By NAN Staff Writer

News Americas, WASHINGTON, D.C., Wed. Mar. 4, 2026: The United States government is seeking the forfeiture of a crude oil tanker seized on the high seas in December 2025 that authorities say was falsely flying the flag of Guyana while transporting millions of barrels of Venezuelan oil linked to sanctioned networks.

The U.S. Department of Justice said a civil complaint has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia seeking to seize the Motor Tanker Skipper and its cargo of approximately 1.8 million barrels of crude oil supplied by Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A. (PdVSA).

A group of Iranian men prays in an area that is targeted in U.S.-Israeli attacks in Tehran, Iran, on March 4, 2026. (Photo by Morteza Nikoubazl/NurPhoto via Getty Images)

According to the complaint, the vessel was intercepted by U.S. authorities on December 10, 2025, after it was determined the ship was falsely claiming Guyana’s flag, effectively rendering it stateless under international maritime law.

The tanker and its cargo are being targeted for forfeiture because prosecutors allege the operation helped generate revenue and influence for Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, including its Qods Force, which the United States has designated a foreign terrorist organization.

US Officials Cite Sanctions Enforcement

U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi said the case demonstrates Washington’s determination to disrupt financial flows to hostile regimes.

“Under President Trump’s leadership, the era of secretly bankrolling regimes that pose clear threats to the United States is over,” Bondi said. “This Department of Justice will deploy every legal authority at our disposal to dismantle operations that defy our laws and fuel chaos across the globe.”

FBI Director Kash Patel said the complaint highlights the agency’s efforts to enforce sanctions and disrupt global networks used to fund militant groups.

“The FBI, working alongside our interagency partners, will continue aggressively identifying, disrupting, and dismantling the financial networks used by foreign adversaries to fund terrorist organizations and destabilize international security,” Patel said.

  “We will aggressively enforce U.S. sanctions against Iran and relentlessly pursue ghost fleet vessels whose illicit oil shipments have served as revenue sources for the IRGC and its terrorist proxies,” said U.S. Attorney Jeanine Ferris Pirro for the District of Columbia. “With the continued seizures and forfeitures of tankers and related profits, we are sending a clear message that there will be no safe harbor for sanctions evasion – and that we will deny Iran the ability to fund terrorism through its shadowy maritime networks.”

Assistant Attorney General A. Tysen Duva added that the case is part of broader efforts to stop millions of dollars from flowing to designated terrorist organizations.

Alleged Global Oil Smuggling Network

According to the DOJ, the forfeiture complaint alleges a scheme dating back to at least 2021 involving the shipment and sale of petroleum products to benefit the IRGC.

Investigators say the Skipper transported crude oil originating in both Iran and Venezuela, using ship-to-ship transfers and other deceptive maritime practices to move cargo around the world.

Authorities say the tanker most recently loaded approximately 1.8 million barrels of Venezuelan crude oil in November 2025 at the José Terminal in Venezuela.

Shipping documents cited in the complaint show that about 1.1 million barrels of the cargo were scheduled for delivery to Cubametales, a Cuban state-run oil importer that has been under U.S. sanctions since 2019.

However, U.S. officials say the vessel changed course before reaching Cuba and was intercepted on the high seas in the Caribbean.

Part of Broader Oil Enforcement Campaign

The seizure of the Skipper is part of a wider U.S. effort to disrupt sanctioned oil trade linked to Venezuela and Iran.

Officials allege the tanker had been operating as part of a so-called “shadow fleet” used to evade sanctions by falsifying locations, changing vessel identities and flying false national flags.

If a federal judge approves the forfeiture request, the U.S. government could take ownership of the tanker and its oil cargo, potentially selling the crude and redirecting the proceeds.

The case remains pending before the court.

