Archive for category: Opinions

BY: Staff— Writer

𝙏𝙝𝙚 592 𝙂𝙪𝙖𝙧𝙙𝙞𝙖𝙣.   

A Dominican Republic-based company, the Rizek Group, is expected to commence cocoa cultivation on approximately 2,000 acres as early as August. Plans reportedly include the establishment of a processing facility, suggesting an intention to move beyond raw production into value-added output. Additionally, the Government has confirmed that multiple investors—both local and international—have expressed interest in other ventures at Skeldon, including the possible revival of the sugar factory.

These are tangible developments. They signal that Skeldon, long dormant, is once again attracting attention.

However, beyond these facts lies a layer of rhetoric that deserves scrutiny.

There is, notably, little disclosure about timelines beyond the initial planting phase. Cocoa is not a short-term crop; it typically requires three to five years before yielding commercially viable output. A processing facility, if it materializes, will require further time for construction, certification, and integration into export markets. Yet these realities are largely absent from official pronouncements, creating the impression of imminent transformation where none can realistically occur.

This gap between announcement and outcome is not new. It reflects a broader pattern in which ambitious initiatives are publicly unveiled long before the groundwork—financial, technical, and logistical—is fully established.

Compounding this skepticism is Skeldon’s own history.

Once heralded as a flagship modernisation project, the Skeldon Sugar Estate became one of the most costly and controversial failures in Guyana’s agricultural sector. Technical flaws, poor performance, and eventual closure left thousands unemployed and eroded public trust. Any new initiative tied to this location must therefore overcome not only practical challenges but a significant credibility deficit.

To its credit, the current approach differs in key respects. This is not a return to state-driven sugar expansion, but an attempt at diversification through private investment. Cocoa, as a crop, offers a plausible alternative. Regional producers such as the Dominican Republic have demonstrated its viability, and global demand remains strong. In principle, the shift makes economic sense.

But principle alone does not guarantee success.

Critical questions remain unanswered: Is the soil at Skeldon suitable for large-scale cocoa cultivation? What mechanisms will ensure that local farmers benefit, rather than being sidelined by corporate operations? What are the terms of the investment agreements, and who bears the risk if these ventures falter?

Until these questions are addressed, the initiative remains more prospective than proven.

None of this is to suggest that the cocoa project should be dismissed. On the contrary, diversification of Guyana’s agricultural base is both necessary and overdue. But the public has moved beyond accepting announcements at face value. After Skeldon, promises must be matched by measurable progress.
If planting does indeed begin by August, and if within the next year there is visible land preparation, crop establishment, and movement on processing infrastructure, confidence will grow. If not, this announcement risks joining a long list of initiatives that generated headlines but failed to deliver transformation.

The real issue, therefore, is not whether cocoa can succeed at Skeldon. It is whether the Government has learned from the past—specifically, that credibility is not built on declarations, but on disciplined, transparent implementation.

Until that proof emerges, Skeldon remains suspended between promise and proof.

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

BY: Hem Kumar         

𝙏𝙝𝙚 592 𝙂𝙪𝙖𝙧𝙙𝙞𝙖𝙣

The United States’ growing interest in Guyana’s bauxite industry is not an act of charity, nor is it simply about “investment” or “development.”

It is a calculated move in a global contest for control of critical minerals — and Guyana must respond with equal calculation, not passive acceptance.

Under Secretary Jacob Helberg’s remarks in Georgetown make one thing clear: Washington sees Guyana not just as a supplier of bauxite, but as a strategic asset in a wider effort to counter China’s dominance in global resource supply chains. The talk of advanced surveying, infrastructure expansion, and logistics integration is not neutral. It is the language of positioning — securing influence over where resources are found, how they are extracted, and who ultimately benefits.

Guyana, however, is not without leverage. In fact, it may be one of the most strategically positioned countries in the hemisphere today.

