What the Flour Cost, and What Our Silence Costs Now

 

60th Independence Anniversary Essay · History & Geopolitics

The Price of Refueling: What the Flour Cost, and What Our Silence Costs Now

By Terrence Richard Blackman, Ph.D. · May 26, 2026

Brooklyn, New York

There is a story we Guyanese tell about the years of scarcity, and the story has a villain. In the telling, a government in Georgetown reached into the kitchens of its own people and removed our flour from the shelf—banned our wheat, restricted our roti, made our bread a contraband good—and did so, the story insists, to punish a particular section of the nation. The ban on wheaten flour is the most-cited grievance of the Burnham years, the parable that requires no footnote, the wound that explains everything else. It is recited at kitchen tables and in newspaper columns as settled fact: an act of domestic cruelty, ethnically aimed, morally indefensible.

I want to disturb that story, today, on our Diamond Jubilee. Not to absolve the era of its real failures—there were many, and they were grave—but because the parable, as commonly told, transposes cause and effect. It mistakes a symptom for a motive. And in doing so, it lets us avoid a harder, more uncomfortable truth about how a small nation’s morality is priced on the open market of great-power politics. The flour did not disappear because a government hated its own citizens. The flour disappeared, in large part, because Guyana did something brave.

What, then, actually happened to the bread?

Let’s begin with a fact, so ordinary, it is almost never examined. There is one industrial facility that sits in nearly every member state of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM)—a flour mill—and not one of those nations grows a single stalk of wheat. The Caribbean does not have the climate for it. From Kingston to Georgetown to Port of Spain, the mills turned, and every grain they milled was imported. This was not an accident of commerce. It was a system, and the system had an American name: Public Law 480. ¹.

Enacted in 1954 and known by various names over the decades—Food for Peace among them—PL 480 allowed friendly governments to purchase American wheat on extraordinarily concessional terms: low interest, long repayment horizons, and payment partly in local currency ^{1 2}. The region’s mills were built on this arrangement and fed by it. Guyana’s National Milling Company (NAMILCO), established as a subsidiary of the American Seaboard Corporation, was officially opened on May 17, 1969, by Prime Minister Forbes Burnham ³. Throughout the 1970s, NAMILCO imported American wheat under this arrangement and milled it into the flour that made the nation’s bread and roti ^{3 4}. Take away PL 480, and you do not merely raise the price of flour. You sever the supply at its root, because there is no domestic wheat to fall back on and rarely enough hard currency to buy it at commercial rates.

This is the structural fact the Burnham parable omits. Our flour vulnerability was designed in. We were a nation whose daily bread depended entirely on the goodwill of a foreign government. In a precise and unsentimental sense, we had outsourced an essential piece of our sovereignty. The question then was never whether that dependence could be weaponized. The question was only when, and over what.

It was weaponized over Cuba. And the law that did it was already on the books.

Written into the machinery of PL 480 was a provision called the Findley Amendment. Its logic was punitive and explicit: any nation that permitted its ships or its aircraft to carry goods to Cuba would be rendered ineligible for subsidized American wheat ^{5 6}. Eating our bread and our rotis, was made conditional on our hostility to Havana. The amendment was a quiet instrument of the embargo, exported to the breakfast tables of every country that dared to trade with the island.

Guyana dared. On December 8, 1972, the independent English-speaking Caribbean nations of Guyana, Jamaica, Barbados, and Trinidad and Tobago simultaneously established diplomatic relations with Cuba ⁷. This historic collective act of self-determination broke the diplomatic quarantine that Washington had enforced through the Organization of American States (OAS) since 1961 ^{7 8}. For Guyana, this carried an immediate consequence. By 1973, diplomatic cables recorded that Guyana was no longer eligible for PL 480 Title I concessional sales, with internal U.S. State Department traffic tying the decision directly to Georgetown’s expanding trade and air links with Havana ^{9 10}. The mechanism had engaged. The wheat tap was beginning to close—not because of anything done inside Guyana, but because of a posture Guyana had taken toward the wider world.

