobago faces, wherein the data suggests that there has been an infiltration of violence because of the Venezuelan political and economic crisis, it also places Bissessar in a diplomatic chokehold and at odds with the regional position which also recognises that the influx of unlicenced firearms are due in part to the second amendment right under the USA constitution, to bear arms.
Such that, guns continue to be rampant in our countries, which allegedly also come from the USA without the necessary support from the USA, to revisit their internal background checks and support stronger border control to reduce the influx of firearms.
As noted, 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 Caribbean” diagnoses 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”. Further, the article also notes that some of the necessary pragmatic solutions include 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.”
As noted in an instructive piece assessing this situation through the lens of realism, in International Relations Theory, by Dr. Emmanuel Quashie, lecturer in International Relations, notes and he is quite accurate that, “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”.
Sidestepping this reality, repeating of the American narrative shared by Vice President Vance which does not apportion responsibility and culpability for the crime and violence in this region equally, and not factoring the American complicity into the policy and diplomatic response and engagement is certainly antithetical to the reduction of crime and violence.
As a matter of fact, it continues to sidestep and pass the difficult task of reduction of crime and violence to the United States of America, ignoring the internal national efforts that Trinidad and Tobago could engage in to reduce crime and violence.
As no amount of warships parked outside of Trinidad can fix the issues of trust in the institutions, corruption of the police force, court backlogs, income inequality, lack of youth opportunities which provide an environment for crime to fester, broken education system which creates tiers of citizens, broken family and community structures, border control which reduces the influx of illegal firearms, et cetera.
After all, crime emerges as the data has shown, not simply out of the existence of drugs and guns i.e., manifest tools of crime and violence. But there is an economic, social and political explanation, which lies in the government’s inability to adequately provide for the majority of citizens. Thus, government inadequacy, which cannot be replaced with warships in seas of foreign vessels, must be blamed and responded to.
It is a short-term knee jerk reaction to appease the West and to remove culpability on the nation-state’s complicit role in festering crime and violence through inaction in a time when long-term sustainable actions are necessary.
But the decision is also at odds with prevailing data from the US itself, which notes that as per academic and departmental research, that 84% of the cocaine seized in the US comes not from Venezuela, as they are not a cocaine producer, but from Colombia.” In fact, the major cartels that pose a threat to the USA according to the U.S. DEA are the Sinaloa Cartel, and the New Generation Cartel from Mexico. As such, Dr. Quashie argues and he may be accurate that this position has less to do with Trinidad’s benevolence and altruistic foreign policy in advancement of Guyana’s self-determination, or alternatively in reduction of violence in Trinidad and Tobago, but in the destabilisation of the Maduro regime which may result in their view in a return of the Oil market for Trinidad and Tobago, which was obliterated with the Petro-Caribe Initiative.
But, the naivety of the Prime Minister, unless this is exactly what it was meant to be, seems to be unaware that regime change only benefits the USA’s self-interest of reduction of communism, socialism and other ‘isms’ and is a continuation of their entrenched doctrines in the Caribbean.
Her support as a friendly host will not result in any benefits for the peoples of Trinidad and Tobago and the wider Caribbean but only be a lesson in the realist nature of geopolitics and the international political economy of war and conflict as noted by Dr. Emmanuel Quashie.
Haile Sellasie words are thus instructive when he lamented the inaction of the League of Nations, during the League of Nations address when his country was defeated by the Italian army of Mussolini, that “today it is us, but tomorrow it will be you.”
Dr. Quashie is also thus also instructive and accurate when he noted that, “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, because they hold the largest oil reserves in the world 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.”
But it is important for citizens to not be distracted by the Prime Minister’s utilisation of the trauma of the victims as an excuse for diplomatic prostitution, as she implicitly suggest that it is an all-or-nothing approach. Such, that, if the USA warships are not stationed in the waters, crime and violence cannot be solved.
Scholar Lowenthal is thus accurate then as he is now, when he said that “it is a deceptively attractive policy because it seemed cheap and simple, but it is a dangerously short signed, since it amounted to putting out the fires while doing nothing to remove the flammable material.”
