Carib Scope

分类： politics

  • Monorath: Registratie en nummerplaten voor e-bikes in voorbereiding

    Monorath: Registratie en nummerplaten voor e-bikes in voorbereiding

    As the popularity of light electric vehicles including e-bikes has exploded across Suriname in recent years, the South American nation’s government is moving forward with long-awaited new regulations to address growing public safety concerns, Justice and Police Minister Harish Monorath confirmed this week.

    The issue of unregulated e-bike use was brought forward for parliamentary debate on Tuesday by Member of the Assembly Ann Sadi of the National Democratic Party (NDP). Sadi emphasized that while the number of e-bikes and other small electric mobility devices has grown dramatically, the country currently lacks clear, targeted legal frameworks to govern their use on public roads. This regulatory gap, she pointed out, has repeatedly created dangerous conditions for all road users, from pedestrians to motor vehicle operators.

    Responding to questions from local outlet DNA, Minister Monorath confirmed that interagency work is already well underway to develop a complete legal regime for e-bikes and comparable light electric vehicles. Core components of the upcoming regulations include mandatory vehicle registration, formal driver and vehicle identification protocols, and the introduction of a standardized license plate system for all qualifying electric two-wheelers and small vehicles.

    According to Monorath, the new registration and identification rules will drastically improve law enforcement capacity across the country. When riders commit traffic violations or are involved in road collisions, law enforcement agencies will be able to trace and identify responsible parties far faster and more reliably than under the current unregulated system. Beyond enforcement, the new legislation will also clarify exactly where e-bikes fit within Suriname’s existing road traffic hierarchy, resolving ongoing ambiguity for road users and authorities alike.

    The minister added that preparatory work for the new regulatory framework is already at an advanced stage. Once the final draft of the legal text is completed, the government will launch a public outreach campaign to share full details of the new rules with all segments of Surinamese society.

    This e-bike regulation push is part of a broader, government-wide initiative to cut road accidents and improve overall traffic safety across Suriname. During recent parliamentary budget discussions, lawmakers and administration officials also outlined other interconnected priorities: stricter routine traffic enforcement across all road user groups, expanded public traffic education programs, and targeted interventions to reduce the annual number of traffic fatalities and injuries.

  • Cuba issues strongly-worded rejection of U.S. report alleging historical campaign of subversion

    Cuba issues strongly-worded rejection of U.S. report alleging historical campaign of subversion

    In a sharp rebuke of a provocative new report released by the U.S. State Department on July 20, 2026, Cuba’s top government officials have launched a full-throated rejection of the document’s unsubstantiated claims that paint the Caribbean nation as a hostile spy and ideological power targeting the United States.

    The 99-page U.S. report frames Cuba as the “capital of 21st century communism”, and repeats the baseless accusation that Havana has run a 70-plus-year campaign of espionage, political infiltration and ideological influence across the U.S., even going so far as to link domestic American progressive movements including the Black Panthers and Antifa to an alleged Cuban influence network.

    Cuba’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued an official statement the following day, dismissing the publication as nothing more than a “mediocre propaganda pamphlet” crafted to manufacture a false narrative of Cuban threat. The ministry argued that the entire report is designed to justify Washington’s decades-old economic embargo against Cuba — a measure Cuban officials describe as collective punishment and genocide against the Cuban people — and clear the way for potential future military aggression against the sovereign island nation.

    The foreign ministry called out stark U.S. hypocrisy in the accusations, noting that the U.S. government annually diverts tens of millions of dollars in federal funds to efforts aimed at destabilizing Cuba’s internal order, provoking economic hardship and ousting Cuba’s elected government. It pointed to Washington’s long and well-documented history of violating international law: extrajudicial killings in international waters, targeted political assassinations, sponsorship of genocidal campaigns, military invasions of sovereign states across every continent, and routine interference in the domestic electoral processes of other nations.

    Cuba’s officials also pushed back against the long-running U.S. labeling of Cuba as a state sponsor of terrorism, emphasizing that no evidence — even minimal evidence — exists to back up this false claim, a fact acknowledged even by specialized U.S. intelligence agencies. In contrast, they noted, individuals who finance, organize and carry out violent terrorist attacks against Cuba have long operated with full protection and legal impunity on U.S. territory.

    Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel Bermúdez echoed these criticisms, doubling down on the rejection of the report. He noted that the U.S. itself has spent decades carrying out extensive espionage and overtly hostile actions against Cuba, including the ongoing economic blockade and dozens of covert operations. Díaz-Canel pointed to a long record of criminal U.S. actions against Cuban civilians: the intentional introduction of crop pests and diseases, the 1981 dengue hemorrhagic fever outbreak that killed 101 Cuban children, the bombing of a Cuban civilian airliner that killed all 73 people on board, multiple hotel bombings, dozens of assassination attempts against Cuban leaders, and sustained psychological warfare campaigns.

