Monday, April 07, 2025

INDIA

Shalkhar Model of Sustainable Agriculture is a Blend of Science, Spirituality

Rachna Verma 


Transition from chemical fertilisers and pesticides to natural farming techniques was not easy on the pockets of farmers in this Himachal Pradesh village initially, but they stayed put until the benefits trickled in.

A young farmer being taught about natural farming by BTM. Image Credit: Sujata Negi

Shimla, Himachal Pradesh: Across the country, governments have been pushing for more sustainable farming practices, but it has always been a challenge to raise awareness and convince people. In the remote tribal village of Shalkhar in Kinnaur district of Himachal Pradesh, the shift to sustainable farming happened very differently as the villagers unanimously decided to stop using pesticides and adopt natural farming in 2016.  

 The transition, however, was not an overnight process. It involved years of consistency, strict adherence to community-led rules, and complete dedication to the cause.

"The discussion about banning chemical fertilisers began way back in 2011, but it took over five years for the whole village to finally agree on it. Taking that final step was difficult as the livelihood of villagers was dependent on agriculture," villager Ram Gopal Negi (34) explained.

The villagers who belong to Kinnauri tribe started this conversation after being consistently exhorted by TK Lochen Tulku Rinpoche, a spiritual teacher in Buddhism, during his annual spiritual visits to the village. The village panchayat was also in favour of a ban on chemical fertilisers and pesticides. The government started promoting natural farming in the area only in 2018.

“Rinpoche never made it mandatory. It was in 2008-09 that he started requesting people not to use pesticides and chemical fertilisers as they were affecting the environment and soil. Adding a spiritual angle to it, he stated that there are many organisms in the air, which we kill while spraying pesticides, which is a sin. This spiritual guidance helped the villagers understand the broader consequences of their actions,” village pradhan Suman Negi (30) told 101Reporters.

Asked why he chose Shalkhar village, Rinpoche explained, "I am from this village. I was born here. Before attempting to change anything outside, I first need to change my home. This is why I focused on Shalkhar. I noticed that people were using many chemical fertilisers, which were deteriorating the health of the environment. Moreover, they were not benefiting financially from it." He added that people were kind enough to listen to him.

However, it was only in 2011 that people really took note of what Rinpoche advocated. In 2016, the chemical ban was imposed, with Rs 25,000 fine to be paid by those defying it. “So far, nobody has broken this rule," Suman said.

The change was not easy as the whole village was dependent on agricultural income. The difficulties for the village began immediately after the ban on fertilisers. "Since the apple trees were accustomed to spraying chemicals, we saw a sudden rise in mites and woolly aphids. Apple production dropped by up to 80%. In fact, to cope with the financial crisis, people here sought work as road construction labourers with the Border Road Organisation [BRO],” she narrated.

Women and other villagers being trained at Shalkhar village in Himachal Pradesh. Image Credit: Gaurav Negi

Manoj Kumar Negi (45), a farmer from Shalkhar, told 101Reporters that he is the sole breadwinner of his seven-member family. “Before the ban, I used to produce around 200 boxes of apples, besides pea, cauliflower and potatoes. 

After the ban, I barely got 20 boxes of apples, many of which were damaged,” he said.

Manoj had no option but to work for Rs 433 a day with the BRO. Despite earning nearly Rs 13,000 per month, he struggled to meet the financial needs, including the educational expenses of his children. “I somehow managed in those initial days of shift. Today, our financial condition has improved. My children study in Shimla and Solan, with all expenses covered by farm income,” Manoj added.

He also stated that after quitting pesticides, farm work has significantly reduced as there is no spraying to control diseases.

Government Accelerates the Shift

Ritesh Kumar Gupta, Project Director, Reckong Peo, Kinnaur, told 101Reporters that the village was adopted by the agriculture department under the natural farming practices and developed as a model village, as part of its first phase of natural farming expansion in the state.

“The district is blessed with good climate, so there were not many pesticides in use here compared to other parts of Himachal. Many diseases are not seen here due to the cold conditions. When the department adopted the village, they had already abandoned chemical fertilisers, but were dealing with production and disease-related issues,” he said.

