Archive for category: Accountability

592 GUARDIAN♦ACCOUNTABILITY♦INTEGRITY IN JOURNALISM♦GUYANA

Darkness Without Accountability: Guyana’s Power Crisis and the Price of Delay.

---

OPINION BY: Staff Writer October 2026

Madagascar’s government removed an energy minister and later dissolved its cabinet when electricity and water failures ignited unrest. In Guyana, by contrast, the public has endured recurring blackouts while the Gas-to-Energy promise of cheaper, more reliable power has slipped years beyond its original deadline—and the national response has been more spending, more assurances, and still no clear personal accountability.

Madagascar’s electricity crisis offers a sobering lesson for Guyana: when a government cannot guarantee the most basic utility service, public anger does not remain confined to a technical explanation, a press release, or another promise of works to come.

There, persistent blackouts and water shortages sparked youth-led demonstrations. The government imposed curfews, dismissed its Energy Minister, and then dissolved the cabinet as the crisis deepened. Those steps did not solve the structural failures overnight, but they conveyed an essential principle: when essential services collapse, somebody in authority must answer. 

Guyana’s situation is different in circumstance, but the central question is uncomfortably similar: who is accountable when citizens are left in darkness almost daily?

The Wales Gas-to-Energy project was sold as the answer—a 300-megawatt development expected to improve reliability and support a 50 percent reduction in electricity tariffs. It was initially expected to deliver by the end of 2024. Yet the official schedule now places first power only at the end of 2026, with full combined-cycle operation projected for June 2027.

So Guyanese have not received the promised 50 percent reduction in electricity bills. Instead, many consumers are effectively experiencing what might be called a  100 percent reduction in electricity supply whenever their homes, shops, offices, equipment and livelihoods are cut off by outages.

That is not merely an inconvenience. It is lost production, spoiled food, damaged appliances, interrupted learning, disrupted health care, insecurity, unbearable heat, and mounting costs for every household and business compelled to purchase fuel, generators, batteries, inverters or other alternatives.

From deadline to delay

The issue is not whether a major power project can face technical challenges. It is whether a government that repeatedly advertised a 2024 delivery date can now treat a two-and-a-half-year delay as an ordinary adjustment—without a transparent accounting of responsibility, cost consequences, contractual remedies, or consequences for failures in project management.

Government statements now indicate that the initial gas turbine should be available by the end of 2026, while the full system is expected only in 2027. Moreover, the government has clarified that the long-promised 50 percent tariff reduction is tied to attaining at least 228 megawatts of GtE supply—not the limited initial power expected at year-end.

The public deserves direct answers:

⇒ Who approved the original timetable, and what evidence supported it?

⇒  What precisely caused the project to miss its 2024 delivery target?

⇒ What penalties, if any, have been imposed on contractors or project managers?

⇒ What additional costs—direct and indirect—has Guyana borne because reliable GtE capacity was not delivered on time?

⇒ On what published date can households and businesses reasonably expect the advertised 50 percent tariff reduction?

Until those questions are answered in documents, not slogans, Guyanese are being asked to bear the consequences of a project over which they had no control.

Another US$800 million

President Irfaan Ali has said the next six months will be critical, pointing to mandatory maintenance, generation overhauls, limited reserve capacity, and aged transmission and distribution infrastructure. He has also stated that GPL estimates close to US$800 million will be needed over five years to upgrade the transmission and distribution network alone.

That announcement should not pass without rigorous public scrutiny.

US$800 million is not a casual estimate. It is an enormous prospective public commitment—particularly when the country is already financing an overdue flagship energy project and citizens remain exposed to unreliable service. Yet the public has not been presented with a granular, independently reviewable scope showing how much is allocated to substations, feeders, transformers, dispatch systems, transmission lines, loss reduction, storage, maintenance, consultants, procurement, contingency, and project supervision.

Guyanese should not be asked to accept a US$800 million figure on faith while enduring daily shutdowns. If the grid’s deficiencies are sufficiently grave to require that scale of spending, then GPL and the Government must publish the engineering assessment, the project list, implementation timetable, procurement pathway, financing sources, performance indicators, and the names of those responsible for delivery.

The InterEnergy question

The InterEnergy Group consultancy raises an even more pressing issue. Government has publicly defended a proposed two-year arrangement with the Dominican Republic-based company at approximately US $15.6 million – in a no bid contract, describing its purpose as supervising projects, modernizing GPL’s management systems, overhauling the utility’s operations, and improving reliability and efficiency.

