Sugar, dolphins and a cocaine pipe
Weekend with Freddie
Kaieteur News
August 7, 2004
The news isn't good. But sometimes in a strange way, the same bad news could be good news. It all depends on your perspective. The European Union has agreed to radically alter its sugar regime. Subsidies on sugar are going to be reduced from 2005 causing Guyana to lose literally a few dozen billion dollars annually. Then the final blow came just after that EU announcement. The World Trade Organisation ruled that EU sugar subsidies are illegal within the context of world trading rules. This means a dim future awaits this country.
But does it have to be so? Sometimes a shock to the system can be a blessing in disguise. The loss of a few billion dollars may force the government to cut cost that may save a few billion dollars thus the make-up for the loss in sugar income. Post-colonial government does not know how to spend money wisely. A meticulous accounting analysis would reveal that the financial wastage is so great that the money that they beg for from international sources, they can recoup a significant percentage of it by astute book-keeping.
Take fuel. Energy is something we expend a tremendous amount of foreign exchange on. It will numb your senses to know the gas bill of the state. Literally dozens of millions could be saved annually by the prudent use of state vehicles. On Wednesday and Thursday nights, I saw the wife of a top cabinet member jogging on the seawall. She was on the wall and her driver, (who said hello to me) in the SUV, was in the corner of the highway literally creeping along just to be parallel with her. The engine capacity of that vehicle exceeds 4000 cc. To drive as slowly as that from the Russian Embassy to the university access road and back will burn up a few gallons. Why couldn't the driver sit and wait?
All the ministers have vehicles whose capacity exceeds 3000 cc. They drive around the city on a daily basis burning up millions of dollars in gas. Can't some educated person tell Freedom House a little bit about science? The larger the engine, the more gas it uses. One wonders what the ruling PPP has leant from all their years in the opposition. I remember when I was a little boy, I use to read the Mirror newspaper and how the PPP would tear into Burnham for the fancy cars he imported for his ministers.
Sugar money is going and the sugar company itself is feeling sad because its days of extravagant life style may be coming to an end. "Nuff" money is circulating around Guysuco and it is being spent like when a kid has candy for the first time. This writer has seen documents, some of which appeared in the letter section of this newspaper, of wanton financial spending in the sugar industry that I honestly believe Forbes Burnham would not have tolerated. The simple fact is that the political leadership of the Government in Guyana is not prepared to enter into a new type of thinking and political rule in a globalised world where the very foundation of livelihood is threatened. Look at the controversy involving the sybaritic habits of a former, high Guysuco official.
The disappearance of sugar money will force (hopefully) the state to look for other sources of income rather than relying on the patronage of the developed world that have their own priorities that do not synchronise with those of the third world. Four impositions of the West need re-thinking as the world becomes more globalised and Guyana's future more jeopardised.
First, the Environmental Protection Agency is anti-business. This is my fourth condemnation of the EPA. The EPA is a demand on third world countries to keep whatever little is left of the world's cleanest territories. The West devastated their environment so they could reach the highest stage of standard of living that they have now but when it is the third world's turn to harness what nature has given us, we are forced to confirm to the West's selfish wishes. The EPA scares away investors. The courts were right to bypass the EPA and grant Mr. Badal his rice factory at Farm on the East Bank. The EPA has a habit of requesting an Environmental Impact Assessment, a research project that would cost the investor millions of Guyana's dollars because we don't have the experts here to do it.
Secondly, the wildlife trade. I am not opposed to the export of dolphins. We should export them by the thousands because we need the foreign exchange. I wrote about the dolphin controversy a few weeks ago because I was concerned about the dimensions of political patronage and corruption. In principle, I agree to the export of our wildlife. In Japan and the West, there are groups that are more concerned with animals rather than starving people in the third world. Here in the third world, we care more about babies who need to grow up rather than baby dolphins.
Thirdly, the Anti-Narcotic Act needs to be revamped. Why is this country spending millions to jail and feed male teenagers for possessing "a spiff" of marijuana when that amount is legal in many other countries including Canada and Holland? I read in yesterday's Kaieteur News that the police arrested and placed before the courts two young men for possession of a cocaine pipe. Well if it was cocaine that was another matter. The men were remanded. Why spend money prosecuting so many petty cases in our courts? But no, we are following what the West tells us and the West says we must be harsh on people who deal in drugs. No problem, but we come to the fourth imposition that has to do with narcotics
We have a major drug monster to deal with in Guyana. So does Columbia which has a bigger Frankenstein. I remember reading what a former Attorney General once said. He told the press that Columbia spends far more on fighting the drug trade than what the US gives it. One suspects the same happens here. Why doesn't the US finance the war on drugs in Guyana? Does Guyana have the money to confront this monster? Let's give the Americans a free hand to fight the drug menace in Guyana, and let them finance it. The money we save when the Americans move in will help to cushion the blows from the sugar loss. Isn't this a fair argument?