WHAT WAS THERE TO HIDE?

Feb 07, 2020 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

In July 2018, Exxon’s Kimberly Brasington told this newspaper that her company was not the least bit worried about Venezuela and the border issue it is involved in with Guyana. The former head of Exxon’s Public Relations Office noted that ExxonMobil has worked for a number of years around the world, and border controversy is not a new issue.
At no time since Exxon has been in Guyana did it express any reservations about the likely impact of the border issue on its operations. And it is not hard to appreciate why it did not.
Exxon is a multinational corporation. These companies do not make hasty and ill-considered decisions. They have protocols to follow when investing in other countries. They would have undertaken a political risk analysis and would not have agreed to go ahead, unless they had carefully assessed the threats to their investments.
The government’s traditional excuse, therefore, that signing the deal would have offered protection from Venezuela, is pitiful. The government has consistently stated that it could not release the full agreement because of national security concerns in relation to the border issue with Venezuela. Even Exxon does not believe that. It has never said that it had to press for generous terms because of the extra political risk which it was assuming.
Exxon is not going to be deterred by political risks. And the reason is that these companies take out political risk insurance, so no matter what Venezuela did, Exxon does not lose. Its investment is covered. Venezuela, therefore, cannot and should not be used for what has to be considered as the steal of the century – the agreement it (Exxon) signed with Guyana.
Exxon is not worried about Venezuela. Not long after Exxon signed the agreement with Guyana, its Chief Executive Officer became the Secretary of State of the United States, the third most powerful position in the US Executive. Venezuela was not going to touch Exxon with such a person as Secretary of State.
Exxon knew all along that Venezuela was no threat. Venezuela is in political and economic turmoil. There are even persons claiming to be President. Venezuela knows that under these conditions, America is just waiting for an excuse to attack and invade that country. In such a situation, Venezuela was never going to threaten Exxon’s operations in the Stabroek Block. Exxon knew this.
The excuse that Exxon will act as a bodyguard for Guyana, and therefore this influenced the overtly generous terms of the agreement, is sheer poppycock. It is analogous to a situation in which a man feels threatened and thus hires a security guard to safeguard his home. The fact that the man feels vulnerable to an attack does not give the security guard the right to walk in the man’s house, eat out his food, drink out all his liquor, and then have his way with all before him.

The government would have the country believe that because Exxon, in their mind, is helping to deter an attack on Guyana by Venezuela, this gives Exxon the right to walk into our house and to do whatever it wants.
A great many ceremonies are taking place in Guyana these days. The government renovates a building, gives it a name and then has to hold a house-warming ceremony. These things cost millions of dollars just simply to show that the government is doing what any government does – build, repair and undertake projects.
The discovery of oil is the biggest development in the country’s history. Isn’t it a tad strange that there was no public signing ceremony of the agreement? Why? This should have been an event for speechifying. Yet, strangely, the agreement was not signed in public. It was signed in secret.
And so it has to be asked: why was the agreement kept as a secret? Venezuela? I think not. The more relevant question is: What was there to hide?
Another question has to be asked again: Did Cabinet or the President order the signing of the agreement? Was the agreement signed behind the back of the President? These are questions which the highly-professional (sic) media operatives in the country are not prepared to ask.

(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper)

Discover more from Kaieteur News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Latest News