Guyana Is Not a Prize: The U.S.–China Contest Must Not Eclipse the Public Interest

592 GUARDIAN♦ACCOUNTABILITY♦INTEGRITY IN JOURNALISM♦ GUYANA

Guyana Is Not a Prize: The U.S.–China Contest Must Not Eclipse the Public Interest

---

OPINION BY : Hem Kumar September 2026

The increasingly public exchange between U.S. and Chinese representatives over Guyana should concern every Guyanese—not because the country must choose Beijing or Washington, but because both powers are plainly seeking influence in a rapidly changing, oil-rich state.

Guyana is entitled to investment, development assistance, technical support and commercial partnerships from China, the United States and every other country willing to engage on fair terms.

But no foreign partner—however generous its aid, impressive its construction portfolio, or forceful its diplomatic rhetoric—should be allowed to convert that engagement into undue influence over Guyana’s national decisions.

The central duty belongs to the Government of Guyana: protect the national interest through transparency, competitive procurement, competent supervision, enforceable contracts and a foreign-policy posture that does not confuse friendship with dependency.

This Is Now a Public Spat

The latest Chinese Embassy statement did not emerge in a vacuum. It followed a series of documented American interventions concerning Chinese activity in Guyana: public remarks by U.S. Ambassador Nicole Theriot that attracted a response from Chinese Ambassador Yang Yang; Congressman Gabe Evans’s letter to U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio; and Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs Juan Pablo Segura’s X post invoking Guyana’s airport project in criticism of Chinese state-led development.

These are not disconnected events. They represent a clear pattern: Washington is increasingly raising the issue of China’s commercial, infrastructural and strategic presence in Guyana.

The Chinese Embassy has responded by rejecting what it calls false claims, political manipulation and malicious smears against normal China–Guyana economic and trade cooperation. It has cited Chinese firms’ participation in national development, including work associated with the new Demerara River Bridge, six regional hospitals and the China–Guyana Friendship Joe Vieira Park.

There is merit in one central Chinese contention: Guyana is sovereign. It has the unquestionable right to work with China, the United States, India, Brazil, Europe, CARICOM partners and any other country or company prepared to operate lawfully and constructively here.

But sovereignty cannot mean immunity from scrutiny.

The Airport Cannot Be Wished Away

Segura’s reference to the Cheddi Jagan International Airport expansion may have been politically motivated. It may also have been selectively deployed as part of the United States’ wider campaign to question Chinese state-linked companies across the region.

Yet political motive does not automatically make a factual issue disappear.

The airport expansion has long been associated in public discussion with delays, escalating costs, alterations to the original scope and continuing questions over the execution and supervision of the project. Guyanese citizens are entitled to ask whether the state received value for money, whether contractual obligations were adequately enforced, whether all defects and deficiencies were remedied, and whether officials exercised the degree of oversight expected on a project of national importance.

That is not an attack on China. It is an insistence on accountability.

The issue is not that a Chinese company participated in the work. Guyana has every right to retain Chinese contractors, just as it has every right to retain American, Indian, European, Brazilian, Caribbean or local firms. The issue is whether contracts are awarded transparently; whether the terms are publicly known; whether costs, variations and extensions are fully explained; and whether the State pursues remedies when a contractor fails to meet its obligations.

A public project cannot be defended merely by reciting its strategic importance. Airports, roads, bridges and hospitals are not diplomatic trophies. They are national assets paid for by the Guyanese people, and the public has a right to know how those assets were procured, financed, supervised and delivered.

China’s Contribution Must Be Fairly Recognized

Objectivity requires Guyana to acknowledge the contribution Chinese companies and Chinese-supported projects have made to the country’s development.

China has become a significant participant in Guyana’s modernization. Its companies have been involved in infrastructure, construction, trade, equipment supply and other areas of the economy. The country has seen Chinese engagement in major public works, while Chinese businesses have also become a visible feature of commercial life.

It would be dishonest to pretend that every Chinese undertaking is inherently suspect, or that every Chinese company is incapable of performing valuable work. Such reasoning would be prejudicial, simplistic and contrary to Guyana’s own economic interests.

Guyana is a developing country with enormous infrastructure needs. Roads, bridges, drainage, hospitals, housing, ports, energy facilities and communications systems require capital, technology, skilled labor and timely execution. No sensible government should close the door to qualified Chinese companies simply because China is a strategic competitor of the United States.

Nor should Guyana be pressured into abandoning a relationship that has produced visible projects and long-standing cooperation

But appreciation is not a waiver of oversight. Chinese firms, especially where they are involved in major state projects or strategic infrastructure, must meet the same tests imposed on every other foreign participant: quality, cost discipline, contractual compliance, local benefit, environmental responsibility and transparency.

Washington Also Wants a Seat at the Table

The United States is not an uninterested observer in this matter. It is a major development partner of Guyana, with a history of assistance in areas including health, governance, security, disaster response, education and institutional capacity-building.

That assistance has value. It should be fairly acknowledged.

The United States has also become increasingly engaged with Guyana at a time when the country’s oil production, strategic location, energy potential and wider regional importance have elevated its profile. American interest is not irrational. Guyana matters more today than it did a decade ago.

But American concern about Chinese influence should not be mistaken for pure altruism.

Washington is jostling for a larger share of the opportunities opening up in Guyana: infrastructure contracts, engineering work, energy-related logistics, technology, security cooperation, private-sector investment and influence over how a strategically important state develops. That is what powerful countries do. They pursue their interests.

The issue is whether Guyana understands that reality and manages it intelligently.

America’s aid programs do not entitle American companies to Guyanese contracts. Nor do Chinese grants, construction projects or diplomatic support entitle Chinese companies to preferential treatment, political protection or a privileged place in Guyana’s strategic future.

