Diplomacy Has Boundaries- Even for Allies

Dear Editor,

𝐀 𝐑𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐔.𝐒. 𝐀𝐦𝐛𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐚𝐝𝐨𝐫 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐨𝐭’𝐬 𝐑𝐞𝐦𝐚𝐫𝐤𝐬 𝐨𝐧 𝐆𝐮𝐲𝐚𝐧𝐚’𝐬 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐜𝐮𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐓𝐚𝐱 𝐏𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐲

There is an old and well-understood principle in international relations: diplomacy works best when it is conducted with discretion, mutual respect, and an acute awareness of the boundaries that separate advocacy from interference. It is a principle that has guided productive bilateral relationships for centuries, and one that appears to have been somewhat overlooked in recent remarks made by United States Ambassador to Guyana, Nicole Theriot.

Speaking on a recent episode of the 𝙀𝙣𝙚𝙧𝙜𝙮 𝙋𝙚𝙧𝙨𝙥𝙚𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙫𝙚𝙨 podcast, Ambassador Theriot called on Guyana to modernize its tender process, digitize procurement submissions, strengthen oversight of public contracts, and resolve the double taxation burden facing American companies operating here.

𝙊𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙨𝙪𝙧𝙛𝙖𝙘𝙚, 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙨𝙚 𝙢𝙖𝙮 𝙖𝙥𝙥𝙚𝙖𝙧 𝙩𝙤 𝙗𝙚 𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙨𝙤𝙣𝙖𝙗𝙡𝙚 𝙗𝙪𝙨𝙞𝙣𝙚𝙨𝙨 𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙘𝙚𝙧𝙣𝙨. 𝙀𝙭𝙖𝙢𝙞𝙣𝙚𝙙 𝙢𝙤𝙧𝙚 𝙘𝙖𝙧𝙚𝙛𝙪𝙡𝙡𝙮, 𝙝𝙤𝙬𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙧, 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙮 𝙧𝙚𝙥𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙚𝙣𝙩 𝙖 𝙥𝙖𝙩𝙩𝙚𝙧𝙣 𝙤𝙛 𝙥𝙪𝙗𝙡𝙞𝙘 𝙘𝙤𝙢𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙖𝙧𝙮 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙨𝙚𝙨 𝙡𝙚𝙜𝙞𝙩𝙞𝙢𝙖𝙩𝙚 𝙦𝙪𝙚𝙨𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙨 𝙖𝙗𝙤𝙪𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙖𝙥𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙥𝙧𝙞𝙖𝙩𝙚 𝙧𝙤𝙡𝙚 𝙤𝙛 𝙖 𝙛𝙤𝙧𝙚𝙞𝙜𝙣 𝙚𝙣𝙫𝙤𝙮 𝙞𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙙𝙤𝙢𝙚𝙨𝙩𝙞𝙘 𝙥𝙤𝙡𝙞𝙘𝙮 𝙖𝙛𝙛𝙖𝙞𝙧𝙨 𝙤𝙛 𝙖 𝙨𝙤𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙚𝙞𝙜𝙣 𝙝𝙤𝙨𝙩 𝙣𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣.

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐃𝐢𝐩𝐥𝐨𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐜 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐚𝐫𝐝 𝐖𝐞 𝐒𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐄𝐱𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐭

Ambassadors serve a vital and respected function in international relations. They are the living bridge between two nations — tasked with fostering trade, strengthening cultural ties, protecting their citizens abroad, and communicating their government’s positions through the appropriate channels. What they are not empowered to do — at least not without consequence to the relationship — is publicly prescribe policy reform to the governments before which they are accredited.

One need only apply the most basic test of reciprocity to appreciate the concern. Would Guyana’s Ambassador to Washington be received warmly if he took to an American media platform to publicly urge the U.S. Congress to overhaul its federal procurement system, or to demand that the Internal Revenue Service restructure its tax obligations to accommodate Guyanese businesses? The answer is self-evident.

