news

In an interview with teleSUR, the Grenadian leader analized contemporary development issues. On Wednesday, Grenada’s Prime Minister, Dickon Mitchell, gave teleSUR an extensive interview in which he discussed contemporary global and regional issues. An excerpt from the interview is presented below.

teleSUR: As Grenada is a member of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), how do you view African-Caribbean relations?

PM Mitchell: We have been very deliberate in recent years in pursuing closer relations between CARICOM and Africa—not just multilaterally, but also, in Grenada’s case, bilaterally with our brothers and sisters on the African continent.

Most of the Caribbean is a part of the African diaspora. Our foreparents were forcibly taken from Africa and brought to the Caribbean by European colonizers to support the plantation economy. Most of all, our foreparents were enslaved in that process. They fought for centuries to free themselves.

Even after the emancipation of slaves and the abolition of slavery in the Caribbean and the Americas, the legacy of discrimination and colonization continues. Many of the challenges we face today are a direct result of this history. Within CARICOM, we’ve been championing the cause of reparations. We’ve also engaged with the African Union and asked for their support in that cause.

We also recognize that the African continent itself has suffered tremendously from colonization and the arbitrary partitioning of its lands, which has created numerous challenges for countries across the continent. They face significant logistical difficulties in terms of trade and transportation among themselves. Many parts of Africa remain underdeveloped. As many as 600 million Africans still lack access to electricity. As Africa’s diaspora, we believe it’s important for us to support the continent’s development agenda, to advocate alongside them, and to insist that Africans and those in the diaspora be treated with fairness and respect, just like any other race or ethnicity worldwide.

So we have been pursuing very deliberate and strategic relations with Africa. In Grenada’s case, we’ve entered into visa waiver agreements so that Africans do not need visas to visit Grenada, and Grenadians can visit many African countries visa-free. We’ve also participated in many trade and investment events on the continent.

Grenada, along with several members of the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS) and CARICOM, has signed a partnership agreement with the African Export-Import Bank (AFREXIM). They’ve hosted regional trade and investment fora in Guyana, Barbados, and the Bahamas. Grenada will be hosting one on the 20th and 29th of July.

We expect to welcome significant business and political leaders to foster closer trade and investment ties between Africa and the Caribbean—and ultimately, between Africa, the Caribbean, and Central and South America. These larger markets offer vast potential. Sadly, there is still very little trade between Africa and South or Central America and the Caribbean. Reversing this historical trend—where we all look north instead of to each other—is key. That’s why we are strongly championing greater South-South cooperation.

We see the relationship as growing and deepening. With social media and the Internet, we can learn about each other much more quickly. We’re encouraging African influencers to visit the Caribbean and Caribbean influencers to visit Africa. African culture is increasingly being respected—through music, dance, fashion, and food. Culture is a vital bridge that helps break down the barriers between us.

It’s something we’ve pursued deliberately. I probably wear more African fashion now than Western fashion. It’s all part of the effort to level the playing field and eliminate discrimination and the misinformation often spread about Africa. We believe this will benefit all of us in the region.

teleSUR: What is your opinion on the mass deportations of migrants from the U.S.?

PM Mitchell: The U.S. is a nation built on immigration. But it’s not just about the U.S.—I think the world is facing a challenge we need to confront: xenophobia. We must ask ourselves, why do people migrate? And what role have we played in creating the conditions that lead to migration?

Whether it’s North America’s policies toward Latin America and the Caribbean, or Europe’s policies toward North Africa—these are all factors that must be addressed. Take countries like Iraq or Libya, for example—Western countries have played, unfortunately, destabilizing roles. When you create chaos, hunger, and insecurity, people will inevitably want to migrate.

In South and Central America, the U.S. has failed to invest meaningfully in its own neighborhood—in stable governments, healthcare, education, and fair trade. As a result, instability rises, and people are driven to move. To be honest, no walls and no number of deportations will stop human beings from migrating if they feel unsafe or threatened. That’s a reality we all must face.

We need to have sensible conversations about improving people’s lives. We need to work together to ensure that their home countries are stable, that sovereignty is respected, and that there are opportunities in education, healthcare, infrastructure, and trade. Otherwise, the migration issues we’re seeing now will only intensify. I’m convinced that walls and deportations won’t solve the problem. In fact, more people will come. History has shown this time and again.

When Western countries needed help—such as during World Wars—they recruited people from the Caribbean and elsewhere. Yet now, decades later, they often seek to deport the descendants of those very people who fought to protect their freedoms. There are also clear racial and ethnic overtones in these migration debates. Many times, fearmongering around migration is rooted in racism and disproportionately targets Black and Brown people.

It’s up to us to continue advocating for our people. At the same time, we must also encourage our citizens to remain and help build their own countries. You’re never going to be treated better in another country.

Despite our challenges, we must face them head-on. We often say, “No place is sweeter than home.” So yes, we must give our people the opportunity to thrive at home—with better education, healthcare, and jobs. That’s easier when there is less interference and more international cooperation and support.

teleSUR: The U.S. bans Cuban doctors. What is their situation in Grenada?

PM Mitchell: We responded to the U.S. queries and openly shared information about our program with the Cuban people. Grenada, perhaps more than any other English-speaking Caribbean island, has benefited immensely from a close and fraternal relationship with the Cuban government and people. Our international airport was largely built by Cubans. They even shed blood on our soil during the events of 1983.

