FORMER President and Prime Minister, Samuel Hinds, has written a letter on the need for Guyana to welcome the oil revenues it is receiving. At a time when the two private newspapers that are shamelessly political in their journalism, are anti-oil and certain civil society Guyanese groups in and out of the country are anti-oil and are being given widespread latitude to condemn the government on everything the government does, it was brave for Mr. Hinds to publish his letter praising the oil revenues we are getting.

I was brought up in abject poverty in this country. I know what it is like to go hungry for years. I came out of poverty and reached the level of being a lecturer at Guyana’s only university. Those 26 years of teaching at UG was a miserable episode in my life. UG was bereft of everything except the grass on the parapet. After the death of Burnham things began to improve and we could now have printing paper at UG.

President Hoyte began to change the statist nature of the economy and sought foreign investors of which 3 stood out, GTT, Omai, Barama. In all three situations, the foreign investors were no fools. They did political risk management analysis and they knew Guyana was a country that desperately needed foreign-based capital.
All three investors bargained with the Hoyte Government to their advantage. The Hoyte administration needed the international political credibility that came with the injection of foreign capital. For a presentable account of the disadvantage the Hoyte Government faced in negotiations with foreign capital during the era of economic decline see the book, “Structural Adjustment and Good Governance: The case of Guyana,” by Tyron Ferguson.

The wealthiest multinational corporation in the world, ExxonMobil began to drill for oil in Guyana and found it. Before we move on, a reminder of what Vice-President Bharrat Jagdeo said publicly over Kaieteur Radio. He said the combined assets of all the commercial banks would not be even near the amount ExxonMobil has expended for oil production in Guyana.
In this context, let’s quote Mr. Hinds: “Exxon has had to look about a mile and a half through the water  to the bottom of the sea, and a further mile and a half into the rocks to the oil-bearing strata; and had the knowledge to now recover the oil from such a depth in such a location; and was able to accumulate, and riskily venture that money, the capital, to do it.

I would prefer to have my people feeling challenged, learning and knowing how these things are accomplished – it is in becoming knowledgeable and capable and accomplishing that we become empowered.  Also, when we know, it is easier for us to reach agreement and have satisfactory partnerships with others, and with less than a million people we Guyanese need to become good at making partnerships with others in this world of eight billion souls.”

This is a good presentation that the young people need to know about. We need the frequency of such outputs because they educate people and they offer a credible, intellectual and political counter to the propaganda and emotionalism of ignorant people.
I feel no restraint in using the word “ignorant” to describe two sets of attitudes to the production of oil in Guyana. One is that oil is detrimental to the climate and Guyana should stop it. The other is that it was a skewed contract and Guyana should demand renegotiations. I had contended in several columns that these pronouncements are by people who have no training in international political economy.

To understand why Guyana needs revenues from oil and should continue with it, one needs to understand international political economy. To understand why a small country like Guyana with hardly any latitude to manoeuvre in international affairs thus cannot make demands on EXXON, one has to understand international political economy. I have submitted that both sets of anti-oil groups are ignorant of international political economy.

I will offer three examples of how important it is to understand the lack of maneuverability of small states in international relations. One is that the WTO was created by the huge developed Western countries with a complete absence of CARICOM negotiators at the table. Two is the ongoing trade/financial/aid covenant between the former colonies and the European Union in which the pact between the two inevitably favours the EU. The third one is the impotence of the UN in global affairs since the committal of genocide in Gaza.

Those who cry for renegotiations are foolish people looking for publicity. Mr. Hinds is right. Guyana should be thankful for at last getting something from the world that we so long dreamt of but so long denied us. The colonial mentality comes in different guises.
DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Guyana National Newspapers Limited.