标签： Suriname

Amsterdam, September 24 – Lachman Soedamah, chair of the VHP (Vooruitstrevende Huispartij) Netherlands chapter, has delivered a bold call for a fundamental, open debate within the broader VHP party focused on realigning its ideological and organizational direction ahead of internal elections scheduled for May 2027. Speaking at the 10th annual Mr. Jagernath Lachmon Lecture, held in Amsterdam under the theme “From Unity to Renewal”, Soedamah argued that upcoming internal votes should center not just on leadership positions and candidate selection, but on the core question of what political path the Suriname-based party should pursue for the future.

In his address, which honors the political legacy of Jagernath Lachmon, covers the future of Suriname’s democratic rule of law, addresses the country’s upcoming oil and gas development, and examines the role of the Surinamese diaspora, Soedamah outlined clear options for the party’s ideological refresh. He highlighted three potential directions: social democracy, social liberalism, and a sustainability-centered approach, and personally advocated for the party to adopt a modern social democratic framework.

Under this model, Soedamah explained, broad economic development would be paired with guaranteed livelihood security, expanded access to high-quality education and universal healthcare, and targeted protection for vulnerable populations unable to support themselves. He emphasized that this approach does not reject entrepreneurship or market dynamics, but requires that both be aligned with the broader public interest.

Beyond ideological reform, Soedamah pushed for sweeping changes to the party’s internal democratic practices. He stressed that the 2027 internal elections must be about more than selecting a new party leader: all leadership candidates must publicly articulate clear policy and governance goals for the party and Suriname. Key reforms he proposed include fairer internal voting procedures, transparent accountability mechanisms, greater decision-making influence for young people and women, and a permanent, structural role for the Surinamese diaspora in party governance. He also called for strict measures to prevent conflicts of interest between public office and party positions.

Contrary to the common view that ideological division weakens broad-based people’s parties, Soedamah argued that open debate over competing ideas can revitalize the VHP, as long as all members are free to speak their minds and have genuine input on final decisions. After internal elections conclude, he added, the party must reunite: losing candidates should feel their views have been heard and respected, while the elected leadership bears the responsibility of uniting different ideological factions under a shared common goal.

Soedamah also offered a balanced assessment of the tenure of former Surinamese president and former VHP chair Chan Santokhi. He credited Santokhi with expanding the VHP into a broad, multi-ethnic national party and guiding the country through a severe economic crisis. At the same time, he pushed back against uncritical praise for Santokhi’s tenure, noting that economic stabilization measures imposed heavy burdens on the Surinamese public. Inflation, rapid price increases, and austerity policies disproportionately harmed low- and middle-income households, Soedamah argued, adding that the Santokhi administration repeatedly fell short on social protection and public communication. He also cited widespread disappointment over slow administrative reform, weak integrity safeguards, poor outreach, and the growing disconnect between politicians and ordinary citizens. The party’s recent electoral losses, he said, serve as a clear reminder that political trust is never permanently guaranteed.

A major portion of Soedamah’s lecture focused on the future of Suriname’s emerging oil and gas sector. He warned that oil and gas revenues cannot act as a standalone development model, stressing that policymakers must first answer what kind of country Suriname wants to build with this temporary windfall, rather than focusing solely on how much revenue the sector will generate. Without strong, independent public institutions, he cautioned, natural resource revenues can lead to waste, economic dependency, corruption, and widening income inequality.

To avoid these pitfalls, Soedamah called for transparent, legally enshrined management of oil and gas revenues. He proposed splitting proceeds into three core allocations: a reserve to buffer against future economic shocks, a savings fund for future generations, and targeted investments in education, healthcare, infrastructure, affordable energy, entrepreneurship, and productive domestic sectors. Crucially, he argued, institutional strengthening must be put in place before large-scale revenues begin to flow.

Soedamah tied his vision for resource governance to his “Diaspora Vision 2050”, which calls for a permanent, structural role for the global Surinamese diaspora in the country’s development. Instead of viewing the diaspora solely as a source of remittances and ad-hoc aid, he argued, Suriname should treat diaspora communities as core development partners. Key proposals include establishing a National Diaspora Council and dedicated diaspora institutions in Suriname and major host countries, expanding the existing Persons of Surinamese Origin program to include knowledge exchanges, internship placements, entrepreneurship support, and cultural programming. He also called for careful, thoughtful debate over dual citizenship rights and formal political representation for diaspora communities.

In closing, Soedamah connected Jagernath Lachmon’s historic legacy of cross-community unity to the VHP’s current mandate for renewal. He argued that Lachmon’s vision of unity should not remain a static historical concept, but must be reimagined for the 21st century to advance good governance, social justice, a stronger rule of law, and a permanent, equal partnership between Suriname and its global diaspora.

