Patriotism or hypocrisy?

http://www.kaieteurnews.com/

Patriotism or hypocrisy?
Kaieteur News, 10 April 2007

Dear Editor,

I wish to refer to a letter under the caption “Guyanese need
enlightenment on the operations of foreign companies who extract our
resources” in your issue of Sunday, March 25, 2007 and written by
Alfred Bhulai.

In relation to the letter, I wish to state the following:

1. Mr. Bhulai has completely misinterpreted my letter of Saturday, 17th
March, 2007 carried in the Stabroek News under the caption “Omai also
made no profit.”

2. The letter, among other things, seeks to expose the ambiguity and
hypocrisy of Mr. Seelochan Beharry's patriotic claims.

Mr. Beharry said, “I will neither watch nor participate in the
destruction of Guyana and the Guyanese people” (KN 5th Feb, 2007). Mr.
Beharry was “silent” over the environmental disaster caused by Omai on
August 19, 1995. Mr Beharry further said, “We cannot claim to love
Guyana and continue to be silent. Silence means consent.” (KN 11th Feb,
2007). Mr. Beharry was also “silent” over the “non-profitability”
claims by Omai after more than ten years of gold mining operations in
our country.

While Mr Beharry was silent over the non-profit claims by Omai, he was
quick to condemn Barama for making similar claims, in his spate of
letters to the press. Mr. Beharry has, therefore, further exposed his
“bias” as he continues to wage his vendetta against the Barama Company.

3. It is only a forester or those engaged in the forestry profession
who can articulate forest issues in a technically sound manner for
public consumption.

This cannot be done by a pastry maker, chemistry teacher, or even a
lecturer in political science, because forestry is not their field of
study. Even the juries are sometimes assisted by judges in
decision-making in difficult cases.

4. Mr. Bhulai, in typical Saharan Ostrich behaviour, begged writers
such as Janette Bulkan and Mr. Beharry to continue enlightening the
people of Guyana. This is good advice, but providing the information
they present is both factual and accurate.

It was Ms Bulkan who said that sub-letting of concessions is a
violation of our national laws, but she was corrected by Paul Taylor,
who said that “sub-letting” is permitted under Clause 14 of TSAs, which
allows for the employment of agents and contractors. Ms. Bulkan was
even accused of manipulation our forest laws to support her own
position (SN Saturday, January 27, 2007). Ms Bulkan went further to say
that there was “transfer pricing” in the sale of our logs overseas, but
the Hon. Minister of Agriculture said publicly that the accusations
were unfounded, since investigations were carried out and there was no
evidence of “transfer pricing” in the sale of logs overseas (SN Monday,
January 29, 2007).

5. It is definitely not my intention to use Omai so as to justify
Barama's non-profit claims, but rather to expose Mr. Beharry's
patriotic ambiguity towards Guyana.

6. The Omai cyanide spill of August 1995 caused severe social and
economic suffering to thousands of riverain residents.

It is therefore both callous and unacceptable for Mr Bhulai to state
that the toxicity of the cyanide was diminished to “tolerable levels”
by the “mighty Essequibo River” soon after the big spill.

This is certainly a guess on the part of Mr. Bhulai, because the force
of the flow of cyanide-tainted water into the Essequibo River was
constant for over one week as a result of the sudden collapse of the
tailings pond dam. Further, the heavy concentrations of cyanide could
not be upwards, by downwards in the direction of Parika, where
communities from Siriki to Fort Island and Morashi were severely
affected.

7. Mr. Bhulai said that he has much expertise in chemical engineering.
Can he say why he was excluded from the public commission of enquiry
set up to investigate the cyanide spill? The commission of enquiry
comprised both local and international experts. For Mr. Bhulai to just
say that he did not want to go beyond “vested interests” is definitely
mind boggling.

8. The Public Commission of Enquiry, after six months of public
hearings, concluded that at no time was the contaminated water a
serious threat to life, nor was there any credible evidence that the
spill, in any way, posed a hazard to the health of the (OGML) workers
or the riverain residents (1995 Golden Star Resources Ltd. Report). Can
Mr. Bhulai tell the Guyanese people if he agrees with the commission's
finding?

Trevor Atkinson