Caribbean diplomacy must evolve from reactive alignment to anticipatory design, leveraging multi-vector diplomacy and regional convergence to assert strategic autonomy in a delicate balance between statecraft and diplomacy. This is the new reality that the Caribbean region now confronts.
In a previous contribution to Horizons: Journal of International Relations and Sustainable Development, written alongside Mikhail Byng, I posed the question of whether the world is entering a phase of multipolarity—with several centers of power—or drifting toward a non-polar order, in which no single power dominates the international system. The question remains pertinent. Today, global, regional, and hemispheric actors are all competing for influence within an unsettled and fluid international order. We are living through a process of de-globalization, in which power is being redistributed and an increasing sense of nationalism is being found. The result will be a very different kind of interconnected world.
As John R. Allen and Koray Köse argue in their 2025 paper “Multipolar Chaos: Re-Globalization and Power Rebalancing,” “the post-Cold War, globalization-focused order is fracturing, giving way to ‘Multipolar Chaos’—a volatile environment marked by geopolitical rivalry, technological separation, weaponized interdependence, and a rapid race in emerging technologies.”
In this evolving landscape, no single power governs global affairs. The steady shift from a unipolar to a multipolar system has fundamentally altered the strategic environment for small states, particularly those in the Caribbean. Emerging powers—China chief among them—have stepped forward not only as economic actors but as architects of new networks linking infrastructure, finance, and diplomacy. Initiatives such as the Belt and Road Initiative and the China–CELAC Forum exemplify this growing engagement, drawing the Caribbean into a wider orbit of both opportunity and risk. Since 2013, Chinese investments in the region have exceeded $2 billion across ports, energy, and telecommunications, underscoring the tangible reach of this new era of partnership.
Yet even amid these changes, the United States remains a central partner to the Caribbean, bound by deep historical, cultural, economic, and security ties. What is evolving is not the foundation of that relationship, but the geometry around it. Caribbean states, no longer content to remain passive observers of global affairs, are increasingly embracing a strategy of multi-alignment—maintaining long-standing partnerships while engaging new ones. They seek flexibility over dependence, and autonomy over acquiescence.
This shift represents a quiet but deliberate transformation in regional diplomacy—one that prioritizes balance over rupture. Multi-vector diplomacy, first articulated by Kazakhstan’s former President Nursultan Nazarbayev in 1992, is rooted in a doctrine of maintaining balanced relations with major global powers. In the aftermath of the Soviet Union’s collapse, Nazarbayev sought to redefine his country’s foreign policy geometry. Today, in a markedly different context, similar thinking is re-emerging across regions.
Implications for Small States and the Caribbean
Moreover, this new balancing act brings with it a distinct set of challenges. The growing web of foreign investments into the Caribbean region demands both vigilance and discernment. Accepting investment without a coherent strategy, and with only a limited appreciation of the prevailing geopolitical context, will prove problematic for the region. Transparency, compatibility, and security have thus become the guiding principles of modern diplomacy.
Analysts have noted, for example, that infrastructure such as ports is not merely commercial but also geopolitical. The implications of accepting investment in critical infrastructure extend beyond the economic realm into that of security, illustrating the reach of geopolitics into the domestic landscape. For the Caribbean, the task is to harness the benefits of engagement without surrendering control—transforming partnership into empowerment rather than unprotected exposure.
The region now stands at a crossroads of diplomacy—a pivotal juncture for regional strategy. From non-alignment during the Cold War to the active pragmatism of the present, Caribbean diplomacy has evolved into a tool of both survival and assertion. One of the founders of the Non-Aligned Movement, Yugoslav President Josep Broz Tito, described this approach as active non-alignment. From the outset, non-alignment was conceived not as passive neutrality, but as a deliberate and strategic posture. Jorge Heine, in his recent book The Non-Aligned World: Striking Out in an Era of Great Power Competition, applies this concept to the contemporary Latin American context. Heine argues that avoiding entanglement in great power rivalries did not represent a retreat into neutrality, but an active effort to chart new pathways of engagement on terms more favorable to small and less powerful states.
The call for a new social contract—anchored in governance, inclusion, and institutional strength—reflects a growing recognition that small states can, through cooperation and moral clarity, transform structural vulnerability into strategic advantage. The objective is not to choose sides in great power competition, but to choose wisely the instruments through which to shape their own future. The Caribbean can advance this agenda by leveraging its existing strategic advantages: its geographic position, its long-standing reputation for balanced and principled diplomacy, its human capital, and its existing diasporic connections with key partners.
Towards a New Regional Diplomacy
The old models of Caribbean integration now appear increasingly outdated—their structures limited, their instruments ineffective, and their policies often unpredictable. Moreover, the capacity for change remains slow. Regional bodies are frequently sluggish in convening, engaging emerging issues, and deploying the tools available to coordinate action effectively, thereby constraining timely and coherent responses. At the same time, U.S. engagement in the region has become more narrowly focused on domestic priorities, compelling Caribbean governments to adopt policies geared primarily toward safeguarding their own interests.
As a result, Caribbean regional integration appears uncertain, lacking a clear sense of direction. Yet as global power becomes more fragmented, a new regionalism is beginning to emerge—one shaped by the realities of an evolving world order. There is now space for the assertion of a new leadership architecture for within the Caribbean Community (CARICOM). For small nations, the doctrine of multi-vector diplomacy referenced earlier may offer a more suitable framework for navigating this new diplomatic landscape.
