Latest update June 13th, 2025 12:40 AM
Latest News
- ExxonMobil says it owns US$34B in assets paid for with Guyana’s oil
- British man is lone passenger to survive Air India plane crash
- Israel in major strikes on Iran
- Nigerian man gets 6 years for tricking Guyanese woman, others in romance scam
- Israeli strikes kill at least 52 across Gaza as UN demands ceasefire vote
Billions of dollars rendered to Exxon and its associates leave the farmers of Guyana as mud rats seeking to eke out a living
Dear Editor, It is nice to have another oil conference with other topics in Guyana. When one examines Guyana’s contribution to the oil explorers of the world, Exxon, the irresistible conclusion is...
THE BLUNT OF THE DAY
Sports
Features/Columnists
The moment of truth for the AFC
The Peeping Tom column… Kaieteur News – Politics, it was once said, is the art of the possible. But in Guyana, it is often a drama of the improbable: a parade of misalliances, miscalculations, and megalomania, performed before a population too jaded to believe, too weary to resist. Thus, the latest installment in the saga presents itself—an aging sidekick now abandoned, its cape torn and its mask askew, standing alone on the edge of the 2025 general and regional elections. The Alliance For Change (AFC), once the shimmering hope of a middle class tired of racial arithmetic, now finds itself a disheveled actor denied a script, a stage, and an audience. The AFC, let us recall, was not always a tragic figure. In 2015, it managed to negotiate, under the much-fêted Cummingsburg Accord, a lion’s share of the ministerial pie—40%, to be exact. This was not without controversy. The People’s National Congress Reform (PNCR), seasoned practitioners of power politics, grumbled that the AFC, with what the PNCR believed to be less than 8% of the vote, had secured too much of the banquet. But therein lies the rub: without that 8%, or perhaps less, the Coalition—APNU+AFC, an acronym masquerading as unity—would have remained in the political wilderness. The PNCR, in their eternal conviction that arithmetic should serve ambition and not vice versa, misjudged the limits of gluttony. The divorce began with the PNCR’s decision to go solo in the 2018 local government elections, casting the AFC adrift like some unwanted appendage. A power play, yes, but also a harbinger of a deeper betrayal. The PNCR believed, perhaps rightly, that the AFC had secured too much of the spoils. It was under pressure from its supporters to right-size the AFC’s share of the spoils of office. The PNCR supporters, seeking positions of influence, wanted to downsize the AFC. The gambit employed by the PNCR was simple: prove the AFC electorally feeble and use the results as Exhibit A in the case against any future claims to the positions within government. The AFC was forced to go into the 2018 local government elections alone. And like a moth to the flame of relevance, flailed through those elections and came out burnt. But power has its own logic and its own karma. The distrust sewn in that unilateral act by the PNCR was not a minor tear—it was a fault line that ran right through the 2020 general elections. The Coalition lost narrowly, and it is the memory of the AFC’s complicity in that botched attempt at electoral alchemy that remains. The AFC did not merely stand by as democracy was kneecapped; it attempted to wear the stained robes of victory, as if legitimacy were just another ministerial portfolio to be distributed. The stain remains, indelible and damning. Now, the AFC faces its own electoral baptism by fire. Alone, for the first time in general and regional election, since 2011, it must answer the question it has long evaded: does it exist as a political force independent of coalition arithmetic? Will it garner 2% or 8%? Or, to put it more poetically, has the party that once claimed to bridge the chasm between Guyana’s racial poles become a footnote to its own preamble? This is more than a matter of vote percentages; it is a question of political anthropology. The AFC was, at its conception, a vessel for middle-class aspiration—a promise that the republic could be governed by ideas rather than race, by integrity rather than inheritance. That it chose, in the end, to be a junior partner in realpolitik is no surprise. Idealists in politics are like pianists in a hurricane: one never doubts their talent, only their timing. The party’s most damning crime was not its ambition, but its abandonment of purpose. To be clear, the PNCR’s greed—its refusal to acknowledge that its path to State House ran through the bridge called AFC—is no less culpable. In their hunger for power and disdain for partnership, they ensured that what began as coalition ended in dissolution. But the AFC’s failure to resist, its eagerness to play the handmaid in the masquerade of 2020, robbed it of the moral high ground it once claimed. The electorate noticed. And the electorate, in time, remembers. So here we are: 2025 looms, and the AFC must now stand naked before the voters, without the camouflage of coalition, without the leverage of kingmaker status. This is its moment of truth—not the scripted truths of press releases or Facebook Live monologues, but the hard, unblinking truth of ballots and public memory. If the AFC fails to breach even the modest 8% barrier, it will not merely be an electoral defeat. It will be an obituary. The professional classes—the party’s traditional base—may finally signal that they have moved on, unwilling to mortgage their ideals for a party that pawned its integrity. But politics, like tragedy, loves a comeback. The question is whether the AFC, now humbled and cornered, has the courage to rediscover its founding soul. If it cannot, then 2025 will not be its Waterloo. It will be its unmarked grave. (The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper.) Read More →
