The views expressed in this article are those of the writer and not necessarily those of Breaking Belize News.
By Senator Patrick Faber: I approach this moment not only as a senior parliamentarian, but as someone whose four years as a student of Caribbean history still shape how I read regional events. Those years taught me that the Caribbean rarely fails for lack of ideas. It fails when fear overrides consultation and power substitutes for trust.
Belize, then British Honduras, understood that reality early. In the late 1950s, we chose not to join the West Indian Federation for a single overriding reason, security. Guatemala’s territorial claim forced Belize to insist on a clear British security guarantee. Regional unity appealed to the heart, but national survival demanded certainty. History later vindicated that decision.
That memory frames how I read the present moment. Trinidad and Tobago now articulates fears that are not abstract. Venezuela under Maduro has made territorial ambition explicit. Guyana feels that pressure directly. More recently, rhetoric has widened to suggest Trinidad itself sits within Venezuela’s sphere. No serious Caribbean observer can dismiss those concerns, especially when they intersect with energy security and regional stability.
Yet the manner in which those fears are managed matters as much as the fears themselves. CARICOM has long advanced the idea of the Caribbean as a Zone of Peace, favoring diplomacy, dialogue, and restraint even while acknowledging Venezuela’s democratic failures. That posture aims to keep the region from becoming militarized or absorbed into great power rivalry. Trinidad has now publicly rejected that consensus, arguing that it shields dictatorship and invites danger. In doing so, it has openly anchored its security in United States military protection and cast CARICOM’s approach as naïve at best and deceptive at worst.
Eric Williams, a historian and political thinker with a sharp grasp of economic realities, warned the region after Jamaica withdrew from the federation that ten minus one equals zero. He understood that fragmentation weakens leverage and erodes collective strength. Trinidad is not just another CARICOM member. Its energy production fuels regional economies. Its financial sector supports cross border investment. Its foreign policy signals shape how the Caribbean is read by investors, allies, and adversaries alike.
When Trinidad signals decisive alignment with Washington without collective consultation, the implications travel far beyond Port of Spain. The region absorbs the perception of alignment, the risk of escalation, and the political consequences of being seen as an extension of another power’s strategy. That context explains the sharp exchange now unfolding between Trinidad’s leadership and CARICOM figures, especially as the United States imposes visa restrictions on some Caribbean officials while rewarding others who distance themselves from regional positions.
Belize cannot pretend this debate belongs only to others. We see our own quiet pivot toward Washington. The safe third country arrangement, renewed pursuit of a Millennium Challenge Compact, and agreements to share biometric data of Belizean citizens all deepen alignment with United States priorities. Each decision may be defensible on its own. Taken together, they raise the same question Trinidad now forces into the open. Are these moves part of a coherent national and regional strategy, or are they transactional responses shaped by pressure, incentives, and fear.
History teaches that external security guarantees are never neutral. They advance the interests of the guarantor. Today, United States interests in the Caribbean include migration control, energy security, data access, and strategic positioning against Venezuela. Support flows accordingly. That reality does not make Trinidad reckless. It does not make Belize naïve. It does, however, make CARICOM fragile.
A regional community cannot endure if its most influential members treat fear as policy and consultation as optional. CARICOM now stands at a familiar crossroads. Either it reasserts collective strategy on security and foreign alignment, or it drifts into functional irrelevance where each state negotiates survival alone.
History has already tested us once. As a student of Caribbean history then and a parliamentarian now, I know this much. Survival without solidarity carries a cost. The only question left is who will pay it.
The post Is This “Ten Minus One Equals Zero” All Over Again? appeared first on Belize News and Opinion on www.breakingbelizenews.com.
The views expressed in this article are those of the writer and not necessarily those of Breaking Belize News. By Senator Patrick Faber: I approach this moment not only as a senior parliamentarian, but as someone whose four years as a student of Caribbean history still shape how I read regional events. Those years taught
The post Is This “Ten Minus One Equals Zero” All Over Again? appeared first on Belize News and Opinion on www.breakingbelizenews.com.
