Dear Editor,
The decision by U.S. Ambassador to Guyana, Ms. Nicole Theriot, not to invite the Leader of the Opposition to the celebration of the 250th anniversary of American independence is both disappointing and difficult to reconcile with the principles of inclusive diplomacy. In my view, the decision stands in contrast to the approach of former U.S. Ambassador Sarah-Ann Lynch, whose tenure demonstrated a clear appreciation for engaging all of Guyana’s key stakeholders, even during periods of significant political tension following the 2020 elections. She never disrespected the PNC, APNU or the AFC despite their undemocratic credentials that did not reconcile with the US bedrock principles on democracy.
Had Ambassador Theriot sought guidance from senior officials within the U.S. Department of State, or reflected on the practices of her predecessors, she would likely have been reminded that there is no blanket policy excluding individuals with pending criminal proceedings from attending White House social events or official receptions. Against that backdrop, the exclusion of Guyana’s Leader of the Opposition appears inconsistent and sends an unfortunate message to the 109,056 Guyanese who cast their votes for the WIN Party and their Leader. Whether intended or not, many of those citizens may reasonably feel that they, too, were excluded from participating in a celebration commemorating America’s enduring democratic ideals.
The apparent inconsistency becomes even more striking when one considers that numerous individuals with criminal convictions or legal proceedings have attended White House events over the years. Publicly documented examples include Roger Stone, Steve Bannon, and Donald Trump, each of whom has attended White House functions in the past, despite significant criminal legal matters. Likewise, individuals who have completed their sentences, such as Michael Milken, Charles Kushner, and Bernard Kerik, have also been welcomed at White House events. Why this inconsistency? It feels imperialistic.
The point is not to equate these individuals with Guyana’s Leader of the Opposition—who, it should be noted, has not been convicted of any offence but is merely the subject of pending legal proceedings. Rather, it is to illustrate that the United States has not historically adopted an absolute rule excluding individuals because of criminal convictions or unresolved legal matters. If such a rule does not exist in Washington, its apparent application by the U.S. Embassy in Georgetown raises legitimate questions about consistency, fairness, and equal treatment. Is Ambassador Theirot doing her own thing and making it up as she goes along. The Office of the Leader of the Opposition should make a formal complaint against her with the State Department and with the White House.
The United States has long championed democratic participation, political pluralism, and engagement across the political spectrum. It is therefore regrettable that an invitation list for such a significant national celebration could be perceived as excluding the holder of one of Guyana’s highest constitutional offices and the parliamentary leader of a substantial segment of the electorate.
In this regard, the United States could draw lessons from the diplomatic practices of the United Kingdom, France, the European Union and Canada, all of whose representatives have extended invitations to Guyana’s Leader of the Opposition for their respective national celebrations. Their actions reflect an understanding that the Office of the Leader of the Opposition is a constitutional institution, deserving of respect regardless of who occupies it.
Ambassadors are accredited to the Cooperative Republic of Guyana, not to any particular political party or to President Irfaan Ali. Their role is to engage with the State and its democratic institutions in their entirety. The Office of the Leader of the Opposition is constitutionally part of the Government of Guyana and definitely part of the State apparatus. By excluding the Leader of the Opposition from an official celebration hosted on Guyanese soil, the Embassy risks creating the impression that it has departed from that longstanding diplomatic tradition practiced by well seasoned past US Ambassadors like Ms Sarah Ann-Lynch.
This issue extends beyond one individual. It concerns respect for Guyana’s constitutional framework and for the citizens represented by the Office of the Leader of the Opposition. Diplomatic engagement is most effective when it embraces the full spectrum of democratic representation rather than appearing to favour one side of the political divide.
I sincerely hope that future engagements by the United States Embassy will better reflect the inclusive democratic values that both Guyana and the United States profess to uphold. Such an approach would strengthen, rather than diminish, the enduring friendship between our two nations and reaffirm respect for all Guyanese, irrespective of political affiliation.
The Ambassador’s subsequent public defence of the decision has done little to dispel these concerns. Rather than prolonging the controversy, it would be more constructive for the Embassy to reaffirm its commitment to engaging all of Guyana’s constitutional institutions with the impartiality and respect that have traditionally characterized American diplomacy. Such an approach would honour the legacy of her predecessors and reinforce the values that America’s 250th anniversary seeks to celebrate.