Then came Angola, and the act that should be remembered as one of the bravest in the nation’s diplomatic history.

In late 1975, Cuban troops were moving to Angola under “Operation Carlota” to defend the newly independent MPLA government against an invasion backed by apartheid South Africa ¹¹. The aircraft carrying them needed to refuel somewhere in this hemisphere. The request went out across the Caribbean, and the answer, almost everywhere, was no—for no government wished to incur the wrath of the United States. Barbados initially permitted secret refueling stops, but quickly buckled under intense American pressure ^{12 13}. Guyana said yes. The Cuban planes refueled at Timehri International Airport ¹⁴. A small, poor, dependent nation did what larger and safer ones would not.

A nation whose daily bread depends entirely on the goodwill of a foreign government has, in a precise and unsentimental sense, outsourced a piece of its sovereignty.

The pressure was immediate and severe. On Christmas Eve of 1975, Secretary of State Henry Kissinger instructed the American ambassador in Georgetown to demand that Burnham deny the refueling facilities; a second directive followed a week later ¹⁵. Declassified cables show that Burnham faced immense pressure from both Washington and Caracas ^{15 16}. Venezuelan President Carlos Andrés Pérez threatened to cut off oil preferences if Venezuelan fuel was used to service the Cuban flights ¹⁶. Alarmed Guyanese officials sought assurances from Washington after receiving signals that force might be used against their country if the flights continued ¹⁷. A government was being told, in the season of Advent, that its airfield could invite an invasion. Burnham never acceded to the American demands. The flights continued. Without that refueling, the liberation of southern Africa would have been a bloodier and more protracted enterprise than it already was ¹⁸.

But the price of this defiance was not measured only in the quiet closure of credit lines or the tightening of wheat quotas. In the shadow of the cold war, a small nation’s independent foreign policy carries a tax that is sometimes paid in blood. For Guyana, the ultimate cost of its solidarity with Cuba and Angola did not arrive in a shipment of grain, but in the sky over Barbados.

On the morning of October 6, 1976, Cubana de Aviación Flight 455 took off from Timehri International Airport in Georgetown, Guyana ²¹. It was a routine passenger flight, bound eventually for Havana, carrying seventy-three people ^{21 22}—fifty-seven Cubans, eleven Guyanese, and five North Koreans, most of them under the age of twenty. Among them was the entire Cuban national youth fencing team, fresh from sweeping the gold medals at the Central American and Caribbean Championships ²¹. But also on board were eleven Guyanese passengers ^{21 22}. Several of them were teenagers, young scholarship recipients travelling to Havana to study medicine—their scholarships the direct, proud fruit of the 1972 normalization of relations ^{22 23}. Another was the young wife of a Guyanese diplomat ²².

Nine minutes after taking off from its stopover at Seawell Airport in Barbados, two bombs exploded on board ^{21 22}. The explosives, planted by two Venezuelan men who later confessed to acting under the direction of the CIA-linked anti-Castro militants Orlando Bosch and Luis Posada Carriles, tore through the cabin of the Douglas DC-8 ^{21 24 25}. As the cabin filled with smoke and fire, the captain, Wilfredo Pérez Pérez, radioed his final, desperate transmission: “We have an explosion aboard… We have fire on board! We are requesting immediate landing!” ^{21 22}. In a final act of heroism, realizing he could not reach the runway, the pilot steered the burning Douglas DC-8 away from the crowded Barbadian beaches and into the Caribbean Sea ^{21 22}. There were no survivors ²¹.

The bombing of Flight 455 was the deadliest act of aviation terrorism in the Western Hemisphere to that date, but it was not an isolated tragedy ²¹. It was the bloody climax of a coordinated campaign of terror waged by CORU (Coordination of United Revolutionary Organizations), an umbrella group of exile extremists who sought to punish any Caribbean nation that dared to breach the diplomatic blockade of Cuba ^{21 24}. Just one month prior, on September 1, 1976, a bomb had ripped through the Guyanese Embassy in Port of Spain, Trinidad ^{24 26}. Shortly before that, a “mysterious fire” in Georgetown destroyed a large cache of Cuban-supplied fishing equipment ²¹. Declassified intelligence documents later revealed that the CIA had concrete advance intelligence of these plots as early as June of that year but did nothing to warn the regional governments ^{21 25}.