    Dí-Canel called the latest U.S. report a core component of a rising wave of “neo-McCarthyism” that the U.S. is pushing both domestically and globally. This new ideological crackdown, he explained, is aimed at suppressing progressive political movements, intimidating activists who show solidarity with Cuba, and rolling back civil liberties for American citizens. The Cuban president emphasized that growing opposition to the U.S. embargo and its devastating harm to the Cuban economy — even among Cuban-American communities and their descendants in the U.S. — has pushed the Biden administration to manufacture this false narrative to stifle dissent.

    “Every thief thinks everyone else is like them,” Díaz-Canel said, summing up his view of the report. He added that the report’s accusations reveal the deep-seated fear of a nuclear superpower toward Cuba’s example of sovereignty and social justice that prioritizes the needs of ordinary people over elite interests, exposing an underlying inferiority complex toward Cuba’s independent national project.

    Díaz-Canel reiterated that Cuba has never taken any action to harm the American people or threaten U.S. national security. He confirmed that Cuba will continue to pursue friendly people-to-people and institutional ties with the United States, in full compliance with international law, the United Nations Charter and the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.

  • Hofpresident pleit voor gespecialiseerde anticorruptie-eenheid onder leiding van OM

    Hofpresident pleit voor gespecialiseerde anticorruptie-eenheid onder leiding van OM

    At the national Anti-Corruption Congress held on Tuesday at the Torarica Hotel Ballroom, Iwan Rasoelbaks, President of the Suriname Court of Justice, put forward a landmark proposal to overhaul the country’s anti-corruption framework. His core recommendation calls for the establishment of a dedicated, specialized anti-corruption unit that operates directly under the authority of Suriname’s Public Prosecution Office (Openbaar Ministerie, OM), staffed with experts in financial investigation, tax analysis, and digital forensics.

    Rasoelbaks emphasized that countering corruption requires a fundamentally different approach than investigating traditional criminal offenses. Unlike conventional cases that often rely on witness testimony and physical forensic evidence, corruption investigations center on unpacking complex financial flows, cross-border transactions, and layered illegal financial structures. Standard, outdated investigative methods are not sufficient to unravel these sophisticated criminal schemes, he argued.

    “A corruption investigation is inherently different from a traditional criminal probe,” Rasoelbaks told conference attendees. To address this gap, he advocated for a multidisciplinary team that brings together accountants, tax specialists, financial analysts, data scientists, and digital investigative experts. This specialized unit, under the direct oversight of the Public Prosecution Office, would be tasked with handling complex financial probes, tracing illicit corrupt money flows, and seizing criminally obtained assets.

    Drawing on global best practices, Rasoelbaks pointed to successful anti-corruption performers such as Singapore, which has invested heavily in strong independent institutions, specialized investigative capacity, government transparency, and cross-border cooperation. This holistic strategy, he noted, has not only delivered more effective corruption control but also boosted public and investor confidence in government.

    The court chief also referenced the 2027 policy agenda of Suriname’s Ministry of Justice and Police, which already outlines priorities aligned with his proposal. The government’s upcoming plan includes provisions for establishing an anti-corruption desk within the ministry, a separate specialized anti-corruption unit within the Suriname Police Corps, expanded financial investigative capacity, and deeper collaboration with international partners. The policy explicitly lists corruption control as a top national priority.

    Rasoelbaks stressed that strengthening investigative capacity is a critical necessity for Suriname, as corruption does not merely undermine the rule of law—it also acts as a major drag on the country’s economic development. Nations that fail to adequately address corruption, he warned, inevitably face eroding trust from both domestic and international investors, as well as strained relationships with global partners.

    In closing, Rasoelbaks underlined that no single government body can win the fight against corruption alone. Effective investigation and prosecution of complex corruption cases require robust coordinated collaboration between police, the Public Prosecution Office, the judiciary, regulatory oversight bodies, and international partners. “Only through collective, joint effort can we take the next critical step forward in the fight against corruption,” he told the gathering.

  • New law allows gratuity for non-pensionable gov’t workers

    New law allows gratuity for non-pensionable gov’t workers

    In a landmark legislative move on Tuesday, St. Vincent and the Grenadines’ Parliament passed the Daily Paid and Minor Salaried Officers (Compassionate Gratuity) Bill 2026, a piece of legislation that Deputy Prime Minister and Public Service Minister St. Clair Leacock has hailed as one of the most consequential public service bills ever considered by the legislative body. The bill marks a historic step toward advancing social justice for thousands of low-wage government workers who have long occupied the lowest rungs of the public employment ladder, who previously had no access to retirement or death benefits through existing pension schemes.

    The core purpose of the new law is to enshrine a formal compassionate gratuity system into legislation for non-pensionable low-paid public workers, providing financial support when these workers retire from service or pass away while still employed. While both ruling government and opposition parliamentarians united in supporting the overarching goal of the legislation, much of the pre-passage debate centered on three key questions: the scope of the policy, the exact population of workers that would qualify for benefits, and the appropriate level of discretionary power that should be granted to cabinet ministers in administering the program.

