标签: Suriname

苏里南

  • Het vlees verandert…

    Het vlees verandert…

    Global meat production and consumption continue to climb year over year, but beneath this broad growth lies a dramatic, underrecognized reshuffling of the world’s protein market. A growing divergence is emerging between different livestock sectors: beef cattle are becoming increasingly scarce, driving up beef prices, while chicken production — which can scale far faster to meet shifting demand — has emerged as the primary engine of growth for the global meat industry, with pork occupying a middle ground between the two. This shift is not a traditional meat crisis that leaves grocery shelves empty, but a quiet, structural reordering that is changing what consumers around the world find on their plates. To understand the future of meat, analysts say we must look beyond consumer demand to the fundamentals of supply across the value chain: livestock herd sizes, feed and water availability, disease risk, and the biological timeline required to bring new generations of animals to market. For beef, this timeline has become a fundamental economic constraint.

    The global beef market is still recovering from a period of widespread herd reduction across major producing nations. Persistent drought, sky-high production costs, and thin profit margins have pushed farmers to slaughter cattle earlier than planned, shrinking overall supply. When prices began to rise in response, a unique paradox emerged: a rancher can either sell a heifer today for a high price, or keep it to breed for future calves — and calves take years to reach slaughter weight. This means that high prices can actually make beef production less flexible in the short term, prolonging supply shortages.

    The OECD and Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) project that global beef prices will peak in real terms in 2026, before declining gradually as major producers rebuild their herds. But due to cattle’s long biological production cycle, this recovery is unfolding slowly, turning time itself into a defining economic factor. Unlike factories that can add production capacity in months or poultry producers that can ramp up output in weeks, beef ranchers cannot speed up their production timeline to match sudden shifts in demand.

    Compounding tight supply is sustained demand growth from Asia, led by China, which remains a dominant force in global meat markets. The latest OECD-FAO forecast projects that China’s beef imports will grow by 500,000 tons by 2035, even as its domestic pork sector stabilizes. This ongoing demand means the already tight global beef market cannot count on a quick return to pre-shortage conditions, as China continues to compete for available supplies on global markets when domestic production lags behind demand.

    At the same time, China is working to protect its own domestic beef sector: in January 2026, it imposed a 55% tariff on beef imports exceeding set quotas from major suppliers including Brazil. By June 2026, Brazil had already used 98.5% of its allotted quota, and in September, Brazil announced it would access unused Uruguayan quotas to gain extra access to the Chinese market. This development makes clear that global meat trade is increasingly shaped by trade policy, not just basic supply and demand dynamics.

    To add another layer of uncertainty for the beef sector, animal disease has emerged as a new threat to global supply chains. In June 2026, the United States confirmed its first-ever domestic case of New World screwworm in cattle in Texas. The parasitic worm lays eggs in open wounds, and its larvae feed on living animal tissue, capable of causing severe economic damage to livestock herds. The impact quickly extended beyond the small number of infected animals: the U.S. initially closed all cattle border crossings with Mexico before beginning a phased reopening. By late August, the Douglas, Arizona border crossing reopened under new strict inspection and safety protocols, and as of September, restricted infection zones remain in place in Texas, with the U.S. Department of Agriculture monitoring the situation closely. The outbreak highlights just how vulnerable modern meat supply chains are: an epidemic does not need to kill millions of animals to cause widespread economic disruption. Even limited restrictions on livestock movement can disrupt regional markets, shift prices, and reshape global trade flows.

    Against this backdrop of beef supply constraints, poultry has a decisive competitive advantage: speed. Unlike cattle, which require years to reach market weight, chickens mature in weeks, allowing poultry producers to adjust output much faster in response to shifting prices and demand. This advantage has made poultry the fastest growing segment of global food supplies.

    According to OECD-FAO projections, global total meat consumption will grow by roughly 12% by 2035. The vast majority of this growth will come from poultry: chicken and other poultry consumption is expected to rise by 29 million tons, a roughly 20% increase, accounting for around two-thirds of all additional meat consumption over the next decade. By comparison, beef consumption is projected to grow by just 8% over the same period. This gap creates a built-in buffer for the global meat market: as beef becomes more expensive, consumers do not need to cut back on protein intake — they can simply switch to chicken. This dynamic makes the overall meat market more resilient, while permanently shifting the composition of protein consumed around the world.

    Europe offers a clear preview of how this sectoral shift plays out in practice. The European Union expects total meat production to decline over the next decade, with beef and pork facing the most intense downward pressure, while poultry output expands. Multiple factors are driving this shift: high production costs, changing consumer habits, environmental policies, demographic shifts, and the simple reality that chicken is far cheaper and more efficient to produce than beef. Importantly, this shift does not mean that millions of Europeans are becoming vegetarian. Instead, diets are changing primarily because one type of meat has become relatively more expensive than another — a more powerful driver of dietary change than most public discussions of food choice acknowledge.