In this evolving context, regional unity and economic convergence have become the Caribbean’s most credible diplomatic tools. The turbulence of the U.S.–China rivalry, coupled with the region’s continued dependence on traditional markets such as the United States and the European Union, underscores the urgent need for deeper cooperation and more innovative mechanisms to advance it. Integration is no longer a slogan of regional idealism; it is a strategic necessity.
Without it, development across the region will remain uneven, with a broader downward trajectory affecting the collective as a whole. Integration thus serves both as a shield against global volatility and as a platform for meaningful engagement in world affairs. As the international system enters a period of flux, some form of re-globalization is likely to take root. In this context, traditional models of integration may give way to more flexible forms of to regional convergence, unlocking new supply chain dynamics rooted in the wider regional economy.
Through CARICOM and its affiliated institutions, Caribbean states should increasingly act not as isolated voices, but as a collective presence. This shared identity will enable the formation of flexible alliances that extend beyond geography and across a range of issue areas, including climate finance, digital innovation, and equitable trade. For small states, unity brings both practical leverage and symbolic strength. It demonstrates that size need not determine significance.
Nevertheless, key questions remain. How can small states exercise influence in a world where power is increasingly transactional? Can trade diplomacy be reimagined to emphasize fairness rather than hierarchy? What institutions must be built or reformed to strengthen the region’s negotiating capacity?
These are not merely academic questions—they define the Caribbean’s position in an increasingly fragmented global economy. As Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney noted at the World Economic Forum in January 2026, today’s global order is “fractured,” and “nostalgia is not a strategy.” He further emphasized the need to pursue strategic autonomy in light of what he described as the erosion of the post-Cold War rules-based order.
Similarly, Finnish President Alexander Stubb has argued that this order has effectively come to an end. In his recent book The Triangle of Power: Rebalancing the New World Order, Stubb points to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine as a defining moment in this geopolitical shift. To survive in this post-Cold War rules-based order, states must remain vigilant and flexible.
Carney, in particular, has called for Middle Powers such as Canada to play a central role in shaping a more cooperative order, in contrast to the rise of hard power and the hegemonic tendencies of great powers. The Caribbean, too, must adapt. The region risks being perceived not only as insignificant, but as disposable. Yet opportunities are also emerging. Strategic positioning in this period of flux—through nearshoring, strategic hedging, and political acumen via personalized diplomacy—could alter the region’s trajectory in a positive direction.
A new diplomacy of integration must therefore emerge—one that moves from reaction to anticipation, from dependency to design. It must weave together autonomy, resilience, and a shared vision. By aligning regional cohesion with global transformation, the Caribbean can craft a diplomacy defined not by its limitations, but by its foresight: one that sustains growth, deepens sovereignty, and secures the region’s strategic place in an evolving global order.
The Balance Between Statecraft and Diplomacy
In today’s fluid global politics, the relationship between statecraft and diplomacy has come sharply into focus. At the heart of statecraft lies the nexus between wealth and power. Major Powers deploy wealth accumulate power, and power to generate further wealth, creating a self-reinforcing cycle of prosperity—albeit one that remains contingent on how such gains are distributed domestically. For small island developing states in an increasingly zero-sum world, however, the wealth and power of great powers often come at their expense, with smaller states bearing the most acute consequences. Both the United States and China operate within this dynamic, while many smaller nations continue to rely on traditional diplomatic approaches that yield diminishing returns.
Political Scientist Zhang Xiaotong’s work, China’s Modern Economic Statecraft: A Wealth-Power Dialectic, traces China’s efforts to “restore China’s historical role as a global leader.” He conceptualizes economic statecraft as a strategic dialectic—the conversion of wealth into power, and power back into wealth—echoing historian Paul Kennedy’s 1987 The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers: Economic Change and Military Conflict from 1500 to 2000. A recent example of this dynamic can be seen in the U.S. military intervention in Venezuela. While officially framed in terms of counter-narcotics and regime change, the operation has also been widely interpreted as linked to Venezuela’s vast oil reserves and the strategic importance of its energy sector. This reflects a more assertive dimension of statecraft—the projection of power in ways that can shape access to critical resources. For small states in the Caribbean, such contests among great powers offer little room for meaningful participation and risk leaving them diplomatically marginalized.
For small nations, influence has traditionally been rooted in multilateralism, the rule of law, sovereignty, human rights, and justice. Yet these principles are now under mounting strain. The norms that once underpinned the international order—enshrined in the UN Charter—are no longer treated as inviolable, and even domestic legal frameworks are increasingly disregarded. Recent crises, including tensions surrounding Venezuela, illustrate how fragile the foundations of international conduct have become when states entrusted with power depart from established norms in pursuit of short-term gains.
Debates surrounding Venezuela within institutions such as the United Nations Security Council and the Organization of American States have underscored a growing concern: both international and domestic legal norms are being eroded. The central question is no longer whether these breaches occur, but how the damage might be repaired. The widening gap between electoral politics, democratic legitimacy, and accountable governance is particularly troubling. Each such episode deepens that divide, making recovery more difficult. These developments may be dismissed as “just politics,” yet once the façade is stripped away, the erosion of international norms becomes unmistakable.
This poses particular risks for states with limited political leverage. Middle powers and small states, including those in the Caribbean, remain vulnerable to the ambitions of larger actors. At the same time, the growing use of disinformation and the erosion of democratic values are contributing to a world in which peace and order are increasingly subordinated to the pursuit of power. The institutional architecture designed to safeguard global stability is weakening, raising profound structural and moral challenges for the next generation.
For Caribbean policymakers, the future of diplomacy lies in designing mechanisms of cooperation that anticipate, rather than merely react to, global fragmentation. Understanding the realities of the present is the essential first step toward constructing a more secure, resilient, and strategically confident future.
