Posts

The Caribbean’s Moment Of Choice In A Shifting World

By Dr. Isaac Newton

News Americas, NEW YORK, NY, Thurs. Jan. 15, 2026: Professor C. Justin Robinson’s, ‘An Existential Moment for the Caribbean,’ is a timely and important response to the challenges facing the region in today’s changing world. One of its greatest strengths is that it speaks honestly about how power really works. Instead of relying on polite diplomatic language, the article explains power as it is used in practice.

By placing current United States foreign policy within a long history of dominance, racial inequality, and unequal economic relationships, Robinson shows why small Caribbean states are especially vulnerable when global politics move toward one-sided decision-making. His warning is clear: a country can lose real control not only through war, but through economic pressure, security dependence, and powerful international institutions. This message is uncomfortable, but it is also realistic and necessary.

MV-22 Osprey aircraft are parked on the tarmac at Mercedita Airport in Ponce, Puerto Rico, on January 15, 2026. (Photo by Ricardo ARDUENGO / AFP via Getty Images)

However, the article may place too much emphasis on the idea that American power will remain dominant forever. The belief that the United States can continue to control global outcomes without serious pushback overlooks how quickly power can change. History offers many lessons. The British Empire once believed it would last indefinitely, but it weakened because of economic strain and changing global alliances. The Soviet Union appeared militarily strong, yet internal economic and technological problems eventually led to its collapse. These examples show that power based mainly on force often fails to recognize resistance, innovation, and long-term change.

The article also gives limited attention to how the nature of power itself has evolved. Military strength alone no longer guarantees control in a world shaped by cyber warfare, artificial intelligence, global finance, and supply chains. Countries like China, along with other technologically advanced middle-level powers, are not simply reacting to U.S. decisions.

They are actively shaping new global rules through trade networks, development loans, and digital infrastructure. At the same time, political division within the United States makes it harder to maintain clear and consistent long-term strategies. New technologies also reduce the gap between powerful nations and smaller ones. Together, these trends suggest a world that is unstable and changing, rather than one controlled by a single dominant power.

For the Caribbean, the years ahead will require careful thinking, not just survival. The region’s future cannot depend on passively following powerful allies or relying on old relationships. Caribbean nations must make deliberate choices. This means building partnerships with a wider range of countries, strengthening regional cooperation, and improving diplomatic skill. Governments must move beyond reacting to global events and instead plan strategically across economic, security, and technological areas.

Regional institutions should be strengthened so Caribbean states negotiate together rather than alone. Investment in education, digital skills, and economic resilience is no longer optional; it is essential to real independence in the modern world. The Caribbean must also use its shared voice to influence global rules, not just accept them. This is a moment of decision. With unity and foresight, the region can turn global uncertainty into opportunity. Without them, its future will be shaped by others.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Dr. Isaac Newton is a strategist and scholar trained at Harvard, Princeton, and Columbia. He advises governments and international institutions on governance, transformation, and global justice, helping nations and organizations turn vision into sustainable progress.

RELATED: The Caribbean And Strategic Diplomacy In A Constrained World

When Immigration Policy Meets Tourism Economies: The Caribbean’s New Reality

By Felicia J. Persaud

News Americas, NEW YORK, NY, Thurs. Jan. 15, 2026: It is no secret that the Donald Trump administration’s foreign policy toward the Caribbean and the Americas has increasingly relied on threat, intimidation, and fear rather than partnership or diplomacy in the past 11 plus months.

U.S. President Donald Trump departs after speaking during a House Republican retreat at The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts on January 06, 2026 in Washington, DC. House Republicans will discuss their 2026 legislative agenda at the meeting. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

Over the past year, the region has witnessed a troubling escalation: an expanded U.S. military presence in the Caribbean, deadly maritime incidents in the Caribbean sea that reportedly left more than 100 people dead, pressure on governments to host radar and military installations, a fracture of CARICOM  unity by the pitting on some against others; and most destabilizing – the dramatic seizure of the sovereign head of state of Venezuela – with military flights departing from Caribbean nations.

This shocking global event also shutdown the Caribbean airspace, grounding flights and sowing chaos among travelers and tourists. The full economic toll remains unknown, but the disruption to tourism-dependent economies was immediate.

Even before that crisis, the administration had moved to apply direct economic pressure. In a January 2026 proclamation titled “Restricting and Limiting the Entry of Foreign Nationals to Protect the Security of the United States,” the U.S. partially suspended visa issuance to nationals of Antigua and Barbuda and Dominica.

Both countries were targeted over their Citizenship by Investment, (CBI) programs – often called “golden passport” schemes – through which foreign nationals can acquire citizenship in exchange for investments typically ranging from $200,000 to $250,000. The Trump administration argued that such programs were “susceptible to abuse,” allowing individuals to conceal identities or evade travel and financial restrictions.

Then, on January 6th, news emerged that both Antigua and Barbuda and Dominica had agreed to receive asylum seekers turned away by the United States.

The demographic and economic context makes this shift extraordinary. Antigua has a population of roughly 80,000-90,000 people across just under 170 square miles, with unemployment estimates ranging from 8% to over 15%. Dominica, home to about 73,000 people on 290 square miles, has faced unemployment hovering around 13%.

