Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Tee White
Weee wish you well with this. Even if wishing a broader discussed had ensued. But yuh better than Pacha, for having being the one here who more than most has for years warned of these outcomes, no brassbowl body here gave an uck bout that. Even now!
However, your comment, so turned, is pregnant with profound meanings.
More troublesome is that the American ‘think tank land’ has longed postured even a wider war in this region. These are the modern day scribes for the Deep State which hide their intent in the open. Indeed, many scholarly documents have been so written, updated, about the Caribbean military theatre.
And just as Biden was used to do the same Deep State forces in the so-called Middle East and in Ukraine, even Trump before him. Trump 2.0, as just another useful idiot, has similar kinds of jobs assigned to him. Indeed, all recent US presidents were nothing else but the servants of the Deep State.
Recall, it was the Rand Corporation which developed what Berletic likes to call the ‘continuity of agenda’. That continuity of agenda is envisioned to see not only war with Venezuela but also Haiti, Cuba and Nicaragua. Anybody disobedient to Washington!
The Rand Corporation, Brooklings Institution, the Centre of American Progress and more than a dozen others are the leaders within this ecosystem. Of course and like the empire they aim to maintain, these have all types of interlocking relationships nationally and internationally.
Yes, it’s true. Many great Caribbean personalities, politicians, academicians and even luminaries like the late great George Lamming have long theorized for the Caribbean to be a zone of peace.
On reflection, how could that ever be when the Monroe Doctrine is as alive today as it was 200 years ago? How could this region even approach this subject when American nuclear submarines are always traversing these waters? How could this ever be when we have great power rivalries elsewhere which are bound to come into the backyard of the most belligerent nation man has ever known, sooner or later?
How could this Caribbean be any zone of peace when empire is collapsing in front our very eyes and with it having a narcissist intent of stealing as much as he can in front our very eyes, would ever be able to spare the Caribbean of war when Venezuela lies on the most stupendous fossil fuel resources on the planet?
We have previously, twice, indicted Mia Mottley with charges of suborning hybrid warfare at the behest of empire. However, even as the machines of war gather within 200 miles of our shore we have Trinidad with a PM who has no idea about war or modern state of global warfare making, and other regional so-called states, offering their territories to be used by America against Venezuela primarily and its other likely allies the Chinese, the Iranians and the Russians.
These correlation of forces must be the sum of all fears!
@ Pacha
Once we have recognized that we are dealing with brass bowl jackasses, it should not be any surprise that they remain focused on the continuity of tourism and the general status quo, while intellectually immune to the global realities of imminent financial collapse, and all out war and chaos…
Quos Deus vult perdere prius dementat”..
…But first they become brass bowls…
CARICOM Releases Statement on Military Build-Up in Caribbean Sea
By caribbeantradelaw on October 18, 2025
Alicia D. NichollsDays after two Trinidadian nationals were believed to have been among the victims in one of the latest extrajudicial killings by US military forces in the Caribbean Sea off the coast of Venezuela, the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) has released a carefully worded statement condemning the build-up of military assets in the Caribbean Sea.
While not specifically mentioning the killings, the statement reiterated, inter alia, support for the “safety and livelihoods of the people of the region”. It should also be noted that the statement was released on behalf of all CARICOM Heads of Government, except Trinidad & Tobago which has “reserved its position”.
The full statement taken from the CARICOM website can be viewed here:
“Heads of Government of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) met and discussed various issues on the regional agenda including the increased security build up in the Caribbean and the potential impacts on Member States. Save in respect of Trinidad and Tobago who reserved its position, Heads agreed on the following:
They reaffirmed the principle of maintaining the Caribbean Region as a Zone of Peace and the importance of dialogue and engagement towards the peaceful resolution of disputes and conflict. CARICOM remains willing to assist towards that objective.
CARICOM Heads of Government reiterated their continued commitment to fighting narcotrafficking and the illegal trade in small arms and light weapons which adversely affect the Region. They underscored that efforts to overcome these challenges should be through ongoing international cooperation and within international law.
They reaffirmed unequivocal support for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of countries in the Region and the safety and livelihoods of the people of the Region.”
Source: https://caricom.org/statement-from-the-caribbean-community-security-build-up-in-the-region/
Caribbean Trade Law and Development
Is CARICOM Complicit in the United States and Trinidad’s Unlawful Partnership?
By caribbeantradelaw on October 15, 2025
Rahym R. Augustin-Joseph (Mr.) – Guest contributorRahym R. Augustin-Joseph
CARICOM countries must always be lauded for their international advocacy at the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) among other global forums, as the “conscience of the world” as aptly put by Prime Minister Mia Amor Mottley of Barbados, on Geopolitical Issues, Climate Change, Reformation of the International Economic and Political Architecture, AI regulation, Threats to Democracy, Reversal of Modern forms of Imperialism and Neo-colonialism, et cetera.But they must also be bemoaned for their cognitive dissonance and inertia. Most CARICOM Countries in the recent week, when discussing the recent actions by the United States of America in the destruction of the Venezuelan “drug cartel” vessels in the Caribbean Sea, contrary to International Law and in flagrant disregard for the sovereignty of the Caribbean Region, and consequent permanent stationing in the Caribbean Sea to respond to crime and violence, skilfully omitted the explicit acceptance and endorsement of the above mentioned by our own sister island, Trinidad and Tobago.
It is as if the United States of America on their own, without explicit endorsement determined this security position.
Most countries who discussed the issue only sought to dedicate two lines in their speech to the issue and sought to lay the blame solely at the feet of the United States of America.
It is as if the Caribbean Leaders have forgotten that Imperialism always has benevolent friends, aiders and supporters, who mask their support for imperialism in domestic interests and particularly national security, at the expense of others who are a stone’s throw away. Moreover, they utilise the victimised electorate (whom they have not consulted) and are affected by crime and violence as their justification, for ‘action’ contrary to the rule of law, international diplomacy, peace and established democratic principles.
Obviously, it is impolite, and certainly not diplomatic courtesy for the CARICOM member States to drop our dirty laundry in public, appear fragmented, and bemoan actions of others within the CARICOM grouping at a public forum. This is certainly not the central thesis of this Article.
It is certainly prudent for us to settle our internal diplomatic and political differences (and defend the guardrails of regional integration internally).
But, in the absence of any notable action on the latter, as evidenced through the radio silence of the hierarchy of the Secretariat, Chairman of CARICOM- Hon. Andrew Holness of Jamaica, Institutions of CARICOM et cetera, it raises cause for some concern as to whether the former or the latter is being undertaken.
Should the states have also addressed the issue in a fulsome manner at the UNGA, or should they also be addressing it internally?
However, I am more concerned, with the lack of dialogue, conversation and action internally within the Community to address actions by Trinidad and Tobago that are not in concordance with the objectives, principles, spirit, and positions of the regional grouping as a whole. I interrogate the extent to which CARICOM as an institution can rein in a member who possibly violates the Community principles. And if they are unable to, due to the constrains of functional cooperation, which permits sovereignty of foreign policy, what tools can the regional grouping equip itself with in order to respond to these instances?
Dismissing Some Myths
Now, this is not to suggest nor propose that there is any requirement on any state in CARICOM to sing at the same tone, pace, and volume on every international issue, as the RTC provides not for a ‘unified singular foreign policy’, but ‘coordination on foreign policy’ as noted in Article 6 (h) of the RTC.
So, the Prime Minister is accurate when she suggested that it is her ‘sovereign’ right of her country to articulate their foreign policy position. But, where I disagree is that the unilateral position of Trinidad and Tobago, is certainly at odds with the core pillars of the regional integration movement i.e., foreign policy coordination, as this policy does not contemplate nor advance any type of common ground, deliberative or consultative approach within the region on the resolution to the issue through the utilisation of the American military to supposedly reduce the infiltration of overseas drug cartels which affect Trinidad and Tobago and the wider Caribbean.
Moreover, it is certainly at odds with the long held customary principle within the Region that the Caribbean Sea must always be a zone of peace.
Even as a practical matter, Trinidad actually manages and earns money from the airspace for the Southern Caribbean and is the repository of all flight information for every craft flying in and through the space. As such, their obligations are both essential to our safety and evidence-based posture as a zone of peace.
But the reclaiming of this “lost ideal of a zone of peace” as evidenced by massive murder rates, interregional gang networks and organised crime, as noted by Hon. Kamla Persaud Bissessar from Trinidad and Tobago in her recent UNGA Address, is certainly not going to be achieved through the stationing and utilisation of American Military.
