Interference in a country’s domestic affairs is sanctioned

Oct 05, 2019 Letters

---

DEAR EDITOR,

Varied letters (in KN, SN, and GC) have argued that foreign diplomats in Guyana, international organizations, and other countries have no business commenting on the internal affairs of Guyana as pertains to the holding of elections in Guyana and the country being out of constitutional governance. Some have also made an argument that Guyana is a sovereign state that does not intervene in other countries’ affairs and that others have no business in meddling in Guyana’s domestic matters. As someone who studied international relations at the doctorate level, I can say without fear of contradiction that such comments arise out of ignorance of the world system, international politics, foreign policy of nation states, and international law. Interference in affairs of other countries is sanctioned by the UN or regional organisations and or by moral persuasion.
Arguments of non-interference in the internal affairs of a country are a total misunderstanding of the concept of non-interference in another country’s domestic affairs. Anyone who knows something about international relations will know that such arguments or statements are not realpolitik or pragmatic international politics. The world does not function in that manner. The global system is and must operate on interference in other countries’ affairs or else injustice would be the order of the day. Foreign interference is sanctioned by the global political system – by the UN and by every international political organisation and even NGOs. Interference is how the world works in developing countries that fail to follow democratic governance. Foreign interference has defined global politics, foreign policy, and international trade for centuries. Big powers have intervened in other countries’ affairs for centuries. International intervention has dictated and shaped Guyana’s colonial and political history. It was foreign intervention (US goading of imperial powers) that led to de-colonisation of countless colonies beginning in late 1940s and subsequently Guyana’s birth in 1966 as “a sovereign nation” (whatever that means because no small, poor developing country is really sovereign).
Every country has reserved the right to intervene in another country when its interests are threatened. Examples of such interventions are legion particularly since WW I and more pronounced after WW II during the cold war. US intervenes in other countries when its interests are threatened and it often did so to protect liberal democracy.
Countries (and or international organisations) have a right to intervene in another territory when human rights are violated and or when democracy is under threat. There is precedence for this intervention as happened countless times in Africa, Europe, Latin America, Asia, and even in Guyana. It has become a tradition for democratic developed countries like the US, Britain, Canada, Germany, Holland, France, Australia, etc. to intervene in other countries to promote democracy. The UN, EU, Commonwealth, and OAS have authorised such interventions to protect people from violations of basic freedoms.
Threat to democracy, law and order, free and fair elections, and constitutional governance and a threat of terrorism are often cited as reasons for intervention of big powers in weak or small countries. Examples of foreign interventions to protect democracy or human rights are legion – Indonesia, Yugoslavia, Haiti, Somalia, Fiji, Guyana, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Chile, El Salvador, etc. International law allows for such interventions. These interventions are routine. It is a fact that foreign powers (Britain and US) were behind the removal of the first PPP government in 1953, the second PPP government (1957 to 64) and the third PPP government (1992 to 2015); the arrogance of the PPP (Ramotar regime) between 2011 and 2015 led to American approval of its removal from office. There are countless other examples of US interference in the Caribbean and Latin America. In Guyana, there are so many instances of intervention. In the early 1990s, ABC countries called for restoration of democratic governance in Guyana and threatened sanctions against the Hoyte dictatorship if free and fair elections were not held. From 2013 to 2015, ABC countries supported the opposition APNU and AFC against the PPP government because of the latter’s unwillingness to cooperate with ABC countries.
The objective behind intervention in another country is to institutionalise democracy and respect for constitutional governance. Such intervention promotes interests of the intervening states. It is in the interests of ABCE countries to continue its intervention in Guyana’s affairs to ensure funds are not misused or rights abused. There are countless Guyanese residing in these countries appealing to their governments to secure democratic governance and protect human rights in their former homeland. This appeal goes back to the 1960s with the rigging of elections and violation of human rights. Such an appeal gives the ABCE countries the legal rights to voice their concerns about Guyana. European countries have given substantial financial grants to Guyana. Grants are often conditioned on democratic governance and respect for human rights. The ABCE would not want their funds to be misused by an undemocratic or illegal government that is out of constitutional compliance; that it of itself gives them the right to intervene in Guyana’s affairs.
Promoting constitutional governance is the cornerstone of every democratic developed country’s interest. It is in the strategic interest of the US in Guyana. Such intervention is pragmatic to retain stability in Guyana and the region. The US can’t shut its eyes to democratic abuses as happened during the cold war when Washington allowed Burnhamism to flourish before taking a stand against it in 1990 at the end of the cold war and the deal between George Bush (Sr.) and Mikhail Gorbachev to return Guyana and Nicaragua to democratic governance. Democracy in Guyana safeguards interests of the OAS and ABCE countries; all these countries are signatories to the principle of democratic governance. All these countries recognise that Guyana will be more stable if democracy is fortified. Hence, their appeal for a promulgation of a date for elections long overdue since March 21. If there is democracy in Guyana, less of its population would want to settle in the ABCE countries. Violations of democracy lead to political instability and migration that becomes a burden for ABCE countries.
The ABCE, Commonwealth and OAS must do what whatever is necessary to protect and promote democracy in Guyana and wherever threat to freedom exists in order to safeguard their interests.

Yours truly,
Vishnu Bisram
(Political Scientist)

---

---