分类: politics

  • Abaco residents angry over wiped power bills

    Abaco residents angry over wiped power bills

    Six years after Hurricane Dorian devastated large swathes of Abaco, leaving thousands of residents homeless and economically shattered, anger is boiling over over the Davis administration’s last-minute pre-general election decision to erase all outstanding electricity bills for residents of Grand Cay and Moore’s Island – while leaving similarly devastated mainland Abaco communities without any comparable relief.

    Survivors across hard-hit mainland settlements including Marsh Harbour, Dundas Town, Spring City and Murphy Town have decried the selective relief as a transparent, insulting political gambit that ignores the ongoing suffering of thousands of Dorian survivors who have yet to recover from the 2019 storm.

    Neulessa Major, a lifelong Marsh Harbour resident whose home suffered catastrophic damage during Dorian, described the unequal treatment as a slap in the face to all mainland Abaco residents still picking up the pieces. Her $55,000 home roof was completely destroyed, all her personal belongings were ruined by storm surge and wind, and she was unable to move back into her repaired property until 2022. Today, she says massive outstanding utility bills burden most families and business owners across central Abaco – none of whom were offered the debt forgiveness extended to the two smaller island communities.

    “When I learned that only certain groups were getting their entire balances wiped clean, I was shocked,” Major said in an interview. “All of central Abaco was hit just as hard, with these enormous bills that people can’t possibly pay. Six years on, we still have people living in tents and temporary dome shelters. A lot of homes look finished from the street, but step inside and there aren’t even floor tiles. The government acts like everything is fine for us here, but it’s not.”

    The controversial debt cancellation came two weeks ahead of the national general election, after Prime Minister Philip “Brave” Davis visited Grand Cay and publicly promised the relief to voters there. Government officials defended the move, framing it as a resolution to long-running billing disruptions triggered first by Hurricane Dorian and later by the COVID-19 pandemic. Officials noted that Grand Cay and Moore’s Island residents faced unique hardships including limited banking access, extended travel and business restrictions, and that accumulated debt accrued through circumstances outside consumers’ control. The government confirmed the outstanding balances would be covered through an offsetting agreement with Bahamas Power and Light.

    But that explanation has done little to ease the anger among mainland Abaco residents, who point out they weathered the same storm and the same subsequent economic crisis, with many still struggling to rebuild. Major emphasized that many Marsh Harbour residents did not wait for government aid to begin rebuilding their homes and businesses, only to be saddled with crippling utility debt that the government has refused to address.

    She also called out the ruling Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) for a separate recently revealed government-funded gift card program that saw small $300 gift certificates distributed to Abaco residents just ahead of the vote – a move she dismissed as insufficient and politically motivated. The Tribune previously confirmed that more than $200,000 in public funds was used for the gift certificates, which bear the signatures of PLP officials despite being a government initiative.

    “A $300 gift certificate six years after we lost everything? What is that even supposed to cover?” Major asked. “A lot of people might celebrate a small handout right before an election, but that doesn’t fix what’s broken here. I was even offered $500 in cash at my door by campaign workers – I refused it. I don’t want a personal payout. I want the government to actually do something for our community.”

    Lorane Burrows, a Dundas Town resident whose home was damaged in Dorian, shared Major’s fury, noting she was forced to pay outstanding water and sewerage bills even after her storm damage left her facing major financial strain. “They need to get out,” Burrows said. “This was a slap in the face to all of us. They’ve done nothing for Abaco, nothing for people like me who are still hurting. They failed us entirely.” Burrows confirmed she and all eight voting members of her household will not support the PLP in the upcoming election.

    Rochelle Lightbourn, a 55-year-old Spring City resident who lost all her belongings when her rented home was destroyed in Dorian, argued the selective relief is a clear political calculation. “I think they’re doing this because they know they’re going to lose these districts, and they’re trying to buy back support,” she said. “It’s not going to work. I still haven’t even replaced everything I lost six years ago.”

    Lottie Williams, a 64-year-old Spring City resident who lost the entire back section of her home in the storm and had to be rescued by emergency crews, said relief should have been extended to every Abaco resident impacted by Dorian. “Ninety-five percent of the homes in Spring City were destroyed,” she noted. “I understand those outer cays have challenges, but we fought for our lives here, we came home and rebuilt on our own, and we got zero help from this government. High electricity bills affect all of us. It’s just not fair to only write off bills for two small communities when we’re all struggling. That money should have been spread out to everyone who needed it.”

    Many residents also recalled the slow, burdensome process of restoring power after the storm, noting that even long-term local residents were forced to produce extensive documentation just to reconnect service, despite the small community where most homeowners and occupants were already well-known to utility officials. For many, the compounding stress of Dorian’s destruction followed by the economic collapse of the COVID-19 pandemic left them unable to keep up with accumulated utility costs – a hardship the government has only chosen to address for a select few, weeks before voters head to the polls.