It may see short term results, as evidenced in the ‘neutralisation of supposed threats’ of Venezuela, but the ends may not be successful overtime as this measure is unsustainable, an avenue for retaliatory measures by other countries which can affect the lives and livelihoods of the Caribbean peoples, and a victim of the fleeting geopolitics of the four-year term of the US Presidency. It is also not directly responsive to the research which suggest that a huge percentage of illicit trafficking of firearms and drugs which cause crime and violence originate in the USA, by virtue of their liberal Constitutional gun laws. It is akin to a thief assisting you to look for the stolen goods elsewhere, knowing that they possess it.
But, additionally, it does not deal adequately with the guns and drugs already present within the country, which can be utilised for continuous crime and violence. Nor does it engage in the development and utilisation of technology to track and destroy transnational criminal networks, that do not utilise the ‘sea’ or originate from Venezuela as their route of access to the Caribbean.
But it also does not respond to the local economic and social disenfranchisement among people which fuel crime and violence. Certainly, the USA and Trinidad and Tobago cannot execute ‘all criminals’, in order to respond to crime. As such, other measures must be contemplated and utilised. Those that are in conjunction with the rule of law, international law and other rules-based systems.
It means that overtime the crisis will not dissipate.
Moreover, the literalistic text- which is the cushion upon which these decisions sit does not confines foreign policy in the hands of the individual governors but should always be analysed and assessed in the context of the unspoken conventions and practices from our own individual countries and the CARICOM. As such, the coordination of foreign policy within the Community, is always optimised when countries within CARICOM are singing from the same page of the hymnal, because as I noted in another Op-Ed, history has shown us 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. 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.”
Certainly, one must remember, even at the most basic example, when in December 2011, the government of Trinidad and Tobago was forced to change the venue of the CARICOM-Cuba summit from the Trinidad Hilton Conference Center to the National Academy for the Performing Arts (NAPA). The reason for the change of location offered was that even though the government of Trinidad and Tobago owns the Hilton Hotel plant, the U.S.-owned Hilton Company manages it. Delegates to the conference were all expected to stay at the Hilton Hotel; however, the presence of Cuban president Raul Castro posed a problem for the hotel. This is in contradistinction to other parts of the world where this was tried by the United States and the respective companies and governments protested the actions, on the basis that engaging in the decision of the USA would be enabling discrimination on the grounds of nationality.
Instead, if the interests of the Caribbean were at the forefront of the mindset of these partners or actors- there would be an engagement of CARICOM as a bloc, through a deliberative, consultative and transparent process in order to arrive at a regional agreement on mechanisms and methods to respond to overseas drug cartels infiltrating the Caribbean.
As such, one is only reminded of the 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.”
One of the best examples of the abovementioned philosophy in practice is not only the statement of Kissinger, that “America has no friends or enemies, just interests”, but instead the remarks by Abrams- who held foreign policy positions during the Raegan and George Bush administrations, when commenting on the Ship Riders Agreement after the objections raised by Jamaica and Barbados noted that: But the anti-colonial mind-set, and the insistence on full independence, that marked the 1960s should be relegated to the past. Development in the world economy, and indeed, international criminal activity, have made full independence tantamount to full vulnerability for the smallest states. Far more valuable would be a relationship with the United States that helped guarantee prosperity, security, and liberty.”
But, even beyond that, she identified the underlying ethos of the United States foreign policy when she noted later on that, “ostensibly the Shipriders Agreement is an integral part of the strategy for restructuring American hegemony within global capitalism, national states and sovereignty.”
But, even beyond the legal and historical examples, there is an unspoken convention in the Caribbean that we will always advance the causes that are based on a core set of pillars that have been denied from our peoples for a long time through enslavement i.e., human rights, democracy, the rule of law, people-centred development, and an advancement of resolving the inherent vulnerabilities of small states in the world.
Dr. the Hon. Kenny D. Anthony, as a former leader within CARICOM words must he remembered when he said that “we [must] see our democracy as the main defence against recolonisation. Without it, we would have no choice but to bow to the dictates of global economic forces, which are neither accountable to our populations nor constrained by popular intervention and choice.”
But this unspoken conventions, which CARICOM must protect, even if it means bemoaning or intervening when one of their members acts at odds with it, is buttressed by the fact that all the “CARICOM countries have committed their countries to the Charter of Civil Society, which is a firm statement of the determination to uphold human rights and the pursuit of good governance. As part of this process, there is also an agreement to establish National Monitoring Committees to ensure compliance to the principles of the Charter.”
As such, the actions of Trinidad and Tobago may be contrary to the non-binding Charter of Civil Society i.e., the permitting and encouraging the destruction of vessels and summary executions of peoples in the Caribbean Sea on the suspicion of drugs and crime without criminal due process and respect for human rights.
This is particularly relevant in circumstances where Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago, as Lead for Security in the Quasi Cabinet of CARICOM, has noted in effect at her UNGA Address that, forceful and aggressive action must be taken in order to respond to the evil drug cartels, and because they believe affected nations will always unreservedly resort to morals and ethics and human rights considerations which they blatantly flout and disregard. We will thus fight fire with fire “within the law” because they do not adhere to these values.
This is not only problematic and dangerous language because it defies the domestic, regional and international conventions and laws that Trinidad and Tobago have signed unto.
But the tacking on, almost grudgingly and forgetfully “within the law”, at the end of the statement of fire, is certainly not occurring presently because of the breaches of various conventions and treaties. As a matter of fact, it would be interesting to ascertain what “the law” provides in these instances, and whether there are any legal safeguards for the military intrusion, which are being followed?
But it is dangerous and problematic because it positions war and military interventions as the solution to crime and violence, ignoring the potential innocent death toll and destruction of war as evidenced in history, the length of war without results, and the inability of Trinidad and Tobago to make a definitive statement on the Caribbean Sea and by extension the Caribbean region, without consultation with other CARICOM members. Trinidad and Tobago cannot willingly invite war to the Caribbean, with significant implications for other countries based on geography and a possible spin-off for immigration et cetera, without the buy-in from these respective countries.
But it is also dangerous and problematic because it positions fundamental human rights and international law as being conditional on the actions of criminals, such that if they do not respect human rights, we must not in our response.
But, implicit in this argument is a question of the extent to which this thought, if adopted by every political official, and every citizen, who is also armoured with the power of a military, believed and actualises this, whether you would have any peace, people or prosperity in the respective countries. It is akin to the commencement of a dictatorship where the centre will ultimately determine who and what is worthy of life and death.
This is a slippery slope. The words of Martin Niemoller is thus instructive when he reminded us that “First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.”
Applied in our context, it would possibly mean, that they came for ‘criminals’, ‘immigrants’ and then, the list goes on.
Permitting the application of human rights, which everyone should be entitled to, by virtue of their humanity to be subject to the whims and fancies of political officials is dangerous as it does not create clear, accessible, verifiable, and equal treatment of individuals. But, implicit in the statement is also a suggestion that by utilising the law to dismantle gangs in its current form will only render countries “in name, but without substance.” It is as if, there are not formulae which shows us that both the rule of law and suppression of gang violence cannot coexist.
It is as if there is an absence of laws and processes which can be utilised to suppress and destroy gangs in the Caribbean and the wider world, without resorting to an eye for an eye mechanisms. As a matter of fact, it only signals that we are no different from them and have lost any ingenuity required for responding.
But, even beyond the bemoaning and identification of the problematic areas of the foreign policy position of the Government, there must be an interrogation and assessment of some of the tools within the arsenal of CARICOM which should be equipped to respond to these stances by a member state.
For example, implicit in the role of the Chairman of CARICOM is the underlying obligation to provide definitive statements and a position of the Heads of the Community on major issues facing the Caribbean Region. Obviously, this position and particular response by the Heads of Government and wider Caribbean, must be provided after a deliberative, engaging and consultative process, among themselves even outside the limitations of the scheduled meetings of Heads of Government. Certainly, any division among the Heads of Government, marked by differing voices or deafening silence undercuts the foreign policy coordination objective of CARICOM. It also permits a repeat of history where developed countries continue to employ a divide and conquer strategy, pitting the heads against each other at the expense of the Caribbean people’s safety and maintenance of our democratic traditions.
With the ubiquitous nature of technology, the Heads of Government and specifically the Chairman, cannot thus argue that the lack of a statement is because of the inability to have a forum to receive a common position on the abovementioned.