    Speaking to lawmakers ahead of the final vote, Leacock framed the bill as both a people-centered social justice reform and a principled policy decision enacted despite the significant fiscal challenges the nation currently faces. He emphasized that the legislation was not crafted behind closed doors by government officials alone, but was shaped through extensive collaborative input from a wide range of stakeholders, a process that strengthened the final version of the bill.

    The legislation was reviewed and refined by a parliamentary select committee, a process Leacock said significantly improved the proposal. The committee included representatives from both government and opposition legislative members, multiple major labor organizations across the country: the Public Service Union, the St. Vincent and the Grenadines Teachers’ Union, the Commercial Technical and Allied Workers’ Union, the Police Welfare Association, and the National Labour Congress. Following deliberations, all committee members, including opposition representatives and union delegates, reached full consensus on the core policy principle: that no government worker should end their career without any form of financial compensation to support them or their families in retirement or after death.

    The bill covers two distinct groups of non-pensionable government workers: daily paid officers, defined as workers in temporary non-pensionable government roles paid on a daily basis, and minor salaried officers, who hold non-pensionable permanent positions listed in the annual government estimates with modest monthly salaries. In practical terms, this eligibility includes workers in the lowest civil service grades M, L, 1 and 2, a group that encompasses a wide range of frontline and support roles: customs guards, office attendants, government vehicle drivers, handypeople, cooks and domestic staff, forest guards and park rangers, school bus drivers, security guards, traffic wardens, hospital attendants, laundresses, auxiliary support staff, apprentices, and entry-level junior technical workers.

    Leacock estimates that nearly 4,000 workers across St. Vincent and the Grenadines will be eligible to benefit from the new program. The breakdown includes approximately 497 minor salaried officers in the eligible grades, around 2,831 daily paid workers, and roughly 536 lower-grade teaching staff. He reiterated that most of these workers have long been situated at the bottom of the public employment totem pole, with little to no financial safety net for their retirement years.

    Several key interpretation clauses in the bill, shaped directly by stakeholder feedback, address practical barriers that workers and their families have previously faced. For example, the legislation explicitly allows workers to name a designated beneficiary to receive the gratuity in the event of their death, and permits workers to update their beneficiary designation at any time. This provision eliminates the need for bereaved families to go through costly and time-consuming probate court processes to access funds that rightfully belong to them, a change that emerged directly from real-world cases shared by union representatives during the select committee hearings.

    The bill also addresses a widespread financial gap that disproportionately harms non-pensionable public workers: many of these workers are required to retire from their roles at age 60, but do not become eligible for their National Insurance Scheme (NIS) pension until they reach age 65, leaving them without a steady source of income for five critical years. Leacock outlined the harsh realities of this gap, noting that many workers are still paying off mortgages at 60, face rising health costs from age-related conditions such as hypertension, diabetes, cancer, and arthritis, and lack the financial resources to even afford basic travel or leisure after decades of work. In contrast to public sector rules, many private sector workers in St. Vincent and the Grenadines are permitted to continue working up to age 65, giving them more time to build their financial stability. The new law accommodates this reality, giving eligible workers the choice to either retire at 60 and claim their compassionate gratuity immediately, or stay in their role working up to age 65 to accrue additional earnings and strengthen their long-term financial position.

    All compassionate gratuity payments will be drawn from the country’s Consolidated Fund. For retired workers, payments are required to be issued within three months of receiving and approving a complete application, with a hard maximum deadline of six months for disbursement. The same timeline applies to payments issued to designated beneficiaries or legal representatives when a worker dies while in service. Leacock framed these strict payment timelines as part of the government’s people-first commitment, even amid ongoing national fiscal pressures.

    Leacock also included a note of caution for eligible workers, tying potential eligibility for benefits to workplace conduct and performance, as the bill grants limited ministerial discretion to approve claims. He reminded workers that while the new benefit is a major win for public employees, misconduct or persistent poor performance could put their ability to claim the gratuity at risk. He urged workers to uphold the principle of an honest day’s work for an honest day’s pay, and to maintain strong professional standing with their ministry leadership and permanent secretary. The bill also mandates that all government ministries maintain accurate, up-to-date employment records for all eligible workers, including documentation of tenure, wage and salary history, designated beneficiaries, and any gaps in employment.

  • Mottley warns against excessive profits at workers’ expense

    Mottley warns against excessive profits at workers’ expense

    During Tuesday’s debate on the landmark Protection of Wages Bill in Barbados’ House of Assembly, Prime Minister Mia Mottley issued a stark warning to local business operators: companies that chase excessive short-term profits by cutting corners on worker compensation and working conditions are sabotaging their own long-term success.

    Mottley, who addressed the chamber amid emerging allegations of workplace abuse against a major local construction and engineering firm, argued that the unsustainable pursuit of “fast money” can never be the foundation of a truly successful enterprise. When businesses squeeze every possible dollar out of their workforce, she explained, the outcome is almost always widespread employee dissatisfaction and what she termed “malicious compliance” — a disengageed approach to work that erodes operational performance from the inside out.

