The Editor, Sir:

The central point of The Guardian's position is that the structure of the LNG deal is bad for the Caribbean. There is nothing in your response to address this assertion. To address this position you must be able to broaden your analysis from its current narrow focus on Jamaica and include the entire Caribbean.

Myopic vision on our part in this region will leave us exposed and vulnerable to international corporations, businesses and governments.

They will continue to play one government against another as pawns in their game.

Review subsidies

If the impetus for the Jamaican request for cheap LNG came from Alcoa as a condition to its proposed investment, it is, therefore, essential to review all the subsidies given vertically to this corporation throughout the region, to evaluate the usefulness for the people of the Caribbean.

What I would like to see from you is a rebuttal which will include an argument for the investments along the vertical chain as proposed. The Guardian is not saying that the deal should be abandoned, but rather it should be reviewed. If The Guardian's position was otherwise, then I would certainly side with you.

Therefore, I fail to grasp your constant bellowing about economic nationalism on this issue. In fact, your failure to assume a regional perspective in this issue, and your continuing narrow economic analysis, come off as a chilling reminder of Jamaica's undistinguished historical record of isolationism and narrow self-interest in respect to the region.

Thankfully, recent governments in this country have reversed this trend. However, it is important that Jamaica's private sector and ordinary citizens follow the lead set by their government in this regard.

I am, etc.,

MICHAEL SAVARIN

msavarin@hotmail.com