Dear Editor,
Guyana’s Minister of Local Government, Priya Manickchand, has launched a scathing attack on CARICOM leaders for engaging Venezuelan official Delcy Rodríguez while she sported a brooch depicting the Essequibo as Venezuelan territory.
Her outrage, framed around the sanctity of sovereignty and principle, is—on the surface—understandable. But it is also transparently selective, and that very selectivity strips her position of any remaining moral authority.
Minister Manickchand correctly declared that “principle shouldn’t be convenient.” Yet, convenience has become the hallmark of this administration’s foreign policy. For decades, Cuba stood as a pillar of support for Guyana, providing critical medical expertise that our system relied upon. When the United States exerted pressure, Guyana turned its back on Havana, quietly terminating the Cuban Medical Brigade programme. Where was the public outcry regarding sovereignty and loyalty then? Apparently, principle only applies when it aligns with Washington’s current geopolitical push.
This duplicity is echoed in the recent missive from President Irfaan Ali to the CARICOM Chairman, in which he essentially demands that regional partners calibrate their bilateral engagements to suit Guyana’s sensitivities. It is a bold, if not arrogant, demand for a government that has remained notably silent when other CARICOM nations were being penalized by external powers for failing to fall in line with US interests.
To demand unwavering solidarity from one’s neighbours while exercising cold, opportunistic flexibility at home is a contradiction that does not go unnoticed in regional capitals.
CARICOM is a community of sovereign nations, not an extension of Georgetown’s foreign policy apparatus. Small island states, having navigated years of energy dependency through Petro-diplomacy, are being lectured by an administration that chose to align with Trinidad and Tobago—and by extension, Washington—at the expense of regional cohesion.
The hypocrisy is even more glaring when one looks inward. The government insists that the world must respect Guyana’s sovereignty, yet it refuses to practice that same respect within our own borders. The Attorney General and the President have actively shunned the Leader of the Opposition, denying him a seat at the table to be properly apprised of the upcoming ICJ proceedings. If this administration cannot be bothered to build a unified national front at home, it has no business demanding that CARICOM leaders carry that burden for them abroad.
Sovereignty is not merely a slogan to be brandished at regional summits; it is a responsibility upheld through transparency and inclusion. By excluding domestic stakeholders, the government weakens the very cause it seeks to defend.
Venezuela’s provocative use of symbols is an attempt to project authority where it has none, and it certainly warrants objection. But let us be clear: this is not a loyalty test that Guyana is qualified to administer. You cannot outsource your own integrity.
President Ali and Minister Manickchand are currently posturing as defenders of the realm, yet their actions border on the very bullyism they claim to oppose. They demand from our neighbours a standard they refuse to hold themselves to, assuming that CARICOM will act as a subservient instrument of their selective outrage. They are mistaken.
Diplomacy in the Caribbean is a complex balancing act, and if Guyana wishes to command genuine support, it must stop demanding compliance and start leading with consistency.
Sovereignty begins at home.
The indignation expressed by Minister Priya Manickchand over Barbados’ Prime Minister Mia Mottley not confronting Venezuela’s Delcy Rodríguez rings hollow when measured against the conduct of Guyana’s own leadership at home.
It is political theatre to demand that regional leaders loudly defend Guyana’s sovereignty while, domestically, that same principle is treated with selective regard. The Attorney General and the President’s decision to sideline the Leader of the Opposition from being fully apprised of the upcoming ICJ proceedings speaks volumes. Sovereignty is not merely a slogan to be invoked abroad—it is a responsibility that must be upheld through unity, transparency, and constitutional respect at home.
If the Government of Guyana cannot demonstrate a cohesive national front on an issue as critical as the Essequibo controversy, it weakens its moral standing to chastise others for perceived silence or diplomatic caution. CARICOM leaders are not extensions of Guyana’s foreign policy apparatus; they act within their own national interests, just as Guyana does.
There is an uncomfortable truth here: you cannot outsource outrage. Nor can you demand a standard internationally that you are unwilling to uphold domestically. Sovereignty begins at home. It is built through inclusion, not exclusion; through principle, not convenience.
If Guyana’s leaders fail to represent and defend that sovereignty with integrity within their own borders, they should not expect others to carry that burden for them beyond it.