COMMENTARY: Operationalising the Zone of Peace Doctrine Through Regional Consensus

By Ambassador Dr. Clarence E. Pilgrim

According to Antigua News Room, Ambassador Dr. Clarence E. Pilgrim has put forward a substantive analysis of the Caribbean's evolving Zone of Peace framework, arguing that regional peace is not an aspiration but a structured, functioning doctrine reinforced through decades of coordinated diplomacy and institutional development.

The Caribbean, Pilgrim writes, is not merely a collection of geographically proximate states. It is a region bound by a shared relationship with the Caribbean Sea — a unifying body of water that facilitates trade, cultural exchange, and sustained interaction among its nations. That shared space has shaped patterns of cooperation, interdependence, and mutual reliance that define the Caribbean experience.

Within this context, the region does not approach global peace as an abstract concept. For small states, conflict carries direct consequences for livelihoods, stability, and national survival. Peace, therefore, has historically been pursued as a practical imperative rather than a political ideal.

Three principal institutions anchor this commitment. The Caribbean Community (CARICOM), established by the Treaty of Chaguaramas in 1973 and now comprising 15 Member States and 6 Associate Members; the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS), formed under the Treaty of Basseterre on 18 June 1981 and comprising 7 Member States and 5 Associate Members; and the Association of Caribbean States (ACS), established in 1994 and bringing together 25 Member States and 10 Associate Members. Together, these bodies have consistently articulated a unified principle: that peace must be structured, protected, and sustained.

This position aligns with global norms reflected in the United Nations Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as well as the Sustainable Development Goals, which recognise that peace, stability, and inclusive institutions are foundational to sustainable human progress.

CARICOM Heads of Government have repeatedly reaffirmed the Caribbean as a Zone of Peace, emphasising dialogue, cooperation, and adherence to international law as the primary mechanisms for resolving disputes. That commitment was most recently reinforced at the Fiftieth Regular Meeting of the Conference of Heads of Government of CARICOM, held in Basseterre, St. Kitts and Nevis, from 24 to 27 February 2026. While larger geopolitical actors often frame stability in terms of power balance, the Caribbean has advanced a different proposition: that stability emerges from disciplined cooperation, not dominance.

As reported by Antigua News Room, outcomes from that meeting demonstrate the commitment is actively evolving. Heads of Government reaffirmed coordinated engagement on Haiti through diplomatic and mediation support aligned with international stabilisation efforts. They strengthened coordination among regional security and law enforcement mechanisms to address transnational threats, and reaffirmed common positions in external engagements, including united support for shared regional interests in international fora.

The OECS reinforced this trajectory at its own Heads of Government meeting in Saint Lucia on 13 January 2026. Official outcomes from that gathering reaffirmed commitments to peace, stability, and good neighbourly relations; strengthened coordination in responding to external geopolitical pressures; and advanced cooperation in border management and regional security.

At the wider basin level, the Tenth Summit of Heads of State and Government of the ACS, convened in Colombia from 28 to 30 May 2025 and culminating in the Declaration of Montería, reaffirmed the Caribbean Sea as a shared space for cooperation, peace, and sustainable development. The summit advanced coordination in disaster risk reduction and climate resilience, and reaffirmed dialogue and multilateral engagement as the primary instruments for resolving differences.

Pilgrim argues these outcomes are not isolated administrative decisions but reflect a consistent regional logic — egalitarian in substance and grounded in practical, coordinated action. Peace in the Caribbean, he contends, is not incidental but deliberately structured.

The framework is not without internal tensions. Sovereign states operating within a shared regional architecture will inevitably hold differing perspectives. What distinguishes the Caribbean model, Pilgrim argues, is not the absence of disagreement but the manner in which it is managed — through measured, constructive discussion rather than dismissal.

He is candid about the model's limitations. There have been moments where differences have tested cohesion and required patient diplomacy to restore alignment. There have also been instances where peace itself has been more fundamentally challenged. In such circumstances, while the Caribbean model prioritises dialogue and restraint, Pilgrim acknowledges that the limited use of force may at times be necessary to restore order — but only within a clearly defined, lawful, and proportionate context.

"The objective, however, is never the pursuit of force, but the preservation of peace," he writes. "Where force is required, it must be anchored in legitimacy, guided by international law, and constrained by clearly established parameters."

This balance between sovereignty and collective responsibility has yielded measurable outcomes. Caribbean states, on average, fall within the medium to high Human Development Index category, reflecting relatively strong performance in education, health, and social development compared to many developing regions — though still below the highest global benchmarks. Pilgrim links these outcomes directly to sustained peace, effective governance, and regional cooperation.

What emerges, he concludes, is a model that is both principled and practical — grounded in cooperation, reinforced by shared experience, and aligned with international norms. It is, he argues, increasingly relevant in a global environment where traditional approaches to conflict management continue to produce instability.

Note: The original commentary appears to have been published in incomplete form, with the concluding section truncated.