Selective Principles and Regional Realities

April 30, 2026·3 min read

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^[1]. 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^[2], 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^[3]. 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^[4] 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^[3] 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.

Sincerely
Hemdutt Kumar

References

Medical partnership with Cuban gov’t quietly terminated - Stabroek News — www.stabroeknews.com ↩
President Ali writes CARICOM Chairman about Rodríguez's false ... — newsroom.gy ↩
ICJ to begin oral hearings on Guyana–Venezuela border case on May 4 - Kaieteur News — kaieteurnewsonline.com ↩
Delcy Rodríguez and Mia Mottley announce new investment opportunities, technical cooperation - Energy Analytics Institute (EAI) — energy-analytics-institute.org ↩

Medical partnership with Cuban gov’t quietly terminated - Stabroek News

www.stabroeknews.com · 2026-02-08

In the face of the United States’ caution about alleged exploitation of Cuban medical workers, Guyana has quietly terminated the longstanding bilateral medical partnership with Havana and now negotiates directly with individuals, sources say. [...] However, the Cuba medical scholarship programme is to continue with notices for the 2026/2027 academic year to be published sometime soon, the government says. [...] “After all that Cuba has done for Guyana this is what it has come down to. The agreement was government to government, a diplomatic agreement but all that has stopped and now the workers are being recruited directly…,” a source told the Sunday Stabroek. [...] When contacted by the Sunday Stabroek, Minister of Health, Dr Frank Anthony confirmed that Georgetown has halted the bilateral agreement and Cuban doctors are paid directly and in accordance with the labour laws of the country. [...] The Donald Trump administration has reaffirmed its stance against the participation of Caribbean governments in Cuba’s overseas medical missions, warning that such engagement perpetuates human rights abuses and forced labour practices. [...] According to a statement issued on Friday by the US Embassy in Barbados, which oversees diplomatic relations with the Eastern Caribbean, Washington is committed to holding accountable, Cuban government officials, foreign government representatives, and other actors who facilitate what it describes as exploitative labour schemes. [...] The Trump administration has long criticised Cuba’s medical missions, arguing that while they provide healthcare abroad, they do so at [...] expense of Cuban professionals who face coercion, restricted freedoms, and withheld wages. The Embassy’s statement underscores that Caribbean nations have alternative, ethical avenues to recruit foreign medical workers without enabling forced labour. [...] The US’ call is framed as both a moral and strategic appeal in that regional governments are urged to reject Cuban medical programmes and instead pursue transparent, rights-respecting partnerships to meet their healthcare needs. [...] United States is committed to [...] Washington’s planned actions [...] “Today, we announce the expansion of an existing Cuba-related visa restriction policy that targets forced labour linked to the Cuban labour export programme. This expanded policy applies to current or former Cuban government officials, and other individuals, including foreign government officials, who are believed to be responsible for, or involved in, the Cuban labour export programme, particularly Cuba’s overseas medical missions. This policy also applies to the immediate family of such persons. The Department has already taken steps to impose visa restrictions on several individuals, including Venezuelans, under this expanded policy,” the statement had said. [...] Following the statement, President Irfaan Ali made it clear that Guyana was not in breach of any labour laws by employing Cuban medical workers and that this message had been relayed to Washington. [...] And where one source related that the medical scholarship programme for students had stopped last year, Minister of Public Service Efficiency Zulfikar Ally told the Sunday Stabroek that it “simply isn’t true.” [...] He said that last year students were sent to train and the 2026/2027 call for applicants will be out soon. [...] sidelines of the recently [...] On Wednesday, Washington also responded to assertions by St Lucia’s Prime Minister, Phillip J Pierre, that they had asked that the scholarship programme be stopped. “The United States has not recently talked to Saint Lucia about international education and respects countries’ sovereign decisions regarding the education of their citizens. The United States continues to call for an end to exploitation and forced labor in the illegitimate Cuban regime’s overseas medical missions program.” the statement said.

Source

Selective Principles and Regional Realities in Village Voice News, April 30, 2026

President Ali writes CARICOM Chairman about Rodríguez's false ...