Geographically, Guyana is the natural Atlantic gateway for northern Brazil — a region with enormous industrial and agricultural output that remains logistically constrained. Any serious plan to reroute trade through Guyana immediately elevates the country from a peripheral player to a regional logistics hub of immense value.

At the same time, Guyana is rapidly emerging as an energy powerhouse. Cheap and abundant energy is the single most important ingredient for industrialization. This means Guyana is not confined to exporting raw materials — it has the capacity to process them.
And that is where the conversation must fundamentally shift.

If the United States wants access to Guyana’s bauxite, then it must be prepared to invest not just in extraction, but in production. Alumina refineries. Aluminum smelters. Downstream manufacturing. Jobs, technology transfer, and industrial capacity must be part of the equation.

Guyana cannot afford to remain a pit stop in a global supply chain where value is added elsewhere and profits are exported.
Anything less is a continuation of a model that has historically underdeveloped resource-rich nations.

Equally critical is the issue of data sovereignty. The proposal for advanced surveying of Guyana’s mining lands raises serious red flags. Geological data is not just technical information — it is strategic intelligence. It determines future wealth, bargaining power, and national security.

Guyana must make it unequivocally clear: all survey data generated within its borders is the sovereign property of the State. No exceptions. No ambiguity. No quiet concessions buried in agreements.

To allow foreign entities to control or exclusively access such data would be to surrender the blueprint of the country’s natural wealth.

There is also a deeper concern that cannot be ignored. If this initiative is part of a broader U.S. strategy to displace China, then Guyana risks being drawn into a geopolitical tug-of-war where its resources become the prize and its sovereignty the collateral.

This is precisely why the Ali administration must fully recognize the strength of its current position. Guyana is not desperate for attention; it is being actively courted. That distinction matters.

Negotiations conducted from a position of perceived need will yield vastly different outcomes than those conducted from a position of strategic strength.
The government must therefore set the terms clearly and unapologetically:
Guyana’s resources will not be extracted without value-added industries.
Guyana’s geography will not be leveraged without reciprocal national benefit. Guyana’s data will not be owned or controlled by foreign interests.

This moment is not just about bauxite. It is about defining the country’s development trajectory for decades to come.
The United States may be eyeing Guyana’s resources, but Guyana must ensure it is not being sized up for exploitation dressed as partnership.

If Washington wants in, it must come prepared to build — not just to take.

Policy Addendum: Terms Guyana Must Set for Any U.S. Engagement in the Mining Sector

To ensure that foreign interest translates into national development — not dependency — Guyana must establish clear, enforceable conditions for participation in its bauxite and wider mining industry.

First, mandatory value-added production must be non-negotiable. Any foreign investor, including U.S. companies, should be required to commit to establishing in-country processing facilities such as alumina refineries and, where feasible, aluminum smelters. Exporting raw bauxite while importing finished products is an outdated model that Guyana can no longer afford.

Second, binding local content and workforce development laws must be expanded beyond oil and gas into mining. This includes quotas for Guyanese employment at all levels, technical training programs, and the transfer of managerial and engineering expertise. If Guyana is to industrialize, its people must be at the center of that transformation.

Third, joint venture structures with meaningful state or local equity participation should be prioritized. Guyana must not remain a passive recipient of royalties; it should be an active stakeholder in the ownership and profitability of its resource sector.

Fourth, full data sovereignty over all geological and survey information must be codified in law. Any data collected through advanced surveying technologies must be stored within Guyana, controlled by the State, and accessible for national planning purposes. No exclusive ownership or external control of this data should be permitted under any agreement.

Fifth, infrastructure-for-development agreements must be structured carefully. Roads, ports, and logistics corridors built to facilitate mining must also serve national and regional economic integration — including agriculture, manufacturing, and trade with northern Brazil — rather than functioning solely as extraction channels.

Sixth, clear fiscal terms and anti-avoidance safeguards must be enforced. This includes transparent royalty structures, ring-fencing provisions, and strict monitoring to prevent profit shifting and tax erosion by multinational corporations.

