No more plundering, no more exploitation

Oct 11, 2026 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

(Kaieteur News) – Rev. Jim Jones, who led more than 900 Americans to their deaths in a mass murder-suicide in Guyana in 1978, had a sign behind his throne that read: “Those who cannot remember the past, are condemned to repeat it.”

That warning is particularly relevant to Guyana today. We seem determined to repeat the mistakes of the past, even as our natural resources promise to make us one of the wealthiest countries in the hemisphere. But this time, the warning is coming from an unexpected quarter. It is not merely a domestic critic sounding the alarm. It is António Guterres, the outgoing Secretary-General of the United Nations, who recently called for an end to the exploitation and plundering of natural resources that fail to deliver meaningful benefits to producing countries and their people.

Speaking at a United Nations Security Council debate on July 22, 2026, Guterres warned against the age-old pattern in which resources are extracted, value is captured elsewhere, and impoverished communities are left to cope with the environmental and socioeconomic damage. His message was unmistakable: resource-rich countries must secure a fairer share of the wealth generated from their own resources.

One wonders whether our leaders were listening.

Guterres was speaking principally about critical minerals and the global extractive industries, but his warning has a familiar ring for Guyana. We have been down this road before. We have watched our gold leave our shores, our resources generate fortunes for others, and our people continue to struggle with the cost of living.

The question is whether we have learnt anything.

When OMAI Gold Mines began operations, Guyanese were serenaded with promises of prosperity. We were told of jobs, economic activity, business opportunities and a brighter future. One might have imagined that El Dorado had finally been discovered and that the gold beneath our soil would turn every Guyanese into a millionaire. The reality was considerably less glittering. After approximately 3.7 million ounces of gold had been extracted, questions remained about what Guyana had received in return. The royalty payments were modest, while generous tax concessions limited the direct fiscal benefits. The company reported no profits on which corporation tax could be paid, according to the figures cited in earlier accounts of its operations.

And then there was the environmental catastrophe of 1995, when the failure of OMAI’s tailings dam released cyanide-laced effluent into the Omai and Essequibo River systems.

The gold was extracted. The environmental risks remained. And the country was left to contemplate whether the benefits had justified the bargain. Yet here we are again, being asked to celebrate foreign investment in our extractive industries as though the mere presence of multinational companies guarantees national prosperity. We are again hearing the familiar promises of thousands of jobs, booming businesses, increased demand for food and construction services, and economic opportunities for everyone. These benefits may materialise to some extent, but they do not automatically follow from the extraction of natural resources. Nor does the creation of wealth necessarily mean that the wealth will remain in Guyana.

Guterres has identified precisely this problem. Countries may possess the resources, but others can capture the greater value through processing, refining, manufacturing, technology and distribution. His call is for producing countries to strengthen their negotiating capacity, develop domestic industries and ensure that their people receive meaningful benefits from the resources beneath their feet.

That is the lesson Guyana must confront.

We cannot measure the success of our extractive industries simply by the number of ounces of gold exported, the barrels of oil produced, the number of foreign companies operating here, or the impressive growth figures announced by the Government. We must also ask how much wealth remains in the country, how many decent jobs are created for Guyanese, how much local industry develops, what environmental liabilities are incurred, and whether ordinary citizens are enjoying a significantly better standard of living.

A country can record spectacular economic growth while large sections of its population continue to struggle. It can become an important exporter of valuable commodities without becoming an economy that creates sufficient opportunities, skills and productive industries at home. That is why the terms of our agreements matter. Royalties, taxes, environmental safeguards, local-content requirements, transparency and the capacity to enforce the law are not technical details to be left to negotiators behind closed doors. They determine whether natural-resource wealth becomes a national inheritance or a missed opportunity.

And this is not an argument against foreign investment. Guyana needs investment, technology and expertise. But welcoming investors does not require us to surrender our bargaining power. Nor should the fear of discouraging investment prevent us from demanding a fair return for resources that belong to the people of Guyana. For decades, Guyana has extracted gold. Now we have oil on a scale that earlier generations could scarcely have imagined. We have another opportunity to transform our economy, diversify production, build skills and create lasting prosperity. But if we repeat the mistakes of the past, future generations may look back at this extraordinary period and ask how a country so richly endowed managed to squander so much potential.

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

---

• exploitation, Jim Jones, murder, Peeping Tom, plundering, suicide, wealthiest countries

---