When America has a problem, it doesn’t mean we must too

Jul 25, 2025 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

Kaieteur News – There’s a lot of noise these days about sanctions and politics, especially after the recent comments by the United States Ambassador to Guyana.

The Ambassador said that having a U.S.-sanctioned individual in government or parliament could be “problematic” for the U.S. government and U.S. private sector companies. While that may sound like a warning, what she really did was confirm something many of us have been saying all along: U.S. sanctions are about the United States and its interests—not ours.

The United States can choose to sanction whomever it wants under its laws. And when it does, it bars its own citizens, companies, and financial institutions from doing business with the targeted individuals or entities. That’s their business. But that doesn’t mean a sovereign country like Guyana is under any obligation to follow suit. It certainly doesn’t mean that Guyanese people or our government cannot do business with a fellow Guyanese who is sanctioned by the United States.

So why the fear? Why all the fuss? The answer lies in the political games being played. The PPP/C government, clearly shaken by the rising popularity of Azruddin Mohamed (AZMO) and his party WIN, is trying to use U.S. sanctions as a political hammer. They want the public to believe that merely being seen near AZMO or the Mohameds will get you in trouble, lose your visa, or even get you sanctioned yourself.

But that’s not how sanctions work. And interestingly, the U.S. Ambassador herself helped clear that up before. In an earlier comment, she explained that the revocation of U.S. visas is handled by the State Department, not the Treasury Department which imposed the sanctions on the Mohameds. That means the sanctions themselves don’t automatically lead to visa problems. Yet, our local media never picked up on this distinction or challenged the government’s spin.

And now again, the Ambassador’s more recent statement confirms that the “problems” from having a sanctioned individual in office would be U.S. problems—problems for U.S. agencies and U.S. businesses, not necessarily Guyana’s problems. But once more, the media let it slide.

If the government is so sure that association with AZMO and WIN can bring harm to the country, why hasn’t anyone in the press asked the U.S. Embassy a very basic question: Does OFAC’s sanctions on the Mohameds mean that the Guyana government and Guyanese people cannot do business with them?

The answer, of course, would be no. There is no law—U.S. or Guyanese—that says Guyana must stop doing business with its own citizens because Washington is upset with them. In fact, there are countless examples from around the world where individuals sanctioned by the U.S. have continued to play major roles in their own countries.

Take Venezuela. Numerous government officials there, including President Nicolás Maduro, have been sanctioned by the United States. Yet Maduro remains in office, his government continues to function, and many countries—including U.S. allies—still engage with Venezuela on various levels. Or look at Russia. Dozens of oligarchs and even state officials have been sanctioned by the U.S., yet the Russian government hasn’t banned them from public life. They continue to hold positions, own assets, and influence policy. The country has not collapsed under their weight.

Even in Africa, leaders and military officials in countries like Zimbabwe and Sudan have faced sanctions, yet their countries make their own decisions about who gets to run for office or lead state enterprises. So why must Guyana be any different? Why must we adopt the fears of another country as if they are our own?

Let’s not confuse foreign policy with national policy. Guyana is not an outpost of Washington. Our people have the right to choose their leaders. If the people of this country want AZMO or any other individual to represent them, then that’s their sovereign right. The United States can decide how it wants to interact with us as a result, but we must not let that dictate our choices.

What’s more troubling is the silence of our media. Not one major outlet has taken the time to explore the legal implications of these sanctions, or what they actually mean for Guyanese citizens. No one has followed up with the Embassy to ask the obvious and necessary questions. Instead, we get shallow headlines and repeated talking points.

The Fourth Estate is supposed to speak truth to power. But these days in Guyana, too many in the media act like they’re taking orders from the First Estate—or whichever estate is currently in power. And that is dangerous. Because when the media fails to ask the hard questions, the public is left confused, fearful, and vulnerable to political manipulation. In the end, the U.S. can have its problems. But we must not blindly make them ours. Sanctions are not a reason to suspend democracy. They are not a reason to deny people the right to choose their leaders. And they most certainly are not a reason to silence legitimate political participation. Guyana must walk its own road, not tiptoe behind someone else’s shadow.

(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper.)

Discover more from Kaieteur News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Guyana Elections, Peeping Tom, sanctioned, United States Ambassador

One thought on “When America has a problem, it doesn’t mean we must too”

habeeb July 25, 2025 at 12:50 am

Jagdeo, Irfan Ali spinning webs better than spiders, about WIN Mohamed.
This article is right on spot.
Very explainable in details.
Supporters of WIN and Mohamed should just continue such support
and vote with your heart, not what the web spinners telling the country.

Comments are closed.

Latest News