When we tell the story of the Burnham years, we must place the bodies of those five Guyanese medical students alongside the empty flour bins. The tragedy of Flight 455 was not a separate chapter; it was the same chapter. The same independent posture that cost Guyanese its place at the American wheat table—the relationship that, through the Findley Amendment, began starving the flour mill years before any local minister signed a ban—was a path walked in full knowledge of its mortal danger. A small, poor nation had asserted its right to define its own friends, and in response, its children were blown out of the sky.

The ban itself, when it finally came, was the last link in this chain—not the first.

The formal prohibition on wheaten flour arrived in 1982, by which time the economy was in free fall and the foreign exchange to buy wheat at market prices had all but evaporated ^{19 20}. The mill that had once hummed on subsidized American grain fell to a skeleton staff ³. There were experiments with rice flour that failed for want of gluten ³. The ban was lifted only in 1986, when the newly installed administration of President Desmond Hoyte renegotiated a new PL 480 agreement with Washington ^{3 20}—which tells us everything about what the ban truly was. It was not an ideology. It was a foreign-exchange crisis wearing the costume of policy, and that crisis had a long genealogy reaching back to a refueling tarmac, a punitive clause in an American statute, and a campaign of terror that claimed the lives of our youth.

None of this erases the suffering. Families did go without. I know, I grew up then. One of my most favorite memories of childhood is baking bread with my grandmother. The hardship fell heavily, and it fell on real people who were owed an explanation their leaders never adequately gave. To say the ban hurt one community is true; the historical record is equally clear that it hurt every community—African, Indian, Amerindian, Chinese, and Portuguese alike. But to say the ban was conceived as an instrument of ethnic punishment is to mistake the visible wound for the hidden blade. The blade was geopolitical. It was forged in Washington and sharpened on the principle that a nation’s daily bread, and the lives of its children, could be made hostage to its foreign policy. Guyana paid that price because Guyana chose, at a decisive moment, to stand where braver conscience required it to stand.

When we tell the story of the Burnham years, we must place the bodies of those five Guyanese medical students alongside the empty flour bags. The tragedy of Flight 455 is not a separate chapter; it was the same chapter.

Which raises the question this essay has been circling from its first line: where has that courage gone?

We were once a nation that paid for its principles in flour, and in the lives of its young scholars. I ask, with genuine pain: what do we pay for our silence in now?

Cuba is being slowly strangled. The embargo that Guyana once defied—at the cost of its bread and its blood—has tightened across the decades into something that now reaches the clinic, the pharmacy, the power grid, and the ordinary table ²⁷. One may hold every ideological disagreement with Havana and still recognize that the immiseration of eleven million people is a humanitarian question before it is a political one ²⁸. In early 2026, the humanitarian crisis in Cuba reached a tipping point as the United States designated the island an “unusual and extraordinary threat,” imposing a strict oil blockade that has choked off fuel supplies, paralyzed the electrical grid, and crippled hospitals ^{28 29}.

And yet today, scan the region from end to end, and you will find a quiet compliance that borders on complicity. In Guyana, this silence has taken a concrete, painful form. In early 2026, after nearly five decades of continuous service—a program that began in 1978 and helped rescue Guyana’s healthcare system—the Cuban Medical Brigade was withdrawn. Georgetown framed the departure as Havana’s own decision, taken amid a dispute over how the doctors were paid; civil society organizations, citing the recent visit of the U.S. Secretary of State, called it a capitulation to Washington dressed as a procedural disagreement. Whichever account one credits, the result is the same: more than two hundred Cuban doctors left a country their predecessors had served since 1978 ^{30 31}. What Georgetown has not offered, in either case, is a word in defense of Cuba itself—no public objection to the departure of the doctors, no statement on the humanitarian oil blockade now choking its historic ally ³⁰. The voices that once spoke—that once acted, that once risked the wrath of empire over a refueling stop—have gone quiet.

