The Rest Is Politics: Leading - 148. The President of Guyana: The Fastest Growing Economy in the World (Irfaan Ali)

Episode Date: August 14, 2025

How does Guyana balance its unprecedented economic growth, largely due to oil discoveries, with environmental sustainability? How does Guyana perceive and address the historical scar left by slavery? What has happened to West Indies cricket, and how does the future look? Alastair is joined by President of Guyana, Ifraan Ali, to answer all these questions and more. Join The Rest Is Politics Plus: Start your FREE TRIAL at therestispolitics.com to unlock exclusive bonus content – including Rory and Alastair’s miniseries – plus ad-free listening, early access to episodes and live show tickets, an exclusive members’ newsletter, discounted book prices, and a private chatroom on Discord. Social Producer: Harry Balden Video Editor: Josh Smith Assistant Producer: Alice Horrell Producer: Nicole Maslen Head of Content: Tom Whiter Exec Producers: Tony Pastor, Jack Davenport Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Thanks for listening to The Restis Politics. Sign up to the Restis Politics Plus. To enjoy ad-free listening, receive a weekly newsletter, join our members chat room and gain early access to live show tickets. Just go to therestispolities.com. That's therestis politics.com. Welcome to The Restis Politics leading and I'm absolutely delighted, sadly not with Rory, but with Irfan Ali, who is the president of Guyana. In recent years, the country with the fastest growing economy in the world, thanks in large part to recent discoveries of oil. 2020, growth 43.5%. 2021, 20.1%.

2022, 62.3.3.37.2. So a country that in 2015 was the second poorest in the entire hemisphere, second after Haiti, now on track to have the highest GDP per capita in Latin America and the Caribbean by 2030. So that's quite a story. As to where it is, let me tell you, Guiana is up at the top end of Latin America. It's bordered to the west by Venezuela, which has its own claims, hotly disputed on large parts of Guyana. It's got a very close ally to the south. That's Brazil and Suriname to the east. But Guiana is proudly part of the Anglophone Caribbean. English is the main language. That's a legacy in part of colonial days, which ended in 1966. And I'm pleased to say that cricket is the national sport.

There's another very big part to the story that we're going to talk about, and that is what's worth protecting, because Guyan is 85% rainforest. And this is a country not much smaller than the UK, but with a population of 800,000, 1 million Guernese approximately living abroad. And if we, the UK, had similar forest cover, only London, the southeast and the east of England would actually remain unwitted. I guess one of the big things we want to talk about is how you balance boom boom growth with sustainability. So, President Ali, thank you very, very much for joining me. And what we like to do in these interviews is just start a little bit with you telling us about you and the start of your life and your parents and your childhood and what that was like.

First of all, thank you for having me. You know, my life is no different from any other ordinary Guyanese life. I still consider myself a very ordinary Guyanese with the great responsibility of leading this beautiful nation. But let me first of all apologize for the voice. My voice may not be that pleasing this morning because we are on the campaign trail. And you know how campaigns are. Yeah. They have a way of dealing with your throat.

You're sounding good to me. You're almost Barry White in there. I'm getting a Barry White vibe. Maybe a bit of Bob Marley base on it, you know? Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Sounds good. So let me say that, you know, yes, so growing up was like any other normal guy

and he's working class family. I come from a family of public service. My parents were both teachers. Well, they are still both teachers because although they have retired, they continue to teach in the communities and help children all over the place. So I came from that service-oriented family structure.

Of course, a lot of my relatives, too, were involved in farming. I myself made sure that I had my experience in farming. Growing up in those days was very much different from what it is today. I always say to the young people today that it is not that they are better or we are better than those before us. It is just that we have better opportunity today than they had.

And perhaps if they had the same opportunity, they would have been excelling just like any other young person. So in those days, for example, the average age of home ownership was in your mid-fifties. Today, the average age of home ownership is in the mid-20s. Not in Britain is not. Here in Guyana, let me make sure I say that I'm speaking in the context of Guyana throughout this podcast. So in those days also, you know, we had major difficulties. The country was in a period of dictatorship.

So you grew up in an environment where you saw every single one who was older than you, who was above 18 years old, were deeply involved in this struggle of freeing the country. And in doing so, it became very difficult situation for those persons because the state would come very hard against those persons who resisted or try to champion this democracy and this freedom. So although colonization ended, we have a historical context in this country that is very beautiful to explore, beautiful from the perspective of what is happening in the global political. landscape today. So in 1950 for example when the movement the political affairs committee was started before and that the purpose was to advance the cause of independence and then for self-governance. But what took place was that the unification of the people was divided by external forces. So even in the 50s you had the situation in the region where the US

in the UK, believed that many of the countries were going into the direction of Cuba. And as a result of that, they used the structure of the population. And all of this is now released in different classified document.

