I took the liberty to post my story on your Facebook page hoping to find a help to solve the problems that I am facing in China regarding the treatment of my investments.People think that my situation is just an unfortunate private matter for which Guyanese people should have no interests for the facts did not take place in Guyana.Some even consider that taking in to consideration my case is an interference in China’s sovereignty .For finally come to a conclusion that the government of Guyana or China has no responsibility in my situation and it is lack of duty to care or an adventure in an unknown territory that’s in cause. However by the followings I would like to explain my point of vue and demonstrate the necessity for a real debate on my case since I have been pushed around by the Bharrat administration ,followed by the Ramotar s with empty promises in finding solutions to help me protect my investments and rights granted by the agreement between the government of the republic of Guyana and the government of the peoples republic of China on the promotion and protection of investments. Since my constitutional rights as a Guyanese, to work and to own property was violated my country has a legal duty of care to assist me in protecting it in the respect of the agreement. The embassy of Guyana in beijing wrote an attestation explaining the nature and the reason of their involvement in my case to protect my investments.Since the Embassy and ministry of foreign affairs claimed to have their hands tied and do not have any answers from the Chinese government in my case. The gouverment washes their hands and pushes responsability on the chinese Goverment. Is their a political willingness to let the situation rot with time?. 1China -Guyana agreement on bilateral investments.( can be downloaded on the Guyanas ministry of foreign affairs web site.) The 27 of mar 2003 China -Guyana have signed a bilateral investment treaty which defines the rules of treatment of investments by both states.Thrue this agreement chinese nationals can invest in Guyana and vice versa, complying the Guyanese government to the international rules on protection of foreign investment. Since its entry in force private Chinese investments and public investments increases to Guyana without any significant transaction on the other side. At my knowledge, in the application of this agreement there is a balance of power imposed by the richest party whose influence does not always allow a win win for all players. The management of this agreement is not well mastered by the Ministry of foreign affairs of Guyana because Guyanese entrepreneurs can ‘t have self owned buisinees in china. This is a new colonialism system under the aspect of a free will cooperation. The system ensure that Guyanese should keep on importing buying consuming chinese products for all time. The system is maid to ensure that Guyanese entrepreneurs may never be at the source of the products they are economicly and politically forced to consume.Guyanes talent in my buisiness scope with globalization dreams should be reduced to the insignificant.It is clearly proven my the silence of the differents administration on my case that the interest and rights of the insignificant are sacrificed for the good of the cooperation. This agreement and those signed after are heritage four the young guyanese who will surly have dreams like mine and will be turn down by a system encouraged by their parents.This excluding practice betrays the principal of Guyana’s motto on the coat of arms “one people one nation one destiny’ The goverment of Guyana is witness and Contracting party in my case and therfore refuse to her my claims; My investment is not treated as it should be in the respect of the bilateral agreement. The investment suffers from a evident expropriation (direct or indirect).My constitutional rights as a Guyanese citizen to work and to own property has been violated. a) I was authorized to invest and granted a furniture manufacturing business license to operate in a building that has no security clearance and construction permit. b) The court has found the contact with the landlord to be null and pronounced the building can not be used.The court did not granted the right to evaluate the investment before expropriating it with the right to use the building which is the backbone of the investments. c)The local government forbid the installation of new furniture factory in the area. d)The court has seized the investment to guarantee the payment of the contract that they finally found null. ( furnitures models ,patterns equipments tools...)My company was deny the right to use and maintain the investments.) e) Therefore the court has recognized the investments and found the business licence and it process to be legal and in between the law. The preamble of the agreement specifies: The Government of the Republic of Guyana and the Government of the People’s Republic of China, hereinafter referred to as “the Contracting Parties.” Desiring to intensify economic cooperation between both States on the basis of equality and mutual benefits; Recognizing that the reciprocal encouragement, promotion and protection of investments will be conducive to stimulating the business initiatives of investors and the economic development of both States; Intending to create favourable conditions for investment by investors of one Contracting Party in the territory of the other Contracting Party. Agreeing that these objectives can be achieved without relaxing health, safety and environmental measures of general application. Respecting the sovereignty and laws of the Contracting Party within whose jurisdiction the investment falls. The article 2 of the agreement specifies; 1.Each Contracting Party shall encourage and create favourable conditions for investors of the other Contracting Party to invest in its territory and shall admit such investments in accordance with its laws and regulations. 3.Without prejudice to its laws and regulations, neither Contracting Party shall in any way impair by unreasonable or discriminatory measures the management, maintenance, use, enjoyment or disposal of investments in its territory by the investors of the other Contracting Party. -Is it creating favorable conditions by inducing accepting investments in a building that is not in between the law ,regulations and can not be used? -Is delivering a permit to operate in a illegal building agreeing on the protection of investments ? -Is delivering a permit to operate in a area where the township does not allow it to be use ,agreeing to achieve the objectives fixed by the preamble of the agreement? -Is it creating favorable conditions to seize a foreign investments allowing a denial of maintenance enjoyment use disposal without compensation ? How can the company satisfies it purpose of investment if it has no legal operative headquarters ? In international law the seizure denial of use enjoyment maintenance disposal of foreign investments without compensation constitute an expropriation. The article 4 specifies ; Expropriation 1. Neither Contracting Party shall expropriate, nationalize or take other similar measures (hereinafter referred to as “expropriation”) against the investments of the investors of the other Contracting Party in its territory, except: (a) for the public purpose; and (b) under domestic law; and (c) without discrimination and (d) against compensation. 2. The compensation mentioned in Paragraph 1 of this Article shall be equivalent to the market value of the expropriated investments immediately before the expropriation is taken or before the impending expropriation becomes public knowledge, whichever is the earlier. The value shall be determined in accordance with the generally recognized principles of valuation as if the investments were to be sold as an ongoing concern on the open market disregarding the question of expropriation. The compensation shall include interest at the average commercial rate from the date of expropriation until the date of payment. The compensation shall be made without delay, be effectively realizable and be freely transferable 3.The investor affected shall have a right, under the law of the Contracting Party making the expropriation, to prompt review, by a judicial or other independent authority of that Contracting Party, of his or its case and of the valuation of his or its investment in accordance with the principles set out in this Article. Until now the investment is not evaluated but expropriated. Can not put a amount on the investment Therefore the court has requested me to pay an amount of 13 000,00usd for an evaluation requested 2 years ago. Is this willing slowness in between the principals of protection of the agreement?
Posted on: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 19:26:33 +0000