  • Pornhub owner partially reopens access for UK users

    Pornhub owner partially reopens access for UK users

    Nearly eight months after blocking new user access to its adult platforms in the United Kingdom over age verification requirements, Cyprus-based adult content conglomerate Aylo — owner of major platforms including Pornhub, YouPorn and Redtube — announced a limited rollback of its restriction on Tuesday.

    The company confirmed it has reopened access to Pornhub exclusively for eligible UK-based adult users who complete Apple’s new native age verification checks, a rollout limited to users with Apple iPhones and iPads that have been updated to the latest iOS 26.4 operating system.

    Aylo framed Apple’s new tool as a groundbreaking development in digital safety for minors: the Cupertino-based tech giant has rolled out what it calls the world’s first device-integrated age verification system for UK users, which automatically applies strict default safety settings to accounts belonging to children, teens, and any adult users that have not completed formal age confirmation.

    Aylo called the launch “a major first step toward a global solution that stands to better protect children everywhere.”

    The original UK-wide block was implemented back in February, when Aylo pulled access citing its obligation to comply with the UK’s landmark Online Safety Act, which mandates that all pornographic platforms implement robust age checks to block underage users. Platforms that fail to comply face severe financial penalties.

    From the start, however, Aylo has criticized the UK regulation, arguing that forcing compliant mainstream platforms to block access pushed users toward unregulated, anonymous dark web porn sites that lack any minor protection protocols. The company said earlier this year that the policy “has not achieved its goal of protecting minors” and merely diverted traffic to “darker, unregulated corners of the internet.”

    This is not an isolated conflict between adult content operators and regional regulators. Aylo has enacted similar blocks on its platforms in France and multiple US states over identical age verification mandate disputes. At the European Union level, regulators opened a case in March accusing Pornhub and three other major adult platforms of violating EU digital safety rules by failing to block minor access to content, a violation that could result in billions of euros in fines for the companies.

    Following Aylo’s Tuesday announcement, Britain’s independent media and digital regulator Ofcom said it will conduct a thorough review of the new access arrangement. The regulator emphasized that the Online Safety Act places full legal responsibility for blocking minor access to adult content on the platforms and applications themselves, and it will ensure all requirements are fully met before approving any permanent change to access rules.

  • PPV operators will have to wait longer for 16% fare hike, says Vaz

    PPV operators will have to wait longer for 16% fare hike, says Vaz

    Jamaica’s public passenger vehicle (PPV) operators, already grappling with skyrocketing fuel costs driven by ongoing Middle East conflict, will face an extended wait for a long-promised 16 percent fare adjustment, the country’s transport minister confirmed this week.

    Addressing the House of Representatives Tuesday during debate on the 2026/27 national sectoral budget, Transport Minister Daryl Vaz acknowledged the mounting pressure facing the island’s public transport sector. The push for a fare increase began immediately after fuel prices started climbing in late February, when the United States and Israel launched a military strike on Iran that sent global energy markets into volatility. Even after a fragile ceasefire took effect on April 8, oil prices have maintained their upward trajectory, triggering cascading price increases across nearly all other goods and services in Jamaica’s import-dependent economy.

    “I am aware that Jamaica’s public passenger vehicle sector is under extreme strain from both surging fuel costs and the long-outstanding 16 percent fare adjustment,” Vaz told lawmakers.

    The minister noted that unforeseen disruptions have repeatedly derailed the government’s timeline for implementing the promised adjustment. “As I’ve said before, the 16 percent fare adjustment remains under active consideration, with close attention to its potential impact on overall national inflation. As the local saying goes, bad luck is worse than obeah – every time we approach a final decision, a hurricane or another unexpected crisis throws off our economic forecasts and plans,” Vaz explained. “But I can give a firm assurance: the commitment we made will be honored.”

    Vaz outlined the severe financial pressures pushing the sector to the brink: fuel alone now makes up as much as 65 percent of a PPV operator’s monthly operating costs, on top of rising toll fees, climbing insurance premiums, and growing maintenance expenses. All of these combined, he acknowledged, are “threatening the sector’s very sustainability.”

    To address the immediate crisis, Vaz confirmed the government is accelerating the groundwork for the 16 percent adjustment, including developing a coordinated public communication strategy to prepare commuters for the change. Alongside the planned fare hike, officials are exploring a suite of targeted relief measures, including cuts to mandatory insurance premiums, concessionary discounted toll rates for PPV operators, and stricter regulatory enforcement to crack down on unlicensed illegal transport operators that siphon revenue from licensed services.

    For the long term, the government is advancing structural reforms to stabilize the sector. Key initiatives include updating national vehicle age rules to enable fleet modernization, offering financial incentives for operators to transition to electric and hybrid vehicles, expanding access to technical and business training for sector workers, and investing in upgraded public parking infrastructure across the island.

    “These targeted interventions are designed to strike a careful balance between the pressing financial needs of operators and the affordability concerns of commuters,” Vaz said. “Our goal is to protect the long-term viability of a sector that is absolutely critical to Jamaica’s national mobility, domestic commerce, and overall economic resilience.”