The actualisation of the position was thus seen in the 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 which resulted in the destruction of the vessel and the killing of the individuals. The Prime Minister’s response praising the military operation “that the US Military should kill them all violently” is an affront to the rule of the law, due process, right to a fair hearing, proportionality, among other human rights safeguards enshrined in domestic Constitutional and international human rights treaties.
Certainly, in Trinidad and Tobago and within the USA, these offences are not meted out with ‘death’ ‘vigilante justice’ or an ‘eye for an eye’. There is no legal penalty for drug trafficking which is summary execution without due process, i.e., being arrested, charged, provided with a trial and permit the prosecution to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. In fact, even in circumstances where guilt is proven, or plead by the perpetrators, the penalty is not death by execution as witnessed over the last few days.
As such, why should this be the policy position on the waters by these states, in flagrant disregard for domestic and international law?
Instead, in these countries, which boast and are rated highly their admiration for the ‘rule of law’ officials could have simply conducted maritime interdiction of the drug shipments utilising their intelligence, and the subsequent processing, charging, prosecuting and sentencing of the individuals without attacking the vessel’s occupants.
In some reports, they have noted that in most instances, those transporting the drugs are not big drug traffickers, but rather very young poor people from the region utilised for the enhancement of the drug trade.
But, in typical Caribbean Prime Minister fashion, anyone who interrogates the policy is somehow an enemy of progress, the state, unpatriotic and not a law-abiding citizen, as opposed to embracing critics who question the rationale, nature, safeguards et cetera of the policy position. And hosting forums, conversations among other forms of public engagement meant to address these concerns and invite people into the confidence of the decision making of the political elite.
Patriotism and active citizenship is certainly not clothed in selling Caribbean sovereignty to the highest bidder, but in being self-reflective and interrogating the societal issues and the responses by the political elite.
But the policy position is also problematic because it lacks the necessary details, which can cause citizens to possibly rally and interrogate the position.
It reeks of an unquestioning endorsement of the Ship Riders Agreement, such that the USA can continue to deploy and operate their coast guard outside their territorial waters, to respond to terrorism and other related activities.
So, it is important to ask:
What of any benefit is the parking of warships in the Caribbean Sea, and how will it actually seek to reduce crime and violence?
Under what conditions are they present?
How can any ordinary fisherfolk be certain that with the mechanisms utilised they too would not be randomly killed by military arsenal from the US, as young black men are killed in America, by killing first and finding out they do not possess any weapons after? After all, there have been many cases where some Jamaican fishermen have been subjected to abusive measures by the US Coast Guards who accused them of drug smuggling, burning their boats, stripped searched, and shackled like slaves as noted by Bekiempis in a 2019 article published on the subject.
For how long will they remain the Caribbean Sea?
What are the safeguards in place to ensure that they will only pursue their purpose?
What have the two states and the Caribbean region agree should not be done during this military deployment, such as killing of children, women, among other ‘rules of war’, or is it summary execution of every boat on the seas?
What if any are the ramifications if the conditions are breached?
How does the Caribbean people reconcile the history of the West, of utilising our waters and countries as pawns for their own political agenda, at the expense of our small island interests?
Does the President truly mean his friends in the Caribbean will not be terrorised by Venezuela, or is that there is an ulterior motivation of staving off communism as has been embedded within the US-Caribbean relations?
Moreover, as one saw with the recent attack, how can one be assured that the intelligence of the USA and Trinidad and Tobago is accurate such that they are indeed attacking drug cartels, and not just immigrants?
How can we be assured that the execution of the policy is in response to a genuine threat or merely a response to the critics to show that there is a threat?
When the Prime Minister noted that “all traffickers” should be killed violently, how will they ensure if they engage in summary execution that the individuals killed are traffickers as opposed to the trafficked?
And, also, what of the diplomatic courtesies of notification and other forms of engagement with neighbouring states when actions will have regional impacts, or is the Prime Minister still of the insular belief that Trinidad’s actions have no impact elsewhere?