So they used the structure of the population, which was based on an ethnic mix. You know, we are a land of six different people. And it is separated the population based on this ethnic makeup of the people. country. And that led, of course, to many difficulties dividing the country along race lines to ensure that the philosophy of communism at that time did not infiltrate and to ensure that the UK

and the US had enough power, enough power to maintain the existing status quo. Let me just jump in there. I want to ask you about something that relates to that, and that's that your sense of your relationship with the UK. I had a very long chat over the weekend with Jane Miller, who you will know very well, a high commissioner, the UK High Commissioner, to Guyana, who was doing what good diplomats do, as she was telling me about all the good things that you're doing together.

I just wondered, how deep is the scar that is left by something like slavery in a culture like yours? So, you know, this is a very sensitive topic for different people. There is no doubt that there is a deep scar in every society where slavery existed. But recently I said the ancestors who fought slavery and fought for freedom did not for one moment fought for the freedom only of the slaves. They fought for the freedom of a system. They fought for a systemic freedom.

And sometimes we lose that bigger picture. So although this car is deep, I believe that the message behind that struggle for freedom is one for human dignity, it's one for human advancement, it's one for the forward movement of society. And it is in that context that I believe that society has graduated to a place where we do not forget the struggles. We do not forget the deep wounds of slavery, the indignity of slavery. But we use this moment in our history to move forward. And that is the conversation that reparation in its entirety must conceive. Do you think it's the word reparation that makes that difficult? Maybe.

And that is something we should examine because the fact is this is not a conversation about compensation. Because there is no compensation for the indignity of slavery. But what the conversation should be is a development pack. How do we come together and work out a development pack? Maybe a development strategy for society's deep scars and wounds as a result of slavery. And what constitute that development pack? How do we help to advance on issues of mental health, education gap, health gap? And now, of course, you would know, Alistair, that if we don't address these issues,

in this age of digitization and AI, these countries are going to be left far worse off or far behind if you're not able to address that gap. So the issue here is as a consequence of the impact of slavery on our societies and our economy, the mental health, because there is no assessment. And I always use one indicator. If you look at a society that is developed like the UK

and you look at your growing costs for mental health. And just using that one parameter and looking at the impact on mental health from slavery, generational in nature, then it gives you an understanding at this type of investment that is needed on the human capital side, on the development side.

So I think that if we can structure this conversation, and I had similar conversations with King Charles, who I believe has been doing an extremely good job at reaching out, at finding ways in which he himself can change the narrative. He himself can be involved in this. But how do we give him enough space? How do we give the system enough space to develop a comprehensive strategy on this? Alan, you sounding like you regret getting rid of the British monarch's head of state. What's going on here? No, no, not at all. We fought very hard for independence. But I have a lot of

regards for King Charles, you know. He has been one of our champions on the environment. He has been the greatest champion on forest. Let me be very clear on this. You know, we can debate many things, but King Charles is the one who brought global attention on tropical forests. He spent a lot of his time convincing the global system on the importance of tropical forests. Our forest, for example, stores 19.5 gigatons of carbon. We have kept the forest standing the biodiversity and ecological value. So, you know, I would say that he has done an enormous job

and I am doing a terrible job at answering your question because you wanted to know about my childhood days. It's fine, it's fine. You did a great job. Let me just jump in because the other thing, if you look at the numbers, right, you had 340,000 African slaves brought over in the 1800s,

then Britain bought in almost a quarter of a million of indentured labors from India, 19, 30, 20th, century. Your racial mix now, 40% Indo-Gynees, 30% Afro, 10% indigenous, and majority Christian. And you're a Muslim. Yeah. Tell me how that works. So it's a very interesting society. I once said to the Emir of Qatar.

You're dropping some big names here. We're the king. We've now got a beer. It's good people. because, you know, the Qatar is now known as the mediators of the world. You know, they've been doing a good job at that. But let me say this. So I said, maybe the country that can give the most practical examples of living together

and bridging divide is Guyana. Because you can come to Guyana and you can see intermarriages between religious intermarriages. You can see not only into marriages, but you can see not only into marriages, but you can and see the coexistence of all religions, the co-existence of all our people. The only time that you see strong sentiments that are ethnic in nature is when we are approaching elections

because the main opposition, and I'm going to say this, but I like to have persons here also defending themselves. The main opposition primarily use race and ethnicity as their main mobilization tool. We use national development, national policy, and a unity platform. So the fact that a minority, a Muslim person,

can be elected as president, tells you a few things, tells you about the level of tolerance in our society, tells you about the acceptance of humanity, because it's most, our country more is a demonstration of humanity, how we value humanity. And maybe because it's how we are placed in South America,

but very much a part of the Caribbean. Our music, our art, our food is complex in some cases because of the mix that comes with it. But we have been able to, through all the difficulties from slavery, colonization, a long period, 28 years of dictatorship, we have one of the things that we have been able to do is to keep that level of tolerance

to keep that level of togetherness and understanding at a manageable level. To today where I think it's totally integrated, you have a seamless transition between the different cultures, the different religion, the different ethnicity and a new generation of Guyanese that are coming up. If I were to come to Guyan,

I wouldn't, are you saying I wouldn't feel racial tension? You won't feel it. You won't feel any religious pressure. You'll feel as if you're in a very happy environment. Because Guyanese are like that, they're very happy people, very life-oriented in that they try as hard as possible to strike that balance in life. So, culturally, from a work perspective, although I believe that our work culture is shifting because of the growth of the economy, which is good also. You know, we are now incentivizing two jobs so that you get tax breaks on your second job. And that is because for the growth that is taking place, we don't have the size of the labor force. The human resource capital is just too small to, you know, fuel.

this growth that is taking place. Are you trying to get the diaspora back? Oh, that's a big part of the strategy. So we are now finalizing that human capital strategy, which is linked to the migration strategy, and the type of human capital that we need. And you know the world is going through a crisis in healthcare, for example. Nurses are moving around globally.