Both nations depend heavily on tourism and CBI revenues, with U.S. visitors forming the backbone of their tourism markets. Against that backdrop, both governments appear to have acceded to Washington’s request – widely viewed as an attempt to ease or reverse the partial visa restrictions.

Details remain vague. Dominica’s Prime Minister Roosevelt Skerrit has not disclosed how many asylum seekers the country would accept, from where, or how they would be housed.

Antigua and Barbuda’s Prime Minister Gaston Browne described his country’s agreement as a “non-binding” memorandum to accept “non-criminal refugees,” stressing that no quotas were set and that the arrangement could be terminated at any time. He insisted it was “not a concession,” but a “measured diplomatic gesture,” while simultaneously confirming talks to restore normal U.S. visa processing.

The U.S. State Department has refused to clarify whether the asylum agreements were tied to visa suspensions.

Guyana, the new oil rich South American CARICOM country, with a population of less than 1 million and a poverty rate of over 50 percent, is also reportedly negotiating take in third country nationals who are either refugees or non-felons, much to the dismay of many Guyanese. 

Under the planned agreement, the United States will stand the costs of the relocation of the persons. A “third country deportation” refers to the act of removing a non-citizen from a country to a country other than their country of origin, essentially sending them to a “third” country, often done under agreements between nations where the third country is considered “safe” and obligated to accept the individual, particularly in the context of asylum seekers; this is sometimes referred to as a “safe third country” deportation.

Since Guyana is not on the visa suspension list, one can only guess as to what the administration is threatening Guyana and its leaders with. A March 2025 OSAC update noted that “There have been isolated reports of government corruption, which administration officials investigated.”

But it added: “There remains a widespread public perception of corruption involving officials at all levels, including the police and judiciary.”

St. Kitts and Nevis Prime Minister Terrance Drew, the current head of CARICOM, also this week said that his government has agreed to accept a very small number of third-country nationals from the U.S. as long as they are citizens of the 15-member Caribbean Community known as CARICOM, and are not sexual predators, have no violent backgrounds and are not Haitians.

St. Kitts & Nevis too has a citizenship by investment program and depends on US tourists.

Despite all this bending and twisting, the US announced come Jan. 21st, it will pause issuing permanent visas to nationals of Antigua & Barbuda, St. Kitts & Nevis, Dominica as well as the Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Cuba, Dominica, Grenada, Haiti, Jamaica, Saint Lucia, and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines. Guyana and Trinidad and Tobago are notably excluded. Nationals of Antigua and Barbuda and Dominica, seeking a US visa to visit will also have to pay a bond come Jan. 21st.

Grenada, meanwhile, offers a cautionary tale. After refusing a U.S. request to host military radar installations, Prime Minister Dickon Mitchell warned after the US actions in Venezuela, that this was “pushing the region into more instability.” Shortly afterward, the U.S. raised its travel advisory level for Grenada, citing crime – an economic blow for a country reliant on tourism and its own CBI program.

The message from Washington is unmistakable: comply, or face economic consequences. This is not partnership. It is the resurrection of the big-stick policy under a new name – the Donroe Doctrine, to quote Donald Trump.

As Caribbean nations are quietly nudged – or pushed with a big stick – from economies built on tourism towards becoming holding zones for displaced people, the entire region must confront an uncomfortable question: Is the Caribbean being forced to trade tourists for asylees simply to survive? If so, the cost will not only be economic – but moral, political, and generational.

Felicia J. Persaud is the founder and publisher of  NewsAmericasNow.com, the only daily syndicated newswire and digital platform dedicated exclusively to Caribbean Diaspora and Black immigrant news across the Americas.

RELATED: U.S. To Freeze Immigrant Visa Processing For Multiple Caribbean Nations
Get Ready To Shell Out More In Immigration Fees In 2026

U.S. To Freeze Immigrant Visa Processing For Multiple Caribbean Nations

By Felicia J. Persaud

News Americas, NEW YORK, NY, Weds. Jan. 14, 2026: The Trump administration has ordered an immediate suspension of immigrant visa processing for nationals from 75 countries, including multiple Caribbean nations, in what U.S. officials describe as a move to prevent immigrants deemed likely to become a “public charge” from settling in the United States.

The announcement came as Representative Bennie Thompson, a Democrat from Mississippi, second left, spoke during a news conference on a fatal shooting in Minneapolis by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent, outside the US Capitol in Washington, DC, US, on Wednesday, Jan. 14, 2026.Minnesota officials are suing over the “unprecedented surge” of US immigration authorities in the state, taking the Trump administration to court days after a federal agent shot and killed a Minneapolis woman. Photographer: Kent Nishimura/Bloomberg via Getty Images

According to the U.S. State Department, the pause will take effect January 21, 2026, and will remain in place indefinitely while immigration screening and vetting procedures are reassessed.

Caribbean countries affected by the suspension include Antigua and Barbuda, the Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Cuba, Dominica, Grenada, Haiti, Jamaica, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines.

The policy applies only to U.S. immigrant visas, which are issued to foreign nationals seeking to live permanently in the United States. It does not apply to non-immigrant visas such as tourist, student, temporary worker, or major event-related visas, including those connected to the upcoming World Cup.