How does the Prime Minister countenance the potential of a return of the US ships and the possible retaliation by Venezuelan authorities on Trinidad and Tobago and potentially the Caribbean region?
Has the Prime Minister engaged in any analysis of the international law surrounding the abovementioned and satisfied herself that it is being followed, or is there just a disregard for law and order?
How does this alter the Caribbean philosophical position of being a zone of peace?
Naturally, the Caribbean people could remember the pretence of the USA, when they claimed they were ‘saving medical students in Grenada’, only to realise that it was an attempt to destabilise and destroy the Revolutionary Government led by Maurice Bishop. Or one only has to remember the USA’s interventions in Dominican Republic, Guyana, among others to maintain their hegemonic status and stave off potential communism in their backyard, i.e., the Caribbean.
But, even today with the onslaught of attacks on Grenada’s ability to retain Cuban medical professionals, under the false pretence of solving human trafficking, only to further isolate Cuba’s medical internationalism, is another apt example of the USA utilising their big stick for their own foreign policy outcomes.
History can repeat itself, only if we are not conscious enough to know it and take corrective action. And even if it does not repeat itself, certainly this is a rhyme.
But, in all of these instances, it is important for the defenders of Caribbean freedom and sovereignty to be conscious of how embedded within the US foreign policy has been the Monroe Doctrine, Big Stick Policy, Platt Amendment, among others which advance the USA first interest, and an assumption of an innate hegemonic status in the Western hemisphere.
Such that, any political squabbles in another state would be interpreted as a hostile act against the USA, that they must respond to. Further, that the region continues to be their backyard, such that any action that is taken, must be in consonant with their underlying interests.
It is in contradistinction to the Barbados foreign policy position, which other CARICOM leaders have supported, and seem to adopt at their own, at Independence by Prime Minister Errol Barrow, when he said that “we should be friends of all, and satellites of none.”
But this position by the Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago is also a satellite position because in the latter, it advocates pre-emptively responding to war, as opposed to advocating for the Caribbean sea to continue to be a zone of peace.
Prime Minister Bissessar could have taken the opportunity instead to play a leading role in the Caribbean Region to enhance dialogue over preparation for war. As done in the previous Arnos Vale Accord, Venezuela and Guyanese parties were brought together for dialogue with the ultimate goal of peace. More particularly, the Summit resulted as you know in a Joint Declaration of Argyle for Dialogue and Peace between Guyana agreeing to: “.. directly or indirectly not threatening or using 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.
And that the talks have not completely yielded peace, does not provide an impetus for the preparation and support of war.
Or are we so satisfied with being the choir singers of the West that we believe that the more we support the West interest and imperatives, we will be included in the ‘America First’ policy, especially with the endorsement of President Trump, that we are his friends and he will protect us.
The words of Prime Minister Mia Amor Mottley of Barbados in one of her first UNGA Speeches in 2019 are instructive and should be followed by other Caribbean leaders when she noted, “The time for dialogue, the time for talk, my friends can never be over in a world that wants peace and prosperity. We do not take sides, but what we know is that you cannot propel war over dialogue.”
Eternal vigilance is truly the price of liberty! Let us advocate that peace and good sense prevails!
Rahym Augustin-Joseph is the 2025 Commonwealth Caribbean Rhodes Scholar. He is a recent political science graduate from the UWI Cave Hill Campus and an aspiring attorney-at-law. He can be reached via rahymrjoseph9@ gmail.com -
CALL FOR CAUTION
Caribbean wants talks on US Navy presence
By Colville Mounsey colvillemounsey@nationnews. com
Minister of Foreign Affairs and Foreign Trade Kerrie Symmonds says the presence of United States troops and naval assets in Caribbean waters must be carefully managed to avoid unintended consequences for ordinary citizens.
That is even as Barbados and its regional partners are seeking deeper cooperation with the US to stem the illegal flow of weapons into the region, he added.
In an interview with the Sunday Sun, he revealed that Caribbean foreign ministers have written to US Secretary of State Marco Rubio requesting formal talks on Washington’s military posture in the hemisphere.
