Author: Christopher Ram

Dear Editor,

I have to confess to some impatience at having to correct, once again, some of the disinformation being peddled by Mr. Joel Bhagwandin. Instead of taking stock of how he embarrasses himself, he continues to show reckless indifference, as if it was a badge of honour.

Two months ago, he demonstrated his inability to differentiate between the date of the 2016 Petroleum Agreement and its execution date but persisted, despite being corrected. In yesterday’s Stabroek News (12/20/23), in his feeble attempt to respond to my letter in Stabroek News and Kaieteur News one day earlier, he confidently claims that the 2016 Petroleum Agreement “has an expiration date … and that expiration date is in October 2027”. That is dangerously misinformed and totally wrong.

What comes to an end in June 2027 – not October 2027 – is the Petroleum Prospecting Licence issued to Exxon, Hess and CNOOC. The Petroleum Agreement with those companies under which Prospecting and Production Licences are issued expire in year 2057, inclusive of the one-year COVID 19 force majeure approved by this Administration.

I suggest to the young man that he heed the cautionary advice offered by my friend Robin Singh in his letter appearing in the Stabroek News yesterday, alongside Mr. Bhagwandin’s. What Mr. Bhagwandin wrote would please Maduro who would then think, well, all I have to do is wait four years!

I sincerely hope that Guyanese do not fall for the continuous stream of disinformation emanating from Mr. Bhagwandin.

Christopher Ram

Dear Editor,

Following the Kaieteur News article featuring comments made by Mr Anil Nandlall, S.C. Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs on the use by Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro of “critical commentaries about Exxon in Guyana”, I messaged Mr. Nandlall and spoke with him about his comments and the not unreasonable inference that that statement could be interpreted as a threat of aiding and abetting the enemy. He offered his unequivocal assurance that no such interpretation was intended, and that as a lawyer, he would never suggest that commentators should feel themselves less than free to write.
Yesterday, following an interview with the usually accessible Mr. Nandlall, Stabroek News ran an editorial on the same issue. While that news outlet noted that he was more specific in the interview than in his earlier statement, the editorial did not mention any assurance about commentators’ right and duty to write.

I do not think that Mr. Nandlall needs to be reminded that the singular wish of all commentators is to get the best possible deal for the country and its people from our exhaustible petroleum resources. We do not criticise for its own sake, but to highlight the multitude of weaknesses in, and the egregiously poor oversight of the 2016 Petroleum Agreement. After years of tone deafness, commentators and the silent Guyanese are frustrated by the Government’s unwillingness to address any of the glaring deficiencies which result in serious loss of revenue to Guyana, each and every day.

More than just not wanting to muzzle commentaries, Mr. Nandlall should share their concerns, and let his superiors know that their ineffectiveness in the administration of the petroleum sector is the biggest part of the problem. More than mere bystanders, the Government operates as accomplices of Exxon which has a deservedly bad record of illegal and improper conduct – both internationally and locally.

As Attorney General, parliamentarian and a lawyer who has been involved in multiple constitutional cases, Mr. Nandlall should be more concerned than the average commentator that Guyana has ceded legislative sovereignty to Exxon for close to sixty years, or two generations of Guyanese. And that the Granger/Trotman gave to Exxon a second petroleum agreement which the law does not seem to permit.

As Minister of Legal Affairs, Mr. Nandlall should be concerned that that Exxon has siphoned off vast sums money received from investors, including Shell; that it blatantly padded pre-contract costs over and above what its audited financial statements of Exxon and those of its partners showed; that it unlawfully and improperly engaged a public official to write off the disallowance of a claim of US$211 million; and that while those financial statements are inconsistent and misleading, his colleague Minister of Natural Resources annually calls on the GRA to issue receipts for taxes which they do not pay.

As a citizen and leader, Mr. Nandlall should join the call for a Commission of Inquiry into the award of the 2016 Petroleum Agreement for which the Clyde & Co report provides compelling evidence. He should be offended that a top official of Exxon wrote the Cabinet Paper which led to that infamous Agreement. As a lawyer, he should use all his talent and the resources at his disposal to make the case for re-negotiation of the 2016 Agreement. And as a citizen, he should join his fellow citizens to make that happen.

I take this opportunity to advise Mr. Nandlall that if the government addresses the issues identified above, as well as others raised by commentators, he can be assured of compliments and commendations in place of criticisms and complaints. And finally, that no commentator or media house that I know would think of helping Maduro’s unlawful and baseless claim to two-thirds of Guyana.

Yours truly,
Christopher Ram

Dear editor,

The announcement that President Ally will be travelling to St. Vincent and the Grenadines for a meeting with President Maduro of Venezuela, appears to have surprised many Guyanese. News of the meeting began circulating by way of a leaked copy of a letter by the Vincentian Prime Minister Mr. Ralph Gonsalves to the Presidents of Guyana and Venezuela.

President Ally has consistently asserted that the border controversy between Guyana and Venezuela is before the International Court of Justice, and confidently predicted that the International Court of Justice (ICJ), to which the controversy has been referred, would rule in Guyana’s favour. He advocates that everyone should await the ruling, while insisting that Guyana’s development cannot be put on pause, and that the rule of law must prevail. The ICJ has already made two preliminary rulings on the matter. It rejected Venezuela’s claim that the ICJ has no jurisdiction and in the second, on the matter of the 3rd December Referendum in Venezuela, it called on Venezuela to “refrain from taking any action which would modify the situation that currently prevails”.