    Despite poultry’s growing role as a buffer for global protein supplies, it is not a risk-free solution. Poultry production is heavily dependent on feed supplies, which are tied to volatile global grain and oilseed markets. Energy prices, fertilizer costs, drought, geopolitical conflict, and trade restrictions can all push up chicken prices over time. Animal disease also remains a persistent structural risk for the sector: the OECD-FAO highlights highly pathogenic avian influenza, African swine fever, and foot-and-mouth disease as ongoing threats that can disrupt production, trade, and pricing. The key difference, however, is that poultry producers can scale back up much faster after a disease outbreak than cattle ranchers, a major advantage for consumers. This speed also comes with a tradeoff: the poultry sector is far more dependent on an interconnected, large-scale system of feed supplies, livestock production, slaughterhouses, transport, and export markets, making it vulnerable to systemic disruptions across the supply chain.

    This shifting dynamic has redefined the core challenge facing the global meat industry. It is no longer simply a question of whether the world can produce enough meat — it is whether the industry can deliver the right meat, quickly enough, to where it is needed. A drought in a major beef-producing region can impact meat prices for years. A single disease outbreak can close a national border within days. A rise in soy prices can eventually reach consumers through higher feed costs. An import tariff can permanently redirect a major trade route. As one sector comes under pressure, another steps in to fill the gap.

    Overall, the OECD-FAO projects that global total meat production will rise by around 12% between 2026 and 2035, reaching roughly 412 million tons. This means the world will not face a broad shortage of meat, but the composition of that production will change dramatically: more poultry, relatively less beef and pork, with larger geographic shifts across producing regions. The geographic center of production is also shifting: most new demand will come from middle-income countries, while Asia will account for more than half of all new production, with Southeast Asia alone making up 39% of global growth in meat consumption by 2035.

    At its core, this shift reflects a forced flexibility for the global meat industry that is here to stay. Where beef runs up against hard biological, land, and climate limits, chicken can adjust far faster to meet demand. Where Europe reduces beef and pork output, poultry can absorb much of the remaining consumer demand. Where China requires more meat imports, global trade flows reorient to meet that need. Where disease or climate disrupts production in one region, other regions expand output to fill the gap.

    For consumers around the world, this means meat will remain widely available, but the type of meat on offer will continue to change. The core question for the future of the industry is not just how much meat the world can produce — it is what type of meat the world can afford, economically, environmentally, and biologically. And with that question, the next great shift in what we eat is already underway.

  • Column: Goudroof onder het oog van de overheid

    Column: Goudroof onder het oog van de overheid

    Suriname sits on vast untapped gold reserves, but what the nation lacks is any meaningful oversight of its gold mining industry. What unfolds across large swathes of the country’s interior can no longer be dismissed as a handful of small-scale artisanal prospectors testing their luck with basic tools. Today, illegal mining operates as a full-fledged professional industry, utilizing heavy machinery, clearing permanent access roads, moving massive volumes of earth, and deploying toxic chemical processing agents. This level of operation requires significant capital, coordinated logistics, and structured organization — leading to one unavoidable core question: who is backing these illegal activities, and where do the billions in proceeds end up?

    Recent developments involving Rosebel Gold Mines (RGM), a project majority-owned by China’s Zijin Mining, have pushed this question to the top of the national agenda. RGM confirms it has been alerting the Surinamese government to unauthorised mining activity on two of its concession areas since January 2020. The company now estimates the illicit operation has grown into one of the largest gold mining projects in the entire country, with total damages to RGM, state oil firm Staatsolie, and the Surinamese government adding up to roughly US$138.3 million. The scale of the operation makes clear that fundamental, years-long failures in regulatory oversight and enforcement have allowed the crisis to escalate.

    This reality raises a cascade of urgent unanswered questions: How could an illegal enterprise grow to such massive size while authorities were aware of its existence? Who are the principal operators behind the mines? How many tons of gold have already been extracted from Surinamese soil? Where has that gold been smuggled or sold, and how much revenue has the national treasury lost in unpaid taxes and royalties? RGM itself has an obligation to provide full transparency to the public. If the firm can calculate a damage figure as specific as US$138.3 million, it must also explain what estimates of illicit gold production that total is based on, and how it arrived at those production numbers, given that it never granted permission for the activity to occur.

