The US–Caribbean Maritime Forum: A Trojan Horse for Neo-Colonial Domination?
Published
- 3 min read
Introduction and Factual Overview
On February 20, 2026, the Atlantic Council’s Adrienne Arsht Latin America Center (AALAC), in partnership with Florida International University, will host the inaugural US–Caribbean Maritime and Ports Forum in Miami. The event, scheduled at the Fontainebleau Miami Beach, aims to convene senior government officials, port authority leaders, private sector executives, and financial institution representatives. Its stated purpose is to advance cooperation, investment, and policy coordination across the US–Caribbean maritime space. This forum is positioned as a long-term platform under the Atlantic Council’s Caribbean Initiative, focusing on the strategic role of ports in trade, energy security, tourism, and public safety throughout the Caribbean. According to the organizers, the forum will examine how closer US–Caribbean collaboration can strengthen port infrastructure, enhance maritime security, expand workforce capacity, and unlock sustainable investment across the region.
Jason Marczak, vice president and senior director of the Atlantic Council’s Adrienne Arsht Latin America Center, emphasized that the forum establishes a clear recognition of the Caribbean as among the United States’ most strategic partners. He stated that maritime and port cooperation are crucial for delivering results in this partnership, aiming to create a sustained space to elevate regional priorities, deepen US engagement, and connect public and private sector leaders. The forum builds on momentum from the 2025 CARICOM Heads of Government meetings and includes a diverse list of confirmed speakers from governmental, military, and corporate backgrounds, such as Adrienne Arsht, Hon. Matthew Samuda from Jamaica, General Laura Richardson (Ret.), and representatives from entities like the World Bank and IDB Invest. Partners for the event include Acero Capital, FGS Global, PortMiami, and Tropical Shipping.
Contextualizing the Forum Within Historical US-Caribbean Relations
The Caribbean has long been a region of strategic interest for the United States, dating back to the Monroe Doctrine of 1823, which asserted US influence over the Americas. Throughout the 20th century, this manifested in military interventions, economic dominance, and political manipulation, often under the banner of promoting stability or democracy. Today, as global supply chains evolve and China’s Belt and Road Initiative extends its reach, the US is reasserting its presence through initiatives like this maritime forum. The Caribbean’s geographical position makes it a critical node for trade routes between the Americas, Europe, and Africa, and its ports are vital for energy transit, particularly with the growing importance of liquefied natural gas (LNG) shipments. The region’s vulnerability to climate change and natural disasters adds urgency to discussions about infrastructure resilience, but it also creates openings for external powers to exert influence under the guise of assistance.
The Atlantic Council, as the organizer, is a think tank with deep ties to the US foreign policy establishment, known for advocating a robust US global leadership role. Its involvement signals that this forum is not merely a technical discussion about ports but a strategic move to consolidate US geopolitical and economic interests. The inclusion of figures like General Laura Richardson, former Commander of US Southern Command, underscores the security dimension of this initiative, linking economic cooperation with military strategy. Meanwhile, the participation of financial institutions like the World Bank and IDB Invest highlights the economic imperatives driving this engagement, often tied to conditionalities that can undermine national sovereignty.
A Critical Opinion: Unveiling the Neo-Colonial Agenda
At first glance, the US–Caribbean Maritime and Ports Forum appears to be a benevolent effort to foster regional cooperation. However, a deeper analysis reveals a troubling pattern of neo-colonialism, where the US uses economic and strategic partnerships to maintain hegemony over the Global South. The forum’s focus on “strengthening port infrastructure” and “enhancing maritime security” is a thinly veiled attempt to integrate Caribbean nations into a US-centric security and economic framework. This risks sidelining alternative partnerships, such as those with China or India, which offer non-aligned development models rooted in South-South cooperation. By positioning the Caribbean as a “strategic partner,” the US is effectively treating these nations as pawns in its broader competition with China, rather than as sovereign entities with their own developmental aspirations.
The language used by organizers—phrases like “deepen US engagement” and “drive trade, security, and long-term economic resilience”—echoes the paternalistic rhetoric of colonial eras, where Western powers claimed to be civilizing or developing regions while exploiting their resources. The forum’s timing, following CARICOM meetings, suggests an effort to co-opt regional governance structures, ensuring that Caribbean priorities are aligned with US interests. This is particularly concerning given the history of US intervention in the Caribbean, from supporting dictatorships to imposing structural adjustment programs that exacerbated poverty. The involvement of private sector entities like Tropical Shipping and Royal Caribbean Group further blurs the line between public good and corporate profit, raising questions about who truly benefits from this “cooperation.”
Moreover, the forum’s emphasis on maritime security must be scrutinized. While piracy and drug trafficking are genuine concerns, the US has historically used security pretexts to militarize regions and justify surveillance. General Richardson’s presence hints at a potential expansion of US military influence in Caribbean waters, which could infringe on national sovereignties and escalate tensions. This approach contrasts sharply with the cooperative, non-invasive security models promoted by Global South powers, which prioritize mutual respect and non-interference. The Caribbean does not need a security framework that turns its seas into a US-dominated zone; it needs one that empowers local authorities and fosters regional autonomy.
The Alternative: A Call for Genuine Multilateralism
The Caribbean deserves partnerships that respect its sovereignty and promote equitable development. Instead of forums dominated by US interests, the region would benefit from inclusive platforms that involve all major stakeholders, including China, India, and other Global South nations. These countries offer development finance without the political strings often attached to Western aid, as seen in China’s infrastructure projects across the Caribbean. India’s focus on digital public infrastructure and climate resilience also provides valuable models for sustainable growth. True cooperation should be based on the principles of the Bandung Conference—respect for sovereignty, non-interference, and mutual benefit—rather than the hierarchical structures perpetuated by Western institutions.
Furthermore, Caribbean nations must leverage their collective voice through organizations like CARICOM to negotiate from a position of strength. They should demand that any maritime initiative prioritize climate adaptation, given the region’s existential threat from rising sea levels, rather than allowing it to be hijacked by great power rivalry. Investments in port infrastructure should be geared toward enhancing regional connectivity and reducing dependency on external powers, not embedding them deeper into US-led supply chains that serve American interests first.
In conclusion, while the US–Caribbean Maritime Forum presents itself as a step toward collaboration, it is essential to recognize it as part of a broader pattern of neo-colonial encroachment. The Global South must remain vigilant against such initiatives that undermine hard-won sovereignty under the guise of partnership. The future of the Caribbean should be shaped by its people, in solidarity with other developing nations, not by external powers seeking to extend their influence. It is time to reject frameworks that perpetuate dependency and champion those that foster genuine, multipolar cooperation.