The department made them aware of the principles of natural farming, which means not eliminating any organism from the food chain but managing it within the limited capacity. “Since then, we have provided 89 training sessions for 3,120 farmers, of which 1,006 are active farmers who have cultivated around 273.2 hectares of land across Pooh block. Apart from apples, people are cultivating pea, rajma [kidney beans], barley, potatoes, and stone fruits, which are also cash crops," Gupta explained.

In the training sessions, agricultural field staff taught farmers how to make ghanjeevamrit, jeevamrit and beejamrit. Experts visited the village to demonstrate techniques. Gradually, the village fields saw the shift. Now, the whole village has organic and natural farming certifications.

According to Ram Gopal, Block Technology Manager (BTM) used to visit every 20 days, and was always available on phone. 

Blending science with tradition, the community also performs a special smoke ritual of sur as suggested by the Rinpoche. The ritual involved mixing sattu (roasted flour), ghee, sugar and some local aromatic herbs, which were burnt to create smoke. This  smoke was thought to purify the atmosphere and ward off harmful pests that might otherwise destroy the crops. 

 When asked why he encouraged the use of sur, the Rinpoche explained that its spiritual importance was undeniable. "I do not know the scientific principles. All I know is that sur, which contains local herbs [shompaa], ghee, roasted flour and other ingredients, works in pest control. Just as burning cow dung keeps mosquitoes away, sur works to cleanse the environment," he claimed.

To promote the village and natural produce, the government has established the Ratan Bhadurpur Farmer Producer Company (FPC), which has formed ties with multiple companies to sell apples. However, Deewan Negi (37), an apple grower, claimed that the company does not pay them a higher amount for natural produce. He also stated that marketing is one of the challenges they face, so they are thinking of taking up this matter with the state government. However, he agreed that the village is earning more than before.

Confirming that the prices are the same, FPC chairman Ram Gopal said, “Nearby villages of Chango and Hurling have now started natural farming, but we have been doing it for some time. Still, they sold their crops for Rs 1,100 per box, and so did farmers of Shalkhar. Here, instead of giving crops to the FPO, farmers often sell to local contractors, who quote a single price and take the crops directly from the fields. Farmers generally prefer this because it reduces labour and transportation costs. We have been taking up the matter with the government, but no concrete solution has been reached yet. So, we are unable to market our produce the way it should be.”

Replicating Good Work

Inspired by the success in Shalkhar, nearby villages of Hurling, Sumra, Chango, Nakoo, Tabo and others have adopted natural farming techniques. In fact, Hurling village has even set up a checkpoint to prevent pesticides from being brought into the village. While productivity has not been affected much except for the initial transition time, people noticed that the overall health of crops and trees have improved.

Sujata Negi, who herself is a passionate farmer and BTM trainer from the Spiti Valley, said that to inspire people, local monasteries mostly reject chemically grown fruits and vegetables as offerings. She pointed out that their decision to pursue natural farming was not merely spiritually motivated, even though spiritual factors played a strong role in it.

The farmers also contacted the horticulture department to deal with the challenges. They learned about current issues, like water scarcity and water-conserving farming practices in the region due to scarce resources. Drought tolerant black peas became predominant. Another widely adopted practice was multi-cropping, where diverse crop varieties were grown together on the same farm to make full use of their resources and ensure less risk at once. 

Sujata elaborated on how, inspired by the Shalkhar model, Yeshey Dolma from Lidang in Spiti Kaza formed a group of 20 women farmers to collectively cultivate 80 bighas of land using natural farming practices. Yeshey manages 25 bighas of irrigated land, producing peas, cabbage, cauliflower, broccoli and potatoes, apart from all the conventional cereal crops such as barley and kala matar. She also rears local cattle, including jomo, bashi, churu and yak. All her farming work is supplemented by her family members — her husband who is a senior secondary school teacher, three sons and a daughter — while she has equipment such as a power trailer and tractor.

Rachna Verma is a freelance journalist and a member of 101Reporters, a pan-India network of grassroots reporters.

 

Laws of Gravity Catching up With Tesla



Prabir Purkayastha 


If Tesla's initial rise was helped by EVs cutting down carbon emissions, then Trump's denial of climate change has also adversely impacted Musk's appeal.


