President Ali’s pragmatic position on Trump’s actions against Maduro

Jan 08, 2026 Letters

---

Dear Editor,

President Ali and Prime Minister Kamla of T&T faced all kinds of criticism (from CARICOM colleagues and left-wing nationalists, citing violating of international law, Vienna Convention, UN Charter, etc.) for siding with President Trump in going after narco-traffickers and for military intervention in capturing Maduro and deposing him.  Both have been unfairly criticized.

There are also those who are supportive (a majority) of the two leaders’ decision to join the Trump campaign against Maduro.  Kamla has traded barbs with Caricom leaders on siding with Trump. There is no right or wrong opinion or decision on allying with Washington. But there is pragmatism – what is in a nation’s (or political leader’s) best interests. Opposing Trump or the Americans is not!

Freedom of speech must be respected on all sides; people, including me, have a right to express their opinion on the events in our region.  Also, in the international system of nation states, leaders have the right to choose alliance; freedom of association must be respected. In a democracy as ours and T&T, voters elect a government that makes policies and decisions for them; the elected government decides on foreign association or alliances. Government leadership, with confidential briefings and intelligence, know what is best for their nation. They must act quickly on available information. Their decision and action, especially on forging foreign alliances, right or wrong, must also be respected. When and if the opponents of the government win election and forms a government, they will also have that power to enter (or not) into or leave alliances.

President Ali and Kamla were placed in an unenvious position, as leaders of border nations, of joining the US against Maduro who has been threatening their countries sovereignty and resources, and they needed American assistance to counter Maduro and for their countries’ development and economic prosperity.  What choice did they have other than supporting Trump? It is a ‘no brainer’ on whether President Ali (and or PM Kamla) should have sided with President Trump against the Maduro regime and its ties to narco-traffickers. Which person would be opposed to eradicating drug trafficking or removing a threatening menace on your border and who have sought to stymie economic development of your country?

Maduro had threatened both Guyana and Trinidad and Tobago. While the threat has not been permanently eradicated with the departure of Maduro, it has been severely curtailed. Venezuela will not be a serious threat to Guyana and or to T&T in the near term.  And if there is an American military presence there, both T&T and Guyana can rest assured they will not be threatened by whatever government is in Caracas.  The status quo on Guyana will hold and T&T will get its dragon gas as approved by President Trump. Trump aggressively use power to aid allies. Washington will protect the two countries on matters pertaining to oil, gas, and Venezuela.

If President Ali and or PM Kamla had opposed President Trump’s military strikes against narco-traffickers and intervention to depose Maduro, as the rest of CARICOM and most of Latin America did, would additional opposition from Ali and Kamla have stopped Trump from pursuing military strikes on boats and intervening in Venezuela? No! President Trump had long decided that Maduro must go and offered him safe passage to another country. Maduro declined the offer.

The Trump Administration (and predecessors) had viewed the Maduro regime, and a few others in the region, as a threat to American geo-political security and national interests. Trump, unlike his predecessors, decided to use military means to stop Maduro. Principles of international law and international relations, and UN Charter don’t trump (pardon the pun) matters pertaining to national security of a major power.  The US is the most powerful nation in the world, and it will not allow a thug (allied with anti-American powers in the east) to defy its hegemony in a region that is America’s backyard. The other nations (their leaders) critical of President Trump were issued a warning, and they should take it seriously.

In deciding to side with USA, President Ali and PM Kamla must also have taken cognizance of the fact that hundreds of thousands of their nationals reside in USA and who are supportive of the American policy against Maduro. Opposing the Americans could have had devastating consequences on their diasporas.

At this time, the interests of Guyana and T&T have laid with an alliance with USA, not being an unattached observer on the sidelines preaching an unrealistic rhetoric of ‘zone of peace’. Their very territorial survival, national security, and economic well-being would have been on the line in not supporting USA and or in allowing Maduro to continue his threats against them.

Yours truly,
Vishnu Bisram

---

• CARICOM, Letters, Maduro, Trump, Vishnu Bisram

---