Freddie misunderstands sovereignty, state and government

Jan 16, 2014 Letters

DEAR EDITOR,
Freddie Kissoon misunderstands, misinterprets, and mis-analyzes the concept of sovereignty (related terms of state and government) in chastising Drs. Henry Jeffrey and Roger Luncheon (KN Feb 12).
The gentlemen invoked “sovereignty” in expressing concern over the US LEAD project. The PPP has expressed opposition to it because it claims that the US did not consult it about the project – a violation of its sovereignty. Jeffrey, like me, supports compromise and acceptance of the program. The Speaker also urged a compromise. I feel we need the program, but not at the expense of compromising sovereignty or accepted international precedents and standards or a violation of international law.
Freddie said he did not study International Relations. So he is excused for his limited knowledge in understanding how the IR system works. Sovereignty, state and nation are used coterminous; depending on the context they could mean the same thing.
Guyana is a sovereign country, equal with the other 189 states in the system. In international law, there can only be agreements between sovereign states. Governments act on behalf of states and respect the sovereignty of other countries. But in the IR system, some countries are more equal than others and sovereignty had never limited American intervention in other countries – Guatemala, Dominican Republic , Chile , Nicaragua , Panama , etc. to remove unfriendly governments. As Freddie pointed out, Guyana had sovereignty (British sovereignty too under colonial rule) since the 1960s. But that did not prevent the US from intervening and toppling a democratically elected government – a violation of international law.
International law revolves around the concept of the state which is based upon the foundation of sovereignty – free from external control. This idea of state sovereignty dates back as far as the notion of the state itself, going back to the Treaty of Westphalia of 1648. The norms of sovereignty were enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, the “supranational organisation” that gives equality to all members. Attacks on the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity are prohibited.
Contrary to what Freddie writes, government could also mean state, depending on the context – like US government (state) negotiating with the Guyana government (state). The government acts on behalf of the state. The government, in this sense, is the state.
Contrary to what Freddie believes, the government is the legitimate authority of the state. Freddie feels the US government can make an agreement to implement LEAD with parliament and bypass the government. No! The international system does not function that way. The parliament is not the state. The US government cannot bypass the government and make an agreement with the parliament unless the government acquiesces. Governments don’t make pacts with opposition parties; they make agreements with governments acting on behalf of the state.
In the mid-1960s, UN member states agreed to two covenants that legally bound them to respecting the human rights of their people. When they violated human rights, there has been some movement towards intervening in the domestic affairs of states. But this was done under the imprimatur of the UN’s Security Council; there were times when the US acted unilaterally as in the Iraq invasion. Interventions were approved for Somalia, Chad, Sudan, Timor, Central African Republic, Malawi, Bosnia, Serbia, etc.
There were markedly different situations during the PNC dictatorship that necessitated intervention and now. The PNC took away the franchise through rigged elections. Now, the country is a functioning democracy giving people unprecedented freedoms. Freddie would not have been able to publish any of the offensive stuff he pens.
Foreign intervention was necessary under the PNC in order to protect peoples’ rights that were egregiously violated. The UN charter stipulates that other powers may violate the sovereignty of a member only when a state perpetrates massive injustice or cannot protect its own citizens. Can Freddie point to massive human rights violations in Guyana?
I feel the grant should go ahead, but not under the conditions prescribed by Freddie and others seeking to remove the government through undemocratic means.
Vishnu Bisram

Discover more from Kaieteur News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Latest News