We are not talking here about Nikolai Tesla, the genius who invented the AC motor and whose design is the basis of almost all electric motors today, including electric vehicles (EVs). This article is about Tesla, the car company that has become synonymous with Elon Musk. Tesla's share price, which defied the laws of gravity for years, is now on a steep downward trajectory, losing about half its market value over the past three months. Statista notes that it has lost the title of being the world's leader in producing EVs to BYD, the Chinese EV maker. Even after these losses, it remains the world's most valuable car company in terms of market capitalisation, as the price of its shares is much higher than that of its competitors, Toyota and BYD.

So, there are two questions here. Why is Tesla's share price dropping? And why is its share price, even after this steep fall, much higher than that of its competitors, which produce many more cars and types of cars than Tesla?

The Tesla story is as much about Musk as it is about the cars. After eBay acquired PayPal for $1.5 billion, Musk received $176 million. Contrary to what most people believe, Tesla was not started by Musk but by two engineers, Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning, in 2003. However, its major expansion occurred only when Musk joined it and invested the necessary capital. Eberhard had a lengthy legal battle with Musk about who founded Tesla, and the final settlement conceded that Musk, Eberhard and three others were all co-founders of Tesla.

Musk also formed SpaceX, which had a leading aeronautics engineer, Thomas Mueller, as its first employee. Mueller's technical acumen and virtuosity are as much a part of SpaceX's rise as Musk's vision of space-age rockets. I am not addressing Musk's SpaceX valuation, as its shares are not publicly traded, though a private placement has pushed its notional valuation to $350 billion.

Musk's vision of electric cars was to disrupt the then-existing car market with an all-electric vehicle and not through hybrid versions, a combination of internal combustion and electric engines. Second, he was targeting the forward-looking, upwardly mobile segment of the market—the yuppy market—who wanted to combine cutting-edge technology with socially progressive views on reducing greenhouse gases. This segment also gave Apple its market edge with its Apple computers, MacBooks, and iPhones. The Tesla image, or more correctly, Musk's image, was very much a part of why the "tech bros" were passionate about Tesla.

Interestingly, unlike the 19th and early 20th century, when we knew industries by their tech founders, e.g., Edison, Bell, Westinghouse, Swan, in the late 20th century or late capitalism, we now know companies by the capitalist vision of their investors—the market niche they seek to break into—which they can then convert to a monopoly. Musk, therefore, fits into the late capitalist vision of the world, that it is not technology that matters but fashioning a new market for itself, particularly a market that can provide monopoly profits. Venture capitalists do not create technologies; instead, they create monopolies. Their vision is not to expand the mass market, which is highly competitive, but to expand into the elite market, creating new monopolies where profits can be much higher.

Unfortunately, for Tesla and Musk, the current conjuncture consists of three different trends coming together, producing a perfect storm. Today, there are many more EV players in the market, including all the major US car companies, such as Ford, GM, the rebranded Chrysler and Fiat as Stellantis, as well as other foreign car makers like Toyota, Honda, and Hyundai. These companies are not only selling relatively cheaper cars, but they also have a much larger range of cars catering to different market segments, from the relatively price-conscious buyers to those who look for more pricey options with various add-on features. This range of new electric cars—from all-electric EVs to hybrid EVs—is offered by many companies that have all eaten into Tesla's share of the EV market. Though Tesla has five models, they are all in the expensive or very expensive range.

The market segment, particularly the one of people buying electric vehicles and relatively expensive Teslas, is also the one that is not enamoured of US President Donald Trump's politics, particularly his racist vision of the world and denial of climate change. If Tesla's initial rise was helped by EVs cutting down carbon emissions, then Trump's denial of climate change also adversely impacts Musk's appeal.

Most people considered Musk's salute on Trump's inaugural day as either a Nazi salute or a version of the Italian Fascist salute. Musk's attacks on efforts to promote diversity and race equity in the US are well-known, as well as his dismantling of all such schemes as head of Trump's newly created Department of Government Efficiency or DOGE.

Peter Thiel and Musk, both co-owners of PayPal, which fuelled their initial career, come from similar backgrounds and share similar views on race and how the elite should run the world. Musk is from apartheid South Africa, and so is German-born Peter Thiel, whose early education was in South Africa and Namibia. After making money from the sale of PayPal, Peter Thiel set up Palantir, a company that is deeply embedded in the defence and security apparatus of the US.

