Dear Editor:
“YET whatever concerns Guyana may have about Venezuela’s border claims, Global Witness believes they do not justify Trotman’s signing of the 2016 Stabroek licence on the terms proposed. The deal was the largest in Guyanese history, and Trotman apparently rushed to sign it before the Liza 2 announcement despite soliciting advice from two experts who said he needed more information.” This is from the Global Witness Report.

If editor, this is not the height of arrogance and disrespect for the Guyanese people on the part of Global Witness, then I don’t know what is. This NGO is telling Guyana that whatever concerns we have about the Venezuela claim and its intricacies for the development of our oil and gas industry, should not be a priority over getting the most money we could from Exxon. Global Witness wants/wanted Guyana to ignore its concerns and just go for the most money it could get.  In my view this singular position taken by Global Witness should discredit anything this organisation has to say. It’s like telling your daughter look don’t rush to marry this man who truly loves you and has proven it in his actions over time; look at marrying the other guy next door who has lots of money and ignore his threats of violence and invasion of our home if we don’t sell him our house.

I hope our political parties despite their quest to form the government after March 2, will stand together in debunking this Global Witness nonsense being given such wide publicity.
Editor, allow me the space to debunk this preposterous position (quoted above) advanced by Global Witness, and I do so as someone who has closely followed and participated in numerous events that have analysed Venezuela’s internal politics, its relations with Guyana and the geopolitical landscape in relation to Guyana’s oil and gas discoveries. I am also doing so while in possession of some “usually reliable” intelligence gathered from key decision-makers in various places.

Global Witness speaks about a rush to sign an agreement. In my view that was necessary. Guyana needed first oil prior to the determination of its case at the International Court of Justice. This was just as necessary as it was necessary for then President Janet Jagan to award Exxon licences for 600 blocks, when the law provided for only 60 to be awarded. It was critical back then to ensure that Guyana had a major US company like Exxon committed to operating in our maritime space claimed by Venezuela, and we had to make it attractive for Exxon to commit to investing in Guyana. I don’t know whether Mrs. Jagan had in her possession at that time any “intelligence” about the possible actions of Venezuela regarding Guyana, but I would assume she did and was advised to act quickly to ensure an American presence in that maritime area.

It is also important to remind Guyanese that in 2015 when Presidents Granger and Maduro met with UN Secretary-General Ban Ki moon, Moon in his statement following the meeting spoke of developing the resources of the area for the mutual benefit of the two peoples. What exactly did he mean by that? The oil and gas are in Guyana’s maritime space and therefore the resource of the people of Guyana. This statement could not have been lost on President Granger and his team and I hope that it was based on the intelligence in its possession that the government rushed to sign an agreement with Exxon. Global Witness and its acolytes are claiming that Guyana will lose 55 billion US dollars, but it seems lost on them that we could have lost everything. Editor, your newspaper has published letters from me in the past about this issue, including one back in 2016 in which I stated that Guyana’s oil was being counted as part of Venezuela’s reserves by some leading Venezuelans in the US at a Council of the Americas forum. The so-called Venezuelan government in exile counts Guyana’s oil and gas as part of the resources of Venezuela it could use to launch an economic recovery programme if and when it gains office.

It is being argued by some that then President Burnham did not pursue investment in the oil and gas industry because he could not get a fair deal. As far as I know, that is not true. The technology available at that time for offshore exploration and drilling rendered such activity not feasible and therefore development of our oil and gas sector was put on hold. At that time the Venezuelan claim did not “loom too large” in this consideration, since Burnham and then Venezuelan president Carlos Andres Perez and by extension Guyana and Venezuela enjoyed very good if not excellent relations.

Another factor that must be taken into account is the geopolitical landscape and the role of oil and gas. The year 2016 saw the election of Donald Trump as president of the US. While the Guyana government may have signed the agreement with Exxon prior to Trump’s election, there was already a lot of speculation about the Trump/Putin relationship, much of which has since led to the impeachment of Trump. This is a president who excluded all Americans from an Oval Office meeting with the Russian Foreign Minister. It cannot be lost on anyone that Putin is a dear friend of Maduro and that there is significant Russian involvement in Venezuela today, including in its oil and gas industry.

It used to be that nations interacted with one Washington, DC in the past…now it’s two. One cannot predict Washington as easily as in the past. Allow me editor, to refer to one recent development which though it may look and sound far-fetched, may not be totally unrelated to the issue under discussion here. This has to do with the operations of the Russian-owned bauxite company operating in Guyana and the unilateral approach it has taken to dealing with its Guyanese workforce.

I hope the geopolitical strategists in Guyana and more so in government are analyzing the contemptuous behaviour on the part of this Russian company to determine whether its behaviour is not intended to provoke a situation that would serve as the occasion and not the cause for certain adjustments to the political/diplomatic relationship Russia currently maintains with Guyana and whether such adjustments may be linked to Russia/Venezuela relations in the context of Guyana’s growing oil discoveries. Further, such analysis may want to look into what might be the Trump position (as distinct from the US administration’s) on any possible Russia-inspired scenario that can have a negative impact on Guyana.

Regards
Wesley Kirton