Certainly, the late Ramphal is instructive when he noted that “we have become casual, neglectful, indifferent and undisciplined in sustaining and advancing Caribbean integration: that we have failed to ensure that the West Indies is West Indian and are falling into a state of disunity which by now we should have made unnatural. The process will occasion a slow and gradual descent from which a passing wind may offer occasional respite; but, ineluctably, it will produce an ending.”
However, to date, and particularly prior to the UNGA, and even within the UNGA, the Chairman of CARICOM, Hon. Holness has tiptoed and circumvoluted around the particular issue, while still notably ringfencing the action by the USA when he noted that “Jamaica welcomes cooperation with all partners in this fight, including the interdiction of drug trafficking vessels, provided that such operations are carried out with full respect for international law, human rights, and with the coordination and collaboration of the countries of the region. The Caribbean has created regional security mechanisms, but these efforts alone cannot match the scale of the threat. What we need is a unified front with the same urgency, resources, and coordination the world has applied to terrorism. Only then can we turn the Caribbean and indeed the wider region into a true zone of peace.”
As such, since the Prime Minister was assertive enough to identify that he will only support actions that respect international law, human rights and collaboration. I take this to mean that he could not thus support these interventions by the United States and aided by Trinidad and Tobago.
But, he does not say that!
But one can glean that since these actions are in flagrant disregard for international human rights law and other international treaties that both these states and others in the Caribbean have signed, that they would be condemned by the Chairman and other Heads of Government.
Certainly, it is clearly evident that these strikes are at odds with (i) due process of law that the ‘drug dealers’ require wherein they must be charged, arrested and be prosecuted in accordance with the relevant criminal laws as opposed to being executed summarily in the seas, (ii) the rule of law which also suggest that everyone must have a fair trial, and that states must comply with their international obligations, which do not provide for summary execution of suspected drug dealers, such as the UN Convention on Narcotic Drugs, which suggest that under Article 35 that individuals who are believed to be engaging in illicit trafficking of drugs, shall be liable to adequate punishment particularly by imprisonment and other penalties of deprivation of liberty, provision of reporting mechanisms and procedures to ensure that the interdiction of the parties are being done in accordance with international best practices and standards, or that the principle of no one being above the law such that these states cannot be the judge, jury and executioner without due process, et cetera.
Further, for example the United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, also notes under Article 17, that respective parties must board, search, and take appropriate action if illicit drugs are found on the vessel. It certainly does not contain any provisions which permit the execution of drone strikes on the vessel. Implicit in this convention also is the satisfaction that there are illicit drugs on the vessel, which in accordance with international best practices must be safeguarded for the evidentiary basis for prosecution of the criminals. But this is not occurring as the drone strikes destroy any ‘evidence’ of drugs and fuels constructive cynicism and lack of trust for political officials among peoples who question whether there were any drugs to begin with. Or, whether these drone strikes are only for strategic geopolitical reasons or only done to justify the earlier position of having the US military stationed in the Caribbean Sea.
As I argued in the other piece on this subject, there must be the provision of appropriate safeguards i.e., reporting, ensuring adequate and accurate intelligence is received and communicated to the political officials and the wider Caribbean Community, proper accessible policies and procedures that provide us with some information on the authority to engage in such intervention and the four corners in which it is occurring, and other requisite communication with other geographically closer member states to prevent unforeseen harm and damage. In effect, these safeguards are to ensure that the objective of the mission is met and is also in accordance with International Law, the rules-based order and best practices.
But certainly, there must be the utilisation of the corridors of power to articulate that view or the public platforms in the Commonwealth Caribbean, in a clearer way to permit the citizenry to be aware of the clear position of the Chairman of CARICOM and by extension the CARICOM itself. Moreover, beyond the speeches at the United Nations, the Chair of CARICOM must provide some definitive position and work towards providing and resolving some of the issues that arise from this intervention as I have identified above.
But, what of the purpose of the Bureau established by CARICOM, which is made up of the former, current and future Chairman of CARICOM, as per Article 12 of the RTC.
Albeit its role is textually limited to focusing on the assistance in the implementation of the decisions of CARICOM, in order to cure the malaise of the implementation deficiency disorder, there is an argument to be made that, their role in “providing guidance to the Secretariat on policy issues, or initiating proposals for development and approval by the Ministerial Councils” can be interpreted as an opportunity to ensure interrogating, analysing, and development of solutions to the question of whether the USA should be utilising our seas to intercept alleged Venezuelan drug dealers, without any due process of law and protection of the law.
As a matter of fact, notwithstanding the RTC does not explicitly specify a role for the Bureau in resolution of disputes, the Bureau has provided leadership along with the Secretary General in the past, in for example, seeking cooperation between two member states, Guyana and Suriname, over the disputed Tigri Area.
As such, the bureau’s informal powers can be utilised again to assist in this resolution, and the agency must have the internal conviction and courage to hold members accountable internally for their actions.
But the problem is not only that of the Leadership but inclusive of the Ministerial Councils, such as the Council for Foreign and Community Relations (COFCOR), which is made up of Ministers responsible for Foreign Affairs of Member States, and is responsible for ensuring that there is a coordination and articulation of a clear position on the subject matter. As noted in Article 16, the Council is responsible for establishing “measures to co-ordinate the foreign policies of the Member States of the Community, including proposals for joint representation, and seek to ensure, as far as practicable, the adoption of Community positions on major hemispheric and international issues. Further, “to coordinate, in close consultation with the Member States, Community policy on international issues with the policies of States in the wider Caribbean Region in order to arrive at common positions in relation to Third States, groups of States and relevant inter-governmental organizations.”
As it currently stands the abovementioned has been otiose.
There is also a case to be made for the quietness of Ministerial Councils, such as the Council for National Security and Law Enforcement (CONSLE) which is responsible for “the coordination of the multi-dimensional nature of security and ensuring a safe and stable community.”
More particularly, Article 17(a), provides an impetus to promote the development and implementation of a common regional security strategy to complement the national security strategies in individual member states, and establish and promote measures to eliminate threats to national and regional security, which also include the mobilisation of resources to manage and defuse regional security crises, of which this is certainly included. These among other responsibilities are included in Article 17(a).
But, even as recent as this year where the CARICOM Heads of Government signed in Jamaica, the Montego Bay Declaration for Organised Transnational Crime and Gangs. Yet still, the resolution to the ‘infiltration of drugs from Venezuela to the Caribbean’ is not being enacted through the principles and practical steps that is provided in this Declaration.
It provided that one of the main aims would be to “renew our commitment to strengthening the Region’s response by implementing effective measures to monitor new trends in illicit firearms trafficking, enact robust legislation to include stringent penalties for firearm and gang-related offences, and to strengthen public awareness on the issues relating to the prevention and prosecution of all forms of organised criminal activities.”
But more importantly, it responded in text to one of the burning desires to maintain sovereignty while still responding to these ordeals, through the strengthening of the regional institutional security structures, to include CARICOM Implementation Agency and implementation of programmes such as the Caribbean Basin Security Initiative (CBSI), to effectively enhance collaboration and sharing of information, to disrupt criminal networks, as well as, leverage shared resources to enable law enforcement and support border security efforts.
However, the Chairman and by extension CARICOM, has only paid lip service to this Declaration and have not engaged in the above which can be assistive in responding to the ordeal. Instead, the regional institutional security structures have been ignored and sidelined in favour of military assistance by the United States, with many disastrous trade-offs that has not been debated, distilled, or get consensus, under the aegis of “ensuring that the friends in the Caribbean are safe.”
What should have been pursued is the strengthening of IMPACS, in order to assist in the identification and interception of the illicit trafficking of drugs, in accordance with International Law and other best practices.
And in circumstances where the abovementioned cannot be pursued, the partnering with the US agencies to ensure oversight and that the objectives of the mission are met and the appropriate safeguards are included in the intervention.
For example, is there a regionally produced satellite mapping of the placement and movement of the American Vessels? Are we certain that these vessels are actually ‘striking’ Venezuelan Vessels and peoples carrying illicit drugs and firearms? Have we agreed on some of the rules of engagement that is sensitive to immigrants, women and children, who may be coerced and trafficked along with the drugs? What is the intelligence utilised to determine whether these interceptions do not disastrously affect Caribbean fisherfolk, especially when Vice President of the United States, JD Vance felt the idea of collateral damage of peoples funny, when he noted “I wouldn’t go fishing right now in that area of the world.”