What has been intriguing for most observers of the share markets in the US is the high price of Tesla shares. Most of us are ignorant of the share of markets and unfamiliar with terms such as price-to-earnings -- P/E ratio-- of a share in a company. The P/E ratio is simply the price of a single share in a company divided by the dividend per share paid to the shareholder.

What is striking about Tesla's case is that its P/E ratio has been 10 times or more than that of any other car company. For example, the P/E ratio of Tesla is currently 103.2, Ford is 11.1, Toyota is 9.6, and GM's is 5.5. That is why Tesla is the biggest car company in the world.

The argument is that, finally, Tesla's shares are slowly coming down as P/E ratios slowly assert their gravitational pull on its share price. But, and that is a big but, Tesla's market capitalisation—the number of shares multiplied by its current share value—is still far ahead of its competitors. Tesla is valued at $878 billion against Toyota's $257 billion, Xiomi's $172 billion and BYD's $156 billion, though they sell many more cars than Tesla. Tesla's exorbitant share price also makes Musk the richest person in the world.

We will not address here whether his other ventures, namely SpaceX, can bring another Tesla equivalent into Musk's stable. Tesla's private valuation of $350 billion does make this possible. After Boeing's failures, Tesla's rockets have become the preferred rocket launchers for the US Space programme. Along with this, SpaceX's leading position in low-orbit satellites has strengthened its financial prospects significantly.

I am going to restrict myself here to only Tesla. Can Musk pull a rabbit out of his hat as he has done many times? Here, Tesla faces two significant problems. One is that its CyberTruck, the popular pick-up segment in the US car market, has encountered a series of problems, needing repeated recalls. The last one has been its stainless steel panels detaching due to the glue used, leading to a recall of 46,000 trucks. This recall is the latest in a series of such problems, most of which needed factory recall.

Also, its fully autonomous robotaxi is nowhere on the horizon. Tesla is behind its US competitor Waymo, which has already put driverless robotaxis in selected routes. It is also well behind leading Chinese brands that offer various levels of automation for their cars. Unlike Tesla, most Chinese companies now integrate such features in their newest models, while Tesla treats them as costly add-ons.

An overview shows that not only Chinese companies are eating the US car industry's lunch but also the South Korean ones. The European car industry, once a world leader, has weakened, though it may create a protected EU market, notably against Chinese industry.

India has huge potential as it has an industrial base and a growing economy, provided it plays its cards well. It needs to focus on supporting not only its automakers but also an indigenous supply chain that supports this auto industry. We have done it in the two and three-wheeler markets. We must also do this to become a global player in the larger auto industry. For that to happen, the Indian decision-makers must understand what self-reliance means and how to build self-reliance without converting it into autarchy. It is also not about the crony capitalism that is on display in the name of Make in India.

 

Delhi: Indian Railway Employees Federation Holds Protest Demanding OPS



Newsclick Report | April 1, 2025.




IREF and Front Against NPS in Railways called upon Railway employees not to fill the option for UPS, which is to be implemented from April 1, 2025.



Railway employees' protested at Delhi's Jantar Mantar on Sunday to demand restoration of Old Pension Scheme.

New Delhi: The Indian Railway Employees Federation (IREF) and Front Against NPS in Railways held a protest at Delhi’s Jantar Mantar demanding restoration of the Old Pension Scheme (OPS) and the scrapping of the New Pension Scheme (NPS) and Unified Pension Scheme (UPS). Hundreds of railway employees from across the country participated in this demonstration.

Addressing the protestors, Amrik Singh, National Executive President of IREF and National President of Front Against NPS in Railways, urged employees not to fill the option for the UPS that is to be implemented from April 1.

Singh said UPS would be harmful for the future of the employees, “We will not rest until the OPS is restored,” he said, adding that about 60 lakh Indian Railway employees and their families across the country would April 1 as ‘black day’.

Sudama Prasad, Member of Parliament (MP) from the CPI-ML (Liberation), and a member of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Railways, launched a scathing attack on the government, accusing it of making policies “only for the profits of big capitalists like Adani-Ambani.”

Prasad accused the government of “snatching jobs from the youth and trying to grab the land of farmers”, adding that this movement by railway employees was an “important fight against privatisation of the country.”

Rajiv Dimri, National General Secretary of All India Central Council of Trade Unions (AICCTU), said preparations for the privatisation of Railways was going on in “full swing.” He said on May 20, on the call of all central trade unions, there would be a nationwide general strike, and called upon all railway employees to participate in a big way.