Many of our professionals—engineers, doctors—have studied in Cuba on scholarships. In fact, in our current cabinet, both the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Foreign Affairs were educated in Cuba.

This strong Grenada-Cuba relationship is not just governmental—it’s deeply personal. Many of our citizens owe their careers and health to Cuban support. If we didn’t have Cuban professionals in our healthcare system, especially specialist doctors, it would likely collapse.

That’s the reality. Our Cuban brothers and sisters live freely here, and in some cases are even paid better than Grenadian professionals—because we must cover not only salaries but also housing and other support.

So we had nothing to hide. We showed our U.S. counterparts that this is a legitimate program that benefits our people. Similar programs exist across OECS and CARICOM. We’ve always staunchly defended Cuba’s right to self-determination.

Sometimes resistance to Cuba seems deliberate; sometimes it stems from ignorance. But we know Cuba has always stood by us. They’ve endured decades of hardship, particularly due to the blockade.

We continue to call for the end of the blockade and for Cuba to be removed from the U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism. We do so without hesitation, because we’ve seen Cuba’s solidarity firsthand.

Cuba has supported Black nations in Africa when no one else did. We won’t forget that. So yes, we stand in solidarity with Cuba, and we believe dialogue, not isolation, leads to real change.

Isolation has never worked. Openness, exchange, and mutual respect are the keys to better human relations. These are the values the world needs more than ever.

teleSUR: The U.S. has imposed tariffs globally. What about the 10% tariff on Grenada?

PM Mitchell: We can’t dictate another country’s trade or economic policy. But as a small, open economy, we understand the value of trade and connectivity. We believe the more trade there is, the better the quality of life and the broader the choices for our citizens.

From our standpoint, a tariff-based policy is unlikely to be successful. It’s more likely to cause harm—especially to ordinary citizens. If you increase the cost of goods for everyday people, even while government revenue increases, you end up with a rich government and poor citizens.

We prefer a situation where the people are wealthy—even if the government is not—because the true strength of a country lies in its citizens. So while we cannot dictate U.S. policy, we believe that in a globally connected economy, what we really need is more trade—not barriers like tariffs. Tariffs are outdated. What the world needs now is more cooperation and fewer restrictions.

Trump’s rare earths agreement with Ukraine cements U.S. access to critical minerals, raising concerns over sovereignty, peace prospects, and the marginalization of Ukrainian interests as Washington acknowledges Russia’s hold over Crimea.

The long-anticipated minerals agreement between the United States and Ukraine was signed this week, granting Washington preferential access to Ukraine’s rare earths and other valuable resources. The deal, championed by President Donald Trump, comes amid shifting geopolitical winds, with the U.S. administration openly recognizing Russia’s annexation of Crimea and casting President Volodymyr Zelensky’s resistance to peace talks as an obstacle to regional stability.

For months, the Biden-Trump administration pushed Kyiv to cede control over its critical mineral resources, framing the agreement as a pathway to Ukraine’s reconstruction and a means for the U.S. to recoup military aid expenditures. The final text grants the U.S. sweeping rights to exploit up to 55 minerals, with provisions for further expansion, and establishes a joint fund to manage revenues from extraction. The White House has not concealed its intentions: Trump himself described the pact as a “great deal for us,” emphasizing the expected windfall from rare earths and other materials vital to U.S. industry and military technology.

However, Ukrainian negotiators were forced to accept terms under the shadow of ongoing conflict and mounting pressure from Washington, which made further military assistance contingent on the deal’s completion. The agreement’s timing-coinciding with U.S. overtures to Moscow and tacit acceptance of Russia’s hold over Crimea-has left Zelensky politically isolated and facing criticism from sectors of Ukrainian society that see the deal as a surrender of economic sovereignty.

Left-wing analysts across Latin America have long warned of the dangers posed by U.S. interventionism and resource extraction deals that echo neocolonial patterns. The Ukraine agreement fits this mold, with Washington leveraging its military and financial power to secure privileged access to strategic assets. While U.S. officials tout the pact as a win-win, critics point out that the supposed “rare earth bonanza” in Ukraine is largely speculative, with little evidence of significant, easily exploitable deposits. Instead, the real beneficiaries may be U.S. corporations and defense contractors, while Ukraine is left with environmental risks and uncertain economic gains.

Moreover, the deal undermines Ukraine’s ability to chart an independent path toward peace. By tying resource revenues to U.S. interests and acknowledging Russian control over Crimea, Washington is effectively dictating the terms of Ukraine’s future, sidelining popular demands for genuine sovereignty and self-determination.

The minerals agreement is being hailed in Washington as a strategic masterstroke, securing critical supply chains and countering China’s dominance in rare earth markets. Yet for many in the global South, it is a stark reminder of how resource-rich nations are pressured to trade away their wealth in exchange for security guarantees and fleeting promises of reconstruction.

True peace cannot be built on the foundations of economic dependency and external control. The U.S.-Ukraine deal, far from fostering stability, risks entrenching new forms of domination and deepening divisions within Ukraine itself. With Zelensky marginalized and peace talks stalled, the prospect of a just resolution to the conflict appears more distant than ever-while the machinery of extractivism grinds on.