The Sunday Stabroek editorial of January 24, 2010, which is riddled with inaccuracies and misleading information, has prompted a response from the Ministry of Agriculture. The issues, which have been subject to public discussion within recent days, are very straightforward matters and ought not to be manipulated in the manner in which the Sunday Stabroek editorial chose to do.
A few examples below will clearly highlight Stabroek News’s infantile attempt to defend Bulkan and continue to display irresponsible journalism.
1. Sunday Stabroek stated in the editorial that Minister Robert Persaud requested a complete review of the World Bank criteria for the selection of such experts. It conveniently omitted the already publicized fact that this call was made not only by Guyana, but also by many other delegations which openly criticized the World Bank for being secretive in its selection of experts. In many cases, recruiting “experts” who are not familiar with the specific country’s situation, were often very unjustifiably critical of that country and so could not be expected to undertake an objective review. SN deliberately left out this information to give the impression that Bulkan alone was being singled out.
2. SN also tried to give the impression that Bulkan should not be faulted for her failure to object to the use of the objectionable map by Suriname. It further tried to hoodwink the public by saying that the GFC Commissioner was being presumptuous when he stated that Bulkan would have seen the map in the draft Suriname RPP, even if she was not present at the October 2009 WB meeting. This is misguided journalism. The GFC stated very clearly that Bulkan was one of the reviewers of Suriname’s RPP. If Sunday Stabroek did some very basic investigation, it would have recognized that one role of the Technical Advisory Panel (TAP) was to review the RPP for accuracy and credibility, amongst other factors. The editorial would have also recognized that one of the purposes of the RPP was to show how a country planned to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation and to look at the potential financial and other benefits to be derived from doing this. Paramount in these attempts to reduce emissions and gain financial incentives would be the amount of forest cover that a country has; this would obviously have to be substantiated by a map. In addition, the draft RPP is on the World Bank’s website and clearly includes the objectionable map. It has also been clearly established that Bulkan did not raise any objections to the use of this map by Suriname.
3. Bulkan, if she did a proper review, simply could not have overlooked the fact that the map in Suriname’s RPP included sovereign Guyanese territory. I can only attribute her not objecting to the fact that she did not do her review properly and therefore, did not adequately fulfil her obligations to the World Bank.
4. The Sunday editorial then crudely states, “since when did the government delegate its responsibilities for foreign affairs to private citizens?” The Government of Guyana has not delegated that responsibility but expects that any patriotic Guyanese would be offended at this insult to Guyana’s territorial integrity. Again, even if Bulkan did not want to object as a private citizen, she was duty bound as a paid consultant to the World Bank, to identify this glaring atrocity.
5. The fact that Bulkan’s articles are riddled with inaccuracies has been exposed on numerous occasions by the GFC and by other independent writers. One recent example was during this same month when Bulkan called for the government to institute a complete log ban.
Yet, it was the same Bulkan who had written to the Minister of Agriculture in 2007, stating that a log ban was not the way to go; rather, she strongly advocated the introduction of a variable tax (export commission).
6. In January 2010, Bulkan stated that Barama was not paying export commission on logs with the exception of greenheart. Yet, the GFC has indicated publicly that Barama is paying the export commission on all species of logs exported, in accordance with the national log export policy.
7. Bulkan has also continuously made allegations about the illegal rental of forest concessions and transfer pricing without providing a shred of evidence. GFC has consistently clarified that there is any illegal rental arrangement. Again, based on real documented and available communication with overseas trade counterparts GFC has exposed that Bulkan’s misguided accusations of transfer pricing are simply a figment of her imagination.
8. The statement that the GFC Head has been responsive to political perceptions is ridiculously misplaced. As the head of a government agency, the Commissioner has an obligation to defend the territorial integrity of Guyana; further, that is an obligation that every patriotic Guyanese must discharge, irrespective of position, ethnicity, religion, or political affiliation.
9. Any responsible media entity needs to do proper investigation and examine all angles of a matter before commenting.
Had the Sunday Stabroek done this, the Ministry of Agriculture would have enlightened them that this matter was brought to the ministry and cabinet’s attention by Minister Persaud and it is currently being addressed via the right protocols.
10.The Government of Guyana has never been in receipt of a request by Bulkan for employment. For Stabroek News’s benefit, it must be pointed out that Bulkan was employed for several years by the Iwokrama Centre and was once the Chairperson of the unsuccessful Guyana National Initiative on Forest Certification.
The Ministry of Agriculture has consistently provided facts/clarifications regarding the numerous misconceptions and misleading writings of Ms Bulkan’s and the recent unpatriotic acts towards sovereign Guyanese territory, which must be denounced by all civil minded Guyanese.
Yours faithfully,
Lennox Wilson
Technical Officer
Ministry of Agriculture
Editor’s note
1. With respect to the World Bank’s criteria for the selection of personnel, the issue is not what other countries want, but what Minister Persaud intended in his letter when he asked for a review of those criteria. In the report of his letter published elsewhere in the press – which was the basis of the editorial – this is not indicated, hence the question in the leader as to whether he was suggesting that “World Bank advisors undergo patriotism tests.” He is the one, after all, who raised the question of patriotism in his letter to the WB.
2. At no time did the editorial use the word “presumptuous” in relation to GFC Commissioner James Singh. In reference to his claim that even if Dr Bulkan had not been at the October meeting, she would have seen the map, the editorial said: “There are a lot of presumptions here.”
Those presumptions were firstly, that she saw the map, secondly, that if she did see it she noticed the territorial addition, and thirdly, that she did not register any complaint.
3. We repeat again, that it is first and foremost the duty of the Government of Guyana through its Ministry of Foreign Affairs to protect the country’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. Since this meeting took place in October, there has been no press release from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs stating that an official protest had been made to the World Bank and the Foreign Ministry of Suriname (as opposed to the letter from the Minister of Agriculture), and if they had wanted it to be a strong protest, they would have called in the Ambassador of Suriname. If the matter of the map is only now “(currently) being addressed via the right protocols,” what on earth has the Government of Guyana been doing in the intervening months?
