The Caribbean as a Zone of Peace?

Livingston Smith PhD

The phrase “Zone of Peace” evokes calm seas, regional solidarity, and freedom from external conflict. This is an ideal the Caribbean has long cherished and worth cherishing.  For many, like me, our vision, is from Derek’s Walcott’s poem, A Sea Chantey, which draws on island-sea imagery to provoke both a prayer and a lullaby:

“The colours of sea-grapes,

The tartness of sea-almonds,

The amen of calm waters,

The amen of calm waters,

The amen of calm waters.’’

Yet, to suggest that the Caribbean has ever truly been a zone of peace is, at best, an aspiration and, at worst, a romantic illusion. Guyanese poet, Martin Carter, presents a startlingly different experience capturing the fear, sorrow, and resistance of a nation under colonial oppression. Written during the 1950s in British Guiana, when the colonial government suppressed local independence movements, the poem personifies this period as a “dark time.”

‘This is the dark time, my love,

All round the land brown beetles crawl about.

The shining sun is hidden in the sky

Red flowers bend their heads in awful sorrow.’

From the days of colonial rivalry to the present presence of U.S. warships off Venezuela’s coast, the Caribbean has always been a space where global powers test and project influence, where small nations struggle for sovereignty, and unity bend under pressure when the pressure becomes too strong.

A History Written in Intervention

Since the 19th century, the region has stood at the crossroads of empire and trade. With the Monroe Doctrine (1823), the United States declared the Caribbean off-limits to European powers  effectively establishing itself as the dominant arbiter of regional affairs.

Through the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the so-called “Banana Wars” saw U.S. troops occupy and intervene in countries like Cuba, Haiti, and the Dominican Republic, often in the name of stability, but more often to secure commercial and strategic interests. The mid-20th century brought a new phase: the Cold War, during which the Caribbean became a front line in ideological conflict. The Bay of Pigs invasion (1961), the Cuban Missile Crisis (1962), and the U.S. invasion of Grenada (1983) all underscored one reality, peace in the Caribbean has always been conditional on U.S. power and global rivalry.

Even in the 21st century, military presence has not waned. The U.S. Navy and Coast Guard maintain a strong footprint in regional waters under anti-narcotics operations, while Guantánamo Bay remains an enduring symbol of American permanence in the region. The Caribbean’s “peace,” historically, has been managed but certanly not mutual.

The ‘Zone of Peace’ Vision

The idea of the Caribbean as a Zone of Peace is noble one. It dates to 1979, when Grenada, with full Caribbean support, introduced a resolution at the Organization of American States (OAS) calling for the Caribbean to be formally recognized as a zone free from external military interference. The resolution passed unanimously, even with U.S. support at the time.

This ideal was later reinforced through the 2014 Declaration of Latin America and the Caribbean as a Zone of Peace by the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC), reaffirming the region’s collective commitment to sovereignty, peaceful dispute resolution, and the rejection of the use or threat of force. The United Nations General Assembly has since acknowledged this declaration as an example of regional peacebuilding and cooperation.

In recent months, former Caribbean leaders including P.J. Patterson and Bruce Golding and several sitting prime ministers have renewed calls for the Caribbean to uphold its “Zone of Peace” commitment amid the buildup of U.S. military assets near Venezuelan waters. For many, this is about the sovereignty of independent states, though small and even peripheral. it’s about survival and ensuring small island states are not drawn into the orbit of larger powers’ disputes. As the African proverb reminds us, “When elephants fight, it is the grass that suffers.”

Peace or Power? The U.S. Presence Today

The U.S. armada currently stationed near Venezuela has rekindled old debates about regional autonomy and external influence. The official American narrative is one of counter-narcotics operations, freedom of navigation, and regional security. Yet, the timing and concentration of forces near Venezuelan waters have raised suspicions especially given Washington’s long-standing position on the Maduro regime.

Prime Minister Mia Mottley of Barbados has been among the most vocal critics, describing U.S. actions as “extra-judicial” and the presence of “menacing military vessels” as a threat to regional peace. Her remarks resonate with the Zone of Peace principle but clash with the more pragmatic concerns of other Caribbean governments.

The Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago, Kamla Persad-Bissessar, has taken the opposite stance, openly supporting U.S. operations, arguing that they serve to deter narco-terrorism and protect democratic stability. Guyana’s President Irfaan Ali, while supporting CARICOM’s broad stance on peace, has likewise refrained from condemning the U.S. presence, emphasizing instead the need for vigilance amid Venezuela’s escalating threats to Guyana’s territorial integrity.

This divide within CARICOM underscores an uncomfortable truth: the “Zone of Peace” means different things to different nations. For some, it is a moral shield against militarization; for others, it is a diplomatic luxury they cannot afford in the face of real security threats.

The Venezuelan Factor

Much of today’s tension stems from the U.S.–Venezuela standoff, a confrontation rooted in decades of ideological and economic friction. Since Hugo Chávez and now Nicolás Maduro turned Venezuela toward socialism and aligned it with Russia, China, and Iran, the U.S. has viewed Caracas as both a regional destabilizer and a challenge to democratic norms.

Between Ideals and Realities: The Guyana- Venezuela Situation

For Guyana, the threat is not theoretical. Venezuela occupies Ankoko Island, has mobilized troops near the border, and has repeatedly menaced ExxonMobil’s offshore operations. Against that backdrop, U.S. military presence is seen not as provocation but as protection.

The Guyana–Venezuela border dispute centers on the Essequibo region, a vast area comprising about two-thirds of Guyana’s territory. Venezuela claims the 1899 arbitral award that established the boundary between British Guiana and Venezuela was unjust and that it was wrongfully deprived of the Essequibo. The issue is now before the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which has confirmed its jurisdiction, though Venezuela disputes this. The ICJ has urged both countries not to alter the status quo while the case proceeds. Despite this, tensions rose sharply after Venezuela’s December 2023 referendum, in which the government claimed overwhelming support for annexing the territory though independent observers reported low turnout and questioned the vote’s credibility.

The dispute has intensified due to massive oil discoveries in Guyana, estimated at more than 11 billion barrels, which have made it one of the world’s fastest-growing economies. President Nicolás Maduro has authorized Venezuelan state firms to explore for oil in the contested area, though Guyana maintains full administrative control. Guyana, supported by CARICOM, the Commonwealth, and allies such as the U.S. and U.K., insists on a peaceful, legal resolution through the ICJ. Regional leaders, including Prime Minister Ralph Gonsalves of St. Vincent, have called for continued diplomacy to keep the Caribbean a zone of peace as the world awaits the court’s final ruling.

Former Guyanese Finance Minister Asgar Ally recently called Prime Minister Mottley’s critique of the U.S. presence “dangerously naïve,” arguing that U.S. forces have historically served as a stabilizing influence rather than an occupying one. Whether one agrees or not, his point reflects a larger dilemma: Caribbean peace depends not only on moral principles but also on strategic realities.

The Guyanese have no intention of giving up any part of their current territory. To use the words of Dave Martin’s in his famous song: “We ain’t giving up no mountains / We ain’t giving up no tree / We ain’t giving up no river / That belongs to we / Not one blue saki / Not one rice grain.’

To smaller states like Guyana, U.S. involvement offers a deterrent against immediate threats. To others like Barbados, it risks re-militarizing a region long trying to free itself from foreign dominance. The result is a fractured Caribbean response, one that exposes the region’s differing security priorities and levels of dependence on external powers.

Conclusion: An Ideal Worth Defending

The vision of the Caribbean as a Zone of Peace remains one of the most dignified and essential aspirations of regional diplomacy. Small nations have the right to live without the shadow of great-power conflict. Yet, the Caribbean is part of the world, not apart from it. It has played a dynamic role in shaping and being shaped by the forces of globalization, resistance, and creativity that define the modern world.

As is being played out, if the Caribbean is to truly become a Zone of Peace, it must first confront the contradictions between moral principle and security necessity, between unity and national interest. Until then, the Caribbean’s peace will remain, as it always has been, a contested horizon visible, inspiring, but still, some distance away, subject to the vicissitudes of global realities.