But that mandate demands measurable results—not broad language.

If customers continue to experience near-daily interruptions, the public is entitled to know:

⇒ What exact deliverables has InterEnergy been contracted to produce?

⇒ What reliability targets, outage-reduction benchmarks and reporting requirements apply?

⇒ Who measures performance, and will the results be published monthly?

⇒ What part of the US$15 million is for technical supervision, management reform, training, systems upgrades, or other work?

⇒ If the consultancy is meant to strengthen reliability, why has GPL not publicly set out its outage data, failure analysis, corrective-action program, and milestones for improvement?

A consultant cannot be paid millions merely to narrate a crisis that citizens experience every day. Its value must be demonstrated in a functioning system: fewer feeder trips, faster restoration, better reserve capacity, maintained generators, credible planning, and transparent reporting.

A question of leadership

The President’s stated plan is to stabilize the supply over six months through generation overhauls, additional capacity at critical points, and completion of the Berbice-Demerara interconnection.  Those may be necessary interventions. But necessity does not erase the fact that Guyana is being asked to endure another period of uncertainty after years of assurances that GtE would make power cheaper, cleaner and more dependable.

The country cannot build a manufacturing economy, attract energy-intensive investment, protect small businesses, or ask citizens to embrace a modernizing future while electricity remains a daily gamble.

Madagascar showed what happens when service failure becomes a national political crisis. Guyana should not wait for similar public desperation before embracing the standards that ought already to apply: full disclosure, independent oversight, enforceable timelines, contract accountability, named responsibility, and consequences when promises fail.

No nation becomes an energy powerhouse by issuing explanations during blackouts.

It becomes one by delivering power—reliably, affordably, and on time.

 

 

592 GUARDIAN♦ACCOUNTABILITY♦INTEGRITY IN JOURNALISM♦GUYANA

Guyana: Stop Sleepwalking Through Failure

---

OPINION BY :Hem Kumar October 2026 

The lights go out. People curse GPL, post a complaint online, light a candle, start the generator if they can afford one, throw out spoiled food, and wait. The next day, another blackout comes. More appliances are damaged. Businesses lose money. Children cannot study. Patients and elderly citizens suffer in overheated homes. Families are forced to endure the indignity of living in a country overflowing with oil wealth but struggling to keep a bulb lit.

And still, too many Guyanese shrug.

They complain in private, whisper on minibuses, rage on Facebook, call radio programs, and then retreat back into the same helpless silence that has allowed incompetence to settle comfortably into public life.

That silence is not patience. It is permission.

For more than a month, Guyana has been subjected to serious and recurring electricity and water  failures; because when the power fails, the water stop flowing. These are not small inconveniences. Electricity is not a luxury reserved for the wealthy. It keeps food from spoiling, businesses functioning, classrooms productive, medicines refrigerated, medical equipment operating and homes safe. When a government, through its agencies and public utilities, cannot reliably provide electricity and water, it has failed in one of its most basic duties to the population.

Yet where is the national outrage equal to the offence?

Guyana is now an oil-producing state earning billions and boasting constantly about development, infrastructure, modernisation and transformation. Ministers fly abroad to tell investors that Guyana is the next great frontier. Government spokesmen speak grandly of growth figures, massive projects and a prosperous future.

But what kind of prosperity leaves citizens sitting in darkness?

What kind of transformation means shopkeepers must discard perishable goods because the power has failed again? What kind of economic miracle demands that small businesses buy generators, pay higher fuel bills, lose customers and absorb damaged equipment because public authorities cannot ensure a functioning electricity system? What kind of development leaves working families to sweat through the night while officials offer stale explanations and vague assurances?

The recent national response to the MV Barima disaster tells an even more troubling story. More than 100 lives were lost. More than 100 human beings—parents, children, relatives, workers, friends—were swallowed up by a tragedy that should have shaken the conscience of this country from coast to hinterland.

What followed should have been a sustained national demand for truth and accountability. Citizens should have demanded full disclosure of the circumstances, safety procedures, oversight failures, rescue arrangements, official communications, investigative findings and responsibility at every level.

Instead, the country was met with silence, delays and the familiar fading of public outrage. A group of young Guyanese held a silent protest against official silence. Their action carried a message the entire country should have heard: lives cannot be treated as statistics, and a government cannot simply wait for grief to evaporate.

But the wider public response remained painfully weak. Silence in Guyana is not a failure of courage. It is a failure of solidarity, and the government has priced it in.