  • World Court receives evidence Venezuela consistently recognised1899 boundary settlement

    World Court receives evidence Venezuela consistently recognised1899 boundary settlement

    On Monday, May 4, 2026, Guyana launched the merits phase of its long-running border dispute case at the United Nations’ highest judicial body, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), by presenting what it calls irrefutable, decades of documentary proof that Venezuela accepted the 1899 Arbitral Tribunal Award establishing the two nations’ land boundary for more than six decades, without raising a single formal objection.

    Leading Guyana’s opening arguments before the court, Nilufer Oral, Director of the Centre of International Law at the National University of Singapore and a prominent international law expert, laid out a comprehensive case that contradicts Venezuela’s current claims challenging the award’s legal validity. Oral emphasized that the historical record is unequivocal: from the moment the 1899 ruling was issued 127 years ago, all the way through 1962, Venezuelan authorities consistently acknowledged, abided by, and enforced the boundary set out in the award.

    Oral pointed out that despite Venezuela’s current denials, historical records confirm the country was fully aware of any potential legal grounds to contest the award at the time of its passage. Far from opposing the outcome, top Venezuelan officials repeatedly publicly stated their satisfaction with the ruling, even framing it as a strategic victory that granted Venezuela control over the most strategically valuable portion of the contested territory: the mouth of the Orinoco River.

    To back these claims, Oral presented the ICJ judges with a wide range of authenticated primary sources, including official Venezuelan government maps, formal diplomatic correspondence, and public statements by high-ranking Venezuelan leaders. One key example she cited was a 1929 boundary protocol between Brazil and Venezuela, which explicitly recognized the 1899 award’s demarcation of the tripoint where the borders of Brazil, Venezuela, and what was then British Guiana converge.

    Oral also highlighted a specific incident that underscores Venezuela’s historic commitment to the award: when one official boundary marker along the border was destroyed by natural forces, Venezuelan authorities demanded the marker be replaced at the exact location specified in the 1899 ruling. She emphasized that Venezuela has long insisted the award be implemented precisely to its terms, rejecting even minor adjustments to the agreed boundary.

    Further, Oral referenced Venezuela’s 1948 Organic Federal Territorial Law, which formally defines the eastern boundary of the country’s Delta Amacuro Federal Territory as “the border between Venezuela and Great Britain” — the exact border established by the 1899 award. She also displayed an official map Venezuela itself submitted to the United Nations that clearly draws the Guyana-Venezuela border in line with the 1899 demarcation.

    Oral questioned the credibility of Venezuela’s current argument that it was forced into the 1900–1905 joint boundary demarcation process with British Guiana against its will. During that five-year process, Venezuelan surveyors and commissioners worked alongside British counterparts to demarcate the 825-kilometer border. Throughout the entire undertaking, Oral noted, Venezuelan officials never recorded a single objection, reservation, or protest regarding the alignment laid out in the 1899 award. In fact, Venezuelan representatives to the joint commission, who reported directly to Venezuela’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, carried out their work with meticulous attention to detail and full commitment to upholding the terms of the 1899 ruling when the commission’s work concluded.

  • Greene Predicts By-Election in All Saints East & St. Luke as Pressure Mounts on Pringle

    Greene Predicts By-Election in All Saints East & St. Luke as Pressure Mounts on Pringle

    In a fiery address to supporters at a joint Labour Day rally hosted by the Antigua Trades and Labour Union (AT&LU) and the ruling Antigua and Barbuda Labour Party (ABLP) this Monday, ABLP Chairman E.P. Chet Greene has made a bold prediction: a by-election will be called in the swing constituency of All Saints East & St. Luke within six months, driven by mounting internal unrest within the opposition United Progressive Party (UPP) that he claims will force UPP leader Jamale Pringle to step down from his parliamentary seat.

    Greene doubled down on his claim that the opposition bloc is entering a period of accelerating collapse, telling assembled rally attendees that internal factions within the UPP are growing increasingly vocal in their opposition to Pringle’s leadership. This growing pressure, he argued, will leave the UPP leader with no choice but to resign his parliamentary seat, triggering a fresh contest for the constituency that has remained a key battleground between the two major parties since the April 30 general election.

    In that general election, ABLP’s candidate Lamin “Lammy” Newton lost the All Saints East & St. Luke seat by only a narrow margin. Greene framed a potential by-election as a critical second chance for Newton, telling supporters he expects the ABLP candidate to secure victory in a fresh vote. This win, he added, would help the ruling party complete what he described as a “clean sweep” of parliamentary seats across the nation.

    Beyond his prediction of an imminent by-election, Greene used the high-profile Labour Day platform to launch a pointed critique of the UPP’s recent performance as the official opposition. He argued that the party has failed entirely to fulfill its core democratic role as a check on ruling party power, pointing to high-profile internal disagreements over key policy issues including the national government’s COVID-19 public health response and its cruise ship tourism regulations as evidence of the UPP’s ineffectiveness. “None of us in this country can honestly claim that the UPP has been an effective opposition,” Greene stated.

    Notably, even amid his sharp criticism of the current opposition, Greene stopped short of rejecting the role of opposing political voices in a functional democracy. He emphasized that robust democratic governance requires a credible, effective opposition, and rejected any push to eliminate dissenting political views from national discourse.

