The Cayman Islands have been placed in a growing group of European overseas territories whose strategic value is being reassessed as global rivalry intensifies, according to a new Carnegie Europe analysis.

Senior fellow Marc Pierini says the strategic importance of small islands is rising because of their maritime space, economic activity and role in wider security calculations.

The analysis looks at 17 European Overseas Countries and Territories, including Cayman, and argues that governments should judge them by current strategic conditions rather than historical origins.

For Cayman, the finding points to greater relevance in its relationship with Britain, and in how London manages its overseas network, while also suggesting the Caribbean carries more weight in Europe’s geopolitical thinking.

Pierini groups the Cayman Islands, Anguilla, the Falkland Islands and the Turks and Caicos Islands, describing the territories as mainly small island outposts that maintain the presence of their European parent states around the world.

But his study says many of the territories hold large exclusive economic zones with valuable fish stocks and, in some cases, seabed mineral resources. It also says they could serve as staging points for maritime patrols aimed at tackling drug trafficking and regulating fishing.

Tourism is another factor in the reassessment. The analysis says some of the territories have also become economically important through visitor activity, adding another layer to their value in the eyes of governments.

Why Cayman matters in the broader assessment

The Carnegie paper does not place Cayman in the same strategic category as Greenland, Gibraltar or the British Indian Ocean Territory. Those seven territories are identified as having the highest current geopolitical relevance because of their strategic positions, military facilities, mineral and maritime resources, or a combination of those factors.

Instead, Cayman sits in a broader group whose importance could grow as governments pay more attention to maritime resources, trafficking, shipping and economic activity across distant territories. The analysis said its classification was "imperfect and fluid", especially as technology increased demand for critical minerals and as non-European powers sought greater reach into remote regions, and relevance tied to the Caribbean, maritime jurisdiction and connectivity rather than military power.

Pierini argues that the traditional explanation for Europe’s overseas territories was no longer sufficient. They are not just remnants of former empires or the legacy of polar exploration. The study says new pressures now include maritime resources, mineral deposits, tourism, illicit trafficking and control of shipping routes.

The report links that shift to a broader deterioration in the international environment. Pierini points to the weakening of the rules-based international order, the rise of disruptive governments and the pursuit of territory, military advantage and critical materials as central features of the current geopolitical landscape.

The clearest examples in the analysis come from outside the Caribbean.

U.S. President Donald Trump has repeatedly argued that Washington should control Greenland on security grounds. In one statement cited by Pierini, Trump said: "Countries have to have ownership and you defend ownership, you don’t defend leases. And we’ll have to defend Greenland."

Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen rejects that idea, saying in July that "Greenland is, of course, not for sale." The exchange was used in the analysis to illustrate how powerful states were increasingly viewing remote territory through the lenses of security, resources and strategic access.

What it means for Britain and the Caribbean

For Britain, the question stretches across a network of overseas territories, including Cayman. The study says the territories differ greatly in size, population, resources and global relevance, which make a strict ranking impossible. Its conclusion is that governments should assess them according to contemporary strategic circumstances rather than their historical origins alone.

The analysis does not identify Cayman as a military flashpoint or say it faces a specific external threat. It instead places the territory in a broader group whose maritime geography and economic value were becoming more relevant as competition intensifies.

Residents in Grand Cayman are reminded that the islands’ size does not limit their importance. Cayman’s location, waters and political ties give it a place in wider debates about security, trade and access to ocean space. That also means London’s decisions about its overseas territories could carry more weight than geography alone might suggest.

A Shift In How Small Islands Are Seen

Pierini’s broader warning is that pressure on European overseas territories could test the legal and democratic systems that govern them. He said disruptive actions against such territories could "shake the legal foundations of European states" and destabilise political institutions.

For Cayman, the immediate lesson is not a Greenland-style confrontation. It is that the strategic value of small islands is being reassessed. In that context, the study says the Caribbean could carry more weight in Europe’s geopolitical thinking as maritime resources, shipping routes and security concerns gain prominence.

The Carnegie analysis leaves governments with a task. They are urged to view overseas territories in the present, not through history alone. For Cayman, that suggests a territory whose role may continue to be measured not just in local terms, but in the wider calculations of Britain and other powers watching maritime space more closely.