Dear Editor,
The recent remarks by Dr. Keith Rowley, reflect a perspective from which the electorate of Trinidad and Tobago (T&T) has decisively moved on. The people have democratically chosen a new direction—one that prioritizes tangible national security and pragmatic international cooperation over rhetorical regionalism and institutional inertia.
It is worth recalling that the European project, beginning with the European Economic Community in 1958, preceded CARICOM by only fifteen years. Only 15 years! The contrast in substantive outcomes and depth of integration between the EU and CARICOM is stark and instructive, underscoring the necessity of T&T’s current strategic approach.
Within our own region, persistent barriers—such as those affecting Guyana’s exports within the CARICOM region—continue to undermine the stated ideals of the Caribbean Single Market and Economy, despite CET frameworks. When confronted with existential threats, such as transnational crime or external security challenges, the imperative for actionable regional solidarity becomes paramount. Yet, the practical commitment of tangible resources—beyond declaratory statements—for the defense of southern partners like Trinidad and Tobago and Guyana remains absent.
Dr. Rowley’s characterization of Trinidad and Tobago’s sovereign engagements as those of a “vassal state” is not only inaccurate but dismissive of a modern government’s imperative to pursue bilateral partnerships that directly address crime and instability—challenges that notably intensified under previous administrations. To label strategic cooperation with the United States as “unpatriotic” misconstrues both the nature of sovereignty and the necessities of contemporary governance. The electorate’s choice for change was a clear rejection of ineffectuality in favour of actionable solutions.
Similarly, Prime Minister Browne’s emphasis on trade statistics, while notable, overlooks the core issue. Trinidad and Tobago’s trade surplus within CARICOM is not a regional concession but the result of its competitive private-sector capacity, which supplies regional consumers. Sovereignty cannot be subordinate to trade balances. A nation’s duty to protect its citizens may necessitate partnerships beyond regional frameworks, especially when those frameworks have repeatedly proven inadequate in addressing critical security and integration deficits.
The evolving global landscape demands agility and practical engagement. The government of Trinidad and Tobago, under Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar, was elected to safeguard national interests through principled and proactive diplomacy. Robust cooperation with the United States—a nation with which they share deep economic and strategic ties—is a reflection of pragmatic statecraft, not subservience. Such partnerships are vital, including in areas such as energy security, where tangible outcomes outweigh prolonged deliberation.
The people of T&T have mandated a government that acts with clarity and purpose. This administration remains focused on security, prosperity, and constructive engagement—guided by results rather than rhetoric.
In conclusion, Dr. Rowley would do well to recognize that his time in executive leadership has passed, just as former President Donald Ramotar’s has in Guyana. Their continued partisan interventions in national affairs only distract from the serious work being undertaken by the legitimate government of Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar and the constructive opposition led by Mrs. Pennelope Beckles-Robinson.
As for Prime Minister Gaston Browne of Antigua and Barbuda, his focus would be better directed toward immediate domestic risks facing his citizens—including addressing the serious deficiencies that have led to stringent U.S. travel advisories and visa restrictions on them—rather than lecturing a sister sovereign neighbour on matters of national security and foreign policy.