Finally, a strategic resource governance framework must guide all agreements. Guyana should identify priority minerals, define long-term industrial goals, and align foreign investment with a national development plan — not the other way around.

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

BY: Hem Kumar 

𝙏𝙝𝙚 592 𝙂𝙪𝙖𝙧𝙙𝙞𝙖𝙣

It is not just defiance. It is something more troubling.

Before the International Court of Justice has even concluded its hearings, Venezuela has already declared that it will not accept the Court’s ruling if it upholds the 1899 Arbitral Award. This is not a post-judgment rejection. This is a pre-emptive strike — an attempt to cast doubt on a decision that has not yet been made.

𝘾𝙖𝙡𝙡 𝙞𝙩 𝙬𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙞𝙩 𝙞𝙨: 𝙥𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙨𝙪𝙧𝙚.

When a state participates in legal proceedings while simultaneously announcing that any unfavourable outcome will be discarded, it crosses the line from legal advocacy into coercion. It sends an unmistakable message — not just to Guyana, but to the Court itself — that the authority of international law is conditional, subject to political convenience.

 𝙏𝙝𝙚 𝙦𝙪𝙚𝙨𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙞𝙨 𝙪𝙣𝙖𝙫𝙤𝙞𝙙𝙖𝙗𝙡𝙚: 𝙞𝙨 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙖𝙣 𝙚𝙛𝙛𝙤𝙧𝙩 𝙩𝙤 𝙞𝙣𝙛𝙡𝙪𝙚𝙣𝙘𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝘾𝙤𝙪𝙧𝙩 𝙗𝙚𝙛𝙤𝙧𝙚 𝙞𝙩 𝙨𝙥𝙚𝙖𝙠𝙨?

Courts are not swayed by rhetoric, but states know that perception matters. By declaring the process illegitimate in advance, Venezuela is attempting to plant a seed — to frame any ruling in Guyana’s favour as inherently flawed, contested, and destabilizing. It is a calculated move to weaken the impact of the judgment before it is even delivered.

 𝙏𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙞𝙨 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙝𝙤𝙬 𝙜𝙤𝙤𝙙 𝙛𝙖𝙞𝙩𝙝 𝙥𝙖𝙧𝙩𝙞𝙘𝙞𝙥𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙬𝙤𝙧𝙠𝙨.

You cannot engage a court, present arguments, cite history, submit evidence — and in the same breath declare the outcome meaningless. That is not a legal strategy; it is a political maneuver dressed in the language of law.

Even more concerning is the timing. This declaration came before the Court had even closed hearings. That is not impatience — it is premeditation. It suggests that Venezuela is not awaiting justice; it is preparing to reject it.

And in doing so, it risks undermining more than just this case.

If every state were to adopt this posture — accept only the rulings it likes, dismiss those it does not — the entire framework of international dispute resolution would collapse into irrelevance. Treaties would become optional. Courts would become symbolic. Power, not law, would decide outcomes.

𝙏𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙞𝙨 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙙𝙖𝙣𝙜𝙚𝙧𝙤𝙪𝙨 𝙥𝙧𝙚𝙘𝙚𝙙𝙚𝙣𝙩 𝙗𝙚𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙛𝙡𝙞𝙧𝙩𝙚𝙙 𝙬𝙞𝙩𝙝 𝙝𝙚𝙧𝙚.

Venezuela’s call for “regional mediation” only deepens the contradiction. The ICJ process exists precisely because decades of negotiation under the Geneva Agreement failed to produce a resolution. To now suggest a return to those same deadlocked pathways is not a solution — it is delay, repackaged.

𝘼𝙣𝙙 𝙙𝙚𝙡𝙖𝙮, 𝙞𝙣 𝙩𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙞𝙩𝙤𝙧𝙞𝙖𝙡 𝙙𝙞𝙨𝙥𝙪𝙩𝙚𝙨, 𝙞𝙨 𝙣𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙧 𝙣𝙚𝙪𝙩𝙧𝙖𝙡.

