CARICOM at a Crossroads: Trinidad and Tobago’s Unprecedented Break

Staff – Writer

An unprecedented fracture has emerged at the heart of Caribbean integration.
In a move without parallel in CARICOM’s 52-year history, Trinidad and Tobago has declared it will not recognise Dr. Carla Barnett as Secretary-General beyond the end of her current term in August 2026—flatly rejecting what regional leaders insist is a valid reappointment.

Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar’s position is not merely dissent; it is outright derecognition. That distinction matters. CARICOM has weathered disagreements before—over trade, free movement, and foreign policy—but never has a member state openly refused to acknowledge the authority of the Community’s chief administrative officer.

This is not a procedural quibble. It is an institutional rupture.
At the center of the dispute are allegations that strike at the credibility of the organisation’s governance: claims that the Secretary-General influenced or authored an official communiqué defending her own reappointment, and that Trinidad and Tobago’s representation was deliberately excluded from a decisive retreat via informal communication.

Whether proven or not, the mere plausibility of such claims has already inflicted reputational damage on the Community’s decision-making processes.
Equally troubling is the response—or lack thereof—from CARICOM leadership. Silence, deflection, and an apparent unwillingness to revisit the February decision have only deepened the perception of opacity. In regional governance, process is legitimacy. Once that is compromised, authority becomes contestable.

Persad-Bissessar’s stance goes further still. By signaling indifference to potential expulsion and openly pivoting toward alternative trade alliances in the Middle East, Africa, India, and South America, Trinidad and Tobago is testing the practical value of CARICOM membership itself. That is a dangerous precedent for a bloc already struggling with implementation deficits and uneven commitment among its members.
So, is this the beginning of the end for CARICOM?
Not necessarily—but it may well be the beginning of its most serious credibility crisis.

Regional integration has always depended less on treaties and more on political will and mutual trust. What is now unfolding suggests a breakdown in both. If one of CARICOM’s most economically significant members can reject a core institutional authority without consequence, the Community risks drifting from a rules-based arrangement into a loose, voluntary association vulnerable to fragmentation.

The real question is no longer about Dr. Barnett’s tenure. It is whether CARICOM’s governance architecture is robust enough to withstand open defiance—or whether it will buckle under the weight of its own unresolved contradictions.

If this moment is not met with transparency, accountability, and institutional reform, it will not be remembered as an isolated dispute. It will be seen as the point at which the Caribbean Community began to quietly unravel.

𝙏𝙝𝙚 592 𝙂𝙪𝙖𝙧𝙙𝙞𝙖𝙣-𝙏𝙧𝙪𝙩𝙝 , 𝘼𝙘𝙘𝙤𝙪𝙣𝙩𝙖𝙗𝙞𝙡𝙞𝙩𝙮, 𝙄𝙣𝙩𝙚𝙜𝙧𝙞𝙩𝙮 𝙄𝙣 𝙂𝙪𝙮𝙖𝙣𝙖 𝘼𝙣𝙙 𝘾𝙖𝙧𝙞𝙗𝙗𝙚𝙖𝙣 𝙋𝙚𝙧𝙨𝙥𝙚𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙫𝙚𝙨.— ✦—

Massive 11,000-Carat Ruby Discovered in Myanmar’s Conflict Zone

𝙏𝙝𝙚 592 𝙂𝙪𝙖𝙧𝙙𝙞𝙖𝙣

Bangkok, Thailand — May 12, 2026 — A rare and exceptionally large ruby weighing approximately 11,000 carats (2.2 kilograms or 4.8 pounds) has been discovered in Myanmar’s famed Mogok gem region, marking one of the most significant gemstone finds in recent decades.