And how do we alleviate and address the fears of ordinary people on the seas and in communities across the region, who may fear that the Indians would not come to their rescue as suggested by the Minister but agonise over the destruction of their communities with retaliatory strikes by any of the respective parties? Certainly, it is not as tranquil as Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago suggested that it is only those who are criminal masterminds who should be afraid.
All of these could have been components of a collaborated effort between IMPACS and other agencies. Or even alternatively, a new deal could have encompassed equipping IMPACS with these competencies to address the abovementioned, in accordance with International Law.
However, this willing transferring of sovereignty to the USA, is certainly reflective of what Lamming describes as “the staggering nature of the region to resolve the contradiction of being at once independent and neocolonial, and the struggling of new definitions of itself to abandon the protection of being a frontier created by nature, a logistical basin serving some imperial necessity and struggling to move away from being a regional platform for alien enterprise to the status of being a region for itself, with the sovereign right to define its own reality and order its own priorities.”
The abovementioned concerns are those of ordinary peoples across the Caribbean, which must be addressed by their leadership across the Caribbean, even while they fear local gangs and crime and violence.
But the RTC under Chapter 9: Dispute Settlement, does however also provide some recourse for CARICOM Member States to rein in the actions of the Government of Trinidad and Tobago, which may contravene the objectives of the Community or prejudice the object and purpose of the Treaty, required by Article 187(a).
As such, should any CARICOM country feel compelled to act, they could utilise good offices, mediation, consultations, conciliation, arbitration and adjudication as their modes of dispute settlement as noted by Article 188 of the RTC, cognisant that should any of the methods prove unsuccessful, they can easily resort to another mode to arrive at a resolution.
Under good offices, the member states could easily engage the Secretary General of CARICOM or a third party, as required by Article 191. Should they consider mediation as the better mode, they can also agree on a mediator or request one from the Secretary General who will appoint one from the list within CARICOM as noted in Article 196.
Moreover, a member state can also request consultations, where they assert or allege that the actions taken by the other member state constitutes a breach of obligations arising from or under the provisions of the Treaty. After which, they must comply with all of the procedural requirements for consultations established in the Treaty.
Should the Member States assert that these mechanisms are insufficient, they can also resort to the more formal mechanisms of arbitration or conciliation, which establishes commissions and tribunals for adjudication, and provides for an empanelling a list of arbitrators or conciliators, and permits third party intervention, reports, evidence, expert advice et cetera. Recognising the significance of the issue, member states may be tempted to engage in this mode but must be cognisant of the ability of this mode to potentially fracture the inter-Caribbean dialogue and unity because of its ability to become acrimonious and combative. Notwithstanding the above, some member states have still demonstrated diplomatic maturity and Community comradery, even when they have brought each other before the CCJ to adjudicate on matters arising from the Treaty. This option pursuant to Article 211 of the RTC though is also always available to the member states on this matter, should they be able to conjure an argument of a violation of a treaty provision as opposed to the lofty ideals of ‘objectives’ and ‘principles.’ It not only provides that the CCJ has compulsory and exclusive jurisdiction regarding the interpretation of the Treaty, between member states who are parties to the agreement, but also provides the court with the ability to issue an Advisory Opinion, concerning the interpretation and application of the Treaty should a member state request it.
However, one should be more amenable to one of the earlier modes of dispute settlement at the commencement of this process as opposed to the latter.
CARICOM’s silence in the face of Trinidad and Tobago’s endorsement of U.S. military intervention in the Caribbean Sea exposes a deeper crisis of coherence, conviction, and courage within the regional movement. For decades, our leaders have spoken boldly on the global stage yet hesitated to confront contradictions at home invoking sovereignty when convenient and overlooking its erosion when politically expedient. This selective diplomacy undermines both the credibility and moral authority of the Caribbean voice in international affairs. If CARICOM is to remain the “conscience of the world,” it must also have the courage to be the conscience of itself: defending international law, sovereignty, and the Caribbean Sea as a genuine “zone of peace,” not a theatre for external militarisation disguised as partnership.
The instruments for accountability already exist from the Caribbean Court of Justice to the dispute-settlement provisions of the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas but they remain dormant without political will. What the moment demands is not procedural caution but principled leadership: the willingness to speak truth to power, even within our own ranks. To remain silent is to invite the gradual erosion of the West Indian spirit that once defined our integration. If the region cannot summon unity in defence of peace, law, and dignity, it risks becoming not a community of nations but a collection of states, sovereign only in name and subdued by convenience.
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.
Bushie boy!
We continue to be amazed, largely that Caribbean people remain so docile even if previous warnings were ignored.
What are they waiting for? The fireworks to start?
More still, by the support some countries, and leaders, are giving to this war or rumours thereof, at how other still leaders remain quiet, even as a blind man could see the worst case set of possible scenarios.
The main driver, for the Americans, is the Thuycdedes Trap in which they find themselves as they seek an easy victory, relieve internal pressures, flood the treasury with Venezuela’s oil to underwrite its useless paper currency, seeing war as a means of reviving the unipolar moment, a way to beat back some of the forces engulfing them or even still some kind sick revanchist ideal.
Some have rightly argued that America, and the West, face circumstances worse than the proverbial Thuycdedes Trap. For that only tends to apply in linear situations against a single great power peer.
Within our world, multiple nations are uprising at the same time. There is no anolog to this which comes to mind. Given vast problems at home, and multiple warfronts abroad, empire’s end seems unavoidable.
Maybe, the brassbowls will wake up once the first explosion is heard!
@Pacha at 2:17 PM “the most belligerent nation man has ever known, ”
Nope.
The UK.
Pacha
Unfortunately, what we are about to endure is MUCH worse than the Thucydides Trap. That is now outdated.
Our world has reached what can be termed ‘existential critical mass’. Entropy has increased to the point where catastrophic collapse is now inevitable.
This is endemic in ALL living systems, and explains why EVERY PHYSICAL THING that has life, eventually reaches ‘old age’ (existential critical mass), after which its systems that support normal life will collapse …and we get death by ‘natural causes’.
Our universe is no different.
Like an old man who has had his days, the aches and pains only get worse and worse, and at some point, either heart attack, stroke, cancer, a nuclear war, pandemic …or some young gal – in Hants case, will end the misery.
So what are brassbowls to do in such circumstances?
“Eat drink and be merry” may actually be a good option for the hopeless, much like the Band concert on the deck of the Titanic… They went out feteing…
This is perhaps why we are naturally inclined to continue eating, drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, right up to the point where our bank accounts disappear.
There were five wise virgins, who, instead of eating and drinking, marrying and giving into marriage, prepared themselves for the chaotic transition period, by securing oil for their lamps during the darkness.
Surely, you are not expecting that our joke ‘leaders’ – who have proven themselves to be incapable even of assembling LEGGO type steal houses – even with millions of dollars to burn, …to be acting like the five wise virgins… are you?
LOL
No Skippa,
We Gatherin, feteing and celebrating 60…
GM BLOGMASTER. CAN SOMEONE ON THE LIL ISLAND OF BIMSHIRE ASK THE MOTTLEY-CREW GOV WHETHER MILITARY US ASSETS WILL BE ALLOWED ON BARBADOS SOIL OR WILL TRUMP BE ASKED 2 KISS THE BACKSIDE OF OUR ANCESTORS
#IWillWait but not holding my breath!!!
@TB
Given Mottley’s political rhetoric on the matter it is unlikely a Trump administration would ask Barbados. Also there are geographical and historical reasons Trinidad and Grenada should be preferred?
The Title should read specifically
“Caribbean edging to a USwar zone”
gate pressure cost will be giving them natural resources
Asked about reports that Maduro offered “everything in his country, all the natural resources” to ease tensions, Trump agreed: “He’s offered everything; you’re right. You know why? Because he doesn’t want to fuck around with the United States.”
Every black person in the Caribbean is an an African Slave descendant
but there is still a plantation psychological mindset that overrules a united Caribbean nation mindset where there is no unity between people of Caribbean islands as shown by free movement complaining and there isn’t the will to stand up and speak out against massa slave master
You can never be a lion if you are a sheep
Bushie
Generally right! However, we’ve seen these same leaders doing more preparations for a hurricane than the military storm pending. How can these two ideas coexist within the minds of such leaders?
Separately, Trump seemed to have denied Zelenski tomahawk missiles on Friday. The tomahawk is a médium to long range weapon which is a 1980’s technology that can carry either conventional or nuclear munitions. It requires American technicians, intelligence officers, with the appropriate access to satelites and other comps for launching, guidance, targeting – deeper inside the Russian Federation. There are other such classes like Jassem and Taurig.
