In the September-October edition of the Courier, a magazine produced by the European Commission, there is a country report on Suriname. One of the articles is entitled "The 'Guyana Plateau,'" wherein the claim is made that Suriname, Guyana, French Guiana, the Venezuelan state of Guayana and the Brazilian states of Amapa and Roraima are set to embark on genuine regional integration, called the 'Guyana Plateau initiative' .

European Commission Head of Delegation for Guyana and Suriname, Mr Vincent de Visscher, is quoted as describing the area comprising these nations/states as a "distinct, homogeneous geographical sub-region, [which] shares a common ecological heritage." The report does concede there are differences in language and culture between the peoples of this physical region, but, it says blithely, "the porous frontiers and the existence of common problems do create more unity than disparity." Furthermore it avers that the "solidarity felt by the population of the Guyana Plateau," finds expression in the strengthening of regional co-operation.

Well all of this is news to the citizens of this country. No doubt it is news to the citizens of Suriname as well. Where is all this "solidarity," one wonders, when the CGX project is still languishing in limbo, and the nation of Venezuela is adhering triffid-like to a meretricious claim to three-fifths of Guyana.

No one is disputing, of course, the geographical homogeneity of the area - in the sixteenth-century European texts it was called the 'Island of Guiana' - and no one is disputing the benefits which under normal circumstances would accrue with greater economic integration, more especially in the current context of globalization. But the reality is that for several decades Venezuela has prosecuted a policy of stymieing economic development in Essequibo - this nation's most resource rich county - while at no point has any government here ever managed to get Suriname's seal on an agreement which would stick. Where, therefore, is this Guyana Plateau initiative coming from?

Is one to surmise that it is a vision which has its origins in the corridors of the European Commission (EC), because as funders of projects in the Guianas that is what seems to them both logical and desirable? Is that why the 'initiative' is being written about in the Courier as though its acceptance in principle by all the nations/states involved is a fait accompli? Is it that the EC has been pushing its vision at the governmental level where it has been received not unfavourably, but neither the commission nor any local administration has bothered to inform the populations of the Plateau who supposedly feel all this solidarity with one another?

Could the initiative, for example, be behind President Jagdeo's recent announcement of a proposal to link Venezuela, Suriname and Guyana by a coastal road with a view to opening up trade? Is that why the Courier is writing (in connection with transportation links in general, not this particular artery), that in the long term "the aim is probably to link the whole of the Guyana Plateau"? Whose aim, and according to whose timetable, one must ask?

Aside from the fact that as one correspondent in our newspaper noted yesterday, the notion of a coastal road presents difficulties since everything west of Charity is swamp, what is the President doing entertaining discussions about such a highway in the present border context without considering all the possible contingencies first? Suriname has a boundary dispute with us, and Venezuela has created a controversy about the western frontier; does Mr Jagdeo not feel even a twinge of unease in his gut about facilitating links between the two of them through our territory?

The problem is not that the so-called Guyana Plateau initiative does not have merit as a long-term goal; the problem relates to how we reach that goal. And in that regard the EC (whether the author or only the supporter of this initiative) has to be sensitive to sovereignty and territorial integrity issues, among other things. You cannot have integration first, and leave the frontiers to look after themselves. Down that route lies tension or worse, and possible complete loss of autonomy.

If eventually our borders are to fade away in the integration process, then so be it; but first, logically, we have to have established borders, and where these exist already, they have to be recognized by all our neighbours. True regional co-operation cannot advance in a context of boundary controversies; the former will always be hostage to the exigencies of the latter.

If the EC is anxious to press this vision of sub-regional integration (presuming that that is what the peoples of the 'Plateau' want) then it needs first to accept the impediment that border problems represent to the implementation of this vision, and agree in principle that the solution of those problems should be a priority.

For its part, the Government of Guyana should know after all these years in office that solving our boundary controversies is a priority, which requires a national approach and resources both human and material. The surprising thing is that although it says it accepts this, it has still done nothing substantial to persuade anyone that it believes what it says. One can only hope that the approach in 2002 will be different, otherwise economic development, sub-regional or otherwise, will be even longer in coming.