According to state-run media, the rough ruby was unearthed in mid-April near Mogok, located in the upper Mandalay region — an area long regarded as the epicenter of Myanmar’s lucrative ruby mining industry. The discovery occurred shortly after the country’s traditional New Year celebrations.
The newly found gemstone is considered the second-largest ruby ever discovered in Myanmar by weight. While it is roughly half the size of a 21,450-carat ruby uncovered in 1996, experts suggest it may be of greater value due to its superior quality. The stone reportedly exhibits a purplish-red hue with yellowish undertones, moderate transparency, and a highly reflective surface — characteristics associated with high-grade rubies.


Myanmar remains the world’s dominant source of rubies, accounting for up to 90% of global supply, with most originating from Mogok and Mong Hsu. However, the gemstone trade has long been mired in controversy, as both legal and illicit sales have historically provided substantial revenue to military authorities and armed groups.


Human rights organizations, including Global Witness, have repeatedly called on transnational jewelers to halt the purchase of Myanmar-sourced gemstones, citing concerns that proceeds contribute to ongoing conflict and human right.


The discovery comes amid continued political instability in Myanmar. Earlier this year, a new government was installed following elections widely criticized by opposition groups and international observers as lacking credibility. President Min Aung Hlaing, the military leader who seized power in 2021, remains at the helm. He and members of his cabinet recently inspected the ruby in Naypyitaw, the nation’s capital.
Gemstone mining continues to play a dual role in Myanmar’s prolonged internal conflict, serving as a major revenue source for both the military establishment and ethnic armed groups seeking autonomy.

𝙏𝙝𝙚 592 𝙂𝙪𝙖𝙧𝙙𝙞𝙖𝙣-𝙏𝙧𝙪𝙩𝙝 , 𝘼𝙘𝙘𝙤𝙪𝙣𝙩𝙖𝙗𝙞𝙡𝙞𝙩𝙮, 𝙄𝙣𝙩𝙚𝙜𝙧𝙞𝙩𝙮 𝙄𝙣 𝙂𝙪𝙮𝙖𝙣𝙖 𝘼𝙣𝙙 𝘾𝙖𝙧𝙞𝙗𝙗𝙚𝙖𝙣 𝙋𝙚𝙧𝙨𝙥𝙚𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙫𝙚𝙨.— ✦—

 

 

Crossing the Floor—or Chasing the Oil?

BY: Staff — Writer

𝙏𝙝𝙚 592 𝙂𝙪𝙖𝙧𝙙𝙞𝙖𝙣

In a political culture where loyalty has long been worn as a badge of honour, the sudden migration of former APNU/PNC figures into the arms of the People’s Progressive Party (PPP) is not just unusual—it is deeply revealing.

This is not the slow evolution of political thinking. It is not the result of ideological awakening. It is something far more transactional.
When former Members of Parliament and sitting Regional Councillors—individuals who once stood firmly opposed to the PPP’s governance model—now line up to praise that very same administration as visionary, inclusive, and transformative, the Guyanese public is entitled to ask a simple question: what changed?
Guyana changed.

More specifically, Guyana’s oil economy changed the stakes of political alignment. With billions flowing through the state and unprecedented infrastructure expansion underway, proximity to power now carries rewards unlike anything in the country’s history. Access, influence, contracts, and opportunity are no longer abstract—they are tangible, immediate, and immensely valuable.

Against that backdrop, this wave of defections begins to look less like patriotism and more like positioning.
The language used by the defectors—speaking glowingly of “technical expertise,” “inclusive governance,” and “national development”—reads less like conviction and more like careful calibration. These are not new arguments being discovered; they are new advantages being embraced.

And let us be clear: political parties are not social clubs. They are built on ideology, principles, and competing visions for national development. When individuals who once campaigned vigorously against the PPP suddenly find its philosophy appealing, it raises serious questions about whether those principles were ever genuinely held.
Because if ideology can be discarded this easily, what exactly was being defended in the first place?

This is not a story of APNU losing its footing. It is a story of individuals revealing theirs.
In reality, APNU may not have lost loyalists—it may have shed opportunists. And those opportunists have now aligned themselves where they believe the greatest personal benefit lies.