State Department Cites “Public Charge” Concerns

In a statement, State Department officials said immigrants from countries on the list were found to access U.S. public benefits “at unacceptable rates,” prompting the freeze.

A State Department memo, first reported by Fox News Digital, instructs consular officers to refuse immigrant visas under existing law while the department conducts a broader reassessment of immigration processing standards.

“The Trump administration is bringing an end to the abuse of America’s immigration system by those who would extract wealth from the American people,” said State Department Principal Deputy Spokesperson Tommy Pigott. “The State Department will use its long-standing authority to deem ineligible potential immigrants who would become a public charge on the United States.”

The department reiterated its position in a post on X, stating that the pause would remain in effect “until the U.S. can ensure that new immigrants will not extract wealth from the American people.”

What This Means for Caribbean Families

The U.S. decision to freeze immigrant visa processing will have immediate and longer-term consequences for Caribbean families with relatives seeking to live permanently in the United States.

Who Is Affected

Caribbean nationals from those countries approved or applying for U.S. immigrant visas (green cards).

Family-based applicants, including spouses, parents, and adult children of U.S. citizens or permanent residents.

Diversity visa (green card lottery) winners from affected Caribbean countries.

Who Is NOT Affected

Tourists (B1/B2 visas).

Students (F and M visas).

Temporary workers (H, O, P visas).

Short-term travel, including major event visas such as World Cup travel.

Caribbean nationals already inside the U.S. with lawful permanent residence.

Immediate Impact

Immigrant visa interviews may be canceled or refused starting Jan. 21.

Approved cases may be placed on hold while screening rules are reassessed.

Families already separated could face longer wait times with no clear end date.

Financial and Emotional Strain

Families who have paid filing fees, medical exams, and legal costs may face indefinite delays.

Elderly parents, caregivers, and dependents relying on reunification may be left in limbo.

Households planning relocation, schooling, or medical care may have to put plans on hold.

No Timeline for Resumption

The State Department has not announced how long the freeze will last.

Processing will resume only after a review of immigration screening procedures.

No country-specific exemptions have been announced.

What Families Can Do Now

Monitor official State Department and embassy notices.

Avoid travel or relocation plans based on pending immigrant visas.

Consult accredited immigration attorneys before taking further steps.

Do not submit new fees unless directed by U.S. consular officials.

Broader List Includes Latin America, Africa, and the Middle East

Beyond the Caribbean, the list of affected countries includes Somalia, Afghanistan, Brazil, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Nigeria, Russia, Thailand, Yemen, and dozens of others across Latin America, Africa, Asia, and the Middle East.

The move represents a significant escalation in the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown, which has already included expanded deportations, visa restrictions, and heightened scrutiny of immigration applications.

Public Benefits Access Already Limited

Federal law already restricts most new immigrants’ access to public benefits. For example, many lawful permanent residents face a five-year waiting period before becoming eligible for programs such as food stamps, non-emergency Medicaid, and the Children’s Health Insurance Program, (CHIP).

Despite those limits, administration officials argue the suspension is necessary to protect U.S. taxpayers while screening standards are reviewed.

The State Department has not provided a timeline for when the reassessment will be completed or when immigrant visa processing for affected countries may resume.

RELATED: Caribbean Nationals From These Countries Face New U.S. Visa Bond Requirement Come Jan. 21

Get Ready To Shell Out More In Immigration Fees In 2026

The Caribbean And Strategic Diplomacy In A Constrained World

By Dr. Isaac Newton

News Americas, NEW YORK, NY, Weds. Jan. 14, 2026: The world is not waiting. It moves in waves, some visible, others hidden beneath the surface of politics, trade and power. It calls for diplomacy. For nations like ours in the Caribbean, small in size but large in aspiration, the challenge is urgent. But how do we navigate forces larger than ourselves without being swept aside?

A guard stands in front of an airplane at the Revolution Museum, which is dedicated to preserving the history and legacy of the Cuban Revolution, in Havana on January 13, 2026. (Photo by YAMIL LAGE / AFP via Getty Images)

We cannot simply react. Too often, our diplomacy waits for crises to arrive before we respond. Influence is not given. It is earned through foresight, courage, and careful, deliberate action. Restraint is wise, yet hesitation can be costly. The question is not whether we act, but how, and how wisely.

To shape our future, we must think boldly and imaginatively. We must ask ourselves the questions that matter most, not just to survive, but to thrive.

Five Questions for Reflection, Imagination, and Collective Action

1. How do we turn strategic restraint into genuine leverage without overextending or compromising our principles?
2. When does caution protect us, and when does it quietly allow opportunity to slip away?
3. Can we dare to imagine possibilities that stretch beyond our current size and limitations, or do we resign ourselves to the inevitable?
4. How do we anticipate global shifts before they arrive, instead of being forced to follow after the fact?
5. What concrete, collective actions can we take today to secure relevance, influence, and resilience for tomorrow?

These questions are not mindless musings. They demand deep reflection and courage. They demand imagination grounded in reality. They demand that we act with both discipline and vision. The future belongs not to those who wait, but to those who see, decide, and move.

Diplomacy is not a formality or a distant office duty. It is a daily practice of insight, creativity, and influence. It is the quiet work that shapes the world while others simply react. Nations that embrace it will set the course of history. Those who hesitate will follow it.

