Dear Editor
President Irfaan Ali wants investors to come prepared, to do their homework, and to stop treating Guyana like a drive-through market. Fair enough. But the problem is that this is the same administration that has spent years cultivating exactly the kind of investment culture it now wants to scold—one marked by preferential access, political convenience, and a troubling tolerance for foreign actors who seem to get the soft landing locals never receive.
The President is not setting standards so much as trying to retrofit them after the fact.
The image Guyana built
Guyana cannot spend years projecting itself as open for business at any cost, then act offended when investors come expecting access, speed, and influence. That image was reinforced by the government’s defensive posture on the oil contract, where the 2% royalty arrangement remains protected behind the familiar shield of contract sanctity, even as ordinary Guyanese are told to accept the deal as settled history. A state that refuses to revisit glaring imbalances in its most consequential contract cannot suddenly pose as a hard-headed gatekeeper when it is convenient.
The message abroad is not hard to decode: some deals are untouchable, some interests are protected, and some players are simply more welcome than others.
Washington is noticing
That is why Congressman Gabe Evans’s recent letter to Secretary of State Marco Rubio matters. Evans warned of “creeping Chinese influence” in Guyana and raised alarms about reports of Chinese firms securing contracts, financing, and political footholds in ways that could threaten U.S. interests in energy, diplomacy, and critical minerals. In plain terms, Guyana is not only being watched; it is being scrutinized for the very habits its leadership has normalized.
So when Ali stands before an American audience and lectures on investor expectations, the paradox is obvious. He is effectively telling U.S. investors to temper their assumptions while Washington is already asking whether Guyana has become too accommodating to Chinese influence.
Predictability is not favoritism
The U.S. ambassador’s point about predictability cuts straight through the noise. Predictability means rules that are clear, consistent, and applied without regard to who has the best political connections. It does not mean one set of doors for locals, another for foreign firms, and a VIP corridor for the well-connected.
That distinction matters because the complaints from Guyanese businesses are not imaginary. Local truckers have protested what they describe as a system that favors Chinese-linked firms and squeezes out domestic operators, with some alleging that contracts and access flow through family ties, political connections, and selective facilitation.
When local players are forced to shout just to be treated fairly, the government has already admitted the weakness of its own system.
Contract sanctity, selective courage
The administration’s favorite phrase—sanctity of contract—has become a political refuge. It is invoked to shut down calls for renegotiating oil terms, yet it is rarely accompanied by equal vigor in defending local enterprise from unfair competition or foreign dominance.
That is the real sting in this debate: the government is fiercely principled when protecting corporate arrangements, but noticeably flexible when the national interest requires courage.That is not consistency. It is choreography.
The red carpet problem
The accusation now hanging over the administration is not simply that it welcomes investment. It is that it has rolled out the red carpet for certain foreign actors, especially Chinese businesses, and then turned around to demand restraint from everyone else.You cannot preach prudence to investors while refusing to exercise it on behalf of your own citizens.
This is not a neutral posture. It is a choice—one that signals to global capital that Guyana is willing to prioritize investor comfort over national leverage. When disputes arise, the government has too often appeared aligned with oil majors rather than the Guyanese people, particularly on issues of environmental liability, cost recovery audits, and regulatory enforcement. The result is a credibility gap wide enough to swallow the President’s Houston remarks whole.
Investors notice these signals, and so do citizens
A country cannot market itself as business-friendly, then punish the public for believing it.
Closing sting
If President Ali wants to be taken seriously, he must first explain why Guyana keeps attracting the same complaints: one-sided contracts, preferential treatment, weak procurement credibility, and a pattern of accommodation that now has even U.S. lawmakers sounding alarms. The issue is not that investors need to come prepared. The issue is that Guyana’s government should have prepared its own house long ago.
Until it does, the President’s lecture will remain what it sounded like in Houston: not a statement of principle, but an attempt to put discipline on an image his own administration helped create.
If President Ali truly wants investors to come prepared, then the government must first do its own preparation—by strengthening institutions, enforcing accountability, and demonstrating that Guyana is not just open for business, but serious about protecting its people, its resources, and its future.
Because in the end, the investment climate is not defined by speeches in Houston.
It is defined by the choices made at home.
Sincerely
Hemdutt Kumar.