The PPP, for its part, will frame this as validation—proof of its growing national appeal and governance success. But political expansion built on crossovers of convenience carries its own risks. When allegiance is driven by opportunity rather than belief, it is as fluid as the conditions that created it.
Today’s allies can become tomorrow’s critics, just as easily as yesterday’s critics became today’s allies.

What Guyanese citizens are witnessing is not merely political movement—it is a recalibration of ambition in an oil-rich state. The danger lies in mistaking this for unity or progress. True national cohesion is built on shared values and trust, not on the gravitational pull of economic gain.
Oil was supposed to transform Guyana. It has—but perhaps not in the way many hoped.
It has exposed, with uncomfortable clarity, the line between patriotism and opportunism.
And in this moment, that line appears to be shifting.

𝙄𝙣 𝙩𝙤𝙙𝙖𝙮’𝙨 𝙂𝙪𝙮𝙖𝙣𝙖, 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙤𝙣𝙡𝙮 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙨𝙡𝙞𝙘𝙠𝙚𝙧 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙣 𝙤𝙞𝙡 𝙞𝙨 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙚𝙖𝙨𝙚 𝙬𝙞𝙩𝙝 𝙬𝙝𝙞𝙘𝙝 𝙨𝙤-𝙘𝙖𝙡𝙡𝙚𝙙 “𝙪𝙣𝙘𝙤𝙢𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙢𝙞𝙨𝙞𝙣𝙜” 𝙛𝙞𝙜𝙪𝙧𝙚𝙨 𝙝𝙖𝙫𝙚 𝙜𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙨𝙚𝙙 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙞𝙧 𝙬𝙖𝙮 𝙖𝙘𝙧𝙤𝙨𝙨 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙥𝙤𝙡𝙞𝙩𝙞𝙘𝙖𝙡 𝙙𝙞𝙫𝙞𝙙𝙚—𝙣𝙤 𝙡𝙤𝙣𝙜𝙚𝙧 𝙖𝙨𝙠𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙬𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙮 𝙘𝙖𝙣 𝙙𝙤 𝙛𝙤𝙧 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙘𝙤𝙪𝙣𝙩𝙧𝙮, 𝙗𝙪𝙩 𝙦𝙪𝙞𝙚𝙩𝙡𝙮 𝙥𝙤𝙨𝙞𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙢𝙨𝙚𝙡𝙫𝙚𝙨 𝙛𝙤𝙧 𝙬𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙘𝙤𝙪𝙣𝙩𝙧𝙮 𝙘𝙖𝙣 𝙣𝙤𝙬 𝙙𝙤 𝙛𝙤𝙧 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙢.

Free Gas or Costly Lie? Questions Mount Over Hidden Exxon Agreement

𝙏𝙝𝙚 592 𝙂𝙪𝙖𝙧𝙙𝙞𝙖𝙣

Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo says there is no agreement for Guyana to buy gas from ExxonMobil. According to him, the gas for the Wales Gas-to-Energy (GTE) project is “free.” That claim, however, raises more questions than it answers—especially in a context where the government continues to withhold the very documents that could settle the issue once and for all.

If the gas is truly free, where are the agreements to prove it?
For years, the public has been told that the viability of the GTE project rests heavily on this “free gas” arrangement. It was the cornerstone of the promise: cheaper electricity, reduced dependence on heavy fuel oil, and long-term energy stability. But now, credible reports suggest that a Gas Sales Agreement may exist—one that could mean Guyana is paying for its own resource. The government denies this, yet refuses to produce the contracts.
That contradiction is not just troubling—it is unacceptable.
This is not a minor administrative matter. The financial structure of the GTE project will determine electricity tariffs, potential subsidies, and the long-term burden on taxpayers. If Guyana is required to pay commercial rates for gas, the entire economic foundation of the project shifts.

