Senior Multimedia Reporter
radhica.sookraj@guardian.co.tt
International consultant and former Jamaican ambassador Curtis Ward says the United States does not need a base in Grenada to act militarily against Venezuela, as Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar’s decision to welcome US forces to T&T represents a break with Caricom’s Zone of Peace policy.
His comments came amid reports of a US military aircraft at Piarco International Airport and sightings of suspected military planes over Point Fortin. Hours later, Grenada’s Foreign Affairs Ministry confirmed that the United States had requested permission for the temporary installation of radar equipment and technical personnel at the Maurice Bishop International Airport.
Speaking to Guardian Media, Ward warned that the developments could deepen existing fractures within the regional bloc.
“We have to recognize that T&T’s Prime Minister has broken with Caricom’s traditional Zone of Peace by inviting and welcoming the US to stage military forces in Trinidad. The little unity that may have remained is already shattered by Trinidad and Tobago,” he said.
While cautioning that it was too early to determine Washington’s exact intentions, Ward said the implications for Caribbean stability and regional relations could be far-reaching.
“If this report proves true, we can speculate on the possibilities and the potential implications for the entire Caribbean region and for Caricom,” he said.
Ward added that renewed US pressure on Venezuela might explain Washington’s interest in Grenada, given its strategic location.
“The Trump administration wants regime change in Venezuela. Having failed during his first term, President Trump may now be determined to remove Maduro this time,” he said.
He stressed that a Grenadian base would add little strategic value, since the US already possesses sufficient naval and air capabilities in the region.
“Basing in Grenada wouldn’t add much advantage if the US can already base in Trinidad,” Ward said.
He also referenced growing tensions involving Colombia, noting a recent dispute over a vessel allegedly destroyed by US forces.
“Colombia is creating quite a stir by saying the fourth boat blown up by US military forces is a Colombian boat, not a Venezuelan one,” he said. “The US already has a major falling out with the Colombian president, which gives rise to other speculation.”
Ward added that Guyana’s existing security agreement with the US and the silence of some Caricom members, including Jamaica, were shaping a new geopolitical reality.
“Given the current Jamaican government’s approach of not doing anything, the US could interpret it as being out of step with its policy. I don’t expect much from Jamaica on this issue,” he said.
Ward concluded that these developments highlight a shifting balance of power and a diminishing sense of unity within Caricom, as governments weigh national interests against collective neutrality.
Regional security expert Dr Garvin Heerah said that while Grenada has the sovereign right to make its own security decisions, Caribbean stability depends on neutrality, cooperation, and transparency.
“Grenada, as a sovereign state, reserves the right to engage in bilateral agreements that advance its national interests,” Dr Heerah said. “However, such arrangements must also be weighed against Caricom’s collective diplomatic posture and its long-standing commitment to neutrality and non-alignment.”
He warned that if reports of US radar installation were accurate, they could test Caricom’s unity and alter the region’s security balance.
“If confirmed, this could introduce sensitivity within Caricom, where smaller states have traditionally favoured a balanced approach in foreign policy,” he said.
Dr Heerah noted that the region’s historical experience, particularly the 1983 US intervention in Grenada, must guide its response.
“The memory of the 1983 intervention remains etched in regional consciousness. Any contemporary military or logistical arrangement must therefore be managed transparently and diplomatically to prevent misinterpretation,” he said.
While acknowledging Grenada’s strategic southern Caribbean location, he said clarity is needed on the purpose of any foreign assets.
“It raises questions regarding the scope of such assets — whether they are intended for humanitarian assistance, counter-narcotics operations, or broader regional security objectives,” he said.
Dr Heerah cautioned that perceptions of foreign military presence could expose Grenada to geopolitical risk.
“Such a perception could make the country a focal point in times of heightened tension,” he warned, urging regional dialogue to ensure any agreements align with Caricom’s peace and security frameworks.
“While Grenada’s sovereign right must be respected, any move of this nature requires regional consultation, strategic foresight, and diplomatic prudence,” he said.
“The Caribbean’s future depends on maintaining open communication, reaffirming non-alignment principles, and safeguarding our identity as a Zone of Peace.”
A huge mistake— Prof Knight
Professor Andy Knight, an international relations scholar at the University of Alberta, also cautioned against Grenada accepting the US proposal.
In a post about the development, he wrote: “This will be a huge mistake if Grenada complies with this request.
“If Grenada agrees to host foreign military assets on its soil, this will violate the collective regional principle that was agreed upon after the last disastrous Grenada invasion.”
Knight urged Caribbean nations to reaffirm their commitment to peace and independence.
“The true security of the small island states of the Caribbean does not come from foreign military bases or illegal gunboat diplomacy—it comes from good governance, social justice, sustainable development, and respect for international norms,” he said.
“The Caribbean should stand united in saying: our seas are not battlefields; our islands are not launching pads. We are a Zone of Peace, and we intend to remain so.”
He said any partnership with the US should be based on mutual respect, trade, climate cooperation, and people-to-people ties, not on “neo-colonial military dependency.”
Calls and messages to Foreign Affairs Minister Sean Sobers and Homeland Security Minister Roger Alexander went unanswered up to press time.