    Her comments came in the wake of formal accusations levelled against the JADA Group by the Barbados Workers Union, which is led by government backbench MP Toni Moore. Following the union’s claims that the construction firm had forced its mostly migrant workforce to endure squalid living and working arrangements, Mottley conducted an unplanned on-site inspection of the JADA project to assess conditions firsthand.

    In her address to parliament, the prime minister outlined specific, disturbing details that underscored the need for stronger worker protection frameworks. She pointed to reports that up to 80 workers were being housed in ramshackle temporary structures, with no access to basic facilities for cleaning or cooking. Additionally, she said, workers were routinely forced to log far more than the standard 40-hour work week without receiving legally required overtime pay.

    While Mottley did not name the JADA Group explicitly in her parliamentary comments, the clear reference to the ongoing controversy highlighted the government’s commitment to cracking down on exploitative labor practices. She emphasized that employee experience is inextricably linked to every core metric of business success: from workplace productivity to customer service quality to long-term brand reputation.

    “When an employee does not feel valued, they cannot bring that sense of care and respect to customer interactions,” Mottley explained. “That doesn’t just hurt tips or gratuities for the worker — it drives away future business for the company.” Employers that cut corners on safe, dignified working conditions do not just harm their staff, she added — they ultimately undermine their own day-to-day operations and future growth.

    The prime minister pushed back against the pervasive business mindset that frames large profits as dependent on cutting labor costs. She argued that properly treated, well-compensated workers deliver higher productivity that directly boosts a company’s market competitiveness. “If treated properly, if fed properly, workers will give you a level of productivity in most instances that will make the difference between how competitive your business is or not,” she said.

    Closing her remarks, Mottley called for a fundamental shift in how Barbadian businesses view their workforce. “We have to move away from this thing of believing that companies can only make egregious profits, excess profits, large profits on the backs of human beings,” she said, reaffirming that the Protection of Wages Bill is a critical step toward ensuring fair labor standards across the country. Companies that continue to prioritize maximum profit extraction over worker well-being, she warned, will only put their own long-term viability at risk.

  • Opposition MP Duncan arrested for flying drone- Walrond

    Opposition MP Duncan arrested for flying drone- Walrond

    On Tuesday, just days after the deadly MV Barima ferry disaster in Guyana, a sitting opposition parliamentarian from A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) was taken into police custody over allegations of operating an unlicensed drone in the disaster response zone.

    Sherod Duncan, the APNU lawmaker in question, was apprehended and transported to the Charity Police Station following the incident, Guyana’s Home Affairs Minister Oneidge Walrond confirmed to reporters on Wednesday. According to Walrold, national aviation regulations mandate that all drone operations require official government authorization, and Duncan did not hold a valid permit for the flight he conducted. The minister also noted that Duncan was released from police custody later the same day, though she could not confirm whether he secured his release through cash bail or personal recognizance.

    The arrest comes against the backdrop of an ongoing large-scale search, rescue, and recovery operation launched after the MV Barima ferry capsized last Saturday, which has left multiple people missing and sent shockwaves through the coastal South American nation. Captain Learie Barclay, head of the Aviation Operators Association of Guyana, had previously issued a public warning calling on all drone pilots to avoid the disaster response area. He emphasized that low-flying manned aircraft are actively working in the airspace to support recovery efforts, and unauthorized unmanned flight poses a serious collision risk to these critical operations.

    Duncan has pushed back on the narrative that he was deliberately violating emergency flight restrictions, though he could not be reached for immediate independent comment following his release. In a post shared to his official Facebook page, titled Credible Sources, Duncan claimed he was simply engaging with local Warrao children and demonstrating a small drone to the young group when plainclothes and uniformed police officers arrived on scene, ordering him and other accompanying parliamentarians to vacate the area immediately.

    If prosecutors choose to move forward with formal charges and Duncan is ultimately convicted of violating Guyana’s drone regulations, he faces significant penalties: the court could order his drone seized for a fixed period of time, and the lawmaker could also be issued a substantial monetary fine. The incident has already sparked emerging tensions between Guyana’s ruling government and opposition bloc, with many political observers watching to see how the case develops in the coming days.

  • Malvinas: the strength of a just cause

    Malvinas: the strength of a just cause

    Written by Pablo Quirno, Minister of Foreign Affairs, International Trade and Worship of the Argentine Republic

    Weeks ago, the long-standing Malvinas Islands sovereignty dispute re-emerged as a key topic on the global diplomatic agenda. Three major multilateral bodies and blocs — the Organization of American States (OAS), the United Nations Special Committee on Decolonization (C24), and Mercosur member and associate states — have once again issued a joint call for Argentina and the United Kingdom to restart bilateral negotiations to resolve the dispute through peaceful means. This wave of renewed international backing creates a critical moment to reflect on what the Malvinas cause means for Argentina’s past, present and future as a nation.

