Kamla slams Caricom again; brands regional bloc ‘dysfunctional’
At the heart of the controversy is Prime Minister Persad-Bissessar’s direct and severe criticism of CARICOM, which she has bluntly labeled “dysfunctional.” This is not a subtle diplomatic disagreement; it is a full-frontal assault on the organization’s core competence and integrity.
Her specific criticisms paint a picture of an institution in rapid decay, citing “poor management, lax accountability, factional divisions,” and “inappropriate meddling in the domestic politics of member states.” In a powerfully worded statement, she made her position unequivocally clear:
Caricom cannot continue to operate in this dysfunctional and self-destructive manner as it is a grave disservice to the people of the Caribbean. The Caribbean community must face the rot within the organisation with transparency and honesty. Hiding behind the glibness of diplomacy, fake sophistication and false narratives is self-defeating.
For a sitting Prime Minister to use language like “rot” and “self-destructive” to describe a regional body to which her country belongs is exceptionally rare. It signals that private frustrations have boiled over into a public crisis, moving the conflict beyond repair through conventional diplomatic channels.
The immediate catalyst for this public confrontation was an external policy decision made by the United States. When the U.S. government imposed partial entry restrictions on nationals of two CARICOM member states, Antigua and Barbuda and Dominica, it forced a regional response that exposed a critical lack of consensus.
The reactions were starkly different. The Bureau of CARICOM issued a formal statement expressing “concern” over the U.S. proclamation. In a sharp break from protocol, Prime Minister Persad-Bissessar publicly distanced her government from this collective stance. She asserted that Trinidad and Tobago “recognises the sovereign right of the United States to make decisions in furtherance of its best interests.”
This incident was more than a simple disagreement; it laid bare the internal dysfunction with an external event. A moment that called for regional solidarity instead triggered public division, raising critical questions about CARICOM’s ability to negotiate as a unified bloc. If member states cannot form a cohesive response to a policy decision from a global power, what does that mean for the Community’s collective bargaining power on the world stage?
The disagreement over the visa issue is a symptom of a much deeper, ideological conflict over the region’s geopolitical alignment. Prime Minister Persad-Bissessar accuses CARICOM of having “lost its way” by choosing to “disparage our greatest ally, the United States” while simultaneously “lending support to the (Nicolas) Maduro narco-government.”
This accusation frames the internal conflict as a fundamental choice between aligning with the United States or with antagonistic regimes. This stance drew fierce condemnation from regional counterparts, with Antigua and Barbuda Prime Minister Gaston Browne rebuking Persad-Bissessar for undermining regional solidarity.
Ironically, however, even in his critique, Prime Minister Browne implicitly validated the core of her argument. While defending his own nation, he warned that “the episode exposed deeper structural weaknesses within Caricom.” This admission from one of Persad-Bissessar’s chief critics dramatically changes the narrative, suggesting a shared, if reluctant, consensus that the organization is facing a profound internal crisis. The criticism was echoed within Trinidad and Tobago, where former Foreign and Caricom Affairs minister Dr. Amery Browne called the Prime Minister’s statement a “new low point” and a baseless “anti-Caricom rant.”
Prime Minister Persad-Bissessar’s criticisms are not occurring in a vacuum. Her assessment of dysfunction is echoed by independent political analysts, who provide the academic framework for the political symptoms she described.
Political scientist Dr. Bishnu Ragoonath provides a structural explanation for what the Prime Minister termed the “rot,” stating that CARICOM is “dysfunctional at this point in time” because there is “no ideology that defines Caricom as a Caribbean Community.” His analysis suggests the very “Community” aspect of the organization is in question without a common ideological foundation.
This view is reinforced with concrete evidence by political analyst Dr. Shane Mohammed, who observed that CARICOM’s division is “deep and evident.” He directly connected this division back to the visa controversy that triggered the public dispute, stating: “Look at what has happened with regards to Antigua and Barbuda and Dominica… You did not support us. You were brazen.” This expert testimony confirms that the Prime Minister’s outburst was not a solitary act but the public expression of a genuine, observable, and structural crisis.
This leaves a final, urgent question: Can the Caribbean Community mend its internal fractures, or is it headed for a fundamental realignment?