Here is the bitter mathematics of it, and it has the shape of an inversion. The resource that was supposed to enlarge Guyana’s freedom has narrowed her moral range of motion. When we were poor—flour-poor, currency-poor, dependent on the goodwill of others for our very bread—we could still refuel the planes. We could still choose principle over provision and absorb the cost, even when that cost was paid in the grief of families whose children never made it to medical school. Now that we are rich, now that the oil flows and the reserves swell and the GDP charts ascend, we cannot summon a single sentence of moral courage on behalf of a strangled neighbor. Scarcity, it turns out, produced boldness. Abundance has produced caution.

This is the paradox the development economists do not put in their models. Sovereignty is not measured only in barrels. A nation can grow wealthier and freer in every material register while its moral aperture closes, because wealth creates the very thing courage despises: something to lose. The poor nation that owes nothing to no one can speak its conscience without calculation. The rich nation, suddenly possessed of contracts to protect, investors to please, and patrons to flatter, learns the disciplining grammar of optionality—the art of saying nothing that might cost anything. We have traded the freedom of having little for the bondage of having much ³⁰.

And so we arrive, as these essays must, at ourselves.

The courage to stand on principle has been drained from us. I do not exempt myself from the indictment; the “we” in this sentence includes me, the man writing it, and the diaspora he writes from. We watch the slow strangulation of a people who, fifty years ago, our grandfathers’ government deemed worth defending against the explicit threat of force—and we say nothing, and we tell ourselves that prudence is the same thing as wisdom. It is not. Prudence that never once risks anything is merely fear that has learned to dress well ²⁸.

There is a generation of Guyanese now coming into a country transformed by oil, and they will inherit not only its wealth but its silences. They will inherit the question of what kind of nation abundance makes. Will it make a nation that mistakes a full treasury for a clear conscience? Or will it make a nation that remembers—actually remembers, in the marrow and not merely in the museum—that it once chose to feed the liberation of a continent while its own people went without bread?

Now that we are rich, now that the oil flows and the reserves swell and the GDP charts ascend, we cannot summon a single sentence of moral courage on behalf of a strangled neighbor. Scarcity, it turns out, produced boldness. Abundance has produced caution.

The project before us is nothing less than the recovery of a moral imagination commensurate with our new material wealth—a refusal to let the resource that was meant to widen our freedom quietly narrow our range of motion. The flour came back in 1986. The question is whether our sovereignty did. We must ask ourselves, plainly, amidst our newfound comfort and splendor, what it will take to bring bring the courage back home. Independence Day Blessings to you all. Be well.

Be well.