Editor’s Note: Dr. Isaac Newton is a strategist and scholar trained at Harvard, Princeton, and Columbia. He advises governments and international institutions on governance, transformation, and global justice, helping nations and organizations turn vision into sustainable progress.

RELATED: Two Visions, One Day: The Stark Contrast Between Donald Trump And Dr. King

Hollow Projected Confidence No Substitute For Societies’ Self Discipline & Competent Realistic Governance

By Ron Cheong

News Americas, TORONTO, Canada, Weds. Jan. 14, 2026: The eye of the inclement local turbulent weather seems to have largely run it course and is sputtering and grasping at straws now.   And so this is a good time to revisit some ancient wisdom which describes what we have seen, the reasons underlying it and age old frailties that foster it. Democracy is built on freedom, equality and collective decision-making – yet again and again it often elevates leaders who are unprepared, incompetent, or dangerously unfit for governance.

This is not a new paradox. More than 2,400 years ago, Plato warned that democracy contains the seeds of its own decay, not because people are evil, but because human desire, left undisciplined, overwhelms judgment. What feels like a uniquely modern crisis – celebrity leaders, emotional politics, social-media outrage, and the triumph of confidence over competence – is in fact the fulfillment of a pattern Plato described with unsettling precision.

How Democracy Decays From Within

In ‘The Republic,’ Plato outlines democracy’s lifecycle. It begins nobly, animated by a passion for freedom and equality. Over time, however, freedom becomes excess. Restraint is dismissed as oppression, expertise as elitism, and discipline as weakness.

 Citizens increasingly value pleasure, impulse, and self-expression over responsibility and wisdom. In such a climate, the distinction between qualified leadership and theatrical confidence erodes. The masses, Plato argued, come to prefer those who entertain them, flatter their desires, and promise immediate gratification over those who understand the complexities of governance.

This is not corruption imposed from above; it is decay generated from within. When citizens lose their internal discipline – the ability to delay gratification, tolerate complexity, and submit to reasoned authority- democracy becomes vulnerable to manipulation. Politics turns emotional. Serious debate gives way to spectacle. Popularity replaces competence.

The Rise Of The Demagogue

Plato warned that democratic excess naturally gives rise to the demagogue: a figure who presents himself as the pure embodiment of the people’s will. He attacks institutions, experts, and rivals as enemies of “the people,” while offering simplistic solutions to complex problems. He promises everything and demands nothing – except loyalty.

The contemporary parallels are hard to ignore. In Guyana, where the self-promoted richest man in the country, openly lacking any knowledge of governance, captured 16 of the Official Opposition’s 29 seats in the last election by projecting confidence and making promises untethered from reality. His appeal was not policy or competence, but certainty – certainty that reflected his followers’ desires back to them.

In this case fortunately, wealth was not the Teflon coating he used it would be.  He overestimated his pull on voters – other realities and hard facts stepped in and pre-empted what Plato’s saw as the aspiring demagogue’s ultimate and most dangerous stage: when the demagogue convinces his followers that he alone can solve their problems.

Chaos As A Political Strategy

Plato’s insight goes further. The demagogue, he argued, does not reduce chaos – he intensifies it. Disorder becomes a tool. Constant crisis exhausts the public, erodes attention, and weakens the capacity for independent judgment. Over time, citizens become overwhelmed by complexity and contradiction. Freedom, once cherished, begins to feel like a burden.

It is at this point – when the electorate is emotionally drained and intellectually fatigued – that democracy quietly surrenders itself. The people do not lose their freedom by force; they give it away. They trade deliberation for devotion, criticism for loyalty, and shared responsibility for the comforting belief that someone else will carry the weight of decision-making.

Plato warned that once this transition occurs, followers become incapable of separating themselves from the leader, regardless of what he does. His failures are reinterpreted as virtues. His abuses become necessary evils. Opposition is no longer disagreement but betrayal.

Why the Crowd Clings

This is the most uncomfortable part of Plato’s argument: societies fail not simply because of bad leaders, but because citizens lose the internal discipline required for self-government. An electorate can be “uneducated” not in the formal sense, but in the deeper sense of being unwilling to think, question, and restrain its own desires. Leaders who promise instant solutions flourish precisely because they absolve followers of responsibility.

When people surrender judgment, they also surrender agency. At that stage, abandoning the leader would require confronting their own role in the chaos – a step many find psychologically unbearable. It becomes easier to cling than to reflect.

An Ancient Warning For A Digital Age

Social media, algorithmic amplification, and celebrity politics have not created this problem, but they have accelerated it. Emotional propaganda travels faster than reason. Popularity is measurable, instant, and monetized. Plato could not have imagined platforms or algorithms, but he understood human psychology well enough to predict the outcome: a politics optimized for desire rather than truth.

What truly holds a free society together, Plato believed, is not unlimited freedom but self-restraint-within individuals as much as within institutions. When that restraint erodes, democracy does not collapse in a dramatic coup. It dissolves quietly, willingly, and from within.

