Reading the above captioned article, I had hoped that the writer would guide me, through supportive paragraphs, to an equally supportive conclusion that this UP led government’s policies are indeed a mirror image of his topic. What I was able to determine in this collection of paragraphs, however, was a miasma of seemingly disjointed arguments alluding to policies which, in the writer’s Opinion, should be formulated by government. The writer did not indicate in any manner the flaws – perceived or otherwise – in existing policies that could be a connotation of dictatorship or a blueprint for anarchy.

In his opening paragraph, Mr. Zaza, writes about mixed economies, lack of policies on food security and investors’ preferences. I can appreciate the writer’s concern about diversification and food security but I am loath to accept that the current policy is bad only on the strength of the writer’s desire for a new one. It is important for the writer to specify the inadequacies of the current policy on food security and, by this process, create a desire in his readers for the emergence of an alternate approach. I am also reluctant to acknowledge that investors’ preferences are necessarily a connotation of bad governance only because, in the writer’s opinion, the trend at this time is that investors have, “more interest in our natural resources then in food production [sic]”. I should mention though that interest in natural resources is not essentially an interest in “quick profit” as the writer would have readers believe. The capital outlay leading to the extraction of iron ore, which is a natural resource by the way, is involving and significant and could not automatically lead to this “quick profit” to which Mr. Zaza alludes. The profit does come, but it is not usually during the first few years.

The writer furthered that this government should have sacrificed the payment of domestic debts in favor of keeping ten persons manning a desk that could otherwise be manned by one person. He, in the same breath, also equates the government’s rightsizing policy to the rising crime rate in the country. Have the civil servants whose positions were declared redundant, now become criminals who maraud the streets of Monrovia? If on the other hand the domestic debt payment had been withheld, would not the people to whom money was owed become criminals as well? In my opinion, it is good governance to pay your debts and it certainly is good governance to have a small, efficient workforce.

Continuing his tirade, Mr. Zaza iterated that the statement: Liberia’s Extractive Industries Transparency Initiate (LEITI) is responsible to plan and insure that Liberia’s natural resources such as minerals, gas, oil, and forestry rights are awarded efficiently; is a connotation that the government has privatized the bidding process for our natural resources. The writer needs to understand that: “The Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) is a coalition of governments, companies, civil society groups, investors and international organizations. The EITI supports improved governance in resource rich countries through the full publication and verification of company payments and government revenues from oil, gas and mining. Many countries are rich in oil, gas, and minerals and studies have shown that when governance is good, these can generate large revenues to foster economic growth and reduce poverty. However when governance is weak, they may instead cause poverty, corruption, and conflict – the so called “resource curse”. The EITI aims to defeat this “curse” by improving transparency and accountability.” http://www.eitransparency.org/countryupdates.htm. The writer also needs to understand that the Public Procurement and Concessions Commission is, by law, clothed with the authority which he wishes to arrogate to LEITI. Had the writer researched the entity, he could have avoided associating a transparency initiative to bad governance.

On another issue, the writer seeks to bastardize President Sirleaf’s “privatization policy” by using a flawed analogy. He argued that the deal between the governments of Liberia and the United States regarding the leasing of the Graystone property is questionable only because the cost of acquiring one acre ten miles from Mamba point is US$2,700.00 whereas the government of Liberia settled for US$1,200.00 on this deal. Perhaps he should consider that this agreement does not involve permanent transfer of title but that it involves a lease agreement. Even if it did mean a permanent transfer of title at, say, a cost of US$50,000.00 per acre, the government would only net a million dollars and permanent ownership would be transferred to the US government. In introducing this paragraph, the writer alluded to the privatization of natural resources and cited the lease as a flaw in that policy. This leads me to understand that he now considers land as a natural resource – AMEN!

If in his first paragraph, Mr. Zaza insinuates that investors are more interested in “our natural resources” than in food production, how, might I ask, is food produced if not from land – which is a natural resource?

Mr. Zaza was interested in indicating that the government’s policies are bad and that this might lead to anarchy. I would like him to show me the indicators.

---

© 2007 by The Perspective
E-mail: editor@theperspective.org

To Submit article for publication, go to the following URL: http://www.theperspective.org/submittingarticles.html