By Dr Bertrand Ramcharan
Formerly Fellow of Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government
Writing on 4 October, 2026 in his Conversation Tree column in Kiskadee Watch, former Guyanese Parliamentary Speaker, the Hon. Ralph Ramkarran S.C., concluded that “Guyana can no longer be considered to be part of the non-aligned nations of the world. For the future, its foreign policy is expected to be aligned largely to the policy choices of the US.” This is the assessment of an experienced and measured statesman.
The next day, on 5 October, Guyana joined the USA, Argentina, Canada, Colombia, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Paraguay, Peru and Trinidad and Tobago in a “Joint Statement on Countering Iranian Terrorist Activity in the Western Hemisphere.” The statement read in its operative part as follows: “On 5 October, the [nations listed above] condemn the terrorist actions and other malign influence operations in our hemisphere by Iran and its terrorist proxies. These hostile efforts include a range of Iranian and proxy-sponsored lethal plotting, illicit fundraising, political interference and foreign influence activities, and operations meant to bolster terrorist networks, coerce perceived enemies, compromise legal or administrative processes, and harm regional security. We stand united in our determination to protect our countries and our people against such threats. The Islamic Republic of Iran and its proxies must halt these actions now.”
As far as we are aware, Parliament has not yet been briefed on this matter and this issue has not yet been the subject of any discussion in the sovereign body of the Guyanese nation. Nor have the facts and circumstances that led Guyana to co-sign this statement been the subject of any governmental briefing to the Guyanese people.
Let it be recalled, factually, that it was the USA and Israel who first engaged in pre-emptive strikes on Iran in February, 2026 with devastating results for the Iranian people (among others) and for the world. What seems to be at the heart of this matter is the Great Game now being played out globally between China and the USA.
Writing in the Financial Times on 3 October, 2026, its Associate Editor, Ms. Rana Faroohar, discussed “The New Great Game” that has descended on the world, involving the geo-strategic competition between the USA and China that “has been – and will be- with us for many decades.” China and the USA, Faroohar explained “are in a strategic conflict that will shape the global political economy for years to come.”
The ‘Great Game’ was a term first popularized by Rudyard Kipling to describe the rivalry in the nineteenth century between emergent Russia and established Britain. That Great Game was played out as Russian Tsars sought to extend their growing empire into new territories in Central Asia and India.
Faroohar has just written a book on the new Great Game, “Sea Change: America’s New Great Game in the Arctic”. She points out that “Like the Great Game of the nineteenth century, the US-China conflict today is both economic and political, geographic and virtual, a battle about territorial spheres of influence but also broader systems of dominance. Then, as now, middle powers and vassal nations are drawn into the larger conflict, shifting positions and changing sides as it suits them.” Just as Russian Tsars wanted to dominate (rather than be dominated by) their Asian and European neighbours, so the Chinese look to shape the post-neoliberal world order rather than be reshaped by it.
Faroohar points out that China is extending its trade and payment systems into regions such as Africa and Latin America. She noted: “Indeed, Trump’s ousting of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro in January was in part a reaction to Beijing’s growing influence not only there [in Venezuela] but also in Brazil, Argentina, Chile and Peru. She added that “China is South America’s leading trading partner, surpassing both the US and EU, as well as a major investor in infrastructure projects via the Belt and Road Initiative. Consider the Peruvian megaport at Chancay, envisioned as a future ‘Shanghai of South America’. China owns 60 percent of the facility and has exclusive operational rights for what will eventually be the largest of its kind in Latin America.”
Faroohar notes that the Arctic has become a new zone for great power competition thanks to its gas and mineral resources and new trade and transit routes. This explains President Trump’s sharp moves to absorb Greenland, among other Arctic possessions. She writes: “China’s efforts to forge a ‘Polar Silk Road’, reflect deep thinking about global chokepoints, which will be ground zero for this new Great Game, as they were in the old.” The Northern (Arctic) Sea Route has become a Chinese hedge against blockage of the Suez and Panama canals.
Guyana seems to have made a fateful choice – given its interlocking embrace with Exxon, among others. CARICOM’s approach to international relations and politics, brilliantly championed by Barbadian Prime Minister Mia Mottley, is what may be considered the approach of the United Nations Charter. The United Nations approach embodies a number of principles including the following:
1. The principle of fulfilling in good faith the obligations assumed by Members of the UN in accordance with the UN Charter (Article 2)
2. The duty to settle international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered (Article 2)
3. The duty to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations (Article 2)
4. The duty of universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion. (Article 55).
5. The duty to take joint and separate action in cooperation with the UN for the achievement of the purposes set forth in Article 55 (Article 56)
6. The duty to live together as good neighbours(Preamble).
7. The duty to settle international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered (Article 2)
8. The duty to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace (Article 1)
9. The duty to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace (Article 1)
10. The duty to take appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace (Article 1)
11. The duty of parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security to, first of all seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice. (Article 33).
12. The inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. (Article 51)
13. The duty to comply with the decision of the International Court of Justice in any case to which it is a party (Article 94).
14. In the event of a conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the UN Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the UN Charter shall prevail. (Article 103).
Guyana remains a prominent member of the United Nations and is currently running an eminent candidate to become Secretary-General of the UN. But, in throwing in its lot with the USA in the new Great Game, it has opted to ride with ‘America First’ international security policy. American Security Strategy under the Trump Administration eschews the international rule of law and pursues a policy which asserts that whatever is in America’s interest is lawful. America is currently waging an aggressive campaign to ‘demolish’ the International Criminal Court.
During the Cold War, Guyana hosted the Non-Aligned Nations in Georgetown and magisterially championed the legal order of the United Nations. How will Guyana navigate the New Great Game currently under way, in which it is already enmeshed, and which is expected to last decades?
A good starting point would be an informed discussion in Parliament.
Discussion