The United States’ interest in Guyana is economic not political

Aug 08, 2024 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

Kaieteur News – The United States’ interest in Guyana is primarily economic rather than political. The significant investments by American companies, particularly in the oil sector, are a primary driver of this interest.

The roots of the contemporary US’ economic involvement in Guyana can be traced back to the opposition of US oil giants ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips to the nationalization of Venezuela’s oil resources under Hugo Chávez.  As a result of its failure to force Chavez to bend to its will, ExxonMobil decided to punish that country by belatedly upping exploration in Guyana.

It will be recalled that ExxonMobil had rights to do so since 1999 when it signed a Production Sharing Agreement with the PPPC government of Janet Jagan. But it was not until it was forced to depart Venezuela that it undertook any major efforts at exploration in Guyana.  The strategic timing of these actions, particularly after it became clear that the Venezuelan government had no intention of inviting ExxonMobil back, can be seen as a calculated move to “punish” Venezuela.

The US has effectively utilized Guyana as a counterbalance to Venezuela. By fostering a strong economic presence in Guyana through its corporations, ExxonMobil and Hess, the US indirectly is hoping to open to pressure Venezuela and, in so doing, exploit tensions between Guyana and that country. In Guyana, the US’ economic interests have been safeguarded by the agreement signed by the APNU+AFC government. This agreement has been widely criticized as disproportionately favoring ExxonMobil.

The People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPPC), owes a political debt to the US, given the strong stance the latter took against the attempt to rig the 2020 elections, an effort aimed at keeping the APNU+AFC in power.  This act of defending democracy was not a consistent stance by the US in the region but was necessitated by the blatant nature of the fraud and the potential crisis of credibility it would face if it did not act. The head of the Organization of American States (OAS) observer mission even labeled it the most transparent attempt to rig an election he had ever seen.

The US’s intervention in Guyana’s electoral process, however, is an exception rather than a rule in its foreign policy.  The US has a history of inconsistent actions concerning democracy in Latin America and the Caribbean. It had instigated a military coup in Honduras because the then President resisted the overtures to privatize the country’s telecommunication sector to US companies. The US was behind the legislative coup against Dilma Rousseff in Brazil. It was also behind the charges against President Lula, Rousseff’s predecessor.

The US was also behind the legislative coup against President Lugo in Paraguay. And it engineered protests leading to the toppling of Bolivia’s President Evo Morales. These are all examples of the US’ role in destabilizing democratically elected governments that do not align with its interests.

In Guyana’s case, the US’ decisive intervention against electoral fraud was driven more by the need to maintain credibility and to uphold a certain image rather than a genuine commitment to democratic ideals. The involvement of the US in Guyana’s 2020 elections was more an exception than the norm.

The US has long been orchestrating a regime change in Venezuela. The US has already indicated support for that country’s losing opposition candidate in last month’s elections. The US has said that recognizes this candidate as the elected President even though at the time it had not seen the tallies which were supposed to have signaled the Opposition’s victory in the recent elections.

The Opposition has claimed it won and the US says it accepts this but neither it nor the Opposition have produced the tallies that vindicate this victory. Instead, it wants Maduro to produce his tallies, knowing that by law it is the National Electoral Council that is supposed to do so.  Now US allies are contending that it does not “believe” that Maduro won the elections. It is not for anyone to “believe” but to “establish” who won.

For Guyana, this situation poses a diplomatic challenge. While the current government might feel a sense of obligation to align with US policies due to the support received during the 2020 electoral crisis, it has to ensure that its actions regarding the recognition of Maduro do not undermine the democratic will of the Venezuelan people.

In the meantime, Guyana has to bear the social costs associated with the floodgates of Venezuelan government escaping the economic crisis in Venezuela, a crisis that can be traced to US punitive sanctions against that country in order to get its hands on Venezuela’s oil.

(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper.)

• Guyana, opposition, Peeping Tom, political, Production Sharing Agreement