What remains is a stark reality: Venezuela wants the credibility of legal engagement without the discipline of legal outcomes. It wants to be heard, but not bound.

𝙏𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙞𝙨 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙥𝙖𝙧𝙩𝙞𝙘𝙞𝙥𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣. 𝙏𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙞𝙨 𝙢𝙖𝙣𝙞𝙥𝙪𝙡𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣.

And the world — especially small states that depend on international law for protection — should be paying very close attention.

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

BY: Staff Writer 

𝙏𝙝𝙚 592 𝙂𝙪𝙖𝙧𝙙𝙞𝙖𝙣

There is an uncomfortable truth at the heart of Guyana’s extractive sector—one that powerful interests would prefer buried, redacted, or quietly erased. That truth is this: transparency was not only achieved, it was documented, published, and made accessible to the public under the stewardship of Dr.Rudy Jadoopat.

As National Coordinator of the Guyana Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (GYEITI) from 2017 to 2022, Dr.Jadoopat did what few in public office have dared to do—he operationalized transparency. Not as a slogan, but as a system. Not as rhetoric, but as verifiable data.

Under his leadership, Guyana did not merely subscribe to the EITI International Standard; it implemented it. The GYEITI National Secretariat was not just established—it was structured, managed, and driven to deliver measurable compliance with international requirements for accountability across oil and gas, mining, forestry, and fisheries.

But it is in the Annexes of the GYEITI Reports where the real story lies.

Those Annexes did not deal in abstractions. They named names. They detailed dates. They identified acreages, locations, and license numbers. They exposed, in plain data, the architecture of Guyana’s extractive economy—particularly the sprawling and notoriously opaque gold mining sector.

And therein lay the problem.

Because when transparency is real, it becomes inconvenient.

The disclosures did not discriminate. They revealed:

connections—individuals, associates, and entities tied to influence and power. Figures such as Su Zhi Rong, Ivor English,  Joe Harmon, Simona Broomes Ramzan Ali, Jagmohan and others emerged not through speculation, but through documented records. The Alphonso family reportedly holds claims to over one million acres of gold mining concessions. It is also alleged that they are part of the Multi-Stakeholder Group and serve as financiers of political parties and their leadership. Additionally, they are said to have the ability to influence state officials, including appointments and the removal of GGMC officers with whom they are not aligned.

The data spoke for itself, and it did so publicly.

For the political and economic elite, this was intolerable.

Transparency, when it begins to illuminate networks of privilege and proximity, is no longer celebrated—it becomes a threat.

What followed raises serious questions.

Jadoopat’s removal from his position did not occur in a vacuum. It coincided with growing unease about the breadth and accessibility of the information released. More troubling are the reported alterations to previously published datasets—columns removed, including critical fields such as “Date Granted” for concessions. These are not cosmetic edits; they strike at the integrity of the record.

Such actions, if verified, suggest not routine data management, but deliberate sanitization.

And here lies a critical miscalculation.

The data was never confined to a single server or website. It was downloaded, archived, and distributed. Local stakeholders, international organizations, and oversight bodies already possess the raw datasets. The attempt to retroactively obscure or modify public disclosures is not only futile—it invites deeper scrutiny.

Because in the age of digital transparency, erasure is not easily achieved. It is, however, easily detected.

What Guyana now faces is not simply a question of governance, but of credibility. The international community, including EITI oversight mechanisms and allied institutions, is watching closely—not just what is said, but what is changed, removed, or concealed.

Transparency cannot be selectively applied. It cannot be embraced when convenient and dismantled when uncomfortable.

If Guyana is to maintain any claim to accountability in its extractive industries, then the integrity of its disclosures must be defended—not diluted.

The work done between 2017 and 2022 set a benchmark. The question now is whether that benchmark will be upheld—or quietly undone.

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