Concerns over transparency, parliamentary oversight, and Guyana’s diplomatic posture have been raised following reports that the Government of Guyana signed a “Statement of Intent” (SOI) with the United States on December 9, expanding joint military and defense cooperation. The concerns were articulated by Riaz Z. Rupnarain, Member of Parliament with responsibility for Foreign Affairs and International Trade, in a statement issued on behalf of A Partnership for National Unity (APNU).
According to APNU, the SOI was signed “against the backdrop of rising tensions in the Latin America and Caribbean Region,” a context that has heightened regional sensitivity around military cooperation. The opposition noted that it assumes the agreement is intended to “support and protect the nation’s sovereignty and territorial integrity,” but warned that the government’s failure to publicly explain the agreement has created uncertainty at a critical time for Guyana’s national security and foreign policy positioning.
While acknowledging that certain defense-related documents may not be immediately released, APNU stated that “a document of this kind may not be placed in the public domain without compelling reasons.” However, the party said it finds it “disconcerting that, given the importance of the SOI, the government has not chosen to inform the Public of its importance and how it addresses national security, defense cooperation, and Guyana’s strategic position in an increasingly difficult and complex regional environment.”
The issue is unfolding within a wider regional framework where Caribbean leaders have repeatedly called for the region to remain a Zone of Peace, grounded in diplomacy and respect for international law. At the same time, the ongoing conflict between the United States and Venezuela—reportedly unfolding within the context of a broader drug war—poses evolving security risks for the Caribbean. For Guyana, those risks are compounded by the unresolved border controversy with Venezuela and the country’s relatively open borders, factors that elevate the stakes of any defense or military arrangement with external powers.
APNU also raised institutional concerns, pointing to “the absence of a Parliamentary Sectoral Committee on Foreign Relations and the lack of an opportunity for Members of Parliament to discuss the specifics of the agreement with the government at the Parliamentary level.” According to the statement, “instead of boosting public trust, these omissions raise valid concerns about the government’s commitment to transparency and accountability, all cardinal elements of a democratic society.”
The opposition outlined a series of questions it says must be addressed in the national interest, including: “What commitments were made to the US?” “Does the SOI affect operational co-operation or access to Guyanese territory?” and whether the agreement is “linked to future arrangements such as Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) and or Letters of Offer and Acceptance (LOA) under the Foreign Military Sales system.” APNU also questioned “what safeguards exist to protect Guyana’s sovereignty and the interests of our people.”
Beyond domestic governance, the statement highlights potential implications for Guyana’s standing in the international community. Guyana has consistently presented itself as a nation-state committed to resolving disputes through diplomacy and the rule of law, particularly in relation to its border case before international judicial bodies. APNU’s intervention signals concern that secretive and unexplained defense arrangements risk undermining that image at a time when Guyana’s credibility as a responsible international actor is under close scrutiny.
Reaffirming its broader position, APNU said it remains committed to “constructive involvement on all foreign policy and national security issues,” and reiterated that “strong and mutually beneficial partnerships with important states in international community are something we wholeheartedly support.” However, the party stressed that such agreements must be “in keeping with the rule of law, the engagement of, and in consultation with the people of Guyana.”
A matter of principle and parliamentary responsibility, APNU urged the government “to lay the SOI in the Parliament as a key step in ensuring transparency and accountability.” The statement places renewed focus on whether Guyana can uphold its sovereignty, maintain democratic oversight, and protect its long-standing commitment to peace and diplomacy amid an increasingly tense regional landscape.