    Every new international statement on the issue confirms that the dispute remains unresolved and retains global relevance. For Argentina, the meaning of the Malvinas extends far beyond annual commemorations of key national moments marked on April 2 and June 10. Upholding the country’s sovereign rights over the territory is not a task limited to these anniversaries; it is a daily commitment that shapes every pillar of Argentina’s foreign policy.

    The recent resolutions adopted at the OAS and UN hold substantial political and diplomatic weight. In both forums, the international community clearly reaffirmed a core truth: a formal sovereignty dispute exists between Argentina and the United Kingdom over the Malvinas, South Georgias, South Sandwich Islands, and the surrounding maritime areas. All participating bodies agreed that the only path to a just resolution lies in peaceful bilateral negotiations aligned with international law.

    While resolutions alone cannot end the dispute, their enduring value lies in upholding the UN-mandated obligation for both parties to negotiate, while increasingly highlighting the United Kingdom’s ongoing refusal to comply with this international mandate. Maintaining Argentina’s position demands consistent, deliberate effort: every international consensus is built, defended, and advanced through active, persistent, technically rigorous diplomacy. At Argentina’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, we advance our national position in every multilateral forum, hold dialogue with governments across every region, lay out the solid legal foundations of our claim, explain why the principle of self-determination does not apply to this specific dispute, and strengthen a global network of shared support that keeps the legitimacy of our cause alive. The Malvinas claim is not Argentina’s fight alone: history, international law, and the global community of nations all converge to uphold the legitimacy of our position.

    ### A Cause Rooted in Justice and National Identity

    The Malvinas hold a deep, unshakable place in Argentina’s national consciousness because their significance goes far beyond territorial cartography. They embody our core national principles: territorial integrity, our maritime claims, our bicontinental identity, our natural wealth, and our strategic standing in the South Atlantic. Argentina cannot be defined without these core dimensions. The South Atlantic is our nation’s strategic heartland, where Patagonia, our maritime territory, Antarctica, our continental shelf, and a critical portion of our national future converge.

    Guided by this long-held national conviction, President Javier Milei has reaffirmed that Argentina’s claim is legitimate and can never be renounced. As foreign minister, I am honored to carry the mandate to uphold this cause with unwavering firmness and perseverance. This is not just another item on our foreign policy agenda. It is an institutional responsibility that binds us to our National Constitution, our national history, and every Argentine citizen who understands that sovereignty must be defended through consistent action. This responsibility also requires us to repeatedly demonstrate why international law unequivocally supports Argentina’s position.

    Our claim is built on solid historical and legal foundations that Argentina has defended consistently since gaining independence. As the legal successor to Spain’s territorial rights under the principle of state succession, Argentina exercised formal governing authority over the islands, officially took possession in 1820, and established a local Political and Military Commandancy in 1829. In 1833, the United Kingdom seized the islands through an act of force that Argentina never consented to. This act violated Argentina’s territorial integrity, expelled our legitimate national authorities and the Argentine population that had lawfully settled the territory, resettled the area with British settlers, and barred Argentine citizens from returning to live on the islands.

    This 19th-century act of force created a colonial situation that persists to this day. Argentina has never accepted the occupation, and has maintained a consistent, peaceful, law-based protest against it for nearly two centuries. In 1965, United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2065 marked a key turning point: it formally recognized the existence of the sovereignty dispute and established bilateral negotiations as the only legitimate path to resolution, while noting the need to take into account the interests of the islands’ inhabitants. Since that resolution, the international community has consistently recognized an unignorable legal fact: the sovereignty dispute remains unresolved.

    A common misconception claims that the 1982 South Atlantic conflict brought an end to the dispute. The historical and diplomatic record proves otherwise. Just five months after hostilities ended, the UN General Assembly adopted Resolution 37/9, which once again called on Argentina and the United Kingdom to resume negotiations. The conflict did not change the legal status of the dispute, nor did it resolve it. Then, as now, the international community has reaffirmed that a peaceful negotiated solution is the only acceptable path forward.

    The Malvinas dispute is not an ordinary decolonization case, and the principle of self-determination does not apply to it. It is a unique colonial situation that originated from the violation of Argentina’s territorial integrity. The passage of time cannot turn an illegal occupation into a legitimate claim to sovereignty, and it will never break Argentina’s territorial unity. The UN upholds both the self-determination of peoples and the territorial integrity of states, and the UN itself determines which principle applies based on the specific circumstances of each case. More than 60 years ago, Ambassador José María Ruda summarized this point with a clarity that still holds today: the Malvinas question centers on the principle of Argentina’s territorial integrity.

    This is exactly the interpretation the UN General Assembly adopted. It recognized that the dispute arose from the 1833 forceful occupation of part of Argentine territory, so it never ruled that self-determination applies to the case. Instead, it has consistently held that a solution must be negotiated between the two parties, with consideration for the interests of the islands’ inhabitants.