The initiative, he explained, came through the Conference of Foreign Ministers of the Caribbean Community, currently chaired by St Kitts and Nevis’ former prime minister Dr Denzil Douglas. The letter was dispatched after discussions at the African Union-CARICOM summit in Ethiopia earlier this year.
Temperature
“We have not as yet received a response from Secretary Rubio,” Symmonds said, “but what we would want to be able to have with him is discussions about the need to bring down the temperature.
“There is serious concern across the Eastern Caribbean – in fact, across the Caribbean as a whole – about the high level of illegal weapons entering this region. If the United States’ presence is entirely about that, then that is a matter which we would not resist.
“That is a matter we would welcome and wish to participate in, in a meaningful way. Anything beyond that becomes a slightly different issue.”
The senior minister’s comments came amid rising anxiety across the region after President Donald Trump announced on September 2 that the US military killed 11 people in a strike on a vessel from Venezuela allegedly carrying illegal narcotics, in the first known operation since his administration’s recent deployment of warships to the southern Caribbean.
He said the military had identified the crew as members of Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua, which the US designated a terrorist group in February. He repeated allegations that Tren de Aragua was being controlled by Venezuela’s President Nicolas Maduro, accusations that Caracas denied.
Trinidad and Tobago Prime Minister Kamla Persad Bissessar has thrown her full support behind the US sending troops to waters near Venezuela, as well as its strike on the vessel.
However, Symmonds warned that such actions, if not handled with transparency and due process, could undermine the very rule of law that both the US and Caribbean nations uphold.
“We really do not know all the facts surrounding the destruction of the ship in question or who was on board. It ought not to be a set of circumstances where these things take place without fullest transparency,” he said.
“People should be arrested, charged, tried and guilt established in law. That is the way in which the United States functions. That is the way in which our jurisdictions function and there should be no departure from that.”
Civilian safety
Symmonds pointed out that while Barbados acknowledges the need for firm action against arms trafficking, the region cannot allow operations to take place in ways that compromise civilian safety. He also cited the safeguarding of fishing communities whose livelihoods depend on access to international waters.
“The slightest misstep can result in severe consequences to innocent people,” he said. “We need to know that there is certainty when these types of things are being done, that there is not an arbitrariness that can impact the life or safety of innocent people. That is why the fullest level of caution, transparency and adherence to the rules of law ought to be applied.”
Questions have also been raised about whether the Regional Security System (RSS), headquartered in Barbados, was notified before the US moved personnel and assets into the area.
“I am not in a position to confirm or deny whether or not the regional security services was given prior notification.”
The RSS, which brings together security forces from seven Eastern Caribbean states, has long been regarded as a vital regional mechanism for coordination on issues such as drug interdiction and disaster response.
The growing US presence has also reignited speculation about whether Washington’s actions are tied to its longstanding tensions with Venezuela.
“Our relationship with Venezuela [has not] in any way changed. The issue for us is not about Venezuela. The issue for us is about cooperation on the stated intentions of the American administration with regard to their presence in the region. I have every reason to believe that as partners with us in this region, the Americans will only act in good faith,” he said.
He said the Government’s priority is to strike a careful balance between security imperatives and diplomatic engagement.
“It ought not to be an us versus them type of approach. I think it is important that we thread this needle carefully, because the slightest misstep can result in severe consequences.”
Source: Nation
-
Watching!
Maduro calls Trump’s actions ‘aggression’
CARACAS – Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro said yesterday that recent incidents between his country and the United States are an “aggression” by the US, not tensions between the two countries, and that there is no communication between the governments.
The administration of President Donald Trump has ratcheted up US military presence in the southern Caribbean as part of what it says is a crackdown on drug smugglers.
This month, a US military strike killed 11 people and sank a boat from Venezuela that the Trump administration said was transporting illegal narcotics.
The US government is trying to justify the launch of a “criminal attack” on his country, Maduro said during a press conference attended by top military brass and other officials.