A hidden truism is that Americans, and NATO, were long in the war in Ukraine. Hundreds of such techninians and intelligence officers have been already targeted and killed by the Russians as they were maning underground operational centres.
Here’s the problem. Trump only seemed to have said “no” after Putin warned him, the same day, that if he agreed to deploy these weapons Russian law assumes that the tomahawks fired on Russia are carrying nuclear bombs and that he, Putin, by law, must repond to the country supplying them – America.
In addition, Putin warned, that Russia will immediately deploy Oreshnic hypersonic weapons, conventional, which are far superior and recently rolled out, to Venezuela, Cuba and Nicaragua.
So regardless of how this military cat lands, the Caribbean Sea remains in the thick of things.
Wild conspiracy theory
I had this thought a few days ago but did not post it.
The old US Naval base and developments at Husbands/Friendly Hall were in the news recently.
Will not be surprise if instead of temporary workers we see the the old Naval facility bring reactivated in some way.
Just watching.
End theory.
Interesting times indeed! I have been out and about all over the internet in local, regional, and international spaces. Our wake up call is here. Things are coming to a head. “Once to every man or nation comes the moment to decide…” What do we stand for? What are we willing to sacrifice? Me, I say EVERYTHING.
Since the Grenadian prime minister met virtually with Caricom heads of government to discuss the matter, am I to take it that the statement issued by Caricom constitutes a denial by Grenada to house the installation requested by Trump? Gaston Browne before him finally did something right and refused.
The black, four-star US admiral commanding their operations in the region has retired/was fired for dissent.
I say again that Trump is a blessing in disguise. And yesterday, I found a learned man who agreed with me. The mask is off for even the blind, if not the wilfully blind, to see. We ALL know now that we are disposable pawns to Amerikkka, even the Europeans. Whoever survives the onslaught will be stronger for it. But the world simply cannot go on as it is. Who will rise to the occasion?
“China becoming ‘more aggressive’ in the Caribbean, House Republicans warn
‘We have taken our eye off the ball in our hemisphere, and that has allowed an entrée for the Chinese to fill that void,’ Rep. Rick Crawford says
@TLSN
Have you heard that nature abhors a vacuum? This principle can be applied to explain various phenomena where there is no structure, substance, leadership, or any other form of organization. Since Reagan introduced the Caribbean Basin Initiative to the region, what has US foreign policy accomplished for the region other than serving its own geopolitical interests? We have become overly influenced by Western media and doctrines to the point of being numbed.
A hegemonist is a hegemonist, regardless of its geographical location.
He that diggeth a pit shall fall into it;
and whoso breaketh an hedge, a serpent shall bite him
The Americans, under the idiot Biden, cajoled Ukraine into a conflict with Russia in an effort to deploy NATA weapons on Russia’s border, and to bring Putin to heel.
This backfired, because – unlike brass bowls who are cowards and conformists, the Russians have LIVE EXPERIENCES of the horrors of Western invading Forces and their FORKED tongues.
…so he busted Ukraine’s donkey, and ruined the EU in the process…
Now that the shoe is on the OTHER foot with Venezuela, the USA CANNOT argue in the UN based on international law – since THEY just set the precedents…
The EU are no longer able to join any coalition (even if they wanted to)… they are looking to survive winter…
So the choice for Trump has essentially been determined… War!
What else can he do…?
…BEG Venezuela for forgiveness?
..Apologize to Russia for Ukraine?
…Cancel his precious Tariffs on China?
What he needs now, are some ALTERNATIVE targets for Russia, China and Venezuela – missiles, …besides NY, Boston and LA …
So putting radar bases in Grenada, Trinidad and Brassbados makes sense to Trump…
What makes NO SENSE, would be trying to argue that such bases are needed for ANYTHING else… given modern technology.
However, EVEN without becoming operational targets, this region is DOOMED to suffer the consequences of attrition – via, trade, energy, food and water crises that will be inevitable…
But we are fully focussed on our 60th anniversary Re Gatherin….
What a world!
The OG
We can trust you to bring the bullshit.
Bushie
Generally right! However,
The new Chinese, Iranian and Chinese radar systems make what the Americans have antiquated. They are antiquated on many military metrics. They don’t have hypersonic missiles, another example. More precisely, these radars proposed for Grenada cannot detect several types of Chinese and Russian fighter aircraft.
The Chinese control nearly 90 percent of global rare earth minerals. Seventeen minerals for which they control all the industrial processes and supply chains.
And yes, there are a few minor players on the fringe like Australia. However, they can’t do swat without Chinese technology, equipment, engineers.
The recent ban or tariffs imposed by the Chinese in response to Trump’s means that America has up to ten years before it can overcome the industrial hurdles to produce the rare earth metals needed for military equipment, cell phone, solar panels, etc. The thing is that the Americans have known about this for 15 years and did nothing.
Their dire position puts us in a quandary. Meaning that since they can’t win any type of war with the Chinese and their allies, wid a narcissist in the White House as imbued with exceptional racism, the mushroom may be the port of last call.
Oh dear!
“Trump calls Colombia’s Petro ‘a drug leader’, says US to cut aid to country”
BRICS is not talking bout ‘hegemony’. They are talking about a multipolar world with a system which was the original desire of the UN and the Bandung Conference of 1955.
Why don’t you look and see what they are all about?
Instead, you revert to the tired schema.
For you, there must be a zero sum game. Winner takes all. First past the pole.
Neither the Chinese nor the Russian societies are so based!
In any bloc whether EU, BRICS, NATO, even CARICOM, members with the most resources will influence decisions.
Ignorance. There will never be a set of circumstances where resource allocation shall be even. However, because this is a reality it does not mean that a country like Barbados with scare resources cannot enjoy a relative increasing standard of living, share of global power. Barbados has fewer people to feed than most countries with bountiful natural resources. You are the same man who never wanted Afrika the region with nearly 40 percent of resources. So to, like a William Skinner, continue to harps on this same old canard which was always and merely the cry of a slave for its slave master forever. Does a ccountry like Singapore have resources per it’s population? Your jaded thinking, like Barbados, has missed the bus!
Singapore embodies everything Barbados and the region lacks, and it won’t improve in the medium and long term.
Singapore is a disciplined society managed like a pseudo-democracy. It’s strategically located at the world’s busiest shipping lanes and has developed a reputation as a neutral diplomatic country, all under astute leadership and vision.
You have your opinion, and the blogmaster will defend his until something more significant emerges.
@ Pacha
While you are correct, your scenario merely juxtaposes two albino-centric philosophies against each other, and the Western model is SO CLEARLY more demonic, that there is NO CONTEST.
Bushie however has gone BEYOND that point and is advocating a completely new (actually OLD AS SHIITE) philosophy that is COMMUNITY-CENTRIC in concept – and hence GOD-centered in essence.
While the Russians and Chinese have NEVER been as hegemonic, especially to OTHER countries, as have been the Western demons (Sorry Cuhdear, the French and Belgians were MUCH worse even than the English), they too have unleashed untold horrors on their OWN peoples – who tended not to conform… and still possess critical structural weaknesses.
While clearly not as bad, these alternative approaches are still largely materialistic in nature, and unforgiving to opposition.
LOL
This is just a case of your supporting the lesser aggressive demonic approach.
Why not investigate the ABSOLUTE original solution that is intended by the CREATORS who initiated the whole exercise…?
Black Bag
For those who need a spy lingo refresh, “black bag” is a term used to convey that an operation or a piece of information is top secret and the speaker cannot say more.
Definition of War
a state of armed conflict between different countries or different groups within a country.
Definition of Racial conflict
Racial conflict is defined as societal controversies related to variances in ethnic, cultural, or national affiliation. Specifically, racial conflict is the result of one dominant culture’s control of differing cultures through economics, politics, social policy, and law.
Definition of Racism
“Racism (white supremacy) is the local and global power system dynamic, structured and maintained by those who classify themselves as white; whether consciously or subconsciously determined; this system consists of patterns of perception, logic, symbol formation, thought, speech, action and emotional response, as conducted simultaneously in all areas of people activity: economics, education, entertainment, labor, law, politics, religion, sex, and war. The ultimate purpose of the system is to ensure white genetic survival and to prevent white genetic annihilation on Earth—a planet in which the overwhelming majority of people are classified as non-white (black, brown, red, and yellow) by white skinned people. All of the non-white people are genetically dominant (in terms of skin coloration) compared to the genetic recessive white skinned people”.