Every firm must earn its place.

Berbice Raises Important Questions

The proposed deep-water harbor in Berbice offers an important example of why Guyanese must examine the practical consequences of great-power competition.

Chinese-linked interests were associated with earlier examination of a possible deep-water port or logistics facility in Berbice. The strategic appeal is obvious. A properly developed deep-water facility could have implications for petroleum logistics, industrial development, exports, shipping, manufacturing, regional connectivity and Guyana’s broader economic transformation.

Subsequently, U.S. engineering firm Bechtel became involved in feasibility and technical work connected to the proposed Berbice deep-water-port initiative.

There is nothing inherently wrong with that development. Bechtel is a major international engineering company. Guyana should be prepared to work with capable American firms, just as it works with capable firms from other countries. The Government should not reject quality expertise merely because it comes from the United States.

But the public is entitled to clarity.

What became of the prior Chinese feasibility work?                              Was it completed? What did it recommend?                                          Was it paid for by the State, a private entity or a foreign partner?          Is it available for public examination?                                                    What technical, financial, environmental or strategic considerations informed the movement toward Bechtel’s involvement?                    What precisely is Bechtel being paid to do?                                            Who finances the current work? What obligations, if any, could follow from it?

These are not hostile questions. They are the minimum questions of responsible public administration.

Guyana must ensure that strategic projects do not become bargaining chips in a contest between foreign powers. A deep-water port should not be awarded, designed, financed or reconfigured because it suits a geopolitical narrative in Washington or Beijing. It must proceed because it is economically sound, environmentally defensible, commercially viable and beneficial to Guyanese people over the long term.

The Risk Is Overconcentration

The problem is not foreign investment. Guyana needs foreign investment.The problem is overconcentration.

No country should become so dependent on one external power’s contractors, finance, equipment, technology, suppliers, spare parts, software, credit or political support that it loses the ability to negotiate firmly or act independently.

That concern applies to China, but it also applies to the United States and every other major external player.

Guyana should be wary of any arrangement in which a single country becomes dominant across multiple strategic sectors at once: roads, bridges, ports, airports, telecommunications, energy infrastructure, security systems, digital networks, medical facilities, extractive industries and large-scale logistics.

Dependence does not always announce itself with a flag. It can arrive through repeated sole-source arrangements, opaque financing, bundled contracts, proprietary technology, maintenance agreements, foreign labour dependence, undisclosed subcontractors and long-term operating arrangements that leave the State unable to act without external approval or expertise.

A country rich in oil revenue but poor in institutional safeguards can still surrender enormous leverage.

That must not happen in Guyana.

Government Must Show Its Work

The Government of Guyana cannot simply invoke sovereignty when challenged by foreign governments. Sovereignty must be demonstrated through systems that protect the public.

The country needs a clear, public and enforceable framework for major infrastructure and strategic investments.

That framework should include:

♦ Publication of all major state contracts, including original values, variations, extensions, completion dates and final costs.

♦ Disclosure of financing terms, guarantees, repayment obligations and any state exposure associated with large projects.

♦ Independent technical audits of major infrastructure works before final acceptance and payment.

♦ Public reporting on defects, remedial works, performance bonds, liquidated damages and penalties imposed or waived.

♦ Transparent procurement records showing how contractors were selected and what competing bids, where applicable, were considered.

♦ Strong local-content rules requiring meaningful employment, training, procurement and skills transfer for Guyanese workers and businesses.

♦  A national assessment of foreign participation in critical infrastructure and strategic sectors.

♦ Security and resilience reviews where foreign companies participate in airports, ports, telecommunications, data systems, energy facilities, hospitals and other sensitive national assets.

♦ Clear beneficial-ownership disclosure so Guyanese know who ultimately controls the companies receiving public contracts.

If Government believes its processes are sound, publication and scrutiny should not be feared.

If contracts are properly awarded, works competently supervised and failures appropriately sanctioned, transparency will strengthen Guyana’s hand against both foreign criticism and domestic doubt.

No One Should Dictate to Guyana

The Chinese Embassy is correct on one fundamental point: Guyana and other countries in Latin America and the Caribbean should be free to determine their development partners without outside interference.

But this principle must apply in full.

China must not expect Guyana to silence legitimate scrutiny of Chinese companies. The United States must not expect Guyana to accept a “backyard” mentality, however delicately it may be expressed. Neither power should presume that Guyana’s resources, infrastructure program or diplomatic posture are available for capture.

Guyana must reject the false choice.

It does not have to become anti-China to demand transparency from Chinese contractors. It does not have to become anti-American to reject Washington’s attempts to frame Guyana primarily through the lens of strategic rivalry.

The proper position is pro-Guyana.

A pro-Guyana policy welcomes development partnerships, encourages genuine competition, rewards competence, exposes waste, punishes non-performance, protects strategic assets and insists that all foreign partners deal with this country as an equal.

The Test Ahead

Guyana is entering an era in which foreign governments, multinational companies, contractors, financiers and geopolitical strategists will compete intensely for access and influence.

The danger is not that outside powers have interests. They always will.

The danger is that Guyana’s leaders may be flattered, pressured or divided into accepting arrangements that serve external agendas more reliably than they serve the Guyanese people.

The current public spat should therefore be treated as a warning, not a spectacle.

China should be judged by the quality, cost, transparency and consequences of its engagement. The United States should be judged not only by its warnings about China, but by the seriousness, fairness and competitiveness of what it offers Guyana. And the Government of Guyana must be judged by whether it is willing to put every major partnership under the light of public scrutiny.

Guyana does not need permission from Washington to work with China. It does not need permission from Beijing to work with America. But it does need leaders with the resolve to ensure that, in the contest for Guyana’s future, Guyana itself does not lose.