Latest update June 16th, 2026 12:40 AM
May 09, 2014 Editorial
Yesterday’s joint declaration that the contentious Leadership and Democracy (LEAD) Project would be temporarily put on hold for the two sides – the Governments of Guyana and the United States of America – to re-engage on the project’s design was a predictable act of diplomacy. The recent tense exchanges were presenting an increasingly slippery slope for all involved.
There is a distinct possibility that this issue, like many others, will most likely fade from the limelight and die a natural death because of its being stalled indefinitely. Head of the Presidential Secretariat Dr. Roger Luncheon’s halfhearted response to assertions that government would prefer the latter development were unconvincing. He said that the agreements reached yesterday were essentially based on consideration of the investments made by both parties, but then he undid the premise by repeatedly stating that the conclusion was “not impossible but just unlikely”.
It is clear where Guyana stands on the issue given the fact that government believes that the project was funding opposition political parties and President Donald Ramotar has been quoted as saying that it was not needed here. Thus, the conciliatory tone and optimism expressed by US envoy Brent Hardt, whose tenure concludes in two months, presents a relatively uncomfortable position. One can assume that common ground is a long way off.
Hardt is hopeful that the talks will be concluded before he leaves in July, and that “the re-engagement we begin today can address all outstanding concerns related to the LEAD programme and allow us to chart a way forward in the spirit of the partnership that has traditionally characterized our bilateral relationship”.
However, when projects are halted, what many people do not recognize is that they become even more costly. For one, the people executing the projects are required to sit around and twiddle their thumbs. Indeed they have to be supported to the same extent as when they are working but nothing is done.
In this case, it is perhaps to the good of the Leadership and Democracy Project that the Director has opted to remain in Guyana despite the revocation of his visa and his work permit.
We had been told by none other than the Minister of Home Affairs that the Director, Glenn Bradbury, was required to leave Guyana immediately. This had to be the joke of the century. There was never any effort to expel Mr Bradbury.
A few hours later there was a meeting between the Cabinet Secretary and the United States Ambassador. And even before the meeting got underway the nation had been told that any decision announced by the government and its spokesmen had been suspended.
The US envoy had stood above the fray to some extent. After the Minister’s statement, delivered in his capacity as PPP General Secretary, Mr. Hardt had stated, “I remain committed to the programme and I think it is doing very good things for the people of Guyana. I am not going to judge any statement. I am here to do my job, and my job has many facets, from security cooperation to public health, to democracy and governance, to economic prosperity. We work in all these areas, and our view is that all of these areas are interrelated and so we have tried to, over the years, have an integrated assistance programme that looks after all of this.”
Well now that the diplomatic lovefest has been firmly and publicly established, the citizens of this country will be watching keenly to see which way the wind will blow. It is not uncommon for such high-profile issues to be put on the backburner and lose their flame as those charged with getting things back on track remove what little gas is left.
At stake, among other things, are “the promotion of understanding and consensus building within the National Assembly, and greater citizen engagement with parliament, civic engagement among women and youth”. How important are these to the government? We hope to learn very soon.
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.