Dear Editor,
I write with reference to Kit Nascimento’s letter of Jan 5th titled, “Ram has displayed abysmal ignorance of how the President [Irfaan Ali] has to manage political priorities of our country” – and wish to comment as follows:
Mr. Nascimento mentioned “changed priorities” from the time of the 2020 election campaign [Candidate Ali had promised renegotiation] to today [Venezuela is doing some saber-rattling] – and therefore this gives justification for President Ali to take a firm position against Renegotiation of the Oil Contract. What is wrong with Nascimento’s reasoning/justification for No Renegotiation? There is an underlying assumption here by Nascimento that if Guyana’s leaders strategically opt not to renegotiate, the nation gets military protection from the U.S. govt. against Venezuela’s threatened aggression. On the other hand, if they demand Renegotiation, you will so upset the U.S. govt that it would not rise to protect Guyana in the event of Venezuela invading Guyana’s territory. If this is not what Nascimento has in mind, then he should explain his reference to “changed circumstances”/”changed priorities”. Is that how the U.S. govt works? Be easy, be nice to U.S. companies exploiting your mineral resources – and you will appease me to no end; and if your territory is attacked I will come to your aid.
Bloggers in the SN over the last four years – hundreds of blogs – have pushed this nonsensical reasoning. Let the lopsided contract stand – this is the only way Guyana (a small population of 800,000) – will get “protection” against Venezuelan aggression. Now a Public Relations’ giant in the form of Kit Nascimento is pushing this nonsense. It is nonsense. I ask Nascimento to cite a single case of U.S. govt colluding with U.S. companies to exploit small nations around the world in the last 50-years, at least since 1975, the year of Church Committee Hearings. Given Kit Nascimento’s argument/reasoning, how much in dollar value must Guyana lose/forego in a lopsided contract in the hope that Guyana gets military protection? One hundred billion dollars, two hundred billion dollars? Kit Nascimento dismisses the clause in the contract that provides for Renegotiation, “if both parties agree”. Then I ask him, what is the meaning of that clause?
I know a little about the former leaders of Guyana – Forbes Burnham, Cheddi Jagan. It is hard to imagine these leaders reading the contract and conclude: Oh, Exxon would never agree to renegotiate. Let’s join them, help them exploit our oil resources. Let’s show gratitude to them for the 14.5 barrels out of every 100, Guyana stands to get until all the resources are depleted. It is my view that had both Burnham and Jagan been alive today, either leader would have used every leverage at his disposal to coerce, if necessary, Exxon to agree to fix an egregiously lopsided contract – on which Guyana is losing over a $100 billion on 11 billion barrels of crude. Editor, I ask: What credibility does Kit Nascimento have? Isn’t he the same man who acted as a propaganda warrior in the good old days of Burnham’s dictatorship? Today he is in the same business – this time for President Irfaan Ali.
Sincerely,
Mike Persaud
