CARICOM’s Terminal Dysfunction and the Collapse of Regional Purpose
CARICOM can no longer be credibly described as a functioning Caribbean Community. It is, at this stage, an organization in name more than in substance, fractured, incoherent, and increasingly irrelevant to the real security, economic, and diplomatic needs of its people. The reality is blunt: CARICOM is failing, and its failure is not accidental. It is the product of persistent managerial weakness, chronic lack of accountability, deep factionalism, and a political culture that prioritizes optics over outcomes.
Trinidad and Tobago’s position underscores what many already know but too few say plainly: member states are not bound by any common political ideology, foreign policy, economic strategy, or security doctrine. Governments within CARICOM act independently, often opportunistically, and routinely at cross-purposes. The “Community” component of CARICOM has become an empty slogan, invoked at press conferences, abandoned in practice.
At the core of the problem is CARICOM’s fundamental identity crisis. It claims two identities: a Caribbean Community and a Caribbean Common Market. Yet it demonstrates neither unity of purpose nor coherence of policy. There is no clear shared ideology, no consistent strategic direction, and no reliable mechanism for collective action. In effect, CARICOM has become a forum for statements, carefully worded, diplomatically padded, and politically evasive, rather than an engine for integration, resilience, or regional power.
This dysfunction is not merely embarrassing. It is harmful. CARICOM’s continued operation in a self-destructive mode represents a grave disservice to Caribbean citizens, who are left with the illusion of regional strength while facing real-world consequences of regional weakness. The organization’s leadership class has become adept at hiding institutional decay behind “the glibness of diplomacy,” a manufactured sophistication, and narratives designed to conceal, rather than confront, its rot.
The divisions inside CARICOM are neither subtle nor new; they are now unmistakable. Recent events involving Antigua and Barbuda and Dominica exposed a blunt truth: solidarity within CARICOM is conditional, transactional, and unreliable. When leaders of those nations were forced to ask, “What did we do wrong?” the answer was as humiliating as it was revealing: they were not supported. Instead, they were met with brazen indifference and the arrogant posture of governments behaving as if consequences do not apply to them: “We are sovereign; we could stand on our own”—until reality arrives, and the hollow nature of the alliance is exposed.
CARICOM’s strategic incoherence is most dangerous in foreign policy. The bloc has managed to antagonize a critical partner while signalling softness toward a regime widely accused of severe abuses. As highlighted in the criticism, CARICOM has chosen to disparage “its greatest ally, the United States,” while appearing to lend support to the Maduro government, described as a narco-state dictatorship accused of imprisoning and killing civilians and political opponents and of threatening two CARICOM member states. Whether or not every member agrees with that framing, the political damage is undeniable: CARICOM is sending mixed, reckless signals on matters of security and diplomacy, and member states will pay the price individually when the bloc’s posturing fails.
The organization’s rapid deterioration can be traced to a familiar set of failures: poor management, lax accountability, destabilizing policies, internal conflicts between leaders and parties, and inappropriate meddling in the domestic politics of member states. This is not “integration.” This is a deteriorating political club, one that cannot discipline itself, cannot speak with one voice, and cannot deliver measurable outcomes.
The recent episode surrounding the United States’ visa restrictions made the dysfunction even more visible. While CARICOM’s Bureau issued a statement expressing concern about the US proclamation imposing partial entry restrictions on Antigua and Barbuda and Dominica, Trinidad and Tobago explicitly distanced itself. The message from Port of Spain was unambiguous: Trinidad and Tobago is not bound by the Bureau’s position; it maintains its own stance; and it recognizes the sovereign right of the United States to act in its perceived national interest.
That public break is not a minor disagreement; it is a symptom of collapse. When a major member state must openly disclaim a CARICOM statement and clarify it is “not a party” to it, the credibility of collective positions evaporates. CARICOM becomes what it increasingly looks like: a stage for performative unity, followed by immediate national carve-outs the moment consequences loom.
CARICOM has “clearly lost its way,” and the repercussions are not theoretical. The organization is sliding toward irrelevance because it cannot act like a real community, cannot maintain discipline in its own messaging, and cannot produce consistent policy aligned with citizens’ interests. A regional body that cannot coordinate foreign policy, cannot ensure mutual support, and cannot enforce standards of accountability is not merely underperforming; it is failing.
If CARICOM is to mean anything beyond ceremonial diplomacy, it must confront its decay with transparency and honesty. Otherwise, it will continue its current trajectory: a dysfunctional entity surviving on rhetoric, while the Caribbean people bear the costs of its confusion, cowardice, and fragmentation.
Sarge
