Time to move on
Editorial
THE debate over the rocket launch base proposal by the Beal Aerospace firm of Texas is a healthy sign that a basic tenet of democracy is thriving here. Those who do not agree have a right to make their views known in a healthy debate and those who agree have an equal right to advance their cause. In the democratic tradition, the majority view prevails and it would seem to us that on this proposed scheme, in the absence of a public opinion poll, more are for it than against. A telling point for those backing the proposal is the site identified. As one reader has pointed out in a letter, the proposed site is in a wasteland which would have to be drained before the groundwork for the rocket launch base can proceed. Apart from a few farming families who have reportedly shown no reluctance to shift from the surrounding area, no community would have to be displaced for the project to proceed. Because it's a virtual wasteland that can hardly be put to other economic use, the argument about leasing or selling the land would seem to be weak, a factor the Guyana negotiators must have been bearing in mind in getting the best possible deal for Guyanese. Its other potential value as a sanctuary for wildlife apparently would not be much disturbed if the government and the firm agree to proceed with the proposed scheme. A reputable conservationist has concluded that the Beal deal would pose no threat to endangered turtles which nest nearby. And some have pointed out that in other rocket launch sites, like Cape Canaveral in Florida, fauna and flora that were at one time endangered have prospered with the establishment of the bases. So environmentally, the Beal project seems sound with no imminent danger to wildlife in the region. While accidents will always happen, fears of danger from rocket launchings going wrong seem not a weighty factor. Other bases, including that in French Guiana, have a fair track record of safety with little or no danger to communities around the sites. Beal and other firms interested in setting up bases here will not sit around and wait on endless debates on the merits and demerits of their proposals and the government, with a mandate to govern in the best interest of the people, will have to act in its best judgement. We do not advocate rushing into any deal without considering all the factors and taking public opinion into consideration. Those who have fears must be allowed to express these and the administration and those concerned must address these as fully as possible without betraying trade or business secrets. The administration must also draw on the experiences and expertise in other countries, learning from mistakes and taking advice where available. The good thing about what has gone on so far with the Beal proposal is the public debate that has developed. This is as it should be - unlike the experience of secret deals of several years ago. But the government must not be afraid to act when it is convinced it is doing so in the best interest of the country and has taken into account all shades of opinion.
|