Suriname charging river fees – Kaieteur News

(Kaieteur News) – The call by the Georgetown Chamber of Commerce and Industry (GCCI) to halt the proposed Corentyne River Bridge project is not merely a business concern, it is a sobering national warning. At a time when Guyana is racing toward unprecedented oil-driven wealth, the country risks making a fundamental error: deepening integration with a neighbour that continues to undermine its economic and territorial interests.

For years, Guyana has pursued a policy of openness, cooperation and regional goodwill. Yet, the evidence now suggests that this goodwill is not being reciprocated by Suriname. Instead, Guyanese businesses, fishermen and river operators are being subjected to what can only be described as punitive and unilateral measures. The imposition of exorbitant river fees, reportedly as high as US$2,500 per trip along with additional brokerage costs, is not just burdensome; it is hostile.

The Corentyne River has long been a lifeline for communities such as Orealla and Siparuta. Generations have depended on its waters for trade, transport and survival. It is within this context that the GCCI’s position must be understood. The idea of constructing a bridge—a permanent physical link between Guyana and Suriname is, in principle, a symbol of progress and partnership. But infrastructure cannot exist in a vacuum. A bridge built on unresolved disputes, economic imbalance and simmering mistrust is not a bridge to prosperity, it is a bridge to vulnerability.

Even more concerning is the broader pattern. The influx of counterfeit goods, hazardous pesticides and illicit products from Suriname into Guyana points to weak regulatory enforcement on one side and unfair competition on the other. Local manufacturers are left to compete in an uneven marketplace, while public health risks grow quietly in the background.

Then there is the issue of sovereignty. The GCCI’s comparison of Suriname’s claim to the New River Triangle with Venezuela’s aggression over the Essequibo is not made lightly. History reminds us of the 2000 CGX incident, when Surinamese gunboats forced an oil rig out of Guyana’s waters, delaying this country’s oil journey by nearly two decades. That was not an act of partnership. It was an assertion of dominance. Fast forward to today, and the question becomes unavoidable: has anything fundamentally changed?

The Government of Guyana has lodged formal protests and called for dialogue. President Irfaan Ali has rightly emphasised the importance of mutual respect and reciprocity. But diplomacy must not become an excuse for delay or inaction. While talks continue, Guyanese businesses are bleeding  and confidence in cross-border cooperation is eroding. The Berbice Chamber has already sounded the alarm, warning of “grave uncertainty” in the Upper Corentyne. This is not theoretical. This is real economic pain being felt by ordinary citizens, boat operators, traders, families who rely on cross-border activity to survive.

And yet, even as these tensions escalate, the push for the Corentyne Bridge continues. This is where the government must pause and reassess. Development cannot be pursued blindly. A bridge, once built, cannot be easily undone. It will lock Guyana into a deeper level of economic and logistical integration with Suriname. The question is whether the current conditions justify such a commitment.

Partnerships must be based on trust, fairness and mutual benefit. At present, those pillars appear shaky at best. Guyana is no longer a struggling economy desperate for connections at any cost. It is an emerging oil power with growing leverage in the region. That leverage must be used wisely. It must not be squandered in arrangements where Guyanese interests are secondary.

Halting the bridge project, at least temporarily, is not an act of hostility. It is an act of prudence. It sends a clear message that Guyana will not proceed with major joint ventures while fundamental issues remain unresolved. This is not about turning away from Suriname. It is about resetting the terms of engagement. Dialogue must continue, but it must be backed by firm action and clear expectations. Reciprocity cannot remain a talking point—it must become a reality.