In the opposition-induced feeding frenzy over claims that Natural Resources and Environment Minister Robert Persaud had issued “mining permits” to a Brazilian company (registered in Guyana), there appears to be a troubling willingness by that opposition to compromise the sovereignty of our nation in their quest to score political points.
As to the claim itself, this is a question of fact and, like all issues from this quarter, will be settled by reasonable people after considering the evidence presented by both sides.
What is undisputed is that it was a permission for geological and geophysical survey (PGGS) that had been issued to Muri Brazil Ventures Guyana, and not a mining permit. As might be evident from its name, a PGGS grants its holder permission to survey a demarcated area for the presence of specified mineral deposits.
It is also undisputed that other PGGSs have been issued in the past. The initial reason offered by the opposition for raising the brouhaha, was that the minister, when questioned by the Parliamentary Sectoral Committee on Natural Resources, parsed his answer very carefully to only deny the issuance of any mining licence.
The pertinent dialogue was: Lieutenant Colonel (retired) [Joe Harmon]: “Thank you very much minister. Is there though any permission or anything for any activity other than mining say for example forestry or forestry concessions issued for in that area?”
Robert Persaud: “I am advised by the technical officer… I am told by the staff that there is no permitted forestry operation in that particular area.”
In retrospect, it is evident that details of the Muri PGGS, which was subsequently leaked to sections of the press friendly to the opposition, had already been in the latter’s possession and was used to “set up” the minister.
As such there was no further follow up as to whether there was permission for “any activity other than mining or forestry”.
The minister’s equivocal answer was then used to accuse him of lying to the committee. “Mining”, however, is defined by the relevant legislation as quite different from a “survey” or “prospecting” licence and the minister is adamant that he answered the question posed.
Leader of the opposition David Granger then raised a fresh red herring: that the southern Suriname border and the Brazilian border in the Rupununi are “sensitive areas”, in light of respectively, an invasion by Suriname military personnel and an uprising in the Rupununi, both occurring in 1969.
It appears that the defence board has to sign off on any sustained activities, such as settlements and mining, up to10 miles from the border. We expect that when prospecting and mining do take place in the area, the necessary permission will be solicited.
But in the flurry of “he said” “she said” and “had not said” were the aforementioned disturbing undermining of Guyanese sovereignty by the opposition, which raises the bona fides of this opposition to represent Guyana.
In a letter to the minister, the Deputy Chairman of A Partner for National Unity (APNU) Dr Rupert Roopnaraine asserted that any mining “activity would certainly give rise to a fresh surge of anxiety and agitation from our eastern neighbours”.
It is no secret that Suriname claims the New River Triangle and it is just as clear that we have always maintained that the current demarcation that allocated the area to Guyana is unalterable.
Why, then, should the exploitation of our sovereign territory be held in abeyance because of Suriname’s “anxiety and agitation”? To paraphrase what was held unanimously by all Guyanese when Venezuela rattled its sword at our western border, “every blade of grass” is ours to do whatever we see fit with it.
While we believe most Guyanese will agree, in hindsight, that the minister might have volunteered the information on the PGGS and not allowed himself to be ambushed, hindsight, we know is always 20/ 20.
On the other hand, the opposition must be brought to task for being more concerned with Suriname’s territorial claims rather than our sovereign rights to develop our country.