“This isn’t tension. It is an aggression all down the line, it’s a judicial aggression when they criminalise us, a political aggression with their daily threatening statements, a diplomatic aggression and an ongoing aggression of military character,” Maduro said.
Maduro, whose government has historically met with US officials to negotiate everything from hostage releases to conditions for elections, had said this month that communications between the two governments were damaged.
Yesterday he said communications had been “thrown away,” though he later added there was still basic communication to facilitate the return of Venezuelans from the United States.
“The communications with the government of the US have been thrown away, they have been thrown away by them with their threats of bombs, death and blackmail,” Maduro said.
The Trump administration has provided scant information about last week’s attack, despite demands from US Congress members that the government justify the action.
The Venezuelan government, which says it has deployed tens of thousands of troops to fight drug trafficking and defend the country, has said none of the people killed belonged to the gang Tren de Aragua, as the US has alleged.
Maduro has repeatedly alleged the US is hoping to drive him from power.
The Trump administration has been supportive of the country’s opposition, which says it won last year’s presidential election, not Maduro.
The Venezuelan government said over the weekend that a US destroyer illegally intercepted, boarded and occupied a Venezuelan tuna fishing vessel for eight hours in the waters of the South American country’s Special Economic Zone.
Maduro repeated the accusation yesterday, saying the US was “looking for an incident.” (Reuters)
-
Kamla’s folly
WHEN POLITICAL ACTORS behave in unconventional and “dis-normative” ways, it becomes the duty of political analysts to “decode” their actions. Such decoding must show “why” the leader felt compelled to adopt the “out-of-theordinary” stance.
This assumes that political leaders, by reason of their office, are “sensible” and rational in word and deed, and as a result, public intellectuals can offer “analytical” lenses to explain abnormal decisions.
It is in such a spirit that the task of decoding the “laymanish” public pronouncements by Prime Minister Kamla Persaud-Bissessar of Trinidad and Tobago in her support of United States naval actions in the region. I have described them as “laymanish” not to be uncharitable, but because of the expectation that rulers should be distinguishable from the crowd.
Immediately following the US deployment, Persaud-Bissessar issued the brazen statement that “no amount of Trump derangement syndrome tantrums and anti-American propaganda will prevent my government from welcoming assistance to combat the terrorist drug cartels”. Following the bombing of a Venezuelan fishing boat, she declared: “I have no sympathy for traffickers; the US military should kill them all violently.” The unvarnished truth? Regional citizens were killed by an extraterritorial force without charge or trial, and a regional Prime Minister enthusiastically supported the action.
Crude stances
Following US President Donald Trump, several global leaders have boldly adopted crude stances particularly on drug crimes. Jair Bolsonaro, of Brazil, and more particularly, Rodrigo Duterte, of the Philippines, can be understood in that light. Duterte, incidentally, is now facing charges from the International Criminal Court for his policy of extra-judicial killings of suspected drug addicts during his tenure. A word to the wise is sufficient.
Persaud-Bissessar’s open support for USled extra-judicial killings of suspected drug traffickers in Caribbean waters is a back-handed admission of policy failure. She has been basically championing US unilateral killing of regional citizens as a substitute for rational, sustainable and sociologically sound responses to our geo-political reality as a major trans-shipment port to the world’s main drug consumption market, the United States. It is also a failure of global diplomacy and cooperation in response to transnational crime.
Finally, we cannot discount Persaud-Bissessar’s calculations of domestic political advantage.
Unconditional support for the US to defeat local opponents is a well-beaten path, walked by Dame Eugenia Charles, Sir John Compton and Edward Seaga to name a few. None of the above, however, openly compromised their democratic pretensions in expressing such support.
There is indeed a very wide gulf between support for US actions in the region and the declaration of unconditional support for any of their actions against “drug traffickers”. There is a well-populated museum of discarded US sycophants – from Noriega to Bin Laden – to caution pause.
Tennyson Joseph is Associate Professor of Political Science at North Carolina Central University. Email tjoe2008@live.com
Source: Nation
The blogmaster invites you to join the discussion.