By: Garfield L. Angus
March 3, 2026
Small Island Developing States (SIDS) occupy a unique space in global politics, geography, and economics. Defined by their small size, limited resources, vulnerability to Climate Change, and economic dependence on external actors, SIDS confront challenges that are both immediate and systemic, yet while environmental issues such as sea-level rise often dominate discourse about SIDS, understanding their broader geopolitical survival requires situating them within historical and contemporary power dynamics.
Most notably the legacy of the Monroe Doctrine and the contemporary resurgence of unilateralism under which is termed the “Donroe Doctrine,” which seeks to reasserts United States (US) dominance in the Western Hemisphere, while disregarding Cngressnal rules and international law, it focuses on countering Chinese and Russian influence, stopping migration, and securing resources through direct interventionism, such as the seizure of the Venezuelan President.
First articulated in 1823 by US President James Monroe, the Monroe Doctrine declared the Western Hemisphere off-limits to future European Colonial expansion. While framed as a defensive policy, the doctrine evolved into a justification for U.S. dominance in the Americas.
Over the 19th and 20th centuries, it underpinned interventions, economic influence, and strategic control throughout the Caribbean and Latin America. Against this backdrop, the roles of Russia and China offer alternative, and sometimes conflicting, engagement models for SIDS navigating the 21st century.
From the Roosevelt Corollary to Cold War policy, the doctrine helped shape a sphere of influence where the United States often acted unilaterally, asserting interests with limited multilateral oversight. For SIDS, many of which lie in the Caribbean, Central America, and the Pacific, the Monroe Doctrine has had mixed implications.
On the one hand, it protected these regions from certain forms of European Re-Colonisation. On the other, it legitimised U.S. interventionism ranging from military occupations to economic levers that prioritised U.S. interests over local autonomy. The doctrine’s legacy continues to complicate SIDS’ attempts to assert sovereign choice, particularly when Washington’s strategic concerns are at stake.
Unilateralism and SIDS Vulnerability
In the post–Cold War global order, unilateralism has taken new forms, while multilateral institutions like the United Nations and World Trade Organization once offered platforms for collective action, recent decades have seen powerful states retreat from cooperative frameworks, opting instead for policies that privilege national interest over global consensus.
Unilateral sanctions, military interventions without Security Council approval, withdrawal from international agreements, and competitive great-power politics characterise this shift. For SIDS, unilateralism exacerbates existing vulnerabilities. SIDS are heavily reliant on imports, tourism, and external investment. Unilateral economic measures by powerful states, such as sanctions regimes or trade restrictions can destabilise fragile economies with limited alternatives. Unilateral approaches weaken global cooperation on Climate Change, undermining multilateral commitments that SIDS view as essential to their survival.
SIDS often lack military capabilities. Without strong multilateral guarantees, they may be pressured into aligning with great powers for security assurances, risking entanglement in wider geopolitical rivalries. In this environment, the traditional Monroe Doctrine model of hemispheric dominance has effectively been supplanted by new forms of great-power competition, with SIDS caught between the strategic interests of larger states.
China’s Engagement with SIDS
China’s expanding role in global politics over the past two decades has affected SIDS across regions, from the Caribbean to the Pacific and Indian Oceans. Beijing’s approach differs from the classical Monroe Doctrine in several ways, though it is not free of strategic intent. Through initiatives such as the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), China has invested in infrastructure across several SIDS. Ports, roads, airports, and telecommunications projects funded by Chinese loans have created new economic linkages.
For SIDS, these investments can help modernise essential services and diversify partnerships. China has strengthened diplomatic ties with SIDS in multilateral forums, including the United Nations. SIDS have often found common cause with China on principles of sovereignty, non-interference, and resistance to conditionality tied to governance reforms.
Unlike the U.S. retreat from certain Climate commitments in recent years, China has positioned itself as a partner in Climate finance and technology transfer, key areas for SIDS coping with existential threats from Climate Change. However, China’s engagement is not without complexities. Critics warn that loans tied to infrastructure projects may lead to “debt traps,” potentially compromising the sovereignty of borrower nations if they cannot meet repayment obligations.
Some SIDS risk becoming arenas for great-power competition. As Washington and its allies express concern over Chinese strategic footholds, SIDS may face pressure to choose between competing blocs. Despite these concerns, many SIDS view China as a valuable partner whose engagement offers alternatives to traditional Western economic and political models.
Russia’s Response and Interest
Russia’s engagement with SIDS has been more limited compared to China’s expansive reach. Yet Moscow has made strategic overtures that reflect its broader foreign policy priorities, particularly at the United Nations. Russia has courted SIDS by emphasisng shared interests in sovereignty and opposition to what it portrays as Western dominance. In UN votes and fora, some SIDS have found alignment with Russian positions on issues such as criticisms of unilateral sanctions and calls for multipolarity in global governance.
Russian investment in SIDS tends to be more modest and focused on specific sectors such as energy, defense cooperation, and resource extraction where applicable. Moscow’s economic ties are often shaped by broader bilateral interests rather than large-scale development financing comparable to China’s. In select cases, Russia has offered security partnerships, including training, technical assistance, and defense equipment. For some SIDS, particularly in the Caribbean, this offers a way to diversify security relationships beyond traditional Western alliances.
Nevertheless, Russia’s impact remains comparatively constrained due to limited financial leverage and geographic distance from many SIDS. Its engagement is more pronounced in diplomatic arenas where it seeks to counter Western unilateralism and promote a multipolar world order.
SIDS Navigating Between Powers
For SIDS, survival in a world shaped by lingering Monroe Doctrine assumptions and rising unilateralism requires deft diplomacy, strategic diversification, and collective action, and several themes emerge- SIDS have consistently leveraged multilateral institutions to amplify their voices on Climate, trade, and development. Strengthening coalitions such as the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) has enabled these nations to influence global agendas disproportionate to their size.
Rather than aligning exclusively with any single power, many SIDS pursue diversified partnerships. China’s investments, Russian diplomatic support, and traditional ties with Western states form a complex web through which these countries seek benefits while guarding autonomy. Climate Change remains the existential issue for SIDS. This shared priority has sometimes transcended geopolitical fault lines, enabling collaboration with multiple partners on mitigation, adaptation, and finance.
SIDS have been influential in international law and norms, championing issues such as loss and damage, equitable Climate finance, and recognition of Climate vulnerability in development policy. The legacy of the Monroe Doctrine and the contemporary resurgence of unilateralism pose enduring challenges for Small Island Developing States. Yet these states are not passive actors; they exercise agency through multilateral diplomacy, diversified partnerships, and leadership on global issues like Climate Change.
China and Russia, for their part, offer alternative engagement models, each with distinct strategic motivations. China’s economic outreach has reshaped development trajectories for many SIDS, while Russia’s diplomatic positioning challenges unilateral dominance by Western powers. For SIDS, navigating these currents requires a careful balance that preserves sovereignty, advances development goals, and ensures long-term resilience in a shifting global order.
Garfield L. Angus is a senior journalist based in Jamaica
Email your opinions, letters and commentaries to: letters@caribmagplus.com