 |
By Rickey Singh |
Bridgetown, Barbados, April 17, 2005: THERE SEEM to be no limits to the unbridled arrogance of spokespersons for the United States administration of President George W. Bush when it comes to publicly rebuking, indeed, dictating to governments in the Caribbean Community how they should conduct their foreign and domestic governance policies.
Latest example of this US 'big-stick'-wielding policy emerged last week to affect Guyana. But there were two earlier examples, one concerning Barbados and other CARICOM governments, following their criticims of the war on Iraq, and the third pertains to the right of the Surinamese people to freely choose a government.
It is of significance to note that in all three cases public chastisement/warnings were the preferred US State Department's option to private interventions - either by informal conversation or official communication with the governments concerned.
+BARBADOS: In April 2003, following the Caribbean Community's collective condemnation of the side-lining of the United Nations Security Council by the Bush administration for its pre-emptive war on Iraq, Otto Reich, the well-known Cuban emigre, then Special Envoy for Western Hemispheric Initiatives, publicly chastised, while in Barbados, regional governments for criticising the US Iraq war decision.
Exercising his freedom to openly disagree with the position of Barbados and her CARICOM allies, Reich had poured salt in the wound by using state-owned Caribbean Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) to launch his public rebuke. He warned regional leaders to ponder the "consequences of their criticisms" telling them that "the American people and Congress were listening and it would be difficult, for example, to put a case about regional banana exports considering CARICOM's position (on the war on Iraq)..."
That was just too much for Foreign Minister Dame Bille Miller who, according to an article titled `Outrage' in the `Weekend Nation', angrily delivered a verbal slap on Reich, declaring that her government was "gravely concerned, deeply displeased, and most offended" by comments of the US envoy. If there were differences of opinion, she said, "we would wish to be told in private
Second Example
+SURINAME: Another example of this arrogance was reported in the `Jamaica Observer' last month (March 12) of a US "warning" to Suriname against former military ruler, Desi Bouterse, being part of any new government in Paramaribo. Bouterse had taken power in a coup in 1980 and has been in and out of power between then and 1991.
He is leader of the National Democratic Party with seven parliamentary seats won at the last general election and his party is contesting the forthcoming May 25 election. Preliminary reports signal the possibility of his party being involved in a new coalition arrangement. The State Department said it "will find it difficult to work with such a government (involving Bouterse)".
Washington apparently wants to determine the shape of a new Surinamese governmenrt even before the election takes place. And, once again, it chose to make its stand public. A repeat of Otto Reich's earlier indiscretion in Barbados.
The latest example of such political rudeness from the USA came last Tuesday (April 12) from State Department spokesman, Richard Boucher, in a public warning to Guyana. Again, no preference for private communication. Just resort to the big stick approach.
Amid raging controversy in 2004 over allegations of possible direct ministerial and police involvement in killings by a claimed `phantom death squad' - the victims included wanted armed criminals - President Bharrat Jagdeo established a high-level three member commission to investigate and determine whether there was evidence of claimed involvement by Home Affairs Minister Ronald Gajraj..
The Commissioners were: Appeals Court Judge and former Director of Public Prosecutions, Ian Chang (chairman); ex-Chancellor of the Judiciary and former Attorney General of the previous People's National Congress administration; and former Chief of Staff of the Guyana Defence Force, Brigadier Norman McLean.
The Minister of Home Affairs agreed to go on leave pending the outcome of the Commission's findings. The Commission spent some nine months of public hearings, including three extensions, and summoned about 20 witnesses after those claiming to have "evidence" on Gajraj's alleged involvement with the death squad killings failed to show up.
The Guyana Government was anxious to benefit from the information was said to have been in the possession of the US embassy on the sensational claims of death squad killings, but none was made available to either the police or the President's Office.
Nor was any of the evidence the main opposition People's National Congress/Reform (PNCR) claimed to possess to show ministerial complicity, ever made available to either the Police Commissioner or any of the investigating commissioners.
Chang Commission
Finally, the Chang Commission made its report available to President Jagdeo early this month. The commissioners unanimously exonerated Minister Gajraj in declaring that they had found "no credible evidence against him".
They did, however, express concerns about the minister's involvement in the issuing of some gun licences - a practice that prevailed from the time of the previous PNC dispensation. And they urged speedy action to end such a practice and ensure transparency also in the sensitive issue of intelligence gathering - away from ministerial involvement.
The entire Guyana cabinet decided that in view of the findings of the Chang-led commission, Minister Gajraj should be invited to end his leave of absence and resume duties as Home Affairs Minister on Monday, April 11, while initiatives are being pursued to remove any semblance of ministerial involvement in approval of gun licences.
Then came, within 48 hours, the very strange public warning from the State Department's Boucher criticising the reinstatement of Gajraj as a cabinet minister because of "serious procedural irregularities" raised by the Chang probe commission.
For sure, the minister is not without blame and his own arrogance as often displayed by his public utterances, does not help. And the necessity for a ministerial reshuffle, in the months ahead, should not be ruled out by President Jagdeo, without bowing to undue and inappropriate external pressures.
However, the US State Department has not hel
ped
by its self-appointed role as judge and jury - above the findings
of the high-level independent probe commission when Boucher
ominously chose to resort to that old device of US administrations
by threatening "possible reduction in US aid" to Guyana.
He said that "we would be looking at the range of assistance
we provide the government..."There is a self-serving reason for this dictation from Washington. Even before any serious investigation had started into the "death squad allegations", the State Department took the surprising step of making public its unilateral revocation of Gajraj's visa for visits to the USA, without any prior communication with the Guyana Government.
Consequently, the conclusion of the Chang Commission in unanimously declaring there was "no credible evidence" against the Home Affairs Minister, must have been embarrassing for the State Department by its earlier hasty visa revocation act.
Hence, as a defensive posture to justify its previous hostile action against the Home Affairs Minister - and having earlier influenced the Canadian government into also revoking Gajraj's visa for Canada, it now had to come out swinging with threats of cut in economic aid in protest against a sovereign, democratically elected government exercising its right to independently probe allegations against the minister's reinstatement, having been unanimously exonerated.
Washington may also have moved speedily behind the scenes, once the decision was taken to reinstate Gajraj, to influence its European allies into also coming out with a condemnatory position on his reinstatement. The EU has expressed its "disappointment and disquiet" over Gajraj's reinstatement
As this column was being written, there came a statement from Canada that contrasted with the threat of possible aid reduction from the USA. In expressing its own concern, Canada said:
"It remains committed to Guyana's long-term development. However, challenges presented by the governance climate in the country make the advancement of this partnership, at times, difficult".
There are various ways for donor nations to express their concerns without openly insulting or threatening small, weak and economically vulnerable nations.
'Big stick' politics is certainly not the way for encouraging mutual respect and strengthening bonds of historical friendship between the mighty USA and Guyana or against any of its CARICOM partners.