Plato’s warning feels uncomfortably modern because it is not about systems alone, but about we ourselves.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Ron Cheong, born in Guyana, is a community activist and dedicated volunteer with an extensive international background in banking. Now residing in Toronto, Canada, he is a fellow of the Institute of Canadian Bankers and holds a Bachelor of Science degree from the University of Toronto. His comments are his own and does not reflect those of News Americas or its parent company, ICN.

RELATED: From Aristotle To Algorithms: Democracy’s Perilous Retreat

From Aristotle To Algorithms: Democracy’s Perilous Retreat

By Ron Cheong

News Americas, TORONTO, Canada, Mon. Jan. 12, 2025: For more than 2,500 years, human societies have moved – unevenly but persistently – toward greater democracy. Yet today, that trajectory appears to be reversing. Increasingly, modern political and technological systems echo a long-discredited thesis of the fourth-century BCE Greek philosopher Aristotle, who was deeply suspicious of rule by the many.

Old engraved illustration of Aristotle (Greek philosopher and polymath) teaching Alexander The Great

In politics, Aristotle argued that society functioned best as a hierarchy. Some people, he claimed, were naturally suited to rule, while others were naturally suited to be ruled. The ideal polis resembled a living organism: rulers exercised reason, warriors enforced order, and laborers sustained the whole. He even defended slavery, asserting that certain individuals were “slaves by nature,” lacking the rational capacity for self-governance. Justice, in this view, was not equality but each person remaining in their “proper” place.

Despite Aristotle’s towering contributions to philosophy, this aspect of his thought has rightly been rejected. It rests on a denial of moral equality and legitimizes permanent domination. History since has largely been a repudiation of that worldview.

The emergence of “demokratia” in Athens around 508 BCE marked a radical departure from aristocratic rule, even if limited to free adult males. Later milestones reinforced the principle that power must be constrained and justified by consent. The Magna Carta of 1215 established that even kings were subject to the law. The American Revolution of 1776 and the French Revolution of 1789 asserted popular sovereignty and civic equality, embedding the idea that legitimacy flows upward from the people, not downward from elites.

Checks, Balances, And The Distribution Of Power

Modern democracy rests on a simple but demanding premise: political equality is a moral good. Each person, regardless of birth or status, has an equal claim to self-government. Where Aristotle feared the masses as irrational, democracy assumes that collective decision-making – though imperfect – is preferable to rule by a self-appointed few. It rejects the notion that wisdom or virtue is the monopoly of any class.

This commitment is institutionalized through checks and balances. The separation of powers among executive, legislative, and judicial branches exists precisely to prevent the concentration of authority that Aristotle saw as natural. Legislatures deliberate, executives act within constraints, and courts limit both. The resulting friction is slow and often frustrating, but it is essential. It restrains abuses, protects minorities, and allows societies to correct errors without violence.

Democratic Backsliding in the Modern Era

Yet, over the past decade, many democracies have shown clear signs of erosion. Political polarization has intensified, trust in institutions has declined, and executive power has expanded under the banners of crisis management and efficiency. Civil liberties have been weakened incrementally, often justified by security threats, public health emergencies, or technological necessity. Each step appears modest; collectively, they represent a significant retreat.

At the same time, a new concentration of power has emerged outside traditional democratic structures. Large technology corporations now exercise influence rivaling that of states. Vast quantities of personal data are extracted under the promise of convenience and personalization. In practice, this data enables behavioral prediction, manipulation, and surveillance on a scale previously unimaginable. Power quietly shifts from citizens to opaque systems governed by profit motives and insulated from democratic accountability.

Crucially, these technologies do not merely coexist with authoritarianism – they actively enable it. Surveillance tools developed for advertising seamlessly translate into tools for social control. Algorithmic content curation can suppress dissent without overt censorship. Data analytics allow governments to identify, track, and pre-empt opposition. What once required secret police and informants can now be automated, outsourced, and normalized.

Elite Skepticism Of Democracy

That this development appeals to elites is no secret. Billionaire investor Peter Thiel has been unusually candid in his skepticism of democracy. In a 2009 essay, he wrote, “I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible.” Elsewhere, he argued that expanding the franchise undermines liberty and that mass participation weakens effective governance. These views echo Aristotle’s ancient distrust of the many – reframed in the language of markets, efficiency, and technological inevitability.

Artificial intelligence intensifies these dangers. AI systems increasingly mediate access to information, shaping what people see, believe, and ignore. Deepfakes, automated propaganda, and algorithmic echo chambers erode shared reality. When citizens cannot agree on basic facts, democratic deliberation becomes impossible. Truth itself loses authority, replaced by competing, emotionally optimized narratives.

Authoritarian systems are well suited to this environment. They benefit from AI’s capacity to flood the information space, obscure responsibility, and enforce compliance invisibly. Democracies, by contrast, depend on transparency and trust—both of which AI can quietly undermine. The threat is not only that AI will be used to lie, but that it will make truth indistinguishable from fiction.

Losing The Moral High Ground – Prosperity Without Contentment

As democracies increasingly adopt authoritarian practices – mass surveillance, censorship by proxy, emergency powers without clear limits – they forfeit the moral authority that once distinguished them. This loss has global consequences. When established democracies bend their own rules, they signal that principles are optional. Authoritarian regimes eagerly exploit this hypocrisy to justify repression, claiming that liberal values are merely instruments of power rather than genuine commitments.  The international rules based order collapses.

