What an astonishing display of defeatism!

Oct 07, 2024 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

Kaieteur News – In a letter addressing media coverage of oil revenues, former Prime Minister of Guyana, Samuel Hinds begins by acknowledging that while some argue Guyana should have received an arguable US$10 billion from oil, the US$4.4 billion earned is still significant compared to nothing.

Hinds stresses that absorbing even the US$4.4 billion has been challenging, suggesting more would have been overwhelming. He then reflects on fairness in oil payments, referencing a U.S. article that highlights how foreign governments receive higher payments from U.S. oil companies than the U.S. government itself. He implies that if Guyana were in a similar situation, it might have received even less than US$4.4 billion.

Hinds compares this to past negotiations with SaskPower, where media from both countries viewed the deal differently, revealing the challenges in securing agreements that satisfy all parties. He emphasizes that few people in Guyana truly understand the complexities of oil or electricity sectors, and calls for more articles focused on learning about the industry’s history and technology rather than simply criticizing it. Hinds points out the high costs of oil production in Guyana and warns of future price shake-outs due to climate change. He concludes by urging Guyanese to “make hay while the sun shines” by investing wisely in infrastructure, education, and health to ensure future prosperity once the oil era ends.

Samuel Hinds’ letter is a sobering reminder of how easily those entrusted with national responsibility can peddle complacency under the guise of pragmatism. Hinds suggests that we, the citizens of Guyana, should rejoice in our modest US$4.4 billion earnings from oil. Never mind that the world is awash with examples of resource-rich nations impoverished by the very wealth beneath their feet. Never mind that the $10 billion we supposedly missed out on might have been the lifeblood needed to build a sustainable future for our country. No, Hinds would have us believe that we ought to be grateful—after all, before oil, we had nothing.

Hinds’ argument reeks of the same old resignation, the kind of thinking that has kept our nation tethered to underdevelopment while others have moved forward. What he fails to understand—or perhaps deliberately ignores—is that the discovery of oil was supposed to be the moment we stopped settling for crumbs and started demanding our rightful share.  Instead, he comforts us with the notion that our US$4.4 billion is a blessing, as if we should be content with the scraps while foreign oil companies extract billions more from our finite resource. Does he not realize that when the oil is gone, it is gone forever?

He casually dismisses the notion of the US$10 billion as “arguable”, a throwaway line meant to diminish the very real possibility that we have been shortchanged. To him, the sum we receive—whether US$4.4 billion or US$10 billion—appears immaterial. He even dares to suggest that we should be relieved we aren’t receiving more, lest we struggle to “absorb” it. What an astonishing display of defeatism! Are we now a country so unprepared for wealth that we must be shielded from our own prosperity?

Hinds would have us believe that the complexity of oil extraction—the “mile and a half through the water,” the drilling into the rock—justifies our meek acceptance of whatever table scraps are thrown our way. He romanticizes the technical prowess of companies like Exxon, as though we should be in awe of their ability to extract our oil, rather than outraged by the paltry sum we are left with after they do. What is most galling about Hinds’ letter is its implicit message: that we should lower our expectations. We should not dare to ask for more because, in his view, we are lucky to have anything at all. He would have us believe that Guyana, with its population of under a million, is destined to rely on the benevolence of others—whether foreign governments or multinational corporations. But this is the same old story, the one told by those who lack the vision and the courage to demand better for their country. In Hinds’ world, there is no room for the kind of bold thinking required to turn finite resources into lasting prosperity. There is no consideration of the fact that when the oil runs out—and it will run out—we will be left with nothing but the empty promises of what could have been. Instead, we are to take our US$4.4 billion, say “thank you,” and continue to play the role of the grateful recipient, ever mindful not to rock the boat.

It is a vision devoid of ambition, one that treats Guyana not as a nation with its own destiny but as a passive player in the global game of resource extraction. And yet, Hinds has the audacity to conclude with a call for us to invest in our future. But how, one must ask, are we to invest in our future when we are being systematically deprived of the wealth that could secure it? How can we transform our country when the very resources meant to fund that transformation are siphoned off by foreign interests? The answer, of course, is that we cannot—not if we continue to accept the tepid arguments of leaders like Hinds, who would rather pacify us than face the uncomfortable reality that we are being exploited. The oil will dry up, and with it, the opportunity for true development. But by then, those like Hinds will be long gone, leaving the rest of us to wonder why we didn’t demand more when we had the chance.

(An astonishing display of defeatism!)      

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

---

• defeatism, Oil revenues, Peeping Tom, Samuel Hinds

---