Dear Editor,
Norway signed an agreement with Guyana to essentially preserve its rainforest. There was nothing in the press releases that dealt with a troubling concern with respect to the rainforest of Guyana: the use of the rainforest for narcotic cultivation and trafficking. Preserved rainforests in the context of this agreement can also mean preserved routes and conduits for the trafficking of narcotics from South American drug cartels into Guyana unless an effective monitoring system with strong direct foreign participation is implemented. Unless this happens Norway will be paying a hefty sum for drug cartels to keep their routes intact and move their goods without hassle. The lack of a powerful monitoring system would be tantamount to rewarding Guyana for keeping its narcotic trafficking routes intact. Without a potent monitoring system combined with heavy foreign intervention it is likely that the emerging narco-empire in Guyana will, as expected my some experts, expand from cocaine importation and processing in Guyana to the cultivation of coca in a poorly policed hinterland. As such, the entire agreement hinges on the efficacy of the monitoring and support governance systems.
The fact that the government holds primary responsibility for the monitoring and governance aspect of the deal is cause for concern. It is also great news for narcotic traffickers and local drug syndicates, which have built empires in an environment of grave government apathy. The tragic entrenched reality of fraud, corruption, waste, mismanagement, abuse and incompetence and the unchecked flourishing of the drug trade and money laundering in Guyana present clear and present dangers for the GRIF. I sincerely hope that Norway seriously revisits this aspect of the arrangement and demands more external presence. Further, Norway should demand the Guyana government meet certain goals pertaining to the curbing of drug trafficking in the protected rainforests. I also hope that the Copenhagen climate conference generates significant regulatory and oversight mechanisms and preconditions to any agreements that critically monitor countries such as Guyana with specific problems of narcotic trafficking in protected areas. In effect, if nations have slouched in battling the rise of the narcotic trade using protected areas they must prove their commitment to fighting drugs in tangible ways before any agreements are entered into. There should be no money for errant nations.
The ultimate question is whether the Government of Guyana will suddenly find the missing political will to challenge the narcotic trade in Guyana if such conditions are entrenched by Norway or are imposed in Copenhagen by world agreement. The GRIF in its current form does not appear to impose any such conditions on Guyana. Therefore, unless a radical change is coming I expect the drug trade to continue to flourish and the rainforest to be increasingly used for cocaine production and processing. This is a remarkable steal by President Jagdeo to obtain Norway’s commitment to pay this amount of money with Guyana retaining the bulk of authority in governance and monitoring while the narcotic industry continues to flourish.
Yours faithfully,
Michael Maxwell