    Greene also used the rally to outline a new transparency and engagement pledge for the ruling ABLP, announcing that all elected ABLP parliamentary representatives will now be required to host quarterly public town hall meetings in their respective constituencies. The policy, he explained, is designed to keep elected officials directly connected to the constituents they represent, reinforcing the government’s commitment to democratic accountability. “That’s the balance we strike for democracy: constant engagement with the people,” Greene said.

    As of Tuesday, the UPP has not issued any public response to Greene’s claims and predictions, leaving open questions about the actual level of internal pressure facing Pringle and the party’s future in the constituency.

  • Editorial Independence at Risk in OECS as Political Influence Grows — 2026 Report

    Editorial Independence at Risk in OECS as Political Influence Grows — 2026 Report

    The 2026 World Press Freedom Index has delivered a mixed assessment of media freedom across the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS), finding that the bloc continues to uphold broadly free working conditions for journalists while warning of accelerating threats to editorial independence from political interference, structural economic vulnerabilities and digital intimidation.

    While the report acknowledges that reporters in the region generally operate without the severe physical violence that endangers journalists in many parts of the world, it outlines a cascade of systemic challenges that are gradually eroding the core principles of independent media across OECS member states. One of the most pressing issues flagged in the analysis is concentrated media ownership, with multiple islands reporting that major political parties hold controlling equity stakes in leading local media companies. This direct financial ties have sparked widespread questions about whether outlets can deliver impartial, unbiased coverage, especially when reporting on the parties that own them. Beyond private ownership, the report documents that state bodies regularly exercise informal and formal influence over a wide range of media platforms, from traditional print newspapers and radio stations to digital and online news outlets.

    This political leverage becomes particularly acute during national election cycles, when control over media narratives can shape electoral outcomes. For many small regional media outlets, state advertising contracts represent one of the steadiest and most critical sources of operating revenue. The report highlights that governments can pull this funding abruptly if coverage is deemed unfavorable, creating chronic financial vulnerability that gives officials implicit power to sway editorial decisions.

    Concrete case studies from across the region illustrate how these pressures play out in practice. In 2024, Grenadian authorities faced widespread criticism after restricting press access to a public cabinet swearing-in ceremony, closing off a key government event to independent scrutiny. In a separate incident in the country, a local media outlet received formal legal threats over a published investigative story, ultimately forcing the outlet to remove the content from its platforms even after the outlet’s editorial team stood by the accuracy of the reporting.

    Outdated and overbroad legal frameworks also create persistent risks to press freedom in some member states. In Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, a 2016 national cybercrime law includes provisions tied to online defamation that critics argue grant authorities excessive power to restrict independent digital reporting, opening the door to arbitrary enforcement against critical outlets.

    Cultural and economic headwinds further weaken the sustainability of independent journalism across the bloc. In most OECS societies, the report finds that the public does not view journalism as a prestigious or financially viable career path, leading to high turnover and a lack of new talent entering the sector to support independent outlets.

    On the issue of journalist safety, the report offers one small positive note: while there have been no killings, long-term detentions or imprisonments of media workers in the OECS recorded so far in 2026, psychological and digital intimidation is on the rise. The growth of social media and digital news platforms has exposed journalists to sustained harassment, much of it orchestrated by individuals aligned with major political parties seeking to discredit critical reporting.

    In its concluding assessment, the report emphasizes that the OECS still ranks among the stronger regions globally for overall press freedom. But it warns that the cumulative impact of growing political influence, lingering economic instability and evolving digital pressures is putting the long-term independence and sustainability of regional journalism to an increasingly severe test.

  • Guyana tells World Court that Spain or Venezuela never ran Essequibo

    Guyana tells World Court that Spain or Venezuela never ran Essequibo

    On Monday, 4 May 2026, legal and diplomatic representatives of Guyana laid out a comprehensive, evidence-backed case before the International Court of Justice (ICJ), refuting Venezuela’s long-standing territorial claim to the 160,000-square-kilometer Essequibo region by documenting Guyana’s continuous, uninterrupted administration of the territory and challenging the legitimacy of Venezuela’s legal arguments.

    This week marks a critical milestone in the decades-long border dispute, as the ICJ convenes to hear the merits of Guyana’s case centered on the legal validity of the 1899 Arbitral Tribunal Award, the original agreement that formalized the land boundary between the two neighboring South American nations.

    Speaking on behalf of Guyana’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ambassador Donnette Streete, Director of the Frontiers Division, told the UN’s highest judicial body that neither historical colonial power Spain nor modern Venezuela ever exercised governing control over Essequibo. Streete outlined the territory’s deep demographic and administrative ties to Guyana, noting that Dutch settlers were the first Europeans to occupy the region, which was later populated by descendants of enslaved Africans and indentured Asian workers brought to the area by Dutch and British colonial rulers between the 17th and 19th centuries. Today, Essequibo is fully integrated into Guyana’s national governance: the region elects nine representatives to Guyana’s national parliament, Guyana collects all regional taxes, manages public services, and leads conservation efforts to protect the area’s extraordinary biodiversity. According to Guyana’s 2022 national census, more than 313,000 people call Essequibo home – accounting for over one-third of the country’s total population, including nine indigenous groups that have inhabited the land long before the formation of modern national borders.