A heated national debate has erupted in Suriname over top government and judicial officials’ salary increases ever since the November 2024 wage adjustment law came into effect, and a cross-party legislative push is now underway to address the fundamental structural and constitutional flaws at the heart of the controversy.

Jerrel Pawiroredjo, parliamentary faction leader of the National Party of Suriname (NPS), says public discussion of the issue is healthy, and it is critical that community concerns over the new salary framework are heard. What makes the current system problematic, he argues, is not just the total amount of compensation paid to senior officials, but the opaque, constitutionally questionable process used to set those salaries.

Under the 2024 law, the President’s salary is set indirectly, tied via a fixed multiplier to a base pay rate that is determined by state decree in line with the country’s Civil Service Law. This creates an automatic knock-on effect: any adjustment to the salary of a Director General of the General Service automatically changes the President’s own pay. Pawiroredjo explains that this automatic update triggers after every collective bargaining negotiation between public sector unions and the government, effectively allowing the President’s salary to change without a direct vote by the National Assembly.

This automatic linkage directly contradicts Article 112 of Suriname’s Constitution, which explicitly requires the National Assembly to set the President’s salary by law, Pawiroredjo says. The constitutional flaw has been thrown into sharp relief by the government’s upcoming 15 percent general pay increase for all civil servants. Under the current framework, that across-the-board raise would automatically boost the President’s salary, and through pre-existing legislative linkages, would also increase pay for members of the National Assembly, cabinet ministers, and senior judicial officials.

Pawiroredjo notes that public opinion on the appropriate level of senior officials’ compensation is deeply divided, making the ongoing societal debate entirely understandable. “It is of great importance that the objections raised by communities are heard,” he says.

Earlier attempts to address public dissatisfaction date back to February 23, 2026, when Pawiroredjo and fellow lawmaker Poetini Atompai submitted separate legislative proposals to bring senior officials’ salaries more in line with public expectations. But those bills did not resolve the core constitutional issue around how salaries are set, so Pawiroredjo has partnered with Asis Gajadien, a lawmaker from the ruling coalition’s VHP party, to submit a new, targeted initiative that would set the President’s salary directly, in full compliance with the Constitution.

An initial calculation error was identified in the draft text, but Pawiroredjo confirms the error has now been corrected. The core policy priority of the bill — decoupling the President’s salary from civil service pay scales — remains fully intact. Pawiroredjo says the proposal also addresses urgent concerns raised by other public figures, including Jennifer Vreedzaam, over the current flawed system.

Under the proposal, once this fundamental constitutional issue is resolved, lawmakers can open debate on other outstanding questions, including potential adjustments to salary levels for the President, judiciary, and other independent state bodies.

Pawiroredjo also pointed out that while the executive branch has temporarily paused the scheduled salary increases for the President and other senior political and judicial officials, the pause lacks a clear legal foundation. If the underlying legislation is not amended to fix the structural flaw, the higher salaries will eventually have to be paid out by law, he said.

The NPS leader emphasized that the bill’s cross-party sponsorship — pairing an opposition lawmaker with a coalition legislator — underscores the broad consensus that fixing this fundamental flaw in the country’s salary-setting framework is a critical national priority.

On Wednesday, at the 79th United Nations General Assembly in New York, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian delivered a fiery address that sharply criticized the United States and U.S. President Donald Trump, while reaffirming Iran’s openness to diplomatic negotiations so long as they are not conducted under military duress. The high-stakes speech came just 24 hours after Trump warned in his own UN address that the U.S. reserves the right to “annihilate” the Islamic Republic of Iran if no negotiated agreement is reached, even as he acknowledged that backchannel diplomatic contacts between the two nations were already underway and expressed optimism that a resolution could be found.

On the margins of the 81st United Nations General Assembly in New York, the United States advanced a new push to coordinate regional action against transnational criminal networks and drug cartels on September 22, 2026. Speaking at a gathering of the Washington-led ‘Shield of the Americas’ coalition, U.S. President Donald Trump called on participating nations to collectively designate 24 violent criminal groups as shared threats to regional security.

Following Trump’s address, the 15 member countries of the coalition released a joint declaration announcing plans to implement coordinated countermeasures, asset freezes, visa restrictions, and criminal prosecutions targeting group members, financiers, and facilitators who knowingly provide material or logistical support to the designated organizations. While the agreement marks a tangible expansion of cross-border security cooperation, it does not mandate immediate uniform sanctions across all participating states, as most nations require domestic legislative or judicial adjustments to align national law with the new commitments.