In the UK, the UK is recruiting heavily. In the Caribbean, in Ghana, we've all suffered from that. So we have those same challenges because we are building out a modern healthcare system that requires specialists, requires specializations, and a certain quantity of nurses.

So whilst we're building out our capacity and capability to train nurses, pharmacists, technologies, doctors, to meet this future requirement, in the medium term, we will have, and we have major shortages, and we have been recruiting.

So we are now finalizing this human capital strategy that will be used to structure the education system to deliver what we want now and in the future, but also to examine the gap that exists. The human resource information system gap would allow us to understand what gap exists and where are the potential areas we can recruit human capital from to fill this gap.

That sort of leads me on to the whole issue of the way that your economy is changing. And oil has been this amazing factor within it. So those growth figures that I read out at the start are just sort of mind-blowing to most European countries right now. And the truth is, they could have been even bigger and even better because I get the sense, having looked into it, that the deal, I know it wasn't you in government,

the deal that was struck with Exxon, the main American oil company, I get the feeling they got the better. end of the deal. And so you could, you could, to some extent, be even richer. But tell me what has it been like to be part of this transition. And it's obvious in a way what the upsides are. Are there any downsides to this? So there can be major downside if your policy formula, your policy menu, dependent on oil and gas. If you look at oil and gas and the revenue from oil and gas as your main source of wealth, or if you take that revenue literally, and

say it is wealth, that's the first mistake. The revenue from oil and gas is not wealth. It is revenue. Wealth is created depending on how you invest that revenue. So for us, the revenue from oil and gas must be invested, invested in reducing the cost of living, eliminating poverty, building modern infrastructure, giving the people of the country and the region, because our prosperity must lead to the prosperity of the region, the best of the best, access to health care, best access to education, increasing disposable income, reducing taxes, and investing in the other sectors of the economy that will make the economy broad-based, sustainable and prosperous. Now, what do I mean? Let me give you some examples.

Everybody speak about oil and gas. We are now in the top 10 countries for mining, in the top 10 for mining. This is based on reserve and this is based on the quality of the mining claims. We're the number one country in forest management and the carbon market. Maybe the only country that has a structured carbon market from a tropical forest. We are now seeking to lead the world on biodiversity. We're the only country that can feed ourselves globally. And we're looking to become the food capital of the region. We are investing in human capital, as I said, as important means of transformation.

So we are using this revenue to build an economy that is broad base, an economy in which ecotourism, food security, energy security, climate security will be our major plank. I know you've written a book about this because your team sent it to me. How have you managed to make a country as... relatively as small as Guiana, self-sufficient in food. Yeah, and a lot of credit must go to our farmers. Because even in difficult circumstances, when the farmers had no access to drainage and irrigation services,

when they had no access to farm-to-market roads or subsidies for agriculture, they kept farming. In difficult circumstances, people learn to survive. You know this. So in that period of dictatorship, when I was a boy, for example, we would plant gardens in our backyard. I worked in the rice field with my relatives.

So you learn to be versatile. You learn to adapt. You learn to survive. And it's in that period that Guyanese families learned to survive. And many of them survive because of a kitchen garden.

Many of them survive because of a small farm. Many of them. And then the survival then led to family an individual survival, then led to community survival, where persons would exchange produce, the bar to system.

And one of the good things is that we never lost that spirit of growing our own food, of sustaining ourselves on our own food. We never lost that spirit of eating what we produce. Now we are going a step further by producing even what we import. Because as you know, as society improves,

as people life improve, their tastes for different protocols. also changes. So we want to ensure that we're building a food production system that addresses even those things that we're importing. So it comes from the struggles of our people and building inherently a system that first looked at survival. And after we started to invest on the different people's Progressive Party civic government, agriculture became commercialized. And now we have an entire food production system that we've been able to build. Sometimes when countries or societies have had a sudden influx of prosperity, there are two

things that sometimes happen. One is greed takes over, and the second is that corruption can enter into the system in a difficult and dangerous way. Have you seen any evidence of that sort of societal change? And also, how do you guard against the sort of corruption that sometimes associate? so with sudden wealth. So it has to be managed from two perspective. Let's take, for example, the issue of greed.

Greed has to be managed based on your value system. If our country changes its values, the value system of who we are, what make you a guineas? What are there traits that make you a guineas? Then you can easily succumb to this, notion that, oh, we are rich, we are wealthy, we can transfer resources to every family, and you forget that you are building for generations to come.