    Carl Greenidge, Guyana’s lead agent before the ICJ for the case, supported Streete’s arguments with extensive cartographic and historical evidence. He presented maps demonstrating that the farthest eastern Spanish colonial outposts never reached Essequibo, sitting roughly 650 kilometers outside the region’s boundaries. To further prove early Dutch administrative control, Greenidge highlighted that 35 locations across Essequibo still retain their original Dutch place names to this day.

    Greenidge walked the court through the documented timeline of European settlement: “Post-Columbian history of what is now Guyana begins with the arrival of the Dutch in 1598, the first Europeans to establish permanent settlements in the territory. By 1616, they had formally founded the Colony of Essequibo, constructed Fort Kykoveral along the Mazaruni River – west of the Essequibo River – as their official seat of government, and began administering the territory stretching west all the way to the Orinoco River. Five years later, in 1621, the Dutch West India Company took over formal governance of the colony, and the administrative capital was relocated to Fort Zealandia in 1744.”

    He emphasized that Spanish colonial forces never established a presence east of the Orinoco, where Essequibo is located: “The Spanish were nowhere to be found, not east of the Orinoco, at any rate. Their nearest outpost was San Tome on the banks of the Orinoco, the easternmost Spanish settlement ever established. The Spanish Governor of that outpost was candid about his inability to extend control further east, writing that the settlement was already far too distant from all other Spanish positions to expand governance.”

    Earlier in the day, Guyana’s Foreign Minister Hugh Todd opened the proceedings by calling on Venezuela to commit to abiding by the ICJ’s final ruling. “Guyana reiterates its pledge to honor and comply with the court’s judgment whatever it may be, as it is bound to do in any event by the United Nations Charter and the Statute of the court. Guyana hopes that Venezuela would make the same pledge,” Todd stated.

    Leading international public international law expert Pierre d’Argent, one of Guyana’s legal team members, grounded the case in prior ICJ precedent. He referenced the court’s 2020 and 2023 rulings on preliminary matters in the dispute, noting that Venezuela has never directly challenged the long-standing legal principle of res judicata – the rule that finalized court judgments are binding. D’Argent added that Venezuela has not filed a formal application for review under Article 61 of the ICJ Statute, the only legal pathway to challenge a binding res judicata ruling. “It must be concluded therefore that Venezuela has not discovered any new fact of such a nature that, had it been known earlier, would be a decisive factor on the conclusions reached by the court in its judgments of 2020 and 2023,” d’Argent argued. “In these conditions, these judgments remain res judicata for the parties and for the court itself.”

    Another senior member of Guyana’s legal team, Paul Reichler, reminded the court that Venezuela itself accepted, respected, and complied with the 1899 Arbitral Award for more than 60 years after it was issued. Venezuela only first formally challenged the award’s validity in February 1962, in a letter from its Permanent Representative to the UN Secretary-General. At that time, Reichler noted, Venezuela explicitly reaffirmed that it still recognized the 1897 border treaty – the agreement that established the original arbitral process – as a valid binding international treaty. It was not until 1963, 66 years after Venezuela ratified the 1897 treaty, that the country first raised objections to the treaty itself.

  • I won’t be bullied

    I won’t be bullied

    A sharp exchange of public accusations has escalated political tensions in Trinidad and Tobago, after Opposition Leader Pennelope Beckles issued a fiery rejection of claims from Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar that the main opposition People’s National Movement (PNM) has been hijacked and controlled by unelected “fake elite financiers”.

    The verbal confrontation traces back to a chaotic parliamentary sitting last Friday, when the entire PNM bloc staged a mass walkout from the chamber after Deputy House Speaker Dr. Aiyna Ali shut down the opposition’s protests. The unrest began when PNM leaders objected to the inclusion of Opposition Senator Faris Al-Rawi in the debate over the adoption of the Special Report from the Public Administration and Appropriations Committee (PAAC). Al-Rawi and fellow PNM Senator Janelle John-Bates had helped former health minister Terrence Deyalsingh draft his witness statement submitted to the committee. In the wake of the controversy, John-Bates publicly offered her resignation from the Senate, with Beckles confirming Friday that she is still reviewing whether to accept the departure.

    During the heated debate, Beckles’ leadership of the opposition was publicly labeled as “weak” by ruling party figures. Shortly after the walkout, Persad-Bissessar took to social media to amplify the criticism, claiming that Al-Rawi — the PNM’s public relations officer — remained untouchable and protected by the party’s hidden backers. She argued that the entire PNM now operates solely to serve the interests of its secret financiers, alleging that Beckles was installed by these outside forces to replace the old PNM leadership and cannot defy their demands. The Prime Minister further claimed that the PNM’s walkout was not triggered by the government’s call for John-Bates’ removal, but by the demand that Beckles remove Al-Rawi over his role in the scandal.

