Barbados immigration practices versus Guyana Govt.’s human rights record

Jul 08, 2009 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
In his address to the 30th CARICOM Heads of Government Conference in Georgetown,  Guyana’s President Bharrat Jagdeo appealed for the human rights of Guyanese to be respected by Barbadian Immigration authorities.
He said, “While countries have a sovereign right to determine their own immigration policies, the maltreatment of CARICOM citizens is repugnant to the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas as well as to basic human decency. If nationals are treated in such a manner by their own people then the region cannot expect a third country to receive its citizens in any better way.”
I agree in principle with the President. I am happy that his view is in harmony with CGID’s position as outlined in our July 1st statement.
CARICOM is plagued by illiberalness. Some CARICOM leaders agree to decisions they do not intend to implement. As implementation of these compact progresses and ramifications become real, these leaders demonstrate ambivalence and insularity. Barbados’ new immigration policy of raiding the homes of undocumented CARICOM nationals who entered Barbados after December 2005, allegedly mistreating them and violating their human rights in the process, and then deporting or removing them from Barbados, is a prime example of such insularity.
Such barren commitment to CARICOM has caused Caribbean integration to morph into more of a concept rather than reality. We must reject this and demand that member states honour the spirit and letter of the CARICOM treaty and agreements to which they have assented.
Guyanese constitute the largest immigrant bloc in Barbados and are therefore bound to be most impacted by its controversial new immigration policy. About 80% of the deportees have been Guyanese. The early morning raids and alleged mistreatment, and consequent deportations, as authorised by Prime Minister David Thompson, is despicable. It has undermined regional unity and must be rightly condemned.
But more importantly, Barbados is not the chief abuser of the human rights of Guyanese citizens – the Jagdeo government is. Therefore, President Jagdeo has no honour, nor moral authority, on the subject of human rights. In fact, he must heed his own counsel.
The lack of respect his government demonstrates for its own citizens, coupled with its mediocre, despotic governance, helps to engender the intolerable mistreatment of Guyanese in the region.
I understand that defending the human rights of Guyanese citizens is a fiduciary duty of the presidency of Guyana. However, President Jagdeo has no credibility to make this case. His government is yet to be held to account, in the international arena, for crimes against humanity. The United Nations has established, and the Guyanese people know, that his government is the biggest violator of Guyanese human rights.”
President Jagdeo presides over an ethnocracy that uses discrimination and ethnic supremacy as instruments of governance. His administration has an oppressive noose around the necks of Guyanese, which they systematically tighten, as if to subjugate that population back into servitude and political wilderness.
No one should take my word as gospel truth. Sections 34, 35, 65 and 70 of the February 23, 2009 Report by the United Nations Independent Expert on Minority Issues, Ms Gay McDougall, establishes this fact.
Section 34-35 states that: “The independent expert encountered claims of widespread and institutionalized discrimination against members of the Afro-Guyanese community and indigenous peoples. Some described the “victimization” of poor Afro-Guyanese and an informal system of rights and privileges in society to which they lack access.”
Section 65 says: “Concerns were expressed by Afro-Guyanese and others regarding numerous killings of young Afro-Guyanese men from 2002 to the present day, and the existence of what has been described as a “phantom death squad”. A wide array of people within the community put the number of deaths at between 200 and 400.
The reports note execution style killings, disappearances and failure to adequately record or investigate the murders.
The perception is of a collusion of Government and law enforcement with known criminals to facilitate the targeting and killing of young African males.”
Section 70 states that: “NGOs and community members raised concerns regarding serious rights violations against Afro-Guyanese including arbitrary detention without trial, torture, deaths and mistreatment in custody, and killings of innocent civilians during operations by the joint services… It is claimed that, taken as a whole, these evidence a wider pattern and practice of gross rights violations against Afro-Guyanese and a failure of due process.”
Amidst such gross atrocities by the Jagdeo administration as well as complaints of torture and other human rights violations, CARICOM leaders continue to claim that they did not wish to interfere in the internal affairs of Guyana.
Their double standard with regard to Guyana is alarming.
Clearly, they are now interfering in Barbados’ domestic policy, and may be rightly so.
But what has been happening in Guyana is far more egregious. Their silence is therefore hypocritical and repugnant to the values espoused in the CARICOM Civil Society Charter.
Moreover, we must respect Barbados’ sovereignty and domestic laws. Guyanese nationals who commit crimes in Barbados, or violate their immigration laws by tendering fraudulent or forged documents, must face justice. They must be jailed and/or sent back home.
The individuals who have been deported or removed from Barbados have allegedly not been accorded fundamental due process to assure conformity to international law.
This is an abandonment of fundamental rights, human decency and democratic norms. It should be unacceptable to the CARICOM citizenry; including Barbadians, who have a long tradition in the region of upholding civil and human rights.
It is true that immigration policy throughout the region needs to be reformed and rationalised.
However, unilateral, singular and uncoordinated action by one government, as in the case of Barbados, is counterproductive to a desired harmonized regional policy approach that is compatible with deeper integration, which we all seek.
Finally, the interjection of race into this discussion is appalling. The reference to “ethnic cleansing,” by some, including Sir. Shridath Ramphal, as well as the mention of race by other individuals in both Guyana and Barbados, while apparently addressing this issue, is an aberration.
There is no evidence that the Barbadian policy is tinged with ethnic considerations. All ethnicities have been deported.
On the other hand, there is no evidence that any one particular Guyanese ethnicity wants to take over Barbados. Therefore, both sides must stop stoking jingoistic fears.
More particularly, the government in Georgetown may make public policy contingent upon ethnic calculations, but their supporters and others must not be allowed to use that instrument to galvanize support, in order to win a regional policy debate.
We must all reject this ugly tactic. President Jagdeo must also do the same.
Let us debate the detriment of Barbados’ immigration policy to the region based on its factual circumstance and demerits, and leave race out of it.
Rickford Burke

---

---