The Lobbying Fallacy and Guyana’s Real Leverage

Dear Editor,

Vishnu Bisram’s latest defense of the government’s million-dollar lobbying tab (March 1) is a masterclass in anachronistic “Realism” that fails to account for Guyana’s actual leverage of our current status as an economic powerhouse in 2026. While he invokes the ghosts of 1964 and the Cold War to justify these “transactional fees,” his logic ignores the fundamental shift in the global energy landscape and the very theorists he cites.

• The Redundancy of “Geo-Security” Fees: Bisram argues that we must pay for American protection. This is a profound misunderstanding of contemporary US foreign policy. The United States does not protect the Stabroek Block because a lobbyist asked them to; they protect it because it is home to tens of billions of dollars in American infrastructure and a critical node in global energy security. To suggest that Washington’s defense of ExxonMobil—and by extension, our borders—is contingent on a US$1M “subscription fee” is to insult the strategic intelligence of the State Department.
• The Weaponization of the Purse: The core of the critique Bisram misses is not if lobbying exists, but what is being bought. FARA filings in Washington often reveal a focus not on border military aid, but on shaping domestic political narratives. When public funds are used to hire firms to influence how US officials perceive internal politics, it isn’t “geo-security”—it is the taxpayer funded marginalization of domestic dissent for partisan gain ,as evidenced by Continental Strategies use of Congress-persons to shape narratives on one “specific political opponent”. Bisram’s “realism” conveniently omits this partisan utility.
• A Supplicant Mindset in an Era of Influence: Bisram’s worldview is stuck in 1977, treating Guyana as a fragile pawn that must pay for the privilege of existence. In 2026, Guyana is a primary driver of non-OPEC oil growth. This gives us major “Resource Leverage” that far outweighs any lobbyist’s Rolodex. If we are still paying for “survival” while sitting on one of the world’s largest offshore oil reserves, we aren’t practicing realism; we are practicing a self-imposed client-state mentality that keeps us stuck in permanent dependency.
• The Institutional Failure: True sovereignty resides not in a “luxury tax” paid to K Street firms; it is built through the strengthening of domestic institutions —GECOM, the Judiciary, and the Joint Services. Bisram suggests that without these lobbyists, we risk the authoritarianism of the past. On the contrary, if our democracy is so brittle that it requires a foreign PR firm to keep it upright, then we have already failed to learn from the lessons of our own history.
• The Kissinger Paradox: Bisram urges a reading of Kissinger and Morgenthau. He should take his own advice. Kissinger famously noted that “America has no permanent friends or enemies, only permanent interests.” Guyana’s current interest is transparent governance. Using the public purse for opaque lobbying contracts under the guise of “national survival” serves only the interest of the ruling elite, not the Guyanese taxpayer.

Bisram’s nostalgia for 20th‑century “Realist” tactics is a dangerous distraction. In 2026, Guyana’s survival rests on our economic performance and the integrity of our institutions, not on how many “transactional fees” we channel to Washington’s political operatives.