Govt. has no intention of effecting real security reform

Oct 29, 2009 News

---

“We are saddened that a reform programme for the security sector worth some $1.6 billion has been abandoned,” said Leader of the Alliance for Change Raphael Trotman.
Yesterday, Troman said that he is not surprised because it was clear from the time that Rondell ‘Fine Man’ Rawlins and his cohorts were hunted down that the government had no real intention of proceeding with the holistic reforms that were intended to be achieved in the security sector.
Trotman posited that the Security Sector Reform Project (SSRP) was the best plan presented to this government in over a decade, and “we firmly believe that the Office of the President (OP) was not interested in reform except to receive the weapons and materiel and the training to go along with the Joint Operation that was put together to kill Rawlins and his gang.”
He reiterated that the root causes approach to crime fighting and security sector management is what the government is not interested in.
“We believe that it suits the narrow political interest of some to have the country de-stabilised and in occasional turmoil. In this scenario, villages are pitted against villages and wild accusations and innuendos fly all around.”
He stated that with each new outbreak of violence the government turns the screws tighter by denying more civil liberties and committing more atrocities such as torture; all done in the name of crime fighting and confronting “domestic terrorism”.
Trotman said that his party is of the view that notwithstanding the relative calm in the country today, many of the causes of past outbreaks of violent crime remain and have not been treated with and attended to.”
The AFC leader stressed that every state has a duty to safeguard its sovereignty and, “this didn’t seem important when Roger Khan claimed to have been abducted or when our air and sea space is continuously violated by all and sundry.”
He stated that the red herring of sovereignty is raised as a distraction and to create an excuse to pull away from implementation.
The AFC believes that the PPP is playing with fire and putting the lives of citizens at risk.
One only has to look at the Lusignan, Bartica, Lindo Creek and recent Essequibo River incidents to know that the security sector in Guyana is in trouble and that the nation needs help to strengthen and modernize it, said Trotman
Trotman recalled that earlier in the year, the AFC was extremely disturbed by the report that the Government of Guyana had signaled its unwillingness to proceed with the implementation of the Security Sector Reform Action Plan (SSARP) in partnership with the British Government.
That plan was developed in 2006 and was to be implemented in the period 2006-2008; together with a three-year capacity building plan for a National Security Committee in the National Assembly between 2007 and 2009.
He noted that Parliamentary Oversight was described by the plan as being at the core of democratic governance and management of the security sector, and key to the success of the programme.
“Security Sector Reform was seen as a critical component for the attainment of good and democratic governance and was twinned with the Commonwealth Secretariat’s sponsorship of the needs assessment of the National Assembly conducted by Sir Michael Davies and the recommendations which flowed therefrom in 2005.”
According to Trotman the inextricable link between governance and security was recognised, assessed, and addressed through the recommendations made.
In the SSRAP it was highlighted that “Guyana remains dangerously close to tipping point…The consequences of failure-of the various stakeholders to seize the moment, to engage and initiate decisive action-may well be the transformation of Guyana into a failed state and/or haven for international criminality, with all the regional and international implications that this may entail.”
He stated that this is a development that should be avoided at all costs and will entail some compromise and flexibility on all sides, in the interests of the long suffering people of Guyana.
According to the AFC Leader the Bharrat Jagdeo Administration’s pretense that it agreed and supported the recommendations led to the mobilization of funding; the identification and utilization of experts, and the activation of the National Assembly to pass Bills and Motions.
“Was this all meant to be a joke?”
He stated that it is apposite to note that the Plan itself identified the risks to its successful outcomes.
Trotman noted that under the plan there is embedded: A selective approach to reform and reluctance to pursue reforms beyond policing; Pursuing operational without concomitant governance (or justice) reforms (it would be dangerous to further capacitate the police without rule of law and appropriate oversight); An overly controlled process and lack of inclusiveness, bolstered by the government’s recent elections victory; Lack of political will to break the perceived linkages between crime and politics (there is a belief on both sides that certain political interests are manipulating the violence for their own purposes) and ensuring appropriate levels of funding through the budgetary process to sustain the institutional and organizational reforms implemented.
He recalled that during the National Stakeholder consultations held at the Office of the President in the aftermath of the Lusignan and Bartica massacres, the President extolled the virtues of the action plan as being the panacea of the ills within the sector.
“Today we witness the government’s chief pretender and obstructionist, Dr. Roger Luncheon, saying that the plan will not be implemented because of “ulterior motives” on the part of the British Government…The AFC had long suspected that the Jagdeo administration was not interested in genuine, comprehensive and transparent reform of the sector that has been for too long characterized by failure and ineptitude.”
According to Trotman only recently, he had indicated that there was a disconnect between the Office of the President and the Parliamentary oversight mechanisms put in place to oversee implementation and policy development of, and within, the security sector.
“This disconnect in our opinion, and we say so without fear of successful contradiction, is deliberate. There has been a continuous pattern of obfuscation, frustration, and circumlocution…these all indicate a deep reluctance on the part of the administration to implement reform measures and is coupled with their total lack of knowledge of the security perils that our country faces, and the consequences that will follow.”
He stated that the members of the AFC are convinced that the government uses these engagements with national and international stakeholders and friends as pressure valves to be opened and utilized when there are crises; but once these subside, it is back to business as usual.
The AFC leader pointed out that the security sector reform programme was specifically designed to go beyond the operational aspects of reform by examining root causes, and the socio-political aspects of the security dilemmas that face the country.
“In this regard, many national stakeholders, other than the government, were expected to play their part…these include Members of Parliament, and civil society.”
According to Corbin the Government of Guyana was intended only to be the vehicle through which the reform process would be facilitated, but that desired outcome has not materialized.
“The Jagdeo administration is reminded that there is far more at stake nationally, other than the protection of its petty, partisan, and puerile interests…The AFC reminds the nation of the Jagdeo administration’s refusal and/or failure to implement the worthwhile recommendations of: the National Security Strategy Organising Committee 2000, the Border/National Security Committee 2001, the Disciplined Forces Commission 2003, and of the National Drug Strategy Master Plan 2005 to 2009.”
He stated that the pattern is pellucid and unmistakable, “This refusal to participate and implement wherever, and whenever, the need for comprehensive reform is identified within institutions that touch on governance, clearly demonstrates, that the Jagdeo administration predictably frustrates the process to achieve its objective of ensuring minimal or no governance reforms.”
Trotman posited that the PPP and the Jagdeo administration has refused to practice inclusive and participatory governance and is taking Guyana down a dark and dangerous road of repression, on which fear and the use of brute force, and torture will be used to govern and subjugate Guyanese.

---

---