    In her formal response released via social media on the following day, Beckles struck back with equally harsh criticism, labeling the prime minister’s claims as baseless, desperate, and embarrassing. She dismissed the accusations of outside financial control as wild, spurious attacks from a leader who has run out of factual arguments, describing the social media outburst as nothing more than a childish political tantrum. Opening her response with a firm declaration of “I will not be bullied,” Beckles pushed back against Persad-Bissessar’s narrative, pointing out that the prime minister herself occupies a vulnerable, isolated position amid growing discontent.

    Beckles emphasized that as PNM leader, all decisions about parliamentary representation will follow due process, and the ruling government has no right to dictate how the opposition manages its own members. She went on to attack the governing bloc, noting that multiple current government legislators are out on bail, hold falsified professional qualifications, face active court proceedings, and post vulgar, inappropriate content on public social media platforms — yet the prime minister has not taken action against any of these figures.

    The opposition leader also defended the PNM’s decision to walk out of parliament, framing the move as a principled stand against a government that abused its parliamentary majority, ignored established standing orders, and allowed proceedings to descend into political theater and chaos. She highlighted a key contradiction in the prime minister’s criticism: Persad-Bissessar was not present for Friday’s sitting or the debate at all, yet she is now issuing sweeping judgments on events she did not witness first-hand. Beckles argued that if the prime minister wants to lecture on proper parliamentary conduct, she must first show consistent attendance in the chamber to fulfill her responsibilities to the public and understand the issues on the ground.

    Beckles also accused the government of manufacturing selective outrage to inflate a minor procedural issue, while ignoring serious procedural breaches outlined in the PAAC Minority Report. She insisted that all parliamentary misconduct must be investigated with the same level of scrutiny, and that a single universal standard of conduct applied equally to all lawmakers is essential to protecting public trust and upholding the proper function of Trinidad and Tobago’s democratic institutions. Closing her statement, Beckles reaffirmed that the PNM will not be intimidated by the ruling party’s attacks, and will continue to act responsibly, uphold due process, and defend the interests of all Trinidad and Tobago citizens.

  • ICJ begins hearing today on Essequibo dispute

    ICJ begins hearing today on Essequibo dispute

    One of the longest-running territorial disputes in the Western Hemisphere is set to take a critical new step this week, as the United Nations’ highest court for inter-state disputes begins a seven-day public hearing into the conflicting claims over Guyana’s Essequibo region between the South American neighbors Guyana and Venezuela.

    The oral proceedings, open to the public, are scheduled to take place at the iconic Peace Palace in The Hague, the Netherlands, the permanent headquarters of the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The hearing centers on the legal status of the 1899 Arbitral Award, a century-old border ruling that forms the core of the conflict between the two nations.

    The dispute traces its origins back to 1899, when an international tribunal based in Paris issued the Arbitral Award that granted control of roughly two-thirds of the contested 159,000-square-kilometer Essequibo region to British Guiana, the predecessor state to modern-day independent Guyana. For decades, Venezuela has rejected the legitimacy of the ruling, arguing that the 1899 process was riddled with procedural and legal flaws. Under the terms of the 1966 Geneva Agreement, signed as Guyana prepared for independence from Britain, both countries agreed to pursue a negotiated settlement to the dispute.

    The legal journey to the ICJ began in 2018, when Guyana formally submitted an application to the court, initiating official proceedings against Venezuela. Guyana’s filing asked the court to confirm the legal validity and binding force of the 1899 Arbitral Award that established the border between the two states.

    From the outset, Venezuela has disputed the ICJ’s authority to hear the case. Shortly after Guyana filed its claim, Venezuela notified the court that it rejected ICJ jurisdiction and would not participate in the proceedings. That position was challenged in a December 2020 ICJ ruling, which found that the court did have the legal authority to hear the application, including questions related to the validity of the 1899 award and the final settlement of the land border dispute.

    Venezuela filed a formal preliminary objection to this ruling in June 2022. In response, the ICJ issued a follow-up judgment this past April, rejecting Venezuela’s objection and confirming that it could proceed to adjudicate the substance of Guyana’s claims, within the bounds of the jurisdiction outlined in the 2020 ruling. This decision clears the way for this week’s public hearings on the merits of the dispute.

    The dispute re-emerged in global headlines just days before the hearing, after Venezuela’s acting President Delcy Rodriguez wore a map-shaped brooch depicting Venezuela as including the entire Essequibo region during a diplomatic engagement with the Caribbean Community (Caricom). The move drew an immediate rebuke from Guyana’s President Dr. Irfaan Ali, who sent a formal letter to Caricom Chairman Dr. Terrance Drew. In the letter, Ali argued that using a Caricom-hosted event to advance a territorial claim against another Caricom member state risks being interpreted as the regional body acquiescing to or tolerating the claim.

    Ali reaffirmed Guyana’s long-held position that the dispute is properly before the ICJ for a binding final ruling. “Guyana remains fully committed to the peaceful resolution of this matter in accordance with international law,” he stated. “We continue to repose our confidence in the court and to respect its processes and eventual judgement.”