    It is long past time to abandon the fiction that political interests and the Surinamese gold sector operate in separate spheres. Vice President Ronnie Brunswijk holds verifiable large-scale financial interests in the gold industry, while simultaneously carrying political responsibility for regulating the sector as part of the sitting government tasked with bringing order to gold mining. Under that same government, the Ministry of Natural Resources has been led by ABOP party minister David Abiamofo, who has retained his position through successive administrations.

    Back in September 2020, the government established a new Commission for the Ordering of the Small-Scale Gold Sector, tasked with cracking down on illegality, addressing widespread environmental damage, and ensuring the state captured a fair share of gold revenue. Six years later, the government is once again announcing plans for sector reform — a repetition that alone demands a full, independent audit of what has actually been achieved from all the prior commissions, development projects, international donor support, training programs, and public funds poured into past reform efforts. As recently as 2022, the government confirmed it held a full master planning document for gold sector reform, complete with a concrete action plan. The public still has no clear update on what progress has been made on that framework today.

    President Jennifer Simons has publicly acknowledged that all prior sector regulation systems have failed. In response, her administration has temporarily suspended the issuance, renewal, and transfer of new mining concessions and announced it will adopt a completely new regulatory approach. This is a necessary first step, but the government now must follow through on its promises with tangible action, without exception for powerful or well-connected figures. That means launching full investigations into the overlapping political and business interests that shape the sector, targeting not just the low-level workers operating excavators, but also permit holders, concession owners, financial backers, gold buyers, and export actors. It also means uncovering who knew about the illegal operations and which public officials had a duty to intervene but failed to act.

    The environmental harm caused by unregulated mining can no longer be treated as an afterthought, either. RGM has confirmed that testing found traces of cyanide at the illegal mining sites, and for years public health and environmental advocates have raised unanswered questions about the use of Jin Chan mercury-based gold processing products. A 2018 research report by Glenn Geerlings and Tirzah Karsowidjojo focused specifically on Jin Chan use in Suriname, and that full document must be made public and subjected to independent review. The public deserves to know exactly what the research found, what its formal conclusions were, and how those findings were used (or ignored) by regulators.

    Veteran environmental activist Erlan Sleur has been sounding the alarm on these issues for years. His recent visit to the Pelin Bergi mining area, alongside DNA party parliamentarians Rabin Parmessar and Michael Marengo and independent journalists, has reignited public scrutiny of large-scale unregulated mining and the suspected illegal use of toxic chemicals. The parliamentary delegation has already called for an immediate halt to activity at the site and an independent public investigation, and this momentum for accountability must not be lost.

    The path forward is clear: authorities must launch full investigations into all mining concessions, audit all active permits, identify the true beneficial owners of all mining operations, map the full volume of gold production and cross-border financial flows, and test for illegal toxic chemical use. Where it is confirmed that gold has been extracted illegally and revenue has been withheld from the state, the government must move quickly to recover all lost funds.

    At its core, this crisis is about control of a national resource: the gold extracted from Suriname’s soil belongs to the Surinamese people. Its wealth should be used to advance inclusive national development, not disappear into a system that enriches a small connected elite while leaving the general public to cope with toxic environmental pollution and billions in lost public revenue. True sector reform is not just about creating another new bureaucratic commission. It means finally answering the critical questions: who is mining Suriname’s gold, who is profiting from it, who looked the other way for years, and who will be held accountable for the harm done. Where the state has been robbed of revenue, that money must be returned. Where the environment has been damaged, those responsible must pay for full remediation. Where laws have been broken, law enforcement must act without favor.

    Suriname cannot afford to accept yet another half-hearted attempt at “reform” while tons of national gold disappear and the public is left holding the bill for the damage. The gold is in our ground, the harm stays in our country, so the profits cannot be allowed to vanish into the pockets of a tiny few. The era of looking the other way must end now.

  • Nieuwe rechters moeten werkdruk rechterlijke macht verlichten

    Nieuwe rechters moeten werkdruk rechterlijke macht verlichten

    On September 29, the Court of Justice of Suriname welcomed 15 newly trained judges in a formal swearing-in ceremony led by President Jennifer Simons, marking one of the largest single expansions of the country’s judicial bench in recent history. Court President Iwan Rasoelbaks described the addition as a landmark step to strengthen the nation’s judiciary, bringing the total number of sitting judges at the court to 45. The new appointees will be formally installed as substitute members on October 23, and will begin handling civil and criminal cases from the courtroom bench as scheduled starting in the new judicial term that opens on October 1.

  • Suriname en Mexico zoeken nauwere samenwerking in olie, handel en opleidingen

    Suriname en Mexico zoeken nauwere samenwerking in olie, handel en opleidingen

    On the margins of the 81st United Nations General Assembly in New York, senior diplomatic representatives from Suriname and Mexico held a working meeting on September 24 to discuss avenues for deepening bilateral collaboration across multiple key sectors.