You forget who you are as a people. You lose that foundational pillar of what make us Guyanese. And that is a conversation I've been having with the Guyanese people, that none of this must allow us to lose who we are. That is why we're investing in civic education. We're investing in the arts and culture. culture. We're investing in building out opportunities for families to come out together in communities so that we do not lose who we are. We do not lose what make our society strong. We do not we do not

lose our cultural identity. And that is important for me. The issue of corruption. Look, growth and development comes with many challenges. But if you look at what we're doing, we are building in a mechanism to avoid as far as possible leakages within the system. So we have set up a natural resource fund. That fund is managed in an arm's length away from government independently. Is that the equivalent of your sovereign wealth fund? Yes, that's the equivalent of the sovereign wealth fund. Which of the wealth funds that we know of around the world are you trying most closely to model?

That's a very, very good question. I don't believe in modeling. I believe in learning from different examples but everyone, every country, we have our own challenges and people will say oh, Norway has the best

sovereign wealth fund, use their model. I would love to use Norway model. You know what is Norway model? For the first 20 plus years, nothing went into the fund. Everything went into the investment into the country. Building a strong economy. Building modern infrastructure.

Building a modern healthcare system. a modern education system, investing in the diversification of the economy. I would love that model, but I can't do that in today's world. Because from day one, it is how are you ensuring this fund create opportunity for the next generation? The level of scrutiny today is far superior to the scrutiny at that time. So when you look at these countries, everybody say Norway has the best model. I love that model.

I would love to use that model. but we are using a model that is relevant for today, one that invests in the very things that Norway invest in, but also safeguard resources for the future and the structure of the fund itself. When you look at these funds that were established, they didn't have a pile of entry process. All the resources that is spent from this fund

must go through the full parliamentary process. So it goes into the national budget and it is debated in Parliament, audited by the Oetter General, and all the revenue that comes in the fund, the Minister of Finance must declare it within a time frame. Otherwise, he is exposing himself to 10 years imprisonment. That's a declaration of revenue coming into the fund. The other big connection you've got with Norway is the deal that you did with them on carbon credits and an even bigger deal with the Hess Foundation.

Just I think I'm fascinated is how do these carbon credit systems work? You've got 85% of your land is forest. Sanding forest. Yeah. And you've done these deals, which essentially, how do you see them? Are they incentives to keep the forest? Are they incentive not to deforest? And what do you think of countries and organizations that do that in partnership with you?

First of all, you know, Alice, I have to congratulate you. Every time I answer one of your question, you have researched that answer to get another question that is even deeper and stronger. But that's good, that's good, I like this. So let's look at two things. One, where this started. We started, Arista, from a position where the world was giving incentives for reforestation.

The world was not giving out any payment or any support for those who kept the forest. Instead, those who took the forest dung and built out their economy, they were now giving payments and incentive to replant the forest. And those that kept this forest intact for all of humanity

were told, thank you very much, you did a fine job. So that the system had great injustice and inequality. And that is because most who took the forest dung were the powerful ones. They were the developed world.

Those who kept their forests, their forests were those that did not have the capability to take it down, did not have a capital to take it down. And they were now told that, listen, man, thank you very much. You did a fine job, you know, keep that forest going. And we decided, no, no, no, this is working. This cannot work. There must be a system of compensating those countries who kept the forest and who are committed to keeping it. So we said, listen, we don't only want a market-based system to compensate those who have kept the forest, but we want to go a step further. We want to create a mechanism through which we're audited, through which our forest is monitored, because we wanted accountability in the system.

So we subjected our entire forest to an evaluation, to an audit, and that forest is monitored externally. Now, for a country to do that, that is the top 10 in mining that has oil and gas, tells you about the credibility of what we are building. It tells you about the value about what we are building and how much we believe in this forest and what the forest offers for the rest of the world. So we subjected ourselves. That is why we're the only forest that has carbon credit that are certified at jurisdictional scale. That is the entire forest. We're not talking about a forest in one area. This is jurisdictional scale in its entirety.

So it is on that basis that we started the global movement on getting valuation done and developing this carbon market for tropical forests. You know, at Glasgow, we were happy. Prime Minister Boris supported that cop forest being on the agenda also. Today is a struggle to keep forests on the country. cop agenda and to get biodiversity on that agenda. But we have to continue that struggle. I should just jump in there. You've just broken one of the cardinal rules of this podcast.

You said something almost positive about Boris Johnson. That is not allowed under any circumstances, but I'll now allow you to carry on. But maybe it's my style. I first look at all the positive things about people. Yeah, I can see that. I can see that. You know, I believe that we must keep positive. energy in the room all the time. Okay, good. I've got you. I've got you.

