SOVEREIGNTY & SECURITY

Jun 07, 2009 AFC Column, Features / Columnists

---

– What is the PPP doing to cause it to lose out on much needed support from international friends and allies?

By Raphael Trotman
Recently, the issue of sovereignty and the right to self determination became focal points for discussion arising out of the issues of Guyana’s failure to receive 6 million euros from the European Commission as a consequence of its failure to submit a Sugar Action Plan, and the second issue was the rejection of the British Government funded Security Sector Reform Action Plan by Head of the Presidential Secretariat Dr. Roger Luncheon. In both instances, the AFC was very strident in its criticism of the government, and on both occasions, and quite predictably, the government responded with its own attacks on the AFC.

What was surprising and disappointing was that instead of saying to the Guyanese people what were the precise reasons why we failed to benefit from the disbursement of much needed money to help cushion the fall of the sugar industry, and more particularly, its workers, and why the British-funded security reform programme was “offensive”, the government attacked the AFC as being “colonial” in its mentality. The PPP should not attack the messenger, but look at the messages and realize that something that it is doing is causing it to lose out on much needed support from international friends and allies.
We were disappointed in the responses because we expected that at least for once the debate would have been a mature and responsible one; not filled with red herrings and ridiculous statements. Most disappointing and disturbing of all was the incredulous claim that the AFC is pushing for a return to colonialism.

I invite the apologists, spin doctors, and AFC bashers to look around at the spectrum of AFC Leaders, members, and supporters and they will realise immediately that we attract a younger demographic comprising persons who have little, or no, attachment to the pre-independence era, and who have no interest whatsoever in going back there.
No one in the leadership of the AFC during the period of its formation, and after, has ever even hinted at us going back to the colonial days, but what we will continue to call for is better governance and transparency, based on international best practices.
There is no denying that there are some in Guyana who wished we were back under dominion rule. Recently, an elderly couple from Port Mourant remarked to me that they wish that they were living under “de white man” again now that they have seen the ignominious glory of the PPP in government. That’s living testimony from former PPP supporters. Rest assured that we’ve since given them hope that change is coming and they are now safely and happily with the AFC.

We believe that Guyana’s independence is sacrosanct and that no one or no government has the right to interfere with it. That said however, we believe that Guyana has to see itself as being a member of a regularly organized international society that promotes democracy, good governance, embraces sound macro-economic fundamentals, and places a high premium on the security, wellbeing, and individual rights and freedoms of its citizens. Guyana then cannot simply proclaim itself independent, but then enter into arrangements, sign numerous Memoranda of Understanding and Treaties and then when these are invoked, immaturely pick up its bat and ball and say “I done play”. The political reality does not allow for it. If we fail to abide by the international rules, that we say we accept, we will become a pariah state and find ourselves isolated and scorned, and our people discriminated as they travel and seek refuge elsewhere. So I say don’t raise the independence flag at me. Prove to me that you are independent, and pragmatic, wise, and understanding.

In a recent attack on the AFC by the PPP apologist who writes the weekly column “Blame It On The Government” these words were used: “The people of Guyana must take note, that the Alliance For Change which presents itself as a party for the people of Guyana, is at the forefront of its plan to have Guyana abrogate its sovereignty. It is among the foremost critics of the government for every little thing and people must understand why. This party depends on money from foreign governments. Its leaders lied when they said that the advertisements placed in foreign papers were funded by disgruntled PPP supporters.”
Our first answer to this poppycock is actually to say thank you for dedicating so much column space and air time to the AFC. It tells me that we are effective, that you are threatened, and that we are growing as the force. In fact I wonder why the PPP is not attacking the other opposition party like it is the AFC. Secondly, nowhere have we ever called on this government to abrogate our sovereignty, in fact, we have challenged this government to stand up to Suriname and Venezuela when our territorial integrity has been threatened. We have demanded greater agitation and advocacy for Guyanese when they are harassed and discriminated in sister CARICOM countries, and we have played our part in ensuring that the sovereignty of Guyana remains secure and independent.

In fact, it was the PPP government which proudly presented the British-funded plan to the National Stakeholders in April, 2008 as being the National Security Plan, with 11 components. It was not the AFC that signed the agreement with the British Government when the country needed help. It was the PPP. So who is really surrendering the nation’s sovereignty?
It is laughable that we are the ones being accused of wanting a return to colonialism when it was the PPP administration that went cap in hand to the mother country begging for help. Tell me how come the British Government, which was so kind and good when “Fineman” was running rampant, is now so bad. Tell me how come?