RELATED: Caribbean Watch: Anticipation and Uncertainty Ahead of High-Profile Talks With Washington

By Keith Bernard

NEWS AMERICAS, NY, NY, Mon. Mar. 2, 2026: If ever there were a moment in recent Caribbean and hemispheric history where one would desperately wish to be a fly on the wall, it is now — on the eve of the anticipated meeting between the Presidents of Guyana, Trinidad and Tobago, and the United States of America. At a time when the Middle East continues to burn with a ferocity that is reshaping global alliances, energy markets, and the very architecture of international order, such a gathering carries implications that stretch far beyond the walls of whatever room these three leaders occupy.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio participates in a family photo with Caribbean Community (CARICOM) heads of government in Basseterre, Saint Kitts and Nevis, February 25, 2026. Rubio is meeting with Caribbean leaders seeking a common line on Venezuela and pressure on Cuba. He’s also addressing President Donald Trump’s priorities, including combating illegal immigration, drug trafficking and regional security. (Photo by Jonathan Ernst / POOL / AFP via Getty Images)

The world in which this meeting takes place is not the world of even five years ago. The ongoing conflict in the Middle East — with its cascading effects on oil prices, shipping routes, global food security, and the re-alignment of geopolitical loyalties — has elevated the strategic importance of the Western Hemisphere’s energy producers to a degree that would have seemed extraordinary in calmer times. Guyana, sitting atop one of the most significant oil discoveries of the twenty-first century, and Trinidad and Tobago, a seasoned natural gas exporter with decades of energy diplomacy under its belt, are no longer peripheral players in conversations that Washington must have. They are, increasingly, central to them.

And so, as a Caribbean citizen watching all of this unfold, I confess I would give much to hear what is truly said — not the polished communiqués that will emerge for public consumption, but the frank exchanges that happen between statesmen who know the weight of what they carry. What does Washington really want from Guyana and Trinidad? Is this a conversation about energy security — redirecting supply chains away from volatile Middle Eastern sources — or is there a broader strategic ask being made, perhaps regarding regional security architecture, the posture toward Venezuela, or the management of China’s deepening footprint in the region?

I would want to hear how our leaders push back — or whether they do. Will Guyana’s President articulate a vision for how this oil wealth serves Guyanese first, even as global powers circle with their interests? Will Trinidad’s leader bring to the table the voice of a small island state that has survived the boom-and-bust cycles of hydrocarbon dependence and has something honest to say about the terms of these relationships? The Middle East crisis has a way of making powerful nations suddenly generous — but generosity from the powerful rarely arrives without strings.

There is also the humanitarian dimension to consider. As the Middle East conflict has deepened divisions within international institutions — the United Nations rendered increasingly impotent, Western consensus fractured, and the Global South watching with a mixture of anger and calculation — small states like ours face real choices about which version of the international order we wish to inhabit and uphold. I would want to hear whether anyone in that room speaks to this, or whether the conversation stays safely within the language of investment, trade, and strategic partnership.

History is being made in real time, and the Caribbean — often spoken about as an afterthought in global affairs — now finds itself in a peculiar and powerful position. I would want to know, in that room, whether our leaders recognise this fully and are negotiating accordingly; or whether old habits of deference and dependency are quietly reasserting themselves under the pressure of a superpower’s invitation.

A fly on the wall would hear the truth of it. The rest of us will have to read between the lines of whatever statement follows. I trust that our leaders understand that the people of this region are watching — and hoping — that they negotiate not just for today’s headlines, but for the long arc of our sovereignty and wellbeing.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Keith Bernard is a Guyanese-born, NYC-based analyst and a frequent contributor to News Americas.

RELATED: CARICOM’s Animal Farm? – Why The Caribbean Is United in Rhetoric, Divided In Reality

By Nyan Reynolds

News Americas, NY, NY, Sat. Feb. 28, 2026: As Black History Month 2026 draws to a close, there is always a quiet reflection that follows the celebrations. The posts slow down. The lectures conclude. The banners come down. We return to ordinary days. But before we step into March, before the commemorations fade into memory, there is one name that deserves more than a passing mention: John Henrik Clarke. Not because he needs praise, and not because his résumé demands attention, but because his message, perhaps more than ever, demands reflection.

