When Venezuela’s interim president Delcy Rodríguez spoke publicly on Friday, her message required no complex translation for the local audience. In the presence of senior Surinamese government officials, she announced in Spanish (with an official translation provided) that 200 Venezuelan fishermen from the states of Nueva Esparta and Sucre would soon receive official permits to operate in an Atlantic fishing corridor designated by Suriname. What nobody in the official delegation seemed to anticipate, however, was that this offhand announcement would spark immediate uproar across Suriname’s fishing sector.
This public backlash is far from surprising. Fishing access permits are far from a trivial administrative matter: for years, Suriname and neighboring Guyana have been locked in bitter public disputes over fishing rights, with tensions escalating to diplomatic standoffs and cross-border political accusations. That is precisely why Suriname’s government had an obligation to lay out all details of its new agreement with Venezuela clearly and proactively from the start. That obligation was never met.
It was only after Rodríguez’s comments were published by local outlet Starnieuws and public outcry erupted that Suriname’s Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries released a full explanation. Officials clarified that the 200 permits are not for brand new fishing vessels entering Suriname’s waters – instead, they apply to Venezuelan boats that have been operating illegally in Surinamese territory for years. Even with this clarification, a critical question remains: why was this key context not shared immediately when Rodríguez made her announcement?
The roots of this confusion stretch back to 2007, when the original bilateral fishing agreement between the two countries was first signed. That agreement has not been updated or renewed in the 19 years since it came into force. Parveen Amritpersad, director of Suriname’s fisheries department, confirmed that this lapse means there has been no formal bilateral legal framework in place to authorize foreign fishing vessels accessing Suriname’s waters for nearly two decades.
Over those 19 years, four consecutive Surinamese administrations – the Venetiaan III cabinet, the Bouterse I and II terms, and the current Santokhi government – all failed to renew the expired agreement. Venezuelan authorities also did not push forward to resolve the gap in the framework. Despite the lack of formal legal standing, fishing operations continued uninterrupted: under Suriname’s domestic rules, permits were issued through local processing companies that held private contracts with the Venezuelan vessels, even as the required bilateral treaty remained expired.
An expired agreement is an expired agreement. By the same logic, a driver cannot argue that an expired driver’s license is still valid just because they held a valid one years ago. To make the urgency of this gap even clearer, the European Union has already flagged the lack of formal legal framework to Suriname, and recommended that the country resolve the issue as a matter of priority. This new agreement, therefore, is far from a meaningless bureaucratic formality: it is intended to fix an irregular situation that has persisted for nearly two decades.
So who is to blame for the current confusion? Rodríguez did not make her comments in an off-the-record private meeting; she spoke as Venezuela’s acting head of state during an official state visit. If her wording created a misleading impression, Suriname’s government could have immediately stepped in to clarify: that there are no new boats entering the corridor, and the deal simply renews the long-expired 2007 framework for the existing fishing arrangement. If that clarification had come immediately, there would have been barely any controversy at all.
Instead, clarification only came after Rodríguez’s comments were published and public anger grew. Worse, official communications framed the controversy as a response to “recent misleading reporting”, which created the easy but unfair impression that local outlet Starnieuws had spread inaccurate information.
That accusation is unfounded. Any outlet that accurately quotes Rodríguez’s public comments cannot be blamed for the resulting backlash. If her statement was incomplete or poorly phrased, the responsibility to correct and clarify immediately fell to the Surinamese officials who were present for the announcement.
This means Suriname’s government and its communications team need to examine their own mistakes first. A sensitive deal like this requires full transparency from the start. The public deserves clear answers to basic questions: how many vessels will be permitted, what type of permits will they receive, what areas are they allowed to fish in, what terms govern their operations, and why did it take 19 years to renew an expired bilateral agreement?
Trying to shift blame for the public commotion to the media, when clear official information was not provided in advance, is hypocrisy. It is a positive step that Suriname is finally bringing this 19-year-old irregular situation into compliance with the law. But transparency should not be an afterword that only comes out when controversy erupts.
In the fishing industry, catch traceability is a non-negotiable requirement. The same standard should apply to government information: the public has a right to know what agreements are reached, where information comes from, and whether official public statements align with the actual terms of deals. In this case, the public was forced to piece together the facts after the fact, and the entire situation leaves a distinctly fishy taste.