newsroom.gy · 2026-04-28

# President Ali writes CARICOM Chairman about Rodríguez’s false Essequibo brooch [...] April 28, 2026 [...] President Dr. Irfaan Ali has written to the incumbent Chairman of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), objecting to acting Venezuelan President Delcy Rodriguez’s use of a brooch of her country’s map that includes Guyana’s Essequibo Region during official talks with regional leaders. [...] In a letter to St. Kitts and Nevis Prime Minister Dr. Terrence Drew, President Ali said it is “deeply regrettable” that bilateral engagements between Venezuela and sister CARICOM states have been accompanied by the prominent display of symbols asserting Venezuela’s claim to Guyana’s territory. The Guyanese leader reminded Prime Minister Drew that all CARICOM Heads have repeatedly and unequivocally supported Guyana’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, and for the resolution of the controversy through the judicial process before the International Court of Justice. [...] See below the full text of the letter from President Ali to Prime Minister Drew: [...] I note with grave concern the public display by Venezuela’s Acting President Delcy Rodríguez, during official engagements in Member States of the Caribbean Community, of a map purporting to incorporate Guyana’s Essequibo region as part of Venezuela. [...] Guyana fully respects the sovereign right of CARICOM Member States to conduct bilateral relations with all partners, including the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. However, it is deeply regrettable that such engagements have been accompanied by the prominent display of symbols asserting Venezuela’s claim to Guyana’s territory. [...] The use of CARICOM engagements to project or promote a territorial claim against a Member State risks being interpreted as acquiescence or tolerance. No action, whether deliberate or inadvertent, should create the impression that the Community’s platforms may be used to advance claims now before the International Court of Justice. CARICOM’s principled support for Guyana must be reflected not only in declarations, but also in the context and conduct of official engagements. [...] Guyana recalls its consistent position that the boundary was settled by the 1899 Arbitral Award, which determined the boundary as a full, perfect and final settlement. Venezuela’s revival of the claim decades later, and its more recent measures purporting to annex the Essequibo and appoint officials for that territory, form part of a pattern of conduct inconsistent with international law and the process to which the matter has been submitted. These actions persist notwithstanding the Order of the Court of 1 December 2023, which required Venezuela not to take any action that would modify the situation that currently prevails in the territory in dispute, whereby Guyana administers and exercises control over that area, and required both Parties to refrain from any action that might aggravate or extend the dispute or make it more difficult to resolve. [...] I am writing to you, the current Chairman of CARICOM, conveying Guyana’s concern and urging continued vigilance in safeguarding the Community’s principled position. [...] Guyana reminds all CARICOM Heads of Government of their repeated and unequivocal support for Guyana’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, and for the resolution of the controversy through the judicial process before the Court. That position was reaffirmed most recently at the Fiftieth Regular Meeting of the Conference of Heads of Government. [...] Guyana remains fully committed to the peaceful resolution of this matter in accordance with international law. We continue to repose our confidence in the Court and to respect its processes and eventual judgment. At the same time, Guyana expects all States, including Venezuela, to act consistently with the principles of the United Nations Charter, refrain from provocation, and respect the ongoing judicial process.

ICJ to begin oral hearings on Guyana–Venezuela border case on May 4 - Kaieteur News

kaieteurnewsonline.com · 2026-02-07

(Kaieteur News) – Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs, Anil Nandlall, SC, has announced that oral arguments in the Guyana–Venezuela border controversy before the International Court of Justice(ICJ) will commence on May 4, 2026. [...] Attorney General Nandlall disclosed that Guyana has already filed two written pleadings on the merits of the case, while Venezuela has also submitted two pleadings, the most recent of which was filed in August 2025. [...] While outlining developments within the legal system, Nandlall stated that the Attorney General’s Chambers, in coordination with the Office of the President and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, is actively preparing Guyana’s legal team and materials for the upcoming ICJ hearing concerning the 1899 Arbitral Award. [...] “I am pleased to inform this house that on January 27, 2026, all parties to the case were notified by the court that the hearing on the merits will open on Monday, May 4, 2026. A detailed schedule for the hearings will be communicated shortly,” Nandlall said. [...] Guyana is seeking the court’s confirmation that the 1899 Arbitral Award, which established the international boundary between Guyana and Venezuela, is legally valid and remains binding on both states under international law. [...] Although Venezuela recognised the validity of the Award and accepted the established boundary for more than 60 years, it reversed its position on the eve of Guyana’s independence, rejected the Award, and asserted a claim to more than two-thirds of Guyana’s territory, encompassing the Essequibo Region. [...] Venezuela previously sought to have the case dismissed, filing two objections to the court’s jurisdiction in 2019 and 2022, respectively. Both objections were rejected by the Court by overwhelming majorities. [...] In December 2023, following Guyana’s request prompted by Venezuela’s threats to seize and annex Guyana’s territory, the ICJ ordered both parties to refrain from any actions that could disturb Guyana’s administration and control of the disputed territory while the case remains pending. [...] In a subsequent statement, the Government of Guyana expressed full confidence that it has demonstrated in its Reply that Venezuela’s challenges to the Arbitral Award and the international boundary—outlined in its Counter-Memorial—are entirely without merit, and that the Court will ultimately affirm the validity, finality, and legally binding nature of both the Award and the established boundary.

Selective Principles and Regional Realities — Hemdutt Kumar — Opinion