At The Edge Of Black History Month: A Reflection On Dr. John Henrik Clarke And The Memory, We Owe Ourselves

Dr. Clarke was not simply a historian. He was a guardian of memory. He believed that the most dangerous condition a people could fall into was historical amnesia. When history is distorted, diluted, or selectively taught, the consequences ripple across generations. And so, as this month closes, the question is not whether we have celebrated enough. The question is whether we have remembered deeply enough.

Though born in the American South, Clarke’s intellectual maturation took place in Harlem, in conversation with Caribbean thinkers whose influence shaped modern Black consciousness. He was deeply influenced by the legacy of Marcus Garvey, whose call for economic independence and global Black unity echoed across oceans. He studied the archival brilliance of Arturo Alfonso Schomburg, whose preservation of African diaspora history provided a foundation for serious scholarship. He wrestled with the lessons of Haiti, not as a distant observer, but as a student of its triumphs and trials.

Haiti was never simply a country in Clarke’s lectures. It was a declaration that those once enslaved could govern themselves. It was the first successful slave revolt that birthed a Black republic under leaders such as Toussaint Louverture. It was proof that the plantation was not destiny. Yet Haiti also became a cautionary tale, punished economically and politically for its audacity. Clarke understood that the story of Haiti was often told selectively. Its revolution was minimized while its instability was magnified. For the Afro Caribbean reader, this tension is not abstract. The Caribbean has long lived at the intersection of brilliance and burden, cultural influence and economic constraint, pride and vulnerability. Clarke insisted that these contradictions be studied honestly rather than romanticized or dismissed.

He believed that a people disconnected from their historical lineage are easier to mislead. If we do not know where we have been, we cannot accurately interpret where we are. Today, information travels faster than ever. Quotes circulate widely. Names trend briefly. But depth is rare. Serious study is often replaced by aesthetic consumption. We know fragments of our heroes, but not their frameworks. Clarke did not want to be quoted; he wanted to be studied. He did not want history reduced to inspiration; he wanted it understood as infrastructure. The danger of forgetting Clarke is not simply that one man’s name fades. The danger is that the strategic literacy he championed fades with him.

No one can deny the cultural impact of Black and Caribbean communities in the 21st century. From music to fashion, language to sport, the global footprint is undeniable. Caribbean rhythms pulse through international charts. Diasporic slang shapes global youth culture. Our aesthetic is everywhere. Yet, Clarke would have asked a harder question. Who owns the systems through which that culture moves? Who controls distribution platforms, economic policy, educational curricula, and institutional power? He never confused cultural visibility with structural sovereignty. Pride was necessary, but pride alone was insufficient.

For the Afro Caribbean community, this distinction matters deeply. The Caribbean has long exported talent, art, and intellect while importing capital and policy constraints. Migration has offered opportunity, yet it has also introduced new forms of dependency. Clarke’s framework invites us to examine whether patterns have transformed or simply evolved. Are we participating in systems, or are we shaping them? Are we visible within institutions, or do we control them?

Clarke was a Pan African thinker who rejected fragmentation. He did not separate African Americans from Afro Caribbeans or continental Africans. He saw shared history where others saw borders. Today, identity is both celebrated and contested. Diaspora tensions occasionally surface. Debates over who owns certain narratives or who bears particular burdens can overshadow the deeper truth of shared lineage. Clarke would likely caution against this fragmentation. Colonial systems thrived on division, and modern economic systems benefit from competition rather than coalition. For a Caribbean and Black focused audience, his warning resonates. Unity is not about erasing cultural specificity. It is about recognizing common roots and shared futures.

