Opposition concerned with progress or power?

THE EDITOR: Two events captured my attention recently which made me wonder about the intent and motivation behind some of the UNC’s positions on major national issues. It appears that when faced with an opportunity to co-operate with the Government on issues which appear progressive, it either opposes or takes an outright obstructionist stance.

The first interesting one was the Opposition’s response to the Minister of Energy’s visit to Venezuela to discuss matters related to energy and national security. In an almost immediate response, the Opposition Leader condemned the visit, claiming the Government runs the risk of US sanctions. What the UNC advisers have apparently failed to disclose to the Leader of the Opposition is that the state of geopolitics globally has shifted with the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

With the western world seeking to wean itself off Russian energy, Venezuela is being seen as a possible alternative. As a result, relations have softened, with the US itself sending officials to meet with President Nicolas Maduro. Further, the US has moved to ease sanctions with Venezuela, specifically in the energy sector, as it continues its dialogue.

With this understood, how can the Opposition raise this false alarm about sanctions when it should be fully aware of these developments? Perhaps it may still be living in the alternate reality where Juan Guaido is president of Venezuela, as it declared in Parliament a few years ago.

Trinidad and Tobago and Venezuela have a mutual interest in energy resources that traverse the boundaries of these two countries. The development of these resources is crucial to this country’s economic sustainability. Because of this, it is very prudent for the Government to continue the dialogue with our neighbours, especially now that the US position on Venezuela has softened.

An opposition which cannot understand this and which aspires to be in power is a concerning prospect for me to fathom. Or is it that this is simply criticism for the sake of opposing?

The other issue is the call by the Opposition Leader for UNC councillors to boycott last week’s meeting with government ministers, including the Prime Minister, to discuss the roll-out and implementation of local government reform. The reform, with legislation already passed, proposes to further empower and resource local government bodies to deliver on critical services to meet the needs of the citizens they serve. Why would a local government representative not participate in such an essential aspect of our governance aimed at improving the lives of the burgesses they represent?

The boycott call can be seen as the Opposition’s continued obstructionist behaviour towards most attempts to improve governance. Look at the position of the Opposition on whistle-blower legislation, FATCA, anti-gang laws and bail amendment bills, to name a few.

It often makes me wonder, when I see the stance of the Opposition on these issues, whether it is truly concerned with progress or is simply fighting to get back into office by stymieing progress through opposition and obstructionism.

VYASH NANDLAL

Couva