One would have thought that the government should have registered at least a smidgeon of embarrassment after what Lt-Col Jerry Slijngard of the Suriname Coast Guard was reported to have said last week, but then again, the administration at this stage of its incumbency is probably incapable of embarrassment. Following the latest confirmed case of piracy (another one is now suspected) where Guyanese fishermen were the victims of an attack by Guyanese pirates in Suriname waters, the Guyana authorities were publicly criticized by the officials of the neighbouring state over their inaction. As reported in de Ware Tijd, the Lt-Col said that Suriname had been sounding the alarm for over a year now, but that Guyana had never responded.
While for any other government this would have been a serious indictment warranting an immediate denial, the Guyana authorities had nothing to say – and indeed they shouldn’t have. Piracy is a problem which dates back many years, and while there have been periodic bursts of propaganda outlining measures to deal with it, there have been no very tangible results.
In the first of the cases this month, mentioned above, a boat carrying five fishermen was robbed by pirates and the crew then tossed into the water. The captain survived, one crew member died from drowning, and the other three are presumed dead. The stripped vessel eventually turned up adrift at Mahaica. In our edition yesterday, a report was carried on a Corentyne boat absent its catch that was found at the Whim foreshore. The crew is missing, and inevitably, given the history of the murder of fishermen on the high seas, there are well-founded fears for their safety.
The raw truth is that Suriname has been much more proactive against piracy than has Guyana, and consequently, has been much more successful in combating it. The reasons are not far to seek. Political will aside, a succession of Suriname governments has invested in the resources needed to make an impact on the problem. In the 1990s our eastern neighbour bought four fast patrol boats from Spain in addition to surveillance aircraft. It is true that piracy was not the only or perhaps even the primary reason for the purchase at the time, given the border dispute with Guyana; nevertheless, the vessels were used against pirates. This was at a time, it should be remembered, when the GDF had no boat at all, and on those occasions when it needed to go out on patrol it had to borrow a vessel.
In June this year, dWT reported that the Suriname government had allocated SRD80 million to put its Coast Guard in order. While the GDF has recently acquired vessels, the one which would have to respond to any emergency calls offshore Corentyne, where most of our artisanal fishing takes place, has its base at New Amsterdam. It is not an arrangement conducive to speed of response in an emergency.
In 2008, Guyana amended its piracy laws and passed the Hijacking and Piracy Act. It is a vast improvement on its predecessor, including in terms of the sentences which can be handed down, and it was noisily touted by the powers-that-be as a solution to piracy. The problem is, however, that if no one is caught, charged and convicted it will remain a dormant piece of legislation. Suriname too has some fairly draconian laws where this is concerned, but the difference is these are actually enforced. In fact, Guyanese pirates have appeared in a Paramaribo court and been handed long prison terms.
Both in terms of response, and the law enforcement and legal process, our fishermen see our eastern neighbour as far more effective than the Georgetown authorities. It is for this reason that there have been occasions when Guyanese fishermen have caught Guyanese pirates and then surrendered them to Suriname. The most recent case was a year ago, when a crew actually “subdued” a group of pirates by themselves, and then handed them over to the Suriname Coast Guard for prosecution. It caused something of a minor outcry here, but they justified their action in terms of the failure of the Guyana Government to respond to their urgent pleas for assistance.
In fairness, it is not that the government has done absolutely nothing at all; there are occasions when it has taken measures. However, when it has moved to do something there has not been any follow-through or an attempt to deal with all facets of the problem simultaneously. In 2008, the year when piracy was very much on the front burner, the administration allocated $15 million for the setting up of a communications system. A radio tower was built and there was a radio set to which the GDF allocated a channel, while the fishermen were asked to buy their own radios. At the time the Ministry of Agriculture was prepared to bring in radios which they were to sell at US$300 each, although what exactly happened to that scheme is unclear. All that can be said is that as things stand now, many members of the fishing community do not have sets. According to our story in today’s paper (see page 9), a radio set currently costs $100,000, which, it is said, many fishermen cannot afford.
It may be, however, that our fishermen will be obliged to install sets – albeit of a rather special kind – in their boats anyway, if they wish to continue fishing in Suriname – and even in Guyana. According to dWT Suriname will now require that each boat has a Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) before a fishing licence will be issued. Among other things, the vms is equipped with a panic button in the event of emergencies.
It seems too from a Ministry of Agriculture release issued at the end of last year that Guyana too will require that VMS should be installed on all Guyanese vessels. The primary reason seems to be to ensure that they are in compliance with the Harvest Control Rule – ie, that they are practising sustainable harvesting. This, of course, will also be a major concern for the Suriname authorities as well. The release said the devices comprise a GPS and satellite data transmitter providing information on the vessel’s name, location and activity, although whether like Suriname it will require a panic button is not known.
In the current situation, of course, it seems reasonable to suppose that Suriname’s capacity for ensuring compliance with the regulation is infinitely greater than that of Guyana, but either way, the VMS might make some kind of impact on the piracy problem – providing the law enforcement authorities here operate with rather more energy and integrity than they are accustomed to do, and provided more rational Coast Guard and other response arrangements are instituted. An additional problem in the view of Lt-Col Slijngard is that co-operation between the police forces of the two countries is inefficient; “We have to step up co-operation at all levels,” he was quoted as saying.
dWT also reported that the Lt-Col alleged there was proof of organized crime happening with the consent of local Guyanese officials. He could not understand, he was reported as saying, why the criminals [pirates] flee to Guyana and there are no consequences. Guyanese have a very good idea why this is so – but then that is another story.
