Nicolás Maduro was captured in the early hours of Saturday, 3 January 2026. I fell asleep approximately an hour before his reported time of capture, and before military strikes fell across coastal cities in Venezuela, including the capital, Caracas. None the wiser, I went to Facebook to catch up on the news after waking up. I could not believe that people were “surprised” by the attacks. One Facebook friend, who I know ardently follows my articles and Facebook posts, even questioned me about the impacts of this campaign. I am dumbfounded.
Here is my reason: I quite literally wrote about all of this a month ago. It is not to say that I was the only person who saw these developments as probable, nor that I viewed them more seriously than others. It is simply that, once again, I am left with the preliminary impression that we have been caught resting on our laurels. I believe that a pause in the intensity of the campaign will see us return to a familiar position. It is sad.
I am grimly reminded of this as I hear of turmoil at Grantley Adams International Airport (GAIA). US operators have apparently been instructed by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to suspend and/or cancel flights to and from the Southern Caribbean. This is rational, but painstaking, and will result in economic backlash. This is the busiest travel period of the year, as many people use this weekend to return from the Christmas vacation. It is also the most expensive travel period in any calendar year.
Funnily enough, there is nothing that Barbados, or any other nearby jurisdiction, could have done to prevent a loss in general confidence. For most of the world, the Southern Caribbean is now unsafe. What smarts, for me, is that we had ample warning that a campaign was near. Yet there have been no active plans beyond those just discussed. I am sickened by that rhetoric.
A key feature of reducing or hedging against negative impact is the effective communication of contingencies. Cast your mind back to the situation that unfolded this morning at GAIA. It could worsen should there be reason for Venezuela to go kamikaze. You may scoff at the likelihood, but it has been done before and becomes more likely when regimes are highly motivated. What we can expect, according to Senator Marco Rubio, is that the USA will not launch another campaign for the time being. But should Venezuela attempt retaliation against any of our neighbours deemed complicit in early US strikes, then what occurred at our airport does not simply affect those travelling to America. The issue becomes regional and global.
There must be a contingency in place, and it should be communicated in the same way emergency drills are communicated. I say this for all facets of the economy and—meaning no disrespect to the communications team at GAIA—it should be less reactive. Instead of speaking only about visitor arrival numbers and room-occupancy rates, stakeholders should have openly communicated contingency plans in the event that tourists are stranded here. There should have been a clear plan to transport, house, or otherwise accommodate those visitors who do not have family on the island.
I believe this situation could play out very similarly to what unfolded during the COVID-19 pandemic in the coming days. The same courtesy, initiative, and response meted out to cruise lines and their staff moored off Barbados, along with stranded Trinidadian visitors, should be considered now. Those who have no definite time of return to the United States could be subsidised in some fashion. I do not believe the government should foot that cost alone, however. It is not as though all those who booked rooms to arrive after the New Year’s rush will do so once travel normalises—if it normalises quickly at all. Allow me to summarise what I wrote one month ago.
I worry immensely about the build-up of military assets to our south-west. Many of those who care for me have asked that I not comment on the matter. Their presence, however, has significant potential impacts on every economy within the Southern Caribbean.
Most people do not understand war. I cannot claim to have experienced its more fatal aspects. But that is precisely the issue: the average person seems unable to relate even to the non-fatal aspects of war. The international media has done exceedingly well to ensure that recent events have been branded, at worst and solely, as excursions or campaigns against narco-terrorism. Every person who has lived extensively in the Caribbean knows of its reputation as a major transhipment point for illegal drugs and human-trafficking victims. It makes no sense to deny this. However, I remain at a loss as to what is meant by narco-terrorism.
Whatever the rationale for eradicating narco-terrorists in nearby international waters, the point I wish to establish is that it is of no benefit to us in the Caribbean to view these exercises as anything less than the establishment of the grounds of war. Not for war, but of war.
War can be understood through precursors and triggers. A precursor is a characteristic of an environment that gives rise to the prospect of war. Some rudimentary examples include the formation of new alliances, a rise in nationalism, large shifts in power bases, and campaigns to acquire resources through force or unfavourable terms of trade. There is no war while these exist alone.
Triggers, however, signal the start of war. Most are not violent, but they imply an immense rise in tensions. These include ultimatums and diplomatic crises, formal mobilisation of military assets, border skirmishes, assassinations, and invasions. I can guarantee that the majority of readers can identify the first four as having occurred in recent months through American military actions. Bureaucrats have even gone as far as to state that land campaigns may begin in the near term—technically, a call for invasion.
The region is effectively a battleground, but the international media has again spun the situation to our near-term benefit, somewhat. In Barbados, we are on the cusp of what appears to be another record-breaking tourism season, despite a war unfolding at our doorstep. I anticipate that an American landfall, or a significantly fatal retaliation by Venezuela, would bring those gains to an abrupt halt.
I take issue with sentiment in Barbados. It reflects a familiar head-in-the-sand approach for which Caribbean societies are known. While we cannot influence the actions of the two nations in conflict, we can learn from how international narratives are controlled. It makes financial sense for our in-season marketing to factor in the likelihood of escalation and its true relevance to Barbados. This is not to deny the risks—especially if nuclear assets are even threatened—but there is no sense in failing to educate the global community about our position.
Opportunity cost is unavoidable. Barbados must either spend on a targeted educational campaign or absorb billions in lost tourism revenue should the conflict intensify. Using basic reasoning, if one believes either outcome is possible, then the probability of each cannot reasonably be dismissed. Logic therefore suggests that spending now is the wiser choice.