US halts LEAD project to facilitate talks with Govt.

May 09, 2014 News

---

– Revocation of visa was not actively pursued – Dr Luncheon  

“We always felt comfortable that the programmes we were developing were part of programme activities that had been discussed in our agreement…It never seemed to me that we were operating outside of our traditionally agreed framework,” – Ambassador Hardt.

The United States Embassy has agreed to immediately put the contentious USAID-backed Leadership and Democracy (LEAD) Project on hold in order to facilitate talks with the Guyana Government with a view to coming up with a mutually agreed position.
The announcement came yesterday at the Office of the President, when Head of the Presidential Secretariat, Dr Roger Luncheon and US Ambassador to Guyana, D. Brent Hardt, held a joint briefing.
In a mutually agreed statement that was read by Dr Luncheon’s Personal Assistant, Azeem Khan, media operatives heard that, “the Government of Guyana and the United States of America have agreed that the implementation of the activities of the USAID LEAD project would be put on hold temporarily during the reengagement on the design of that project which the two sides have agreed would commence immediately.”

MUTUALLY BENEFICIAL
Dr Luncheon subsequently expressed the notion that the opportunity was welcomed, “for us to move on in a structured way with regards to the USAID LEAD project.” He noted that there were considerable expectations in relation to a mutually beneficial outcome.
Ambassador Hardt in his opening remarks said that the US welcomed the willingness of the Guyana Government to reengage on the matter of democracy and governance.

He reminded that the project was proposed and designed to benefit the Government and people of Guyana, “and we certainly think that its objectives for which the government’s participation is vital, can be of lasting benefit to the people.”
He said that the US delegation looks forward to a constructive dialogue with the Guyanese Government which will begin “immediately.”

VISA REVOCATION
Pressed on the revocation of the visa by the Guyana Government in relation to the LEAD Project Coordinator, Glenn Bradbury, Dr Luncheon said, “if I were to give an answer that accords with the temperament of the occasion, I would want to believe that the resolution would be part and parcel of our progress in dealing with the reengagement.”
He did note that it was not a case that himself, the Ministry of Home Affairs, Immigration Authorities, the US Embassy and the Canadian Embassy have determined what would be the next step.
“I am saying in the context of the occasion, the temperament… what we are here discussing, I am quite certain that that question, that matter, would be answered.”
Given the fact that Bradbury is technically an ‘illegal alien’ in Guyana, Dr Luncheon was asked why the authorities did not act on the revocation of his visa.
Dr Luncheon responded, “Heads feel that a resolution of Mr. Bradbury’s status was not beyond an activity that is about to be chronicled here if the two parties indeed came to some conclusive agreement and understanding, Mr. Bradbury’s matter would be handled, and on that basis…on some expectation that we would have this kind of resolution soon, there wasn’t any great push to enforce the consequences of the revocation.”
Asked if the visa revocation order would be rescinded, Dr Luncheon reminded of the objective of a mutually beneficial outcome.
Home Affairs Minister Clement Rohee, two days prior, had spoken in favour of Government’s decision to revoke the work permit of Bradbury.
According to Rohee, “the letter that he (Bradbury) received, I think mentioned with immediate effect, so if Mr. Bradbury remains here and continues to work here, he is obviously violating the immigration laws of Guyana and he must be aware of that.”
Asked where Bradbury was located since the revocation of his visa, Ambassador Hardt declined to offer a comment.

TIMEFRAME
Regarding a timeframe for the completion of the reengagement of the talks between the two sides, Dr Luncheon said that this has not been established, but he did stress that the talks would not be dictated by the considerations of time.
Ambassador Hardt, in response to the query on a timeframe, said that he agreed with Dr Luncheon and expressed confidence that the two sides would be able to reach a resolution.
Regarding concerns by the Guyana Government with respect to the project that the Americans were pursuing, Dr Luncheon said that what the administration was looking for, and which has been resolved, is the reengagement of talks but not under duress.
According to Dr Luncheon, in the reengagement of talks with the US, the Guyana Government will be seeking a project that contributes to the welfare of Guyana and enjoys the bi-lateral agreement that provides the kind of support through a mutually beneficial outcome.
Pressed further in relation to comments made against the project, such as those by Presidential Advisor on Governance Gail Teixeira and Head of State Donald Ramotar, who had intimated that Guyana did not need a LEAD project, Dr Luncheon stressed that there must be an outcome that both parties agree would be mutually beneficial.
“It would be the height of absurdity and flying in the face of sanity for any of us to say that this engagement with USAID and the Government of Guyana, at least since 1992, has not been proceeding along those lines.”
He was unable however to speak to the specifics of what the Government wanted.
Ambassador Hardt chipped in by saying that “we are prepared to modify and adjust once we get to discuss those specifics.”

2009 AGREEMENT
Given the fact that external agencies rendering assistance to Guyana would not execute programmes without the support of Government, Ambassador Hardt was asked to justify the initial position that saw the US implementing the project despite objections by the administration.
He responded by saying everything that has been developed within LEAD was under a framework both governments had previously agreed to.
According to Ambassador Hardt, while there wasn’t a specific agreement on LEAD, there was an agreement on the framework for assistance in democracy that was agreed to and signed off on in 2009.
“We always felt comfortable that the programmes we were developing were part of programme activities that had been discussed in our agreement…It never seemed to me that we were operating outside of our traditional agreed framework.”
Asked specifically what caused the US to agree to put the project on hold and engage in talks with the Guyana Government, given his previous position that saw its implementation despite the objections, Ambassador Hardt said “we have a commitment to engage and to come to a bilateral and mutually agreed resolution of this, and that’s what we’ve been hoping for all along”.
Not wanting to comment on whether the revocation of Bradbury’s visa forced his hand to engage the government, Ambassador Hardt said, “we have been in discussions for quite some time and correspondence and discussions have been going on long prior to that.”
Meanwhile, a statement out of the US Embassy last evening said, “Head of the Presidential Secretariat Dr. Luncheon and US Ambassador D. Brent Hardt held a positive and constructive meeting on the USAID LEAD project.  Both sides agreed to continue discussions next week with a view to charting a way forward for the benefit of the people of Guyana.”

---

---