International

‘Black gold’ for Guyana and Suriname, a blessing or curse?

Photo: Patrick Fort / AFP

AFP | Patrick Fort

Emerging as potential oil powers while the world seeks to wean itself off planet-warming fossil fuels, poverty-stricken South American neighbors Guyana and Suriname say they have to cash in while they can.

The former Dutch colonies are among the world’s most tree-covered countries, hosts to the so-called forest “lungs” that sequester massive amounts of planet-warming carbon dioxide.

Their economies and populations small, the countries have traditionally emitted little CO2 or other greenhouse gasses from fossil fuel use — in fact Suriname is one of only three carbon-negative countries in the world and Guyana claims carbon neutrality.

But some fear this could change with the recent discovery of rich offshore oil deposits in an area known as the Guyana-Suriname Basin.

20260224_estafa_mh_728x90

Guyana, a country of 800,000 people, was recently found to have proven reserves of at least 10 billion barrels of oil, likely much more according to experts.

This makes it the country with the highest reserves per capita in the world — which consumes 99.4 million barrels of oil per day.

Early assessments suggest the reserves of Suriname, a country of 600,000 people, may not be far behind.

“It will be hard to remain carbon neutral as a country (involved in the) petroleum sector,” economist Steven Debipersad of the Anton de Kom University in Suriname’s capital Paramaribo, told AFP.

The projected $10 billion Suriname stands to make in the next 10 to 20 years, will likely bring economic growth at the cost of the environment, he said.

20260224_estafa_mh_728x90

The country’s GDP today is about $3 billion.

Hungry ‘every day’

Their presidents insist Guyana and Suriname cannot be expected to turn their backs on a chance to fill their countries’ coffers and raise the quality of life for their people.

The countries are among the poorest in South America, with vast swathes of their populations living without electricity, clean water or access to adequate health services.

In a Paramaribo ghetto named Texas, dirty sewer water flows among dilapidated wooden homes.

Resident Edison Poekitie, a 23-year-old musician, scrapes by on no more than $50 a week. Does he go hungry?

20260224_estafa_mh_728x90

“Every day!” he told AFP. “It’s hard out here, really hard.”

The community, he added, needs “water pipes, cables, new roads without potholes, schools, better houses, playgrounds…”

Poekitie said he hoped the government would spend the oil money “wisely,” a sentiment echoed by 45-year-old food truck owner Brian Braithwaite in a poor neighborhood of the Guyanese capital Georgetown.

“Hopefully they do something so that… people (who) live on the street can do better,” Braithwaite said.

‘Oil curse’

Both presidents have vowed to make judicious use of their windfall petroleum profits, though some are worried that will undercut the sovereign wealth funds set up to guard some money for future generations.

20260224_estafa_mh_728x90

“We are quite aware of the oil curse,” Suriname President Chan Santokhi told AFP, alluding to neighbor Venezuela and other resource-rich countries such as Angola and Algeria that were unable to turn oil wealth into social and economic progress.

“We… should also get the opportunity to benefit from the production of oil and gas and its income” to address a biting economic crisis “and help our people to have better lives,” he insisted.

For his part, Guyanese President Mohamed Irfaan Ali wants to use the oil income to “create wealth for now, and future generations.”

Both speak of using the money to diversify their economies with investments in agriculture, tourism, housing, education and health care.

Eventually, “the oil and gas will be gone, but the food security should be guaranteed,” said Santokhi.

20260224_estafa_mh_728x90

Oil money for green energy

Oil extraction and refining are major contributors to greenhouse gas emissions.

Though they have historically emitted little, Suriname and Guyana are both deeply affected by global warming — in the crosshairs of worsening tropical storms and of flooding from rising sea levels.

Presidents Santokhi and Irfaan Ali believe they can maintain their countries’ carbon balances by using oil money to protect their forests and invest in green energy.

Defending the forests that cover about 87 percent of Guyana and 93 percent of Suriname is also economically sage: both countries can sell so-called carbon credits to polluters who need to offset emissions.

For Guyana, carbon credits are worth about $190 million per year, said Irfaan Ali.

20260224_estafa_mh_728x90

Monique Pool, director of the Green Heritage Fund of Suriname, is not convinced by the two-pronged approach.

“Carbon credit will give us more money faster than oil and gas and for longer because it will be sustainable,” she told AFP.

In Georgetown, activist Christopher Ram agreed the oil should be left in the ground, expressing fear of exploitation by ruthless companies in the absence of “good governance.”

Instead, “I would go to the international community and say: ‘We are a small country, we’ve always been good to the environment, we want to stay that way… help us get the benefits we would have got with oil’.”

But 53-year-old Cynthia Neel, who sent her daughter from Suriname to the Netherlands at the age of six for education and a chance at a better life, is hopeful of positive change.

20260224_estafa_mh_728x90

“I hope that with the oil the children will no longer have to leave,” she told AFP.