As institutions evolve, they often soften the edges of their founders. Black Studies programs, once born from activism and confrontation, have become established academic departments. Growth brings stability, but stability can also bring containment. Clarke’s critiques were not mild. He challenged Eurocentric historiography. He questioned assimilation without power. He insisted that economic independence and institutional control were prerequisites for lasting freedom. Those conversations can feel intense in contemporary spaces that prize neutrality and broad appeal. And so, sometimes, celebration replaces critique. Inspiration replaces interrogation. Erasure does not always look like removal. Sometimes it looks like dilution.

If young Afro Caribbean students encounter Black history stripped of structural analysis, they inherit pride without blueprint. And pride without blueprint cannot sustain generations. Clarke would measure progress not by individual milestones but by institutional continuity. He would ask whether communities are building structures that endure beyond charismatic leaders. He would examine whether cooperative economic models are expanding and whether historical consciousness is being transmitted to children born in diaspora. He would measure success not only by professional ascent but by collective leverage.

There is something fitting about ending Black History Month with Clarke. He represents the deeper current beneath the celebration. He reminds us that history is not decoration; it is defense. He reminds us that unity is not sentiment; it is strategy. He reminds us that culture without ownership is fragile. He reminds us that memory is inheritance. As February closes, we must ask what we are carrying forward. Are we carrying curated moments, or are we carrying frameworks? Are we teaching our children the names of heroes, or are we teaching them how to think about power? Are we honoring Haiti as revolution, or are we repeating its instability without context? Are we preserving Garvey as a symbol, or are we studying his economic blueprint?

Black History Month will return next year. The banners will rise again. The lectures will resume. But the real work exists in the months between. Continuity requires intentional transmission. It requires disciplined reading and uncomfortable questions. It requires institutional imagination. For the Afro Caribbean community, Clarke’s message is not optional heritage; it is intellectual infrastructure. The Caribbean shaped him. Haiti sharpened him. Harlem amplified him. The diaspora carried him.

If his message drifts underground, it is not because it lacks relevance. It is because relevance demands responsibility, and responsibility demands work. As this month ends, perhaps the most fitting tribute to Dr. John Henrik Clarke is not applause but recommitment. Recommitment to memory, to unity, to structure, and to the long arc of institutional building. The month may end, but the memory must not.

 EDITOR’S NOTE: Nyan Reynolds is a U.S. Army veteran and published author whose novels and cultural works draw from his Jamaican heritage, military service, and life experiences. His writing blends storytelling, resilience, and heritage to inspire readers.  

RELATED:  “A” – Alien Registration And The Weight Of The Letter

By Nyan Reynolds

News Americas, NEW YORK, NY, Fri. Feb. 27, 2026: It was Saturday, January 24th, and my niece was hired for her first job. At seventeen years old, she stood on the edge of something new. Her first paycheck. Her first taste of independence. Her first official entry into the workforce. There is something sacred about that moment. It is a quiet declaration that childhood is slowly giving way to responsibility.

She asked me to help her fill out her I-9 and tax documents. Not because she could not do it herself, but because she wanted to make sure everything was right. That she would be compensated properly. That she would not make a mistake. I sat beside her, and together we moved through the paperwork line by line.

Then we reached a section that asked for either a passport number or an A number.

She paused.

“What’s an A number?” she asked.

I told her, “It means Alien Registration Number.”

She laughed lightly.

“Alien?” she said. “Like aliens?”

There was innocence in her question. The kind of innocence that only comes from not having to think about such things. For her, the word alien belonged to science fiction. To movies. To creatures with large heads and distant galaxies.

I explained to her that she does not have an Alien Registration Number because she was born here in the United States. But I do. Her mother does. Many of our loved ones do. We were born elsewhere. We came through the immigration system. And when we did, we were assigned a number.

That number begins with the letter A.

It struck me in that moment how casually the term is used. How normalized it is. How bureaucratic language has made something deeply human feel technical and sterile. But there is nothing sterile about the word alien. It carries weight. It carries history. It carries implications: Alien.