UN Security Council Fails Ukraine, Gaza and the World
By Sir Ronald Sanders Kaieteur News- When Russian drones stalk civilians along Ukraine’s Dnipro River and Gaza’s hospitals lie in ruins under relentless bombardment, the world cannot pretend that these are distant crises. Yet the UN Security Council, which is entrusted to uphold global peace, is paralyzed by the self-interest of its veto powers, exposing its failure to fulfil both its mandate and its duty to safeguard humanity. Sir Ronald Sanders For small Caribbean nations struggling to build themselves in a world whose financial and trading architecture excludes their meaningful participation, such failures impose immediate costs. Among these costs are: rising energy costs, food insecurity, and the alarming precedent that might, makes right. It is time for every voice, large and small, to rise in defence of law, humanity, and the UN Charter’s promise of global security. Campaign of Fear Since July 2024, Russian forces have executed a coordinated drone assault across Kherson Province in Ukraine, killing nearly 150 civilians and injuring countless more. The UN’s Independent Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine found that these strikes targeted people going about daily life — fetching water, riding mopeds, and even boarding ambulances — using live video feeds to pick off victims with surgical precision. One witness described rescuers, who were tending to the wounded, being blown apart by a second strike. The Commission concluded that these were deliberate war crimes and crimes against humanity, designed to drive entire communities from their homes. Yet when some members of the UN Security Council moved to condemn these atrocities, Russia vetoed the resolution, transforming the veto from a safeguard of human life into a license for impunity. Meanwhile, estimates put the number of Ukrainian and Russian deaths – military and civilian – at much more than 300,000 since the conflict started in 2022. Gaza’s Descent into Collective Punishment Since the horrific attack on Israel by Hamas on 7 October 2023, Gaza has endured an unrelenting counteroffensive that has reduced whole neighbourhoods to rubble by the Israeli military. In the most recent atrocity, the UN reports that nearly 4,000 Palestinians—mostly civilians—have died under a blockade that cuts off food, water, and medicine. This adds to the more than 54,000 that had reportedly been killed before this latest cruelty. The UN Special Coordinator stressed that families are being “denied the very basics” and warned of looming famine. Hospitals and schools, even those sheltering the displaced, have not been spared. Calls for a ceasefire and unimpeded humanitarian access have repeatedly faltered on threatened or actual vetoes – each one a vote for further suffering. The Israeli government said its action is to stop Hamas from “stealing aid”, which Hamas denies. Either way, civilians continue to suffer and perish. When the Veto Shields Aggressors The UN Charter gave its five permanent Council members “primary responsibility” for keeping the peace, not for shielding those who flout humanitarian law. Each self-interest veto of this kind is a blow to the rule of law, eroding the norm that civilian lives must be protected from direct attack. Small States, Big Stakes Caribbean nations live daily with the consequences of the Security Council’s failure to act. Rising energy costs sparked by conflict erode their budgets, threaten their food security, and stoke social unrest. Worse still, if veto-wielders can ignore mass atrocity, what protections remain for a small state that cannot count on the UN to safeguard its welfare? National sovereignty, territorial integrity, and individual human rights, which were hard-won through centuries of struggle, demand that small, developing states speak out, or risk standing by while these rights are trampled. Commending the European Union In the current climate of diplomatic paralysis, the European Union (EU) has recently shown rare courage in relation to the horrifying events in Gaza. EU High Representative, Kaja Kallas, declared that “Israeli strikes in Gaza go beyond what is necessary to fight Hamas” and rejected any aid distribution model that bypasses the UN, warning that “humanitarian aid cannot be weaponised”. EU Commission President, Ursula von der Leyen, described recent attacks on civilian infrastructure as “abhorrent” and “disproportionate,” and Germany’s new chancellor publicly questioned Israel’s objectives. By suspending trade talks with Israel and reviewing its association agreement, the EU is sending a clear message: strategic partnerships must not eclipse human life. Raising Voices in Unity Like the EU, Caribbean Community (CARICOM) states need not wait for the UN Security Council to perform its duty. Their parliaments can pass motions demanding accountability; their foreign ministries can coordinate regional statements; their civil societies can keep Ukraine and Gaza in the public eye. When CARICOM states speak with one voice – rooted in their shared history of fighting for self-determination – they amplify the UN Charter’s promise that “representative democracy is indispensable,” and remind the great powers of their pledge to protect it. A Collective Imperative The UN Security Council veto was never meant to be a refuge for perpetrators. If left unchallenged, aggression becomes the new normal, spreading like a cancer until every nation feels its ruin. Now is the moment for Latin American and Caribbean states – and all who value stability – to demand that the Security Council honour its founding covenant. For if the rule of law dies in Ukraine and Gaza, it will be extinguished everywhere. The nations of Latin America and the Caribbean – each forged in the foundry of oppression and steeled by ancestral struggles for liberty – must unmask every veto that shields atrocity, champion resolutions that protect civilians, and restore the Charter’s promise of peace and security. (The writer is Antigua and Barbuda’s Ambassador to the US and the OAS. He is also the Dean of the Ambassadors of the Western Hemisphere Group accredited to the U.S. The views expressed are entirely his own. Responses and previous commentaries: www.sirronaldsanders.com) Read More →