    Rodriguez assumed the role of acting President of Venezuela earlier this year, after a U.S. military operation led to the capture of former President Nicolas Maduro, who is currently detained and awaiting trial on criminal charges in a New York court.

  • “We believe that a better world is possible, as Fidel taught us”

    “We believe that a better world is possible, as Fidel taught us”

    Against the backdrop of 2026, the centennial year of iconic Cuban revolutionary leader Fidel Castro Ruz, Miguel Mario Díaz-Canel Bermúdez, First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Cuba and President of the Republic, delivered a stirring closing address to delegates at the International Meeting of Solidarity with Cuba, held at Havana’s Convention Center on May 2. Opening his speech with a resounding affirmation that solidarity can never be blocked by force or coercion, Díaz-Canel extended profound gratitude to attendees who traveled from every corner of the globe to stand with the Cuban people, acknowledging that such open support for Cuba requires immense courage amid escalating international pressure from the United States.

    Díaz-Canel rooted his remarks in the core ideological legacy Fidel Castro passed to the Cuban nation: the conviction that a better world, built on social justice that prioritizes people over profit and market forces, remains not just a dream but an achievable goal. Addressing the longstanding U.S. characterization of Cuba as an “extraordinary and unusual threat” to U.S. national security, he pushed back forcefully against the claim, noting Cuba has a decades-long track record as a peacemaking hub. The island has hosted landmark regional peace dialogues for Latin America and the Caribbean, and even facilitated a historic meeting between the Catholic Church and Russian Orthodox Church to mend a 1,500-year-old theological schism. The only “threat” Cuba poses, Díaz-Canel argued, is the example of unyielding resistance and creative resilience it sets for other nations resisting imperial domination.

    He broke down the defining values of international solidarity into three core pillars. First, solidarity is rooted in collective compassion: following Fidel’s teaching, true solidarity means sharing what one has, not just discarding what is left over. Second, international solidarity acts as a critical strategic rear guard for nations facing aggression, with every global mobilization, donation and public demonstration breathing life into the Cuban struggle against the decades-long U.S. economic blockade. Third, solidarity is an act of active resistance against global exclusion: it forces the international community to confront unjust U.S. policies, including the baseless designation of Cuba as a state sponsor of terrorism.

    The address came one day after a historic mass mobilization of the Cuban people marking May Day in the centennial year of Fidel Castro’s birth. Díaz-Canel highlighted two landmark victories the Cuban people delivered that day: first, more than 80% of all eligible Cuban voters aged 17 and older signed a petition in support of the Cuban Revolution, the homeland and socialism, directly opposing intensified U.S. blockades, energy coercion and threats of military aggression. Second, more than 5 million Cubans marched in mass demonstrations in Havana and every city across the island to defend their nation’s sovereignty. He emphasized that this outpouring of support defied the predictions of Cuba’s enemies, who spent millions of dollars in propaganda efforts claiming Cuban youth would abandon the revolution and that popular participation would be negligible. Instead, a new generation of Cubans, raised in the centennial of Fidel Castro, turned out en masse to defend their political system, proving their opponents “got their fingers caught in the door” as Cuban saying goes.

    Turning to global affairs, Díaz-Canel argued that the current crisis of global capitalism and deep credibility collapse of the U.S. political establishment among its own people has fueled a resurgence of far-right ultra-conservatism and fascism across the globe. The current U.S. government, he claimed, is a fascist administration that has overseen a wave of genocidal aggression across the Global South, from the ongoing atrocities against Palestinian and Lebanese peoples to the targeting of Iran and Venezuela. He outlined the multi-front war the U.S. is waging: an ideological war to impose hegemonic domination over all nations; a cultural war to sever Global South peoples from their historical roots and identity; and a media war that uses digital platforms, corporate outlets and coordinated disinformation to spread lies, manufacture consent for aggression and destroy the reputation of targeted nations.

    Díaz-Canel detailed how this asymmetric media war has been deployed against Cuba’s allies: against Venezuela, the U.S. manufactured a false narrative of a “narco-state” to politically lynch legitimate President Nicolás Maduro, justify a naval blockade, deploy the largest U.S. military presence in the Caribbean in two decades, and ultimately abduct Maduro to stand trial in the U.S. — a lie that was exposed when the supposed “Cartel of the Suns” disappeared immediately after Maduro’s abduction, even as the damage to Venezuela remained. Against Iran, the U.S. spread false claims that the country’s civilian nuclear program was aimed at building a nuclear weapon, justifying a full-scale war that the Iranian people are now resisting heroically, even as no Iranian nuclear weapon has ever materialized. The only power openly threatening nuclear use today, he noted, is the U.S. government itself.

    Against Cuba, the U.S. has deployed a similar playbook, spreading false narratives of human rights abuses, economic collapse and state failure, while claiming to care about the welfare of the Cuban people. Díaz-Canel called this a cynical absurdity: if the U.S. truly cared about Cubans, it would immediately lift the decades-long blockade that is the root cause of all of the nation’s most pressing economic challenges. Beyond disinformation, the U.S. has pressured scores of foreign governments to cut off the solidarity-based medical cooperation Cuba provides to low-income and developing nations, coercing some Latin American leaders to curtail or sever diplomatic ties with Cuba to curry favor with Washington.