All of this has occurred during a period of unprecedented material prosperity. Yet higher living standards have not produced more cohesive or content societies. Rising inequality, social fragmentation, and a pervasive sense of powerlessness undermine well-being. When decisions are made by distant political, financial, or technological elites, prosperity feels hollow. Aristotle himself believed that virtue required participation in public life; stripped of agency, citizens become subjects, regardless of wealth.

If current trends continue, the future may resemble a technologically enhanced version of Aristotle’s hierarchical polis: a small governing class, aided by intelligent machines, managing populations deemed incapable of meaningful self-rule. Democracy may survive as a label, but emptied of substance.

The alternative remains possible – but not automatic. It requires renewed commitment to democratic constraints on power: robust data rights, transparent and accountable AI governance, and institutions capable of restraining both states and corporations. The choice is not between order and chaos, as Aristotle feared, but between shared self-government and a return to rule by the few. History suggests that once equality is surrendered as a principle, it is rarely regained without struggle.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Ron Cheong, born in Guyana, is a community activist and dedicated volunteer with an extensive international background in banking. Now residing in Toronto, Canada, he is a fellow of the Institute of Canadian Bankers and holds a Bachelor of Science degree from the University of Toronto. His comments are his own and does not reflect those of News Americas or its parent company, ICN.

Guyana: Extradition Case Against Nazar, Azruddin Mohamed Adjourned After Late Prosecution Disclosure

News Americas, GEORGETOWN, Guyana, Thurs. Jan. 8, 2025: Extradition proceedings involving businessman Nazar Mohamed and his son, Guyana’s presumed opposition leader, Azruddin Mohamed of the WIN Party, were adjourned on Thursday after the prosecution introduced a document that had not been previously reviewed by the defence.

Nasar Mohammed, l. and WIN Party leader, Azruddin Mohamed, r.

Presiding Magistrate Judy Latchman made it clear that the court would not tolerate unnecessary delays, stating pointedly, “This is not a game of chess; there will be no jumping,” as she emphasized the need for the matter to proceed efficiently.

During the hearing, lead prosecutor Terrence Williams informed the court that the prosecution was disclosing a statement from Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation Minister Hugh Todd, which he said formed part of the state’s case.

Defence attorneys objected to the late disclosure, arguing that they had not been given sufficient time to review the new material or obtain instructions from their clients. They told the court that the statement was reportedly emailed by Glenn Hanoman on Wednesday, January 8, at approximately 1:00 p.m., and requested that the extradition proceedings either be halted or adjourned.

In response, Williams assured the court that no further documents were anticipated beyond those already disclosed, adding that the prosecution would comply with its duty to disclose should any new material arise.

Magistrate Latchman, however, ruled that the court would not permit any additional disclosures going forward. She acknowledged, nevertheless, that the defence must be afforded adequate time to consider the newly introduced document before the case proceeds.

As a result, the extradition matter has been adjourned and is scheduled to resume on February 5, 2026.

The extradition proceedings stem from a request by United States authorities and are being conducted under Guyana’s Fugitive Offenders Act, with both Nazar and Azruddin Mohamed currently on bail pending the outcome of the committal hearing.

U.S. Withdraws From International Organizations Including In The Caribbean and Latin American

News Americas, NEW YORK, NY, Jan. 8, 2026: In a sweeping move that marks a significant shift in U.S. engagement with multilateral institutions, the US withdraws from international organizations, conventions, and treaties – including several focused on the Caribbean and Latin America — saying continued participation no longer serves American interests.

Donald Trump withdraws from several global organizations as protests globally denounce the US attack on Venezuela and the seizure of Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro, including front of the US embassy in Seoul on January 5, 2026. (Photo by Jung Yeon-je / AFP via Getty Images)

Announced in a presidential memorandum dated Jan. 7, 2026, the US President directed all U.S. executive agencies to immediately begin the process of exiting the listed bodies, which the administration says operate “contrary to the interests of the United States.”

The decision follows a year-long review of U.S. memberships in international organizations and treaties that began under Executive Order 14199 in 2025. Agencies were tasked with assessing whether continued involvement advances national security, economic priorities, or U.S. sovereignty.

Regional Entities Affected

Among the entities on the withdrawal list is the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) – Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), a key forum for regional economic cooperation and research.

ECLAC, which brings together governments across Latin America and the Caribbean to promote sustainable development, data-sharing and economic policy coordination, has historically served as a platform for addressing issues ranging from trade and infrastructure to poverty reduction — areas closely tied to Caribbean and Latin American interests.

In another blow to regional cooperation frameworks, the U.S. also plans to pull out of the Pan American Institute of Geography and History, a body dedicated to scientific and cultural research in the Western Hemisphere.

The US also pulled out of the Permanent Forum on the Global Forum on Migration and Development; People of African Descent; Office of the Special Adviser on Africa; the  International Trade Centre and UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) — Economic Commission for Africa.

These withdrawals underscore the Trump administration’s broader repositioning on international engagement. Officials maintain that these organizations often focus on “globalist” agendas and climate, labor, or social policies that they believe conflict with U.S. priorities. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has framed the exits as an effort to protect U.S. sovereignty and ensure taxpayer dollars are spent where they best benefit American citizens.