    The meeting, which served as an introductory engagement for the two officials, brought together Suriname’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, International Trade and Cooperation Melvin Bouva, and Mexico’s Deputy Minister for Latin America and the Caribbean Raquel Serur Smeke. The core focus of the discussion was advancing the strengthening of long-term ties between the two nations.

    During the talks, Minister Bouva outlined ongoing preparations to expand Suriname’s rapidly developing oil and gas sector. He noted that the South American nation currently requires targeted support in three critical areas to advance this work: skills training, technical expertise, and infrastructure development. Bouva emphasized that knowledge sharing between the two countries, paired with the potential deployment of Mexican industry experts, would make a meaningful contribution to Suriname’s energy sector development.

    As part of the push for deeper energy cooperation, Mexico has received a formal invitation to participate in the 2027 Suriname Energy, Oil & Gas Summit. Beyond energy, the two officials also explored opportunities to improve air and maritime transport connectivity between Suriname and Mexico, which would support expanded trade and people-to-people ties. Another topic on the meeting agenda was fostering partnership and knowledge exchange between the two countries’ diplomatic training academies.

    Deputy Minister Serur also shared that Mexico is keen to organize an official meeting with the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) to strengthen its broader relations with the Caribbean region. Minister Bouva expressed Suriname’s appreciation for Mexico’s existing collaborative work across the Caribbean, highlighting its ongoing support in disaster preparedness, climate action, and skills training programs. Following the productive New York meeting, both sides have committed to continuing discussions to turn the explored cooperation opportunities into concrete joint projects.

  • Natio ook langs Martinique en pakt volle buit uit eerste twee duels

    Natio ook langs Martinique en pakt volle buit uit eerste twee duels

    Suriname’s national men’s football team, known locally as Natio, has earned its second straight victory under newly appointed head coach Henk Fraser, defeating Martinique 2-1 on Monday night in front of a sold-out crowd at the Dr. Ir. Franklin Essed Stadion. The result comes on the heels of a dramatic 3-2 away opening win over Honduras just days earlier, pushing the side to six points from two matches and delivering a dream start to its Group B campaign in Concacaf Nations League A.

    From the opening kickoff, Suriname controlled the tempo of the match, holding nearly 75% of possession and dictating play throughout the first half. Despite their overwhelming territorial dominance, the side struggled to convert sustained pressure into clear-cut scoring chances, with Martinique’s organized defense holding firm to block every attacking threat. The two sides went into the halftime break locked in a goalless stalemate, leaving the home crowd waiting for the breakthrough they expected.

    After the interval, Suriname retained its grip on the match, and Fraser’s tactical substitutions shifted the momentum further in his side’s favor. The changes opened up more gaps in Martinique’s backline, and Suriname finally got its reward in the 54th minute. Midfielder Justin Lonwijk slipped past the attention of Martinique’s defenders to slot home the opening goal, putting Natio up 1-0.

    Suriname continued to push forward for a second goal, though Martinique began to create dangerous attacking opportunities on the counter as they chased an equalizer. The home defense weathered the early storm, however, and Natio doubled its advantage 10 minutes after the opening goal. In the 64th minute, Gyrano Kerk received a perfectly weighted through pass from Liam van Gelderen, burst between the last defender and goalkeeper, and finished coolly to extend the lead to 2-0.

    Martinique refused to fold under pressure, though, and ramped up their attacking intensity in the final 25 minutes. The visitors forced a quick series of corner kicks, and capitalized on one set piece to head home a consolation goal that brought the score back to 2-1, reintroducing tension to the closing stages of the match. Suriname’s defense held firm through stoppage time, however, closing out the match to secure a second consecutive three points.

    Suriname kicked off its 2026 Nations League campaign with a standout upset, claiming a 3-2 away win over Honduras in Tegucigalpa this past Friday. With Monday’s win over Martinique, Fraser’s side sit top of Group B with the maximum possible six points after two matchdays. The full group standings will not be finalized until the remaining Group B fixtures – Jamaica against Honduras and Guatemala facing El Salvador – are completed later in the window.

    Natio has two remaining group matches left on its schedule, both against Guatemala. The first will be held on Friday, October 2 at the Dr. Ir. Franklin Essed Stadion, kicking off at 7:00 PM local time. Four days later, on Monday, October 5, Suriname will travel to Guatemala City to face Guatemala away at the Estadio Manuel Felipe Carrera, with kickoff scheduled for 9:00 PM Suriname local time.

    The top two teams from Group B will advance to the quarterfinals of the Concacaf Nations League. They will be joined by pre-seeded quarterfinal qualifiers Mexico, the United States, Canada, and Panama, who received byes directly to the final eight round of the tournament.

