Part I: Guyana Cannot Sign Away Its Future in Secret

 

592 GUARDIAN♦ACCOUNTABILITY♦INTEGRITY IN JOURNALISM♦GUYANA

 Part I: Guyana Cannot Sign Away Its Future in Secret

---

OPINION BY: Hem Kumar October 2026

Ali Says Guyana Is Not Being Controlled—Then Let the Country See the Deal

This is not an argument against cooperation with the United States. Guyana faces real dangers: Venezuela’s unlawful claim to the Essequibo, cross-border insecurity, narcotrafficking, maritime vulnerabilities and the need to build the capacity of the Guyana Defense Force. Guyana is entitled to seek training, intelligence cooperation, equipment, joint exercises and credible partners.

But cooperation between states cannot mean secrecy from the people.

The issue is not whether Guyana should have a security relationship with the United States. The issue is whether the Ali administration has signed, discussed or initiated commitments whose full implications are being withheld from Guyana’s citizens and their elected representatives.

A Declaration Without Disclosure

The country has been told that President Ali and U.S. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth signed a Joint Declaration for an Enhanced Defense Partnership at the Pentagon. The public descriptions speak of security cooperation, military expertise, training, exercises, air-domain awareness and action against narcotrafficking.

Yet the document itself has not been made public.

Guyanese do not know the declaration’s precise legal status. They do not know whether it is merely a political statement of intent, a legally binding instrument, or a framework followed by annexes, side letters, memoranda or implementation arrangements that carry actual obligations.

They do not know its duration. They do not know the cost. They do not know its termination provisions. They do not know what facilities, data, personnel, equipment, access rights, operational commitments or financial obligations may be involved.

That is unacceptable for an agreement presented as a landmark advancement in Guyana’s security relationship with the world’s most powerful military force.

The Government must not ask the public to celebrate an agreement it has not been allowed to read.

Ali’s Own Admission

In his CNN interview, President Ali sought to reassure Guyanese that the United States is not seeking to dominate Guyana. He said Guyana sees Washington as a partner in development and security, guided by shared values and mutual benefit.

But he also conceded that he cannot speak for America’s agenda in its relations with Guyana or other countries. That is the point.

No Guyanese President can speak for Washington’s interests. The United States will pursue its own strategic, commercial, military and geopolitical objectives. That is what powerful states do. Guyana’s responsibility is therefore not to rely on broad assurances of friendship, but to ensure that every engagement is governed by transparent, enforceable and publicly accountable terms.

If the President cannot speak for America’s agenda, then Guyanese must be allowed to examine the terms under which their own government has agreed to cooperate with America.

Mutuality Must Be Shown

Ali insists that Guyana is entering the relationship on the basis of partnership, mutuality and joint development. Those are welcome words. But mutuality must be demonstrated in the document—not merely declared at a press conference or in a television interview.

What has Guyana agreed to give? What has the United States agreed to provide?

Will U.S. personnel receive access to Guyanese bases, airstrips, ports, maritime zones, communications systems, intelligence networks or training facilities? Will there be rotational deployments, equipment storage, surveillance activity, intelligence-sharing operations, private military contractors or special procurement arrangements?

Will Guyana assume long-term financial obligations? Are there immunity or jurisdiction provisions for foreign military personnel? Will Guyana’s future governments be free to amend, review or terminate the arrangement?

These are not anti-American questions. They are pro-Guyana questions.

A government that believes an agreement serves the national interest should welcome those questions. It should answer them before the arrangement becomes an established fact beyond public challenge.

Critical Minerals Cannot Be Ignored

The public statements surrounding the Pentagon engagement raised another serious issue: Guyana’s pursuit of a memorandum of understanding with the United States on critical minerals.

This cannot be treated as a minor footnote.

Washington’s interest in critical minerals is strategic. Around the world, major powers are seeking secure supplies of minerals needed for defence systems, advanced manufacturing, energy technologies, communications infrastructure and industrial supply chains. Guyana, with its expanding extractive economy, strategic location and largely underexplored mineral potential, will inevitably attract the attention of governments, investors and corporations seeking long-term access.

The public deserves to know whether Guyana’s security relationship and its critical-minerals discussions are separate, connected or moving in parallel.

Has Guyana discussed geological data, mineral mapping, exploration areas, mining licenses, investment preferences, offtake arrangements, strategic stockpiles, processing facilities, ports, roads, airfields or supply corridors with U.S. officials?

Has any American entity been promised preferential treatment, direct access, first-refusal rights, tax concessions, investment guarantees or special operating privileges?

If the answer is no, say so clearly.

If a critical-minerals memorandum is being negotiated, publish the negotiating mandate, identify the agencies involved, state its objectives and commit to tabling the final document before the National Assembly.

Guyana has already learned too painfully that resource agreements negotiated without adequate transparency can become national burdens for generations.

Security Is Not a Blank Cheque

Venezuela’s threat to Guyana is real. It is serious. It requires seriousness from every national institution.

But a national-security challenge must not become the excuse for obscuring commitments that could affect Guyana’s sovereignty, strategic assets and economic future. Indeed, a country under external pressure needs more transparency—not less—because its vulnerability may reduce its bargaining power.

No one should expect Guyana to face Venezuela’s aggression alone. Guyana needs friends, alliances, training and credible international support. But friendship is not the same as submission, and partnership is not the same as surrendering control over national choices. A security arrangement must strengthen Guyana’s capacity to defend itself. It must not quietly create obligations that weaken Guyana’s freedom to decide who accesses its resources, infrastructure, intelligence, land, airspace or waters.

That is why the details matter.

Parliament Must Not Be Kept Outside

It is deeply troubling that Guyanese learned of the Pentagon engagement through public statements after the fact. There was no public explanation beforehand of the President’s mandate, the intended agreement, its scope or the commitments under consideration.

The National Assembly was not publicly given an opportunity to scrutinize the arrangement before it was announced. Guyanese have not been told whether Cabinet reviewed and approved the document, whether the Attorney General’s Chambers vetted it, or whether the Guyana Defense Force and Ministry of Foreign Affairs participated in negotiating its terms.

The legislature cannot be reduced to an afterthought.

An agreement with possible implications for national defense, foreign policy, public spending, territorial access, military cooperation, intelligence, infrastructure and strategic resources must receive parliamentary attention. If the Government insists that sensitive details cannot be publicly disclosed, it should still provide the principal agreement to the public and establish a confidential process through which elected representatives can examine legitimate operational material.

National security may justify protecting tactics. It does not justify concealing the existence, scope, duration and consequences of national commitments.

Release the Agreement

President Ali has made his position clear: Guyana is not being bullied; Guyana is not being controlled; Guyana is a sovereign state acting as a partner.

The test of those assurances is simple.

Publish the Joint Declaration for an Enhanced Defense Partnership.

Publish all annexes, memoranda, implementation schedules, financing arrangements and side letters connected to it. State whether the agreement is binding. State how long it lasts. State how it may be amended or terminated. State whether it gives the United States, U.S. contractors or U.S. companies any access, preference or rights connected to Guyana’s defence facilities, strategic infrastructure, resource data or critical minerals.

Then table the arrangement in the National Assembly.

If it truly advances Guyana’s sovereignty, security and development, its terms should survive public examination. If it cannot be shown to Parliament and the people, then Guyanese are entitled to ask what exactly has been agreed—and in whose interest.