Dear Editor,
History has a way of repeating itself, often in ways that are less obvious but no less impactful. In ancient Rome, weaker nations were required to pay tributes—gold, grain, and other valuable resources—in ex-change for “protection” and economic inclusion. These tributes reinforced Rome’s dominance, ensuring that wealth flowed toward the empire while the subject nations remained dependent.
Today, we see echoes of this system in modern geopolitical agreements. Ukraine, weakened by war, has entered into a minerals deal with the United States, granting access to critical resources vital for high-tech industries. In return, Ukraine secures financial and strategic backing, but at what long-term cost? Similarly, Guyana, with its vast oil reserves, has attracted major international players, yet concerns persist about whether its deals with global powers—particularly the U.S. and ExxonMobil—truly serve the nation’s long-term interests or primarily benefit foreign entities.
While these agreements are not enforced through military conquest like Rome’s tributes, the fundamental dynamic remains: powerful nations structure economic relationships that secure their access to vital resources while shaping the economic and political landscapes of weaker states. The key question is whether nations like Guyana and Ukraine can leverage their resources for true sovereignty and long-term prosperity or whether they risk becoming modern-day tributaries—resource providers in an imbalanced global system.
Guyana stands at a crossroads. Will we negotiate deals that ensure true economic independence and national development, or will we follow historical patterns where the wealth of the land benefits others more than it benefits our own people?
Sincerely,
Keith Bernard