Controversial Pullbacks From Old Allies

The move expands on a trend of disengagement from global institutions in recent years, including the U.S. exit from the World Health Organization, UNESCO, the U.N. Human Rights Council and the formal withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement in past administrations.

Among other major bodies the U.S. is leaving are:

U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the backbone of global climate action

U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA)

Global Counterterrorism Forum

International Renewable Energy Agency

Global Forum on Migration and Development
— though the administration said it may continue to cooperate “where interests align.”

Reactions and Regional Implications

Critics — including human rights advocates, climate experts, and foreign policy scholars — say the withdrawal could weaken U.S. influence in the hemisphere, isolate partners on issues like disaster response or migration, and cede ground to nations like China that continue robust engagement with regional institutions.

For Caribbean and Latin American nations, the change raises questions about future cooperation in economic planning, trade forums, climate adaptation efforts, and data-driven policy development — especially at a time when many in the region are grappling with climate vulnerability, economic recovery, and migration challenges.

What’s Next

The memorandum instructs departments to begin implementing the withdrawals “as soon as possible,” though legal and procedural timelines vary by organization. For United Nations bodies, U.S. participation and funding will phase out according to treaty obligations and applicable law.

Observers say this represents a notable recalibration of U.S. foreign policy that could reshape diplomatic and development engagement across the Caribbean and Latin America in 2026 and beyond.

RELATED: What The U.S.’ 2025 Narco Report Said About Drug Trafficking In The Caribbean

What The U.S.’ 2025 Narco Report Said About Drug Trafficking In The Caribbean

News Americas, NY, NY: The United States has killed more than 115 people in boats across the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean by blowing up vessels it identified as carrying drug traffickers. This comes as the United States’ 2025 Narco Report – International Narcotics Control Strategy Report, (INCSR), identified the Caribbean as a central transshipment corridor for drug trafficking in the movement of cocaine from Venezuela to North America – underscoring the region’s growing strategic importance in global narcotics trafficking networks.

A US Air Force F22-Raptor takes off from José Aponte de la Torre Airport, formerly Roosevelt Roads Naval Station, in Ceiba, Puerto Rico, on January 4, 2026. US President Donald Trump threatened Sunday that Venezuela’s new leader will pay a “big price” if she does not cooperate with the United States, after US forces seized and jailed her former boss Nicolas Maduro. If interim president Delcy Rodriguez “doesn’t do what’s right, she is going to pay a very big price, probably bigger than Maduro,” Trump told The Atlantic in a telephone interview. (Photo by Miguel J. Rodriguez Carrillo / AFP via Getty Images)

According to the report, cocaine shipments originating in Colombia and Venezuela are routinely moved through Caribbean airspace and territorial waters using go-fast boats, fishing vessels, container ships, and clandestine aircraft before reaching the United States or onward markets in Europe. The Bahamas, Belize, the Dominican Republic, Haiti, Jamaica were all named as major illicit drug producing and/or drug-transit countries in the Caribbean.

The INCSR warned that trafficking through the Caribbean is sustained not only by geography, but by systemic corruption and weak institutional controls in key transit zones. Traffickers, the report states, often rely on local political protection, compromised security services, and limited enforcement capacity to move drugs with minimal interference.

Of particular relevance amid heightened regional political scrutiny, the report notes that corruption linked to narcotics trafficking frequently extends into political structures along major trafficking routes. While the report does not name Caribbean officials, it explicitly states that cocaine traffickers pay politicians and officials for protection from arrest and operational freedom – allowing drugs to transit the region with impunity.

The Caribbean’s role is described as logistical rather than production-based, but no less critical. Traffickers use the region for storage, repackaging, refueling, and redistribution, increasing cocaine’s value at each stage before it reaches U.S. markets, where demand and prices are highest.

“The Dominican Republic (DR) serves as a transit point for South American cocaine moving through the Caribbean to the United States and Europe,” the report said. “Traffickers rely on direct maritime routes from the Venezuelan and Colombian coasts, using “go-fast” boats to reach remote areas off the DR’s southern coast.”

Additionally, the US report said “D”drug trafficking in the six island nations of the Dutch Caribbean varies in scope.”

“However, the overall area remains significant due to its location as an international drug transshipment point,” the report added.

“Sint Maarten is in the Eastern Caribbean and is a transshipment hub for cocaine and marijuana transiting onward to Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Europe,” the 2025 report stated. “Cocaine and marijuana are primarily transported via different maritime vessels for transshipment to the U.S., other Caribbean islands, Africa, and Europe. In addition, traffickers routinely stage smaller airplanes on the islands for drug runs to Venezuela and Colombia.”

The US said that drugs, “after traveling to cocaine production countries, the aircraft normally fly onward to Central America, Guyana, Suriname, or other Caribbean destinations including the U.S. Virgin Islands and The Bahamas.”

“In addition, all major islands reported maritime vessels of varying sizes involved in the smuggling of narcotics originating from Venezuela with ultimate destination to the United States or Europe,” the report’s authors said. “This open cooperation ultimately allows the United States to deploy enforcement resources more effectively throughout the region to prevent the flow of drugs into the United States.”