Guyana’s government increasingly lives elsewhere. Oil revenue flows to the state from foreign operators, and the fiscal link between what the public pays and what the government can spend has weakened. A ruling party that does not need its citizens’ money has little reason to fear their patience running out. 

The result is what we are watching: ministers still in post eleven weeks on, salvage bids sitting for two weeks with no winner named, and a Commission of Inquiry now advertising for persons of interest to come forward while the Executive offers nothing of its own.

This publication does not conclude that nothing can be done. The young people who stood silently outside the Office of the President understood something their elders have not: when a grievance is not naturally shared, it has to be made shared. That is the work of organizing, of turnout, of testimony, and of a press that keeps the names of the dead in front of citizens who would otherwise move on. It is slow, and it is the only method that does not end with a colonel in front of the palace, as Madagascar’s did.

Here are the demands, and they are small enough that refusing them says everything:

♦Name the winning salvage bidder, publish all three bids, and give the Commission binding authority over how the wreck is raised.

♦Publish the Barima’s inspection and certification history, and the Coast Guard’s response timeline for the night of July 18.

♦Hold the Commission’s hearings in public, in full, on schedule.

♦Let the families, not the Ministry, choose who stands beside them.

That is the paradox of Guyana. People complain that politicians are arrogant, dismissive and insulated. They complain that ministers do not listen, public agencies do not answer, contracts are shrouded in secrecy, public money disappears into questionable schemes, and ordinary people are treated as an afterthought.

But every excuse has a political beneficiary: the people already in power.

A government that meets no serious resistance will become increasingly comfortable with neglect. A minister who is never forced to account publicly will become more dismissive. A public corporation that is never confronted by organised consumers will continue to offer excuses in place of results. Every citizen who quietly adapts to failure helps create the conditions for its repetition.

This is not a call for violence. It is not a call to burn, loot, destroy or endanger another citizen. Those actions serve no public cause and usually give authorities an excuse to suppress legitimate dissent. This is a call for Guyanese to become citizens again.

Look at the world. In Serbia, the deaths of  16 people triggered sustained public agitation and relentless demands for accountability. Citizens did not allow official statements to close the matter. They maintained public pressure until the political consequences could no longer be ignored.

In Madagascar, thousands of young people have taken to the streets in response to recurring water and electricity failures. Their country, too, has endured political turbulence and severe state failures. The situation has had deadly and troubling consequences, and no sensible society should seek to reproduce that violence. But the lesson is unmistakable: citizens who refuse to be ignored can force government to confront its failures.

Guyana does not have to import chaos. It must import courage.

The country needs citizens who will stand outside GPL offices and demand real answers, not polished statements. It needs peaceful marches and pickets that last longer than one afternoon and cannot be managed away with a photograph and a promise. It needs consumer organisations to document losses, business groups to tally the cost of outages, legal advocates to test whether public authorities have met their duties, and journalists to pursue every claim until it is answered.

It needs churches, unions, youth organisations, professional bodies, parent groups and community associations to stop behaving as though public failure is somebody else’s problem.

Demand the outage data. Demand the names of the responsible decision-makers. Demand the maintenance records. Demand the generation-capacity figures. Demand a truthful explanation of why a petroleum-producing country cannot guarantee steady power. Demand deadlines that can be measured. Demand consequences when those deadlines are missed.

And above all, stop allowing political tribalism to weaken public outrage.

If you condemn blackouts only when the other party is in office, you are not defending citizens—you are performing for a political team. If you excuse failure because your preferred party holds power, you are helping to build the same system you claim to hate. Darkness does not ask whether a household is PPP, PNC, AFC, APNU, WPA, or politically unaffiliated. Spoiled food does not recognise party colours. A damaged refrigerator does not care who you voted for. A child trying to study in the heat does not benefit from partisan excuses.

This is where Guyanese must grow up politically.

The government should understand that people are watching, recording, questioning and organising. GPL should understand that citizens will not simply absorb losses while executives and officials hide behind technical jargon. Every minister should understand that a title is not a shield from accountability. Every agency should understand that public money comes with public obligations.

The age of accepting “we are working on it” must end.

But resignation is exactly what failure depends on.

The people of Guyana must wake up. Not tomorrow, after another blackout. Not after another avoidable tragedy. Not when another family loses income, another shopkeeper loses stock, another student loses study time, or another official tells the country to be patient.

Wake up now.