𝙎𝙪𝙘𝙝 𝙧𝙚𝙢𝙖𝙧𝙠𝙨 𝙬𝙤𝙪𝙡𝙙 𝙗𝙚 𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙨𝙞𝙙𝙚𝙧𝙚𝙙 𝙤𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙘𝙝 𝙖𝙩 𝙗𝙚𝙨𝙩, 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙖 𝙙𝙞𝙥𝙡𝙤𝙢𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙘 𝙖𝙛𝙛𝙧𝙤𝙣𝙩 𝙖𝙩 𝙬𝙤𝙧𝙨𝙩. 𝙏𝙝𝙚 𝙨𝙩𝙖𝙣𝙙𝙖𝙧𝙙 𝙘𝙖𝙣𝙣𝙤𝙩 — 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙨𝙝𝙤𝙪𝙡𝙙 𝙣𝙤𝙩 — 𝙗𝙚 𝙙𝙞𝙛𝙛𝙚𝙧𝙚𝙣𝙩 𝙨𝙞𝙢𝙥𝙡𝙮 𝙗𝙚𝙘𝙖𝙪𝙨𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙘𝙤𝙢𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙖𝙧𝙮 𝙛𝙡𝙤𝙬𝙨 𝙞𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙤𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙧 𝙙𝙞𝙧𝙚𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣

𝐆𝐮𝐲𝐚𝐧𝐚’𝐬 𝐑𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐫𝐝 𝐚𝐬 𝐚 𝐅𝐨𝐫𝐞𝐢𝐠𝐧 𝐈𝐧𝐯𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐃𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧

What makes Ambassador Theriot’s remarks particularly striking is that they seem to overlook the extraordinary lengths to which Guyana has already gone to attract and accommodate foreign direct investment — American investment, specifically.

The terms under which ExxonMobil and its partners operate in Guyana’s offshore petroleum sector are, by any objective measure, among the most generous production sharing agreements in the world. Guyanese civil society, academics, and even some government officials have repeatedly raised concerns about whether the country negotiated adequately on behalf of its own citizens.

𝙇𝙤𝙘𝙖𝙡 𝙗𝙪𝙨𝙞𝙣𝙚𝙨𝙨𝙚𝙨, 𝙞𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙢𝙚𝙖𝙣𝙩𝙞𝙢𝙚, 𝙤𝙥𝙚𝙧𝙖𝙩𝙚 𝙬𝙞𝙩𝙝𝙤𝙪𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙩𝙚𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙫𝙚 𝙘𝙪𝙨𝙝𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙤𝙛 𝙩𝙝𝙤𝙨𝙚 𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙘𝙚𝙨𝙨𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙨, 𝙤𝙛𝙩𝙚𝙣 𝙨𝙩𝙧𝙪𝙜𝙜𝙡𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙩𝙤 𝙘𝙤𝙢𝙥𝙚𝙩𝙚 𝙞𝙣 𝙖 𝙡𝙖𝙣𝙙𝙨𝙘𝙖𝙥𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙝𝙖𝙨 𝙗𝙚𝙚𝙣 𝙙𝙚𝙡𝙞𝙗𝙚𝙧𝙖𝙩𝙚𝙡𝙮 𝙨𝙝𝙖𝙥𝙚𝙙 𝙩𝙤 𝙛𝙖𝙫𝙤𝙧 𝙡𝙖𝙧𝙜𝙚 𝙞𝙣𝙩𝙚𝙧𝙣𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙖𝙡 𝙥𝙡𝙖𝙮𝙚𝙧𝙨.

American companies enjoy the ability to repatriate capital freely, benefit from a relatively stable and dollarized business environment, and operate in a jurisdiction that has bent over backwards to present itself as investor-friendly. To then hear public calls for further accommodation — this time in the form of structural reforms to national procurement policy — is, frankly, difficult to reconcile with any fair reading of the existing investment landscape.

𝐎𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐌𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐨𝐟 𝐃𝐨𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐓𝐚𝐱𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧

The Ambassador’s concern about the absence of a bilateral tax treaty between the United States and Guyana is a legitimate one, and it is an issue that genuinely warrants resolution. Guyana has successfully negotiated double taxation agreements with Canada, the United Kingdom, CARICOM nations, and the United Arab Emirates. There is no principled reason why a similar arrangement with the United States should not be pursued with urgency.

However, there is a meaningful difference between working quietly and effectively through diplomatic and legislative channels to advance such an agreement — which Ambassador Theriot indicates her office is doing — and making the broader grievances of American corporations a subject of public commentary. The former is good diplomacy. The latter risks reducing a complex bilateral relationship to something that resembles corporate lobbying conducted from an embassy.