The newly released designation list includes two groups already labeled as terrorist organizations by the U.S.: Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13) and Tren de Aragua. It also encompasses major Mexican drug cartels, Colombia’s National Liberation Army (ELN) guerrilla movement, Brazil’s two largest criminal syndicates Primeiro Comando da Capital (PCC) and Comando Vermelho, and Peru’s Shining Path insurgency. Long framing these groups as more than traditional criminal enterprises, Trump compared the cartels to the Islamic State, referring to them as ‘narco-terrorists’ that demand a unified security response. He reaffirmed that the U.S. maintains ‘unprecedented military power’ to address threats across the Western Hemisphere, framing the war on drug trafficking as a core regional security issue rather than a narrow law enforcement matter.

The 15 signatory governments include the U.S., Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guyana, Honduras, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, and Trinidad and Tobago. Notably absent are Latin America’s two largest economies: Mexico and Brazil. Colombia’s participation marks a significant shift, as the country had declined to join previous similar coalition statements, though it still needs to pass new domestic legislation to implement the agreed sanctions. Al Jazeera correspondent Alessandro Rampietti noted that the declaration is, for now, primarily a symbolic political step, with operationalization dependent on national-level legal processes.

The new diplomatic agreement comes as the U.S. has already dramatically escalated its own unilateral military campaign against alleged drug smuggling operations. Since September 2025, the U.S. military has carried out dozens of airstrikes and raids on vessels in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean, claiming all targeted boats were involved in drug trafficking. However, the campaign has drawn sharp international condemnation: United Nations special rapporteur Ben Saul has concluded the operations may violate international law and could amount to crimes against humanity. Saul’s analysis records at least 223 deaths across 68 attacks between September 2025 and August 2026, with a further four killed in a new strike carried out over the preceding weekend, pushing the total confirmed death toll above 230. Washington has defended the operations as part of an armed conflict against drug cartels, arguing they are necessary to stop illicit drug flows into the U.S. Critics counter that the Trump administration has released little public evidence confirming the identity or smuggling activities of those killed on the targeted vessels.

Beyond counter-narcotics cooperation, the Shield of the Americas initiative carries broader geopolitical meaning. The Trump administration has spent recent months aggressively pushing for a greater U.S. role in the Western Hemisphere, with officials discussing a renewed interpretation of the 19th-century Monroe Doctrine – the principle that originally sought to block European interference in the Americas and later became associated with U.S. regional dominance. The current administration has tied security cooperation to trade, energy policy, border control, and access to strategic critical minerals. Bilateral talks between U.S. and Ecuadorian officials this week covered not only anti-cartel action but also oil, natural gas, and critical mineral access, though no formal agreement on resources has been made public. This expanded U.S. push has sparked widespread concerns across Latin America over national sovereignty and growing American interference in regional affairs.

Brazil, which remains outside the coalition, has openly pushed back against the initiative. In his address to the UN General Assembly, Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva issued a clear rebuke without naming the U.S. directly, warning against ‘renewed hegemonic temptations’ in Latin America and the Caribbean. ‘Brazil does not fit into anyone’s backyard,’ he stated. Lula emphasized that countering transnational organized crime requires global cooperation, but Brazil’s approach diverges sharply from Washington’s: it prioritizes national sovereignty, multilateral diplomacy, and inclusive regional cooperation, in contrast to the Trump administration’s reliance on U.S. military power and unilateral security tools. Mexico has also declined to join the coalition.

The joint sanctions declaration is both a concrete security measure and a high-stakes diplomatic signal. For participating countries, closer collaboration under the framework could streamline intelligence sharing and disrupt cross-border criminal networks that operate across multiple jurisdictions. Yet the actual scope of operational cooperation remains uncertain: the declaration does not legally bind the 15 nations to identical measures, and most proposed sanctions still face lengthy domestic legal hurdles. Over the coming months, the initiative will face a critical test: whether it evolves into a fully functional operational partnership or remains primarily a political signaling platform. The U.S.’s unilateral military campaign remains the most contentious sticking point, as Washington seeks regional backing for harder action against cartels while global debate grows over the legal limits of using lethal military force against suspected drug traffickers. The New York gathering has opened a new chapter in U.S. counter-narcotics strategy – one that brings deeper regional coordination, but also new, unresolved questions over sovereignty, evidence standards, and compliance with international law.

Against the backdrop of the 81st United Nations General Assembly in New York, the United States and Iran launched indirect, multi-hour negotiations mediated by regional third parties on Tuesday, with discussions centered on ending regional hostilities and reopening the strategically critical Strait of Hormuz to commercial shipping. While both sides have described the initial round of talks as promising, no breakthrough has yet been announced, and core differences on priorities and sequencing of concessions remain unresolved.