Organise peacefully. Speak loudly. Document everything. Demand answers. Return again and again until those entrusted with public power understand that the citizens of Guyana are no longer prepared to live in darkness—literal or political.

Because a people who sleepwalk through every failure should not be shocked when those in authority conclude that they can govern them without consequence.

A government that does not depend on its people’s money can afford to ignore their grief. It cannot afford to ignore their attention. Keep looking.

 

592 GUARDIAN♦ACCOUNTABILITY♦INTEGRITY IN JOURNALISM♦GUYANA

  MV Barima: Raise the Vessel Before the Truth Sinks

---

OPINION BY: Hem Kumar October 2026

The MV Barima is still underwater. But the questions surrounding it are rising rapidly.

Weeks have passed since bids were reportedly opened for the salvage of the vessel, yet the country has not been given a full public account of what has happened since. There has been no adequate disclosure of the bidders, the proposed salvage methods, the cost of the operation, the criteria for evaluating bids, the anticipated date of an award, or the timetable for raising the vessel.

At the same time, the Commission of Inquiry is proceeding. 

That creates a fundamental public-interest concern: how can Guyana be assured of a complete, credible and technically sound investigation if the vessel at the centre of the incident remains submerged and unavailable for proper forensic examination?

The MV  Barima is not merely a wreck to be removed from the water. It may be the most important physical witness in the entire matter.

It may hold evidence about the impact, the point and angle of collision, structural damage, navigational decisions, mechanical condition, communications equipment, safety systems, maintenance failures, crew procedures and whether the official account of events matches what actually happened.

Witnesses can forget. Records can be incomplete. Statements can be self-serving. But physical evidence has a way of contradicting convenient narratives. That is why the recovery of the MV Barima must not be treated as an administrative afterthought while a Commission of Inquiry presses ahead.

 “The vessel is not simply the subject of the inquiry. It may be the inquiry’s most important witness.”

The Public Is Still Waiting

The public has a right to know whether the salvage exercise is being pursued with the urgency, competence and transparency demanded by the seriousness of the incident. The concern is not that a salvage operation requires time. Marine salvage can be complex. Water depth, currents, weather, the vessel’s structural stability, environmental conditions, divers’ safety, equipment availability and the risk of further damage can all affect the pace of recovery.

But complexity is not a license for secrecy.

If there are technical problems, the Government should say so. If the procurement process has encountered difficulties, explain them. If bids were non-compliant, disclose that fact. If a contract has been awarded, identify the contractor, the contract sum, its qualifications, the scope of works, the expected completion date and the safeguards governing preservation of evidence. Silence invites suspicion.

And in a country where procurement controversy, opaque contracting and weak disclosure have become recurring public concerns, the Government should understand that citizens will not be reassured by general statements that “the matter is being handled.”

Handled by whom? Under what process? At what cost? Under what oversight? On what timetable? Those are the questions that matter.

“The Government cannot demand public confidence while withholding the information required to earn it.”

 An Inquiry Without the Wreck?

The Commission must hear from crew members, port authorities, marine officials, vessel operators, technical personnel, witnesses and every agency with responsibility for safety, navigation, maintenance and emergency response. It must examine logs, communication records, maintenance documentation, certifications, crew rosters, navigational records, inspection reports and any available video or electronic data.

Yet none of that should remove the need for the vessel itself to be examined.

A proper investigation must ask whether the physical condition of the MV Barima can corroborate—or undermine—the testimony being presented before the Commission. It must determine what damage the vessel sustained, how that damage occurred, whether there were pre-existing structural issues, whether key equipment was functional and whether the wreck contains material evidence that has not yet been identified.

This is not an argument against the Commission. It is an argument for a Commission that gets the full truth.

“An inquiry that cannot examine the central physical evidence risks becoming an inquiry into recollections, not reality.”

 A Procurement Matter and an Evidence Matter

The salvage of the MV Barima is both a procurement issue and an evidentiary issue.

It involves public funds. That means the public has a right to know whether the State is obtaining technical competence and value for money. Salvage contracts can be expensive, highly specialized and vulnerable to cost overruns, variations and delays. A poorly structured contract can leave taxpayers paying more while the vessel remains underwater and evidence deteriorates.

It also involves the preservation of possible evidence. That means the contractor’s competence cannot be measured by price alone.

The selected company must have demonstrated expertise in marine salvage, underwater recovery, wreck stabilisation, environmental protection, vessel handling and evidence preservation. Its work must be governed by a clear protocol that protects the integrity of the wreck and documents every stage of the recovery.

