OPINION: US Ambassador’s rejection of interfering, my position

Last Updated on Wednesday, 6 August 2025, 23:23 by Writer

By GHK Lall

US Ambassador to Guyana, Excellency Nicole D. Theriot is thanked for her courtesies and kindnesses in stepping forward and clearing the air. If no other Guyanese who took objection to her expression of US “concerns” about Mr. Azruddin Mohamed’s entry in Guyana’s elections, feel the same way, I still thank her. In a nutshell, Guyanese objections to what was interpreted as US intrusion in Guyana’s sensitive domestic affairs have been met with firm ambassadorial rejection.

According to Excellency Theriot, she was asked and gave the “facts” as they are published on the Department of the Treasury website. The facts are the facts, but Guyanese are not nursery school children now learning to read, or Dark Ages people who are unaware of the existence of the internet, or an OFAC site. The diplomat in the ambassador could have been more prudent, especially given the long history of American interference in Guyana’s elections. It has also been a sordid one, but far be it for me to regurgitate the damage inflicted on the citizens of this country, where it has pushed them to, and what it has made of them. It is why I note, with interest, the plenipotentiary’s line of “We have no interest in interfering in your elections.” And “I have no interest or intention of interfering in the Government of Guyana’s elections. This is a sovereign country. You run your elections, as you see fit.” It is inspiring to hear what I interpret to be a firm commitment, one having all the power of an oath. How I wish that Guyanese had learned to sort their elections among themselves, and the US stays on its side of the fence. Further, somebody should give those same comforting ambassadorial words to Dr. Cheddi Jagan and hundreds of thousands of Guyanese uprooted from this country. Mr. David Granger may also have some choice words to say for himself in response to Ambassador Theriot’s representations.

I note that the ambassador mentioned that “I was a little upset by that characterization simply because I was stating the facts.” Thanks, but no thanks, Excellency. But Guyanese need to familiarize themselves with such facts on their own, given that the Mohamed entry into these elections has done something to wrench this country still more apart. The ambassador knows better and ought to have taken the diplomat’s route out of whatever question was put to her, or fed to her. I think that she has been in Guyana long enough to appreciate the degree of cynicism that pervades this society, and the consequences that flow from such. Local facts are of drones, taxman, policeman, American lobby-man, and other men all weaponized against a sanctioned elections’ candidate. Hence, when Excellency Theriot allowed herself to be drawn into stating the “facts” more harm than good was done. More skepticisms emerged, due to the ugly history of elections in Guyana, and who have influenced them. On a personal note, I am not a Mohamed endorser or supporter, and I am offended. So, when she stated that “I was a little upset…”, I respectfully ask her to think of Guyanese who absorbed her “concerns” and the timing of them. Since the ambassador is sure to have a fine eye for such nuances, it wasn’t just the timing of her “concerns” but the appearance of them.

I now jib the sails. What difference did it make to articulate those facts in the heat Guyana elections’ cauldron? How is Guyana better for it? How are Guyanese helped by it? More on the money, what message was conveyed to prospective Guyanese voters, particularly those thinking of favoring Mohamed with their ballot? The ambassador may not have had any intention of influencing the upcoming elections, I will give her that courtesy. But it must be balanced, if not countermanded, by this: her words, her “facts” (and they are facts, no doubt), how do they not have some impact, however minimal, on one Guyanese voter? Or a gaggle of them? There is blatant influencing, and there are other kinds of influencing.

Finally, Mr. Mohamed and his WIN team are far more capable than I am at representing themselves and their interests. I am representing me, and what national sovereignty welcomes versus what it frowns against. The same goes for democracy and its standards and practices. In a country where every word is parsed and expounded upon better than Harvard and Oxford dons, and never more than when volatile politics is involved, I take the stand that Excellency Nicole D. Theriot could and should have been more circumspect. Once again, thanks for clearing the air. Somehow, her rejection doesn’t do much to expunge suspicion. Credence has suffered this much. After all, it is the whirlwind that the United States itself sowed here.