I really have to be careful with you now. We've got cop coming up in Brazil, right? And Brazil is a very, very close ally of yours. And I just want to know what the Trump-Lula relationship, whether that's something that keeps you awake at night as well. So Trump suddenly wax 50% tariffs on Lula because of Bolsonaro and the court case against him, which is kind of mind-blowing to think an American president.

does that, but he's done it. You're a very small country, not far from America, allied with Brazil. I just wondered how that makes you feel. So I want to first say that, you know, we are a very small country, but big things start with small ideas. And I believe that it is a thinking power and what you present that is large in terms of the global landscape. But you mentioned something very important. There is no doubt that the success of COP depends heavily on, you know, the developer, especially the US, China and India, their large economies and large population. And if there is strained relationship between the hosts of COP and the US, that definitely dampens the ability to get compromise. Or it definitely, you know, make it harder.

for us to get compromise and for us to have a negotiated outcome at COP. COP is really a forum that try as far as possible to have a negotiated outcome. And the structure of the negotiation is that, you know, one major partner opting out, the entire process falls. So it is important that the international community

find a mechanism through which we intervene to ensure that there is stability in all the relationship heading into COP and ensuring that the temperatures are brought down so that we can have an effective COP. For us to sit and pretend that this type of relationship would not have an impact on COP, I think would be doing an injustice to what we want to achieve at COP. And here is where I think the developed countries, the top seven, need to get together

and to find a mechanism through which we get past this little hurdle. I think it's a little hurdle. It's recoverable. We can move forward. The participation of the U.S. in COP, when I say participation, I'm not talking about attendance, the full participation of the U.S. in COP, is key. It's critical, especially at this stage of our development, global development, and all of this taking place around the world. The worst thing we want now is to have a conflict or destabilization of the COP agenda.

Okay, let's have a quick break and then back for more. Hi, everybody, it's Dominic Samarik here from The Rest is History. Now, some of you may have heard me on your show, The Rest is Politics when Rory was away, and I was filling in, and enjoying Alistair Campbell's tremendous banter. And I'm back to tell you about our new series on The Restis History, which is all about Britain in the 1970s, a period with a lot of uncanny resemblances to our own. So right now we're living through a moment

when oil shocks generated by war in the Middle East are rippling through the world economy, when Britain feels like it's sunk in a bit of a malaise. People are arguing about Europe. The government has got a few issues with the, trade unions, and we have a kind of, I suppose you'd say governing elite, a kind of political class that is really struggling to come to terms with all of these issues, and people are asking if Britain is governable at all. So there are a lot of parallels between that Britain that I'm

describing, which is our Britain and the Britain of the mid-1970s. So in this series that's coming out on the rest is history, we're looking at these and other issues. We'll be talking about the rise of Margaret Thatcher, obviously a colossal figure in our political life even now, whether you love her or loathe her. We'll be talking about the very first Brexit referendum of 1975, a subject that I'm sure Rory and Alistair will have strong opinions about. We'll be talking about the fall of the Labour Prime Minister Harold Wilson and we'll be talking about one of the grimmest moments in Britain's economic history, the moment in 1976 when we had to go cap in hand, as people said at the time, to the International Monetary Fund, the IMF, for a then record bailout.

Now, if that sounds good to you, how could it not sound good to you? Of course it sounds good to you. We have a clip for you to listen to at the end of this episode. And if you want to hear more, just search for The Rest is History wherever you get your podcasts. Is it not a big hurdle that the President of the United States has said that climate change is a hoax? Isn't it a big hurdle that some of the big democracies of the world, this debate is now being run by often by the far right to a part of the whole sort of climate change denial movement. That must make you alarmed. It is alarming, but we have to also go back to the structure of these meetings.

And I'm very, you know, big on structure. So let's look at, you spoke about the far right. So there's the far right and the far left. They're what I would say, extremism on both sides of the equation. we have not been able to bring all the stakeholders around the same table. So we can't say we want to address these climate issues. But the major emitters or those who consider to be the major emitters are not part of the conversation. When are we going to be mature enough to bring everyone around the table,

bring in those who are deniers, bring in the extremists, bring in the oil and gas company, and let us work out a roadmap. Let us work out an agenda in which we will have more resources spent on research and development, technological advancement, adaptation, mitigation, let those companies play a greater role in climate financing, in climate financing access, so that the conversation is part of the, the entire ecosystem is part of the conversation. Now, let us look at the mixture of why we have these extreme views. There is no way we can say in today's context where you still have energy and security in many countries.

You have energy poverty in many countries. That we will have a world without fossil fuel by 2050. It can happen. We've already seen the challenges that the UK is facing and Germany is facing with their massive transformation. transition in terms of energy. So we know the science, as the science tell us, climate change is real, the science also the numbers tell us that we can't achieve a fossil fuel world by 2050 or our next 100 years. Fossil fuel will continue to play a role. The question is, who will produce it? So let's say, for example, that only 20% of the fuel mix of the world by 2050,

will come from fossil fuel. Then the next big question is who will produce that 2050? And if climate is a main factor, then it must be the country that can produce it with a least effect on climate change, on climate. And that will put us number one, basically, Guyana. But the question is, how do we find this balance? How do we agree that we will still need fossil fuel?

