THE Guyana Human Rights Association (GHRA) recently issued a scathing and most surprising statement on the government for its decision to go ahead with the construction of the East Demerara Water Conservancy Northern Relief Channel.
In the statement to the media, the GHRA claimed that global warming needs national consultations, not a new canal.
It argued that the project presents formidable technical problems, is expensive and not the best solution and it called on the government to discontinue the project until a flood mitigation strategy is developed.
What is the motive behind such a statement by the association?
First of all, President Bharrat Jagdeo – more than two years ago – announced that the government, based on recommendations by engineering experts, will be embarking on the project so as to prevent or minimise flooding in the Mahaica/Mahaicony areas during heavy rainfall.
So why did the GHRA remain mum then and choose instead to spill venom when the project is about to start?
The association has made a bold but baseless assertion that the project presents formidable technical problems and is expensive.
But it has failed to produce one iota of evidence from engineering expertise to substantiate its claim.
Since when has the GHRA become an authority on engineering matters?
On the question of the project being expensive, the GHRA needs to be reminded that no investment is too expensive when it comes to preventing suffering by people, an issue that the GHRA, a human rights organisation, should be deeply concerned with.
Agriculture Minister Robert Persaud, commenting on the GHRA statement, noted: “And that is why it pains me, it pains our government, it pains the President, when we see people who claim to be concerned about human rights and people’s welfare…when they would have the audacity to say that we must not invest in better protecting you.”
“What it tells me is that they are not concerned about your human rights; they are not concerned about your welfare. As far as they are concerned, you can be flooded out forever. They don’t care about the alleviation of your suffering. They live in their fancy houses in Georgetown.”
It is apparent that the GHRA is more of a political anti-government front cloaked as a human rights body.
It is useful to note that when security officers shoot and wound/kill criminals, the GHRA promptly and stoutly condemns them for human rights violations but when criminals slaughter innocent people there is a deafening silence from the very GHRA.
Isn’t the GHRA aware of the tremendous suffering the people of Mahaica/Mahaicony and many villages along the East Coast Demerara endured for several months during the 2005-2006 flooding, which was our worst natural disaster?
Furthermore, the GHRA needs to be reminded that the construction of an outlet leading directly to the Atlantic Ocean was one of the medium term measures recommended by Dutch engineers Olaf Van Duin and Nisa Nurmohamed who came here under the auspices of the UN following the disastrous floods.
Therefore, it was not a case where the government got a brainwave from out of nowhere to construct this outlet.
And in any case, the project is backed by sound engineering studies and expertise.
The Mahaica/Mahaicony community is one of the breadbaskets of Guyana and the people there earn their livelihood primarily through agriculture enterprise.
As such, the government cannot sit back and just allow their suffering and financial losses to recur year after year when there is heavy rainfall.
It is its duty as a government to have all measures to avert or minimise the suffering of people. If it adopts any other course it will be failing in its duty.
But that is exactly the problem the government has been facing. It is ridiculed when it intervenes to address people’s problems. The Clico issue is a recent example prior to this GHRA diatribe of rhetoric.
It is clearly a situation of “damned if you do; damned if you don’t.”