IREF General Secretary Sarvjeet Singh announced that a nationwide mega demonstration would be held in Delhi on May 1, demanding restoration of OPS, in which lakhs of employees are expected to participate.

Sunday’s protest saw the participation of hundreds of employees from across the country, including Chittaranjan Locomotive Works, Eastern Railway, South Eastern Railway, West Central Railway, Northern Railway, North Central Railway, North Western Railway.

The IREF leadership said if the government fails to reinstate the OPS, their movement would be intensified.

OPS, NPS, UPS: What is the Difference?

Old Pension Scheme (OPS): Under OPS, assured pension is provided by the government to retirees, which is equal to 50% of the last salary drawn. Dearness allowance (DA) is also included in it.

National Pension System (NPS): Implemented in 2004, this scheme includes contributions from both a employee and the government, but the pension amount is not fixed and depends on stock market fluctuations.

Unified Pension Scheme (UPS): This scheme, which will come into effect from April 1, 2025, is a modified form of NPS, in which some changes have been made, but there is no assured guarantee like in OPS.

 

Exxon, Essequibo and Imperialism


Eugene Puryear 







Marco Rubio recently traveled to Guyana, where he threatened military action against Venezuela – continuing a long history of imperialist countries using border disputes to disrupt Latin American unity and economic cooperation.



US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Guyanese President Irfaan Ali. Photo: Irfaan Ali/X

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio recently traveled to Guyana where he threatened military action against Venezuela. Rubio’s statements have inflamed the tense border dispute between Venezuela and Guyana, creating fears of a broader conflict and continuing a long history of imperialist countries using differences over the border between the two countries to disrupt Latin American unity and economic cooperation. 

Since the 18th century, both sides in what we now know as the “Venezuela-Guyana” border dispute have, for most of the time, agreed to disagree about the exact parameters of a border that, as one Guyanese diplomat put it is “[In practice]…a sort of free border, especially for the Amerindians…they do not really recognize ‘lines on the ground.’”

Occasionally, the right to exploit land and resources has caused tensions to flare. The current dispute has the same roots. The very location of the border is the child of various imperial expansion schemes; present tensions are also overshadowed by the plans of US imperialism. What makes the current iteration of the dispute particularly fraught is that it’s formally between two developing nations whose claims are both rooted in a context of anti-colonial resistance. It also has the added dimension of cutting across complex lines of race, ethnicity, and language.

The Guyanese government is drawing on powerful cultural artillery to advance claims of the Guyanese ruling class who have enlisted US imperialism as an ally. To resolve the issue as they want — a full acceptance of their territorial claims — can only have one result: to facilitate US efforts to isolate Venezuela, strangle it economically, and overthrow the socialist Bolivarian revolution. This would be a catastrophic setback to the overall struggle against imperialism and for socialism, which was renewed in the 21st century by the rise of the Bolivarian revolution.

That being said, the Guyanese territorial claims are long-standing and rooted in the contours of the nation that emerged from the struggle against British colonialism. That is why the government of Guyana is able to mobilize popular support around the issue. Relatedly, for Venezuelans this is also an issue rooted in the long struggle to assert itself against British imperialism and thus a significant factor in national identity. Even more, for both peoples, Essequibo is an important historical site of Indigenous and slave resistance that are core parts of the identity of the Bolivarian socialist trend and the Guyanese national liberation struggle. 

Yet, the current situation is undercut by US imperial meddling, which blocks the possibility for sovereign solutions. To understand what is happening today requires a deeper understanding of how the dispute developed and how powerful forces have tried to manipulate the issue both historically and today. 

Zone of Contestation

The Spanish were the first European power to come to the Essequibo region, but the Dutch were the first to set up a system of slave labor to secure their territory. The exact border remained undefined because of the resistance of the Carib people who were able to use the dense rainforests to stave off European encroachment. To weaken the Dutch, the Spanish offered freedom to slaves who escaped to their settlements. The Dutch responded by offering an alliance to the Indigenous, which represented a means to survive and defend against Spanish raids, in exchange for acting as slave catchers. 

With the Indigenous peoples and the terrain preventing effective control, the “border” remained amorphous with both sides claiming more territory than they actually controlled.