  • OAS aan VN: Haïti-macht moet doorgaan

    OAS aan VN: Haïti-macht moet doorgaan

    Thirty-two active member states of the Organization of American States (OAS) have collectively called on the United Nations Security Council to extend the mandate of the Gang Suppression Force (GSF) deployed in Haiti, and to allocate the necessary personnel, funding, equipment, and logistical support to enable the force’s full operational deployment.

    The joint statement, released publicly on September 25, reaffirms OAS member states’ support for the Haitian people, as well as their commitment to upholding Haiti’s sovereignty, political independence, and territorial integrity. It also underscores that long-term solutions to Haiti’s ongoing security and political crises must be led by Haitian stakeholders themselves.

    The statement follows an official visit to Haiti led by OAS Secretary-General Albert R. Ramdin from August 16 to 19. Following the trip, Ramdin framed security improvements and the upcoming national elections as interconnected urgent priorities for the country. He emphasized that simply extending the GSF’s mandate would not be enough to address the crisis. “A mandate on its own does not deliver results,” Ramdin noted, arguing that the international intervention force must be given tangible resources to deliver the security outcomes that the Haitian public desperately needs.

    Currently, the GSF faces a major deployment gap. During a UN Security Council meeting in July, it was reported that the GSF has an authorized troop strength of 5,500 personnel, but only roughly 1,000 troops had been deployed to Haiti as of that meeting. The Dominican Republic’s foreign minister warned at that July meeting that “logistical obstacles cannot be allowed to stand between the international community and the protection of an entire people.” The most recent September data from the UN Support Office in Haiti (UNSOH) puts the current deployed strength of the support mission at just under 1,600 personnel, with projections that this number will triple by the end of 2025.

    The OAS joint statement outlines a clear set of core priorities for the GSF, including restoring legitimate state authority in territories currently controlled by armed gangs, securing uninterrupted access to Haiti’s airports and seaports, reopening critical transportation corridors, protecting civilian populations, and supporting the long-term reestablishment of the Haitian National Police in recaptured areas. The statement also calls for tangible progress in the process of disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration (DDR) of former gang members, and stresses that all GSF operations must comply fully with international humanitarian law and global human rights standards.

    Haiti’s upcoming electoral timeline is already under significant strain. The first round of presidential and parliamentary elections is scheduled for December 13 this year, marking the first national elections held in the country since 2016. However, during his post-visit remarks in August, Ramdin expressed deep concern that with only three months remaining before voting, voter registration is severely behind schedule. After nearly one month of registration operations, only roughly 260,000 Haitians had successfully registered to vote, and many gang-controlled municipalities lack any functional registration centers entirely. Compounding these challenges, an estimated 1.47 million Haitians have been displaced by ongoing gang violence, creating major barriers to running an inclusive, accessible electoral process.

    The UN Security Council is expected to hold discussions on extending the mandate of both the GSF and UNSOH by the end of September. In his remarks, Ramdin urged OAS member states and international partners to follow through on their existing commitments to Haiti. “Now is the time to scale up international support for Haiti, not draw it down,” he said.

  • Bloemenhulde voor Janey Tetary

    Bloemenhulde voor Janey Tetary

    On September 27, 2026, the Cultural Union of Suriname (CUS) held a national commemoration to celebrate the life, lifelong struggle, and enduring legacy of Janey Tetary, a 19th-century contract labor leader and symbol of resistance against colonial exploitation. The event opened with a floral tribute at Tetary’s monument in Paramaribo, followed by a historical documentary screening at the NSHI Ballroom exploring her trailblazing story. Organizers emphasized that the commemoration is not only a moment to reflect on the past, but also an opportunity to connect Tetary’s values of courage and justice to contemporary struggles for equality.

    Born around 1856 in Moniar, Patna, in what was then British India (modern-day India), Tetary faced immense hardship from a young age. Divorced in early adulthood, a status that carried severe social and economic stigma for women in that era, she was lured to Suriname by recruiters’ promises of high-wage work abroad. In 1880, she arrived with her 10-year-old son to work as an indentured contract laborer on the Zorg en Hoop plantation along the Commewijne River.

    On the plantation, Tetary earned the nickname “Begum,” meaning “noble woman,” for her relentless advocacy for better working and living conditions for fellow indentured workers. She openly challenged the abuse of women by their partners, protected vulnerable workers from exploitation, and prioritized support for pregnant laborers who were forced to complete grueling field work alongside managing household duties and childcare.

