Govt.’s attack on Bulkan seeks to divert attention from the substance of her criticisms

Jan 22, 2010 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
In the USA of late, any critic of the Iraq invasion is branded unpatriotic by Republicans, and in so labeling the merits of the criticism are lost or ignored.
The PPP’s ad hominem attacks on Dr Janette Bulkan share the same strategy – they malign her credentials, attack her integrity and question her patriotism, so that in the process public attention can be diverted from the substance of her criticisms.
But Guyanese should resist such distractions, and instead reflect carefully on whether the value of what Dr Bulkan has been saying over the past few years is truly undermined by her alleged failure to protest a map included in an official document of the Government of Suriname.
Dr Bulkan claims that she was not present at the meeting in Washington DC where Suriname officially presented its Report containing the map – but her position on that map is completely irrelevant to the real issue of her competence in the area of forest management.
The long-standing problem with the Suriname border is an issue that should be taken up by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, not a private citizen. I could well ask: what has this government done to ensure the safety of its citizens on the Corentyne River, who are at the mercy of Surinamese pirates and a hostile neighbour?
I could also ask: why did the PPP Government agree to the accession of Suriname to CARICOM (which, presumably, the PNC had resisted while it was in power) without some definitive settlement of the New River triangle dispute?
However, I will not seriously pursue these questions, not only because the answer is that the PPP Government provides no leadership on issues of substance, but also because territorial disputes are the province of governments, not lone activists, however eminently qualified the latter may be.
The real issue raised by the PPP’s vindictive attack on Dr Janette Bulkan is whether there are any merits to her sustained criticisms of the GFC and President Jagdeo’s LCDS. Those who read her articles must realise that her concerns are mainly illegal forest practices – she argues that the allocation and trading of concessions to and by Asian loggers in violation of national laws and policies Indians who considered themselves PPP supporters. And even though many of them still blame the West and Burnham for Guyana’s racial strife and eventual socioeconomic decline, many Indians who have measure of sympathy for the PPP are more inclined to talk disparagingly about Burnham and the PNC than about the West for what transpired before and after 1964. Memo to all concerned: the PNC did not operate alone back in the 60s.
Paradoxically, most Indians who supported Jagan and the PPP and fled Guyana, dating back to the 60s, never ended up in any of the communist countries Jagan embraced back in the 50s or 60s; they fled Guyana only to end up in the USA, Britain and Canada, some of the countries that form the West – and this has to be an extremely powerful statement that while the racial strife in Guyana started on the plantations a couple of hundred years ago and was manipulated again by the West in the 60s, Indians still chose to live in Western nations.
Another extremely powerful statement pertains to the utter rejection by Indians of the PPP and its communist ideology when they chose to live in Western nations. As much as Indians sympathize, love or support the PPP, as reflected by their traditional voting patterns, when it comes to the type of lifestyle they want to lead, it does not synchronize with the PPP’s communist ideology.
And it is anyone’s guess what might have obtained in Guyana between Indians and the PPP had Jagan prevailed back in the 60s in setting up a communist government, because as Mr. Kwayana pointed out in his letter, Jagan was actually ready to take Guyana into the world’s communist bloc of nations and indoctrinate Guyanese workers with the teachings of Marx and Lenin.
Would Indians have gone along with this? Maybe Jagan mistakenly felt that overwhelming Indian support for him and the PPP always translated into support for his embrace of the communist ideology that obviously is not in sync with Guyanese Indians or even Blacks.
I am of the firm belief that many Indians and blacks born before or after the racial disturbance of 1964 have some idea of what happened back in the 60s and would welcome a Truth and Reconciliation body to help start the healing process, but that a better future demands our political leaders be capable of transcending the racial divide and leading our country in unity on the path to true progress.
I believe they recognise that after 28 years of the PNC and 17 years of the PPP, neither party has delivered on unity nor progress promises, and so they may now be amenable to tinkering with drastic change.
Actually, based on the last elections in which about half the PPP support base reportedly stayed home, and some Blacks who once supported the PNC cast their votes for the AFC, I won’t be surprised if many Blacks and Indians quietly long for the day when they can finally have a government that addresses their ethnic insecurities and fears, rather than prey on these by exploiting them for narrow partisan gain.
They want to know that the race problem that started with the colonialists will be solved by us working together under a united political leadership that refuses to pander to races for support and votes.
And I believe I speak for the majority of Guyanese when I say we have no problem with a government that finally would reach out to countries in the West for investors to come and help Guyana achieve her potential.
For over 50 years Guyana had leaders whose ideological hang ups shut out the West from Guyana’s development, even though the West is home to over half a million Guyanese and the West makes the biggest contribution to Guyana’s economy.
Both Jagan and Burnham were anti-Western and anti-capitalist at heart, but where has their ideology gotten Guyana over half a century later? Both men copied racially divisive tactics from the colonialists and successfully exploited their ethnic support bases, but where have their racially divisive tactics gotten Guyana over half a century later?
Their vision on ideology and race never gelled with the real needs of the people of Guyana, and as long as the PPP and PNC continue to see themselves as representing ethnic constituencies, we will continue to talk about ethnic divides and point fingers about events of the 60s while the bright future we hope for continues to elude us.
Frankly, the PPP and PNC are part of the problem and so they cannot ever be exclusively the solution in the name of shared governance, because neither ever truly represented the supposed ethnic bases.
Look, we may never know enough about the intricacies of our racial problems to make an informed decision about whom to really blame, but we ought to know enough about the past 50 years to make an informed decision about our future. We hold the key to the race issue in Guyana perpetrated by foreign forces and perpetuated by local forces. We can change the direction and tenor of the discourse.
Hopefully there are enough matured Indian and Blacks who are sick and tired of the status quo and will go out again and vote real change in 2011 rather than keep supporting a failed system that first divides people along ethnic lines and then denies them their rights to hold their government accountable and responsible. Voters at least owe it to the next generation of Guyanese to help leave a better legacy for them by refusing to vote race in 2011 and choosing to vote for a government of all the people. Otherwise, the slothful pace of the country’s development and continued lack of unity will be on their conscience as children continue to suffer or run overseas when they grow up.
And speaking of running overseas, to many Guyanese at home, the President’s many overseas jaunts in search of economic relief for Guyana can serve as teachable moments, because if, as President, he must always be flying overseas in search of economic relief, it is only logical that he does not deliver the people will play ‘follow the leader’ and run overseas for their own economic relief.
If voters do not deliver change in 2011, Guyana may soon be a no-man’s land for both Indians and Blacks, and then what will become of our debate and discussion about our ethnic security dilemma? It’s time to wake up from this decades-long nightmare and start living our dreams as One People in One Nation and with One Destiny!
Emile Mervin

---

---