I AM accusing one of the most vocal members of the anti-oil lobby, Ms Vanda Radzik-Veira (VRV) of lacking trustworthiness during her one-minute interview (yes one minute with the host of HARDtalk that featured a documentary on the oil industry).

My advice to readers is when a columnist quotes someone it is possible that quote can be misleading.
Please don’t take my word for it. It will take you seconds to find the edition of HARDtalk, and a few more seconds to find the interview with Ms. Radzik-Veira. Listen to the words that came out of her mouth when the interviewer asked her about her alternative (the word of the host, Stephen Sackur) to oil production.

It will take you seconds to go to Google and type in the following words “Stabroek News (SN), November 13, 2022” and read the words in the letter section that VRV wrote; they are completely different from what she told Mr. Sackur.
I have stressed the point ad nauseam that the critics of the government fail to gain traction in their crusades because credibility issues arise and the Guyanese people are no fools. They know when people want to lead them astray.

Here is VRV in her own words in SN, Nov. 13, 2020. I quote: “We are deeply concerned that the government’s policy to pursue economic development based on oil and gas is bad for Guyana. Oil and gas production are an existential threat to Guyana.

We cannot support government’s policy to produce oil and gas when every ton of greenhouse gas pollution cause (sic) loss of life in African countries. In light of the above we call for a national moratorium on all petroleum operations in Guyana – offshore and onshore.”

Here is the question, Mr. Sacker put to VRV. “What is your alternative suggestion? The government just simply walks away from the tens of billions of dollars income, simply doesn’t allow for that gas and oil to be exploited.”
Now, I advise readers to digest her answer then juxtapose with her letter in the SN.

Here is VRV’s response to Mr. Sackur’s question: “Well there is a spectrum. At one end of the spectrum, you have people who say leave the oil in the ground. At the other end of the spectrum are those that say renegotiate the contract and let us get the best deal.”

She didn’t tell Mr Sackur what her opinion is. She simply told the man what are the two opinions out there. But he didn’t ask for that. He asked for her alternative suggestion. And her alternative suggestion is contained in black and white for all to see. Now after reading this, you are compelled to ask why she avoided telling Mr. Sackur about the moratorium she and others of her ilk demanded.

The avoidance of telling Mr. Sackur that oil production should cease is the identical reason why some anonymous folks took out full page advertisements for three consecutive days denouncing the oil industry when the oil conference was on in February. One placement boldly shouted out: “Oil is not Guyana’s future.” What is the reason for the VRV’s avoidance and the anonymous advertisements?

You are going to be laughed at if at any corner of this country you tell people, oil is bad for Guyana so stop oil production and leave it in the ground. They are going to both laugh and get angry. Guyanese want oil income. They may disagree on how much should go to them. They may disagree on how the government should spend it.

But they boast of petro dollars. They boast that Guyana now have it good. They boast that Guyana is now a shining star in the CARICOM family.
It is definitely for this reason VRV studiously avoided giving Mr. Sackur her answer and this explained why the anonymous names and faces will remain invisible.

The people of Guyana are elated we are now an oil economy and they want that oil money. They will not support the advocacy of some well-endowed middle-class activists that say leave the oil in the ground. As assured as night follows day, Guyanese are happy that country is an oil exporting nation.

In another column I will look at how Western institutions do research on the Third World. With due respect to VRV, she is not an environmentalist and has no academic publication on oil. Professor Clive Thomas writes constantly on oil. Why was he not interviewed? Why weren’t the leaders of the Private Sector Commission not interviewed? By what research logic was the minute given to VRV and not Joel Bhagwandin? I end with a perennial question – who speaks for the Guyanese people?