Five years later, in the wake of a series of provocative maritime incidents including the expulsion of the CGX petroleum platform, the seizure of more Guyanese fishing boats and the chasing of a passenger boat onto the beach at Corriverton, President Venetiaan carried on cockily. He told President Bharrat Jagdeo triumphantly that Suriname was “the power in the river.”
Frontier policy
This is not empty talk. Suriname’s actual frontier policy is based on the premise, whether or not supported by international law, that the international frontier – the Corentyne River – is entirely its national territory. As a result, Suriname deals consistently and aggressively with issues of territorial disputes with Guyana.
Suriname’s seizure of the Guyanese vessel Lady Chandra I in October 2008, therefore, was completely consistent with that policy. It was also a reflection of that country’s mean treatment of Guyanese nationals and its harassment and arrest of fishermen, seizure of their fishing vessels and imposition of heavy fines over the years. Indeed, much of the diplomatic contact between Guyana and Suriname is about the latter’s bullying behaviour of Guyanese who use that river.
When Defence Minister Ivan Fernald launched an enforcement operation along the Suriname coast, the arrests were carried out by the army – Nationaal Leger – not the police! He promised that the operation would continue in order to secure the livelihood of local fishermen and to protect the country’s fish stock from depletion. Later that year, Fernald boasted that the Suriname national army was one of the “most skilled” in the region.
Guyana and Suriname are the only CARICOM members with a common frontier. But, from the colonial era, the neighbours have had a strained relationship despite signing reams of agreements on various aspects of functional cooperation. Since his accession to office, President Bharrat Jagdeo has tried to work with Suriname’s President Mr Ronald Venetiaan on improving trans-frontier cooperation.
The Guyana Administration, however, is badly served by a frail Foreign Ministry, a corps of mediocre diplomats and a wishy-washy frontier policy. The country seems not to have evinced a sufficient degree of diplomatic dexterity or a coherent frontier policy to bring about major, long-term improvement in relations. The Administration also has a habit of neglecting the leadership of organs such as the Guyana-Suriname Cooperation Council and the Guyana-Suriname Joint Border commissions until a crisis erupts when it is usually too late.
President Jagdeo, on his visit to Paramaribo in January 2002, had signed an agreement with the objective of cooperating to prevent cross-frontier smuggling, trafficking in narcotics, money-laundering and other illegal activities, while ensuring that the appropriate duties and taxes were collected. Over the past eight years, however, non-compliance with these very conditions continued to complicate relations between the neighbours.
To make matters worse, Guyana and Suriname have completely opposite conceptions of national security and trans-national crime. This contradiction was exemplified by the spectacular June 2006 arrest and subsequent expulsion of the international criminal fugitive Shaheed ‘Roger’ Khan by the Korps Politie Suriname. The Guyana Police Force and the criminal justice system had been strangely complacent about Khan’s activities and were negligent in bringing the notorious criminal to justice. The Guyana Government expressed more consternation than congratulations over Khan’s removal. Dr Roger Luncheon − who is Chairman of the Central Intelligence Committee, Secretary of the Guyana Defence Board and the Administration’s chief national security spokesman − actually complained about the “forceful and unlawful removal of its citizen across jurisdictions.”
The fact is that the Corentyne River has been a customary channel for contraband smuggling and illegality of every variety over the years. On Guyana’s side, executive indifference and administrative laxity have made the river notorious for criminality.
An obsolete absurdity
It was against this background that recent events – trans-frontier security cooperation under the Nieuw Nickerie Declaration; the contraband ‘back-track’ trade in assorted commodities; the publication of a news report of Suriname’s planned military invasion of the New River; the outbreak of the Black Sigatoka leaf spot disease allegedly affecting Guyanese banana plants and the continuing controversy over jurisdiction of the Corentyne River – began to unfold almost at the same time. The consequences of these controversies have been more meetings and more misunderstanding.
It is not a secret that the Guyana Government has evinced no interest in eradicating the ‘back-track’ business that has been responsible for numerous arrests, deaths, loss of revenue and other crimes. Everyone must realise that the unregulated and unlawful Corentyne crossing cannot be ignored forever. Sooner or later, legality must replace lawlessness. Yet, Guyana’s entire diplomatic negotiating strategy has been to perpetuate this obsolete absurdity.
Shady Guyanese have managed to smuggle any goods that can fetch money – alcohol, tobacco, firearms, narcotics – across the frontier. Suriname Police in March last year arrested three Guyanese in a Guyana-registered motorcar travelling from Nickerie to Paramaribo who had more than 16 kg of undeclared gold, with an estimated value of US$500,000. Small traders and vendors routinely transport eggs, fish, fruit, meat and vegetables across the frontier. Un-inspected, unregulated and un-taxed, Guyanese goods undersell those of Surinamese producers who complain about unfair competition.