In its most common understanding, it means foreign. Not from here. Other. Sometimes even strange. Unfamiliar. Separate.

And yet that word is stamped across documents that define millions of lives.

The Alien Registration Number follows you from the moment you enter the immigration system. It appears on your green card. It appears on immigration notices. It is part of your permanent file. And even when you become a naturalized citizen, when you stand in a room full of strangers and raise your right hand and take the oath of allegiance, that number does not disappear.

You surrender your green card. You receive your naturalization certificate. You walk out as a citizen of the United States.

But your “A” number remains.

Often printed clearly on the very certificate that declares your new status.

There is something paradoxical about that. You are now fully American in the eyes of the law. You have pledged loyalty. You have been sworn in. You have become part of the nation’s civic fabric. And yet the document that confirms your belonging still carries the identifier that once marked you as an outsider.

A lifelong alien in America.

That phrase lingers in my mind.

What does it mean to be an alien for life, even after you become a citizen?

It means that your journey into this country is permanently recorded. It means that your identity contains a layer that those born here may never have to confront. It means that, in some quiet corner of a federal database, you will always be someone who arrived.

For some, that is not painful. It is simply administrative. A number. A file. A record.

But for others, it is deeply symbolic.

Because immigration is not merely paperwork. It is a sacrifice, it is departure. It is leaving behind language, food, culture, and familiarity. It is stepping into a place where your accent may be noticed before your intelligence. Where your name may be mispronounced before it is understood. Where your story is summarized into a category: Alien.

Today, immigration dominates headlines. Debates rage about borders, about enforcement, about who belongs and who does not. But rarely do we pause to reflect on the emotional weight of the system itself. On the quiet psychological reality of carrying a label that suggests foreignness long after you have pledged allegiance.

When I took my oath, it was one of the proudest days of my life. To stand there and affirm loyalty to the Constitution, to become a citizen of a country that had given me opportunity, education, and growth, meant something profound. It was not casual. It was not transactional. It was sacred.

And yet, printed on my naturalization certificate, in clear text, was my Alien Registration Number.

It did not invalidate my citizenship. But it reminded me that my path here was different.

There is humility in that reminder, gratitude too. Because I know what that number represents. I know the paperwork. The waiting. The uncertainty. The interviews. The fees. The documentation. The hope that everything will be approved.

And I know that somewhere, someone is still praying for that same opportunity.

For millions worldwide, an Alien Registration Number is not an insult. It is aspiration. It is evidence that they have entered the system. That they have a foothold. That they are visible to the law instead of invisible to it.

People risk their lives for that visibility.

They cross deserts. They board overcrowded boats. They leave behind family. They endure detention. They wait in limbo. All for the chance to one day receive documentation that begins with A.

So perhaps the weight of the letter depends on perspective.

To some, it sounds dehumanizing.

To others, it sounds like hope.

But what unsettles me is not the administrative necessity of a number. Governments require systems. Systems require identifiers. I understand that. I respect the structure.

What unsettles me is how easily language can shape perception.

When you call someone an alien, even in official terminology, you subtly reinforce the idea that they are not fully from here. That their belonging is conditional. That their identity contains an asterisk.

And over time, those subtle signals matter.

They influence how we see one another. They influence policy debates. They influence whether we approach immigration with empathy or suspicion.

My niece laughed when she heard the word alien. She had never thought about it before. Why would she? She was born here. She has a Social Security number. She checks the box labeled “citizen” without hesitation.

But that conversation gave me an opportunity to explain something deeper. To explain that many of us carry stories that begin elsewhere – that America is filled with people whose first documents here included that letter; that behind every A number is a journey.

And that we must not take that journey lightly.

There is also a quiet strength in being someone who came from somewhere else and built a life here. To adapt. To learn. To contribute. To serve in the military. To pay taxes. To raise children who will never have to think twice about their status.