It was disappointing that the ICJ used what appears to have been excessively neutral language to describe Essequibo, speaking of “dispute” rather than “controversy”, and “administration and control” – a term more descriptive of a holding situation in a protectorate, rather than sovereignty and territorial integrity of countries. As Anil Nandlall, the Attorney General said at a recent Bar Association forum, the Court was probably bending over to display its impartiality and to avoid any accusation of bias. Overall, the Court delivers sound judgments, a bit too slowly in my view, but while it can pronounce, it cannot enforce. There is an example some years ago of the USA’s refusal to abide by a ruling of the Court, while more recently, judges of Russian and Chinese nationalities dissented in an otherwise unanimous ruling against Russia.

Commendably, Guyana has received support, if only lukewarm, from regional, hemispheric and international communities. CARICOM, of which Guyana is a founding member, and the Community of States of Latin America, (CELAC) of which both Venezuela and Guyana are members, have led the initiative for Thursday’s meeting. Based on a statement by Gonsalves to the Vincentian media, he had a visit from a top Venezuelan official prior to the meeting which suggests that that country would have had some role in getting support for the meeting. Yet, it would have been difficult for President Ally to decline the invitation.

Perhaps in response to some disquiet expressed by sections of the Guyanese population following the announcement, President Ally has against assured the nation that the border controversy is not on the agenda. What he did not say however, is what is on the agenda, or what his own proposals are. Such meetings should have clear ground rules and desired outcomes, lest they end in disaster.

It is unclear what advice President Ally has taken, and who will comprise the Guyana team to meet with the Venezuelan delegation. In a letter in yesterday’s Sunday Stabroek, commentator Ravi Dev wrote that VP Jagdeo appears to favour a military base in Guyana “to protect our national interest”, clearly a reference to the USA. I seriously doubt that that will go down well with Gonsalves, President Lula or with Maduro.

A long time ago, Guyana could boast of one of the best teams of diplomats in the Foreign Affairs Ministry among world countries, and under President Burnham, Guyana hosted a meeting of the leaders of the Non-Aligned countries of the world. Regrettably, the role and strength of foreign affairs have been downgraded since then, depriving President Ally of the quality of support the situation demands, and which cannot be provided by either the Foreign Secretary, or the Foreign Minister. If diplomacy is to compensate for any other weakness in our relations with Venezuela, it needs to be handled capably, competently and delicately.

Guyanese of all political stripes have come out totally in defence of the country’s sovereignty and the integrity of its territory. To his credit, President Ali has engaged Guyanese populace, but mainly in speaking to, rather than with them. He is yet to consult with the National Assembly, and on the issue of the St. Vincent meeting, he notified the Leader of the Opposition, rather than consulted with him. Our semi-dormant National Assembly is meeting today, and there was no reason or urgency why President Ally had to respond to the invitation with such urgency, and without consulting with the people’s representatives.

It is a fine line to distinguish between the border controversy, while discussing the tensions caused by Venezuela arising out of that controversy. Guyanese will be hoping that nothing the President does in St. Vincent will yield a single concession to Venezuela or contribute to an escalation of tensions between our countries, or cause Guyana the loss of any diplomatic support. He cannot and must not.

Christopher Ram

Dear Editor,

In yesterday’s Oil and Gas column I made a reference to former Ambassador Cedric Joseph and his book “Anglo-American Diplomacy and the Reopening of the Guyana -Venezuela Boundary Controversy 1961-1966”. Soon thereafter, I received the following message from a former colleague of Mr. Joseph which I have permission to share with your viewers. I do so because in my view Joseph’s contribution is one of the most significant pieces of research touching on our country’s very existence and sovereignty.

“Dear Chris

I was really interested in what you had to say about Cedric Joseph and his book on the Border Controversy in your article for today’s Stabroek News.

I have said on several occasions that had Joseph belonged to a different kind of society he would have been honoured for completing a work on Issue of critical importance to his country; one indeed which must be the best of its kind in the English Language. And what makes this accomplishment all the more remarkable is that Joseph did the research for his book mostly after he had retired and at his own expense. This undertaking was largely done in the UK.

The background to the making the making of book “Anglo-American Diplomacy and the Reopening of the Guyana -Venezuela Boundary Controversy 1961-1966” is also very interesting. Cedric Joseph wrote an article on this subject when he was a young Professor at the University of the West Indies which is generally regarded as the best introduction to the Border Controversy. This article was published by the University of Puerto Rico and by the Foreign Service Institute of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs under the title “The Search for Justice.”

After the publication of the article in question, Joseph wrote a booklet which carried the same title as his book, and which was an expanded precursor to the larger publication. I am telling you he dedicated his professional life to this issue.

I tried to get Cedric Joseph recognized for his remarkable achievement during the tenure of the last administration, but my recommendation fell on deaf ears. Among other things, myself and others proposed that there should be a Prize in Joseph’s name for the best thesis on Border Controversy which could have been placed under the aegis of the History Department of the University of Guyana. But you know our society destroys outstanding intellects. It does not encourage or succor talent and outstanding gifts. Yet we are surprised that we fail, as a nation, at so many important things.

Yours
Ronald Austin”

The University of Guyana will soon be conferring on Guyanese honorary Doctor of Philosophy on outstanding Guyanese for their contribution. While everyone of them is completely worthy of such an accolade, at this time when the very integrity and sovereignty of our country is at stake, none can be more deserving than Mr. Cedric Joseph. He is an academic and an incomparable authority on the Guyana-Venezuela controversy, even as he is excluded from any role in Guyana’s case against Venezuela at the ICJ. We just should not let him be another case of a prophet without honour in his own country.

Christopher Ram