Forwards Ever Backwards Never
USA admitting the wickedness of their slavery was a step towards admitting their original sin of racism to cover up their slavery justified with their false doctrine of white supremacy falsely claiming with another big fat lie their oxymoronically named Christianity was their calling from their “White God” to civilise, subordinate, control, torture and kill people of colour.
Vacums of the Mind
Big fat Trump whitewashing the truths about how wicked whites were was just a step backwards towards their cover up lies and racism of the past.
“Because, no race has the last word on culture and on civilization. They do not know what we are capable of. They do not know what we are thinking. They are thinking in terms of dreadnoughts, battleships, airplanes, submarines. You know what we’re thinking about?… That is our own private business.”
Marcus Garvey: ‘Look for me in the whirlwind’, Freedom speech – (circa) 1924
“I love to sing love songs
But I have got a war on my hands and I have got to win it
When I win the war,
I will come back and sing you all love songs”
― Lee “Scratch” Perry
Bushie
There has to come a time when fabals and fictions must be dispensed with. Did the Chinese who brought themselves out of abject poverty in less than 40 years enjoyed any mystical visitations?
Wee are dealing with material conditions! Only!
BTW, and in the interest of being balanced. While you are right about the Chinese and the Russians, in general terms, about conquests….. or the absence thereof.
History is always more complex than the simple.
In the case of Russia, it was so much occupied conjuring lands to the East that it missed the entire colonialization of the world by Europeans. Historians tend to conclude that had it not been for this, Russia too would have entered the game.
Unfortunately, weeee spend so much time defending the basics that the complexities oft are missing.
And given the relative histories of all great powers, on balance they are and were less bad.
Conquering
@The Blogmaster
” there are geographical and historical reasons Trinidad and Grenada should be preferred?”
Let me get this right:
TT’s MADam PM will be willing to let Trump squeeze her “BITS”!!!
And “MAURICE BISHOP’s GRENADA HAS LEARNED NOTHING OVER 4 DECADES???
#DidIGetThatRight???
10,000 in five years when they cannot even assemble 300 prefabricated houses in 5 years is not BS
Acquiring over priced vaccines is not BS
The HOPE project is not BS
Looks like someone scam the GoB with a next project. That’s not BS
BS detectors need calibrating. Seems like it detects puddles and not a ton if it.
David please post the article on the BGB. I will help folks in calibrating their BS detectors.
@TB
In the case of Trinidad is maybe a case of the enemy of my enemy is my friend? Grenada was ‘saved’ by the US and Eugenia back in the day, there is always time for payback?
Who knows what happens in smoke filled rooms and the discussions had via back channels?
CLIMATE FRAUD CLAIM
Barbados Govt among victims named in case lodged in US
By Maria Bradshaw mariabradshaw@nationnews.com
The Barbados Government is one of several victims in an alleged fraudulent climate change scheme involving millions of dollars, that has reached the United States’ Southern District Court of New York.
The matter had been dismissed twice with the judge finding that the complaint failed to prove the fraudulent acts, but the complainant/plaintiff, Fintech Leaders Fund LLC (FLF), have persisted and recently filed an appeal.
In documents filed in court on March 27 this year, copies of which were obtained by the Sunday Sun, the Barbados Government, described as a victim, is said to have entered into negotiations with a United States company, Pegasus Capital Advisors, managed by the Cogut family (Craig, Deborah and David) all named as defendants, to set up and manage a Blue Green Bank (BGB) here.
In addition to Government, the scheme is said to have targeted Green Climate Fund (GCF), the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), the Rockefeller Foundation and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID).
Fintech Leaders Fund said the defendants’ plan involved deceptively marketing and promoting a publicly traded company in the United Kingdom, Tintra Plc, to attract funds to serve its own business purposes. According to the court documents, Tintra was no more than a shell company without the expertise to fulfill what it was promoting to investors.
Fintech is claiming they were reportedly duped out of US$3 million by Tintra in December 2022.
In 2021, Government, in cooperation with the GCF, commenced steps to establish the first BGB, a public-private sector bank here.
Government intended for the bank to provide financing for projects such as climate resilient housing, renewable energy, clean transportation and water conservation in Barbados and later in other Caribbean countries. The Barbados BGB, its equity, GCF’s investment in it and the Barbados BGB’s substantial balance sheet, was to be managed by an “accredited entity” selected by the GCF.
Court documents described the Barbados BGB as a lucrative project that would be established as a digital bank and initially capitalised with US$30.5 million in contributions (US$10 million from the Barbados Government, US$15.5 million from GCF and US$5 million from USAID). Using that capital, the Barbados BGB was intended to control more than US$200 million in assets. Pegasus expected the Barbados BGB “to mobilise at least US$5.8 billion of investment in climate projects over t he next 15 years”.
According to the complaint, to be selected to establish and manage the Barbados BGB, the Coguts needed to demonstrate to Government that they had the capability and the technology to produce the digital bank.
To secure the Barbados BGB project in 2023, Pegasus represented to GCF in its main application that “[a]s a digital bank, the BGB will require a robust technical platform for its operation. Professional services will be procured to work alongside the BGB management team to develop the technical platform and train all staff on its operation. Once operational, the BGB will be publicly launched.”
Fintech contended that representation “was materially false because the defendants represented that they had the capability to create the Barbados BGB when they did not.”
They claimed that Pegasus also failed to disclose that they had a particular purported “suitable provider” in mind —Tintra; failed to disclose that they had an equity interest in and controlled that “suitable provider”; and failed to disclose that Tintra was not, in fact, a “suitable provider” because it had no relevant capability and was a sham.
Government had very specific requirements for the Barbados BGB project, which its representative Avinash Persaud disclosed publicly in December 2023, namely: to “break boundaries”, and to “do a different kind of bank” using technology and digital, and to “use technology to make the BGB bank more impactful, more efficient, and better than traditional banks”.
Persaud, who was Special Climate Envoy to the Prime Minister when the BGB was conceptualised, and is now at the IDB said he was not familiar with the case but noted that the claims did not sound credible.
He described the named victims in the lawsuit as “very large institutions” who had the wherewithal to bring their own lawsuit against Pegasus if they were indeed defrauded.
“These so-called victims, they are very large institutions, much bigger than Fintech and why wouldn’t they take Pegasus to court if they were concerned? It doesn’t really hold water in a sense that these big organisations, IMF, IDB, who certainly from in January 24 when I was involved up to that point, they had not been involved, so they had not put money in. But these are big, credible organisations with permanent legal teams. If they felt they were victims, they would take action. So the fact that they’re not taking action and the company I’d never heard of is taking action, one wonders what that is about”.
Source: Nation
Fraud claim dismissed
Pegasus Capital Advisors, the accredited entity for the much touted Barbados Blue Green Bank (BGB), has successfully argued two motions to dismiss the complaint brought against them, which alleges that the company perpetrated a fraud against the BGB and others.
The BGB is a collaborative project between the Government of Barbados, the Green Climate Fund, Pegasus Capital Advisors and the Rockefeller Foundation to fund climate-resilient and low-carbon initiatives in Barbados. These projects include green affordable housing, resilient roofs and transport electrification.
Fintech Leaders Fund (FLF) brought the complaint in the United States District Court Southern District of New York against Pegasus and its principals Craig Cogut, his wife Deborah and son David, charging that they engaged in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), fraud, negligent misrepresentations, aiding and abetting and unjust enrichment.
The complaint alleged that the defendants implemented a scheme to secure substantial amounts “potentially, hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars” in public and private funding by, fraud and bribery.
The scheme is alleged to have targeted the Green Climate Fund (“GCF”), the Barbados Government, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the Rockefeller Foundation and the Inter-American Development as well as other victims.
Continuity
Fintech Leaders Fund filed the case in March 2025. Pegasus responded to the complaint and asked that it be dismissed in its entirety.
The court dismissed the complaint without prejudice on July 11, essentially agreeing with the grounds argued by Pegasus and finding that the complaint had failed to adequately plead continuity; failed to adequately plead injury caused by the alleged predicate acts, and failed to adequately plead control of the alleged RICO enterprise.
The judge granted FLF until July 25 to amend its complaint.
However, while the amended complaint was submitted, Pegasus again moved to have it dismissed in its entirety and on September 9, the judge granted a motion to dismiss the complaint again, as he reserved his written decision for a later date.
