The “New Opposition”

Mar 11, 2009 Features / Columnists

---

The Parrot read the recently released US State Department Human Rights Report. It’s interesting. Over the years the report serves either as an indictment or a vindication on certain policies by the US government with regards to countries around the world. The main issues focused on include, human rights, the narcotics trade and press freedom. Locally, some sections of the media basically cannot wait for the annual release of the report to vehemently castigate the administration for what may be contained within. The castigation has become routinely predictable; the reveling through what’s published has become political.
This section of the media referred to has been branded the “new opposition” by the Head of State. When one reads what they present in the public domain, especially with regards to the report, the description seems appropriate. Generally, countries mentioned in the report receive negative comments pertaining to the main focus of the report. In many cases, the information those compiling the report receive, does not accurately reflect the situation. It is believed that the relevant agencies are not contacted in an effort to verify information. Official responses by the administration corroborate this.
It begs the obvious question; if the compilers are not talking to local officials, then who are they talking to? The routine utterances of the “new opposition” are not dissimilar to the general thrust of the report. This, which has been the pattern over the years, provides an opportunity for an easy conclusion that the compilers may have sought the input of this “new Opposition”. Obviously, like every opposition, the intention is to achieve power. As such, any input to such reports will be biased and inaccurate in an effort to foster their cause. It was again not surprising the way selective parts of the report were presented to the public.
Regarding the alleged transgression of human rights here in which some aspects of the prison situation were cited, the US given their record, especially under the Bush administration which preceded Obama, should not be vociferous in their condemnation of others. The horrific stories beamed across the world which showed the inhumane treatment of prisoners in Abu Ghraib and what was reported in Guantanamo, would catapult the US to the apex of the list of transgressors of human rights.
Remember the pictures which showed Iraqi prisoners being paraded naked, stacked up on each other, beaten and left to the mercy of some Marines? Remember when Obama, as a candidate, vowed to close Guantanamo because of the violation of the rights of the inmates?
These and the many other despicable acts of violation were conducted by US servicemen who were supposed to protect and spread democracy. Why would Obama be so vehement in his condemnation of the atrocities in the two prisons mentioned? Since becoming President, he has signed an order to close Guantanamo. This act has to be the most stringent denunciation of the violation of human rights by the US.
Remember, the African immigrant who was sexually violated by some New York policemen some years ago? This was even before the tenure of the last Bush administration. While this is not an excuse for any country to violate the rights of any of its citizens, it smacks of hypocrisy on behalf of the US. The “new Opposition” has not in any of their reports on the US report, mentioned any of the violations the US was accused of in this regard. Not surprising.
What has become a mantra locally is for the “new Opposition” to exaggerate situations for their narrow political gain and that of their political masters. As it relates to the drug component of the report, again countries were berated. Small countries like ours face many challenges in this regard. The resources to combat this are limited. This is more acute with regards to the porous borders.
Guyana does not have the resources like the US. Yet, with all its might, the US cannot stop this trade on their soil. It is believed that the vast majority of narcotics traded end up in the US and even in their prisons. How then can countries be so indicted by the US? One would expect that in circumstances where others are being upbraided, that the one that casts the aspersions be the one setting the example. Obviously, this is not the case.
What the Parrot found interesting is the deliberateness on the “new Opposition” to not mention aspects of the report that allude to the state of press freedom in Guyana. They ensured that they exhausted the section that alluded to the banning of a certain journalist. The report used words like “it was said” in its mention of the ban. It was said? Why not “this report confirms”? This can serve to confirm the notion that aspects of the report may be compiled from what was reported here. For such an alleged transgression, why not verify the information?
This is supposed to be a US report for crying out loud; the leader of the free world! The media house of the journalist in question has not been prevented from covering the Head of State. Was this reflected in the report? No.
However, the report did indicate that press freedom permeates Guyana. This was not mentioned in any of the local reports by the “new Opposition”. The report stated that “the independent media were active and expressed a wide variety of views without restriction. International media operated freely. The partially government owned daily newspaper, the Guyana Chronicle, which typically displayed government slant, covered a broad spectrum of political and non-governmental groups. The independent daily newspapers the Stabroek News, Kaieteur News and Guyana Times, freely reported and editorialized on the government’s policies and actions. The report also noted that government respected the rights of its citizens.
Why is the “new Opposition” afraid to say that press freedom prevails here? Is it that they have to continue to present such inaccurate information for a reason? The fact that these aspects of the report were conveniently avoided by them serves to further confirm their political intention and vindicates their new branding. Squawk! Squawk!

---

---