On May 21, 2026, the Inter-American Dialogue’s Asia & Latin America Program held “Comparative Policymaking in a Shifting Global Architecture: Approaches from the Caribbean and the Pacific,” the first event in a private roundtable series called “New Currents in Climate Diplomacy: Resilience, Partnership, and the Evolving Global Landscape.” During the event, experts from Pacific and Caribbean policy, academia, and multilateral communities examined how Small Island Developing States (SIDS) are navigating an increasingly fragmented and transactional international environment. Discussion centered on the evolving relationship between climate diplomacy, geopolitical competition, development finance, sovereignty, and strategic agency.
Participants agreed that climate governance can no longer be separated from wider questions of security, strategic competition, and economic statecraft, particularly amid intensifying US–China competition. For many participants, this reflects a transformation in the international system. Security logics are increasingly permeating climate diplomacy, while development partnerships are becoming more explicitly transactional and interest-driven. While some viewed this as destabilizing, others suggested that greater transparency may create opportunities for SIDS to negotiate more strategically and assertively. In this sense, a retreating international order may allow SIDS to identify more clearly which partnerships are viable and what leverage they can bring to secure cooperation.
On the question of SIDS agency, participants argued that SIDS increasingly needs to depart from their traditional diplomatic approaches and leverage strategic geography, maritime resources, and geopolitical relevance to secure climate and development outcomes. The Vanuatu–Australia Nakamal agreement was discussed as a notable example. There was broad recognition that SIDS are increasingly operating within a framework of strategic bargaining besides the traditional climate justice narratives. This includes linking renewable transitions to energy security concerns, tying climate provisions to bilateral security agreements, reframing resilience in economic and strategic language, and leveraging donor competition to attract funding.
Participants point out that conversations around climate migration often overlook questions of long-term sovereignty and geostrategic resource control, for example seabed minerals and exclusive economic zones of climate-threatened states. There was broad agreement that SIDS must lead rather than simply react to emerging debates around strategic sovereignty, ocean governance, and the future political status of climate-vulnerable territories.
Given the ongoing transformations in the international environment, participants repeatedly emphasized the continued importance of coalition-building and collective diplomacy, including between Pacific and Caribbean SIDS where interests align. Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) was frequently cited as an example of institutional adaptability. Participants noted that its informal structure has allowed it to remain agile amid shifting geopolitical conditions by expanding cooperation beyond climate negotiations into areas such as law of the sea, development finance, and human rights. While some viewed this expansion as essential for maintaining relevance, others cautioned that broadening agendas too far risks fragmentation and internal divergence. Participants pointed to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) climate opinion and the establishment of the Loss and Damage Fund as evidence that coordinated small-state diplomacy continues to shape global agendas.
On the issue of climate finance, participants repeatedly argued that the central challenge is not just insufficiency, but how finance is structured, accessed, and delivered. Concerns centered on donor-driven priorities, burdensome reporting requirements, debt vulnerability, and the disconnect between international funding frameworks and local realities. Many participants expressed frustration that climate finance mechanisms often prioritize visibility, branding, and geopolitical signaling over practical resilience outcomes.
Participants also noted that growing emphasis on security outcomes often overshadows climate impacts, while funding frequently fails to reach the communities most exposed to climate risk. Questions were also raised about whether current infrastructure investments are themselves sufficiently climate-resilient, particularly where major projects continue to be built or rebuilt in highly exposed areas, raising broader questions about regional planning and long-term resilience strategy.
Discussion focused heavily on the contradictions embedded within existing financial frameworks. Participants questioned how SIDS are expected to simultaneously reduce borrowing, maintain rigid debt-to-GDP ratios, and finance large-scale adaptation investments. Several have argued that resilience spending should increasingly be treated as productive long-term investment rather than fiscal liability. The Pacific Resilience Facility was highlighted as a promising model because of its emphasis on accessibility, community-level delivery, and self-sustaining reinvestment structures. The Bridgetown Initiative’s focus on debt pauses was also discussed as a potentially practical mechanism capable of delivering immediate relief during crises, although participants disagreed on whether China would support debt pauses at a multilateral level.
Looking ahead, several participants stressed that progress continues, new financing mechanisms are emerging, and geopolitical competition itself may create new openings for SIDS diplomacy. Participants pointed to continued US congressional support for aspects of Pacific and Caribbean funding, bipartisan backing for resilience initiatives, and growing opportunities to frame climate priorities through the language of disaster resilience, energy security, and strategic competition to attract necessary support amid broader cuts. SIDS increasingly faces a dual challenge: taking on greater strategic agency in a changing international order while resisting attempts to shift responsibility for climate adaptation entirely onto vulnerable states themselves. SIDS will need to defend not only their interests, but also their ability to define the terms of resilience, sovereignty, and cooperation for themselves.
This event was by invitation only.
Think Piece Collection
In conjunction with the private roundtable, select participants were invited to compose a set of think pieces which examines and compares how Caribbean and Pacific actors are navigating a rapidly shifting global order, with focused attention on either of the two issue areas where global developments have meaningfully altered the landscape of opportunities and constraints facing these regions.
The participants who have authored a piece for this roundtable session are as followed:
Nand C. Bardouille
Manager, Diplomatic Academy of the Caribbean, The University of the West Indies (UWI)
UnaMay Gordon
Senior Climate Change Expert & Resilience Advisor; former Principal Director of Climate Change of Jamaica
Rueanna Haynes
Head of Diplomacy and Director, Climate Analytics Caribbean
Satyendra Prasad
Principal Technical Lead for Climate and Localisation, Abt Global; former Permanent Representative of Fiji to the United Nations.