On Haiti, the report said “Haiti remains a transit point for cocaine from South American and marijuana from Jamaica en route to the United States,” but noted that “lLocal drug production is minimal, primarily consisting of cannabis cultivation for domestic consumption.”

Focusing on Jamaica, the report said “Jamaica is both a significant producer of illicit drugs and a key transit country for narcotics destined for North America and Europe.”

“Jamaica is the Caribbean’s largest producer of cannabis, which is cultivated in its expansive rural areas,” the report said. “The country is strategically located for cocaine transshipment between South America, especially Colombia, and the United States. Jamaican criminal networks are often linked to transnational organized crime and facilitate drug trafficking via air and maritime routes. Marijuana is widely consumed in Jamaica and the use of psychoactive drugs, such as MDMA, is increasing. Psilocybin is largely unregulated, and a growing commercial industry promotes its use.”

The report also highlighted growing security risks associated with trafficking, including the spillover of organized crime, firearms, money laundering, and gang activity into Caribbean societies. These pressures strain already limited law-enforcement resources and threaten economic stability – particularly in tourism-dependent states.

In addition, the INCSR pointed to increasing use of maritime routes across the southern and eastern Caribbean, including areas bordering Venezuela, Guyana, and Suriname. These routes are often harder to monitor and exploit gaps in radar coverage, aerial surveillance, and coast-guard capacity.

While some Caribbean governments cooperate closely with U.S. and regional partners, the report emphasized that uneven enforcement and political sensitivity continue to undermine collective responses. Traffickers, it notes, adapt quickly, rerouting shipments through jurisdictions perceived as less vigilant.

The findings arrive at a moment of intensified regional attention following U.S. indictments tied to Venezuela’s leadership. Those charges have fueled public debate and speculation across the Caribbean and the Diaspora about political exposure along trafficking routes referenced- but not named – in U.S. court filings.

The indictment alleges that politicians operating along what prosecutors describe as a “Caribbean route” were corrupted by cocaine traffickers, accepting payments in exchange for protection from arrest and allowing favored traffickers to operate with impunity as cocaine moved north from Venezuela toward the United States.

While no Caribbean officials are named in the documents, the reference has sparked widespread discussion on social media and in political circles across the region.

Ultimately, the INCSR calls for stronger regional coordination, intelligence-sharing, and institutional reform, warning that without sustained action, the Caribbean risks becoming further entrenched as a strategic bridge in the global cocaine trade.

As U.S. enforcement and scrutiny intensify, the report makes clear that the Caribbean’s role – whether through vulnerability, governance gaps, or corruption – remains central to the hemisphere’s narcotics challenge.

RELATED: Speculation Rife Over Identity Of Caribbean Politicians Named in U.S. Maduro Indictment

Extradition Case Against Azruddin Mohamed, Dad Advances Despite Defense Appeal

News Americas, Georgetown, Guyana, Jan. 6, 2026: Extradition proceedings against Guyanese businessman Nazar Mohamed and his son, political leader of the WIN party and presumed Guyana opposition leader, Azruddin Mohamed, advanced on today after a Georgetown magistrate declined to suspend the matter, despite the defence filing an appeal to the Full Court.

Presiding at the Georgetown Magistrates’ Courts, Principal Magistrate Judy Latchman ruled that there was no legal basis to pause the committal proceedings, noting that no stay had been granted by a superior court. She subsequently directed the prosecution to begin presenting its case.

Earlier in the proceedings, defence attorneys served the court with a Notice of Appeal challenging a recent High Court ruling by Acting Chief Justice Navindra Singh, which refused an application to halt the extradition process. The defence argued that the magistrate’s court proceedings should be suspended pending the determination of constitutional issues raised in their challenge to Guyana’s extradition framework.

Magistrate Latchman, however, maintained that until a stay is formally ordered by the Full Court or another superior tribunal, the committal hearing must continue. In the absence of such an order, she ruled, the court was legally obliged to proceed.

As the case moves into the evidentiary phase, the prosecution is expected to call its first witness, Sharon Roopchand, Permanent Secretary at Guyana’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

The ruling followed submissions from the prosecution, led by King’s Counsel Terrence Williams, who argued that the mere filing of an appeal does not automatically suspend ongoing extradition proceedings. The magistrate accepted that position.

The extradition request was initiated by United States authorities, who are seeking the surrender of Nazar and Azruddin Mohamed in connection with federal criminal charges filed in the Southern District of Florida. The allegations relate to purported financial crimes linked to gold exports, including fraud and money laundering offences.

The matter is being heard under Guyana’s Fugitive Offenders Act and an existing extradition treaty between Guyana and the United States. Since late 2025, the defence has pursued multiple legal avenues aimed at delaying or stopping the extradition process, including constitutional litigation.

On Monday, Acting Chief Justice Singh dismissed the application for a stay, clearing the way for proceedings to continue in the magistrates’ court. Although the defence has since appealed that ruling, no order has been issued suspending the extradition hearing.

Both Nazar and Azruddin Mohamed remain on bail, subject to court-imposed conditions, as the committal proceedings continue.

RELATED: Guyana High Court Rejects Bid To Halt Extradition Proceedings Against Nazar And Azruddin