Perhaps that is the hidden beauty of the lifelong alien. Not the label itself, but the resilience it represents.

Because once you become a citizen, you are no less American than anyone else. The Constitution does not rank citizens by birthplace. The oath does not contain an asterisk. The law recognizes you fully.

But emotionally, you may still carry awareness of where you began.

You remember the first time you held your green card.
You remember the anxiety before an interview.
You remember the relief of approval.
You remember the pride of naturalization.

And you remember that number.

It follows you not as a scar, but as a reminder.

A reminder that belonging can be earned.
A reminder that citizenship can be chosen.
A reminder that identity can expand.

When I think about the thousands and millions who are still dreaming of that opportunity, I feel gratitude. Gratitude that my family navigated the system properly. Gratitude that I was able to stand in that room and take that oath.

And I feel responsibility.

Responsibility to speak carefully about immigration. Responsibility to teach younger generations what these terms mean. Responsibility to humanize what bureaucracy can sometimes flatten.

Because at the end of the day, an Alien Registration Number is not a creature from outer space.

It is a record of arrival.
It is proof of process.
It is a marker of transition.

And for those who carry it for life, it is a testament to a journey that reshaped everything.

My niece will never have that number. She will move through forms and applications without pausing at the letter A. And that is a privilege I am grateful she has.

But I hope she always remembers the conversation we had; I hope she remembers that some of us began our American story with that letter. I hope she understands that immigration is not abstract. It is personal.

Because somewhere tonight, in another country, someone is filling out paperwork and praying for approval. Someone is hoping to receive that number. Someone is risking everything for the chance to one day hold a certificate that still carries the mark of where they started.

And if they succeed, they too will become lifelong aliens in America.

Citizens. Voters. Workers. Parents. Neighbors.

With a story that began with A.

 EDITOR’S NOTE: Nyan Reynolds is a U.S. Army veteran and published author whose novels and cultural works draw from his Jamaican heritage, military service, and life experiences. His writing blends storytelling, resilience, and heritage to inspire readers.  

RELATED: Voices Of The Super Bowl: When Language Makes Us Uncomfortable

 By Ron Cheong

News Americas, TORONTO, Canada, Mon. Feb. 23, 2026: Memories are short in Guyana as elsewhere.  In the daily churn of corruption allegations, political theatrics and partisan outrage, perspective is often the first casualty. But a country on the cusp of historic transformation cannot afford amnesia – especially as another charade unfolds, with the leader of the official opposition trying to block the US government’s extradition request on charges of fraud and gold smuggling.

The New Demerara River Bridge commissioned on Sunday, October 5, 2025 in Guyana. (DPI image)

So even as development is progressing at a whirlwind pace, it is worth pausing deliberately and unsentimentally to look back at the calamity avoided – to examine the past decade and the country’s remarkable comeback. Guyana could have continued along the 2015–2020 trajectory of stagnation, fiscal contraction, stalled growth and political deadlock. Instead, beginning in 2020, the country pivoted aggressively toward expansion, social investment, housing acceleration, infrastructure build-out and unprecedented economic output.

The difference is not rhetorical. It is measurable. 

The Years Of Stagnation And Regression

The coalition government was in power when oil production began in December 2019. The contract was inked on its watch – Guyana entered the petroleum age on its watch.

But even that milestone later revealed a failure of leadership that let down the Guyanese People’s interests.

The administration was resistant and unprepared to answer legitimate public concerns about the oil contract and revenue management. The creation of the Natural Resource Fund was necessary, but its structure left unresolved questions about transparency. When citizens demanded clarity, they received defensiveness.

From 2015 to 2020, when not inert, governance was ineffective.  Infrastructure expansion was modest. Social reform was limited. The controversial closure of sugar estates displaced workers without delivering a credible economic transition plan. Fiscal conservatism may have reflected limited pre-oil revenues, but strategic imagination does not require surplus cash.

Then came the defining failure.