Will electricity still be cut by 50 percent? Or will citizens be forced to subsidize a project they were told would save them money?
The public cannot be expected to rely on verbal assurances while critical documents remain hidden.
Former Finance Minister Winston Jordan is right to demand clarity. If there is no agreement to purchase gas, then publish the evidence. If there is, then explain why the narrative has changed. Either way, the government has an obligation to come clean.
The continued secrecy surrounding the GTE project fuels speculation, erodes trust, and undermines confidence in public management of the country’s most significant energy initiative.

This is not about politics. It is about transparency, accountability, and the responsible management of national resources.
Guyana’s citizens do not need snippets, soundbites, or selective disclosures. They need the full picture.

Publish the agreements. Let the facts speak.

𝙏𝙝𝙚 592 𝙂𝙪𝙖𝙧𝙙𝙞𝙖𝙣-𝙏𝙧𝙪𝙩𝙝 , 𝘼𝙘𝙘𝙤𝙪𝙣𝙩𝙖𝙗𝙞𝙡𝙞𝙩𝙮, 𝙄𝙣𝙩𝙚𝙜𝙧𝙞𝙩𝙮 𝙄𝙣 𝙂𝙪𝙮𝙖𝙣𝙖 𝘼𝙣𝙙 𝘾𝙖𝙧𝙞𝙗𝙗𝙚𝙖𝙣 𝙋𝙚𝙧𝙨𝙥𝙚𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙫𝙚𝙨.— ✦—

Key Witness Alleges Henry Boys Were Killed Over Destroyed Marijuana Farm

𝙏𝙝𝙚 592 𝙂𝙪𝙖𝙧𝙙𝙞𝙖𝙣

The High Court trial into the brutal murders of cousins Joel and Isaiah Henry took a disturbing turn on Tuesday, as key witness Akash Singh delivered chilling testimony linking the killings to a dispute over destroyed marijuana crops in the Berbice backlands.

Singh, who appeared as one of the prosecution’s main witnesses, told the court that he accompanied the two accused—Anil Sancharra, also known as “Dan Pole” or “Rasta,” of D’Edward Village, West Coast Berbice, and Vinod Gopaul, called “Magga,” of Yakusari, Black Bush Polder—into the backdam to plant marijuana seedlings.
According to Singh, the group returned to the area approximately three weeks later, only to discover that their plants had been destroyed, allegedly by pesticide. He further claimed that additional crops at another nearby farm had also been damaged.

Singh testified that while the men were discussing the losses, two teenage boys approached their camp. He alleged that when the issue of the destroyed crops was mentioned, one of the teens laughed—an action that reportedly triggered suspicion.
He told the court that Gopaul confronted the boys, questioning whether they knew anything about the damaged plants. At that point, Singh claimed, one of the teens attempted to flee, prompting a violent response.

“The taller one tried to run,” Singh recounted, alleging that Gopaul attacked him with a cutlass, while Sancharra simultaneously assaulted the other teen.
Although Singh said he could not recall the exact number of blows inflicted, he described the aftermath as gruesome. He testified that he was instructed to assist in tying the bodies onto horses, after which the accused men transported them away from the scene.

Singh further claimed that he was ordered to dispose of evidence, including dismantling the cutlasses used in the attack and discarding them in a nearby canal, along with his blood-stained clothing.
He also told the court that both accused men threatened him with death if he reported what had happened. Despite these threats, Singh stated that he later disclosed the incident to others and eventually provided a full statement to police following his arrest in January 2021.
The trial, being heard in the Berbice High Court, is expected to continue today as the jury examines further testimony surrounding one of Guyana’s most shocking and controversial murder cases.

The gruesome deaths of the Henry cousins in September 2020 sparked nationwide outrage and protests, with calls for justice and accountability still resonating across the country.