How do we get the oil companies and their shareholders to understand that they too have a future that is sustainable in transitioning their investment, in moving towards renewable, letting them know that in this move to renewable, they will not lose market share, but find a mechanism in which they too can maintain their market share so that they see a viable future. They don't see a future in this transition in which their businesses will be wiped out, their economies will be wiped out, countries that are completely dependent on oil and gas. And you have seen this. Look at the Middle East. You're seeing countries that you never thought would have built out a tourism sector the way they're building out. No investing in that. You're seeing countries who have absolutely no natural assets for food production.

are now investing in putting those assets in place to produce their own food. To say there is no action or there is inaction is also stretching the argument. You know, many countries are taking great steps forward. The problem, though, is that all the stakeholders are not around the table. And we continue to make the same mistake year after year. Make this a debate between two extremism and not a debate on what? what the plan should be and how everyone can be involved in that plan. I mentioned in the introduction, Venezuela,

and you have this ongoing situation where Venezuela essentially says that two-thirds of your country belongs to them. And Maduro has a referendum and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. You go to the International Court. Is this just one of those issues that both sides have to kind of make the right noise is about to keep their own people happy, or is it something that has to be ultimately resolved? And how can it be resolved?

Let me start by saying, we don't make noise at all about this. Because, you know, this controversy that is raised by Venezuela can destabilize development. It can destabilize progress. It can destabilize investment. Investors' confidence. So no country, no mature country,

democratic country, no rule-based country, no law-based country, ever want this type of distraction. For them, it may be noise. For them, it might be speaking to their own local population, but for us, it has major effects. And they have acted in recent years on that noise. They have done things that are in breach of international law, that are in breach of good neighborly behavior. And we have always approached this for us with diplomacy as our fourth first guardrail, ensuring that, you know, we utilize every diplomatic effort. We utilize the global systems and institution to advance our cause with the controversy that they raise. For us, the border has been completely settled in the 1890 Arbitrille Award. The entire world knows

You know, there's nothing to support their claim, but we have encouraged them to take your claim, take this controversy to the International Court of Justice, but at the end of it, respect the outcome of that process. And if you look at their history in the court, they start by saying, oh, the court doesn't have jurisdiction. They then went to the court and argued the case of jurisdiction. They lost twice. after the loss on the issue of the jurisdiction, well, they say, okay, we will not respect the court. But they are participating fully in the process of the court. It's like playing cricket.

And you were saying that, okay, we're going to play on the conditions of the UK for swing bowling. And after we realize we can't survive the swing bowling, we then say, oh, the conditions was not good enough. We're not accepting the results of the game. I hear what you said on that. And I think most, listen, I suspect most of the people listen to this, completely support what you say on that. You've had an interesting position this year in particular because the way the United Nations work,

you have these five permanent members on the Security Council, of which the UK is one, and then these other countries come on for around in this case a year. And you've had a hell of a year to be part of the United Nations Security Council. Very briefly, what's your basic position on Russia, Ukraine? I know these are massive subjects, but we talk about them on the podcast all the time. Russia, Ukraine and also Israel, Palestine. So first of all, on Russia, Ukraine, we have made our position very clear. Every country has a right to sovereignty, and every country's sovereignty must be fully respected.

And I believe that the people of Ukraine and the Ukrainian government deserve to live in their sovereign space. and I believe that there must be de-escalation and then this war must come to the end. It's not only costing Russia and Ukraine, it's also costing the war. I give this example. If you look at the resources that has to be diverted from the UK, the EU, from the US,

in this war, a lot of those resources could have been spent on humanitarian effort on restoring democracy because every time you divert resources to conflict, you're removing global financing for important issues that are now postponed for a later date. So our position is clear on Ukraine. On Gaza, our position is also very clear. There's only one solution.

That's a two-state solution. And what is happening in Gaza now, if there is anyone who cannot see it as, as, genocide cannot see it as the greatest indignity to humankind in modern day, then something is wrong with that person. What is happening in Gaza is unbelievable, you know, but again, we believe that it's true dialogue, discussions, negotiation, and it's true the international community, not only taking principal position on Ukraine and Gaza and Haiti, but also acting on those principal position. When you look, Alistair, as the complexity of the world, and you look at the resources that goes to Ukraine now, for example, as against the resources that went to Haiti for the last 40 years,

and look at the fact that Haiti is one of the only countries that paid for its independence. People rightfully ask the question, are we living in two different worlds? Or are there two different standards that is governing the global policymaking environment? And we have to, avoid these discussions. And the only way we can avoid those discussions is to go back to setting out the basis on which global multilateralism, the big question is if multilateralism is failing today. And how do we address this issue? Because if multilateralism fail, then globalization would also fail. We're talking about globalization and common borders and common markets and common markets. market. But, you know, we have different rules for different segments of humanity. But that's why the American position is so challenging at the moment. What's your sense of the UN? Do you think the UN and its current formulation is for purpose for these challenges that we've got? Well, you know, the very conflicts that you're raising, let's look at Haiti, Ukraine, Gaza,

has really dealt a severe blow to the UN. Because if, the UN is unable to meet its mandate. And basically that is what is happening. And that is what is leading to the conversation as to whether the UN is failing. Because if we are all part of this family, the United Nations, and nobody respect the rules of the family

or respect the decision of the family, then you will have difficulties in the future. Where does it stop? So is there a need for reform? Most definitely, the current configuration points to the fact that we cannot get a United Nations system that lead to action, lead to a lot of reports, a lot of talk, but not action. And the reform of the UN must be bold enough to lead to a situation where there is compliance with the rules,

where there is acceptability of UN decisions and where there is respect. The reform must be bold enough. The system cannot be hijacked. And many leaders in the developing world are of the view that the United Nations system is hijacked.