---

References

1. U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), “A Short History of U.S. International Food Assistance”. 2009-2017.state.gov
2. U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, “Public Law 480 Legislation (7 U.S.C. 1691)”. agriculture.senate.gov
3. National Milling Company of Guyana (NAMILCO), “Company History & Profile”. namilco.com
4. Burton Gajadar, “Economic Adjustment Programmes and the Export Sector of Guyana 1962-83” (University of Liverpool, 1989). livrepository.liverpool.ac.uk
5. U.S. Department of State, “Foreign Relations of the United States (FRUS), 1969–1976, Volume XV, Document 176”. history.state.gov
6. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), “Twelve Years of Achievement Under Public Law 480” (Economic Research Service, 1967). esmis.nal.usda.gov
7. Sir Ronald Sanders, “1972: How Four Caribbean Countries Led the Collapse of the Cuban Embargo in the Americas” (Antillean Media Group, 2014). antillean.org
8. Caribbean Community (CARICOM) Secretariat, “Statement on the Anniversary of CARICOM-Cuba Relations”. caricom.org
9. U.S. Department of State, “FRUS, 1969–1976, Volume E–11, Part 1, Documents on Guyana (1973–1976)”. history.state.gov
10. U.S. Department of State, “Telegram 806 from Embassy in Guyana: Guyana’s Growing Ties with Cuba” (June 2, 1975). history.state.gov
11. Gabriel García Márquez, “Operation Carlota: Cuba’s Intervention in Angola” (New Left Review, 1977). newleftreview.org
12. U.S. Department of State, “Telegram 2135 from Embassy in Barbados: Refueling Stops by Cuban Planes” (December 1975). history.state.gov
13. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), “Cuba’s Expanding Civil Aviation Web and the Angola Airlift” (Declassified Intelligence Report). cia.gov
14. U.S. Library of Congress, “Guyana: Relations with the United States” (Country Studies). countrystudies.us
15. National Security Archive, “Kissinger Considered Attack on Cuba Following Angola Incursion” (George Washington University, 2014). nsarchive2.gwu.edu
16. Peeping Tom, “Burnham Was Sincere About the Anti-Apartheid Struggle” (Kaieteur News, May 12, 2013). kaieteurnewsonline.com
17. U.S. Department of State, “Telegram 2172 from Embassy in Guyana: Transit Facilities for Cuban Military Flights” (December 22, 1975). history.state.gov
18. U.S. Department of State, “Telegram 751 from Embassy in Guyana: Discussion with Foreign Minister Fred Wills” (April 15, 1976). history.state.gov
19. The New York Times, “Guyana’s Economy in a Severe Crisis” (October 3, 1982). nytimes.com
20. U.S. Department of State, “U.S. Relations with Guyana” (Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs). 2009-2017.state.gov
21. Wikipedia, “Cubana de Aviación Flight 455”. en.wikipedia.org
22. Guyana Graphic, “Today is the 34th Anniversary of the murder of 11 Guyanese in an act of terrorism” (October 6, 2010). guyanagraphic.com
23. Guyana Graphic, “38th Anniversary of the terrorist attack on Cubana Airline Flight CU-455” (with names of the Guyanese victims and scholarship details), October 6, 2014. mail.guyanagraphic.com
24. National Security Archive, “Documents Linked to Cuban Exile Luis Posada Highlighted Targets for Terrorism” (George Washington University, May 3, 2007). nsarchive2.gwu.edu
25. U.S. Department of State, “FRUS, 1969–1976, Volume E–11, Part 1, Document 322: Allegations of U.S. Involvement in Cubana Airliner Crash” (October 22, 1976). history.state.gov
26. Guyana Graphic, “Today is the 34th Anniversary of the murder of 11 Guyanese in an act of terrorism” (citing declassified FBI and National Security Archive records on CORU’s attacks, including the Guyanese Embassy in Trinidad), October 6, 2010. guyanagraphic.com
27. UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), “UN experts condemn US executive order imposing fuel blockade on Cuba” (Geneva, February 12, 2026). ohchr.org
28. Alicia Nicholls, “Cuba and the Moral Cost of Silence” (Caribbean Trade Law and Development, February 7, 2026). caribbeantradelaw.com
29. The White House, “Presidential Action: Addressing Threats to the United States by the Government of Cuba” (January 29, 2026). whitehouse.gov
30. Gerald A. Perreira, “Turning Its Back on Cuba: Government of Guyana Sells Its Soul” (Black Agenda Report, February 25, 2026). blackagendareport.com
31. Associated Press, “Cuban doctors to leave Guyana as US applies pressure over island’s medical missions” (March 9, 2026). usnews.com

---

Supported By

We are grateful for the partnership and support of individuals and organisations committed to advancing Guyanese and Caribbean development and human capital investment.

Individual Supporters
Courtney Allen | All Te Networks | Corine Locke | Tony Harris | Roderick Alsopp | Dr. Michelle Luard | Clarence Bone

🇬🇾 Please support the Guyana Business Journal & Magazine today