That requires transparent evaluation criteria and independent technical oversight.

If the contractor is selected solely through an opaque process, and the wreck is later damaged, altered or improperly handled during recovery, the country may lose evidence it cannot recover.

“The cheapest salvage operation is not necessarily the best one if it costs Guyana the evidence needed to establish the truth.”

Questions for the Authorities

The agencies and officials responsible should provide prompt, specific answers to the following questions.

To the Procuring Entity and Relevant Ministry

⇒ On what date were bids opened for the MV Barima salvage operation?

⇒ How many bids were received, and which companies, partnerships or consortiums submitted them?

⇒ What were the proposed prices, timelines and technical methods submitted by each bidder?

⇒ What procurement method was used, and under what statutory authority or procurement procedure?

⇒ Has a preferred bidder been identified or a contract awarded?

⇒ If a contract has been awarded, who received it, what is the contract value, what is the duration and what are the principal contractual deliverables?

⇒ If a contract has not been awarded, what specific issue is delaying the evaluation or award?

⇒ What qualifications and documented marine-salvage experience were required of bidders?

⇒ What weight was assigned to price, technical competence, equipment, safety record, environmental safeguards and evidence-preservation capacity?

⇒ Was any independent marine-salvage specialist involved in evaluating the bids?

⇒  Will the full bid-evaluation report, contract award information and eventual contract be publicly released?

⇒What is the projected total cost to taxpayers, including salvage, monitoring, security, technical inspection, transport, storage and environmental mitigation?

⇒ What measures will prevent contract variations, delay claims or unexplained cost escalations?

To the Commission of Inquiry

⇒ Has the Commission formally requested the urgent recovery of the MV Barima?

⇒ Does the Commission regard physical examination of the wreck as necessary to reaching final conclusions?

⇒ Will the Commission defer final findings until the vessel is raised and examined?

⇒ What evidence has been secured from the wreck site while the vessel remains underwater?

⇒ Has the Commission received expert advice on the risks of   deterioration, disturbance or loss of physical evidence over time?

⇒ Will the Commission appoint or retain independent marine engineers, salvage specialists, naval architects and forensic investigators?

⇒ Will the experts who inspect the wreck be independent of the vessel’s owner, operator, regulator, insurer, Government agencies and salvage contractor?

⇒ Will the Commission make the full technical inspection report available to the public?

⇒ Will the Commission revisit witness evidence if physical examination of the vessel reveals contradictions or new facts?

⇒ Will it identify and explain any limitation in its findings caused by the inability to inspect the vessel before hearings conclude?

To the Maritime and Safety Authorities

⇒ What was the certified operational condition of the MV Barima  before the incident?

⇒ When was the vessel last inspected, and by whom?

⇒ Were all required certifications valid at the time?

⇒ What maintenance records, defect reports and repair logs have been secured?

⇒ What navigational, communication and tracking data have been preserved?

⇒ Are there records of radio exchanges, distress calls, bridge communications, engine-room logs or other operational information?

⇒ What emergency-response procedures were activated after the incident?

⇒ Was the wreck site secured immediately to prevent disturbance, unauthorized access, loss of evidence or environmental harm?

⇒ What is the current condition of the vessel, and is there a risk that further deterioration will affect the recovery effort?

The Need for Independent Technical Examination

Once the vessel is raised, Guyana should insist upon an independent examination by suitably qualified professionals.

That examination should include marine engineers, naval architects, collision-reconstruction experts, surveyors, safety specialists and, where necessary, forensic investigators. The experts must not simply be persons selected because they are convenient to the Government or connected to agencies whose performance may itself be under review.

Their mandate should be public and specific. It should include examination of:

⇒ Hull damage, breach points and the direction of impact

⇒ Structural integrity before and after recovery

⇒ Engines, steering systems, propulsion and mechanical equipment

⇒ Navigation, radar, radio and communications systems

⇒ Safety equipment, emergency systems and lifesaving appliances

⇒ Maintenance records, certification history and outstanding defects

⇒ Electronic, navigational and operational data where recoverable

⇒ Any evidence relevant to the cause of the incident and the adequacy of the emergency response

The recovery process should also be documented thoroughly through photographs, video, chain-of-custody records and contemporaneous technical reports.

That is how public confidence is built: not with assurances, but with evidence that can be independently assessed.

“The country does not need another official narrative. It needs an evidence-based account that can withstand scrutiny.”

