A local human rights attorney is warning that the United States’ increased military presence in the Caribbean, including recent deadly strikes on alleged drug-smuggling vessels, could have negative implications for Caribbean countries such as Jamaica.

International human rights lawyer and journalist Jodi-Ann Quarrie in an interview with Observer Online said while the heightened US military activity may serve as a deterrent to criminal actors, the scale of militarisation is unprecedented for the Caribbean and could severely disrupt essential sectors such as agriculture, shipping, aviation, and tourism if the conflict escalates.

“Militarisation in this region is not something that we have often had to deal with, and this sort of wide area is concerning, especially when you consider the vulnerabilities of the Caribbean. We depend heavily on agriculture. Nobody is going to be in a position to ship anything or access fuel and oil, because once bombing starts, shipping vessels will not be interested in coming here, and flights will be rerouted,” Quarrie stated.

She added that the region’s tourism industry, which is already fragile after Hurricane Melissa, could collapse if the global public perceives that the Caribbean is at war, even if only one part of the region is affected.

“We’re all vulnerable if tourism starts to be impacted by this, because who is going to visit a war zone except a very small number of people who are actively war-zone tourists? Most people are going to look for somewhere peaceful and quiet. The rest of the world doesn’t understand how spread out the Caribbean is; they don’t understand that ‘war in the Caribbean’ will be the headline everywhere, and so they’ll say, ‘my Caribbean plans have to be cancelled’,” Quarrie explained.

Drawing parallels to ongoing global conflicts, she stressed that Caribbean people do not want to become passive spectators to a new war unfolding in their own waters.

In late August, the US launched a naval build-up in the southern Caribbean between Venezuela and Trinidad under the directive of President Donald Trump, ostensibly as part of efforts to wage war against drug cartels and combat drug trafficking. Since then, the US has carried out a series of attacks on small wooden boats which have reportedly killed more than 80 people.

When questioned about the legality of these strikes on alleged drug boats, Quarrie said the actions are highly-contested because the US has shifted from treating drug smuggling as a transnational crime which involves interdictions, evidence-gathering, and due process, to framing it as a non-international armed conflict with drug cartels in Venezuela.

“Heavily contested as to whether or not this is something that the United States can do. This represents a break from what they had done previously. Before the September strikes that started this whole series of attacks now continuing into December, the United States recognised drug smuggling as a transnational crime. It required multiple countries to be involved. They would interdict vessels, seize drugs, detain suspects, and bring them to trial in the United States with evidence that the drugs were destined for the US and that the detainees were part of a criminal enterprise. That was the regular system, and it was approved and widely accepted, especially since Caribbean states had worked with the US to develop it,” she explained.

According to Quarrie, the basis for the current US strikes remains unclear, noting that US officials have changed their justification repeatedly from blocking fentanyl from entering the US, to labelling Venezuela’s President Nicolás Maduro a cartel leader, to now signalling dissatisfaction with his continued hold on power. She however noted that there is no evidence in the public domain supporting the claims, even as military actions continue.

“One of the most basic and fundamental rights is the right to life. It is so fundamental, that’s the right to due process – the presumption of innocence. All of these things are such basic rights…,” she explained.

Quarrie said while the basis for the US carrying out military strikes in the region remains unclear, there’s a real fear that this conflict could spread beyond Venezuela and Colombia to the wider Caribbean.

“Human Rights Days are a good time for us to remember that those rights are violated on the face of it because we don’t know what basis the United States has used to carry out these strikes. Now, they might have good reasons for carrying out these strikes, but the basis on which they’re carrying out these strikes is not something that has come into the public domain and so without that, there is a fear that there is an expansion of this conflict that as it’s possible, could move from Venezuela to now the threats against Colombia to now the rest of us,” said Quarrie.

Meanwhile, former Jamaican ambassador to the United Nations Curtis Ward said the US military build-up in the region could be interpreted as a move to invade Venezuela with the objective of removing President Nicolás Maduro and securing control of the country’s oil reserves, or to instil fear in Venezuela’s military leadership.

“One response would be that the US is planning an invasion of Venezuela with the objective of removing Nicolás Maduro from power, regime change, and to wrest control of Venezuela’s vast oil reserves. This would be consistent with the objective of the first Trump administration, when the effort to replace Maduro with Juan Guaidó failed,” he said.

Ward suggested that the secondary objective could be to frighten Venezuela’s military leadership into turning against Maduro and surrendering him to US custody to face drug-trafficking and other charges.

“Along with the US$50 million bounty to surrender Maduro to US jurisdiction, these combined efforts serve as inducement as well as coercive measures, sanctions, the mass deportation of Maduro opponents being inserted into the country to stir dissent, and the extrajudicial killings of alleged narco-terrorists in the Caribbean Sea. These killings have no basis in US criminal law or international law; they are illegal acts,” Ward added.

Local fisherfolk have also raised concerns about their safety while at sea. Ward said these concerns are justified, as the drone attacks in the region put them at significant risk.

READ: ‘No need to kill’: Port Royal fisherfolk concerned over US attacks in Caribbean Sea

“The use of missiles in the Caribbean Sea and the possibility of a military invasion of Venezuela place maritime and aviation spaces at significant risk. Unless Venezuela’s military leadership decides to surrender Maduro to the US and instead resorts to a military response engaging Venezuela’s military assets, which would include missiles and bombers flying over the Caribbean Sea, commercial vessels, leisure craft, and cruise ships would be at significant risk. Fishermen in the region are already at risk, and their concerns are justified,” he said.

Ward argued that the US deployment of military assets in the region is not routine strategic movement but a projection of force by the Trump administration, consistent with its philosophy of using overwhelming military might against enemies, real or perceived.

“The governments of the region, collectively, should advocate dialogue and not military confrontation. The current situation is that individual governments are eschewing regional interests and pursuing short-sighted national interests. The cohesion of the region is fast approaching the fate of Humpty Dumpty if not already there. The question is which Caricom leader, or group of leaders, will lead the region out of this dilemma?” Ward asked.