Face-saving way needed for LEAD

Jan 11, 2014 Letters

---

DEAR EDITOR,
This is in response to news items and related responses on the LEAD project (KN Dec 24, 25, Jan 8, 9, etc.).
The US Embassy says the grant project of the Republican members of Congress (International Republican Institute) will go ahead. It will probably dole out funds to organizations and parties and holds seminars on various activities relating to democracy.
The government has accused the US of violating its sovereignty by insisting that the project would go ahead regardless of government’s position that it was not properly consulted and is opposed to it. The government claimed that the IRI hired and conceptualised its LEAD program before it engaged the administration. The Ambassador presented a fait accompli with no engagement. The US counter claimed there was proper consultation and acceptance of the program under its USAID projects and that there is no need for further consultation.
The PPP administration at first said it is opposed to LEAD because it was not consulted, but lately seems to be softening up its position saying it is willing to reconsider and to negotiate how the project can proceed. That should have been the diplomatic position from the beginning. It is not clear if the US is willing to revisit the program or open to negotiation. In the end, realpolitik will bring the two sides together for a compromise.
Any project to educate voters should be welcomed with open arms if there is no catch 22 or if there is no hidden agenda. It is very unusual for poor countries to turn down a grant.  And it is even more unusual for a donor government to insist it will proceed with the grant in spite of opposition from the prospective recipient.
The Guyana government has declined the grant, apparently because it fears a hidden US motive and agenda.  The PPP has memories of the 1950s and 1960s when the US government used grants to topple the democratically elected PPP government. The Eisenhower Administration expressed concerns to the British about the PPP’s rise to office in 1953 leading to the suspension of the constitution and the JFK administration teamed up with the British to destabilize the Jagan government fearing the rise of another Cuba in the hemisphere.
I don’t think we should turn down grants meant to help institutionalize democracy. Every penny should be welcomed. However, I don’t think any foreign government should disrespect a sovereign state and a democratically elected government – business is not carried out that way in the global political system. There is respect for sovereignty, even though for a small weak power it means nothing. No country would dare to disrespect Russia or China, because of the consequential reaction. But Guyana is a relative non-entity in the international system. Under international law, according to Hans Morgenthau and others, the US embassy will violate the sovereignty of Guyana if it proceeds with the project if government is opposed to it and so instructs the Embassy.
A foreign country should not execute programs at will unless it is for a noble goal like trying to bring democracy to a country. Proceeding would be contempt of a democratic country’s law and government. It would be seen by the international community as political bullyism.
Guyana is a functioning democracy with free and fair elections and competing parties. Guyana is in the right on that aspect of the international political system. But realistically, Guyana, being a weak power, there isn’t much it could do if the Ambassador proceeds with it. In theory, as international legalists argue, states are equal in the IR system.  But in reality, as Kenneth Waltz and other theorists state, some states are more equal than others.
The Guyana government has expressed legitimate concerns about the scope of the grant, in light of what took place in 1953 and the violence between 1961 and 1964 funded by the US. However, even if the project does not go ahead, the US (IRI) could still funnel the money through Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) and clandestinely to opposition political parties like it did to the PNC, churches, unions and individuals during the 1960s. The money can be reformulated and disbursed out to those willing to do any American bidding – if that is a major concern of the PPP.  So the PPP should rethink its opposition.
It would have been better if the two sides had met behind closed doors and addressed their concerns. Negotiation is the only way forward for what can be a useful program, provided there are no hidden motives and the Guyana government is so convinced.
Both sides have to be willing to give. There is need for what Ken Waltz and Morgenthau call “a face-saving way out” to make both sides seem victorious.
Vishnu Bisram

 

---

---