    By 1884, the brutal conditions on Suriname’s plantages had reached a breaking point. Recruiters had promised workers a daily wage in India, but once they arrived in the colony, pay was restructured to a task-based system that left workers earning far less, with no pay at all if they failed to complete their punishing daily quotas. In September 1884, tensions boiled over into open rebellion. On September 24, a group of workers led by Tetary attacked a white colonial official with canes. When colonial authorities deployed soldiers to arrest the organizers, hundreds of workers armed with canes, bottles, and machetes organized to resist, with women fighting side-by-side with men under Tetary’s leadership.

    Colonial commanders ordered a sniper to eliminate the rebellion’s leader. On September 26, 1884, as Tetary prepared to throw a mud-filled bottle at advancing soldiers, she was shot in the back of the head at point-blank range. She died two days later at just 28 years old. Six other indentured workers were also killed in the crackdown, and all seven were buried in an unmarked plot on the Zorg en Hoop plantation. The rebellion was crushed, but Tetary’s legacy as a fighter for justice lived on in oral history.

    For more than a century, Tetary’s story was largely erased from official Surinamese history books, part of a broader pattern of colonial historical erasure. That began to shift in 2017, when a bronze statue of Tetary was unveiled on the grounds adjacent to the Presidential Palace in Paramaribo. The monument replaced a bust of Barnet Lyon, the colonial official held responsible for ordering Tetary’s killing.

    The unveiling of the statue was widely hailed as a landmark moment in Suriname’s ongoing decolonization process. Then-Vice President Ashwin Adhin called the moment “a milestone in the process of full decolonization, particularly the decolonization of our thinking.” He accused colonial powers of “gross historical falsification” for covering up for 130 years that Tetary was shot dead while leading a peaceful protest for better working and living conditions on Lyon’s explicit orders. Sculpted by artist George Ramjiawansingh, the statue depicts Tetary with a raised hand gripping the neck of a bottle, capturing her defiant spirit and unyielding courage.

    In recent years, Tetary’s legacy has gained recognition far beyond Suriname’s borders. In the Netherlands, which controlled Suriname as a colony until 1975, multiple public spaces have been named in her honor, including Janey Tetarypad in Scheveningen, The Hague. City officials in The Hague noted that naming public spaces after figures from former Dutch colonies helps build a more inclusive society and creates a more accurate reflection of shared national history. Streets have also been named for Tetary in Amsterdam and Rotterdam, part of a growing continental movement to confront colonial and enslavement histories, and honor contributions from communities long erased from mainstream historical narratives.

    The Cultural Union of Suriname has long played a central role in advancing research on Tetary’s life and preserving her legacy for future generations. In his 2017 annual address, then-Surinamese President Desi Bouterse thanked the CUS and other partner organizations for their research and advocacy to “rectify this important chapter of history and immortalize it with this statue.”

    With Sunday’s 2026 commemoration, the CUS continues that mission. CUS leadership noted that the event’s dual focus on reflecting on the past and connecting to the present underscores that the values Tetary fought for – courage, dignity, justice, and the willingness to stand up for marginalized people – remain just as relevant today as they were in 1884.

  • Surinaamse studenten behalen MBA in Amsterdam

    Surinaamse studenten behalen MBA in Amsterdam

    On a recent Saturday at Amsterdam’s Tropenmuseum, a meaningful commencement ceremony held by Business School Nederland (BSN) in partnership with the Institute for Business Studies and Executive Education (IBSAE) celebrated a key achievement for regional professional growth: six Surinamese students have successfully completed the institution’s competitive Master of Business Administration (MBA) program, with four graduates accepting their diplomas in person during the event.

    Unlike traditional MBA tracks that center heavily on abstract theoretical learning, the cohort completed BSN/IBSAE’s unique Action Learning MBA. This specialized curriculum is designed to bridge the gap between academic concepts and real-world professional practice, requiring students to apply learned management, strategy, and analytical frameworks to active challenges within their own workplaces. As a core graduation requirement, each student developed, wrote, and publicly defended a practice-focused dissertation tied to their specific field of work in Suriname.

    Robby Rijssel, who served as academic coach and study supervisor for the cohort, highlighted the accomplishment as an extraordinary milestone. “I am incredibly proud of these students and everything they have achieved during the program,” Rijssel shared. “With their graduation, IBSAE has once again advanced the development of skilled professional talent across Suriname.” Per IBSAE’s institutional statement, this new cohort of MBA graduates will directly contribute to expanding the nation’s collective expertise and knowledge base across key public and private sectors.