It is also worth noting that other international companies — British, Canadian, Caribbean — operate within the same regulatory framework without their respective ambassadors taking to media platforms to demand policy changes. If the framework is truly as burdensome as suggested, one might reasonably ask why this particular chorus has only one prominent voice.

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐖𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐱𝐭 𝐂𝐚𝐧𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐁𝐞 𝐈𝐠𝐧𝐨𝐫𝐞𝐝

Ambassador Theriot’s remarks do not exist in a vacuum. They come at a moment when Guyana finds itself at the center of enormous geopolitical and commercial interest, driven by one of the most significant oil discoveries in recent history. Major powers are competing for influence, access, and partnership in this small South American nation, and that competition inevitably shapes the tone and content of diplomatic engagement.

In that context, it is important for Guyanese policymakers, civil society, and the public to develop a discerning eye for the difference between genuine partnership and advocacy dressed in the language of partnership. When a foreign ambassador uses a public platform to call for changes to a host nation’s procurement laws, tax architecture, and regulatory environment — however diplomatically framed — that is a moment that deserves careful scrutiny rather than quiet acceptance.

𝙂𝙪𝙮𝙖𝙣𝙖 𝙞𝙨 𝙖 𝙨𝙤𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙚𝙞𝙜𝙣 𝙣𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣. 𝙄𝙩 𝙞𝙨 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙖𝙣 𝙚𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙤𝙢𝙞𝙘 𝙛𝙧𝙤𝙣𝙩𝙞𝙚𝙧 𝙖𝙬𝙖𝙞𝙩𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙞𝙣𝙨𝙩𝙧𝙪𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙛𝙧𝙤𝙢 𝙢𝙤𝙧𝙚 𝙥𝙤𝙬𝙚𝙧𝙛𝙪𝙡 𝙞𝙣𝙩𝙚𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙩𝙨 𝙤𝙣 𝙝𝙤𝙬 𝙩𝙤 𝙤𝙧𝙜𝙖𝙣𝙞𝙯𝙚 𝙞𝙩𝙨 𝙖𝙛𝙛𝙖𝙞𝙧𝙨. 𝙄𝙩 𝙝𝙖𝙨 𝙖 𝙛𝙪𝙣𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙜𝙤𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙣𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩, 𝙘𝙖𝙥𝙖𝙗𝙡𝙚 𝙩𝙚𝙘𝙝𝙣𝙤𝙘𝙧𝙖𝙩𝙨, 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙖𝙣 𝙚𝙡𝙚𝙘𝙩𝙤𝙧𝙖𝙩𝙚 𝙬𝙞𝙩𝙝 𝙡𝙚𝙜𝙞𝙩𝙞𝙢𝙖𝙩𝙚 𝙚𝙭𝙥𝙚𝙘𝙩𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙨 𝙖𝙗𝙤𝙪𝙩 𝙝𝙤𝙬 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙘𝙤𝙪𝙣𝙩𝙧𝙮’𝙨 𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙤𝙪𝙧𝙘𝙚𝙨 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙞𝙣𝙨𝙩𝙞𝙩𝙪𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙨 𝙖𝙧𝙚 𝙢𝙖𝙣𝙖𝙜𝙚𝙙.
Reforms to procurement, taxation, and regulatory frameworks will come — and should come — but they will be most durable and most legitimate when they emerge from Guyana’s own democratic processes, informed by the needs of its own people.

𝐀 𝐂𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐄𝐧𝐠𝐚𝐠𝐞𝐝, 𝐑𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐟𝐮𝐥 𝐏𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩

None of this is to suggest that the United States is not a valued partner for Guyana, or that Ambassador Theriot’s underlying intentions are anything other than constructive. The bilateral relationship between the two countries holds genuine promise, and there is meaningful common ground on trade, energy, security, and development cooperation.

