Dear Editor,
I write with reference to the letter titled ‘Culture is central to how we approach negotiations in an international setting.’ The writer posits that Guyana’s ‘cultural framework’ is somehow at variance with international, or at least North American/ European norms. Really? The briefest scrutiny of their supposedly ‘rigid business practices’ is instructive.
In 2018, shortly after the infamous ‘tweaking’ of the PSA with ExxonMobil by the Granger administration, a delegation was dispatched from the UK under the auspices of Chatham House. Its mission: to lecture the APNU/AFC cabinet on the ‘sanctity of contract.’ Concurrently, the USA was withdrawing from or ripping up several key international trade agreements (e.g. NAFTA) under President Trump’s direction. Subsequently, Boris Johnson’s administration would strive to circumvent international laws and renege on key commitments in its Brexit treaty with the European Union, particularly with reference to Northern Ireland. Whither these much-vaunted norms?
Arguments about ‘intercultural relations’ may also cloak other anachronisms such as a craven mindset. In Guyana, after centuries of foreign extractivism (gold, diamonds, sugar, timber), many of us still seem to think that we must take whatever terms are offered. This is nonsense. We are fearful of antagonising the powers that be (BIG OIL currently) in case they leave. So what if they do? Others will come in their place. We have assets that are currently much prized on the international market. We must show backbone and gumption in seeking the appropriate value for all of them, from our oil and gas to our forests.
Sincerely,
Isabelle de Caires