Now that “Fineman” is dead, the pundits believe that the other salient aspects of the reform are not necessary, and so they choose to pick a fight. The issue of sovereignty was not raised because it is the cause of the war, but rather because it is being used as the occasion for the war. The government’s antics have been revealed as a classic example of the casus belli.
Thirdly, and just because I believe that I have the right to say “I told you so”, I have to remark that the PPP has once again flip-flopped and given up the “pepper sauce” line about AFC financing and gone back to the old whipping horse about foreign governments. We have never received a red cent from any government and will never do so. Under our Freedom of Information legislation we will ask the question: how much did the PPP and its affiliates and associate unions and organisations receive from Russia in the time when it was in opposition, and who collected, and how was it spent?
I did predict that because of the maliciousness and wickedness of the PPP that it would soon have to give up the “pepper sauce” allegations. It is now clutching at straws. The Bible reminds us that “whom God bless no man curse”.

We in the AFC and the rest of Guyana were encouraged by the PPP to support the reform programme over a year ago now we are being told to stop supporting it. We believe the programme is a good one for Guyana. It has several modern and acceptable features which can be found in reform programmes implemented throughout the world. These include:
• Multi-stakeholder involvement and parliamentary oversight (These are a far cry from abrogating sovereignty and in fact ensure greater national ownership)
• Total Guyanese ownership in the staffing of the implementation unit.
It is not uncommon for funding agencies to retain an involvement in projects which are being financed by them whether they be for road building, education, and yes, even security. Where is the paranoia coming from? I argue that this reform programme is too important for this country to lose, and if we continue to quibble and fight over flags and sovereignty, the Guyanese people will be the ultimate sufferers when the criminals strike again.

In closing, I am happily driven to endorse, borrow, and restate the words of US President Barack Obama made recently in Egypt: “No system of government can or should be imposed by one nation by any other. Each nation gives life to this principle in its own way, grounded in the traditions of its own people… But I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn’t steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. These are not just American ideas; they are human rights.”

We Guyanese expect no less than do the other people of the world.
Therefore, in the interest of peace, stability and development and on behalf of every citizen who has been a victim of crime, I urge the President of Guyana, as Commander-in-Chief, and the High Commissioner of the United Kingdom to return to the negotiating table and to agree on a way forward. Security remains one of the greatest challenges to the development of Guyana. It cannot be managed and achieved through unilateral governmental action, and unless there is both widespread and international support. I believe that there is no problem that cannot be surmounted by well intentioned negotiations. Security, sovereignty and good sense are not mutually exclusive and irreconcilable. We do not have to surrender our sovereignty to achieve peace, security and stability.

*******************************************************************************************

THE AFC’S FREEDOM OF INFORMATION BILL OF 2006

It has now been almost two months since the President of Guyana made the announcement at the 5th Summit of the Americas that his government would table a Freedom of Information Bill in the National Assembly. Though we have heard nothing else since this ground-breaking announcement, we presume that everything is on schedule and that the much anticipated Bill will be presented in a few days’ time.

However, the AFC has pointed out that there is no need for there to be a new Bill introduced because one has been presented by us since 2006. The support for its passage into law has already been indicated by the PNCR and the GAP/ROAR opposition parliamentary parties. The missing national stakeholder is the PPP/C who we continue to urge to join the cause by supporting the AFC’s Bill. If on the other hand it wants to have its own Bill then we will welcome the move, because the legislation is very important to the strengthening of democracy and good governance in Guyana.
In the interest of publicly educating the citizens as to the various features of the Bill, we discuss briefly other clauses.

Protection against being sued for defamation

Clause 38 of the Bill seeks to protect those who are required by law to provide information from being sued for defamation over the contents of those documents. There is a presumption that the person producing the document has acted in good faith and with the belief that the document was given in accordance with the law. In this regard therefore:
“(a) no action for defamation, breach of confidence or infringement of copyright may be brought against the public authority or against the responsible Minister, or an officer or employee of the public authority as a result of giving access;
(b) no action for defamation or breach of confidence may be brought, in respect of any publication involved in the giving of access by the public authority, against – (1) the author of the document; or (2) any person as a result of that person having supplied the document or the information contained in it to the public authority;
(c) no person shall be guilty of an offence by reason only of having authorized, or having been involved in the giving of the access.”

---

---