𝙏𝙝𝙚 592 𝙂𝙪𝙖𝙧𝙙𝙞𝙖𝙣-𝙏𝙧𝙪𝙩𝙝 , 𝘼𝙘𝙘𝙤𝙪𝙣𝙩𝙖𝙗𝙞𝙡𝙞𝙩𝙮, 𝙄𝙣𝙩𝙚𝙜𝙧𝙞𝙩𝙮 𝙄𝙣 𝙂𝙪𝙮𝙖𝙣𝙖 𝘼𝙣𝙙 𝘾𝙖𝙧𝙞𝙗𝙗𝙚𝙖𝙣 𝙋𝙚𝙧𝙨𝙥𝙚𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙫𝙚𝙨.— ✦—

OPR Probes Alleged Interference by Deputy Police Commissioner in Anti-Crime Operation

𝙏𝙝𝙚 592 𝙂𝙪𝙖𝙧𝙙𝙞𝙖𝙣

The Guyana Police Force has launched an internal investigation into allegations that Deputy Commissioner of Police, Fizal Karimbaksh, may have improperly intervened in a recent anti-crime operation, Commissioner of Police Clifton Hicken has confirmed.
According to reports, police ranks were executing a lawful anti-crime exercise when they intercepted a heavily tinted white motor vehicle. Upon stopping the vehicle, a female occupant handed her cellphone to the officers. A male voice, identifying himself as Deputy Commissioner Karimbaksh, was heard questioning the ranks about the basis for the stop and reportedly advised them to focus on crime rather than traffic-related matters.


Addressing the issue during the Police Round Up programme on Sunday, Commissioner Hicken described the incident as “concerning,” noting that the intervention appeared to have been made without proper verification and outside of the established chain of command.
He emphasized that while senior officers are permitted to intervene in ongoing operations, such actions must be grounded in situational awareness and strictly adhere to Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) and standing police orders. The Commissioner further underscored that under the Criminal Offences Act and the Summary Jurisdiction Act, ranks engaged in anti-crime duties are fully empowered to stop and search vehicles.


The incident, which was captured on camera and subsequently circulated on social media, has raised broader concerns about operational integrity and adherence to protocol within the Force. Commissioner Hicken reaffirmed that the officer conducting the stop-and-search was acting within the scope of the law.


He also reiterated the Force’s commitment to transparency and accountability, highlighting the continued use of body-worn cameras as part of an evidence-based policing approach. These devices, he noted, provide objective, real-time documentation of police interactions.
The Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) has since been tasked with conducting a thorough investigation into the matter. Commissioner Hicken made it clear that any interference in police operations outside established procedures will be addressed in accordance with the law and internal disciplinary frameworks.
The 592 Guardian will be following this investigation closely as it unfolds, in the interest of transparency, accountability, and public trust.

𝙏𝙝𝙚 592 𝙂𝙪𝙖𝙧𝙙𝙞𝙖𝙣-𝙏𝙧𝙪𝙩𝙝 , 𝘼𝙘𝙘𝙤𝙪𝙣𝙩𝙖𝙗𝙞𝙡𝙞𝙩𝙮, 𝙄𝙣𝙩𝙚𝙜𝙧𝙞𝙩𝙮 𝙄𝙣 𝙂𝙪𝙮𝙖𝙣𝙖 𝘼𝙣𝙙 𝘾𝙖𝙧𝙞𝙗𝙗𝙚𝙖𝙣 𝙋𝙚𝙧𝙨𝙥𝙚𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙫𝙚𝙨.— 

Public Funds, Private Control: The Real Issue Behind Transport in Infrastructure Projects

𝙏𝙝𝙚 592 𝙂𝙪𝙖𝙧𝙙𝙞𝙖𝙣

The statement by the Association of Chinese Enterprises in Guyana attempts to reframe a legitimate public concern as a misunderstanding, but it fails to address the core issue at hand: compliance with local content laws and equitable participation in a tax-funded economy.

These projects are not private ventures operating in isolation—they are government contracts financed by the people of Guyana. As such, they are subject to local content requirements designed to ensure that Guyanese workers and businesses meaningfully benefit from national development. The concern is not about efficiency or project delivery; it is about whether those legal and economic safeguards are being upheld consistently and transparently.