𝘽𝙪𝙩 𝙨𝙩𝙧𝙤𝙣𝙜 𝙥𝙖𝙧𝙩𝙣𝙚𝙧𝙨𝙝𝙞𝙥𝙨 𝙖𝙧𝙚 𝙗𝙪𝙞𝙡𝙩 𝙤𝙣 𝙢𝙪𝙩𝙪𝙖𝙡 𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙥𝙚𝙘𝙩 — 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙢𝙪𝙩𝙪𝙖𝙡 𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙥𝙚𝙘𝙩 𝙧𝙚𝙦𝙪𝙞𝙧𝙚𝙨 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙢𝙤𝙨𝙩 𝙥𝙤𝙬𝙚𝙧𝙛𝙪𝙡 𝙥𝙖𝙧𝙩𝙣𝙚𝙧𝙨 𝙧𝙚𝙘𝙤𝙜𝙣𝙞𝙯𝙚 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙝𝙤𝙣𝙤𝙧 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙗𝙤𝙪𝙣𝙙𝙖𝙧𝙞𝙚𝙨 𝙤𝙛 𝙖𝙥𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙥𝙧𝙞𝙖𝙩𝙚 𝙚𝙣𝙜𝙖𝙜𝙚𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩. 𝙏𝙝𝙚 𝙧𝙞𝙜𝙝𝙩 𝙫𝙚𝙣𝙪𝙚 𝙛𝙤𝙧 𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙨𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙘𝙚𝙧𝙣𝙨 𝙖𝙗𝙤𝙪𝙩 𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙘𝙪𝙧𝙚𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩 𝙩𝙧𝙖𝙣𝙨𝙥𝙖𝙧𝙚𝙣𝙘𝙮 𝙞𝙨 𝙖 𝙗𝙞𝙡𝙖𝙩𝙚𝙧𝙖𝙡 𝙗𝙪𝙨𝙞𝙣𝙚𝙨𝙨 𝙛𝙤𝙧𝙪𝙢 𝙤𝙧 𝙖 𝙥𝙧𝙞𝙫𝙖𝙩𝙚 𝙢𝙚𝙚𝙩𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙬𝙞𝙩𝙝 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙧𝙚𝙡𝙚𝙫𝙖𝙣𝙩 𝙢𝙞𝙣𝙞𝙨𝙩𝙧𝙮 — 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙖 𝙥𝙤𝙙𝙘𝙖𝙨𝙩.

The right approach to tax treaty advocacy is sustained, respectful engagement with both governments’ finance officials — not public statements that place Guyana’s regulatory environment in an unflattering light before an international audience.

Ambassador Theriot has an opportunity to reset the tone of this conversation and to demonstrate that American diplomatic engagement with Guyana is rooted in genuine partnership rather than the expectation of preferential treatment. Guyana, for its part, has every right to expect nothing less.

𝙏𝙝𝙚 𝙨𝙩𝙧𝙚𝙣𝙜𝙩𝙝 𝙤𝙛 𝙖𝙣𝙮 𝙖𝙡𝙡𝙞𝙖𝙣𝙘𝙚 𝙞𝙨 𝙢𝙚𝙖𝙨𝙪𝙧𝙚𝙙 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙤𝙣𝙡𝙮 𝙗𝙮 𝙬𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙚𝙖𝙘𝙝 𝙥𝙖𝙧𝙩𝙮 𝙜𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙨 𝙛𝙧𝙤𝙢 𝙞𝙩, 𝙗𝙪𝙩 𝙗𝙮 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙙𝙚𝙜𝙧𝙚𝙚 𝙤𝙛 𝙙𝙞𝙜𝙣𝙞𝙩𝙮 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙥𝙚𝙘𝙩 𝙬𝙞𝙩𝙝 𝙬𝙝𝙞𝙘𝙝 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙮 𝙩𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙩 𝙤𝙣𝙚 𝙖𝙣𝙤𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙧. 𝙊𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙢𝙚𝙖𝙨𝙪𝙧𝙚, 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙧𝙚 𝙞𝙨 𝙧𝙤𝙤𝙢 𝙛𝙤𝙧 𝙞𝙢𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙫𝙚𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩 — 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙛𝙞𝙧𝙨𝙩 𝙨𝙩𝙚𝙥 𝙗𝙚𝙜𝙞𝙣𝙨 𝙬𝙞𝙩𝙝 𝙧𝙚𝙘𝙤𝙜𝙣𝙞𝙯𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙬𝙝𝙚𝙧𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙡𝙞𝙣𝙚 𝙞𝙨.

Yours truly,
Hemdutt Kumar