Oil profit formula: pneumonia, diarrhoea and leadership paranoia
Hard Truths… by GHK Lall Kaieteur News – I am caught between thanking Pres. Bharrat Jagdeo or congratulating Guyana’s combination of Houdini, Bernie, and Donny. The second gained Wall Street recognition of a kind; the latter started in the Big Apple, elevated to the Bad Apple. Wall Street and Washington for Jagdeo is a stellar accolade, indeed. Thanks for clearing the air on oil profit formula by distorting and polluting it. And, I congratulate Pres. Jagdeo for the twisted, but insisting that it is straight. Incidentally, it’s President Jagdeo, since the ‘addah banna’ suffers from a memory that goes and comes. Mainly, goes. Profit was the question. The more he revealed, the more he concealed. Profit formula: instead of enlightening, he added darkness. It is classic Jagdeo; deception theater squared. First, ‘It’s consistent’, this formula employed. What is it, good sir? ‘Over the last three years, the formula is consistent.’ Second, why has Dr. Jagdeo drifted to the last three years, when the profit numbers are for only 2024? Why venture there? The question still dangles. What is this mysterious, top-secret formula in operation to derive Guyana’s and Exxon’s respective shares in a half and half profit-sharing partnership? Dr. Jagdeo went around, came around, and his profit formula was in the same place. Nowhere. It’s consistent is a concoction straight out of the PPP Government’s laboratory. Frankenstein came from such. Consistent with what? What is its base, elements, reference? What can it be, other than this: oil revenues minus expenses, and the result divided by two? One half for Exxon and company, one half for Guyana. Unless, in this unique profit-sharing formula, it’s what Bugs Bunny did to Daffy Duck in that old Looney Tunes cartoon. One for you, and two for me. It could be some peculiar American style oil math in operation in Guyana. If Pres. Jagdeo doesn’t know, then he should give that sophisticated job to Dr. Ashni Singh, a man who does know, despite developing energy only around budget times. I am humble enough to say publicly that I may not know enough, and seek enlightenment. Hence, the question remains, is not going away: what is the damned formula, Mr. Jagdeo? Take off the tricky headgear. Put on a clean white hat and inspire Guyanese. For third, what explains the huge differential between the consortium’s profit haul of US$10.4 billion (US$4.7 billion, US$3.1 billion and US$2.5 billion for XOM, Hess Corp, and CNOOC respectively) for 2024, as against Guyana’s US$2.6 billion take? In a 50:50 profit formula, that just doesn’t make sense. In British English, it doesn’t add up. In Brooklyn English, it stinks. In Jagdeo English, ‘it’s consistent over the years’, and the ‘formula is consistent’ says nothing. I have never heard so much nonsense crammed into such a short span of time, and from one man. A man who was a finance minister. I think I just heard a reincarnation of Bernard Madoff’s high finance that made many swoon, and then their many millions, too. I try my hand to untangle the noodles that Dr. Jagdeo delivered. He spoke of 14.5 percent, as Guyana’s share: 75% gone for expenses, and the remaining 25%, split into two equal shares, plus Guyana’s 2% royalty. Is Exxon now including some recovered costs as profit? It still doesn’t tie-in and tieback, because Exxon stands at US$6 billion in profit for 2024 pretax, while Guyana’s overall receipts amounted to US$2.6 billion. Pre-tax, post-tax it’s the same for Exxon, since it doesn’t pay corporate taxes. The fractions fall apart, and whatever the ratio or decimal application used, there is an imbalance that hangs around, and doesn’t make sense. It begs for explanation, reconciliation. A simple, straightforward, persuasive one. Moreover, was it really necessary to insert any correlation between profit collection and the national budget? Even further, I interpret Mr. Jagdeo’s drift into ‘who gets more now versus who gets more later’, to be another smokescreen intended to convolute the profit-sharing issue and confuse citizens. A 50:50 profit formula shouldn’t lead to this level of leadership vacillation, obfuscation, and constipation. ‘It’s consistent’ has all the binding power of froth. I recommend to Pres. Jagdeo that he thinks before he tries these verbal cha-cha-cha(s). ‘Laak ah tole de addah fellah, have some self-respect, maan.’ Add or subtract, multiply or divide, American oil accounting or Russian (roulette), the profit representations from Dr. Jagdeo are part of the serial deceptions now so normal locally. Now I close with this little message. There is no trustworthy leadership in Guyana. There is no credible Opposition. There are no respected national institutions. Corruption is of no concern, consequence. So, too, ethics, morals, principles. standards. What the hell am I doing by being involved? Time for me to start easing out of this minefield. Books are waiting to be read, written. (The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper.) Read More →
Weekend Cartoon