Many, if you look at the resources that are spent at the UN for some of these reports and a number of committees that you have doing reports on every single developing country. And then you have to go and answer before a committee and every one of those reports, many of which are based on perception and not based on facts. These are things that need to be addressed.

There can be different systems of reporting for different countries or different region. There must be a common system through which everyone is held accountable. Do you think that most of the countries that you're talking about would prefer to have a system that did not involve the veto of the Big Five? We have to extend that. You know, the security council must be expanded. Look at the population, the global population and representation. If it's based on representative, we always talk about democracy

and the level of representation in a democratic system. There is no democratic system in the security council when you look at a representation. So these things must be fixed. You know, we can't postpone these problems. We have to fix these problems. And the way you fix these problems, by frank conversation, accepting that the system is failing, and accepting that there is need for reform and what areas of reform are critical. Every single time you have a reform of the system, it's about dealing with other issues except the issues that are foundational. The issue of the United Nations Security Council and the size and the representation is a foundational issue.

but we always avoid the foundational debate and we go to the blossoms that are dropping because we always look to make the system seem as if it's functioning, seem as it is functioning by always picking the low-hanging fruit. But the tree might be rottening from the root, but we're just picking the low-hanging fruit

and we're not taking care of the root. We have to get to the root and fix the route. Now listen, I could talk to you all day. I've thoroughly enjoyed this, but you've got a campaign you've got a voice to protect. I just want to ask you one final question. It is about cricket because when I was growing up,

these guys that I mentioned, Clive Lloyd, Lance Gibbs, I remember taking a day off, I remember bunking off school because I heard a rumor that Lance Gibbs was going to be bowling in a charity match in Scarborough. That's how big these guys were in my life. But West Indies cricket, what has happened to it?

We've just had this amazing test series in Britain, England against India, one of the best test series ever. Beautiful. I've been looking at the highlights. But what's time to West Indies? Let me make it clear. West Indies is not short on talent. We are short on talent development and management.

The board need to take responsibility and the system has failed us. We were so good, we are too good to accept that we don't need to invest in the development of the talent. So we fail to invest in the development of the talent. The talent exists. I want to make it very clear. We have amazing talent. But the development of that talent,

the development of our pitches, the development of our facility, the expansion of the school program in cricket. And then the global change in cricket has affected us tremendously. We're calypso-like cricketers. We love the flamboyance. We love to play shots. We love to the excitement.

And let us be also very honest. I want you to give me a few moments on this. the global system designed new rules to kill Westinies cricket. I know you'll be excited about that. When we had the best fast bowling in the world and no one could have batted our fast bowling, they changed the rules because our fast bowling was too furious and no one could have stood up and faced our fast bowling. So they changed your rules for fast bowling.

Nobody looks at that. So the world gave Westinies cricket a major. a blow by changing the rules because they could not withstand the strength of our bowling attack. They could not withstand the pace of our bowling attack. So the rules was changed to suit the powerful nations in cricket at that time. Name names, name names. England. Go back to the headlines.

Go back to the headlines. You know, and you know, Graham Gooch, there was a series that he played. Two persons I can say. Keith Atterton and Graham Gooch. Mike Atterton. Mike Atterton, sorry. I talking about our own Atterton. When they played in the West Indies,

at the end of their test series, I remember both of them showing off the blows that they took on their body, the bruise and the swelling on their body. But they stood up and they faced that bowling attack and they took the body blow. But those were exciting days for West Indies cricket. And as a result of the changes in the rules,

the pitches change. We didn't have the exciting fast bowling pitches anymore. Can you imagine spin is the main thing now in the West Indies, right? From the history of fast bowling, that tells the story. So the international system failed us, and the international system is now giving us a second blow. An English cricket, you have to be careful. Because I said to leaders from India that India is now who suffered the impact of colonel

is now using cricket to colonize the world. Because India does not allow their players to participate. You have to give UK credit. You have to give the UK credit. When they were at the top, at least they allowed their players and our players to play in all of their leagues. Many West Indian players developed their ability to play swing bowling because they were playing in your first class cricket at home.

That is how they got the opportunity to play goal. swing bowling and to play spin bowling. India is a great cricketing nation. You have to give them credit. They have the population. But they have created a business ecosystem around cricket that they control. And we have to address this. It's okay.

You can control the business ecosystem. But you cannot deny the rest of the world. You cannot deny the West Indies. What is required, the type of support that is required. We finance global cricket. We brought the excitement to global cricket when the market was very small. And today we have these challenges. There seems to be an abandonment of the West Indies because it does not make business sense.