While the Association argues that in-house transportation fleets were created due to capacity constraints, this explanation overlooks a critical point. Local providers were not given a fair opportunity to scale, partner, or adapt to increased demand. Instead, foreign-controlled fleets assumed a dominant role in a key segment of the supply chain. This risks displacing local enterprise rather than developing it.

Moreover, the claim that these fleets are not intended to “capture the market” is difficult to reconcile with the reality of sustained operational control in transportation. Intent does not negate impact. When a single group gains functional dominance in an industry tied to public contracts, it raises valid questions about market access, competition, and regulatory oversight.

Guyana’s development strategy was never meant to replace local participation with foreign control. Investment agreements were premised on job creation, knowledge transfer, and partnership—not the consolidation of industries under external entities. The spirit of those agreements must be respected as much as their letter.

This is not a call for exclusion, but for balance, accountability, and adherence to the laws that protect Guyanese interests. True partnership requires transparency, mutual benefit, and a commitment to strengthening—not sidelining—local capacity.

𝙏𝙝𝙚 592 𝙂𝙪𝙖𝙧𝙙𝙞𝙖𝙣-𝙏𝙧𝙪𝙩𝙝 , 𝘼𝙘𝙘𝙤𝙪𝙣𝙩𝙖𝙗𝙞𝙡𝙞𝙩𝙮,𝙄𝙣𝙩𝙚𝙜𝙧𝙞𝙩𝙮 𝙄𝙣𝙂𝙪𝙮𝙖𝙣𝙖 𝘼𝙣𝙙 𝘾𝙖𝙧𝙞𝙗𝙗𝙚𝙖𝙣 𝙋𝙚𝙧𝙨𝙥𝙚𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙫𝙚𝙨.— ✦—

Their Cameras Came Before Their Compassion

𝙏𝙝𝙚 592 𝙂𝙪𝙖𝙧𝙙𝙞𝙖𝙣

𝘼 𝙨𝙥𝙚𝙘𝙩𝙖𝙘𝙡𝙚 𝙞𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣, 𝙗𝙪𝙩 𝙬𝙝𝙚𝙧𝙚 𝙞𝙨 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙧𝙚𝙡𝙞𝙚𝙛?

There is no denying the political value of a carefully staged appearance in the aftermath of suffering. The images may be powerful, the message may be carefully framed, and the optics may well resonate with a portion of the electorate. But for the people on the ground, optics do not drain floodwater, rebuild damaged homes, or restore a sense of security.

That is the core problem. At a time when victims need urgent, practical help, too many political actors seem more interested in performance than relief. They arrive with cameras, umbrellas, and rehearsed concern, but the public is left asking the only question that matters: what exactly are you going to do?

Where is the road ?

It is not enough to show up. It is not enough to pose in the rain and speak in broad, comforting phrases. People facing hardship do not need song and dance. They need action, coordination, resources, and a government that understands that compassion without competence is merely theatre.

What makes this even more troubling is the timing. In moments of crisis, there is a fine line between solidarity and self-promotion. When that line is crossed, the result is not sympathy but suspicion. The public can see when grief and hardship are being used as a backdrop for political branding.

This is why the entire exercise feels so transparent. The performance may be polished, but the message beneath it is plain: the spectacle comes first, the suffering second. That is not leadership. That is politics at its most cynical.
The people deserve better than optics. They deserve seriousness, urgency, and real relief.