Fintech has filed an appeal. In its motion for dismissal, Pegasus argued that the claim by FLF that they conspired with a UK company Tintra to cause FLF to lose more than $2 million was baseless. Furthermore, Pegasus also denied that it used Tintra to defraud various governments and government-backed investment entities involved in Barbados’ Blue Green Bank.
It stated: “Tellingly, the complaint does not allege that any of those entities believe they were victims of any fraud.”
Referencing the BGB bank Pegasus stated: “The gist of FLF’s case and conclusory claims about BGB is that Defendants perpetrated a harebrained fraud that was doomed to fail, had no possibility of bringing them a profit, and would inevitably destroy their successful private equity firm. The case law makes clear that such allegations of self-immolation are not to be credited, especially where, as here, they are pled largely on information and belief – that phrase appears 411 times in the complaint.”
In terms of Tintra, a financial technology company and its founder Richard Shearer, the defendants admitted that David and Craig Cogut did invest $2.25 million in that company in 2022 but said it “was a passive, personal investment, unrelated to Pegasus” and the Coguts’ minority investment did not entitle them to seats on Tintra’s board of directors.
Repay part of loan
The Coguts also admitted they were not aware that Tintra had used a portion of that money to repay Fintech part of a loan.
In its submission to dismiss the charge the defendants noted: “The pattern of racketeering activity, according to FLF, primarily involved a scheme by the Coguts to deceive investors, including the GCF, the U.S. Agency for International Development and others to invest over $30 million in the BGB, a wholesale bank in Barbados that would help make infrastructure-related loans. Despite Pegasus’ long and documented history in sustainability and health investments, FLF alleges that Pegasus pivoted to these fields only recently…”
They added that FLF failed to allege a pattern of racketeering activity.
Outlining the allegations they said: “According to the Complaint, by 2021, Craig’s and David’s private equity business, Pegasus, was “primarily reliant” on capital provided by a single investor, GCF. In late 2021, defendants became aware that GCF was working with the Government of Barbados to establish the BGB, a sustainability-focused wholesale bank. Defendants allegedly decided to try to obtain the contract from GCF to set up and manage the BGB, because doing so would give them control over $30 million that GCF and others were slated to invest in the BGB and a potential pathway to set up other similar banks.
“The problem defendants faced, according to the complaint, was that – even though they were successful private equity investors, they had no experience in setting up or managing a bank. Rather than find a partner with the appropriate experience, defendants allegedly decided to defraud GCF and the BGB’s other potential investors into believing that they had. To that end, FLF claims, defendants seized ‘effective control’ of Tintra, which the complaint describes as a ‘mere shell’ that ‘had no banking product, technology, or banking expertise’, and then falsely portrayed Tintra as ‘a legitimate, cutting-edge company with AI banking technology and an ESG [environmental, social, and governance] focus’ that would partner with Pegasus to create the BGB’s banking infrastructure.
The complaint alleges that Pegasus succeeded in obtaining the BGB contract in or about early 2023 and that, in September 2023, defendants “publicly announced that Pegasus would use Tintra to set up the Barbados BGB’s banking systems, even though by then Tintra was insolvent and had discontinued what little operations it had”.
But the defendants pointed out that: “The BGB fraud, as alleged, was destined to quickly fail, would have brought defendants no profit, and would have ended defendants’ relationship with their most important investor.”
Furthermore they contended that if Tintra was to be the provider of banking infrastructure to secure the contract to manage GCF’s investment in BGB, “logic dictates that Tintra would be touted as such in the funding proposal. But Tintra is not mentioned anywhere”.
Pointing out that the funding proposal laid out a detailed roadmap for setting up the BGB, the defendants noted that GCF agreed to invest in BGB in July 2024, almost two months after a UK court granted the winding-up petition against Tintra.
The defendants submitted that the complaint did not allege continuity, that the principal predicate acts were inadequately pled, the bribery allegations were defective; and the travel act violations were insufficiently pled. (MB)
Source: Nation
I KNOW COMMONSENSE IS NOT A COMMON COMMODITY, CONTROLLED OR CENTRALIZED BY ANY OF OUR SO-CALLED POSTMODERN LEADERS TODAY – BAR IBRAHIM TRAORE
Commonsense deduces that #TheVenezuelaInvasion is about the “SAME OIL” that so-called “MADman” #SadDAMN_Hussein had & was “HUNG” by the neck in broad-daylight, 4 all the “GLOBALISTS” to toast with their “BRANDY” & “SCOTCH WHISKY”!!!
“WAR” in the “CARIBBEAN BASIN” is a “TINKLING WASHPAN” that ECHOES* 1983 Grenada & the “MURDER” of #ComradeMauriceBishop & the “BLOOD-SOAKED”, “BLOOD-STAINED” canvas of a nation that has not even caught itself properly since then!!!
I know this from “OBSERVATIONAL ANALYSIS” having spent an entire month on that “LIL ROCK” less than a year ago!!!
#HeavenHelpMyBruhs & “SISTAZ”
Finally, after a “TRINI” was “BARBECUED” in a violent U.S. Airstrike – are we to believe that the “FEMME FATALE” TT PM” is willing to turn an “AMORAL” blind eye; “HOLD HER NOSE” & allow “BULLSHYTE” to waft through the Caribbean islands – “UNCHECKED”, “UNFETTERED”, “UNCHALLENGED” & “UNPUMMELED” ???
Is the next #PLANdemic a “VIRAL INFECTION OF COMMONSENSE”???
#WhatAWorld
Pacha
It is hard to argue with you – because you are so obviously right…
HOWEVER, you are limiting the moot to the physical and economic conditions of statehood.
There is MUCH MORE to ‘project Life-on-Earth’ – in terms of potentialities, than simply seeking a fair and just redistribution of resources.
Indeed, these potentialities are so revolutionary in scope, that to the truly enlightened, matters of wealth and power distribution can be mere distractions.
This for example would have led a previous bushman to proclaim that it was indeed a BLESSING, spiritually, to be poor – and to be undistracted from the TRUE potential of life, …than to be caught us with the lotta materialistic jobby – and thereby, get distracted from the true reality.
…he also asked the question …what would be the overall value of successfully achieving all the wealth in existence for oneself, …and then losing the DESIGNED opportunity for REAL success.
Bottom line…
Our world is NOT here by statistical chance. It is obviously a DESIGNED project with clear objectives.
You may seek clarity on those objectives from other confused BBs, or via your sharp intellect…
…but not stinking Bushie….
The Bushman prefers to be taking the word of the ORIGINATOR and CREATOR on this.
Bushie
All you are doing is sanctifying poverty. Just like the White told you you should.
If you could only learn that none of your religion has any place in any public discourse we’ll be able to scientifically concentrate on the materialistic alone and leave all other matters within the province of brain space or the private homes of individuals.
This constant evangelizing mission, deeply ingrained, represents a byproduct of the psycological warfare your book has thus imprinted. Therefore nothing could be discussed, in and of itself, unless that culdesac arrives, sooner or later. Only Black people behave this way!
It is this criminal consecration, not dissimilar to yours, which has done untold damage to Afrikan peoples for thousands of years, and even after those recurrent genocides, again acting at the behest of the unseen, invisible, White man, you insist with the consecration of poverty over and over again, and other metrics, under some specious, unmeasureable rubric, even as those giving the book proceed to rob us blind.
https://youtu.be/YIe1R9Enu3Y?si=yl-VTRrJCW_73jPz
War in de East
War in the West
War down South
War, War, rumours of uh War
War, War. War.
https://youtu.be/BjKTUtGZWBI?si=_AmUck9L__50A8Rx
David Hinds – we’ve had disagreements before. However, he has something to say.
“This constant evangelizing mission, deeply ingrained,….
….Only Black people behave this way!”
~~~~~~~~~~~
This is very perceptive of you, as always.
However it represents, NOT A FAILING, but that very special community-centric predisposition that sets us apart from the remainder. It is THE mark of the people who were specially chosen to reflect the very character of the Creator.
Of course we all know how we became enamored with the materialistic trappings of our temporary existence, …converted to the dominant albino-centric philosophies of hate and greed, …and have been trailing the pack in that regard now for Centuries.
…Obviously because deep down, OUR innate characteristics are more aligned with love, forgiveness, Godliness and faith, …than with greed, hate, war and mayhem.
So that in a world of peace, love, community development and righteousness, the Black man would be unrivaled….
In OUR present world of war, hatred, selfishness and evil, we are the scum of the Earth, and the bottom of the heap… easily the most pathetic.
Pick sense from those facts.
It has therefore become LITERALLY true, …that ‘the first shall be last, and the last first’ in this period of time.
