Questions about the secretly negotiated deal which approved plans for a transoceanic waterway three times as long and twice as deep as the Panama Canal stand at the centre of a heated political quarrel over government transparency in Nicaragua. With an estimated budget of US$50 billion, the ambitious multiyear project would shift 4.5 billion cubic metres of earth – enough to bury Manhattan under 20 storeys of soil – threaten hundreds of species of local wildlife, and displace thousands of Nicaraguans from some of the country’s poorest areas.
Apart from environmental concerns, public debate has centred on whether the Hong Kong Nicaragua Canal Development Group (HKND) overseeing the project can deliver the necessary financing and complete what would be an unprecedented feat of engineering within such a short time. Local critics argue that the only outcome worse than a finished canal would be a half-finished one that exacted most of the ecological cost without providing any of the promised economic benefits.
Wang Jing, the billionaire at the eye of the storm, made his fortune in telecommunications. It is not yet clear what knowledge or expertise he brings to the project. In fact, his lack of relevant experience has prompted speculation that he may be a front for either the Chinese government or nefarious businessmen looking to launder ill-gotten profits. Others argue that the unrealistic construction timeline – less than a decade – is sufficient proof that the project is merely a pretext for developers to extract as much as they can from Nicaragua’s sovereign territory before abandoning their improbable task.
Despite reports of a ground-breaking breaking ceremony late last year, the project remains in its preparatory phases, leaving a small but critical window of opportunity for a campaign to stall or reverse the agreement on the grounds that the Ortega administrating reached with practically no public scrutiny. In addition to a series of popular demonstrations, local activists have produced handouts (with English translations, for tourists) explaining their concerns, and debated the issue in well-attended public events. The evident passions at such gatherings clearly give the lie to government claims that the HKND deal has been sufficiently vetted and garners solid public support in opinion polls.
The calm, effective way in which the issue has been aired and disputed is an encouraging sign that Nicaragua’s civil society has made genuine progress since the 1980s. But the larger lesson of the current fiasco is that governments often get away with badly negotiated or poorly understood development agreements because the public rarely understands what is at stake. Nicaragua’s belated campaigns to stir up public opinion on this issue show how difficult it can be to explain a complex project to a public that has not received the facts necessary for an informed judgement. Despite growing scepticism about the true aims of the developers, and the likelihood of the project’s success, it remains an open question whether the canal will proceed to the next stage.
Guyanese know too well how often, and how effectively, foreign companies have inked questionable deals or won outsize concessions with local bureaucrats who appear incompetent, corrupt, or both. Nicaragua’s canal controversy highlights a related danger — that when a lack of transparency is revealed, it is often too late to rectify flawed agreements. This ought to remind us that it is not enough to blame the usual suspects when bad faith like this comes to light. It is up to us to ensure that comparable deals in our own societies don’t escape notice until it is too late.
