By Sir Ronald Sanders
If US Secretary of State Marco Rubio accepts the invitation to attend the CARICOM heads of government meeting in St Kitts and Nevis from 25 to 27 February, his presence should be treated as consequential. It would offer an opportunity to recalibrate the relationship between the United States and 15 member states of CARICOM that has never been broken — but now requires deliberate renewal.
The US and the Caribbean Community are not strangers testing first principles. Geography binds us. Trade sustains us. Security concerns connect us. Migration links our families. For decades, cooperation between Washington and Caribbean capitals has been steady, pragmatic, and grounded in mutual interest.
Secretary Rubio has spoken forcefully about sovereignty, economic resilience, border control, and the dangers of surrendering national agency to external forces. Caribbean leaders understand that language instinctively.
Our region’s modern history is rooted in claiming our legal entitlement to sovereignty, building viable economies out of colonial inheritances, and defending democratic institutions in societies small in size but firm in conviction.
There are no communist political movements steering CARICOM governments. There are no ideological crusades underway in the Caribbean. Our politics are practical. Across administrations and across party lines, Caribbean governments have pursued market-driven economies tempered by social responsibility. We rely on private enterprise, welcome investment, and maintain deep commercial ties with the United States, which remains our largest trading partner.
With the exception of Guyana and Trinidad and Tobago, whose energy exports alter the arithmetic, the United States enjoys consistent trade surpluses in goods — and substantial commercial advantages overall — with most CARICOM member states.
American goods fill Caribbean ports. American companies operate profitably in our economies. American visitors enjoy our tourism industries. Cooperation in drug interdiction and in combating organised crime has been structured and ongoing under the Caribbean Basin Security Initiative. These are not the markers of strained relations. They are the foundations of a long partnership.
Yet strain has emerged, and it must be acknowledged honestly if recalibration is to occur.
One present source of tension is US migration policy regarding refugees and deportees. Every CARICOM country has consistently accepted the return of its own nationals deported from the United States. We have cooperated in verifying nationality, issuing travel documents, and facilitating lawful repatriation. That cooperation is not in dispute.
The unease arises when small states are asked to accept – and bear the cost of maintaining – persons who are not their nationals. For large countries, absorbing additional populations may be an administrative challenge. For small island and coastal states with limited fiscal space, small land mass, and tightly interwoven social systems, the impact can be magnified. Integration involves housing, health services, education, employment, community stability, and — above all — security vetting in environments that do not possess the investigative reach of larger nations.
The issue, therefore, is not unwillingness to cooperate. It is proportionality. It is capacity. And it is risk.
Secretary Rubio has argued that the United States must strengthen its own resilience by securing supply chains, reinforcing borders, and deepening cooperation with reliable partners. The Caribbean is not a distant theatre in that strategy; it is America’s immediate neighbourhood.
A stable, economically viable, and security-aligned CARICOM reduces irregular migration pressures, strengthens maritime domain awareness in a region through which illicit trafficking flows. Further, it offers trusted nodes for supply-chain diversification close to US shores. Therefore, investment in Caribbean resilience is not charity. It is strategic depth. In a world in which major powers contest for influence, proximity and partnership still matter.
If progress is to be made on migration cooperation, it must be built on clarity and reciprocity — clear legal frameworks, strict vetting standards, limited and manageable numbers, and arrangements that do not leave small states with open-ended financial or social obligations. Sustainable cooperation cannot rest on imbalance.
Climate policy presents another area where careful conversation is required. Caribbean countries do not contribute significantly to global emissions. Yet we endure intensifying hurricanes, coastal erosion, and climate-related disruption at levels that threaten our economic survival.
For us, resilience is not ideology. Energy diversification is not dogma. It is existential necessity. Any recalibration between Washington and CARICOM must recognise that for CARICOM states, climate adaptation and economic growth are inseparable objectives.
On matters concerning Venezuela and Cuba, Caribbean governments share a common interest in stability in the hemisphere. Disorder and economic collapse do not respect boundaries. But Caribbean states are also guided by a longstanding commitment to sovereignty — a principle of international law that small states regard as essential to their security. In any event, durable outcomes in the Americas are achieved not through destabilisation, but through predictable, lawful processes that reduce instability rather than amplify it.
If Secretary Rubio meets CARICOM in St Kitts, the most constructive conversation will not revolve around pressure. It will revolve around alignment.
The United States seeks secure borders, resilient supply chains, and stable neighbours — and it has them in CARICOM. For its part, CARICOM seeks economic growth, climate resilience, and security against organised crime. Clearly, the US. and CARICOM objectives are not contradictory. They are complementary.
Expanded cooperation on maritime security and intelligence-sharing would strengthen both American and Caribbean safety. Structured labour mobility pathways could meet workforce needs in the United States while supporting development in Caribbean economies. Resilient regional supply chains could integrate Caribbean production rather than bypass it. Transparent, mutually agreed migration frameworks could remove uncertainty and build trust. Meaningful support for climate adaptation and energy resilience would reinforce stability in America’s immediate neighbourhood.
None of this requires either side to abandon its principles. It requires both sides to apply them with balance.
The Caribbean does not seek confrontation with the United States. Nor does it seek dependency. What it seeks — and has always sought — is partnership rooted in mutual respect and mutual benefit.
If Secretary Rubio attends the CARICOM Summit, our leaders should be pragmatic, forward-looking, and prepared for empathetic and candid engagement. The moment calls for statesmanship.
The United States and the Caribbean have cooperated for generations — in trade, in security, in disaster response, and in shared democratic values. That record is solid.
The meeting in St Kitts offers the chance to strengthen their cooperation for a new era.
That opportunity should be seized.