The Broader Governance Problem

The MV Barima matter is not occurring in isolation. It sits within a wider Guyanese pattern in which large expenditures, strategic projects and controversial public decisions often proceed with limited disclosure and little meaningful opportunity for citizens to test the claims being made in their name.

Guyana is no longer a country that can excuse weak governance by pleading poverty or scarcity. The country now controls unprecedented oil revenues. Public spending is expanding. Infrastructure plans are multiplying. Contracts are becoming larger, more complex and more consequential.

That makes transparency more urgent, not less.

The danger is that “development” becomes a word used to silence questions. Anyone who asks about procurement is accused of opposing progress. Anyone who seeks documentation is portrayed as obstructive. Anyone who demands independent scrutiny is told that Government must be allowed to work.

“Oil wealth should have produced stronger safeguards, not a culture in which the public is asked to accept less information and more assurances.”

Raise the Vessel. Release the Facts.

The Government must act with urgency, but urgency must mean more than moving hearings forward and issuing occasional statements.

It must mean finalizing the salvage process transparently. It must mean identifying the contractor and publishing the essential terms of the contract. It must mean preserving the wreck as evidence. It must mean ensuring that independent experts examine it. It must mean giving the Commission the material it needs before it reaches final conclusions.

The MV Barima must be raised. The evidence must be secured. The procurement process must be explained.

The Commission must not be allowed to deliver a final report without confronting the question of whether it had access to the central physical evidence.

Because if the vessel remains below the surface while the inquiry moves ahead above it, Guyanese may be left with a report—but not necessarily the whole truth. The country deserves better than a managed explanation.It deserves the facts.

 

592 GUARDIAN♦ACCOUNTABILITY♦INTEGRITY INJOURNALISM♦GUYANA

Washington’s Echo Chamber: The Caribbean Must Not Trade Sovereignty for Access

---

OPINION BY : Hem Kumar October 2026

But beneath the attractive language lies a question that citizens of Guyana, Trinidad and Tobago and the wider Caribbean must ask without fear or apology:

At what point does cooperation with the United States stop being cooperation and become compliance?

That question became impossible to ignore at the United Nations General Assembly when United States President Donald Trump announced that the world should replace the term “Artificial Intelligence” with “Superintelligence,” or “SI.” The term “artificial,” he argued, made intelligence sound fake. He said the United States would use “Superintelligence” and hoped the rest of the world would follow. 

Then Trinidad and Tobago’s Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar rose and publicly declared: “I want to agree with President Trump.” She endorsed the terminology and said, “We commit to that.”

The issue was never really AI versus SI. The issue was the reflex.

A prime minister of an independent Caribbean nation had been given a choice: treat an American president’s spontaneous preference as a position to be considered, debated and evaluated—or embrace it immediately before the world. The response sent a message far beyond technology. It suggested that Washington speaks, and Port of Spain echoes. That is not what sovereignty is supposed to look like.

Sovereignty Is Not Ceremony

A country does not become sovereign merely because it possesses a flag, an anthem, a passport, a coat of arms and a seat at the United Nations.

Sovereignty is the practical ability to make independent decisions. It means a government can listen to Washington, Beijing, London, Brussels, Caracas or any other capital, but still arrive at a position because it serves the national interest—not because a powerful country has announced its preference.

But it must also retain the ability to disagree. That is the test.

The problem is not that Trinidad and Tobago may share a position with the United States. The problem is a public display of uncritical alignment, particularly on an issue where there was no evident domestic policy process, scientific consultation, parliamentary discussion or CARICOM position.

A country that cannot pause before saying “we commit” to an American president’s terminology may eventually find it difficult to pause before committing to his foreign-policy priorities, his sanctions agenda, his security architecture or his geopolitical conflicts.

The Shield and the Strategy

This concern becomes more serious when placed alongside the US-led  Shield of the Americas initiative, launched in 2026 and expanded at the UN General Assembly. Guyana and Trinidad and Tobago are among the governments that have joined this hemispheric framework.

Who could oppose fighting drug trafficking, firearms smuggling, money laundering, human trafficking, cybercrime and transnational criminal networks? No responsible government should. But citizens must distinguish between genuine crime-fighting cooperation and an arrangement that progressively turns regional governments into instruments for carrying out Washington’s security and diplomatic agenda.

The communiqué adopted under the Shield rests on three pillars:

♦ Economic cooperation.

♦ Security cooperation.

♦ Multilateral coordination.

