Maritime treaty
Editorial
On Monday, Head of the Presidential Secretariat and Secretary to the Defence Board, Dr Roger Luncheon, finally told the media the news that most had been waiting to hear. The Government, he said, had established a technical team to identify overseas equipment for the Coast Guard which could be readily accessed and purchased. This appeared to be a sea change from what he had said at an earlier press briefing when he had discussed Government's priorities in relation to this matter and had indicated that dealing with the flooding took precedence over recapitalization of the army. Conceding that the capabilities of the military required upgrading, he had told reporters that the capitalization "needed to address these weaknesses is way beyond our capabilities." The floods and the military, of course, are not competing priorities, and attending to the one should not necessitate neglecting the other for a variety of reasons, including the fact that there are probably ways of recapitalizing the army which would not place an unthinkable strain on the national budget. Last Monday Dr Luncheon indicated that the administration was now prepared to entertain those ways. It would involve signing a maritime treaty similar to that which other Caribbean nations like Trinidad and Jamaica, among others, have already concluded. The Defence Board Secretary said that Guyana had completed the work in relation to its position on the draft, and that it was now for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to convene a meeting with the United States to negotiate the final text of the accord. The shiprider agreements, as they are better known, have come under considerable criticism, and not without good reason. However, there is a plus side to them. As we reported in our Tuesday edition, becoming a party to the maritime treaty would make available to this country a range of equipment for the security forces. We are now in a crisis situation, where Guyana is unable to defend her frontiers because her army lacks the means. At the same time, the Government has openly declared that it cannot afford to invest in equipping the GDF. In such a context, the advantages of the agreement have to be weighed carefully against the disadvantages, and there is little doubt that at this point the advantages would win out. Concluding the pact in itself would send a message to Suriname (who has already signed) about our intentions to acquire whatever is necessary to protect our borders. In addition, Guyana would be able to obtain assistance in the drug interdiction campaign. The delay in finalising the maritime agreement, for example, was responsible for the US refusing to assist the Customs Anti-Narcotics Unit in a definitive search of the MV New Charm, to establish whether or not there was more cocaine concealed on the vessel. In contrast to the maritime treaty, the surveillance treaty with the US had been signed some time ago; however, it had not been operationalised. On Monday Dr Luncheon said that the Government had conveyed its comments to the US on the status to be accorded the American armed forces personnel who were to man the electronic listening post provided for in that agreement. The administration was now awaiting a response from the US. It makes little sense for the Government to drag its feet on these two treaties at this stage and in these circumstances. The sooner the final terms are worked out, the sooner they will become operational, and the sooner they become operational, the faster the GDF can obtain materiel. The PPP/Civic Government has in the past appeared to regard the economy and the alleviation of poverty as priorities. No one would argue that they are not priorities; it is just that the lesson of the CGX rig incident is that if you allow your border problems to get out of control, it will undermine your development programme. After all, if you don't have a country, you won't have an economy to worry about.
 Follow the goings-on in Guyana
|