I believe it is an enigma that something so sweet as sugar could provoke such bitterness among folks within the Alliance for Change (AFC) and those who ‘also ran’.
Predictably and true to form, the AFC, desperately clinging to its electoral lifeline, reacted non-contextually to some recent headline news about King Sugar.

This President showed tremendous vision and leadership for the Caribbean when the Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) was proposed as the replacement for the decades-old EU preferential trade agreement vis-à-vis its surrogate of the trade chapters of the Cotonou Agreement, which is in force until 2020; this President stood up against the EU when his fellow CARICOM Heads behaved as wimps. It was this President who initiated a bold proposal about the EU price cut.

President Bharrat Jagdeo announced $300M for the 17-month severance pay to about 375 Diamond sugar workers. The President on May 9 this year, at Enmore, opened the US$12.5 million Project Gold, the new packaging plant that has the capacity to churn out 80,000 tonnes of packaged sugar annually. The sector expects to produce 300,000 tonnes of sugar at the end of 2011, and should this become a reality, Guyanese will see a turnaround in the sugar industry.
And the European Union (EU) will make $5.62 billion available to enhance competitiveness and viability of the sugar industry, and at the same time support agricultural diversification.
The AFC is now talking about diversification as if it is something stupendously novel; the Jagdeo Administration already is walking the walk on diversification which is now the in-thing in the agricultural sector, and for that matter, the entire economy. For this reason, the AFC, in now presenting the concept of diversification, is way behind in getting their act together.
The agriculture sector is being diversified, increasingly becoming competitive, and with a pointed focus on sustaining food security. Let me present a couple of examples. This year, the government allocated $1.5 billion to diversify the nontraditional sectors of fruits, vegetables, livestock, and aquaculture.
Then there was the initial funding agreement of Euros $5.6M in 2007 for executing Guyana’s National Action Plan on Accompanying Measures to lessen the impact of the European Union sugar price cuts, which was approved in February 2007 between Guyana and the European Commission, to improve the Enmore sugar factory; where improvements would include syrup clarification and filtration, flow control automation, and setting up supplementary pan capacity for producing lighter coloured sugars. The National Plan, a response to the erosion of the European trade preferences, includes value-added measures, such as refining sugar and brand packaging, expanding the energy sector, and improving raw material supplies to the rum industry.
For these reasons, the AFC’s erroneous allegation that King Sugar is declining is ill-conceived, since the AFC, habitually, does not contextualize its nefarious claims on several counts. The AFC fails to factor–in in its flawed conclusions:
(1) the global economic position that will certainly impact Guyana’s economic growth capacity;
(2) the adverse economic shocks that Guyana periodically experiences;
(3) vagaries of the weather;

(4) convoluted industrial relations practices;
(5) potential for managerial effectiveness and efficiency; and
(6) GuySuco’s Turnaround Plan. Nonetheless, King Sugar continues to face challenges, but it is certainly not declining.

Then on another front, the AFC seems to have a packed crowd of doomsayers, relentlessly engaging in ‘after-the-fact’ searching and fine-tooth combing, looking for some ‘evil needle’ in a haystack, in order to appropriate some blame on President Jagdeo and the PPP/C. This is infantile behaviour, as it is quite undemanding with hindsight to know all the answers and solutions to problems after-the-fact.
At this time, the AFC’s # 1 ‘evil needle’ is to apportion blame on Jagdeo for what the AFC erroneously perceives to be the fall of King Sugar; the AFC claims that the President was unable to make some strategic decision in a timely fashion some moons ago vis-à-vis the 1996 European Union Green paper and the 2000 Cotonou Agreement. A slick answer would be that Jagdeo was not President in 1996. But I would like to say more. Let me provide some facts to enable the AFC to reach an informed judgment.
This President showed tremendous vision and leadership for the Caribbean when the Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) was proposed as the replacement for the decades-old EU preferential trade agreement vis-à-vis its surrogate of the trade chapters of the Cotonou Agreement, which is in force until 2020; this President stood up against the EU when his fellow CARICOM Heads behaved as wimps. It was this President who initiated a bold proposal about the EU price cut.
In the UK Sunday Business in 2005, President Jagdeo expressed his concerns, thus: “The price cut should be delayed until 2008 and then spread over an eight-year transitional period, rather than three years starting from 2006.”
And some time ago, I explained this President’s push to secure amendments to the EPA, thus: “President Jagdeo and the Government of Guyana successfully extracted from the European Union’s concessions on two substantive Clauses. And so the EPA would now carry two appendicized clauses as a declaration, to speak to the deficiencies of the EPA, notwithstanding the inflexibility of the European Commission and minimum cooperation among CARICOM Heads.
Clause # 1: a 5-yearly review of the Economic Partnership Agreement to consider the socioeconomic impact on the Caribbean region and an obligation by the European Union to speak to the impact; to uncover which areas of the agreement and/or their implementation may require amendment.
Clause # 2: the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas to prevail in cases of conflict with the Economic Partnership Agreement; the notion here is to preserve the Caribbean regional integration process. And for those who conclude that these clauses are a face-saving device for this government, let me say that, indeed, they do not grasp the significance of a 5-year review, enabling CARIFORUM to correct any identified deficiency; and also these people may be indifferent toward the sanctity of regional integration.”
The AFC is a rookie in the game of politics; the AFC has no political and/or governmental work experience; the AFC constantly fails to contextualize the issues; the AFC is no third force; the AFC is way behind in getting its act together; and very soon, the AFC may become the ‘also ran’ in politics.