By Denzil James
The recent announcement that Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar’s administration is seeking funding from the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) and the World Bank has sparked serious concern among observers who fear this move could compromise the nation’s economic sovereignty.
“This is equal to my biggest fear,” “When the World Bank, IDB, or IMF gets their tentacles in your country, you lose your economic sovereignty.”
For many developing nations, loans and funding from these large international financial institutions come with stringent conditions—often disguised as “reforms.” But these reforms tend to open the door to deep structural adjustments, including austerity measures, privatization, and deregulation, which can leave countries more dependent than empowered.
At the heart of my concern, is a broader understanding of global geopolitics, particularly how Western powers, led by the United States and Europe, manage the world stage. “Their objectives are to bring Third World countries into a state of dependence and keep them there, away from acquiring true financial independence.”
The concern isn’t merely hypothetical. Across Latin America, Africa, and parts of Asia, nations that engaged heavily with the IMF or World Bank often found themselves locked into cycles of debt and economic restructuring that stripped them of self-determination over fiscal policy and development priorities.
But this form of control is not limited to financial agreements. America doesn’t just control the world because of their military might. They are doing it through other means such as financial manipulation, entertainment, and brand popularity within the food and clothing industry, “When you purchase a Nike Air Jordan or love KFC, you may not even understand the political influence strategized within these brands.
The soft power exerted by cultural dominance, via fast food, fashion, music, and movies, often primes developing populations to adopt Western lifestyles and values. It subtly shifts priorities and perceptions, making economic domination less obvious but no less potent.
In light of this, the question arises: Is the pursuit of funding a necessary step toward development or a gamble that risks long-term sovereignty for short-term relief?
As the government moves forward with its development agenda, it must weigh the costs carefully. After all, economic assistance should uplift a nation, not chain it.