By Stabroek staff | August 22, 2010 in Features

http://www.stabroeknews.com/2010/features/08/22/the-case-for-a-major-narcotics-and-money-laundering-presence/

In March, the President is reported to have said at Babu John that “It’s not drug money; every time people see you build a new house, the AFC and the PNC say ‘drug money.’” In August, the Minister of Home Affairs denied that he said, “the tentacles of drug trafficking have reached into Guyana’s national institutions, with the effect of destroying the integrity of some of their functionaries through corruption or the get-rich-quick-syndrome.”  Instead of debating who said what, it is more constructive to determine if the mosaic of facts and circumstances makes a compelling case for a major domestic drug and money-laundering presence.

There are two very public positions on drugs and money laundering in Guyana.  The first is that they are serious and radioactive scourges; that society has been harmed in immeasurable ways; and that untold danger is now a permanent feature of the national landscape.  In sum, they represent a formidable and destructive presence that: 1) is threaded through pillars of the economy and contribute significantly to it; 2) has spawned a corruption and influence peddling complex; and 3) has compromised political and public institutions.

Then, there is the government’s position.  It is one where: a) claims of this pervasive and influential presence are greatly exaggerated; b) economic advancement stands on its own, and is untarnished by significant contributions from these sectors; c) the government’s hands are clean; d) the sources of such claims and exaggerations are prejudiced government critics and enemies; and e) this emphasis on imagined evils is an affront to progressive parties.

Taken together, these two diametrically opposed positions constitute the rocky terrain of intractable beliefs and positions.  The questions are: Which position is accurate?  Where is the Plimsoll line of truth?

A start is made by sparing readers the lengthy manifest of related headline stories and seizures.  Let it be sufficient to start arbitrarily with the MV Danielson and end with the fifty pound suitcase.  In between a ship and a plane, there were hinterland airstrips; foreign interdiction of Guyanese nationals; and intercepted shipments involving such disparate conveyances as rice and wood and rum and fish.  It is an undeniable composite of origination in Guyana; of fingerprints from Guyana; and of Guyanese principals at all points.  And this is only representative of what ran afoul of the law (foreign) and made the news.

This much is known and accepted.  And it is known and accepted by law enforcement agencies focused on drug interdiction and money-laundering activities that interception, seizure, and dismantling represent a minuscule portion only of the business conducted; a drop in the powder and currency ocean.  Even if this were only partially true, then any extrapolation could be made as to the extent of this business in Guyana, and of the associated corruption and influence resulting from the fabulous riches generated.  Yet the incredible rebuttals persist: figments of overworked imaginations, media sensationalism, or malicious and biased elements.

Next, the focus shifts to the intelligence from external agencies.  Year after year, the story is the same: transshipment point; source; lack of enforcement; and impunity are some of the conclusions reached about Guyana.

Additionally, the records will show that senior people from Caricom, and leaders from some member states have stated unambiguously that narcotics is a top national security concern.  In conjunction with all the headlines, foreign reports, and regional fears, there remains the corroboration from the ground and streets of Guyana.  The untimely departures of men once identified as successful businessmen; men who rose at warp speed from economic squatting areas to very real skyscrapers, and sprawling fiefdoms.  And still there is denial and evasion.  Both persist in the face of the whispered awareness of friends, friends of friends, family, distant family, and neighbours involved in the “business” and the harvesters of tainted opulence.  Almost everybody knows someone like this in Guyana, and all are at loss to explain the mindboggling wealth, speed of accumulation, ostentatious spending, and clear lack of authentic economic foundations and building blocks.  Ordinary citizens know many individuals who once could not afford some of the basic amenities of life, but who have since become overnight tycoons toasted and hailed.  These are the men who need – and brandish – more security than the President, both in bodies and electronics and barbwire.

And yet denial and withdrawal continue at the levels where this should matter.  Before a preponderance of evidence, some stand ready to pick up the gauntlet and defend those destroying this nation in multiple ways with: “as soon as people prosper, there are those saying that it is drugs.”  Undoubtedly not every example of staggering advancement is suspect; just that a sizable majority achieves abnormal and mysterious success levels.  It is where house and castle, car and caravan, rise and fall, all point to a blinding truth.

When the establishment hastens to defend and advocate on behalf of this premature, but bouncing, aristocracy, it only sharpens the glare.  Rather unabashedly, highly placed men and women are motivated to overrule a continuous circumstantial evidentiary chain of substantial probative value.  It is a chain that is inclusive of huge discoveries; monitoring documentation; external apprehension; a telltale presence; questionable conduct; and institutional atrophy, and that will not be denied.

Now, it is left to citizens to ask why the government appears to engage in a desperate struggle to conceal truth and reality; why the concert of verbal protections and interventions; why the absence of political curiosity; and why the wholesale suspension of concern.

Having said all of this, Guyanese have to decide whether to believe that the nation – and their own existence – is surrounded by deep peril; or to take comfort in the assurances and subterfuges of their politicians.  They must decide if a convincing case has been made.  Or if it could be said of some: “What a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive.”