    ### Avoiding the Unilateral Referendum Trap

    This same legal reasoning explains why the UN distinguishes between the interests of the islands’ inhabitants and any claims they might make about sovereignty. Argentina’s National Constitution explicitly states that the full recovery of sovereignty must be achieved while respecting the existing way of life of the islanders and complying with international law — this is a permanent commitment from Argentina. However, there is no legal basis for the claim that a population artificially placed on the territory by the occupying power can unilaterally determine the sovereignty of the disputed territory. For this reason, no referendum organized unilaterally by the United Kingdom can carry any legal weight for a dispute that must be resolved exclusively through negotiations between Argentina and the United Kingdom. We will not fall into the referendum trap.

    ### The Strength of Argentina’s Legal and Diplomatic Position

    The latest round of international support demonstrates the broad global backing for Argentina’s position. At the OAS, the region unanimously adopted a declaration reaffirming that the Malvinas question is an enduring issue of hemispheric concern. At C24, all Latin American member states co-sponsored the resolution supporting negotiations, which was adopted by full consensus. This broad backing is further reinforced by consistent support from Mercosur, CELAC, Ibero-American Summits, the Brasilia Consensus, the Zone of Peace and Cooperation of the South Atlantic, the Group of 77 and China, SICA, and many other multilateral frameworks.

    To all the countries that stand with us, the Argentine Republic extends its sincere gratitude. Their commitment to upholding international law strengthens the diplomatic capital that allows us to keep our claim alive and raises the political cost of the United Kingdom’s ongoing refusal to negotiate. Another key point to highlight is that the UN has not only called for negotiations: since Resolution 31/49, it has explicitly required both parties to avoid making any unilateral changes to the status quo while the dispute remains unresolved. The meaning of this mandate is unambiguous: neither side can exploit the ongoing dispute to consolidate new facts on the ground or make decisions about natural resources whose ownership remains contested.

    Despite this clear international mandate, the United Kingdom has ignored this call for decades. It has continued to explore and exploit natural resources in the disputed area, issued unauthorized exploration licenses, and maintained a disproportionate military presence on the islands. Argentina has consistently responded to these violations in line with our long-standing diplomatic position. Argentine law prohibits hydrocarbon exploration and exploitation on our continental shelf without prior authorization from Argentine authorities, and any actor that engages in these activities faces legal penalties. This policy protects natural resources that belong to all Argentine citizens, whose use can only be fully decided once the dispute is resolved through legal means. Protecting our resources is protecting a core part of Argentina’s national wealth.

    The scale of the British military deployment on the islands speaks for itself. The islands are home to only around 3,000 civilian residents, yet the United Kingdom deploys approximately 1,200 military personnel there. This disproportionate ratio clearly reflects the tactical nature of the British occupation. For the United Kingdom, the Malvinas are not a core part of national identity; they are a strategic enclave used to protect British military, economic, and geopolitical interests in a critical region of the Southern Hemisphere.

    The Sea Lion oil development project is one of the clearest examples of the United Kingdom’s violation of the UN mandate. In December 2025, Rockhopper Exploration Plc and Navitas Petroleum Development and Production Limited announced a final investment decision to develop this field in the Northern Malvinas Basin, relying on invalid licenses issued by illegitimate local authorities appointed by the United Kingdom. Every unilateral action taken by the United Kingdom only confirms that the dispute remains unresolved, and every international resolution reminds the global community that there is only one legitimate path to resolution.

    Argentina has formally rejected this unilateral action, reserved all our legal rights, and made clear that any actor that engages in or facilitates illegal activities in the disputed area will face administrative and criminal penalties, as well as legal action in both domestic and international courts. Defending our territorial integrity is also defending Argentina’s sovereign maritime domain.

    ### An Intergenerational National Commitment

    The Malvinas also live forever in the memory of our war veterans, the families of those who lost their lives in the 1982 conflict, and every Argentine household that speaks the name Malvinas with respect. They have given this cause a moral weight that no public official can ever forget. Every diplomatic win we achieve also honors this legacy, and their sacrifice demands that our public policy and foreign policy live up to their example.

    For this reason, we will continue our work. We will remain active at the UN, OAS, and every multilateral forum and bilateral dialogue where our rights need to be defended. We will respond unequivocally to every unilateral action, no matter what form it takes. We will stand firm, guided by the conviction that just causes demand strategic patience, national unity, and unwavering perseverance.

    Argentina’s commitment to a negotiated solution remains unchanged. I am convinced that the final solution will be peaceful, diplomatic, and aligned with international law. This willingness to negotiate goes hand in hand with an unchangeable certainty: Argentina’s claim is not weakened by the passage of time, and it will never be renounced or abandoned.

    The Malvinas are part of our history, our territory, our seas, our national memory, and our national destiny. Their cause is an intergenerational promise, the voice of a nation that knows how to wait without surrendering, and how to assert its rights without giving in. Every day, I renew my commitment to this mandate, knowing that there is no greater honor for a Argentine foreign minister than to bring the voice of this legitimate cause to the world, and champion it with the same passion that millions of my fellow Argentines hold for it. This is the greatest honor and commitment any Argentine citizen can carry, and it is my personal promise.