Ordinary smugglers and duty dodgers have preferred the faster, cheaper illegal route – the favourite recourse of fugitives from the law – instead of the official frontier crossing at the ferry terminal at South-Drain-Moleson Creek. Dozens of Guyanese are arrested routinely for illegal entry, fishing without licences, using internationally banned fish cages and other offences.
Yet, a prominent member of the Upper Corentyne Chamber of Commerce called for the illegal trade with Suriname to be made allowable, arguing that legitimate transactions at the official port were “inconvenient and time-consuming.” The businessman actually suggested that the back-track trade was “assisting Guyana’s economy.” Asked why the Administration has not moved to exercise regulatory oversight over the dangerous crossings, Mr Rohee confessed lamely that “some of the operators do not want this.”
One of the reasons why the Administration has been reluctant to eradicate the ‘back-track’ business is because of the political allegiance of the East-Berbice Corentyne Region. This has been its most loyal constituency, providing the PPP/C with more than 42, 000 votes at the last general elections. With the approach of local government elections, it makes to sense for the party to irritate its electorate by going legal.
Nieuw-Nickerie Declaration
In what was thought to have been a serious attempt aimed at preventing trans-national crimes such as money-laundering, narcotics-trafficking, trafficking in persons, gun-running and violent crimes, Suriname’s Minister of Justice and Police Mr Chandrikapersad Santokhi and Guyana’s Minister of Home Affairs Mr Clement Rohee signed the ‘Nieuw-Nickerie Declara-tion’ last May. Guyana Revenue Authority Commissioner General Khurshid Sattaur also met with his counterpart from the Suriname’s customs administration in Nieuw Nickerie to address the issue of smuggling of goods and frontier control.
Short-term, ad hoc agreements, however, are not necessarily accurate indicators of Suriname’s long-term objectives. Thus, when Suriname’s Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries directed the authorities at Nickerie to close the illegal ‘back-track’ route across the Corentyne River from August 17, 2009, Guyanese officials went into overdrive. Suriname claimed that the move was necessary to protect it’s agricultural economy, especially the banana sector, from the plant disease which it claims is ‘rampant’ in Guyana.
Guyana’s Minister of Agriculture Robert Persaud did not deny the existence, but merely the extent, of the disease. When he met Suriname’s Minister of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries Kermechend Raghoebarsing to discuss “the need to enhance plant health surveillance and response mechanisms,” Persaud’s happy achievement was to secure an agreement for the re-opening of the illegal crossing rather than eradicating the dreaded disease which is still ‘rampant.’
National security
The latest chapter in the ‘back-track’ saga opened earlier in March this year when Suriname’s Chandrikapersad Santokhi met Guyana’s Clement Rohee to review the mechanisms agreed between them under the Nieuw Nickerie Declaration. Inevitably, the main point of disagreement was the approach to the regularisation of the ‘back-track’ Corentyne River crossing.
Mr Santokhi stated Suriname’s policy clearly, insisting that “the ‘back-track’ route on the Surinamese side should be institutionalized. That means that we should put the control mechanisms in place − immigration, customs, agriculture − and that all those boats which are used should be licensed and should be subject to security conditions and security measures.”
Santokhi pointed out that it was Suriname’s intention to build port health, immigration, police and customs facilities and agricultural institutions at the ports of entry. Under these new arrangements, Suriname will require all vessels participating in the transport of goods and passengers to have an official licence. The Canawaima Ferry Service that flies the Suriname national lone-star flag – the official carrier of passengers between the countries — will continue to be the formal means of transportation between Suriname and Guyana.
Rohee, on the other hand, had no legitimate and parallel policy to propose on Guyana’s side. He could only iterate inflexibly that “…at this time, the status quo remains in place but both countries will continue to discuss this matter in the future.” When asked to specify Guyana’s objections to Suriname’s proposal, Rohee added only “We don’t have a specific objection. We have a number of concerns and those concerns have been discussed internally within the corridors of the government.”
Rohee resorted to asserting that “Guyana, as a sovereign state, has taken the decision that the status quo must remain in place until such time as we determine that the situation will change…this position is influenced by a number of concerns which is of national interest to Guyana.”
The real issue is not Guyana’s national interest but the PPP/C administration’s local and regional interest on the Corentyne Coast. The positions adopted by Mr Persaud and Mr Rohee make it clear that he Administration is not yet prepared to pay the political cost of enforcing effective measures to interdict illegal international activities on a fragile frontier. That, indeed, is the status quo.
