Dear Editor,

When a sitting president of a Caribbean Basin country can be detained by a foreign power it is no longer possible to pretend that regional instability is someone else’s problem.

The recent developments surrounding Venezuela are not merely dramatic headlines, they are warning signals. They reveal how disputes once managed through diplomacy, regional norms, and international law are increasingly being resolved through extraordinary measures with consequences that extend far beyond Venezuela’s borders.

If the Caribbean is still to be considered a “zone of peace”, recent events force an uncomfortable question: Peace for whom, and at what cost? The detention of a head of State underscores how fragile regional security has become when unresolved territorial claims, valuable natural resources, and weak collective security mechanisms collide. What unfolds in Venezuela today is no longer contained within its borders, it is reshaping the strategic environment of the wider Caribbean and Latin America.

For years tensions surrounding Venezuela have been treated largely as a domestic political and humanitarian crisis. Yet developments over the past decade, including militarisation, unresolved territorial claims, and now direct intervention by an external power, reveal a broader security dynamic that the region has struggled to manage. This is particularly evident in the long-standing dispute between Venezuela and Guyana over the Essequibo region.

From Venezuela’s perspective, assertive territorial claims and military posturing have been framed as defensive measures to protect sovereignty and national resources. From Guyana’s perspective, these actions represent an existential threat, prompting reliance on diplomatic support and security partnerships beyond the region. This interaction reflects what international relations scholars describe as a security dilemma: Actions intended to enhance security by one actor are perceived as threatening by others, leading to responses that heighten insecurity for all.

The presence of valuable natural resources intensifies this dynamic. Venezuela holds some of the world’s largest proven oil reserves, while Guyana’s recent offshore discoveries have rapidly elevated its strategic importance. History shows that when resource wealth coincides with contested borders and political instability disputes become harder to contain and more susceptible to external involvement.

The detention of Venezuela’s president illustrates how far this process has advanced. It signals that regional mechanisms have proven insufficient to manage escalating tensions and that outcomes are increasingly shaped by actors outside the hemisphere. For small Caribbean states, this is deeply unsettling. Few possess the military or diplomatic leverage to influence such developments, yet they remain exposed to spillover effects: migration pressure, energy uncertainty, and the erosion of the region’s long-standing identity as a zone of peace.

Latin America has traditionally avoided overt arms races, and defence spending remains comparatively low. However, this should not be mistaken for security. What is emerging instead is a quieter form of escalation: reliance on external powers, weakened regional trust, and the normalisation of extraordinary measures in resolving disputes.

The lesson for the Caribbean and Latin America is clear: Attractive natural resources do not guarantee prosperity or stability. Without strong governance, credible regional cooperation, and effective conflict-resolution mechanisms they can invite insecurity and external intervention.

Venezuela’s current predicament should, therefore, be read not as an isolated episode, but as a warning. If the region fails to strengthen its collective capacity to manage disputes peacefully and protect small states from geopolitical fallout, instability will continue to travel outward, regardless of who intended it.

SP

Master’s student

The University of the West Indies