THE CASE AGAINST ‘PRAKS’ SHOULD BE REOPENED

Sep 16, 2011 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

 

 

During the disciplinary hearings by the ruling party against Khemraj Ramjattan there were reports that he had been accused of taking information to the United States embassy. Mrs. Jagan was reportedly fed this lie.
A number of leaders of the party subsequently signed a statement denying that the accusation was ever made at a meeting of the party’s Central Committee. But the damage had already been done.
Jimmy Carter came to Guyana not long after the expulsion and he was given another reason why Ramjattan was expelled, one that was at odds with the official position of the party.
And therefore the situation became all the more confusing since the official reason of the party why Ramjattan was expelled was contradicted by what was told to Jimmy Carter.
WikiLeaks has now confirmed that Ramjattan was never an interlocutor with the United States embassy. He was not named as someone carrying party business or government business to the United States embassy and in these circumstances, the case against him needs to be reopened, because even though the party denies that he was disciplined for any such charge, this was one of the many accusations that hung over the entire disciplinary process.
Mrs. Jagan was fed a pack of lies about Khemraj and she may have fallen for those lies. So while he may not have been expelled on a charge of giving information to any foreign nation, the die was cast against him because of the rumours that were circulating, to the extent that they caused the party to issue a disclaimer as to what was said at an important Central Committee meeting.
The WikiLeaks cables confirm that the United States did not receive any information from any of the leader of the Alliance for Change. In fact, the cables also debunk the theory that the United States embassy was supportive of the Alliance for Change.
This does not mean that the United States government was not supportive of a third party holding the balance of power between the PPP and the PNCR. In fact the cables confirm that the local embassy here was very much keen on this, but the local embassy were not directly in bed with the Alliance for Change and in fact, one leader of the Alliance for Change was not too smitten with the local embassy.
The local diplomats who dispatch diplomatic cables are requited to do so regularly as part of their job. What they write in those cables does not always reflect US foreign policy. These diplomats provide information which their jobs demand of them, but there are specialized agencies which gather intelligence and provide the background papers that go to top State Department officials. It is the top regional experts that help make foreign policy. These cables are just news and updates.
The local embassy staffers are “small fries” within the Department of State. While some of them have an attitude and write about local officials at times from a position of arrogance and haughtiness, these officials would probably never see the door of the Secretary of State, except for a photo opportunity.
Also, certain information is embargoed from the local diplomats. They have no direct access to the intelligence of the Port of Spain office of the DEA. They have to apply for certain information and this will only be provided if it is seen as being necessary for fulfilling certain political objectives. Even when it comes to increased security for the ambassador, approval has to be sought from overseas.
In this context of being low-keyed players, it is not unusual to find embassy officials trying to give greater importance to their mission and to their ambitions by making all manner of claims, some of which are merely intended to allow the superiors in Washington to believe that the local staff is really doing critical national security work.
For example, it was claimed that a local drug lord was connected with the FARC guerrillas in Colombia. The FARC guerrillas would hardly, however, have need for someone in Guyana to supply them with weapons in exchange for cocaine. They have had other supply lines, and in fact long after the rendition of Roger Khan, the United States claimed that it was the Venezuelans that were supporting FARC.
What is clear, though, is that the United States embassy in Georgetown was not in league with the Alliance for Change, even though the United States government favoured a party to act as a balance of power in parliament.
The cables suggest that the United States was being fed information about the party and the government by other interlocutors, and not by anyone from within the Alliance for Change.
But that suggestion has also been denied by some of the individuals concerned, just as there was a denial that Khemraj was accused of taking information to the embassy just before his expulsion.
In light of what has now been revealed, it is time for the PPP to reopen the case against this expelled member. Even though he is not likely to return to the party, at least the honourable thing should be done and his expulsion reversed.

---

---