Dear Editor,
I am angry. I am appalled. I still must manage this delicate and temperate offering that I lay before my fellow American, Ambassador Sarah-Ann Lynch. I go to the lengths of using Excellency Lynch’s own words, as publicly expressed. I begin on April 10, 2019, compliments of Stabroek News, with her official remarks.
The leadoff paragraph in SN reads as follows: “The United States acknowledges that it is within Guyana’s right to renegotiate the controversial Production Sharing Agreement (PSA) between the country and ExxonMobil…if it so chooses…” US Ambassador to Guyana, Sarah-Ann Lynch says. I took the liberty of quoting those as the words of Ambassador Lynch. My regrets, if they are not. However, what SN went on to quote from Ambassador Lynch leaves no room for doubt on this boiling, overflowing, consuming issue of contract renegotiation. The imperatives embedded in the substance of her words are unmistakable, compelling in their power: “We certainly believe that Guyana is a sovereign country so that would be for Guyana to work out with the private sector to see if there is room for renegotiation. We certainly won’t interfere with that.” I thank Ambassador Lynch for being very clear on that official US Government position re the ExxonMobil-Guyana oil contract.
This is what I expect from my fellow Americans, this is the American Way broadcast the world over, held out as the best there is, and by untouchable lengths. Now, nearly four short years later, the American tune changes; it is neither pretty, nor pleasing. Now, in March 2023, America, through the overextended, ubiquitous, and omnipotent Ambassador Lynch, is talking from the other side of its mouth. Her Excellency’s own words again, on the same ExxonMobil-Guyana oil contract, this epitome of deformity: “Since first oil, Guyana’s political leaders have honoured contractual commitments and continue to do so. This signals the importance of sanctity of contract -which is foundational to any economy and particular Guyana as it continues to transform at a record pace” (SN March 19).
The American Government and Ambassador Lynch may congratulate themselves for speaking in the taut, intricate language of diplomacy. But those two sentences and 26 words are blindingly clear. Contractual commitments are paramount. Contract sanctity is inviolable and invincible; hence, its essences must be untouchable and unsurpassed in every sense of its existence. If that sounds like advocacy, it is. For that was precisely what, and nothing else, that American Ambassador Lynch was saying, stood for, made sure that all Guyanese understood. I discern the American Ambassador rallying to the side and cause of America’s ExxonMobil, with the full weight and power of the American Government behind her. And if that is not interference (“we certainly won’t interfere”), then where is Guyana today?
Editor, today, there is this jarring, disturbing instance of the forked tongues of Americans (clashing, shameless contradiction), when other people’s wealth is involved. I humbly ask Ambassador Lynch: what happened to that April 10, 2019, American belief about Guyana as “a sovereign country” and “for Guyana to work out…if there is room for renegotiation.” Why is there this walking back, this eating of words, in March 2023, Ambassador? Did Guyana relinquish its sovereignty and accompanying rights? Did ExxonMobil (and America) abrogate those rights, and arrogate onto themselves the noble conclusions about what is best for this country? That is, sanctity of contract, or else? In this milieu of inconsistency and insidiousness, I search for the so-called virtuous American Standard, the immaculate American idealism, on which I was so long weaned. Ambassador Lynch: it is not there, none of any of those.
Now, I search for those on the side of Guyanese in this dispute, this controversy, this war over the ExxonMobil-Guyana contract. It is not President Ali, not the Vice President. Both feel warm and loved by being in the company of such powerful, upstanding foreigners. Like Ambassador Lynch representing her government and her people’s interests with dazzling aplomb and intricate skill. Guyanese are on their own. But there is one more ingredient in Ambassador Lynch’s carefully chosen words that raises hackles, gives rise to ire. It is that “sanctity of contract… is foundational to any economy and particular Guyana…” Statement of fact and incontestable reality, indeed. But, I sense a threat of subtlest proportions, an existential one for Guyana.
Tamper with sanctity of contract and transformation and record pace could grind to a halt. Guyanese have lived with this before, thanks to America and its handpicked leaders here. These are the shifting sands of American interests writ large: what is good for ExxonMobil is good for America. To hell with Guyana’s sovereignty and that parable about “room for renegotiation.” Sanctity of contract trumps national sovereignty, elected government, parliament, and all the sorry rest. Mess with sanctity at own risk.
Sincerely,
GHK Lall