Canada’s response to the US military operation in Venezuela was careful and consistent with long-standing policy. Prime Minister Mark Carney reaffirmed Ottawa’s refusal to recognise the government of Nicolás Maduro, reiterated support for democratic renewal, and emphasised Canada’s commitment to international law and multilateral engagement. Foreign Affairs Minister Anita Anand echoed those themes, stressing opposition to repression and support for the Venezuelan people.

Canada’s position is clear. It reflects a settled view that the Maduro government lacks legitimacy, that Venezuelans should determine their own future, and that international crises are best addressed through lawful and collective means. Ottawa’s language is familiar, principled, and aligned with its role as a middle power that places confidence in institutions, diplomacy, and process.

In the Caribbean, the response to the US action has been marked by a more cautious register.

Barbados Prime Minister Mia Mottley urged calm, restraint, and adherence to international law, situating the unfolding events within the broader concern of how small states navigate moments of geopolitical confrontation. Her remarks neither defended the Maduro administration nor questioned the importance of democratic values. Instead, they focused on the need for legal and diplomatic guardrails that help prevent the spread of instability.

For small island states, such caution is shaped by circumstance rather than ideology. International law and multilateral processes function as stabilising mechanisms in an environment where economic exposure, geographic proximity, and limited capacity heighten vulnerability. When these frameworks are weakened or bypassed, the effects tend to be unevenly felt, and recovery can be slow.

That sense of unease does not stop at the region’s shoreline. Across our communities abroad with enduring ties to the Caribbean, developments are being followed closely. Here resides our diaspora, where family remains rooted in the region, where remittances flow regularly, and where decisions about returning, retirement, or investment are closely linked to regional stability. Political shifts in the Caribbean are, therefore, not viewed at a distance, but as events with practical implications that ripple outward.

In such settings, the language used by Caribbean leaders resonates in a particular way. Calls for dialogue, restraint, and respect for international law are understood not as hesitation, but as reflections of experience. They echo an historical awareness that external decisions have often carried lasting local consequences, and that disruption, once set in motion, can be difficult to contain.

Canada’s emphasis on multilateralism and lawful transition aligns broadly with the principles articulated by Caribbean governments. Yet a difference in perspective remains. From Ottawa, the focus rests on norms and outcomes; from the Caribbean, it rests on process and precedent. Both approaches value democracy and stability, but they are shaped by different degrees of exposure to risk.

This divergence does not suggest opposition; rather, it reflects the realities of scale. Larger states can speak of opportunity with some distance from immediate fallout. Smaller island states, and our diaspora abroad, are more inclined to assess how actions taken today shape expectations tomorrow.

None of this diminishes the importance of democratic change in Venezuela, nor the legitimate concerns raised by years of repression and instability. Nor does it call into question Canada’s consistency in articulating our democratic principles. It does, however, help explain why Caribbean leaders have emphasised restraint alongside commitment to democratic norms.

As events continue to unfold, the Caribbean’s measured responses reflect an awareness that stability, once unsettled, is difficult to restore. It is an awareness shared quietly beyond the region, in our households where such developments are sure to ripple into our lives abroad.

In that sense, our unease surrounding this moment is less a reaction than a recognition of how closely connected our Caribbean remains to decisions made beyond its shores, and how carefully we are watching those decisions.