Can you imagine that? If it does not make business sense to invest in West Indies cricket or to give more resources for the rebuilding of West Indies cricket, then something is wrong. We in Guyana, we are working hard to build a cricketing product to meet what the global changes are. and we don't get the support from India. We don't get the...

So I want the English cricket board and Guyana cricket board and the Australian cricket board to sit down and to say how do we develop a product that gives that level of excitement. That is why we started the global Super League.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Now we have built, this is a poor developing country, a country that is now on the rise, that decided we're going to invest in this for the region and for the world. So the Champions League was abundant. We started the Global Super League.

Now, when we have in two years built this product, the English Cricket Board and India Cricket Board, the two most powerful cricket board decided they're going to get together and talk about bringing back the Champions League. Without even any conversation with a country that has built back a global Super League. Now, how fair is that? So when we talk about cricket now,

is not only the failure, and I'm not walking away from, I said we have failed ourselves to develop the talent, to invest in the talent, the management of West Indie cricket is failing us. You know, we have to review the expenditure profile, how much we are spending in the administration of cricket rather than cricket itself, but we are not short on talent. We would have contributed significantly to developing this game, to where it is today,

to bring in a level of excitement and global presence and market presence, to where it is today. And if the global system really want to take cricket into new markets like North America, you can't do that with the exclusion of the West Indies. So I think that there need to be reform here also, and we need to understand, the ICC need to understand, that they have a responsibility to West Indies in helping us to rebuild this product. Well, you know what I love about that is that you are, if anything, even more passionate about cricket, You are about biodiversity. Well, we didn't get to that subject, but I'm very passionate about that.

But cricket is such an important part of our identity. Yeah. When we were fighting for recognition in the world as a region, it is cricket that gave us that recognition. It is cricket that give us that branding. What cricket did for tourism, the English tourists, would come down to enjoy the beaches, that they got exposed to as a result of cricket in many instances. So cricket has given us too much for us not to be passionate about it. It has given us an identity.

It has, you know, these guys, Clive Lloyd, Rohan Kani, Sobers, you know, these guys hold in, Courtney Ambrose, Walsh, Marshall. They help to shape an identity as to who we are as a people. When I was a journalist on The Daily Mirror, I once faced Malcolm Marshall. when he passed 100 miles an hour for the first time and we did it and it was, I think he bowled six balls at me and I think I might have hit one,

which didn't go anywhere. Listen, I love your passion for it. And actually, I normally don't plug other people's podcast, but there's a podcast in Britain done by a couple of guys, a DJ called Greg James and Jimmy Anderson, who's from the greatest footballing town in the world, Burnley, but he's obviously one of the greatest cricketers of all time. They would love to talk to you.

you because they just do a kind of cricket passion podcast. So I'm going to shove you their way at some point. I hope we could do this back again sometime. We can go deeper in some of the subject matters. I want to invite you to come and to see what is happening and to make your own evaluation. But I want you to also to be a part of this biodiversity leadership that we are presenting to the world. Listen, the world has lost 60% of its biodiversity in the last 50 years. Biodiversity is the most important thing for medical advancement, for pharmaceuticals, for indigenous culture, indigenous identity, indigenous language, and for an ecosystem that would sustain life itself.

If we continue to lose this biodiversity, we're going to lose our ability to be food secure as a world because biodiversity is critically linked. to food security. So by diversity, it's the new frontier that must be addressed. That has been swept under the carpet, and we need to change this. And you and I and the world need to work on changing this. Excellent. Well, I'd love to be a part of that.

And when I was talking to Jane Miller, the high commissioner, she was telling me recently that two British bird watchers, twitchers, as we call them, had been out in Guyana, and they stumbled across two species of bird that they didn't know existed. Yeah, we keep just finding new species because of the way we have kept the environment intact. But Jane herself has been doing a good job at demonstrating the beauty of Guyana. And our relationship with the UK, I know you hinted to that question, has grown tremendously. We have a very strong relationship with the UK.

David Lamy, of course, has heritage in Guyana. But I would say that our relationship with the UK has grown enormously, not only. only from a trade and economic perspective, from a people to people perspective, from a cultural perspective, and from a human capital perspective. So we want to continue to work on this relationship like our relationship with the US, our relationship with the Middle East, our relationship with the developing world, because we don't want to find ourselves as part of the global problem. We want to use everything that is available before us to be part of the global solution.

Well, that's a lovely place to end. Thanks for all your time. I've really, really enjoyed this. Thank you very much. It was great talking to you. Looking forward to welcoming you in Guyana. Fantastic. Thank you. Thank you. Well, this is normally when Rory and I do a debrief, but Rory's not here for this one. So I think what I'll do is wait until we put this one out. Rory can listen to it and then we can talk about it. He will love the bit about King Charles. He will love the stuff about diversity. I worried that the Cricket stuff might be a little bit over his head, but I absolutely loved the guy's passion about that and about everything else. So I hope you enjoyed that as much as I did.

I really, really feel that was an hour well spent.