Thus, when the British took over the Dutch colonies in 1814, no border was demarcated. Starting with Bolivar, the newly independent Venezuelans were eager to cede as little territory as possible to the British Empire. The English, for most of the 19th century, brushed off the Venezuelan claims, and continued to settle people in the disputed area. 

The Dispute Evolves 

In the 1860s rich gold deposits were found within what was considered “Spanish Guyana” but the miners and the capital were mostly from Britain. Venezuela escalated the issue by granting US investors concessionary rights. 

In 1886, Britain officially declared a western border along a line drawn by an explorer retained by the Crown who drew a line that roughly corresponds to the modern border (before the Venezuelan referendum). British ministers made it clear that in negotiations they would “make large abatements from her claim.” Noting further, that large swaths of its claims rested not on “settled districts” but “effective…general administration” of territories “neither actually used nor occupied.”

A flurry of diplomatic activity ensued, and Venezuela’s claims were subsumed by the United States. The US and UK agreed to a formal arbitration to settle the issue, with no Venezuelan involvement. Venezuela’s president referred to the arbitration deal as a “national humiliation” and the “the press and the politicians strongly criticized” the move.

Nonetheless, the US and England, with involvement from Russia, determined in 1899 that, with some limited modifications, the British assertion of where the border was would now be “internationally recognized.” Venezuela, however, almost immediately rejected the decision, maintaining its original claim, although ultimately, they had no means of pressing the issue, which lay mainly dormant until the 1960s. 

A New Era

As the 60s opened, Guyana was hurtling towards independence under the leadership of the People’s Progressive Party (PPP). The PPP was part of the radical-leaning subset of the postwar wave of decolonization that swept the world after the Second World War. Washington worried that PPP would work with the Soviet bloc and tried to head-off a PPP victory in post-independence elections. Secretary of State Dean Rusk proposed to President Kennedy in July of 1962 to “encourage Venezuela…to pursue their territorial claims.” In November of 1962, Venezuela raised the claim in front of the U.N. 

This led to negotiations between Venezuela, the United Kingdom, and the pro-Western leaders of British Guiana, just a few months from independence. The two sides signed the “Geneva Agreement” in 1966. The agreement resulted in a Venezuela-Guyana “mixed commission” to try to find a way to resolve the dispute. 

The issue revived in the early 1980s where, as Hugo Chávez noted, the Venezuelan government “told us that Guyana was becoming another Cuba, that we had to invade them…They had us plan a whole invasion of Georgetown.” He noted further: “American officials came…to warmonger against Guyana” due to problems the US was having with Guyanese leader Forbes Burnham. The Venezuelan push fizzled and the issue did not again arise until after the Bolivarian revolution took power.

The recent demagogic use of the border dispute by the Venezuelan right-wing has raised fears among the Guyanese people about past manipulations of the border issue by the (non-socialist, non-progressive) Venezuelan governments of the past. 

Guyana, Venezuela, Socialism and Imperialism

The current Venezuelan government position, however, is rooted in how the demarcation dispute relates to imperialism. Originally drawn to enrich British imperialism, the same line is now being used to facilitate US imperialist desire to assert control over the resources of both Venezuela and Guyana. Starting under Hugo Chavez, Venezuela attempted to tamp down the border issue and successfully pursued greater cooperation for precisely this reason, despite intrigues by US diplomats and Guyanese politicians. 

Guyana joined Petrocaribe, which offered energy resources to Caribbean nations on favorable terms. Venezuela provided about half Guyana’s daily oil needs. Venezuela also purchased 40% of Guyana’s rice crop for, on average, 20% above market price

As a result Guyana’s “Oil import bill was contained…its overall public debt has been effectively reduced…In addition, Guyana was able to conserve a significant amount of foreign exchange and accumulate more gross international reserves.”

However, as early as 2006, the US Embassy was reporting that Guyana was hoping to “have others apply the pressure on Venezuela” regarding the border dispute, noting that Guyana had at various times “requested that the USG [US government] and UK issue statements affirming the 1899 settlement.” 

In 2007, the year Guyana joined Petrocaribe, President Bharrat Jagdeo told the US ambassador that “he is encouraging foreign oil companies to begin exploring along both of Guyana’s contested borders — with Suriname and Venezuela.” He added that Chavez’s socialist approach “toward private investors was reckless and not sustainable.” And that Guyana was “investor friendly.” The following year major oil companies “began exploring the waters offshore Guyana in earnest.” The ambassador added he felt Jagdeo “wants the oil companies,” and implicitly their international protection, “to test Venezuela’s sensitivity” on the border issue.

