Dear Editor,
The Guyana Times article which questions the credentials of Dr Janette Bulkan is out of order. It makes no sense whatsoever to call into question Janette Bulkan’s patriotism and her scholarship, since both are beyond reproach. This is evident beyond the shadow of a doubt to anyone worth their salt who knows her and, as I have done, witnessed the years of selfless service she has given to Guyana as an academic, as a researcher and as a teacher including her pioneering work reflecting on and documenting the traditional knowledge practices and lifestyles of the Indigenous Peoples of Guyana as a qualified anthropologist.

She has now earned her doctorate from the prestigious Yale University’s School of Forestry. Her knowledge and understanding of key principles of forestry is, therefore, surely beyond question.  She was invited by the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility to serve on a Technical Advisory Panel (TAP) to review the Suriname draft paper prepared for its REDD readiness preparation plan, which is still in its early stages. There is no justification for the Guyana Times journalist, or its editor or any government spokespersons to call into question her capability and her credibility in serving on this panel, since she is eminently qualified to do so. The mandate, as I understand it, anyway, for the TAP was to review the content of the Suriname plan, not the map per se, and anyway, she has already publicly objected to this map.

I was at the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility meeting in Washington in October 2009 when the controversial Suriname map with the Guyana territory included was displayed in the Suriname presentation. Dr Janette Bulkan was not present. The map displayed by Suriname is, regrettably, used by this sister territory as a norm and each time it is incumbent on Guyana’s representatives at all such sessions to point out the anomaly and make an appropriate statement of correction for the record. This was indeed done at the said Forest Carbon Partnership Facility meeting in question by Mr James Singh who was the head of the Guyana delegation to this meeting, as he has properly objected before at several other similar forums. (I recall some years ago desk diaries printed and distributed by the Caricom Secretariat to the Guyana parliamentarians had to be recalled because of the self-same offending map of Suriname displayed therein and objections raised by Parliament – but I do not think anyone condemned Caricom for wilfully abusing Guyana’s sovereignty or of charges of being unpatriotic laid at the door of Guyanese working in the Secretariat – based as it is in Guyana.)

The sub-text, however, to the criticism and the regrettable personal attacks contained in the related press article(s) lies in the fact that Dr Janette Bulkan is currently and publicly a sharp critic of some of the Guyana government’s practices in forestry and she has criticized the Guyana LCDS on a local and global scale with her views being given enormous coverage in the press and media. In the LCDS Steering Committee, a clear decision was taken to post all her commissioned articles and letters to the press and other comments on the LCDS website. This is as it should be. It is healthy to have critical views taken on board and to defend the right to air them.

I respect and admire Janette Bulkan and her integrity. Her opinion and her contributions have merit, they matter and they need to be part of the discourse, though I do not agree in large part with her criticisms and perspectives on the LCDS. But, this is no cause to demonise her. Just as there is no cause on the part of critics to demonise those who support and promote the LCDS. I do not support Mr Jagdeo’s party or its political culture, but I believe there is enormous merit in the LCDS and what it positively holds for sustaining Guyana’s environment and development and I appreciate Mr Jagdeo’s role in championing it and in gaining a positive status for Guyana in these climate change discussions.

Surely, we Guyanese, as citizens and as a nation, can agree to disagree civilly and to enable conversations that are unbiased and respectful of different views. The talk shows and the opposition press and media has not given enough air or space to those who have a positive and forward-looking view of the LCDS, which is still in its second draft and yet to be discussed at an independent civil society forum.  There needs to be room at the table for Dr Bulkan’s calling to task of the government for certain slippages between forest policies and practices, which she has studied, and other criticisms, as well as an appreciation of Mr Jagdeo’s vision and affirmation of a low carbon development path for Guyana. Both points of view have merit and neither requires or deserves to be dismissed out of hand, especially with the rancour that characterizes many of the press and media articles, regrettably, from both sides.

It is high time to for the press and the politicians and the letter writers to stop the immature portrayal of anyone who disagrees publicly with the government as being branded unpatriotic or as a political opponent and unfit commentator; likewise for anyone who finds favour with any government initiative to be likewise branded as being a government apologist, PPP supporter or an opportunist, etc. This is foolishness in the highest degree and it keeps our minds dim and blinkered, undermines our independence and broad-mindedness as citizens and weakens the opportunity for bi-partisan action or genuine consensus as a nation that ought to be proud of its diversity of people and opinions. Above all, it retards the possibility of a genuinely shared vision of development – with differences of opinion factored in.
The Moral Imagination – an excellent book on the art and soul of building peace with justice, defines the quality of ‘Constructive Change’ in this way: “The pursuit of shifting relationships from those defined by fear, mutual recrimination, and violence toward relations characterized by mutual respect and proactive engagement… and towards cycles of relational dignity and respectful engagement.”

Guyanese in and out of the country, in government and out would benefit from a good dose of this type of moral imagination – so as to free us of endless recrimination and petty personal attacks, so as to render us better capable of constructive engagement on all sides and on all matters.  For my part, I live in hope and hope to make the required effort in concert with other citizens to participate in a national conversation where Dr Janette Bulkan, President Bharrat Jagdeo, Commissioners of Forests and Mines, Indigenous and other forest dependent peoples, women and youth, small and big business people, environmentalists, scientists and teachers, farmers and housewives, schoolchildren, university students and any politicians who may be willing and able to listen rather than proselytize, all of these and more, to actively listen to each other, allow for acceptance and change of point of view where valid, and help to steer the country forward sensibly and collectively.

From both sides of this sadly divided political landscape I live in the hope of witnessing genuine constructive change: A demonstration of greater good will and willingness to bring on board the opposing and the assenting views to better shape and support this one land we call our own, Guyana, and this one Earth we call our world.

Yours faithfully,
Vanda Radzik