That third pillar deserves the closest attention.

“Multilateral coordination” sounds harmless. In practice, it can mean that governments which should be independently assessing international questions begin to coordinate positions in the United Nations, the Organization of American States and other international bodies around a US-defined agenda. The danger is not always a formal order from Washington. It is often subtler.

It is the creation of a political environment in which smaller states learn that access, security assurances, investment opportunities and favorable diplomatic attention are connected to proving that they are “reliable” partners. A reliable partner gradually becomes one that does not embarrass Washington, does not challenge Washington and does not depart too far from Washington’s preferred line.

That is how sovereignty can be weakened without a single flag being lowered.

The Security Lever

The Shield of the Americas communiqué envisages coordinated action against 24 groups identified as narco-terrorist or foreign-terrorist threats, including potential sanctions, asset freezes, immigration restrictions and legal action against persons who knowingly provide support It also contemplates using the Organization of American States’ mechanisms under the Rio Treaty, or TIAR, to examine collective action against such groups.

That may sound like a narrowly focused anti-crime initiative. But regional citizens should understand what such a structure can become.

Once governments accept a common security framework, the central question becomes: who defines the threat? Will threats be defined independently by Guyana, Trinidad and Tobago, CARICOM and other regional states on the basis of evidence, law and domestic interests? Or will the definition flow primarily from US intelligence assessments, US designations and US geopolitical priorities?

Those are not academic concerns.

Before Guyana signs on to any sanctions-orientated or security-related framework, the public has a right to know:

 ♦ Which organizations are being targeted.

 ♦ What evidence supports the designations.

 ♦ What actions Guyana has agreed to take.

 ♦ Whether Guyanese law authorizes those actions.

 ♦ Whether Parliament has been informed.

 ♦ What obligations are being assumed by Guyana’s police, military, intelligence, financial and immigration agencies.

 ♦ What protections exist for Guyanese citizens, businesses and institutions.

 ♦ What happens if Guyana concludes that a US-backed measure is not in its national interest.

Security cooperation without transparency can easily become security dependence.

Guyana’s Special Vulnerability

Guyana’s situation is more complicated than Trinidad and Tobago’s because Guyana faces a real and continuing threat from Venezuela over the Essequibo region.

That reality cannot be minimized.

Guyana is entitled to seek security partnerships. It is entitled to welcome diplomatic support from the United States. It is entitled to strengthen maritime surveillance, intelligence sharing, border monitoring, cybersecurity, coast-guard capacity and defense readiness. It is entitled to seek support for the protection of its offshore petroleum assets and its territorial integrity.

No sensible Guyanese should demand that the country isolate itself while Venezuela maintains an unlawful claim to more than two-thirds of Guyana’s territory.

But it is precisely because Guyana is vulnerable that Guyana must be careful.

A country facing a security threat can become so anxious for protection that it begins to mistake dependency for partnership. It can become reluctant to take any position that may irritate the power it believes is protecting it. It can become more concerned with demonstrating loyalty than defending policy independence.

That is the danger Guyana must avoid.

The United States may be an important ally in the defense of Guyana’s sovereignty. But Guyana must never allow the defense of its sovereignty against Venezuela to become the justification for surrendering its diplomatic sovereignty to Washington.

That would be a cruel irony: defending Essequibo from external control while allowing Guyana’s foreign policy to become externally managed.

Ali’s Washington Problem

President Irfaan Ali has enthusiastically emphasized Guyana’s expanding relationship with the United States. His government has highlighted deeper US-Guyana security cooperation, praised Trump’s leadership and presented Guyana as a committed partner in Washington’s hemispheric security initiatives.

Again, engagement is not the offense.

When Guyana signs a US-led communiqué that includes “multilateral coordination,” the Government must explain what that means.

♦ Does Guyana retain its absolute freedom to vote independently at the United Nations?

♦ Can Guyana support Washington on the Essequibo controversy but differ with Washington on Cuba, Palestine, sanctions, trade disputes, climate financing, migration, development policy or relations with China?

♦ Can Guyana take a CARICOM position when that position differs from the United States?

♦ Can Guyana say no to a military, security, sanctions or intelligence proposal that it considers contrary to its law or interests?

♦ Or has Georgetown accepted the idea that being a “good partner” requires keeping step with Washington on every major issue?

Those questions cannot be dismissed as anti-American. They are pro-Guyana questions.

Partnership Is Not Obedience

A mature relationship between states is not built on obedience. It is built on clarity, reciprocity and mutual respect.