    By history, by right, and by conviction, the Malvinas are Argentine.

    Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author alone, and do not necessarily reflect the editorial stance of iWitness News.

  • André Hill Appointed Antigua and Barbuda’s Honorary Consul to The Bahamas

    André Hill Appointed Antigua and Barbuda’s Honorary Consul to The Bahamas

    In a move set to deepen diplomatic and people-to-people connections between two neighboring Caribbean nations, Antiguan attorney André Hill has taken up the post of Honorary Consul to The Bahamas, with his appointment taking immediate effect.

    Shortly after the announcement, Hill held a formal meeting with Antigua and Barbuda’s Minister of Foreign Affairs E.P. Chet Greene and senior leadership from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The gathering centered on clarifying Hill’s new scope of duties, and exploring how his on-the-ground work in The Bahamas will advance both the current and long-term policy goals of the Antiguan foreign ministry.

    Ann Marie Layne, Director General of Foreign Affairs for Antigua and Barbuda, outlined a core function of Hill’s new role: he will act as the primary point of contact for all Antigua and Barbuda nationals residing in or visiting The Bahamas who need consular support or official government services.

    Hill’s deep personal connections to The Bahamas position him well for the role: he has resided in the country for a number of years and is married to a Bahamian citizen. He also comes from a prominent public service family: his father Radford Hill previously served as Antigua and Barbuda’s Attorney General, and his mother Cecile Hill currently holds the position of High Court Registrar.

    As a practicing legal professional with established roots in The Bahamas, Hill’s appointment is widely expected to significantly strengthen Antigua and Barbuda’s diplomatic footprint in the region, while improving access to critical support for its citizens living across the border in The Bahamas.

  • Manorath: Corruptiebestrijding begint bij integriteit en preventie

    Manorath: Corruptiebestrijding begint bij integriteit en preventie

    On July 22, at the opening of Suriname’s national Anti-Corruption Congress, Minister of Justice and Police Harish Monorath laid out a new, multi-pronged approach to combating systemic corruption, arguing that detection and prosecution alone are not enough to root out the problem. Speaking to an audience of national and international experts, Monorath emphasized that long-term success in the fight against corruption requires targeted investment in prevention, institutional strengthening, transparency, and a widespread societal culture rooted in integrity.

    “Corruption poses a severe threat to every democratic rule of law, and it holds back the socio-economic development of our nation,” Monorath stated during his opening address. He stressed that anti-corruption work cannot fall solely to the government; it requires shared responsibility across the private sector, civil society organizations, and individual citizens. An accountable, integrity-driven governance culture can only take hold, he argued, when every segment of Surinamese society fulfills its distinct role in upholding ethical standards. The minister also expressed appreciation for the congress, which brought together specialists from across borders to exchange knowledge, best practices, and lived experience in designing effective anti-corruption frameworks.

    Monorath confirmed that the Surinamese government is currently advancing a more robust, impact-oriented national anti-corruption agenda, with core priorities including modernizing outdated anti-corruption legislation, strengthening the capacity of state institutions, and embedding integrity standards across all levels of the public sector. He revealed that dozens of new legislative proposals from the Ministry of Justice and Police are currently in preparation or under parliamentary review, all designed to further reinforce the country’s rule of law framework.

    International cooperation remains a central pillar of Suriname’s strategy, Monorath noted. The country aligns its national policies with the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC), which provides a globally recognized framework for corruption prevention, criminal prosecution, cross-border collaboration, and the recovery of assets gained through corrupt activity.

    The minister highlighted that public officials bear a unique responsibility to model ethical behavior, noting that integrity, transparency, and accountable leadership must be visible in the daily work of government. To embed this standard, the administration is pushing forward new initiatives focused on ethical leadership training, formal codes of conduct for civil servants, and binding legal protections for whistleblowers who report corrupt activity.

    Repeating his core argument, Monorath emphasized that preventive measures are ultimately more effective at reducing systemic corruption than purely punitive action. The government’s anti-corruption strategy rests on six core pillars: greater transparency, open government practices, institutional strengthening, whistleblower protection, international collaboration, and active civil society engagement. He also called for expanded investment in integrity education, to help young people understand the value of fair governance and the rule of law from an early age.

    In closing, Monorath called on all Surinamese citizens to take personal ownership of building an integrity-focused nation. “Integrity starts with personal responsibility. It is a choice we make, even when no one is watching,” he told attendees. Only when corruption is no longer normalized, and public trust in government and its institutions is strengthened, can Suriname achieve truly sustainable development, he added.

  • Hadeeds must stay in jail

    Hadeeds must stay in jail

    A high-stakes constitutional and national security legal battle has reached the Privy Council, where state attorneys have laid out three distinct legal arguments to reverse a Court of Appeal order that granted conditional release to wealthy businessman Dominic Hadeed and his wife Genevieve. The State is being represented by a high-powered legal team led by prominent King’s Counsel Sir James Eadie and Tom Richards, alongside senior local counsel Gerald Ramdeen, signaling the gravity of the legal and national security issues at play in the appeal.

