US Ambassador Theriot’s intrusive statement must not go unchallenged

Dear Editor,

The recent comments by United States Ambassador to Guyana, Ms. Nicole Theriot, concerning the political candidacy of Mr. Azruddin Mohamed, warrant a response grounded in the principles of national sovereignty, constitutional democracy, and mutual respect among sovereign states.

To frame this discussion, it is instructive to recall a statement delivered by former U.S. Ambassador to Guyana, Ms. Sarah-Ann Lynch, on April 2, 2020, titled “Why We Champion Democracy.” The contrast between that principled commitment to democratic norms as outlined by Ms. Lynch and the current remarks by Ms. Theriot underscores a troubling shift. What the United States has done in 2025 concerning Guyana’s domestic political affairs reflects less a defense of democracy and more a concerning pattern of trying to steer a pre-defined electoral outcome.

Guyana, as an independent and sovereign Republic, exercises full constitutional authority over its internal affairs. This includes the conduct of elections, the eligibility of candidates, and the composition of its government. These matters are governed by the Constitution of Guyana—the supreme law of the land—and ultimately judged by the Guyanese electorate and accredited and invited electoral observers. Their role is to monitor the electoral process, not to prejudge the candidacy of individuals based on allegations not adjudicated by a court of law. Ms. Theriot overstepped her mandate on July 23, 2025 and she should be sanctioned by the people of Guyana.

What is deeply concerning in 2025 is the appearance of an external power—however well-resourced or influential—seeking to shape the outcome of our democratic process through statements and actions that resemble remote-controlled diplomacy. As Ambassador Lynch herself once said, “The difference between meddling and practicing good diplomacy is that the latter involves sticking to bedrock principles of human rights, good governance, and transparency.” We, the Guyanese people, respect that position and call for the application of those principles consistently.

While Guyana welcomes strong diplomatic and economic ties with all nations, including the United States, such relationships must be based on mutual respect, non-interference, and the sovereign equality of states, as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations. Guyana is not Venezuela. Our elections are free and fair, and in both 2020 and 2025, we expect “one man, one vote” to remain the sacred standard—irrespective of political preferences or international pressure.

With regard to the U.S. sanctions imposed on Mr. Mohamed through the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), it is important to recognize that these are administrative and unilateral. They are not criminal convictions and do not carry the weight of due process as defined by a court of law. These sanctions—often driven by geopolitical interests—are applied and removed based on shifting foreign policy priorities. A case in point is the lifting of sanctions on a Hungarian government minister Mr. Antal Rogán, who was previously sanctioned for corruption “that involved orchestrated schemes designed to control several strategic sectors of the Hungarian economy and to divert proceeds from those sectors to himself and to reward loyalists from his political party.” That decision was reversed with the explanation that “the winds have changed.” Inexplicable and most baffling on the part of the US Government!

It must be emphasized: Mr. Mohamed has not been found guilty of any crime in a court of law. The attempt to disqualify or delegitimize his candidacy on this basis is a violation of due process and democratic norms. It is especially concerning when juxtaposed against the fact that the United States itself allows convicted felons to run for high office, as seen in the case of one being allowed to run for the highest office, who was convicted of 34 counts of falsifying business records.  The people of the United States elected that convicted felon, and that is their right. Who are we as Guyanese to tell them they cannot have their convicted felon?  That is their internal affairs; the people always know what is right and we must trust the American people to do what is best for their country.

So these intrusive statements from the US Ambassador Theriot, seeking to meddle in our internal affairs, must not go unchallenged. The Guyanese people alone hold the right to determine who governs them. The Guyanese people must be trusted to do what is best for our country; Ambassador Theriot does not have a vote in our elections. No foreign diplomat should assume the authority to dictate who is acceptable or unacceptable for public office in Guyana; that is our business. History offers numerous sobering lessons about foreign interference on the part of the United States masquerading as the promotion of democracy, but ended up in every case as a contributor to the human under-development in these countries:

In Chile, the CIA’s Project FUBELT undermined a democratically elected leader, Salvador Allende, and supported the brutal Pinochet dictatorship, resulting in thousands murdered.

In Guatemala, a U.S.-backed coup removed President Jacobo Árbenz to protect corporate interests, plunging the country into decades of authoritarian rule and civil war.

In Brazil, the U.S. supported the 1964 military coup, part of a broader Cold War strategy to suppress leftist movements and hold back that country for years.

In Nicaragua and El Salvador, U.S. involvement fueled civil conflict, propped up death squads, and destabilized entire regions that have leapfrogged those nations into deep poverty.

In Iraq, the U.S.-led invasion based on unproven claims of weapons of mass destruction led to years of war, the rise of ISIS, and the collapse of a once-functioning state.

In Libya, the NATO-led intervention in 2011—again under U.S. leadership—resulted in the death of Muammar Gaddafi and a power vacuum that has yet to be filled, leaving the country fragmented and unstable and poorer than it was under Gaddafi.

It is imperative to ask: who benefited from these interventions? In all the cases, it was neither the people of those nations nor the cause of democracy—but rather strategic business interests in the United States cloaked in moral rhetoric.

In Guyana today, 40% of our citizens continue to live in poverty despite our nation’s immense natural wealth. Food inflation remains among the highest in Latin America. The root causes are not ambiguous: lopsided oil contracts, state-sanctioned corruption, and institutions that often serve political elites over the people without any sanction from the United States. The complicity of international oil interests—chiefly ExxonMobil—must not be overlooked. In this regard, the role of corporate actors such as Mr. Alistair Routledge begins to resemble that of Sir Richard Edmonds Luyt, who once shaped the destiny of our country with impunity.

Ambassador Theriot must recognize that Guyana is not a client state. We are a sovereign people. If the U.S. does not wish to engage in fair trade or diplomatic cooperation based on mutual respect, Guyana has alternative partners—within the BRICS bloc, the European Union, Canada, Latin America, and beyond. We are not seeking military might; we are seeking development, dignity, and self-determination, and we are confident our brothers in Brazil will not allow our western aggressors to invade our territory.

​In conclusion, Ambassador Theriot and her colleagues in Washington would do well to re-read the U.S. Constitution they swore to uphold—particularly its commitment to democratic values, human rights, and the sovereignty of the people. If the people of Guyana choose to elect Mr. Mohamed, or anyone else, that is their constitutional and sovereign right. The will of the Guyanese people must be respected by all.

Sincerely,

Lancelot Hyman