Economist Steven Debipersad poses for a picture at the Istitute of Graduate Studies in the Anton de Kom University in Paramaribo, on September 14, 2022. - Emerging as potential oil powers while the world seeks to wean itself off planet-warming fossil fuels, poverty-striken South American neighbors Guyana and Suriname say they have no choice but to cash in while they can. (Photo by Patrick FORT / AFP)

International

Federal Judge Blocks Trump Policy Allowing Deportations to Third Countries

A federal judge ruled on Wednesday that the policy of U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration allowing immigration authorities to deport foreign nationals to third countries without prior notice or the opportunity to object is unlawful. The decision marks another legal setback for the administration on immigration matters.

Judge Brian Murphy of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts struck down the regulation issued last year, which stated that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) was not required to notify migrants if they were to be sent to countries other than the one listed in their removal order, provided that receiving nations offered assurances they would not face persecution or torture.

Murphy ordered the measure vacated but granted a 15-day delay before the ruling takes effect, giving the Trump administration time to file an appeal.

In his decision, the judge concluded that the policy violates federal immigration law and migrants’ due process rights. He also questioned the lack of transparency surrounding the alleged assurances provided by receiving countries, stating that “no one really knows anything about these supposed ‘assurances.’” He added, “It is not right, and it is not lawful.”

The ruling follows several legal disputes involving deportations to third countries. Last year, the executive branch deported more than 200 Salvadorans to a maximum-security prison in El Salvador, invoking an old wartime law. The White House also held talks with Costa Rica, Panama, and Rwanda about receiving migrants who are not citizens of those countries.

20260224_estafa_mh_728x90

In May, the same judge determined that the government violated a court order when it attempted to remove a group of immigrants with criminal records to South Sudan without prior notice or an opportunity to raise claims of fear of persecution.

Although President Donald Trump took the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, which temporarily allowed the deportations to resume while a final decision was pending, the White House is expected to again appeal to higher courts to overturn this latest judicial ruling.

International

Cocaine Production Surges 34% in 2023 as Market Expands into Africa and Asia

The global cocaine market is the fastest-growing among all illicit drugs worldwide, the International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) warned on Thursday in its annual report presented in Vienna.

The body attributes this expansion to the sustained rise in production in South America — particularly in Colombia — as well as increasing demand in emerging regions such as Africa and Asia.

According to the report, global cocaine production surpassed 3,700 metric tons in 2023, marking a 34% increase compared to 2022. This growth is largely driven by the expansion of illicit coca cultivation in Colombia and the greater production capacity of clandestine laboratories.

The INCB noted that the market has not only grown in volume but has also diversified and become more globalized. While Europe and North America remain the primary destinations, trafficking routes now reach “all regions of the world,” including Africa — traditionally considered a transit zone — and Asia, where the presence of cocaine was previously marginal.

In Western and Central Europe, for the fifth consecutive year, seizures in 2023 exceeded those in North America, consolidating the region as the leading destination market. Between January 2019 and June 2024, more than 1,826 metric tons of drugs bound for European ports were seized, of which 82% was cocaine, equivalent to 1,487 metric tons.

20260224_estafa_mh_728x90

The report also highlights that seizures in Africa rose by 48% in 2023 compared to 2022, reflecting the expansion of the market on the continent. Globally, the number of cocaine users increased from 17 million in 2013 to 25 million in 2023.

International

Clinton Accuses Republican Committee of Using Epstein Case to Shield Trump

Former U.S. Secretary of State and former First Lady Hillary Clinton denied on Thursday before a congressional committee that she had ever met convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein in person or had any knowledge of the crimes he committed.

Clinton testified behind closed doors from New York before the House Oversight Committee. The wife of former President Bill Clinton — who is scheduled to testify on Friday — accused the Republican-controlled committee of summoning her in order to “distract attention” and “cover up” the activities of President Donald Trump, who had past ties to Epstein.

“I do not recall ever meeting Mr. Epstein. I never flew on his plane nor visited his island, his homes, or his offices. I have nothing further to add,” she stated.

The former Secretary of State emphasized that she “had no idea about the criminal activities” of the financier, who died in prison in 2019. “Like any decent person, I was horrified when I learned of his crimes,” she said.

Clinton described the Epstein case as “a tragedy” and “a scandal” that deserves “a thorough investigation,” but criticized the committee for failing to summon what she called the truly relevant individuals.

20260224_estafa_mh_728x90

“Instead, you have asked me to testify, knowing that I have no knowledge that would serve your investigation, with the purpose of distracting from President Trump’s activities and shielding him despite the legitimate demand for answers,” she said.

The questioning, conducted behind closed doors in Chappaqua, New York — where the Clintons reside — took place one day before former President Bill Clinton was scheduled to appear at the same location.

Although the Clintons initially declined to testify before Congress, the threat of being held in contempt ultimately led the former presidential couple to agree to appear and explain their relationship with Epstein.