And whereas you are focused on moving up the current hierarchical ladder,
Bushie looks forward to inverting the whole pyramid.
War in the eastern Caribbean. America’s so called “back yard”.
Bushie
There are no special people. When an otherwise intelligent person like you keep mentioning this as some article of faith it breeds the very White supremacists you otherwise condemn. The White supremacists whose creed centralized this lie.
Even as Afrikan peoples possess certain traits these do not make us ‘special’. Beyond these there are many other qualities possessed by Afrikans, beyond the soft power elements you wish to highlight, which add to those you mentioned. You’ll be surprised how many inventions were made by Afrikans, things taken for granted or stolen by the people whose book gave you. A level of genius still not known by the many.
We have Afrikans today developing mechanisms to provide electricity from the atmosphere. To run cars without having to fill at gas stations electric stations. And on and on. When the White people, whose book informs you, went to Afrika around the enslavement period they were looking for nation builders and even today if you look around the capitals of slave holding nations you’ll find that the architecture from that period is primarily Afrikan.
And on and on. But to classify people into classes like you have breeds the same supremacy which your bible has given us.
https://youtu.be/Od5Aotn4YNg?si=Vb15Gp_85kWhcCfB
Zircon missiles?
Oreshnik missiles?
America has lost before the battle begins. But if they insist all their ships shall be sunk to the bottom of the Caribbean Sea.
But then again, Trump is such a loud-mouthed braggart, weee highly doubt he has the scrotum for a real battle.
All such cowards could do is to kill innocent civilians.
The president who thinks he knows everything, even as he declares war on knowledge itself, can be summarised as 100% ignorant and prejudiced about Caribbean people. His actions in his second term regarding white South Africans, Black History, Diversity, US Government services and help for poor and needy and stereotyping races and groups of people as criminals, drug dealers, terrorists with overreach and abuse of powers are a game to him.
The West suck up to his madness like bitches who are under manners and are owned like property.
what to do he is an enigma and a conundrum for sure
When the devil comes blowing through your door
You’ll know there’s trouble, and he’s coming back for more
You better keep what is precious hidden under the floor
Or you better treat it so good it will never want for more
the truly educated aren’t quarrelsome
And yet when I laughed at Charlie Kirk’s death, I was called out in some pretzel twisted way for being as racist as Charlie Kirk. No, I was simply glad that he who enabled white supremacy was no longer able to do so.
Never once have I thought of black people as God’s chosen people. Now, that’s racist!
The OG
The bullshit is in the bases. And a few other things. You always bring it. I did not say that’s all you bring, did I? But definitely, this is base bullshit.
How the goal posts keep moving.
The end of free market hypocrisy?
by PROFESSOR JUSTIN ROBINSON
FOR DECADES, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank advised, some say forced, Caribbean nations to privatise essential services. Now Washington is doing the opposite – does that change everything?
When the United States (US) government took a ten per cent stake in Intel this August – followed by equity positions in four other strategic companies – it wasn’t just another policy shift. It was the unmasking of one of international development’s most enduring deceptions: that freemarket fundamentalism was ever about sound economics rather than geopolitical power.
Caribbean nations watching this transformation have every right to feel vindicated – and furious.
The double standard exposed
As of October 2025, the US government now holds ten per cent of Intel ($8.9 billion); 15 per cent of MP Materials ($400 million); Dual five per cent stakes in Lithium Americas; ten per cent of Trilogy Metals ($35.6 million); and a “golden share” giving President Donald Trump veto power over US Steel’s major decisions.
Additionally, Nvidia and AMD pay Washington 15 per cent of their China chip revenues – what Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick openly calls “rent”. National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett described this as “a down payment on a sovereign wealth fund,” promising “many more cases.” This is precisely the state capitalism model Washington condemned for decades when practised by China. When Chinese stateowned enterprises received government support, US officials called it “unfair advantages” and “predatory financing.” But when America does it?
It’s “industrial policy”. It’s “national security.”
The Caribbean’s forced experiment
The contrast with Caribbean experiences couldn’t be starker. Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, the IMF and World Bank made privatisation a prerequisite for development assistance. By 2001, over 80 per cent of World Bank water loans required cost recovery measures; 40 per cent explicitly mandated privatisation. Jamaica’s trajectory tells the story.
After a 1990s financial crisis – partly caused by earlier IMF-mandated financial deregulation – debt reached 147 per cent of GDP by 2013.
Each rescue came with more demands: privatise airports, seaports, water systems. Sell state assets. Gut public services.
England’s experience with Thames Water cruelly exposes the potential costs of privatisation. The result? £78 billion paid to overseas shareholders, £60 billion in accumulated debt, record sewage dumping, and now a £3 billion bailout request. Scotland, which resisted privatisation, invested 35 per cent more per household with lower bills and better service.
What This Reveals
Three uncomfortable truths emerge: First, economic prescriptions imposed on developing nations were never about optimal policy.
They served market access for Western corporations and geopolitical advantage.
When US strategic interests require state intervention – for semiconductors or steel – ideology bends instantly. But vulnerable island nations needing state capacity for water, healthcare, or disaster resilience were told such thinking was backwards.
Second, the double standard is structural, not accidental.
The same institutions that forced Jamaica to privatise utilities remain silent as Washington takes equity stakes and exercises government control over private companies.
Third, free-market fundamentalism was always for export, not domestic consumption. As Wall Street Journal economics commentator Greg Ip observed: “Capitalism in America is starting to look like China.”
The opportunity
This moment offers Caribbean nations and other developing countries crucial opportunities: Recognise “technical advice” as power politics.
When multilateral institutions controlled by wealthy nations prescribe policies they refuse to follow, it’s not economics – it’s colonialism with spreadsheets.
Embrace diverse models. Singapore’s government controls 37 per cent of its stock market. South Korea and Japan developed through state-guided capitalism. Scotland’s public water outperforms England’s privatised system.
There is no single path, regardless of what Washington preaches.
Prioritise resilience over ideology. For disasterprone small islands, the question isn’t whether government should manage essential services – it’s how to structure involvement for maximum accountability and effectiveness. Climate vulnerability demands robust state capacity, not dismantled public sectors.
Build regional solidarity. Caribbean collective voices through CARICOM carry more weight than individual nations negotiating alone.
The fundamental issue isn’t state capitalism versus free markets – both can succeed or fail.
What matters is accountability: who controls decisions, in whose interest, and with what consequences for failure? Thames Water’s offshore investors extracted billions while systems crumbled, facing no accountability. That’s the real scandal, whether in privatisation or state control.
Reclaiming policy space
Washington’s pivot doesn’t automatically change power realities. The institutions dispensing loans with conditions remain controlled by wealthy nations. But intellectual liberation is the first step. Caribbean economists and policymakers should feel freer to now examine what actually works – Singapore’s state guidance, Nordic social welfare, Cuba’s public health achievements despite sanctions – without apologising. They can ask: What does climate resilience require? What protects against disasterinduced debt spirals? What gives vulnerable nations maximum policy flexibility? The answers won’t fit tidy ideological boxes. That’s precisely the point.
If America can take stakes in strategic companies when it suits national interests, why can’t Caribbean nations maintain public ownership of essential services when it serves their populations. If Washington demands revenue shares from tech giants, why can’t small island states can structure economies to capture more value from tourism and natural resources.
The end of an era
For decades, the US positioned itself as the global champion of free markets, transforming lectures into loan conditions through the IMF and World Bank. Caribbean nations privatised assets, liberalised markets, and gutted government capacity – not because evidence suggested these policies would work for small island states facing unique challenges, but because refusing meant losing development finance.
Now the evangelist has abandoned the faith – while maintaining the pulpit. This isn’t just hypocrisy. It’s revelation: economic orthodoxy shifts with political convenience, proving it was never science but ideology serving power.
The implications ripple beyond trade policy.
When wealthy nations preach principles they immediately abandon when convenient, developing nations owe it to their citizens to craft policies serving local needs and conditions, not distant geopolitical interests. The era of independent Caribbean economic thinking must have a rebirth – not in defiance of multilateral institutions, but in recognition that their prescriptions were never designed for small island survival.
The choice between state capitalism and free markets is a false binary. What matters is building resilient, accountable systems that work for your people. Washington’s U-turn finally makes that truth undeniable.
Professor Justin Robinson, Pro Vice Chancellor and Principal University of the West Indies Five Islands Campus.
Source: Nation
The blogmaster invites you to join the discussion.