A FOREIGN-BASED Guyanese, Dr. Janet Bulkan, living in British Columbia in Canada, has appealed to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) to intervene to stop oil production in Guyana. I am not aware when she made her appearance, Ms. Bulkan had any status in Guyana in relation to the following:

1-There was no evidence that Ms. Bulkan had official university training in petroleum science.

2- Accumulated vast knowledge, through work experience, in the oil industry in any OPEC-or non-OPEC country.

3- Actually worked in the oil industry in Guyana.

4-Belonged to an NGO with substantial numbers of members consisting of people in various careers such as human rights, journalism, academia, etc.

5-Had consulted a cross-section of the Guyanese nation and thus was armed with a petition.

Ms. Bulkan never reported on the outcome of her pleadings but she got widespread publicity in the Kaieteur News (KN) and Stabroek News (SN). It doesn’t appear that she was taken seriously because Guyana is becoming a middle-income country because of its petroleum industry. Commonsense would tell anyone why would an important inter-governmental body like the IACHR take Ms. Bulkan seriously?

Was it a publicity-seeking venture? Since Guyana discovered oil, a plethora of “oil experts” have emerged in this country, critical of Guyana’s reliance on the industry but they have not swayed the Guyanese nation nor any other government or global organisation in the entire world. In the meantime, oil revenues as Professor Clive Thomas, a heavy critic of the PPP government, has asserted should make a substantial contribution to the reduction of poverty.

As 2024 was born, the same two newspapers that gave colossal publicity to Ms. Bulkan have now gone down the identical road, this time the body is the Export-Import Bank of the Government of the United States. The Eximbank is a huge lender of money to projects in the Third World.

A lawyer by the name of Melinda Janki has written to the bank on behalf of her two clients, Vanda Radzik and Elizabeth Dean-Hughes. These three persons want the bank to stop its consideration of the loan of US$464 million for the gas-to-shore project.

Now let us envisage a situation when the lawyer’s letter is placed in front of the bank’s board of directors.

The first action of the bank is to do due diligence on Ms. Radzik and Ms. Hughes. So the following questions will have to be asked. Do these two ladies really think that the bank would just grasp at their suggestion?

1-What is the scientific training of these two ladies in the area of the petroleum industry? Have they written published papers or books and attended international conferences?
2-What experience these two ladies have in the area of the petroleum industry in their own country and other countries?

3-What is the work experience of these two ladies? Have they been employed for long periods with countries in their region or around the world? Have they worked with internationally recognised international organisations?

4-Do they have the backing of engineers, economists, academics, journalists, business investors, former judges, former security officers and the opposition parties in their own country?
5-Are they in possession of a petition signed by substantial numbers in the Guyanese community?

Commonsense should tell anyone that a powerful American agency would never even pay scant regard to the lawyer’s request if those questions are not answered by the two ladies and their lawyer. And is the bank going to listen to them without consulting the Government of Guyana and local investors such as the business NGOs?

Is this a repetition of the Bulkan comicality just to achieve publicity? The point is the publicity objective has been achieved because the two newspapers mentioned above have given these three ladies prominent coverage. I end with some personal knowledge of Guyana.

I have lived all my life in Guyana and my job is to study it both as an academic and media operative. I met Ms. Radzik in the early 1970s. I have no knowledge that she has ever been an employee in either the public realm or the private sector.

I am saying since I know Ms. Radzik from the 1970s, I have never known her to be working professionally in Guyana. I extend an apology if she can correct me and I implore for the sake of accountability if she can clear the air.

I never knew there was a social activist named Elizabeth Deane-Hughes until last year when she appeared in the KN and SN with her anti-oil crusade. I have never known Ms. Janki to have excelled in Guyana in the area of law and I have been around a long, long, long time in Guyana.