    The first core ground of the State’s challenge centers on a fundamental question of institutional authority: whether courts are legally entitled to override the executive branch’s national security assessments. State attorneys argue that the Court of Appeal explicitly recognized the long-standing legal principle that executive judgments on liberty restrictions for national security protection must be granted “very great weight” by judicial bodies. Even so, they contend the lower court failed to apply this principle in practice when it ruled the couple should be moved from prison detention to conditional house arrest.

    The State’s legal team emphasizes that the executive branch holds unique institutional advantages for making these sensitive national security determinations. Unlike courts, the executive has full access to classified intelligence, specialized national security expertise, and sensitive information that cannot be disclosed in open judicial proceedings for operational security reasons. Beyond practical capability, attorneys argue that national security decision-making carries an explicit constitutional weight: responsibility for protecting the state is constitutionally assigned to democratically accountable government officials, rather than unelected judges.

    According to the State’s argument, the Court of Appeal overstepped its constitutional mandate when it independently concluded that full imprisonment was unnecessary and house arrest would be sufficient to mitigate risks. Attorneys describe this move as an illegitimate overreach, noting that the Emergency Powers Regulations explicitly grant the responsible government minister the authority to decide whether preventive detention is necessary, as well as to determine the location and conditions of that detention. Courts, they argue, lack both the institutional capability and constitutional legitimacy to replace the minister’s assessment with their own judgment of how to manage the alleged threat.

    The State also pushes back against claims that the absence of criminal charges against the Hadeeds invalidates the minister’s detention order. Attorneys stress that preventive detention under emergency regulations operates entirely separate from the standard criminal justice process. The minister is not required to prove the allegations against the detainee on the balance of probabilities, nor is they required to demonstrate a realistic prospect of a future criminal conviction before issuing a preventive detention order (PDO). The minister’s assessment, they note, is rooted in classified intelligence, which cannot be disclosed publicly or to the detainee because such disclosure would compromise intelligence sources, ongoing national security operations, and critical international intelligence-sharing partnerships.

    A further procedural point raised by the State is that the Court of Appeal ordered the Hadeeds’ release before the State had even submitted its full evidence responding to the substantive judicial review challenge, which is not due until September 14, 2026. Attorneys argue that it was legally improper for the lower court to make binding findings on the validity of the intelligence underpinning the PDOs at this interim stage of proceedings. The State also confirmed that a separate statutory tribunal reviewing the lawfulness of the Hadeeds’ detention remains ongoing, and the minister has requested the hearing be reopened over allegations of procedural unfairness during earlier proceedings.

    The State’s second ground of appeal argues that the Court of Appeal made a clear error when it ruled the Hadeeds’ individual liberty interests outweigh the state’s obligation to manage the alleged national security threat. Attorneys point out that even the Court of Appeal itself acknowledged the severity of the national security risks at hand: if the allegations against the couple are proven true, their release could allow them to continue advancing the alleged conspiracy they are accused of, leading to horrendous, irreparable harm to public safety and national institutions. Having accepted the existence of this severe risk, the State argues, the only reasonable balancing of interests could ever have favored protecting public life and democratic institutions over individual liberty.

    The State also challenges the lower court’s weighing of the Hadeeds’ loss of liberty, noting that if the detention is ultimately found to be unlawful, the couple can be fully compensated with substantial financial damages. On the subject of the Hadeeds’ reported medical concerns that the Court of Appeal cited when supporting release, the State says the lower court failed to identify any specific medical condition that requires at-home treatment that cannot be adequately accommodated within a prison setting.

    The third and final ground of the State’s challenge questions the adequacy of the conditional house arrest terms imposed by the Court of Appeal, arguing the measures are far less effective at mitigating risk than continued prison detention. State attorneys outline multiple flaws in the proposed regime: even with a ban on personal communication devices, the Hadeeds would still be able to engage in unauthorized communication from their private residence. While all visitors would require police approval, once inside the property, visitors would be able to communicate freely with the couple without ongoing monitoring.

    Compounding these enforcement challenges is the physical layout of the Hadeeds’ proposed residence: a large sprawling seafront property made up of multiple separate buildings. State attorneys argue that effectively monitoring all activity across such a large site would create enormous practical challenges and draw heavily on limited police resources, making consistent enforcement of the house arrest conditions unfeasible. The State also warns that the layout creates a higher risk of the couple absconding, which would give them the opportunity to communicate completely unrestricted to advance their alleged activities. Ultimately, attorneys argue, there was no admissible evidence before the Court of Appeal that could support a finding that the proposed conditions were sufficient to mitigate the national security risks of release, and the lower court failed to acknowledge that switching from prison detention to house arrest would significantly reduce the level of public protection against the alleged threat.