“𝑻𝙝𝒆𝙮 𝙆𝒆𝙚𝒑 𝑫𝙤𝒊𝙣𝒈 𝑻𝙝𝒆 𝑺𝙖𝒎𝙚 𝙏𝒉𝙞𝒏𝙜 𝙊𝒗𝙚𝒓 𝑨𝙣𝒅 𝑶𝙫𝒆𝙧 𝘼𝒏𝙙 𝙀𝒙𝙥𝒆𝙘𝒕𝙞𝒏𝙜 𝘿𝒊𝙛𝒇𝙚𝒓𝙚𝒏𝙩 𝙍𝒆𝙨𝒖𝙡𝒕𝙨

If we look long enough the solutionwill rise up from the waters

Ali Cannot Lecture Investors While Guyana’s Own Record Raises Red Flags

BY: Hem Kumar 

𝙏𝙝𝙚 592 𝙂𝙪𝙖𝙧𝙙𝙞𝙖𝙣

President Irfaan Ali wants investors to come prepared, to do their homework, and to stop treating Guyana like a drive-through market. Fair enough. But the problem is that this is the same administration that has spent years cultivating exactly the kind of investment culture it now wants to scold—one marked by preferential access, political convenience, and a troubling tolerance for foreign actors who seem to get the soft landing locals never receive.

The President is not setting standards so much as trying to retrofit them after the fact.

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐢𝐦𝐚𝐠𝐞 𝐆𝐮𝐲𝐚𝐧𝐚 𝐛𝐮𝐢𝐥𝐭

Guyana cannot spend years projecting itself as open for business at any cost, then act offended when investors come expecting access, speed, and influence. That image was reinforced by the government’s defensive posture on the oil contract, where the 2% royalty arrangement remains protected behind the familiar shield of contract sanctity, even as ordinary Guyanese are told to accept the deal as settled history. A state that refuses to revisit glaring imbalances in its most consequential contract cannot suddenly pose as a hard-headed gatekeeper when it is convenient.

The message abroad is not hard to decode: some deals are untouchable, some interests are protected, and some players are simply more welcome than others.

𝐖𝐚𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐭𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐧𝐠

That is why Congressman Gabe Evans’s recent letter to Secretary of State Marco Rubio matters. Evans warned of “creeping Chinese influence” in Guyana and raised alarms about reports of Chinese firms securing contracts, financing, and political footholds in ways that could threaten U.S. interests in energy, diplomacy, and critical minerals. In plain terms, Guyana is not only being watched; it is being scrutinized for the very habits its leadership has normalized.

So when Ali stands before an American audience and lectures on investor expectations, the paradox is obvious. He is effectively telling U.S. investors to temper their assumptions while Washington is already asking whether Guyana has become too accommodating to Chinese influence.

 𝐏𝐫𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐟𝐚𝐯𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐬𝐦

The U.S. ambassador’s point about predictability cuts straight through the noise. Predictability means rules that are clear, consistent, and applied without regard to who has the best political connections. It does not mean one set of doors for locals, another for foreign firms, and a VIP corridor for the well-connected.

That distinction matters because the complaints from Guyanese businesses are not imaginary. Local truckers have protested what they describe as a system that favors Chinese-linked firms and squeezes out domestic operators, with some alleging that contracts and access flow through family ties, political connections, and selective facilitation. 

When local players are forced to shout just to be treated fairly, the government has already admitted the weakness of its own system.

𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐭 𝐬𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐭𝐲, 𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐠𝐞

The administration’s favorite phrase—sanctity of contract—has become a political refuge. It is invoked to shut down calls for renegotiating oil terms, yet it is rarely accompanied by equal vigor in defending local enterprise from unfair competition or foreign dominance.

That is the real sting in this debate: the government is fiercely principled when protecting corporate arrangements, but noticeably flexible when the national interest requires courage.That is not consistency. It is choreography.

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐜𝐚𝐫𝐩𝐞𝐭 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐛𝐥𝐞𝐦

The accusation now hanging over the administration is not simply that it welcomes investment. It is that it has rolled out the red carpet for certain foreign actors, especially Chinese businesses, and then turned around to demand restraint from everyone else.You cannot preach prudence to investors while refusing to exercise it on behalf of your own citizens.

This is not a neutral posture. It is a choice—one that signals to global capital that Guyana is willing to prioritize investor comfort over national leverage. When disputes arise, the government has too often appeared aligned with oil majors rather than the Guyanese people, particularly on issues of environmental liability, cost recovery audits, and regulatory enforcement. The result is a credibility gap wide enough to swallow the President’s Houston remarks whole.

