Ali Administration Faces Scrutiny Over Deals with U.S.-Sanctioned China Railway Construction Corporation
By Travis Chase | HGP Nightly News
The Irfaan Ali administration is under renewed scrutiny for continuing to engage in multi-billion-dollar infrastructure projects with China Railway Construction Corporation (CRCC) — a company sanctioned by the United States and previously blacklisted by the World Bank for fraud and corruption.
Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo has been quoted in sections of the local press as saying that Guyana has “nothing to worry about” regarding CRCC’s sanctions. This statement comes despite repeated government warnings over the past year against doing business with U.S.-sanctioned individuals and companies.
CRCC was sanctioned by the World Bank in 2019 for fraud and corruption. In November 2020, then U.S. President Donald Trump issued an executive order barring American companies and individuals from owning shares in entities linked to the Chinese military. This list included CRCC, as published by the U.S. Department of Defense.
In Guyana, CRCC is OFAC-sanctioned yet has secured major contracts, including:
- The New Demerara Harbour Bridge
- The proposed Berbice and Corentyne River bridges
- Sections of the electricity transmission and distribution upgrade
Additionally, CRCC and other Chinese firms are involved in several high-profile projects, such as:
- East Coast Demerara Road extension (Phase 2)
- Joe Vieira Park redevelopment
- Construction of six regional hospitals
The U.S. government continues to warn that non-U.S. companies must comply with American sanctions and export controls. The U.S. Defense Department’s 2019 list named 20 companies, including CRCC, as being owned or controlled by the People’s Liberation Army. Under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), the U.S. President has the authority to impose penalties on such firms.
The Ali administration maintains that the nature of sanctions on CRCC is different from other targeted measures affecting Guyanese nationals and entities. Critics, however, argue that the government’s stance risks diplomatic tensions and reputational damage.
