Burnham not deserving of OT Award

May 10, 2013 Letters

Dear Editor,
This is in response to several commentaries (Messrs. Mark Archer, Hamley Case, Aubrey Norton, Freddie Kissoon, Maxwell Shaw, etc. in KN criticizing the South African government’s decision to withdraw the Oliver Tambo award to the late dictator Forbes Burnham. Many, including this writer, protested the granting of the award after it was announced by the South African ANC government.
The petition led to the ANC withdrawing the award that is usually conferred to someone of repute who championed a struggle against apartheid rule. I applaud KN and those who engaged in the exchange on the OT award.
Contrary to what others feel, Burnham does not deserve such a prestigious award. He was a racist bigot and a hypocrite in addition to being a colonialist and a supporter of imperialist forces. The honor should go to Dr. Walter Rodney who was murdered by Burnham, or Eusi Kwayana, etc. Accabre Nkosi, an African, wrote a brilliant pamphlet during the 1970s in which he documented how Burnham was a rank colonialist, racist and an imperialist destroying the African spirit of freedom and independence.
And the literature is replete of commentaries of how Burnham collaborated with imperialist forces (including the U.S and U.K) and conspired with them against Guyanese during the freedom struggle delaying our independence.
It was bigotry of Burnham to oppose racism in South Africa but practise it in Guyana. As the US State department consistently reported and as Prof. Arthur Schlesinger also wrote, Burnham was a racist and a rank political opportunist who embraced any ism when it suited his purpose to acquire and retain power.
Burnham stood for nothing and did not oppose apartheid from the bottom of his heart. Had he done so, he would not have institutionalized a racist state.
Many seem to forget that Guyana was also described in the international press (Washington Post, Financial Times, Wall Street Journal, London Mail, etc.) during the 1980s as “a mini-apartheid state”. During the early 1980s, Sir Shridath Ramphal as head of the Commonwealth Secretariat carried out an unrelenting struggle to isolate South Africa because of its racist policy of apartheid. In response, the London Times, Financial Times and London Daily Sun carried scathing editorials criticizing Ramphal’s hypocrisy for “condemning apartheid in South Africa but remaining silent on apartheid in Guyana” (the newspapers’ own words).
Burnham’s defenders seem to forget that Burnham was the illegal head of the state no different from PW Botha or John Vorster or Ian Smith. He anointed himself as leader through electoral fraud (denying ethnic groups the right to vote – not very dissimilar to how Whites disenfranchised Blacks, Indians Coloreds, etc. in South Africa) and therefore Burnham had no right to determine what assistance should be given to the freedom fighters in Southern Africa.
It was wrong for Burnham to dole out funds to Africa freedom fighters or anyone else without consultation and approval from the over 60 per cent of the population that rejected him in elections. Non-supporters of PNC may very well have supported granting money to the liberation fighters. But Burnham’s action was controversial. And the mere fact that he ran an illegal government and denied Whites, Indians, Amerindians, Coloreds, etc. the right to their vote disqualified Burnham for an award.
Vishnu Bisram

Discover more from Kaieteur News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Latest News