    Each graduate’s research addressed pressing, context-specific challenges across Suriname’s varied industries and government institutions: Andre Forster graduated with honors for his dissertation examining the strategic positioning of InVitroPlants Grassalco within Suriname’s agricultural sector. Mellyora Hanenberg-Vianen focused her work on streamlining personal loan processing efficiency within the retail banking division of Finabank N.V. Clyde Ramon Sengwai’s research targeted opportunities to boost operational efficiency at Suriname Water Company (SWM). Omayda Ackson developed a targeted strategic marketing framework to strengthen brand recognition and market positioning for InVitroPlants. Elvira Hoft explored institutional development opportunities for Suriname’s Non-Proliferation Authority under the Ministry of Defense. Priya Sital conducted research on strategies to expand career pathways within the Office of the Vice President to retain skilled domestic talent.

  • Trump wijst AI-samenwerking met China af

    Trump wijst AI-samenwerking met China af

    In the wake of the recent high-profile US-China summit in Washington, the White House has outlined a clear dual-track approach to artificial intelligence cooperation with Beijing, emphasizing that the United States will not slow its AI development progress or integrate its AI sector with China, while agreeing to establish a limited, structured dialogue mechanism to address cross-border AI risks.

    Speaking to reporters Saturday as he departed the White House, former President (note: as per the source’s timeline) Donald Trump said Washington had no plans to “tap the brakes” on AI innovation, arguing that heavy-handed regulatory restrictions would erode the technological edge the US currently holds over China. “We are leading China by a lot,” Trump told journalists, adding that this leading position must be preserved. He flatly rejected the idea of deeper integration between the US and Chinese AI industries, noting “I would rather not integrate, because we’re leading by a lot.”

    Trump’s remarks came just days after Chinese President Xi Jinping completed a three-day state visit to the US, where advanced artificial intelligence was included on the bilateral agenda, though Trump said the topic did not take up a large portion of the leaders’ talks. Despite that, the summit produced a tangible outcome on AI governance: the two sides agreed to launch the U.S.-China Super Intelligence Dialogue, a structured forum for exchanging views on the risks and opportunities of cutting-edge AI systems, with the first formal meeting scheduled to take place no later than November 2026. Additionally, the two powers will set up a dedicated bilateral communication channel to handle emergency incidents involving what both sides have agreed to term “super intelligence” (SI).

    Details of what types of incidents will fall under this new communication mechanism, and how reporting and coordination between Washington and Beijing will operate, remain undisclosed. The agreement stops far short of joint AI development or a unified global regulatory framework, with deep differences remaining between the two nations on core AI governance priorities.

    Notably, Trump has adopted the term “super intelligence” or SI in place of the standard phrase “artificial intelligence” since his address to the United Nations General Assembly, and the White House confirmed both Washington and Beijing have agreed to use this terminology for discussions under the new dialogue framework. China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs confirmed Saturday that the two sides will continue holding consultations on AI issues, stating that as AI technology evolves continuously, enhanced dialogue and exchange can help countries reach consensus on governance. During his Washington visit, President Xi emphasized that AI must be developed and governed responsibly, and must remain under human control at all times.

    The bilateral AI discussions unfold against a backdrop of growing global concern over the rapid development of increasingly powerful AI systems, with many world leaders calling for binding international safety safeguards at the recent UN General Assembly. UN Secretary-General António Guterres warned of the risks posed by unregulated, unaccountable AI development. Top leaders of major US AI firms have also pushed for international cooperation on safety measures in recent weeks: Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei told the UN Security Council that poorly managed AI could eventually pose existential risks to humanity.

    Trump, however, has downplayed these warnings, comparing public concern over AI risks to what he frames as earlier “hoaxes,” including the scientific consensus on climate change and the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 US presidential election. He argues that safety concerns are being weaponized to slow US technological progress.

    The divergent approaches between Washington and Beijing extend beyond the debate over how urgently AI regulation is needed. The Trump administration prioritizes maintaining US technological supremacy and strategic competition with China, while Beijing balances investment in AI development with a focus on proactive risk management. China has already implemented a series of national-level AI regulations covering areas including AI-generated content, algorithmic transparency, and high-risk AI applications. China’s willingness to engage in dialogue does not mean strategic competition between the two powers has ended: Washington is focused on preserving its lead, while Beijing continues to build out its domestic AI industry and reduce its reliance on US technology.

    Analysts frame the new AI agreement as primarily a confidence-building and communication mechanism for a sector where both sides view each other as core strategic competitors. While Trump has rejected joint development or sector integration, both Washington and Beijing acknowledge that AI risks are inherently cross-border, and that emergency communication is necessary to prevent miscommunication if a serious AI incident occurs. The coming months will test how substantive this new dialogue will be, with the first formal SI meeting scheduled by the end of autumn.