The 2018 no-confidence vote and the protracted 2020 election crisis were not minor political scuffles. They severely tested the country’s democracy.  For five months, Guyana’s reputation teetered. At the exact moment when oil required institutional strength and investor confidence, the country projected instability and constitutional brinkmanship.  The conflict was finally resolved through the intercession of CARICOM countries, including Mia Mottley – Barbados, Ralph Gonsalves -St. Vincent, and Keith Mitchell – Grenada, the US, the UK, the EU and others.

Oil did not destabilize Guyana. Politics nearly did.

By the time the coalition left office, production had begun, but trust had eroded. The country had entered the oil era, but the government was without a plan or a strategic vision.

A Remarkable Recovery

When the current administration returned to office in 2020, it inherited both oil revenues and institutional strain. Unlike its predecessor, it did not hesitate.

From 2022 onward, Guyana recorded the highest GDP growth rates in the world – over 60 percent in one year, above 30 percent in another, and more than 40 percent in 2024. Oil production surged from under 100,000 barrels per day in 2020 to well above 600,000 barrels per day within a few short years.

But numbers alone do not tell the story.

The difference was visible. Roads expanded. Bridges rose. Housing schemes multiplied. Hospitals were commissioned. Pensions increased. Cash transfers were rolled out. Scholarships widened access to education. Public investment moved at a speed that would have seemed implausible during the previous administration.

This was not reticent governance. It was an assertive deployment of government potential.

Critics rightly warn about inflation and procurement oversight.  Oil wealth, if poorly managed, can distort institutions as easily as it builds infrastructure. But even critics concede the obvious: execution under the 2020-2025 administration has been faster, more coordinated, and more ambitious.

The Ali government did not merely preside over oil production. It operationalized it.

Yes, there are thorny issues to deal with on an everyday basis:  There is systemic corruption, the country is caught between a rock and a hard place geopolitically, the coast which is under sea level is even more prone to flooding with climate change, and the country is challenged by the large influx of Venezuelans fleeing their country and elements of associated crime – to name some of the issues.

Also, despite record GDP growth, poverty remains stubbornly high. Entire communities, particularly in rural and hinterland regions, still struggle. Oil has expanded the state’s balance sheet faster than it has equalized opportunity – an indictment of how difficult structural transformation truly is.  But the administration is working on these gritty issues.

Competence Is Not Partisan

Strip away party loyalties and the contrast is stark. The earlier period was marked by:  Historic opportunity met with limited strategic boldness, political instability that shook democratic credibility and Institutional inactivity bordering on paralysis

The latter period has been marked by: Aggressive scaling of production and spending, visible infrastructure transformation and decisive executive action

One government seemed reluctant to move. The other has moved rapidly. History will not treat these periods as equal.

The first government will be remembered for ushering in oil. It will also be remembered for allowing political miscalculation to overshadow that milestone.

The second government will be remembered for converting oil revenue into visible transformation. It will also be judged on whether that transformation becomes sustainable and equitable.  

Learnings That Inform Future Prosperity

Guyana’s first oil decade has revealed something uncomfortable: economic destiny can change faster than political culture.

Oil did not make Guyana great. Governance determined whether oil translated into momentum or mismanagement.

Between inertia and acceleration, the country has seen both the fragility and the force of political power. The lesson of 2015–2025 is that leadership matters. Guyana now stands richer than ever before. The question is no longer whether the country can grow. It is whether its leaders, present and future, can continue to build institutions and govern competently

The 2015-2020 experience and the current political distractions reinforce and make clear that democracy, competence, and people-centered governance are the crucial bedrock for the country’s continued development and prosperity.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Ron Cheong is a frequent political commentator and columnist whose recent work focuses on international relations, economic resilience, and Caribbean-American affairs. He is a community activist and dedicated volunteer with extensive international banking experience. 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.

RELATED: King Kong And The Island: America’s Moral Collapse And Cuba