    The economic pressure on Cuba escalated dramatically in late 2025, when Cuba was cut off from oil imports following the imposition of an energy blockade against U.S.-targeted Venezuela, leaving the nation without consistent fuel supplies for four months until a shipment from Russia stabilized the country’s electricity grid — a supply that is now running low with no clear timeline for the next delivery. As if this hardship was not enough, Díaz-Canel revealed that the U.S. had issued a new executive order imposing harsh new sanctions on Cuba on May Day itself, a deliberate “gift” in response to the Cuban people’s massive show of unity.

    The new sanctions are structured around three core pillars explicitly designed to collapse the Cuban economy and force regime change: first, expanded sectoral sanctions targeting Cuba’s most critical economic sectors — energy, defense, mining and financial services — blocking any U.S. property dealings with entities operating in these areas, building on more than 60 years of blockade that intensified under Trump in 2019, was maintained by the Biden administration, and expanded further in the second Trump term. Second, the order imposes global financial persecution, threatening to cut any third-country bank off from the U.S. financial system if it conducts transactions with Cuban entities, further tightening the international noose around Cuba. Third, the sanctions are implemented immediately with no adjustment period, eliminating any opportunity for timely legal appeal.

    Díaz-Canel framed the new executive order as a blatant act of unilateral interference in Cuba’s internal affairs, an unacceptable attempt to impose a political model through economic coercion that undermines core multilateral principles. Beyond targeting Cuba, the policy destabilizes the entire Latin American and Caribbean region by forcing the international community to make an impossible choice: maintain relations with Cuba, or retain access to the U.S. market and financial system. He issued a forceful call to the global community: what is being done to Cuba, Palestine, Iran and Venezuela today will be done to any nation that defies U.S. hegemony tomorrow, so the world can no longer tolerate this abuse of power. Standing with Cuba today means standing for the fundamental principle of national dignity for all peoples, he argued, and no one should expect Cuba to surrender its sovereignty.

    Díaz-Canel acknowledged that the cumulative weight of more than 60 years of blockade, the lingering economic damage of the COVID-19 pandemic, and these new intensified coercive measures have created an extremely difficult situation for the Cuban people, designed to force social unrest through collective punishment and economic suffocation. But he emphasized that Cuba is not passive in the face of this aggression: the government has spent months preparing a comprehensive set of updated plans and programs to address the crisis, rooted in three core national priorities.

    First, Cuba has boosted national defense readiness in response to growing threats of U.S. military aggression. Díaz-Canel stressed that Cuba is a nation of peace that has always advocated for resolving differences through dialogue, but the Cuban people do not fear war. Citing the example of 32 Cuban fighters who died confronting elite U.S. forces during the attempt to abduct Maduro in Venezuela — holding off a technologically superior force for more than 45 minutes when the U.S. expected the operation to end in minutes — he argued that millions of Cubans would display the same courage in defense of their homeland. Cuba’s defensive doctrine, developed by Fidel Castro and refined by subsequent military leaders, ensures every Cuban man and woman has a role and a mission to defend the homeland, revolution and socialism.

    Second, Cuba has developed a comprehensive economic and social development program through a nationwide popular consultation process held in late 2025 and early 2026, which incorporated input, criticism and proposals from grassroots communities across the island. The program is built on three core pillars: macroeconomic stabilization, expanded domestic production and increased exports; national sovereignty and sustainability, focused on achieving food sovereignty through domestic production (even amid fuel and resource shortages) via expanded agroecological practices, and energy independence through a rapid transition to renewable energy. Díaz-Canel noted that over the past year, Cuba expanded renewable energy capacity from 3% to 10% of total electricity generation, adding more than 1,000 megawatts of solar capacity, and is pursuing further growth targeting full energy self-sufficiency by 2050 using domestic resources the U.S. can never block: sunlight, wind, river and ocean currents, biogas and biomass. Cuba has also developed domestic technology to refine its own crude oil, and is now working to expand domestic production to meet national fuel needs.

    The third non-negotiable pillar of Cuba’s response is a commitment to avoiding austerity shock policies, centering social justice in all reforms. Every measure is designed to mitigate growing inequality, with targeted support for vulnerable people, families and communities to ensure no one is left behind — a core principle of Cuban socialism that the nation will never abandon.

    Díaz-Canel closed by reaffirming that even amid unprecedented pressure, Cuba retains its dreams of a just, prosperous and independent future, and counts on international solidarity to help spread the truth about Cuba amid the global media siege. The Cuban people remain committed to being a beacon of hope for marginalized and oppressed peoples across the globe, and will never betray the trust that global solidarity activists have placed in them. He ended with a series of resounding calls: long live peace, down with war, down with the blockade, long live international workers, long live international solidarity, Cuba will never be alone, and onward to victory.