There is an old saying in the Caribbean: when water is added to flour, truth should not dissolve into paste.
Unfortunately, an anonymous document now circulating does precisely that—mixing speculation, insult, and half-digested legal jargon into something meant to look solid, but which collapses under scrutiny.

This Editorial addresses the argument, not the abuse

1. The central claim is unproven—and internally inconsistent

The pamphlet’s thesis is stark: that U.S. visa actions were personal retaliation against the Prime Minister of Antigua and Barbuda, driven by Alfa Nero, Venezuela, and alleged sanctions exposure—and that everything else, including Citizenship by Investment (CIP), is a “scapegoat.”

Yet not a single verifiable document, official statement, court order, or sanctions notice is produced to support this claim.

No OFAC designation.
No U.S. Treasury enforcement action.
No upheld subpoena.
No judicial finding of wrongdoing.

In fact, the only actual U.S. court proceedings cited by implication—the §1782 discovery applications relating to Alfa Nero—failed. Subpoenas were quashed. Orders were vacated. Courts found the applications procedurally and substantively deficient.

If this were truly “black-letter law,” as asserted, the paper trail would exist.
It does not.

Law does not operate by anonymous pamphlet.

2. The visa facts alone defeat the conspiracy

The fallacious pamphlet ignores a basic but evident truth.

The U.S. visa Proclamation named more than twenty-three countries.
Some were subjected to full restrictions.

Antigua and Barbuda was not.

Our country was explicitly exempted from full restrictions.
Only new visa applications are affected—and only temporarily—while technical work on biometrics is completed.
Existing visas remain valid and are being accepted and honoured.

Travel continues.

To claim that Antigua and Barbuda was uniquely targeted—or that this was personal punishment of one Caribbean leader—defies logic.

Governments do not impose visa measures affecting thousands of people on impulse or out of personal spite. Such decisions move through agencies, lawyers, and established procedures. If this were personal retaliation, there would be formal notices, escalating actions, and visible enforcement. There are none.

To single out Antigua and Barbuda, or to blame Gaston Browne alone, is nonsensical.

3. The sanctions argument is legally careless

The document repeatedly invokes U.S. sanctions, PDVSA, and Executive Orders as though merely mentioning them triggers automatic criminal liability.

That is false.

Sanctions law is jurisdiction-specific, fact-dependent, and enforcement-driven. It turns on:

• whether a U.S. person is involved,
• whether there is a U.S. financial nexus,
• whether conduct occurred within U.S. jurisdiction, and
• whether prohibited transactions actually took place.

None of these predicates is established. 

Crucially, PDVSA’s continued shareholding in WIOC is not a sanctions violation.
Those shares were acquired before U.S. sanctions were imposed.

What would have violated U.S. sanctions is if WIOC paid PDVSA any money for any reason whatsoever—dividends, fees, transfers, or otherwise.

PDVSA has not received a single cent from WIOC since U.S. sanctions were imposed.

Declaring that mere “holding” of shares is illegal, without reference to timing, payments, jurisdiction, or enforcement action, is not legal analysis—it is theatre.

No serious sanctions lawyer writes this way.
No regulator enforces law this way.

This is pure propaganda.

4. The Alfa Nero narrative is recycled—and rejected

The pamphlet leans heavily on insinuations surrounding the Alfa Nero yacht, repeating familiar allegations about missing proceeds, secret transfers, and shadowy intermediaries.

But these claims have already been aired, tested, and rejected in U.S. courts.

Discovery was sought.
Courts declined to compel it.

What remains is suspicion and political mud-slinging. 

Re-packaging rejected litigation theories as political certainty does not transform them into truth.

5. Abuse substitutes for evidence because evidence is absent

The pamphlet’s reliance on insults, nicknames, and caricature is not incidental—it is compensatory.

Where facts are thin, volume increases.
Where proof is absent, ridicule takes its place.

One can oppose a government vigorously without abandoning discipline.
The author chose otherwise.

6. The real danger is not what the pamphlet alleges—but what it risks creating

By presenting conjecture as certainty, and by declaring inevitable consequences that have not occurred, the document risks:

• unsettling markets,
• alarming citizens unnecessarily, and
• undermining confidence in institutions for partisan gain.

That is not accountability.
It is recklessness.

Conclusion

If there were evidence, it would be cited.
If there were violations, they would be charged.
If there were sanctions, they would be named.

What we have instead is smoke without fire, accusation without substantiation, and political falsehood trying to dress up itself in tattered legal garb.

Water has been poured.
But flour requires substance.

This document has none.

Editor’s Note

Anonymous writing has a long history in political debate, but anonymity does not excuse distortion. This newspaper supports rigorous scrutiny of those in power, grounded in evidence and reasoned argument. What it does not support is the presentation of conjecture as fact, or the deliberate sowing of public anxiety through claims that collapse under examination. Readers are entitled to debate—but also to accuracy.