U.S. President Donald Trump initially stated that his special envoy Steve Witkoff and senior advisor Jared Kushner held three hours of direct discussions with Iranian officials, calling the session “very good” and “very productive”, noting significant momentum toward a final agreement. He later confirmed that talks would continue and expressed confidence that a final arrangement would be reached. The White House later clarified that Trump himself did not participate in the negotiations, and that mediators shuttled between the U.S. and Iranian delegations led by Witkoff and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi respectively. Witkoff characterized the completed first negotiating round as potentially “constructive and promising”, adding that mediators would continue their shuttle work in the coming days.

At the heart of Iran’s negotiating position are its demands for the United States to roll back economic and military pressure in exchange for reopening the Strait of Hormuz. Iranian state media report that Tehran conveyed its formal terms to Washington via mediators: these include lifting the U.S. blockade on Iranian ports, unfreezing billions of dollars in Iranian assets held abroad, and ending U.S.-led military campaigns against Iran and its regional allied armed factions. A senior Iranian official told state media that Tehran would be willing to fully restore open shipping through the strait within seven days if Washington agrees to reduce military pressure and scale back economic sanctions.

The Strait of Hormuz is one of the world’s most critical energy chokepoints, carrying roughly a fifth of global oil supplies and a large share of liquefied natural gas exports from Gulf producing states to global markets. Disruptions and uncertainty around shipping through the waterway have already roiled global energy markets, with Reuters market data showing Brent crude prices climbed above $100 per barrel on Tuesday following news of the negotiations.

Washington’s priorities differ sharply from Tehran’s. Trump has repeatedly emphasized two non-negotiable U.S. red lines: Iran will not be permitted to develop a nuclear weapon, and unimpeded commercial shipping through the Strait of Hormuz must be restored immediately. This leaves the two sides’ core negotiating objectives directly opposed: Iran demands that relief from pressure come first, while the U.S. insists on tangible Iranian commitments on shipping security and nuclear limits before making any concessions.

A notable dynamic of the current process is the gap between harsh public rhetoric and quiet diplomatic outreach. Just hours before the negotiations opened, Trump used his address to the UN General Assembly to deliver sharp criticism of Iran, saying he faced a “major decision” between a deal that would allow Iran’s economy to recover and further military escalation. He reaffirmed that the U.S. would never allow Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon, with the White House identifying Iran’s nuclear program as one of the administration’s top global security priorities.

Iran responded in kind: the Iranian General Staff issued a warning that the country would deliver a stronger and more unpredictable response to any new U.S. attacks. Still, Iranian officials have left the door open to a diplomatic resolution, stating that talks can progress if Tehran’s core conditions are met. Analysts quoted by Al Jazeera note that the combative public language from both sides is a deliberate negotiating tactic: both governments face domestic political pressure, and neither wants to be seen as making concessions under duress to the other side.

Qatar and Pakistan have taken on the lead role as mediators between the two governments, working to narrow gaps and bring the parties closer to an agreement. Qatari Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani met with Araghchi in New York on Tuesday to discuss regional developments, de-escalation, and laying the groundwork for sustained dialogue. Qatar has also previously held exploratory talks on establishing a temporary shipping corridor through the Strait of Hormuz and practical cooperation to clear the waterway for commercial traffic, highlighting that diplomacy is not just focused on a high-level political agreement, but also on putting in place practical arrangements to resume global shipping.

According to Reuters, negotiators are also exploring a broader regional security framework that would include Iran and the Cooperation Council for the Arab Gulf States. This proposal would tie negotiations on the Strait of Hormuz to wider agreements on long-term security across the Gulf region, though the text of the proposal has not yet been made public.

Outside of the mediated bilateral talks, France has put forward a separate international initiative to protect shipping through the strait. Reuters reports that Paris is drafting a UN Security Council resolution to authorize an international maritime mission to guarantee free navigation through Hormuz, a proposal that is being coordinated with Washington. Previous attempts to launch such a mission stalled due to objections from China and Russia, which argued that the initiative would be disproportionately targeted at Iran. Paris is now working to revise the text to explicitly frame the mission as focused solely on protecting commercial shipping and global energy security, rather than confronting Tehran.

Despite the opening of talks and signs of goodwill on both sides, key obstacles remain unaddressed. Beyond conflicting core priorities, the two sides cannot agree on the sequencing of concessions. Tehran refuses to give up its leverage over Hormuz shipping before it receives the economic and military relief it has demanded, while Washington insists on seeing concrete Iranian action on its core demands first. This impasse means any final agreement will likely require a carefully structured package of simultaneous or phased reciprocal steps from both sides.

The ongoing UN General Assembly, which runs from September 22 to 28 in New York, provides a critical immediate diplomatic window for further talks, with senior officials from both sides already on location for the global summit.