  • Gouddossier 11: RGM/ZiJin schat schade illegale goudwinning op US$ 138 miljoen

    Gouddossier 11: RGM/ZiJin schat schade illegale goudwinning op US$ 138 miljoen

    On September 28, new revelations from the ongoing Suriname Gold File investigation have brought a major case of alleged unauthorised gold mining into the spotlight, exposing deep regulatory gaps in the country’s lucrative but poorly governed mining sector.

    Rosebel Gold Mines (RGM), a subsidiary of Chinese mining giant Zijin Mining, estimates that illegal gold extraction on two of its licensed concessions has caused roughly $138.3 million in cumulative damages to RGM, state-owned energy company Staatsolie, and the government of Suriname. According to RGM, the company has been formally notifying Suriname’s authorities about the unauthorised activity since January 2020, and now classifies the operation run by the little-known entity Overman Resource (including activities at the Pelin Bergi site) as one of the largest-scale gold mining operations in the entire country.

    Despite the specific damage estimate provided by RGM, critical details of the case remain undisclosed, raising urgent questions about regulation and oversight in Suriname’s mining sector. Most notably, RGM has refused to name the actual individuals or entities that control Overman Resource, only referring to them as ambiguous “third parties.” The company also has not released verifiable data on the actual volume of gold extracted from the concessions, nor has it explained the methodological framework it used to arrive at the $138.3 million figure. That total includes lost revenue, profits and dividends for RGM and Staatsolie, as well as unpaid taxes, royalties and other government fees that the illegal operation failed to remit. Without supporting production data, independent observers cannot verify the accuracy of RGM’s damage calculation.

    This case echoes a long-documented problem already revealed in previous installments of the Gold File investigation: paperwork listing mining rights and permits does not reflect who is actually operating on a given site, nor what natural resources are being extracted there. A previous analysis of government records submitted to the National Assembly found that near the Pikin Saron region, 29 separate permits for construction material extraction (mostly for savanna sand and laterite, with one permit covering sand, gravel and laterite) overlap with existing gold concessions. Government registries only show who holds legal rights to a site, not who is carrying out active extraction at any given time.

    RGM’s account of the case adds further layers of uncertainty. The company confirms it has conducted on-site visits and monitored the illegal operation’s expansion for more than five years, but firmly denies that RGM or its parent company Zijin ever approved or sanctioned the activity. At the same time, the presence of vehicles linked to Zijin at the unauthorised mining site has sparked new questions that require further investigation. While the presence of these vehicles alone does not prove company complicity, investigators must clarify who owns the vehicles, who operated them, why they were present at the site, and who bore responsibility for their use.

    The investigation also has uncovered a broader systemic loophole in Suriname’s mining regulation: many operations exploit a gap between permit classification and actual extraction, running large-scale gold mining under the cover of permits for sand, gravel or other construction materials. A previous Gold File report already documented this practice on the bed of the Suriname River, where gold extraction was carried out under a permit for river gravel extraction. Permits for construction materials do not grant legal authority to extract gold, so independent verification of on-the-ground activity is required at every site to confirm what resources are being extracted and where extracted gold is ultimately transported.

    Beyond financial losses, RGM has warned of severe environmental risks from the illegal operation. The company says it first alerted authorities to the use of toxic chemicals in 2020, and internal laboratory tests conducted by RGM detected cyanide at the site. RGM adds that the operation is proceeding without any mandatory environmental impact assessment and has never received approval from Suriname’s National Environment Agency (NMA), which confirmed to RGM that it never issued a permit for the activity. Independent follow-up investigation is needed to confirm the presence of toxic chemicals, map their spread, and assess the damage they have caused to local water systems, soil and nearby communities.

    The most pressing governance question raised by the case is how the operation was able to grow to its current massive size over more than five years, despite repeated notifications to Suriname’s government starting in 2020. After RGM observed the operation had expanded significantly, it sent another formal appeal to the responsible minister in October 2025, even proposing to convene a meeting of relevant authorities to coordinate enforcement action. Even so, the operation has not only continued but grown into one of the largest in Suriname, according to RGM. The company is now calling for immediate government intervention to develop a concrete action plan with regulatory agencies to permanently end the illegal activity.

    This case shifts the core focus of the Gold File investigation: rather than only examining who holds mining rights on paper, the inquiry now centers on who is actually extracting gold, what is being extracted, who profits from unauthorised activity, and which agencies are responsible for oversight. Five key questions remain to be answered for the Overman Resource case: who are the actual operators, how much gold has been extracted, what data supports the $138.3 million damage estimate, what role does Zijin-linked equipment play in the operation, and why did authorities not shut the operation down despite years of notifications. The widespread practice of running gold extraction under construction material permits also requires further systemic review. At the end of the day, what matters for Suriname is not what is printed on a permit, but what is actually pulled from the country’s soil – and where the profits from that extraction end up.