Investors notice these signals, and so do citizens

A country cannot market itself as business-friendly, then punish the public for believing it.

𝐂𝐥𝐨𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠

If President Ali wants to be taken seriously, he must first explain why Guyana keeps attracting the same complaints: one-sided contracts, preferential treatment, weak procurement credibility, and a pattern of accommodation that now has even U.S. lawmakers sounding alarms. The issue is not that investors need to come prepared. The issue is that Guyana’s government should have prepared its own house long ago.

Until it does, the President’s lecture will remain what it sounded like in Houston: not a statement of principle, but an attempt to put discipline on an image his own administration helped create.

If President Ali truly wants investors to come prepared, then the government must first do its own preparation—by strengthening institutions, enforcing accountability, and demonstrating that Guyana is not just open for business, but serious about protecting its people, its resources, and its future.

Because in the end, the investment climate is not defined by speeches in Houston.

It is defined by the choices made at home.

𝙏𝙝𝙚 592 𝙂𝙪𝙖𝙧𝙙𝙞𝙖𝙣-𝙏𝙧𝙪𝙩𝙝 , 𝘼𝙘𝙘𝙤𝙪𝙣𝙩𝙖𝙗𝙞𝙡𝙞𝙩𝙮,𝙄𝙣𝙩𝙚𝙜𝙧𝙞𝙩𝙮 𝙄𝙣𝙂𝙪𝙮𝙖𝙣𝙖 𝘼𝙣𝙙 𝘾𝙖𝙧𝙞𝙗𝙗𝙚𝙖𝙣 𝙋𝙚𝙧𝙨𝙥𝙚𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙫𝙚𝙨.— ✦—

Oil Wealth, Flooded Streets: The Reality They Didn’t Sell in Houston

BY: Hem Kumar 

𝙏𝙝𝙚 592 𝙂𝙪𝙖𝙧𝙙𝙞𝙖𝙣

The cameras in Houston didn’t show this.

While polished presentations and confident promises painted Guyana as the next oil-powered success story, back home the streets told a very different truth—one submerged in floodwater, dysfunction, and neglect.
This is Georgetown today.
Not a once-in-a-century disaster. Not an anomaly. But a recurring reality.

A capital city in a nation now awash with oil wealth—yet still unable to manage something as basic as drainage.
Investors heard about billions in revenue, booming GDP, and “world-class” ambitions. What they weren’t shown is this: দোকান fronts half underwater, streets turned canals, and citizens navigating daily life in conditions that belong to a forgotten era, not an emerging petro-state.

Because the uncomfortable truth is this—Guyana’s development story is becoming dangerously lopsided.
We are building upwards, showcasing glass and concrete, while the ground beneath us—our systems, our infrastructure, our planning—continues to fail.
And no amount of international praise or investor confidence can mask a simple question:
How can a country swimming in oil money still be drowning in rainwater?

This is not just about flooding. It is about priorities. It is about governance. It is about whether the wealth of a nation is being translated into real, lived improvements for its people—or merely into headlines and high-level speeches.
Because if “world-class” is the goal, then reality like this is not just inconvenient—it is disqualifying.

And the longer it is ignored, the more it exposes a truth no investor pitch can hide:
Guyana is not just rising.
In too many places, it is still sinking.

𝙏𝙝𝙚 592 𝙂𝙪𝙖𝙧𝙙𝙞𝙖𝙣-𝙏𝙧𝙪𝙩𝙝 , 𝘼𝙘𝙘𝙤𝙪𝙣𝙩𝙖𝙗𝙞𝙡𝙞𝙩𝙮,𝙄𝙣𝙩𝙚𝙜𝙧𝙞𝙩𝙮 𝙄𝙣𝙂𝙪𝙮𝙖𝙣𝙖 𝘼𝙣𝙙 𝘾𝙖𝙧𝙞𝙗𝙗𝙚𝙖𝙣 𝙋𝙚𝙧𝙨𝙥𝙚𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙫𝙚𝙨.— ✦—