Guyana can say to Washington:

♦ “We value your support for Guyana’s territorial integrity.”

♦ “We welcome intelligence and security cooperation against shared threats.”

♦ “We will work with you against narcotics trafficking, illegal arms, money laundering and organised crime.”

♦ “We will defend democracy, international law and the right of states to live free from external aggression.”

But Guyana must also be able to say:

♦ “We will make our own decisions.”

♦ “We will not adopt every US priority as Guyana’s priority.”

♦ “We will not join conflicts without a clear Guyanese interest.”

♦ “We will not treat regional consultation as a replacement for Guyana’s independent judgment.”

♦ “We will not use national security as an excuse to avoid parliamentary scrutiny.”

♦ “We will not allow security cooperation to compromise the country’s non-negotiable right to think, speak and vote for itself.”

That is what equal partnership sounds like.

CARICOM Must Not Be Reduced

The Caribbean’s strength has always rested on its ability to act collectively while maintaining an independent voice. CARICOM countries are small, but they are not insignificant. They have moral authority, diplomatic experience and a long record of defending international law, decolonization, peace, climate justice and the rights of small states.

Guyana has historically been part of that tradition. 

♦ It is inconsistent for Guyana to demand respect for international law in the Essequibo controversy, then become silent when the same international-law principles are inconvenient for a powerful ally.

♦ It is inconsistent to argue that small states must not be bullied by larger powers, then allow Guyana’s positions to be moulded by the expectations of the hemisphere’s dominant power.

♦ It is inconsistent to call for a stronger multilateral system while joining arrangements that may reduce multilateral consultation to coordination behind Washington’s lead.

Parliament and the Public

The Shield of the Americas communiqué may not itself be a binding treaty. It is described as a declaration of intention, not a ratified agreement that automatically creates enforceable legal duties.

But non-binding documents often become the foundation for binding actions.

They can lead to intelligence-sharing protocols, sanctions measures, policing agreements, military cooperation, financial restrictions, technology contracts, data-sharing arrangements, diplomatic commitments and OAS resolutions. The public may only discover the full implications after political commitments have already been made.

That is why Parliament must not be treated as an afterthought.

The Government of Guyana should place before the National Assembly:

 ♦ The complete communiqué and every annex, protocol and side agreement connected to Guyana’s participation.

 ♦ A list of the 24 groups referred to in the security component.

 ♦ A legal opinion on Guyana’s obligations and discretion under the arrangement.

 ♦ The financial, operational and staffing commitments required of Guyanese agencies.

 ♦ The terms governing intelligence sharing and personal-data protections.

 ♦ A statement of whether US personnel, equipment or operational assets will be stationed or deployed in Guyana.

♦ A clear explanation of how Guyana will preserve independent voting and diplomatic positions in international forums.

♦ The procedures through which Guyana may decline, amend or withdraw from proposed joint actions.

The public cannot defend national sovereignty if it is denied the information required to understand what has been agreed in its name.

The Real Playbook

The public should understand the playbook. 

♦ First comes the language of shared values: democracy, security, freedom, prosperity and sovereignty.

♦ Then comes the language of common threats: criminal networks, drugs, arms trafficking, hostile states, cyberattacks and foreign influence.

♦ Then comes the invitation to coordinate: intelligence-sharing, sanctions, border initiatives, digital standards, investment screening and common diplomatic positions.

♦ Then comes the expectation of political alignment: support the designation, vote for the resolution, adopt the terminology, repeat the talking point, endorse the priority and demonstrate reliability.

♦ Finally, independent disagreement begins to look like disloyalty.

The result is an echo chamber. Washington speaks. Regional governments repeat. Citizens are told it is partnership.

 Guyana Must Speak for Guyana

The question is not whether Guyana should have relations with the United States. Of course it should. The question is whether Guyana will have a foreign policy of its own.

President Ali must therefore make clear that Guyana’s participation in the Shield of the Americas does not mean automatic alignment with Washington on foreign policy, sanctions, military action or UN voting.

♦ Guyana must cooperate where cooperation serves Guyana.

♦ Guyana must resist where resistance serves Guyana.

♦ Guyana must consult with its CARICOM neighbors before allowing foreign powers to shape the region’s collective agenda.

♦ And Guyana must remember that sovereignty is not measured by how loudly a government praises an ally. It is measured by whether, when the moment comes, that government can say:

Washington has spoken. Now Guyana will speak for Guyana.