According Guyanese officials, as early as 2009 they were drawing up plans to extend their Exclusive Economic Zone to subsume oil rich areas in disputed territory. In 2011, Guyana applied to the UN for the extension. Negotiations – led on the Venezuelan side by Nicolas Maduro – managed to keep the issue cool for another two years until 2013 when Venezuela seized ships exploring for oil in this disputed maritime territory.

In 2015 Guyana granted an oil license to Exxon in the disputed area. In 2018, the then Guyanese Natural Resources minister told reporters that “We may wish to…sell our oil, as Venezuela had done, to our CARICOM brothers and sisters…That may have some value strategically as well.” This idea is also in circulation among the US right wing.

In 2019 Exxon started shipping oil. The Exxon-government combine quickly integrated most of the relevant press corps into corporate public relations and state-run newsrooms. A lawyer trying to file a case against Exxon had to go to Trinidad to obtain counsel “given how many firms Exxon and its partners, subsidiaries, and suppliers have contracted with in Guyana.”

The dispute accelerated further in September of 2023 when Guyana granted six more drilling licenses, including more to Exxon, in the disputed territory, which prompted Venezuela to announce a consultative referendum in response. In the interim, the U.N. Secretary General has also asked the International Court of Justice to rule on the 1899 demarcation.

The Guyanese government has presented the issue as part of a development push. However, even the IMF thought arrangements with Exxon were “exceedingly generous to ExxonMobil.” In 2018 the government that negotiated the deal fell in a vote of no-confidence linked to widespread anger about the terms in the country, as well as one ruling party lawmaker who voted against the government due to pressure from thousands of sugar workers who had been protesting over being sacked during an austerity push. Current Guyanese leader Irfaan Ali, despite benefiting from the vote of no-confidence, declared his party would not renegotiate the deal with Exxon. 

Popular organizations have continued to push for renegotiation, demanding a referendum on the issue and recently 94% of Guyanese people told pollsters they want to see a renegotiation of the deal. However Guyana’s main political parties have yet to commit to taking any action on this overwhelming desire for greater royalties and tax revenues from Exxon.

As elections approach this year, President Ali has also rushed out one-time cash transfers, reinstated free college tuition and funded infrastructure projects to stave off criticism of Guyana’s deal with Exxon. But doubts remain about Ali’s commitment to truly developing the nation. As one Guyanese activist noted in terms of promises of oil lifting the country out of poverty: 

“Where is the money from the gold? Where is the money from the bauxite? Where is the money from the diamonds? Where is the money from the sugar? Where is the money from the agriculture? Where is the money from the fishing, etc.? The list is almost endless because we are so full of wealth, and yet the people in this country are poor.” 

Resist Imperialism

The record reflects that since 2006 various Guyanese governments have looked to exploit US animosity towards Venezuela to obtain access to oil resources. Ominously General Laura Richardson, head of the US Southern Command (SOUTHCOM), stated in a recent Congressional hearing that Guyana, a “very willing partner,” needs a larger US embassy and expanded US military presence to help “channel and guide them with all these new additional resources.” 

Rubio’s visit, and threats to Venezuela, coincided with US-Guyana naval exercises. Rubio, pointedly, noted on his trip that the US has a “big Navy,” “ongoing commitments to Guyana” and would not hesitate to deliver “consequences” to Venezuela, in defense of Exxon’s oil rigs.

Despite the tensions, it’s important to note that the worst has been averted several times in the recent past through dialogue, something supported by the region, where St. Vincent and The Grenadines, Brazil, Cuba and CARICOM have worked in a cooperative framework with Venezuela and Guyana to find a solution. 

Venezuela has used its oil wealth to pursue significant development goals and disrupt US hegemony in Latin America. This is exactly what led to the country coming into the US crosshairs. Keeping the two nations divided and trying to weaponize Guyanese oil is a US strategy to keep Latin America in a dependent state. This makes it incumbent upon socialists in the United States to make clear that US imperialism has no business meddling in Latin American politics.

Courtesy: Peoples Dispatch